I just thought I'd share a few informal thoughts on California's Proposition 8. Being a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons), it may be interesting for some of you to hear at least one member's perspective of this legislation.
It is important first to realize a few givens for members of the church:
First, we have a prophet and other leaders who not only lead the church, but like the prophets of old, receive revelation and inspiration on important issues. Our faith is a faith that is tried and true. For me, my church leaders have a 100% track record of success. Whenever I've followed their teachings, I have been happy. Whenever I have disregarded their teachings, I have suffered. So for me there is an implicit and inherent trust that comes with anything they say. I would not call this "blind faith". I call it a good track record. If I had stock market holdings this sure, I'd be a billionaire and I would not hesitate to put my money in their business.
That said, I begin with a personal view of the situation and then return to key positions of the church as church leaders have communicated with me--or at least as I have obtained information from church leaders through various sources, including the church website and its press release areas. My personal view is that our country is a fair place with equal opportunity for all. I feel that the most important thing about this issue is that couples of any sort who are committed to each other be able to have partnership rights equal to those found within marriage. I also feel that Proposition 8 does not address those rights as much as it addresses how "marriage" is defined. However, before this becomes a simple semantic issue, let me press on.
One major assumption in the church is that God created the heavens and the earth. We existed before the world was created. Indeed, God created our world so we could live on it and gain experiences that would enable us to be more like Him. With the world He created came various laws, all of which existed before the world was created and are now applied to this earth as we live our mortal lives here. God also created marriage, and we in the church are clearly told what God expects of us. To return to live with Him again, we should do all in our power to live in the marriage covenant that He created as good fathers and mothers.
In seeking to redefine marriage, then, to Mormons, it is as if humans are trying to redefine something very sacred that God Himself created, defined, and purposed. Our faith in the both scripture and living prophets inform us that we should do all in our power to keep the sacred things of God sacred.
I personally do not see this as a moral issue--at least I do not consider those who are/were against Proposition 8 to be immoral for that choice. I only see a threat to something that is perceived by us to be sacred and not only God-given, but God created and ordained.
Additionally, we have been taught as members of the church that the family is the fundamental unit of society. If the family crumbles, society will crumble with it. Indeed, in those places where we see families breaking down is exactly where many of our deepest societal problems exist. We feel that redefining marriage undermines the family's strength and position in society, therefore weakening it.
That said, the church's recent press release on the subject states:
"It is important to understand that this issue for the Church has always been about the sacred and divine institution of marriage — a union between a man and a woman.
Allegations of bigotry or persecution made against the Church were and are simply wrong. The Church’s opposition to same-sex marriage neither constitutes nor condones any kind of hostility toward gays and lesbians. Even more, the Church does not object to rights for same-sex couples regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches."
On another personal note on a slightly different but related issue, I must say that I'm very proud of my oldest daughter. She was elected president of her school's Gay/Straight Alliance earlier this year. To me, she is a loving, tolerant person who sees as I do that people are defined in many ways and not just if they are gay or straight. I think of my own gay friends as managers, good sportsmen, great musicians, funny, charming, honest, introspective and many other things long before I think of them as being gay. I'm probably not even aware of the gayness of some of my friends. I really don't care. I'm really not sure how gayness seems to trump everything in people's minds.
One final note: More than 40 states in the United States have now voted to protect traditional marriage, either directly or through their elected representatives.
In 1995, church leaders published The Family: A Proclamation to the World. I encourage you to read it. It is very informative of where our assumptions lie with this issue. For an amazingly informative and in-depth discussion of the church's position on this matter, please see its artice "The Divine Institution of Marriage". It's rather lengthy, but it is well worth the read.
I'm sure that this issue is not dead, and I hope that all positions can come together in a civil manner to discuss how parity can fully exist in our amazing country.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 46
A dinner to be thankful of*
Unfortunately, were the government to redefine marriage in a certain way, soon, that definition of marriage and of lifestyle will be delivered to our children at school, and then it's gone the opposite way: the government reinforcing others' beliefs over our own. And that's just one result, one reason, which is also one reason why the majority of the U.S. right now (44 states so far) favors keeping marriage defined as it has been for generations.
Again, I have the utmost respect for what you say and believe, but I feel just as strongly that I am right.
In my opinion, your objection based upon the conflict you see as to the definition of marriage is a dodge and a misdirection. My argument is as follows. If the legal union of two same sex people is referred to as simply a "legal union"...your argument is reduced to the wording describing the union...not the union itself. If this is true, and you really have no objection to the legal union union..."(Even more, the Church does not object to rights for same-sex couples regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches.)" then you are in effect saying that the only problem you have is how to describe the union. The remainder of your "requirements for your approval" are that " the integrity of the traditional family" is maintained and that "the constitutional rights of churches" is preserved.
The integrity of the traditional family is subjective to one's definition and is not the business of the church. If the church could legally describe the " traditional family" and enforce that definition...this would be a violation of the separation of church and state.
I see no conflict of the "the constitutional rights of churches". I do see a conflict of the Constitutionality of the church's influence in this LEGAL matter.
No David...you are defining the traditional family as you WISH the family to be without regards to the wishes, privileges and rights of others.
"Regrettably, there are complex issues like these that can be divisive."
The issue of gay marriage is not a complex one. We are just making it that way.
Have you read about the formation of our psycho-sexual templates? I know you are interested in Jungian psychology, so I think you would find this interesting. This is a quote from my sex series:
"Psycho-sexual templates are the unique combination of physical and psychological factors that turn us on or off, sexually speaking. Your sexual template is shaped by your genetics, your prenatal development, and your previous positive and negative sexual experiences. It includes such things as your sexual orientation and your concept of an alluring mate.
Our psycho-sexual templates are well-formed by the time we are young children. Sexual orientation is not a "lifestyle choice."
We no longer find it acceptable to deny marriage on the basis of skin color. It's time for us to stop denying marriage on the basis of sexual orientation.
have a great Thanksgiving!
Just a quick response, and then I'll have to come back after a few days of Thanksgiving away from the computer:
To Some of You: The issue over legitimizing gay marriage is not one of equal rights because California law already ensures that “domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections and benefits…as married spouses”. (California Family Code §297.5.) Did I read this wrong? Am I missing something? I really want to know... I'm all for gay rights; I just don't want to redefine marriage. The topic isn't one of gay rights for me, it's one of a redefinition of marriage and the consequences for doing so.
Joe: 44 states disagree with your position on "unconstitutionality". 6 of 8 state supreme courts also disagree (well, they're part of the 44).
Ann: I feel that this issue IS complex. If it were just a matter of "hey, let's redefine marriage so everyone will be happy" I'd be all over it. But it's not. There are many consequences to doing so that make the issue complex. That's why many people are talking about it so much and so often; there are lots of things to work out with many effects down a road that I feel will be harmful to society. Sorry. I still love you though! About Psycho-sexual templates, it sounds fascinating, and I do not argue that it isn't so. While I do know friends who made a "lifestyle choice" (they discussed the choice with me), I know others for whom homosexuality seems inherent. That's a topic for a different post.
Farmer Slim: The church has every right to voice its beliefs in this area, just as other groups have that right, including groups to which you may belong. Indeed, all strong-minded persons and groups have that right. You are right that no church should enforce a definition on others. That is one reason why the church was invited to join a coalition of various groups to support Prop 8. In doing so, it is not imposing its will on others, but simply expressing its viewpoint, which apparently is shared by a majority of Californians and others in 44 other states. In the U.S., one of the ways legislation can happen is through the voting process. I don't see voting and defending one's opinion as imposing or enforcing a will on others. Both sides present their arguments, and then each person must go into the booth and vote according their conscience. You are also right in another way: it is partly a semantic issue. But the preservation of the traditional view of marriage houses a multiplicity of other issues.
Citizen M: my church was only one member of a coalition of religious and non-religious groups in favor of the amendment, so I feel your comments are mis-targeted and inaccurate. The term is already implicitly defined and has been for logical reasons for a long time. A redefinition of marriage is currently being sought that my church and many others, not all of whom are religious at all, opposes.
My intention of this post was not to have a long discussion but to simply outline one LDS member's views on this important subject. I tried hard not to be divisive or "attack" those who believe differently. I simply wanted to present my views so they could be understood. If it's any consolation, I feel pretty certain that gays will ultimately see their goals realized in this matter.
Please have a happy Thanksgiving everyone!
and for the record 45 % of the monies that came in for Yes on * ...came from the mormon church..
This is a brilliantly crafted and well thought article on one of today's most Hot Button topics. I admire your sensitivity and intelligence.
Life IS change. Institutional constructs from every time frame of humanity undergo the changes necessary in order to continue to exist. Given our species numbers in modern times, our bumping up against each other on every level has asked for larger and faster changes to occur.
The most valued lesson for me has come from living with elders of all walks, some still shaped from the most ancient world views. From them it becomes so apparent that "Life adapts or it dies."
I'm from Alaska where since statehood, big money and the squeakiest wheel has had
it's way with the vote. There, numbers represented by the electoral processes are often not fair representations of what the voters think, but of who dumped the most capital into the campaign and who may offer the next paycheck. Tennessee Williams sings many to sleep at night. Those who owe their souls to the company store. That and siding with who's on which side of the fence, our latent tribal-ness.
I congratulate your open and obvious compassionate parenting of tomorrow's citizen. It's the toughest and best effort, as is your willingness to discuss things of importance with your global neighbors. Always. Thank You.
Adrian...that is an hysterically funny Freudian slip. You mean "Tennessee Ernie Ford" (the song is Sixteen Tons).. Tennessee Williams was a famously gay playwright, making the use of his name in this particular thread especially appropriate (or INappropriate, according to one's point of view).
I have no problem with the Gay/Lesbian marriages, as I do not look at it from a Christian view, but an Aristotelic view in that what benefits the community is best. With the upsetting of the religious groups by using the word "Marriage" use the phrase "Civil Unions" as they have the same rights. Big deal if it will bury the hatchet with a comprimise.
As long as they are good parents I don't see an issue with them raising kids either. Same laws about child abuse and treatment should equally apply to them, as with straight parents as well.
I just cannot see why there is such a fuss, when a valid option in comprimize was made, all over a blasted word!
Most legal papers on this subject already posit that anti-discrimination regulations will become more important than religious beliefs. Even without legalized gay "marriages," gay couples are already beginning to challenge policies of religious organizations that exclude them. Even “para-church” organizations such as schools, charities, adoption agencies and businesses that refuse to serve gay couples on principle of religious beliefs are being sued, even if they are referred to organizations that do not share those religious beliefs. From church-run adoption agencies to youth programs to all kinds of other programs, the free ability of churches to act as they believe are threatened.
I hope that helps.
In that Joseph Smith taught that God instituted polygamy within the Church, the LDS organization has not always been about marriage being a union between a man and a woman.
(1) The practice of plural marriage is noted in the Bible in many places as a practice in which prophets and other holy men took part and has been practiced by many cultures across the world for thousands of years. In contrast, to most of the world, including many in the U.S., same sex relations are still a deep taboo (I use the anthropological term for 'taboo' here).
(2) most members of the church resisted it and found it repugnant; only a sense of personal spiritual communication from God allowed most members to accept the practice, and this done mostly out of duty. Indeed, Joseph Smith himself found the practice distasteful and only proceeded after he, according to his own record, was rebuked by God for proceeding too slowly in its establishment. Today, LDS men and women find it just as repugnant.
(3) It was stringently regulated by church leaders; one could not willy nilly start marrying wives. There was a deliberate and careful system in place to prevent any abuses.
(4) Women were some of the more vocal in supporting the practice.
(5) The practice of plural marriage was still always about a union between a man and a woman in each case. For example, a man would never be married to two women at the same time. Separate ceremonies were required for each pairing.
(6) Plural marriage has nothing to do with the same-sex marriage debate; the church did not seek national approval for the practice. They simply left and established their own community for religious freedom after much hardship and trial in crossing the plains.
I hope that helps; maybe it just muddies things up! Oh well....
You said: "Today, LDS men and women find it [polygamy] just as repugnant."
From Wikipedia: "Plural marriage continues amongst several groups of Mormon fundamentalists in the western United States, Canada, and Mexico. "
I know that you and most Mormons don't agree with these fundamentalist groups within your faith.
Why doesn't the Mormon Church direct its money and energy to cleaning up its own act, instead of spending millions of dollars on a campaign to dictate to those outside of the Mormon church who they can and can't marry?
And once again, the issue is about defining marriage, not who can unite with whom. California law is very clear about providing the same benefits for civil unions. “...domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections and benefits…as married spouses”. (California Family Code §297.5.)
However, I can certainly see why any couple would want the term "marriage" applied to their union.
It sounds as if mainstream LDS are as offended by polygamy as they are by gay sex.
Please help me to understand why it is that groups which are no more a part of your church than the excommunicated fundamental Mormons are an "act to clean up"?
I do appreciate your comments of support for domestic partnerships. It would be cool if you'd read one or two of the brief articles in the spotlight of my Gather friend John M..
From what he's written, John M. was initially in favor of domestic unions. After seeing how they play out in the corporate world in New Jersey and Vermont, he's been forced to change his stance:
"So much is tied to the word _marriage_ in corporate language that it becomes impossible to really access the same rights without having either 1) marriage be the standard; or 2) for states to issue only civil unions for everyone. And there is still the federal elephant in the room (DOMA)."
However, I feel safe being honest with you because I feel that we will still like and respect each other when the debate is over. Also, I think that you are one of the people within your faith who is thoughtful, introspective, and open to the opinions of outsiders.
(FYI, I would never press my case like this on the Losing Your Religion thread-- that's not the place for stuff like this.)
This is an issue in flux and is therefore being debated both morally, legislatively and socially. I look forward to seeing what our country will do in this matter.
It simply isn't true that anyone can love and marry anyone else. I can't marry my sister or my daughter or my mother or even my first cousin. Should the gov't allow ALL desired relationships to come to fruition? Should I be allowed to marry my dog or my snake? Prop 8 simply sought to limit the definition of marriage to that which has been traditionally accepted by most humans for many hundreds of years. I'm not a super advocate of old traditions, but there is a reason for taboos in the anthropological sense, and I feel that those taboos are healthy for society. Abolishing a taboo is a dangerous social experiment, and we can see the results of some taboos being eliminated to our country's detriment. In this situation, it works out as a good compromise: gays can have the same rights in their relationships as anyone else (that already had existed before Prop 8), and the term "marriage" is preserved as it has been traditionally.
"Abolishing a taboo is a dangerous social experiment, and we can see the results of some taboos being eliminated to our country's detriment."
With all due respect, my friend, as your words suggest, opposition to gay marriage stems largely from fear.
I'm a New England resident, and gay marriages are legal in Massachusetts and Connecticut. What harm have you seen occur as a result of this legalization? (Real harm, not potential harm).
Before I get to your specific question, just a reminder of a previous taboo we've abolished. So please understand that I'm changing the topic for just a moment from gay marriage in particular to eliminating taboos in a society generally. When the sexual revolution happened in the 60s, many people felt "So what if I have sex out of wedlock? So what if I have a baby without a father? How does that hurt anyone but me?" Well, now we know that it DOES hurt others. In 1960 about 5 percent of births were to unwed mothers; that figure is now a record high of nearly 40 percent. Children born out of wedlock, increasingly the case when sex within the bonds of marriage is ignored, costs us lots of money each year. Welfare costs have dramatically increased due to out of wedlock births, costing us billions of dollars a year. More important are the emotional and other effects on the kids themselves. Kids from single parent homes are more at risk for doing poorly in school, more at risk for living in poverty, more at risk for teen birth, more at risk for dropping out of school, more at risk for getting involved in crime, and many, many more problems. These are the effects that we now can see from a social taboo being abandoned. In short: social taboos are not to be taken lightly.
Now back to your question, which I'll address even though I'm pretty sure that there'll be no convincing of anyone here. In fact, I fear that it might start "my data is better than your data" discussion, which I have little time or stamina for at the present.
...Fear. Certainly, many things we do in our social lives is done out of fear, so that is not unusual. I did not vote for McCain, and I didn't because I both feared that bad things might happen and hoped that good things would happen with Obama in office. I voted for a law in my state that protected open space because I feared that without open space, negative consequences would follow. I don't think it's a bad thing to fear what might happen in a social circumstance. That's why we vote, and I don't see how fear itself is an issue here at all since it's always an issue in matters of public debate.
You noted Massachusetts in your question, but better than Massachusetts as a model is the Netherlands (and Scandinavia generally), where gay marriage has been in place since 1997, longer than any other Western country. So how are they doing? Not surprisingly, the debate is still inconclusive about how children fare in same-sex parent homes. Some studies show disturbing things while others show few, if any differences at all. However, we can find adverse changes in society in general outside of same sex families specifically. For example, there are now nine consecutive years of average two-percentage-point increases in the Dutch out-of-wedlock birthrate, a rise unmatched by any country in Western Europe during the same period. Ever since the Netherlands passed registered partnerships, followed by formal same-sex marriage in 2000, their out-of-wedlock birthrate has been moving up dramatically more than other countries without similar laws. Other countries that have adopted same sex marriage are also starting to see this shocking trend.
What's the big deal about out-of-wedlock births? Kids. This data has already been solidly established: children of single parents are more likely to have all kinds of problems. We all certainly know of supermoms and superdads who raise their children well as a single parent. President-elect Obama himself is the result of such a parent. But it is simply an inarguable fact that single parenting is not a social ideal by any standard and is an institution that leads to a host of social problems, many of them expensive and most of them having an adverse effect on children at least and on society indirectly.
Once marriage stops being about binding mothers and fathers together for the sake of the children they create, the need to get married gradually disappears. The family unit as a societal institution is weakened.
Stanley Kurtz has written a very interesting article about the effects of gay marriage and gay partnerships in Scandinavia, where they have legally existed since the mid 1990s. You can read that by going to this link ( http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp?pg=1). It is a refreshing article to me because it avoids theological debate and sticks to social issues. (My purpose in my article above, incidentally, was not to instigate a theological debate, but simply express how one member of the LDS church feels about the subject). In the meantime, a summary of his article in his words:
"The Scandinavian example . . . proves that gay marriage is not interracial marriage in a new guise. The miscegenation analogy was never convincing. There are plenty of reasons to think that, in contrast to race, sexual orientation will have profound effects on marriage. But with Scandinavia, we are well beyond the realm of even educated speculation. The post-gay marriage changes in the Scandinavian family are significant. This is not like the fantasy about interracial birth defects. There is a serious scholarly debate about the spread of the Nordic family pattern. Since gay marriage is a part of that pattern, it needs to be part of that debate . . . By the time we see the effects of gay marriage in America, it will be too late to do anything about it. Yet we needn't wait that long. In effect, Scandinavia has run our experiment for us. The results are in."
...and they are negative.
Of course, I feel that there are other harmful effects of gay marriage to society. Many conservative websites tout the dangers of same sex marriage. However, as you may note, most websites that are anti-gay marriage stem from churches or church-based organizations, and the arguments and data found on most of these sites, though interesting to some, would have little relevance here. I myself found the information on most sites (from both sides of this issue) to be poorly researched and poorly written from a scholarly point of view. As a reviewer of several peer reviewed journals, I feel that I know what good research is and how it is constituted, and I find shockingly little good research from both sides of this debate. I hope you'll note that none of my comments here or in my article or comments above would do well in a peer reviewed journal, but I have made laborious attempts to find data of interest that is fair and compelling.
Legally, same sex marriage has caused some problems in Massachusetts. The Catholic Church in that state has stopped offering adoptions, for example, because they feared the legal battles that would take place were gay couples wanting to adopt children through its agencies--a practice they oppose on religious grounds. Here we have a tip of the iceberg example of how gay couples' rights would trump churches' rights to practicing their beliefs and running their organizations as they see fit. This is not church vs. state; it's church controlled by state.
This is extended in Massachusetts in the school systems, where schools are now required to teach that gay marriage is perfectly appropriate and even desirable. Curricula has been developed; kids' picture books have been created for pedagogical circumstances. Here we have a situation in public schools where children are being taught in direct moral confrontation to their religious beliefs. When parents have tried to ascertain when gay marriage concepts would have been taught so they could remove their children on those days or during those times, schools and legal systems have deemed their actions inappropriate and have disallowed such knowledge. Here again the state is beginning to trump religious teachings, positing a system of beliefs to the undermining of religious instruction and expression of belief.
I feel it is important to add that this is not like creationism vs. Darwinism in public schools, for this concerns morality (i.e. what religious groups consider a 'sin') as opposed to how history is interpreted or how the paradigm of science is becoming more important than religion. So now parents and churches must either move their children to private schools (which are also at risk, by the way, as several current legal battles suggest) or home schools (or move out of the state), which is ironic since public schools should be, in my mind, a place that is acceptable by the public. I see little government neutrality here: the state is controlling and having undue influence on religious systems and beliefs.
These are just a few examples, but I've spent enough long hours dealing this this issue at this time. I hope you'll forgive me. At the very least, we cannot say that "gay marriages do not affect me, so why not let them do it." We do not live in a vacuum. Gay marriage very much affects the social structure around it.
I will have to come back and give your thoughtful answer more consideration. Here's my initial reaction:
1. I fail to see any connection between gay marriage and out-of-wedlock birthrates. Gay couple can't make babies! (As you are a peer-reviewer, I'm sure you know well the difference between correlation and causation).
2. "most websites that are anti-gay marriage stem from churches or church-based organizations, and the arguments and data found on most of these sites, though interesting to some, would have little relevance here."
Then why are we talking about the Catholic Church's negative reaction to the legalization of gay marriage? You've just told me that churches and church-based organizations are usually biased against gay marriage.
3. I have five nieces and nephews in Massachusetts public schools, and I read a Massachusetts paper daily. Perhaps I'm still out of touch, but I haven't heard any concern voiced over the school requirements you describe, either from my (Catholic) family or in the press.
David, I will try not to badger you any more. Talking to you about this issue has been a delight. You are listening to what I say and thinking about it, independent of the stance that your church has taken. Thank you.
I think that if a church doesn't allow same sex marriage, it's completely OK. The church has the right to make its own rules. Churches, perhaps I should broaden this to any religious body so let me re state this. A religious body has the right to make its own rules. This means that it should be treated as a private entity and be completely separate from the state. ie: no gov't funding, no gov't interference, etc. Therefore if a church is against same sex marriage, they shouldn't be forced by the government to accept same-sex marriage.
In addition, we can't forget that marriage is a legally recognized union between two people. So it is my belief that in a civic ceremony, same-sex marriage should be allowed and in a religion that does not condone same sex relationships, they should not be forced by the government to change.
A conclusion. Should it be legal? Yes. Should it be holy? Depends on the church.
But from a purely legal perspective, we have to ask: "What is marriage?"
If marriage is a holy sacrament, instituted by God and there is an established church or faith that will conduct a same-sex marriage, then for the government to forbid it would be a violation of the First Amendment.
There are several churches, including both Christian and Jewish faiths, that are already performing such marriages.
If, on the other hand, marriage is a civil contract between two people, then to deny that on the basis of their sexual orientation would appear to be a violation of both Federal Law and the 14th Amendment.
Moreover, if we say that we would accept a "civil union" with the same status as marriage without the name, we are creating a new "separate but equal" situation.
To me, this is the 21st Century's version of Loving v. Virginia [388 U.S. 1 (1967)], the case that broke the barrier of interracial marriage. Sadly, most of the arguments sound like that case as well.
No one can compel a church to marry a couple that does not share that faith. This is a matter of civil law.
In the country where I was born they are still prosecuting homosexuals as criminals. At least we realize this was foolish.
But as I know several same-sex couples who have been together far longer than some of the married couples I know, I believe denying them their rights does nothing to help my marriage and allowing them to marry could only show how valuable my marriage remains.