Why I Favor Gay Marriage
The Church’s recent statement on the proposed federal marriage amendment has spurred threads at M* and a lengthy one (well over 300 posts at the time of this writing) at T&S. A lot of this discussion has focused on the politics of the proposal and the legalities of federalizing the definition of marriage.
I was going to express these thoughts in the T&S thread, but I can’t access it right now, so I thought I would just go ahead and post them here. My basic point is that I favor gay marriage, and I wish the Church wouldn’t try so hard to prevent it.
I am by no means an activist on this subject. I don’t even know that many openly gay people. Nevertheless, that is my feeling.
My rationale is based on the following:
1. Polygamy. I am a fifth generation Mormon descended from polygamist ancestors. But for polygamy, I would not exist. I just came from the Casper MHA meetings. Near there, my GGG Grandfather, Thomas Grover, a polygamist, who had been a part of the 1847 pioneer company, operated a ferry to help travellers cross the river. I have tremendous respect for the lives and sacrifices of him and the many other polygamist Saints, and as I read the history of those times I cannot help but relate to the Mormon side of things and against the federal government that fought them to the very brink of extinction over this issue.
I realize that polygamy was an affront to the morals of western society. It seems as though good Christians should have been able to step outside themselves and see that the practice, no matter how offensive to them personally, was grounded in biblical restorationism, and that those who were living it were doing so in good faith. But very few people had the capacity to see things in that light.
It strikes me as ironic that we battled for so long and for so hard to get people to leave us alone and let us practice our religion in peace. And yet, when those who are similarly misunderstood today need a little bit of understanding, we are unwilling to step outside of ourselves and see things from their perspective. How soon we forget.
2. I still can’t figure out how gay marriage is supposed to endanger hetero marriage and the traditional family. I hear that rhetoric all the time, but I just don’t see it.
3. Although the etiology of homosexuality is complex and not fully understood, it is clear to me that in most cases it is not a consciously made choice. And I am unwilling to condemn someone who finds him or herself in a position not of his or her conscious choosing. That just wouldn’t be right.
4. I am a very empathetic person. I get it from my mother. And I am heavily influenced by the thought experiment where you pretend you live in a world where gay relationships are normative and hetero relationships are aberrant. I would know that I didn’t consciously choose to be hetero; I just am. I would know that no amount of therapy could make me gay; I would always desire women sexually, not men. And I would understand the pain and injustice of having to try to live a life without sexual intimacy with another human being. I simply would be unable to do that. (For this reason, if I were gay I would leave the Church. There’s no way I could live a celibate life, and I know myself well enough to know that.)
5. I think we should be encouraging committed, faithful relationships rather than bath house hedonism. If a marriage covenant is a good thing for a man and a woman, why is it a bad thing for a man and a man (or woman and a woman)? Do we really think gay people aren’t going to have sex? If they are going to have sex anyway, isn’t it in society’s interest to encourage responsible sexual behavior in a committed relationship? It seems like encouraging marriage ought to be the conservative perspective, rather than the liberal one.
Excellent and clear post, Kevin, and very brave. I do have one question: since your views are contrary to the Brethren, who have repeatedly pronounced otherwise, does this give you pause? How do you reconcile this acceptance of SSM with what the prophets have suggested?
Comment by D. Fletcher — May 31, 2006 @ 12:03 pm
Kevin — I don’t have time to engage this fully at the moment, but let me just nit-pick a couple of your comments.
Your point #3 is unhelpful. Even most thoughtful conservative opponents of gay marriage will grant you that homosexuality — defined as the tendency or orientation or proclivity to be sexually attracted primarily and overwhelmingly to the same sex — is not a “consciously made choice.” And when you say you are “unwilling to condemn someone who finds him or herself in a position not of his or her conscious choosing,” the obvious conservative response is to invoke the straightforward distinction between condemning someone for having homosexual tendencies and condemning someone for choosing to act out on those tendencies.
I’m not saying that I necessarily think the Church’s current stand on homosexuality is ideal. But like it or not, there simply is nothing conceptually incoherent about drawing an orientation/action distinction and believing that there are moral implications of the one but not the other. This, it seems to me, is the conservative LDS take on this question, and if one wants to combat it, one should try to argue that a moral principle prohibiting homosexuals from being sexual is prima facie unjust, rather than suggesting that to oppose homosexuality is to “condemn” someone for being oriented a certain way.
I know, I know. You wanted to talk about gay marriage, and I’m just talking about homosexuality, per se. Sorry for the threadjack.
Aaron B
Comment by Aaron Brown — May 31, 2006 @ 12:04 pm
Absolutely. Amen. Bravo. 100%.
The only thing that should give faithful Mormons pause is this, however:
Your 1-5 made perfect sense to me, Kevin, and I am in perfect agreement. Where does that leave prophetic guidance, however? Follow the Prophet, no?
Is this our “repent or Jerusalem will be destroyed” moment, or is this our “blacks are cursed” moment? How does one tell the difference?
Comment by Ronan — May 31, 2006 @ 12:05 pm
A Pharisee named Gamaliel counseled moderation when criticizing the Apostles, “lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.”
Comment by Gary — May 31, 2006 @ 12:07 pm
Phew, Kevin! This should be a fun bunch of comments. I haven’t had the chance to fully think about your remarks, but I kind of agree with Aaron’s comment about your point #3.
Comment by Steve Evans — May 31, 2006 @ 12:12 pm
How does one tell the difference?
The Book of Mormon was written for our time. What does it have to say about the issue? The BofM is clear about the threats to families and nations. It is also silent on the matter of homosexuals.
Comment by Loyd — May 31, 2006 @ 12:13 pm
You have given several good reasons why the Supreme Court’s decision in the Lawrence case was correct and why we should be less judgmental towards our gay neighbors. But only #5 addresses why government should formally recognize gay marriages. And its not a good enough reason.
If you believe marriage is about adults finding personal fulfillment as an end in itself, gay marriage would seem justified. But I believe it is about adults trying to create an optimal environment in which to raise their own children, which is (not coincidentally) personally fulfilling. For the government to recognize gay marriage sends the message that marriage is primarily about adults and that is not the message I want to have sent.
As for the inevitable “What about infertile heterosexual couples?” argument, I believe the government should recognize such marriages (a) to protect the privacy of the couple, and (b) to reinforce the social norm of heterosexual marriage. Gay marriage accomplishes neither a (their “infertility” is obvious) nor b.
For the record, I am in favor of decriminalizing polygamy, but opposed to the state formally recognizing polygamous marriages. I am also opposed to the pending constitutional amendment on federalism grounds.
Comment by Last Lemming — May 31, 2006 @ 12:17 pm
I think sometimes people don’t consider what’s actually at stake with SSM.
The real threat with SSM is that it maintains that marriage can happen between two equals, and not just two equals, but two people with identical gender roles. Makes it a lot harder to maintain “traditional” marriage where the woman is the keeper of the home and the man is the provider if that’s the case. A lot harder to do an amendment for that than an amendent that says gays can’t get married. And a lot harder to keep with a tradition that could have some healthy dividends. I think SSM is about way more than just gays having committed relationships. We should discuss it within it’s overal context.
SSM also has the potential to say “hey, gays can be committed and loving too, they’re not all promiscuous and dangerous,” and it is easier to dislike gays if you think they are promiscuous. So it would make it harder to be against gays in general because they would be more mainstream. You could see why people think its not a question of civil rights et al.
Pretty complicated issue, though. We should all be open to how complicated it is…
Comment by Larry — May 31, 2006 @ 12:28 pm
Ronan,
D&C 107 gives special weight to unanimous declarations of governing quorums. Are there unanimous First Presidency and Quorum of the 12 statements that claim the “blacks are cursed” doctrine? I have vague memories of there being statements about blacks and the priesthood (of course), but I honestly have no idea what the FP and Q of 12 has said unanimously (if anything) about blacks being cursed.
So such FP/Q12 unanimous statements are vastly more binding than Elder McConkie’s (and others’) personal beliefs. Not that such statements are infallible. But I wager they are a whole lot less fallible than you or me, or even the entire quorum of people who comment on this post…
Loyd,
My impression is that the term “abomination” often is referring to a set of sins into which homosexuality falls. The BoM is only silent about homosexuality if you don’t think homosexuality is one of the abominations preached against. But at that point you have assumed your answer, not discovered it.
Comment by Frank McIntyre — May 31, 2006 @ 12:32 pm
Kevin–
Like you, I am empathetic. The idea of committed homosexual partners suffering in silence because society tells them they are evil troubles me. Still, the issue, for me, is not as clear as you make it seem in your post. I don’t find your points convincing:
1) It is possible to step outside ourselves, feel empathy, reach out to those who feel homosexual tendencies, notice the parallels between homosexual relationships and polygamous relationships, and still conclude homosexuality is wrong. The fact that two things have similarities, or that two things viewed together create irony, does not prove those two things to be alike in every respect. In this case, the similarities you mention do not prove homosexuality is morally acceptable. If it is not, I do not believe we have a moral obligation to support it–historical irony notwithstanding.
2) I agreed with this until one week ago, when I read an article linked on T & S. This article outlined how honest European sociologists recognize that acceptance of homosexual marriage is but one step in the infinite expansion (and, thus, de facto negation) on the definition of family. The goal of these sociologists is the dissolution of the traditional family. Certainly not all gay folks, or all sociologists, share this goal–but some have recognized that acceptance of homosexual marriage is one step down that path.
3) This is the most troubling point. While you are correct that current research shows that genetic and early environmental factors predispose a person to homosexual tendencies, I do not agree that this compels us to accept homoexual behaviors. As has already been pointed out, there is a difference between tendency and behavior. Even more importantly, however, genetic predispoistion does not compel moral acceptance. Studies very similar to those you refer to are also beginning to demonstrate that many behaviors–from a tendency toward hate to a tendency toward addiction–have genetic bases–indeed, the time will soon come when scientists argue that ALL behavior finds its roots in our genes. Unless we want to accept biological predestination, we must not accept the idea that genes rob us of culpability. This is not to dismiss your argument, nor do I mean to question the need for empathy for those who feel strong homosexual tendencies, but I do not think your underlying assumption is as strong as it at first seems.
4) Again, empathy does not necessitate acceptance of behavior. I also feel empathy for sex offenders, but I do not condone their behavior. I do not mean to equate the heinousness of these two behaviors, only to point out a flaw in the argument.
5) Again, I do not mean to equate behaviors, but this analogy does not seem to me to hold up under scrutiny. If a marriage is a good thing between a man and a woman, then why not between a man and a man? Why not between a man and a child? Why not between a man and his brother? Why not between a man and his horse? There is much more to this issue than appears in this argument.
In the end, the choice seems to be between secular humanism and Mormonism. If secular humanism obtains, we must accept gay marriage because it may help people be happy here and now. If we accept Mormonism, we must trust in the extended view offered by the Plan of Salvation, trust that we do not know all things but God does, trust the Prophets and–though we embrace those who struggle with homosexuality and every other sin, a group which, of course, includes everyone–reject the sin, nonetheless.
Comment by bj — May 31, 2006 @ 12:39 pm
Is this our “repent or Jerusalem will be destroyed†moment, or is this our “blacks are cursed†moment? How does one tell the difference?
You can tell the difference because of the repeated, consistent nature of the counsel, guidance, direction and position of the Brethren. There is a Proclamation about what marriage is (and, implicitly, what is isn’t), and it states that it is God’s definition — and is the unified voices of all 15 prophets, seers and revelators. It is nearly unprecedented. Countless talks, articles and statements have also addressed this topic. There should be no question that our prophets are acting in their prophetic role on this one, folks.
Comment by mullingandmusing — May 31, 2006 @ 12:42 pm
Lloyd,
The book of Mormon was probably silent on the issue of homosexuality because they apparently were not burdened with it. In all our other Words of God, God has been pretty clear and consistent in regards to homosexuality. Not only that, but the only city actually destroyed by God himself, Soddom and Gommorah, was because of their sins regarding sexuality and homosexuality.
now, in regards to polygamy, the comparison fails because God has not been consistent in regards to plural marriage. in some cases, like Abraham and Joseph Smith, it is allowed, while in others, Jacob in the Book of Mormon, and today, it is not. Trying to compare how God views homosexuality and polygamy does not work because God has been very clear regarding homosexuality as a sin and an aberration of nature.
in regards to point 2. you can dismiss that argument Christian conservatives make regarding homosexuality being a danger to heterosexual marriages, because it ain’t. they’re just trying to strike up political points using heated rhetoric.
in regards to point 3. i recommend you read Elder Oaks’s talk found here. this should help get a good Gospel understanding of what we know about homosexuality.
in regards to point 4. I took am pretty emphatic. I feel for people who are ostracized and isolated. I believe they get pushed further into their sin into what they feel as a comfort zone. I think we who call ourselves Christians are doing a terrible job at helping homosexuals get away from sinning by how we treat them. we will be held accountable for our actions in the end.
in regards to point 5. this is a flawed argument. using this same argument in regards to murder, people are going to murder anyways, why not legalize it. some things are just simply out of bounds. And with the fact that the Lord has personally destroyed only one city in the history of the world (or at least that we have record of), and it has to deal with that city’s gay lovefest, I’m going to side with the Church on this.
Besides, if you yourself aren’t gay, why should you benefit from gays getting married? that sounds harsh, but in reality, why do you want gays to be married? how does that benefit you?
Comment by Daniel — May 31, 2006 @ 12:42 pm
Christians are doing a terrible job at helping homosexuals get away from sinning by how we treat them. we will be held accountable for our actions in the end.
This is a good point, and I think it’s something we should discuss more often, rather than discussing whether the Church “should” change its position. It won’t, but we certainly can do better at communicated love and compassion for those who consider themselves gay and want to feel they have a place in the Church. We can’t change God’s laws, but we can do something about how we treat each other.
Comment by mullingandmusing — May 31, 2006 @ 12:52 pm
On #2, the marginal cases are what you have to examine if you want to know how society will shift. Forget the stable, loving couples you admire. Ponder the ones on the fence about whether to get hitched or just shack up together. What influences push them one way or the other? Which action of theirs stabilizes society and which one doesn’t?
I’m reminded of an old Mafalda comic strip from the 1960s or 1970s. Mafalda’s friend Susanita overhears her mother gossiping at the market about a pregnant, unmarried woman in the neighborhood. Susanita and Mafalda are astonished to learn that their are permutations of life they never imagined. Mafalda asks her mother if it’s true that a woman can have children without being married. The mother begins a motherly lecture, that, yes, technically, it’s possible, but a child should have a home with two parents, blah, blah, blah. A furlorn Mafalda goes outside and tells her friends, “Triste descubrimiento, muchachos. Somos optativos.” (”Sad discovery, kids. We’re optional.”)
Comment by John Mansfield — May 31, 2006 @ 12:52 pm
JM,
I don’t get that. How is it that if the gay couple next door to me — who are living together anyway — get married, committing to each other in a formal way, that the hetero-couple the other side will say, “marriage? nah.” They are already saying “nah.”
Comment by Ronan — May 31, 2006 @ 12:57 pm
In think our leaders are looking to the situation in Europe in regard to demographics and general attitudes regarding conservative Christian Churches and saying we need to stop this slide into secularism.
I would also say that they are seeing this is a sign of the last days. Evil is seen as good and good evil.
Comment by rleonard — May 31, 2006 @ 1:01 pm
So, is BCC trying to exceed its bandwidth and get its server shut down too?
Comment by Seth R. — May 31, 2006 @ 1:02 pm
we need to stop this slide into secularism
Um, by passing a secular law? Funny that my gay friend (who babysat overnight for my kids when Rebecca went into labour after all our church friends declined) is very religious. If he were to marry his partner, I bet he would find a willing church to do it. For some gays, marriage and commitment are a religious issue.
Comment by Ronan — May 31, 2006 @ 1:04 pm
My impression is that the term “abomination†often is referring to a set of sins into which homosexuality falls.
If you do a search for ‘abomination’ in the scriptures, you will find that pretty much every sin from the smallest to the largest is at one time or another called an abomination, many of which you would hardly call a sin - such as making physical contact with a menstruating woman - something Jesus violated.
Comment by loyd — May 31, 2006 @ 1:15 pm
Not only that, but the only city actually destroyed by God himself, Soddom and Gommorah, was because of their sins regarding sexuality and homosexuality.
actually, it was because of their pride and ignorance toward the needy.
Comment by loyd — May 31, 2006 @ 1:18 pm
Conservatives have generally done a poor job of articulating in what sense, if any, gay marriage might “threaten traditional marriage.” For two thoughtful arguments on how this threat might be real, see the following two links (one written by a libertarian, another by a liberal):
http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/005244.html
(Can’t find the other link. Maybe I’ll post it later).
Aaron B
Comment by Aaron Brown — May 31, 2006 @ 1:18 pm
Kevin,
I’m with you, no one gives me a convincing argument that gay marriage destroys traditional families. I can’t understand how it does and everything that people say doesn’t seem to actually be happening.
bj, I think is more to do than just with being happy here. Gays having the option to legally marry is a bigger issue than whether or not it makes them happy here. I assume you’re talking about the happiness of keeping God’s commandments vs. not but gay marriage as a legal issue isn’t about that, at least not in my mind.
I recognize that I oppose the way the Brethren have come out on this issue, but it’s the only way I know how to interpret this issue based on my world-view (which is almost entirely formed by Mormonism). The thing that is most curious to me about this issue is about how it came to be our issue. I will not refute that the Bible has made mention of homosexuality and the Brethren have firmly stressed the Church’s view on this issue but compared to other “Christian” issues it seems to get relatively little attention in the Bible and as noted none in the Book of Mormon and other Mormon scriptures. Why don’t we get all up in arms about poverty in the world? As a Church, we don’t seem very well educated on that issue and it seems to be one of the essentials to Jesus’ ministry and even to Joseph Smith’s inspiration (Zion et al). How did we get so sidetracked by homosexuality and gay marriage?
Comment by Amri — May 31, 2006 @ 1:21 pm
Amri,
Ed Snow and I have a post in the works on what the Bible does and doesn’t say about homosexuality. We aim to offer a fair and balanced look.
Comment by Ronan — May 31, 2006 @ 1:24 pm
Aaron, you are right about the orientation/action dichotomy. I wrote too quickly and did not go as far as I intended. That distinction is fine for the Church’s internal position, and I am glad we allow (celibate) gays to be fully participating members of the Church. But as a secular law, I don’t find the distinction all that useful. It’s just like the distinction in the Reynolds case, which says you can believe in polygamy all you want, but if you want to practice it, that’s a different story. I don’t feel the need to impose Mormon views of morality on the society at large. I guess I am just not offended by gay relationships, including, yes, sex, the way most LDS are. Maybe it was all that Greek lyric poetry I read at BYU (Sappho, anyone?).
As for the “follow the prophet” concern, yes, I acknowledge that that is an issue. That is why I normally don’t say anything and keep my counsel to myself. I doubt that anyone in my ward has any idea that I feel this way, mainly because the issue really hasn’t come up in that setting that I recall. But SSM is such a huge, frequently discussed issue in the bloggernacle, so I decided, what the heck, I ought to at least share how I feel about it, even if it is a minority position. I personally think this is an instance of cultural conditioning rather than explicit revelation. I may well be wrong, and if so, I’ll take the heat (pun intended) for it.
Comment by Kevin Barney — May 31, 2006 @ 1:33 pm
Ronan, I’m excited. To me, the Bible hardly says anything really definitive on it, but does make mention. I have lots of gay ex-Mormon friends who claim it says nothing at all. I’m ready to get behind their cause (gay marriage and mormon cultural acceptance) but not ready to say that “God” (quotes because I mean words from scriptures) has been entirely silent on the issue.
Comment by Amri — May 31, 2006 @ 1:33 pm
There is no clear evidence within the text itself that God destroyed S&G for rampant homosexuality. There are allusions to it, but a serious reading of the text supports the view generally held by biblical scholars that a brutal, sadistic, rowdy group of probably heterosexual men (Lot tried to appease them by offering his daughters) tried to humiliate and de-masculinize the righteous visitors by basically threatening to gang-rape them — i.e. make them their “b**ches” (can I say that talking about the Bible?). The only verse in the whole Bible which lists reasons for God’s destruction of S&G, in Ezekial 16:49-50, does not mention homosexual acts. Joseph Smith’s only known comment on the subject states the S&G were destroyed for “rejecting the prophets”–pretty nebulous, but, again, no mention of sex. There is simply no way of connecting the story of S&G to the question of genuine, committed love being expressed between two consenting adults of the same gender.
Granted, there are other biblical condemnations of homosexual behavior, but they are also problematic. Beyond S&G, the condemnations in Leviticus are suspect, in the first place because the are strewn alongside verses countenencing human slavery and verses calling for death to those who plant the wrong kinds of crops next to each other. In the second place, because they clearly are given withing the context of an assumption that semen itself both represented and actually contained within itself all life. Thus, non-procreative ejaculation (sorry to be graphic; but I guess I am discussing the Bible, itself a fairly graphic text) of any kind — in coitis interruptus (the lovely story from Genesis 38), male-male homosexual acts, and male masturbation — are all stridently condemned in the bible, even considered the equivalent to abortion or murder. On the other hand, female homosexual acts are not even mentioned in the OT.
Paul’s condemnation needs to be taken somewhat more seriously. But even here, it is clear that he simply does not have access to some of the important facts that inform our thinking today. Rom 1 26-7 indicates that Paul believes that he is talking to “straight” people who are just engaging in “gay behavior.” This is perfectly understandable. The concept of sexual orientation is a relatively recent social construct. Anti-gay activists are fond of pointing out that “homosexuals” didn’t exist before about the last century (actually, it was the gay philosopher, Michelle Foucault, who first pointed this out). What they fail to realize is that neither did “heterosexuals.” Which is to say that sexual orientation did not serve as a prime indicator of individual identity. Thus, there is strong evidence that Abe Lincoln had romantic relations with other men, but to call him homosexual, heterosexual, or even bisexual is anachronistic. And while many members of older generations even today (my father, for one) believe that “gay” people are really just straight people ostentatiously rebelling against God and authority, most Mormons I know believe that “being” gay is a real thing and a real challenge that must be resisted, not just an arbitrary choice being made by a bunch of confused or reckless straight people.
Paul would have also been steeped in the sexual mores of Hebrew culture. These included, among other things: approval of prostitution; proscription of sexual contact during menstruation; a definition of adultury based solely on the marital status of the woman; approval of polygamy and concubinage; no official proscription against sex between two unmarried consenting adults; sexual regulations in general determined only by considerations of males’ property rights over women (i.e. men owned women as property and treated them as such, whether husbands or fathers, and with God’s appearant approval); Moses’ (and ours) approval of divorce despite Jesus’ strict forbiddance against it.
In the end, this and other arguments about the moral legitimacy of homosexual behavior constitute a massive threadjack. The question here is not whether or not God approves of such behavoir but about the relative merit of certain specific policy proposals. The scriptures — especially the BoM — contain hundreds more specific condemnations of acquisitiveness, materialism, even economic competition, wealth, militarism — all staples of American culture — but Mormons have no problem decrying hysterically laws that would limit property accumulation or even tax it as Satanic affronts to free agency.
This is a political argument. No one here needs schooling on the fact that the prophets unanimously disapprove of same sex relations. Nowhere in this week’s statement or in the Proclamation is the assertion explicitly made that government sanctioning of forms of marriage not sanctioned by God will weaken the family as the fundamental unit of society. I’ve read compelling arguments to that effect from the Weekly Standard and the Heritage Foundation, but those arguments would apply equally to plural marriage. The proclamation states the kind of marriage God sanctions, that the family is central to a healthy society, and that church members, political leaders, citizens, etc should support policies that will strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society. Nowhere does it state that acknowledgment or even support by the State of families that don’t conform to the divine ideal–including but not limited to opposing an amendment to the Federal Constitution defining marriage the way God does–will weaken the family as a fundamental unit of society. Maybe I’m splitting hairs, but I tend to think that the wording for these kinds of things is pretty meticulously and thoroughly worked out. And, as one who sustains the men who crafted the language as prophets, seers, and revelators, I take the statements literally and at face value.
I’m not saying I don’t think homosexuality is wrong. But I think that it is an issue probably not worthy of the obsessive attention we are paying it. If Satan can use a truth (homosexuality is wrong) to obscure an even greater truth (the unbridled acquisitiveness, materialism, self-righteousness, and militancy that have infected our society in a worse way than homosexuality ever could are wrong) I think that would be a strategy he would run with. And I think the BoM makes pretty clear that God is much more worried about materialism and militarism, at least in terms of the general direction society is headed, than he is about whether gays want to adopt children or file joint tax returns. I might also add that obsessing about other people’s sins the way that the Christian Right does and Mormons tend to (especially regarding the threat of homosexuality) is the polar opposite of repentance. I’d rather err on the side of cavorting with whores, tax collectors, and sinners than the side of pharisaic self-justifying, self-righteousness.
Comment by Brad Kramer — May 31, 2006 @ 1:33 pm
Sorry, Ronan, if I preempted your and Ed’s discussion of sexuality and the Bible. I’m not sure if mine is as thorough as yours will be or if I am “fair and balanced” but I’m still looking forward to your post.
Comment by Brad Kramer — May 31, 2006 @ 1:39 pm
I love this post. My moral sensibilities–the still, small voice in my heart–agree with what Kevin has to say. As they say, do what is right and let the consequences follow. Kevin says what, to me, all moral sense proclaims to be right. Let’s let the consequences–regarding following prophets, scripture, and so forth–sort themselves out.
Comment by J. Nelson-Seawright — May 31, 2006 @ 1:46 pm
Wow is this Blog out of touch with mainstream LDS thought and the LDS leadership.
I challenge those opposed to the FP to have the courage to openly disagree with the FP in public in your wards.
I have lots more to say but the word “dissent” comes to mind. Seems like a clear cut case of not sustaining the prophet. I also think y’all are mingling the philosophies of men with scripture to come up with a justification to oppose the Lords Annointed.
Comment by rleonard — May 31, 2006 @ 1:54 pm
Brad–
I like how you separated the Mormons and the Christian Right. That was generous of you. Accurate: maybe not. Generous: YES.
Comment by Amri — May 31, 2006 @ 1:54 pm
16– Evil is seen as good and good evil.
Indeed.
Comment by hurricane — May 31, 2006 @ 1:56 pm
Kevin,
You say that you don’t find the orientation/action distinction useful with respect to secular law, and that you don’t “feel the need to impose Mormon views of morality on the society at large.” I agree. That is why, if we were talking about, say, anti-sodomy laws, I would probably agree with you that they are a bad idea.
But I don’t think opposing the redefinition of marriage into a non-gendered institution is a simple act of “imposing religious morality” in the same way. There are arguments that altering the institution in fundamental ways could have profound negative societal consequences. Maybe those arguments are persuasive. Maybe they aren’t. But either way, I don’t think the debate about marriage can be usefully analyzed by merely posing the question of whether LDS People should want to coerce their citizens into abiding by their religious, moral standards. It’s more complicated than that.
Brad Kramer said:
“Maybe I’m splitting hairs, but I tend to think that the wording for these kinds of things is pretty meticulously and thoroughly worked out.”
I think you’re splitting hairs. That is, I agree that the wording was pretty meticulously and thoroughly worked out, but I doubt it’s for the reasons you suggest. Your second to the last paragraph would have it that the LDS Church has put forth an ideal standard, but isn’t really telling us it cares about whether that standard is enacted into law. Sometimes I wish that was what the Church was saying, but I don’t think it is.
Incidently, I have all sorts of issues with what the Church chooses to involve itself with politically, and what it doesn’t. But I try not to fool myself into believing that the Church isn’t trying to influence political outcomes when clearly it is.
Aaron B
Comment by Aaron Brown — May 31, 2006 @ 1:56 pm
rleonard, thanks for your judgment! I guess you’ll be judged likewise someday.
Comment by Steve Evans — May 31, 2006 @ 2:00 pm
I’ve been struggling with this issue for a while now, and reading D&C 134:4 gives me even more pause:
We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul.
Comment by James — May 31, 2006 @ 2:01 pm
Hey, what’s up over at T&S? Has it been destroyed? Have we finally defeated the Matrix? Does BCC finally reign supreme in the Bloggernacle (like it didn’t already)?
Aaron B
Comment by Aaron Brown — May 31, 2006 @ 2:02 pm
I think this thread at times confuses two separate questions: first should the Church publicly oppose civil recognition of same sex marriage (Kevin’s #1); and second, should the church oppose same sex marriage on moral grounds (Kevin’s #’s 2 – 5)? I believe the answers to be different.
As Kevin argues in his #1, Mormon’s have good reason to be concerned when the interpersonal decisions of rational, consenting adults are legislated by others within our civil society. Civil marriage governs some very prosaic and yet personal matters like: benefits, inheritance, and various privacy rights (i.e. medical records). I see no reason that our faith need to intrude on our non-LDS neighbors decisions on, for example, hospital visitation rights. Accordingly, I would prefer to see the church draw a distinction between civil marriage as a largely financial contract between consenting adults, and religious marriage as an institution ordained of God.
As the flip side of this, I think we/the church should fight any attempts by others to legislate, for example, a ban of the boy scouts from schools or parks because they condemn homosexuality. Religious groups have a right to practice their beliefs publicly without the weight of the state trampling our rights to free speech and association. We have equal rights to access the “town squareâ€. Church leadership absolutely has the obligation, not just the right, to preach its views of morality to anyone and everyone who will listen.
As for arguments 2 – 5, I agree with those that say that the scriptures and leadership have been clear in their opposition to sex outside the marriage. I can certainly understand why they say what they say…I admit that I don’t seem to have nearly as strong an opinion on the subject of homosexuality as the leadership seems to feel. I don’t personally understand homosexuality; or to be more exact, I guess I don’t understand how the plan of creation could create such a cruel obstacle in the path of procreation. Like others in this thread, it doesn’t seem to me to be a choice; how could such a thing happen in either the plan of salvation or Darwinian selection? How unfair is a plan that consigns someone to lifelong chastity?
My personal position, and they way I explain it to others is we believe that God ordains marriage to be between a man and a woman, and he has commanded that sexual relations should only be within marriage. And, frankly, if I spent all my time condemning everyone guilty of sex outside of marriage…well, let’s just say I’m not sure who would be left. Let’s not kid ourselves…it’s a short list, and no way to gain converts.
Comment by Ty B — May 31, 2006 @ 2:03 pm
Aaron,
I’m not fooling myself into believing that the Church isn’t trying to influence political outcomes. If anything, I’m fooling myself into believing that my thinking that this whole amendment thing is big, fe3stering, stupid distraction is not out of harmony with the pronouncements of God’s annointed–that my political position can be reconciled with the letter of both the PoF and this week’s statement
Comment by Brad Kramer — May 31, 2006 @ 2:04 pm
James,
Why does that scripture give you pause? To suggest that opposing gay marriage is to “infringe upon the rights and liberties of others” is to assume that gay marriage is a right and liberty. But why should we assume this? This is what advocates of gay marriage should be trying to prove (and not just assume). Elsewhere, your quotation refers to “prescribing rules of worship,” “bind[ing] the consciences of men,” “dictat[ing] public or private devotion”, “control[ing] conscience,” and “suppress[ing] the freedom of the soul.” None of these things are necessarily implicated by efforts to oppose (or support) gay marriage.
Aaron B
Comment by Aaron Brown — May 31, 2006 @ 2:06 pm
Aaron,
T&S got hit with about 10,000 spams. These were flagged as spam, but the whole thing caused problems with the comments database and finally the server people shut down the site until it was all sorted out.
In the meantime, if anyone is interested in various card games and herbal supplements, I have plenty of links they can try.
Comment by Frank McIntyre — May 31, 2006 @ 2:16 pm
I think we should leave the interpretation of Scripture to the Lords Annointed.
I would also suggest that we sustain our leaders and be humble and accept their inspiration on this matter. Its called “sustaining”
Opposition to the FP on this issue seems to be very prideful. I know more than the prophet, he is wrong, I am to smart to buy the LDS leaderships arguements etc.
I would also submit that the wheat is being sifted as we speak over this issue. I recently had this conversation with several other ward members that those LDS who choose to disregard the FP on this issue are being sifted
Comment by rleonard — May 31, 2006 @ 2:23 pm
rleonard, keep it coming! I love your comments, man, grammatical nonsense aside. Sift away!!
Comment by Steve Evans — May 31, 2006 @ 2:25 pm
re: 29 If there had been a touch of dreaded “dissent” earlier, the Church might have dropped the priesthood ban sooner and thus would not have been mired in racism until 1978.
Some aggitation and dissent are long overdue for anyone who cares about the health of this organization. The leadership is terrified of losing central control (which has occurred in other denominations), and as a result you have correlation, excommunications, etc. This has led to declining conversions, stagnating growth, huge problems with inactivity. I don’t think anybody thoughtful believes the “rolling forth” jargon anymore. It’s looking more like “rolling back.” An over-association of Mormonism with American right-wing political causes (case in point, the SSM ammendment) has got to be one of the biggest blunders church leadership has made since Adam/God. Please note that I am not saying the Church’s opposition to homosexuality is a blunder (even though I personally disagree with the Church). I’m saying that the way it’s being addressed by the Church as a political issue is a huge mistake.
But hey, that’s an outsider’s perspective.
Comment by MikeInWeHo — May 31, 2006 @ 2:37 pm
Steve,
I sift you!
Seriously, rl, is it “mainstream LDS” practice to cheerfully condemn other Latter-day Saints to hell? I can overhear the corridor conversation: “All those nasty liberal Mormons. They’re being sifted you know. Such chaff!”
Comment by Ronan — May 31, 2006 @ 2:40 pm
Kevin: Here is the thing. I am not really all that persuaded by the arguments against same sex marriage. I don’t think that it is some sort of a fundamental human right that is being denied by heterosexual marriage. I don’t those who oppose SSM are trying to impose their views on others any more or less than those who advocate SSM are trying to impose their views on others. We are having a battle about the meaning of a public institution, and one side is going to lose. Still, my sense is that the drive for SSM is a symptom of the weakness of marriage rather than a cause of that weakness. I suspect that SSM is unlikely to have much of an effect on heterosexual marriages. Indeed, I expect that it will be a comparatively unimportant institution demographically because I think that there are a relatively limited number of homosexuals in the population and I actually suspect that only a relatively limited number of them are actually interested in getting married.
And yet…
And yet there are really very few times in my life when the Prophet ever asks me to do something that I am not already inclined to do. Put another way, I feel like there are fairly few opprotunities for me to do something simply because the Prophet counsels me to do so. Hence, I find it a bit disturbing to give up one of the few opprotunities to actually change “my position” (whatever that means) because of a call from those that I sustain. If these are the cases where I walk away from Church counsel and simply write it off as mistaken, what does my membership in the Church, the sustaining of my leaders, and my belief in modern prophets mean? If my commitments to these things lacks the ability to change me, then there is a sense in which I feel like my Mormonism is a profound fraud.
It is a quandry that even witty remarks from Steve and Aaron leave me in…
Comment by Nate Oman — May 31, 2006 @ 2:40 pm
Frank,
Do you have any indication that the spammers were targeting T&S for specific reasons? I’m asking because I’ve been trying to make travel reservations for my boss all day, and all the hotel and airline websites I’ve been working on have been deeply screwed up. I’m just wondering if there’s a plague of website attacks today.
Comment by Serenity Valley — May 31, 2006 @ 2:43 pm
SV: We had assumed that the spam attack was instigated by Steve Evans. Maybe he has it in for hotel and airline websites as well…
Comment by Nate Oman — May 31, 2006 @ 2:46 pm
Personally, it benefits me by not being a part of injustice, tacitly or otherwise. I feel the Federal Marriage Amendment is an injustice.
Comment by Wendy — May 31, 2006 @ 2:58 pm
Nate,
Things like this put me in a different sort of quandry. This discussion is old, talked-out I’m sure but there is conflict between personal revelation and prophetic revelation. Gay marriage is not that kind of issue for everyone, but it is for me.
With all might prayerful might, I have only been able to come to the conclusion that gays should be able to marry. I respect prophetic revelation but my religious up-bringing has taught me to deeply respect my own as well. Most people say that you should sacrifice the personal for the prophetic and I do sometimes, but occasionally I cannot. I feel that God respects my sincere wrestle with it.
I don’t publicly preach my opinion as church doctrine but I am willing to bring it up in church as discussion, since I think it deserves discussion, it deserves education, and understanding.
Comment by Amri — May 31, 2006 @ 3:00 pm
Nate, I agree with you that there aren’t that many opportunities for us to do things that seem personally wrong to us because the leadership of the church asks us to do so. But before concluding that we should jump at the chance, let’s look at history.
Would you feel good about having opposed the Civil Rights movement because the church leadership spoke in a near-unanimous voice against it, over the pulpit at General Conference and so forth? I would have felt that this was the wrong decision. In retrospect, I think most Mormons would agree–possibly even including the current leadership.
Would you have felt good about participating in the Mountain Meadows massacre because you believed that Brigham Young had asked you to do so? (Evidently Brigham did not ask; nonetheless, the participants believed that he had.) I wouldn’t; the modern church clearly agrees with me on that point.
Is my personal moral compass infallible? Of course not. But doing something that seems wrong to me when–prayer and study notwithstanding–reason, my personal sense of ethics, and my best understanding of what God says to me go in the opposite direction is a grave decision. I’d rather make my best, most moral choice, having listened carefully to council from the church, having studied the issue out, and having prayed. If I’m wrong, I pray I’ll be forgiven; I believe God is merciful enough to forgive us the sins we commit in our earnest attempts to do right.
Comment by RoastedTomatoes — May 31, 2006 @ 3:01 pm
I agree with all of the points in the original post, but I don’t think that it goes far enough. There is one underlying assumpition which I simply never see being explicitly challenged when it comes to defending the sanctity of marriage:
6. Marriage is a social rather than a religious institution; and as such has no sanctity in need of defense.
This is not simply an appeal to a separation of church and state, but is rather meant as an addition to it. Sure, the marriage as performed by the state shouldn’t be considered all that sacred or religious, but I want to say that marriage itself is an institution which is primarily social and only secondarily religious in nature.
First of all, if marriage is a religious institution, of which religion is it an institution of? Not only do marriage customs and definitions differ across religious traditions, it is also worth noting that none of the religious traditions which are almost always appealed to in such debate even came into existence until very recently in comparison with the institution of marriage (or proto-marriage).
It just so happens that in our western society, religion became a very central part of our society, and it in such a context that marriage, which had already existed for quite some time, came to be seen as a religious institution. This was not by a process of “stealing” marriage from society, but rather by way of religion (a particular form of it anyways) merging to become one with society.
Since the Enlightenment, religion and society have again come to be seen as two separate entities. In this context, it simply seems absurd that marriage should be considered a part of religion rather than simply being a part of society in general.
Of course it should be noted that this reasoning is not at all in favor of SSM’s. My point is that all the religious hysteria and rhetoric has simply blinded most people from sitting down and considering whether such a move would be favorable from a social point of view rather than a religious one.
Comment by Jeff G — May 31, 2006 @ 3:02 pm
Maybe this is the million dollar question:
Imagine you are standing before God. Which scenario would you prefer?
a) God wanted a marriage amendment. You opposed it because your conscience honestly suggested that such discrimination was unkind and prejudiced.
b) God did not want a marriage amendment. You supported it because your conscience suggested that you should follow the prophet.
On which would you prefer to be wrong?
Comment by Ronan — May 31, 2006 @ 3:03 pm
Amiri: Generally speaking, however, don’t we use Church Doctrine as a way of limiting and discipining the anarchy of personal revelation. Suppose that your bishop was to pray very earnestly and come to the conclusion that he ought to become a polygamist. There are precedents for this sort of thing. Generally speaking, it seems to me that our answer (and it seems like a pretty good one to me) in such cases is that personal revelation that conflicts with established Church Doctrine is suspect and ought to be rejected.
Comment by Nate Oman — May 31, 2006 @ 3:06 pm
“And yet there are really very few times in my life when the Prophet ever asks me to do something that I am not already inclined to do.”
Give it time, Nate. There will be lots of opportunities, if the past has any predictive value for the future.
Comment by DavidH — May 31, 2006 @ 3:07 pm
Ronan,
I appreciate the sentiment, but it’s not as if it’s as simple as that and I don’t think the issue is all that cut and dry. I echo the statements of someone earlier who alluded to the still small voice. When I think about supporting the SSM, my SSV speaks up. It is important to me to have some sense of understanding from the Lord of why his Prophet wants me to support something that, based on my weak understanding, smacks of bigotry and exclusion. I understand that sometimes we don’t know why we are asked to do some things, but I think I still deserve the opportunity to try my hardest to understand it and reconcile my conflicting feelings.
Comment by James — May 31, 2006 @ 3:10 pm
Ronan: Is this meant as a rhetorical question? I genuinely don’t know the answer.
Comment by Nate Oman — May 31, 2006 @ 3:12 pm
Nate,
I agree with your analysis about the meaning of one’s Mormon identity being at stake when the leaders make demands that push people out of their comfort zone. My views have changed dramatically on the subject of SSM, gay rights, and homosexuality–in both directions–since the Church has increased its involvement in related political issues. But, in reality, all the Church has asked of you is to uphold policies that will strengthen the family as a fundamental unit of society and to make your voice heard re the upcoming amendment vote. Assuming, based on your post, that you believe on the one hand that an amendment federalizing marriage laws and limiting recognition of marriage relationships to those between a man and a woman is bad policy, but on the other hand that you feel obligated by the PoF and this week’s statement to support it anyway, then I assume that you believe that this amendment will, in fact, strengthen the family as a fundamental unit of society. But if you felt that, why would you think the amendment a bad policy idea in the first place? I recognze that I’m being extremely presumptous about your actual feelings on this matter, but assuming that the situation I ascribed to you exists only theoretically, isn’t there a certain circularity of logic required to imagine someone feeling compelled to change their “position” based upon pronouncements from the brethren? Either you do think that gay marriage will weaken the family as a fundamental unit or you don’t. I suspect the brethren do, but they haven’t explicitely told us so. And if they did, I’d accept it.
This is not just sophistical self justification. I’m genuinely confused. If I thought that supporting (or not opposing) gay marriage would weaken the family as a fundamental unit of society — even the ideal, divinely sanctioned model of the family — I would not need prodding from the brethren to express as much to Sens Hatch and Bennett (Please express my apologies to your in-laws if I misspelled the name). If the brethren asked me to support the amendment in spite of my feelings on the subject, I would do so dutifully and loyally.
Am I missing something here?
Comment by Brad Kramer — May 31, 2006 @ 3:12 pm
Nate,
the problem with that is that it is different from mine, I think. Mine is my own personal choices/world view that don’t really affect the Church in any way whatsoever.
The bishop’s revelation (which I’m not opposed to entirely though polygamy gives me the heebie jeebies) is problematic because he serves a bishop and a counselor for the whole ward and because he would have to potential convert others to his personal revelation in order to get his plural wives.
Comment by Amri — May 31, 2006 @ 3:16 pm
Yes, it’s utterly rhetorical.
Like Wiesel, I believe that we should “always question those who are certain of what they are saying” on either side of the argument. I am not someone who believes that 100% certaintly about something like this is ever possible, so I have to comtemplate the ramifications if I am wrong.
Comment by Ronan — May 31, 2006 @ 3:17 pm
Nate: I thought you had the skillz to deal with a lil’ old DNS attack. My bad.
Interesting comment btw re: changing your position. I thank my lucky stars that I can’t vote in the U.S., because like you I feel general affinity for what the Brethren are saying but don’t necessarily buy the procedures at hand.
Comment by Steve Evans — May 31, 2006 @ 3:18 pm
I don’t remember the verbage exactly, but did the letter expressly say which way the Church urged members to persuade their leaders?
And, yes, I realize this is parsing words…
Comment by James — May 31, 2006 @ 3:20 pm
I can’t find the full text on the web, but the final line encourages members to “express themselves on this urgent matter to their elected representatives in the Senate.”
Comment by Brad Kramer — May 31, 2006 @ 3:26 pm
RT: It really depends on how one tells the story. The Godbeites felt very strongly that freedom of conscience demanded that they engage in seances and support Gilded Age capitalism. Should I proudly imagine myself as a neo-Godbeite and reject the FP letter? Surely not. After all, good leftie that you are, I assume that BY’s rejection of Gilded Age capitalism is one of the embers that warms your testimony. Conscience doesn’t guarantee you a seat in the heroes’ gallery.
I also have a somewhat different view of history than you do. You see SSM as the latest chapter in the unfolding march of progress. Perhaps you are right, but there is another, somewhat less appealing vision. On this view, SSM is a symptom of the weakness of marriage, a hiccup in the decline of matrimony and the rise of sexual relationships based entirely on affective relationships and personal choice, somewhat similar to what we are seeing in the Nordic countries. In this bleaker vision, the debate over SSM will seem like a final squabble over the public meaning of a fading institution.
Marriage has been the traditional legitimater of sexual behavior, and I think that the debates about SSM are largely about homosexuals desiring the legitimation of marriage, and opponents of SSM objecting to the state redefining an institution to legitimate what they object to. However, the irony is that SSM advocates are grabbing for the legitimacy of marriage at precisely the point in history when it is loosing its social power to legitimate. Generations hence this debate may seem less like the battle over civil rights and more like the battles over the Silver Standard and the Cross of Gold, ie a battle over public symbols that have lost their hold over the public imagination.
As I said, I don’t think that SSM is a cause of the decline of marriage. Rather, it seems to me to by a symptom of it. Furthermore, despite the happy prognostications of Andrew Sullivan, et al I don’t think there is much evidence suggesting that SSM has had much of an impact on the slide away from marriage in those countries where it has been adopted.
Comment by Nate Oman — May 31, 2006 @ 3:27 pm
Nate writes:
“And yet there are really very few times in my life when the Prophet ever asks me to do something that I am not already inclined to do.â€
I’m mostly in agreement with Nate’s comments. My own policy preference would be that individual states determine their own marriage laws, and that for the state I live in, marriage be reserved for heterosexual unions, BUT, that most same-sex unions have certain benefits (visitation rights, property rights, etc.).
But when I come to dealing with the point Nathan raises, that here the Prophet is asking for something different, I think I end up with a different conclusion than Nathan, because the most prominent last time I was in this position (the church had a public position that I felt was when the church refused priesthood and temple privileges based on “black” ancestry. I went along with that, and now am convinced that that policy was based on erroneous assumptions about God, and man/woman.
BTW, thanks for writing the post,
Comment by Wayne — May 31, 2006 @ 3:29 pm
Amiri: Not good enough. Change the hypothetical so that it isn’t the bishop but instead is your brother. Furthermore, let’s assume that your brother is regarded as a crank and has no influence on other members of the Church. Do we still think that his revelation acts as a kind of trump, or do we suggest that it is not in line with the doctrines of the church, subjects him to church discipline, and runs counter to the teachings of the scriptures and living prophets?
Perhaps your answer is simply that “Yes, then my brother ought to become an polygamist.” It seems to me that from the beginning, Mormonism has dealt with the very real possibility that personal revelation leads to anti-nomian chaos by recourse to notions of authority, and that those notions of authority are as central to Mormonism as is the delightfully individualistic vision of personal revelation.
Comment by Nate Oman — May 31, 2006 @ 3:33 pm
SV, I have no idea, but thanks for the added data point.
Nate, nice comment.
RT,
You give two more examples of fallbility that do not involve unanimous and repeated counsel by the FP and Q of the 12. Thus they fall into a seperate category from this counsel.
I agree God forgives all sorts of earnest mistakes on our part, but I honestly am not sure why you think your view is more likely to be correct than the united Q of 12 and the FP. You’re a smart guy and presumably you’ve prayed about this. But so are they and so have they and they’ve got the keys to revelation.
I mean, those just are not good odds for you. And we all want the best chance possible of doing what God wants, right?
Comment by Frank McIntyre — May 31, 2006 @ 3:34 pm
“Give it time, Nate. There will be lots of opportunities, if the past has any predictive value for the future.”
Perhaps, or perhaps not. I may simply lack your equisitly tuned moral sensibilties.
Comment by Nate Oman — May 31, 2006 @ 3:36 pm
Kevin,
BRAVO! I hope you post this in a separate blog on T&S (or whatever its natural successor ends up being, may it rest in peace). It’s worthy of its own discussion.
Comment by Mary S — May 31, 2006 @ 3:38 pm
“Like Wiesel, I believe that we should “always question those who are certain of what they are saying†on either side of the argument. I am not someone who believes that 100% certaintly about something like this is ever possible, so I have to comtemplate the ramifications if I am wrong.”
I agree with this, I just don’t know which way it cuts. (FWIW, I don’t know that I see more introspection and fear and trembling on one side of this issue than on the other.)
Comment by Nate Oman — May 31, 2006 @ 3:38 pm
Ronan,
You’re halfway there. You’ve got two cases and two possible losses, but you still need to assign probabilities. If I am 99% sure of which outcome will happen, the choice is very different than a 50-50 split. Thus your conclusion depends explicitly on evaluating the chance that you are right over the unanimous counsel of the FP and Q of the 12.
And not assigning those probabilities, by the way, because it’s “too complicated” is just the same as assuming a 50-50 chance of your conscience being closer to God’s will than the leaders of the Church.
Comment by Frank McIntyre — May 31, 2006 @ 3:40 pm
Here is another way of thinking about it. If prophets are not good for listening to when we disagree with them, what exactly are they good for? In other words, what is the point of saying that I sustain some group of men as prophet, seers, and revelators if — when push comes to shove — I ignore them. How does my act of sustaining them remain meaningful? Furthermore, given that I regard myself as a citizen both of the Republic and the Church, why should I regard my place in the story of the Republic as being more important than my place in the story of the Church, particularlly given the fact that in either sphere I am ultimately essentially trivial.
Comment by Nate Oman — May 31, 2006 @ 3:44 pm
The church’s lobbying on this issue leaves me in a position of having donating substantial sums of money to support a political party and agenda that I find morally wrong.
Like Wayne, I’d be ok with a position that said, “We recongnize that there are people that are gay and lesbian, and they should have certain civil benefits when in committed relationships, but let’s reserve “marriage” for just heterosexual relatiionships.”
But, to try to prevent states from offering marriage, AND ANY OF THE CIVIL BENEFITS OF MARRIAGE, is contrary to my political and religious views.
So, I’m left wondering, how to respond. Do I create a “Some Mormons don’t ignore the fact that gay people exist” website, and essentially lobby on the other side of the church (something I’ve done in the past (Alaska and CA), but of course with losing political results (but at least I felt honorable in my church participation).
Thanks much, KB, excellent post.
Comment by What to do now? — May 31, 2006 @ 3:48 pm
Frank, the FP and Q of the 12 were unanimous in deciding that Utah ought to be a slave territory. They were repeatedly unanimous in opposition to civil rights for African Americans before the 1960s–and nearly unanimous in the 1960s.
And anyway, I am perfectly happy to assign a probability to the chance that I’ll make progress as a moral person by abdicating my conscience and following others: 0%.
Comment by RoastedTomatoes — May 31, 2006 @ 3:49 pm
Ronan,
I think that your choices aren’t complete enough. If I were standing in front of God while living in a democracy, I would simply ask him 1) what His position was and more importantly, 2) what His reasons were for it. Simply appealing to an entirely isolated, unverifiable and hidden authority in a democratic society seems to be dangerous and inappropriate.
Here are my two main beefs with the church’s approach to the subject: 1) They should give reasons for their position which others can engage with (”Because God says so” isn’t good enough, unless we know why He says so.) and 2) they aren’t willing to claim revelation for their position. If they going on revelation, then let us know about this revelation. If they are simply interpreting old revelation then I see no reason why their views should be worth more than my own should.
Comment by Jeff G — May 31, 2006 @ 3:49 pm
Nate #62: I didn’t try to claim that history shows that departing from church leadership in favor of personal conscience is always a good idea. Just that, on some very important issues, it has been. In light of the seemingly mixed historical record, personal conscience deserves to be taken very seriously.
Comment by RoastedTomatoes — May 31, 2006 @ 3:50 pm
Nate, in response to your #70, there is a middle ground between 1) following the advice of the prophet on adopting a civil political position and 2) simply ignoring the prophet.
That middle ground is listening to and valuing the input of our leaders, respecting their experience, wisdom, and time spent pondering the matter, and then factoring that into your personal analysis, so that the leaders’ opinion is an important factor, but not necessarily the only factor.
Comment by What to do now? — May 31, 2006 @ 3:54 pm
Brad: Perhaps you are right. I am all for taking the words of public statments very seriously. I am also not quite sure what it means to have “a position” on the SSM debate, nor am I convinced that my position is particularlly important. As for the actual federal marriage amendment at issue in the Senate right now, I think it is a bad idea. I don’t think that it will have much effect on American families one way or another, but I do think that it would distribute power away from state legislatures toward the federal courts.
My own view is that on issues like this what we want is democracy in the pragmatic Holmsian sense. Don’t try to shut things down with one fell swoop. Keep the process of tinkering going. This means that it is a bad idea to couch things in terms of fundamental laws and human rights. We’re better off dialing back the rhetoric, playing around with various arrangments and seeing which ones work best.
Comment by Nate Oman — May 31, 2006 @ 3:54 pm
What would the Scientologists do? (WWSD)
Comment by Ronan — May 31, 2006 @ 3:56 pm
RT,
Those are more interesting, do you know when the relevamt public statements were made?
And your counterfactual is 0% interesting unless the Q of 12 and FP start telling you what to do in all situations where you need to make a decision. I don’t know about you, but I have plenty of opportunity to make moral decisions even if I agree to follow all prophetic counsel.
As for “abdicating conscience”, how can this be? Would it not be your conscience that tells you to follow the prophet? Is it abdicating conscience to do what you believe (owing to prophetic counsel) to be the will of God?
Is it abdicating conscience to say “I came into the world to do the will of my Father?” 3 Ne 27:13
Comment by Frank McIntyre — May 31, 2006 @ 3:56 pm
As another historical note to #72, remember that Utah’s marriage law, at least from 1899 to 1963 (with various modifications) made miscegenation illegal.
Similar laws were found in a majority of states (although, unlike some, due to Mormon theology, our law allowed marriage between whites and Indians). Those lose were consistently lobbied for and defended by religous conservatives as protecting “traditional marriage.”
Comment by What to do now? — May 31, 2006 @ 3:57 pm
Nate (#70): that’s a neat way of framing the issue, and I love that question, but I wonder if things are as simple as you’re laying them out to be.
Can we agree with the Brethren, sustain them and get behind their goals 100%, and yet disagree with their designated modes of action? If the Brethren advocate a particular bill or constitutional amendment, must we vote in that manner?
Comment by Steve Evans — May 31, 2006 @ 3:59 pm
re. #74: It does, but I am not sure which way coscience cuts. How would you figure out which cases one should follow conscience over Church? Put more pointedly, are there any circumstances when you would follow the Church over your personal conscience? If so, what would they be?
This isn’t meant as a gotcha question. I am genuinely interested in trying to work this out. For what it is worth in many ways SSM is not a cosmic question of personal conscience for me. It is an issue that I have competing intuitions and ideas about. My own conclusions don’t seem to match up perfectly with those of the Brethren. What should I do in such a situation?
On a broader level, I have fairly few cosmic questions of personal conscience. There is a certain ostentation about conscience that I am uncomfortable with. It points attention relentlessly toward the subject, and often that is not really all that helpful. The content of your concience — or mine for that matter — does fairly little to help me sort out most of my confusions.
Comment by Nate Oman — May 31, 2006 @ 4:01 pm
RT,
On your claim about civil rights, the only thing I pulled up from a quick search was an FP statement in 1969 saying, in part,
So whether or not the FP supported MLK and the particulars of the extant Civil Rights movement, they favored civil rights for all races at the end of the 60s. Let me know what sources you are thinking of with unanimous disapproval of equal rights.
Comment by Frank McIntyre — May 31, 2006 @ 4:04 pm
“That middle ground is listening to and valuing the input of our leaders, respecting their experience, wisdom, and time spent pondering the matter, and then factoring that into your personal analysis, so that the leaders’ opinion is an important factor, but not necessarily the only factor.”
I think that this is right in theory, but in practice it is very tricky. I deal on a regular basis with multi-factor tests and I suspect that in many cases they lack any meaning at all.
Comment by Nate Oman — May 31, 2006 @ 4:06 pm
“Can we agree with the Brethren, sustain them and get behind their goals 100%, and yet disagree with their designated modes of action? If the Brethren advocate a particular bill or constitutional amendment, must we vote in that manner?”
I hope so. I haven’t contacted Senator Allen or Senator Warner about this.
Comment by Nate Oman — May 31, 2006 @ 4:07 pm
Is this letter asking me to contact my senator any more important that other counsel that comes from the First Presidency?
They have been asking us for decades to have two years of food storage, but I’m still not there, and I’m guessing lots of others are in the same boat with me.
About six months ago, my bishop read a letter from the First PResidency asking members NOT to write to church HQ with questions or concerns. They advised us to seek advice from local leaders and not go up the chain of command. Last month, Gordon B. Hinckley read a letter from a person who wrote to him directly. Was he not following his own prophetic advice, or encouraging others to do so?
Comment by Mark IV — May 31, 2006 @ 4:17 pm
Wow, I go out to lunch with my aunt and uncle and find 75 comments following mine!
Without fully reading all of them, I see some criticism has been leveled at Kevin for not more carefully considering the tendency/behavior separation of Church policy, particularly as this might relate to SSM.
I think that Kevin has admirably described his views about this. The separation of “tendency” and “behavior” is ludicrous. Straights are only required to be celibate until they find their eternal mate — then they can indulge in sexual gratification with the person they chose. The same rules should apply to homosexuals.
Comment by D. Fletcher — May 31, 2006 @ 4:27 pm
re: 54, 70, etc.
Follow the instructions of a religious leader, when those instructions go against your personal reason/conscience (the still-small voice) and tell you to do something that “smacks of bigotry and exclusion” ?? The next time the anti-mormons want to slander the Church as a cult, they should provide a link to some of the entries on this string.
re: 78 While given the age of the Brethren in SLC it’s easy to confuse them with members of the Godhead, I’m quite sure the 3 Nephi quote does not refer to following the instructions of any earthly being.
Comment by MikeInWeHo — May 31, 2006 @ 4:33 pm
The whole idea of agreeing with the brethren’s ultimate goals while disagreeing with their “modes of action” in this regard certainly seems to be a serious reduction in the Mormon concept of marriage from a good of first intent to having merely derivative value inasmuch as it is instrumental toward those “ultimate goals.” I’m not sure how many Mormons will be willing to make this conceptual move.
Comment by Jeff G — May 31, 2006 @ 4:42 pm
I’ve just finished reading the essay Aaron provided a link for in #21 and would recommend reading it. Aaron, if you ever manage to find a link to the second article you refer to, it would be much appreciated.
Comment by gomez — May 31, 2006 @ 5:24 pm
This issue is just wrong. I still have my free agency. Noone’s gonna force my hand or even guilt-trip me into supporting this amendment. This is a personal matter. I don’t see it as a revelation at all. The Prophets never said, “Thus Saith the Lord, thou shalt support this amendment.” All they said was that they encouraged people to express themselves on this amendment. If they want to be politically correct enough to avoid directly telling their members to support this Amendment then they have failed.
Comment by Josh Kim — May 31, 2006 @ 6:06 pm
That essay just referred to has a very interesting statement:
“Marriage is a big institution; too big for me to feel I have a successful handle on it.”
Isn’t it possible that this issue may too big for any of us to really have a full handle on, without that extra vision that comes from being a watchman on the tower? This issue is confusing, and I think we all have struggled with it at some level. (Believe it or not, I have!) Tying in with Nate’s questions, are our own reasoning abilities and our own consciences sufficient to really grasp what is going on and what is potentially at stake? Isn’t this precisely the kind of situation where we need prophets to provide some clarity on a tough issue?
Comment by mullingandmusing — May 31, 2006 @ 6:13 pm
21
89
Agree with the above commenters that Aaron’s link is the most convincing argument I have seen yet–how arguing from your own vantage point can be foolish.
Comment by Gander — May 31, 2006 @ 7:52 pm
Josh,
As I recall, President HInckley has, in times past, disparaged the view that statements must be proceeded by “Thus saith the Lord” to be revelatory. But you are a free agent and can choose to ignore the prophets just like anybody else.
Mike,
The argument is not that prophets are Gods, but questioning whether obeying God “blindly” would, hypothetically, also be considered an abdication of conscience and a moral failure. RT spoke of the evils of following others. I was testing the limits. If not, then it becomes of first order importance to ascertain the will of God, which was my original point.
As for the anti’s, upsetting them can hardly be considered an important criterion for right or wrong. Even if they cannot tell the difference between Gordon B. Hinckley and David Koresh, I can; and that makes all the difference.
RT,
Going back, I found an official statement in 63 supporting civil rights. So I am losing faith in your claims to official and unanimous opposition to civil rights.
Comment by Frank McIntyre — May 31, 2006 @ 8:10 pm
The ‘phony’ danger of SSM against religion has now been realized. Apparently Catholic Charities of Boston is no longer allowed to discriminate against gays on the basis of adoption. Now one of the most respected adoption agencies in the world is now forced to close up shop for their beliefs.
http://www.ldsmag.com/familyleadernetwork/060531boston.html
Comment by cadams — May 31, 2006 @ 8:12 pm
Some of the debate over SSM has to do with things like who gets to make medical decisions, who gets the kids if one partner dies, and so forth. Does the law already have sufficient avenues to deal with these issues outside of marriage?
I realize that the Church would probably not want to give any sense that it condones homosexual relationships, but it would be nice if we knew what the boundaries are of what the Church would actively oppose. Can I express support for the amendment and for certain legal rights for those in gay relationships and still be in harmony with the Church, or is it “no additional legal rights for gays” all the way?
Comment by Jared — May 31, 2006 @ 8:44 pm
Jared: Some of the debate over SSM has to do with things like who gets to make medical decisions, who gets the kids if one partner dies, and so forth. Does the law already have sufficient avenues to deal with these issues outside of marriage?
Ann Coulter pointed out that liberals have been able to figure out how to get abortions for underage girls without parental consent, but they claim not to be able to secure privileges for adult medical decisions among gay people without recourse to marriage. This is not (strictly speaking) a valid argument, but it makes a good and insightful point.
I’m against same-sex–marriage and same-sex-unions for one reason. If you ask my gay friends, it’s because I’m just a bigot. But if you ask me, it’s because I’ve just plain had with decades of gay people saying that what happened between consenting adults is private. Everything was always nobody else’s business, and all they ever wanted was to be left alone. I bought this hook line and sinker, and now I see that it’s a sham. Gay activists want to appropriate straight language for their relationships, they want our government to sanction their relationships, and they want homosexuals to receive special status as a minority. They want all this just because they got me to agree that what happens between two consenting adults is none of my business? The gigs up, and I say, “screw ‘em.” Not personally, but politically. I don’t have any beef with gay people per se, but I think that “gay issues” are a big load of crap.
Seriously, I don’t expect any special favors just because I’m congenitally inclined to be a cantankerous son-of-a-bitch. Why should they get any special favors just for being gay?
Comment by DKL — May 31, 2006 @ 9:05 pm
Kevin re. point 5: Couldn’t agree more.
Comment by Jonathan M. — May 31, 2006 @ 9:10 pm
Here’s a little lesson from Canada (must we Canucks lead you Yanks in all things?).
SSM legislation was introduced in Parliment. As a moral issue, the Church spoke out against it. Leaflets were handed out in Elders quorum and Relief Society, talks were given, action on the part of the membership was urged/requested.
At the same time, legislation for the legalization of marijuana was introduced. As a moral issue, the Church was completely silent on the issue. No mention of it from the pulpit. No requests to contact our MP and ask him oppose the bill. Nothing.
SSM marriage passed and became law. Legalization of marijuana died when Parliment dissolved for a new election.
The moral of this story? If you don’t want SSM to be legalized, lobby against the legalization of marijuana.
Comment by Talon — May 31, 2006 @ 9:13 pm
Kevin re. point 5: By railing against bathhouse hedonism, you may be throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Comment by DKL — May 31, 2006 @ 9:22 pm
D. Fletcher said:
“The separation of “tendency†and “behavior†is ludicrous. Straights are only required to be celibate until they find their eternal mate — then they can indulge in sexual gratification with the person they chose. The same rules should apply to homosexuals.”
D, you’re misreading my point. I said that “tendency” and “behavior” are CONCEPTUALLY separate. I was opposing the conflation of the two that is so common in discussions of homosexuality — on both the right and the left — and that was present in Kevin’s post. There is nothing “ludicrous” about pointing out the difference; one of the biggest problems with most debates about homosexuality, in my opinion, is that people aren’t careful with their terminology. “Homosexuality” is used to refer to an inclination or orientation, and then in the next breath, it is used to refer to the activity of gay sex. This is what I think is problematic. It unnecessarily muddles debates about homosexuality.
You argue that the differential treatment of heterosexuals and homosexuals is morally unfair, and that the “same rules” should apply to the sexual activities of both. That’s a fair moral position to take, and I wasn’t necessarily arguing against it. I simply think that if you’re going to make that argument, you need to … MAKE THE ARGUMENT … and not fall back on the terminological sleight-of-hand that goes “Homosexuality [the inclination] is not chosen, so how can one morally condemn homosexuality [the activity] when its practitioners cannot help it?” Notice the change in definition, although the H-word is used in both parts of the sentence. This is what I object to.
In my opinion, if you want to argue against the LDS Church’s moral stance on homosexuality, then you need to argue that it is really, really, really unfair that the homosexually inclined are asked to be celibate, and come up with arguments as to how and why the Church’s position should change (or not be taken seriously, or what not). Of course, the argument is not destined to succeed, and I am not necessarily saying that I think it should succeed.
But the argument that says “because homosexual inclinations are not chosen, homosexuals literally cannot be expected to be celibate in the real world” is dead on arrival. Seriously. Thoughtful advocates of revolutionizing the Church’s stand on homosexuality should drop it. It’s a loser.
Aaron B
Comment by Aaron Brown — May 31, 2006 @ 9:51 pm
How about something like the following as a letter:
Dear Senator:
I understand that the United States Senate will on June 6, 2006, vote on an amendment to the Federal constitution designed to protect the traditional institution of marriage.
The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of my church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, have repeatedly set forth their position that the marriage of a man and a woman is the only acceptable marriage relationship. In 1995 they issued a Proclamation to the World on this matter, and have repeatedly reaffirmed that position.
In that proclamation, my church leaders said: “We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.”
I join with my church leaders in that request.
Sincerely,
DavidH
Comment by DavidH — May 31, 2006 @ 10:06 pm
101
You can’t go wrong there, can you?
Comment by mullingandmusing — May 31, 2006 @ 10:19 pm
My observation this debate is that it ultimately dissolves into two camps that are divided over a central epistemic assumption. One group sees direction of the FP as foundational to what views one ought to take. The other sees the direction of the FP in a framework along with conscience, reason, and scriptural interpretation where there is no absolutely privileged discourse. I am skeptical that there can really be any meaningful persuasion between the two when it comes to the conclusions about SSM. I am skeptical because I think the real disagreement is deeper and prior to the actual issue involved. It seems that where one stands in his/her epistemology, i.e. whether or not someone accepts foundationalism, will largely determine the side they take on the matter, or any other where disagreement with the FP arises. We may be quick to point out the “dogmatism†of one and the “faithlessness†of the other, but without the deeper questions in view we are only pointing fingers.
Comment by Johnny — May 31, 2006 @ 10:31 pm
At some point in the future, SSM is going to happen. The horse is out of the barn on this one, the can of worms is opened. It will be part of our society.
Instead of expending energy trying to change the supreme law of the land for the current political fad, perhaps people of faith should be expending that energy on the policies and procedures in their church on marriage rituals, as well as consideration of functioning in a society where SSM is permitted.
Like they are doing in Canada.
Comment by Phouchg — May 31, 2006 @ 10:32 pm
DavidH, that is awesome.
—–
Steve asks “Can we agree with the Brethren, sustain them and get behind their goals 100%, and yet disagree with their designated modes of action?â€
Outside of the current issue, what would be a real life example of this? If the designated modes of action have been specifically identified and given as an instruction to the membership of the church, then it seems to me that refusing such a mode of action would, in itself, constitute not agreeing with the Brethren and not sustaining them.
Comment by Eric Russell — May 31, 2006 @ 10:38 pm
Aaron,
I wasn’t misreading your post, but I do think you missed my point. I don’t think homosexuality, the inclination, and homosexuality, the behavior, should be separated at all. I think like a homosexual, therefore, I am one, whether I’m indulging in physical behavior or not. The same could be said of you, as a heterosexual. Sadly, I think most people believe that homosexual fantasizing is bad, gross, and sinful plenty. The Church wishes for me to be more than celibate — it wishes for me to fulfill the potential eternal family I was sent to earth to fulfill, and stop being so selfish, and figure out that I can still marry and have children like any sensible child of God. No, my leaders aren’t encouraging me to marry a woman — they’re expecting me to come to that conclusion on my own.
But my life leads me to a different conclusion. I’d like to marry the person that I connect with, the person I can live with for eternity, the person I fall in love with, and I’d like not to be limited by the Church or anyone else in my choice. right now, the Church would like to limit my choice to the opposite gender, say, 50% of potential mates.
I’m not physically attracted to women, so I’m not dating them (not since I broke my original engagement in 1984) and I’m continuing as a good LDS boy, paying my tithing, attending my meetings, and not participating in pre-marital sex with anyone. But if the right person comes along, LDS or not, male or female, I will do what I can to marry them, and fulfill what’s left of my destiny. Maybe this is foolish of me, waiting waiting waiting for something to change, for someone to want me, for someone in the Church to realize I’m just a guy looking for a little eternal happiness like everyone else.
Comment by D. Fletcher — May 31, 2006 @ 10:46 pm
Is the Senate really going to vote on this issue on 6/6/06? You’d think that such a religiously charged issue would avoid such a coincidence.
That’s about the level of my contribution to this thread, I’m afraid. (It doesn’t help that, due to my family’s chronic habit of arriving late to church, we missed the announcement entirely.)
Sorry about that.
Comment by BTD Greg — May 31, 2006 @ 10:48 pm
Just to clarify my previous post: I’m celibate, not because I’m heroically defeating the temptation of indulging in horrifying, deviant gay sex, but because I’m waiting for my wedding night with my eternal companion. In my case, the marriage will be SS.
Comment by D. Fletcher — May 31, 2006 @ 11:08 pm
Those who can’t see SSM affecting traditional (heterosexual) marriage should be following developments here in Canada more closely, where SSM has been legal for several years. Ontario, only last year, removed every reference to the words “husband,” “wife,” “widow” and “widower” from its legislation. Imagine: henceforth no government law, pamphlet — not even a marriage license — shall contain the words “husband” or “wife.”
I don’t think I can improve on David Frum’s brief commentary, so I’ll just link to it. You can follow the links he provides (including to the excellent debate between him and Andrew Sullivan) and read more for yourselves. But the implications extend much further than
Comment by Anon for this — May 31, 2006 @ 11:16 pm
re: 103 Very, very well said. You have explained why these strings about homosexuality go round-and-round-and-round but never get anywhere. At its core, there can be no resolution that I can imagine. One has to wonder if some kind of truce might not be possible, though. What would ‘agreeing to disagree’ look like?
re: 106 How terribly sad. I’m increasingly convinced that gay people (celibate or not) should just be evacuated from the Church altogether for now, so they can fellowship with people who will be fully accepting of whatever choices they finally make according the dictates of their own conscience. These excommunications are just a monstrous wrong and will ultimately be a historic embarassment just like the priesthood ban. If D Fletcher finds a partner in life, he’ll the boot. And most likely nobody in his ward will stand at his side and say “If he goes, I go.” Wow.
There is no reason you need to be so alone, “waiting waiting waiting,” D. Stop waiting for the Church to change, or for the members to change. Change your thinking. Change yourself. I so well understand where you are, and how you feel. Having ‘come out’ almost 20 years ago now (and having stopped Church activity at the same time), I have never for one moment regretted the decision. You can maintain a strong connection to Mormonism outside mainstream church activity. A significant majority of those 12 million members do that already!
Comment by MikeInWeHo — May 31, 2006 @ 11:30 pm
Jared # 95:
In California, the answer is yes! Family Code sections 297 and 297.5 essentially set for the same rights for registered domestic partners as those enjoyed by husband and wife as spouses.
I read this post and all the comments to get a better understanding of why in light of the FP’s and Q 12 letter this last weekend, why Kevin would post this particular topic. After reading everything, I’m afraid I still just don’t get it. Anyway, some very interesting comments and observations.
Comment by Guy W. Murray — May 31, 2006 @ 11:39 pm
“In other words, what is the point of saying that I sustain some group of men as prophet, seers, and revelators if — when push comes to shove — I ignore them.”
Nate,
Ah, but what is the point of being capable of using agency and “personal” revelation (not so personal if it must be the same for everyone on every FP & Q12 statement) if we’ve signed it away years ago with some bold almighty sustaining? I personally think it’s possible to sustain and disagree. And I agree that sustaining is relatively meaningless, but would you care to expound on how to change that without disrupting God’s plan in other ways? I think it’s a small sacrifice.
Frank,
I commend you for your faith in what you refer to as “unanimous counsel of the FP and Q of the 12.” I think the phrase is ready for acronym status (UCFPQ12?). But seriously, let’s all be thankful that the FP and Q12 keep most of their this kind of unanimousness behind the scenes. Otherwise, we’d be having this conversation again and again and again with [insert topic here].
Comment by BobC — June 1, 2006 @ 12:12 am
101 - Why don’t you just send your senators a blank page?
Comment by loyd — June 1, 2006 @ 12:29 am
“Outside of the current issue, what would be a real life example of this?”
Eric, there are plenty of examples, though none involve issues of this magnitude. Take any generic principle: emergency preparedness, humanitarian efforts, Scouts, etc. on which the Church has adopted a policy or position, and you can easily see how you’d support the principle but not the precise application.
None of these are marriage/family relations, mind you….
Comment by Steve Evans — June 1, 2006 @ 12:42 am
m&m #91, “Isn’t this precisely the kind of situation where we need prophets to provide some clarity on a tough issue?”
When the general authorities stop referring to homosexuality as “gender confusion,” then I might believe that they have studied out this issue sufficiently. The evidence thus far leads me to think they haven’t even taken that step.
Comment by Steven B — June 1, 2006 @ 12:59 am
The ‘phony’ danger of SSM against religion has now been realized. Apparently Catholic Charities of Boston is no longer allowed to discriminate against gays on the basis of adoption. Now one of the most respected adoption agencies in the world is now forced to close up shop for their beliefs.
No, it wasn’t SSM that lead to the cessation of adoptions by the Catholic Charities of Boston, rather, it was non-discrimination laws in that state that have been in place for a decade. Maggie Gallagher has conflated the two. The fact is, Catholic Charities of Boston wanted to discriminate against gay people, which has long been against the law in that state. Catholic Charities of Boston was receiving public monies and tax support. Can we honestly expect gay taxpaying citizens of Massachusetts to financially support an organization that discriminates against them?
No, the State didn’t shut down Catholic Charities, nor did SSM. Catholic Charities chose to cease adoptions because they wanted to continue receiving State funds and money from organizations such as the United Way, who also have non-discrimination policies.
Comment by Steven B — June 1, 2006 @ 1:21 am
How about this:
Dear Senator:
You’re going to be asked to vote on the marriage amendment on June 6th. The LDS Church, my church, is in favor of this amendment.
Although the amendment goes against my principles, I still think you should vote in favor of it, because it will probably stand about as long as the temperance amendment lasted, with about the same results, causing us as a nation to actually have to face this complicated issue and hopefully transcend our either/or mentality and find some kind of compromise instead. (I hear this “compromise” thing was resorted to sometime very early in our national history. Somewhere in Philadelphia, I think.)
So, we might as well get this lesson out of the way as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Your constituent
Comment by Flotsam — June 1, 2006 @ 2:02 am
Kevin,
I agree totally with your post. I have made a couple posts in my own blog about it, and I have been participating in a few other threads. In my opinion, the Scriptures and the fundamentals ideas of Good and Evil in LDS tradition vindicate us in our opposition of ANY law that would seek to give the government power to define or limit Marriage. We need to prepare for the future when Polygamy will be practiced again (if not by ourselves, Orson Hyde at least indicate that Jesus Christ himself is a polygamist). If Christ, or any other Resurrected patriarch appeared today, not only would they be in legal trouble, but they would be in danger of being excommunicated on the spot.
Our Stake President, echoing the First Presidency’s message, urged us to “express ourselves on this urgent matter” and I am expressing myself: The Government should have NO claim on Marriage whatsoever. They should set up their own rules to provide benefits for accepted multi-member households, whether it be husband and wife, mother and daughter, brothers, sisters, polygamist Muslim families, hetero couples whether married or not, same sex couples. The government really has little concern over whether or not two people are “married”, this is just being used as a political tool at this point.
Therefore, I am opposed to any legislation that would limit humans freedom to choose their own relations.
I can say all this and at the same time be opposed to same sex marriage on a MORAL level. I believe the solution to that is providing quality help and assistance to those in the fold who want help overcoming same-sex attraction temptation. For those who feel they were born that way, I can only say that Heber C Kimball suggested that we may lay down to sleep at the end of this life and wake up again to labor and continue what we were unable to perform here. Perhaps in the next life, you will