When the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that gay couples had a constitutional right to marry, conservative commentators excoriated the court for usurping — critics claimed — the rightful role of the legislature. One critic wrote that the Goodridge court ignored “the constitutionally created path to social change: legislation.” Another critic stated that “the legislature, not the courts, should be deciding how to make profound social changes.” The amicus brief filed by the Attorney General of Utah stated that “The Court’s duty is to interpret and apply faithfully the marriage statutes adopted by the legislature.” Similar statements came from a host of critics of the Goodridge decision.
Now, the California legislature has passed a bill authorizing same-sex marriage. The bill was sent to Governor Arnold Scwarzenegger. And he said . . .
. . . “why don’t we just let the courts decide this issue, guys?”
What a cop-out. But I’m sure it won’t last. I’m eagerly awaiting editorials from World Net Daily and the Washington Times (and perhaps the Utah Attorney General as well), calling on Schwarzenegger to recognize and support the legislature’s decision in this area.
Yow! That is a cop-out. I feel for the guy, though.
Er, what about letting the people decide? Didn’t the people of California already indicate their position on this?
In Kaimi’s world, (1) Schwarzenegger is a conservative, and (2) its hypocritical to be both opposed to gay marriage on the merits and to courts imposing it.
Its to Kaimi’s credit that he has not publicly opposed the Church’s call for opposition to gay marriage. Its not to his credit that he frequently attacks those people who are opposed to gay marriage, usually on grounds as specious as those advanced here.
I’d be very surprised if the World Net Daily and the Washington Times and Utah’s Attorney General had stated that they did not care about gay marriage per se, only that it be imposed by legislatures and not courts. If this was their position, however, it would probably be because they believe in democracy and thought legislatures are more democratic than courts. Since the California legislature is overturning a ballot initiative that was passed with 60% of the vote less than 5 years ago (with the Church’s strong support), such a person might, without too much inconsistency, think the legislature was being undemocratic by ignoring the will of the people.
Incidentally, whatever Gov. Schwarzenegger says and whatever Kaimi implies, what hthe Gov. is actually doing is threatening to veto the bill. Does objecting to courts overstepping their bounds mean that one must be opposed to vetoes?
Adam,
I’d hesitate to suggest that either of your characterizations is accurate. I’m ambivalent about whether or not the “Govinator” should be labeled conservative or liberal; like his one-time co-star Jesse Ventura, he tends to be a mix of both. (More conservative than liberal, I’d say — not unusual for a Republican — but certainly not a strong conservative). Also, I don’t think that it is hypocritical to have both substantive and procedural complaints about Goodridge.
However, it does seem clear to me that, to the extent procedural complaints were raised about Goodridge — and they certainly were, by a number of critics — those complaints now cut, quite clearly, in the opposite direction.
Don’t they?
Adam, if the legislature ignores the will of the people, can’t they be voted out of office? Or does the mere possibility that the legislature could act “undemocratically” lead you to the conclusion that we should scrap legislatures and the republican form of government altogether and use the referendum as a tool in order to be ruled by the popular will, however capricious?
Yes, Adam, that is exactly what it means. If the legislature speaks for the people by whom they have been elected, then one must be against vetoes. If the people have spoken through their legislators, then it must become law. That is the will of the people. It does not matter if it represents a moral or immoral issue. It does not matter if it will create tyranny by the majority. It does not matter if it represents a short-sighted reaction to some imagined threat or insecurity. The people, through their legislators, have spoken and it must be so.
The ONLY time that the legislature’s decisions are to be invalidated or overruled is by a direct vote of the citizens where close to 100% of the people are involved in casting a vote (not just 60%). Anything less than that will not be a true representation of the will of the people. In contrast, having each legislator vote on an issue WILL make sure that all voices, through their legally elected representatives, are represented.
Of course, this leaves the executive and judicial branches with no defined purpose other than validating and implementing what the legislature dictates.
WAIT a minute! Isn’t this what happened to us in Missouri?
BenH: Didn’t the people of California already indicate their position on this?
California Proposition 22, passed in 2000, barred California’s recognition of same-sex marriages contracted outside of California. The proposition did not bar same-sex marriage, since the Family Code already stated that “Marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman.”
However, the proposition simply changed the law, it did not amend the state constitution. This left the law open to future change by the legislature or the initiative process — which is precisely what has happened in this case.
The reason that legislatures, and not the courts, should create social and public policy is precisely because of their political accountability–they can be voted out of office. Adam makes a good point, however, in suggesting that this legislature is acting against the will of the people as evidenced by the earlier ballot initiative. The veto remains part of the constitutional democratic process, and political accountability exists for that too. The philosopher king federal judge, however, enjoys life tenure and thus has greatly reduced, if any, political accountability for his or her acts of bench legislation, i.e. creation of social policy from the bench.
John,
You are using double speak. Procedures, traditions, and processes have no place in this discussion. It is only about 1) definining the will of ALL the people (not just some of them) and 2) how to make sure that will is treated as law (no matter how ludicrious the issue or decision). You can either use direct voting or representative voting. But either way, the voting must include everyone and must not be overriden or invalidated by judges or governors. If the governor vetoes the will of the people (through their representative) then he is ruling as a dictator.
All your talk of accountability and processes and voting out of office are just justifications for the governor to veto what the legislature has approved. If you don’t agree with the will of the people in your state, move to another one. If you don’t agree with the people in your country, move to another one.
Unknown, I am not using double speak. I am explaining why, even if conservatives decry courts usurping the prerogatives of democratically elected and accountable legislatures, they can still approve of the idea of a governor’s veto of such actions of a representative government. The governor, after all, is also politically accountable for his vetos. The oddity about how the ballot initiative has already resolved this is only an interesting aside and doesn’t affect the discussion of the veto power in our constitutional system.
Oh.
There is a balance to be struck here between following the “will of the people” and protecting fundamental rights. I’m sure more than 60% of the Deep South would have opposed protecting voting rights for blacks or allowing blacks to marry whites, if there were a ballot question on these issues a few decades ago.
But what if political accountability is lopsided because one minority group has hijacked the political apparatus and has an influence which outweighs their position in the general population. Isn’t that also a dictatorship that misrepresents the will of ALL the people?
WAIT! That is what happened in Iraq, isn’t it? Then how come we are forcing the Sunnis to give up their position of power which was obtained by legal, democratic means (at least initially). Shouldn’t we then also force the Republican and Democractic parties to dismantle their lopsided power structures before we get hijacked by the evangelicals or the enviromentalists?
Your post is a gotcha, a cry of hypocrisy. You’re saying the conservatives are hypocrites. Your evidence is that Gov. Schwarzenegger has given as a possible reason for vetoing the gay marriage bill before him the fact that a similar issue is already before the courts, and the fact that two conservative publications and one Utah politician have not denounced Schwarzenegger yet.
As to Schwarzenegger, your cry of hypocrisy only makes sense if
(1) Schwarzenegger is a conservative. But in the area we’re talking about–social conservatism–Governor Schwarzenegger is center/center-left. He favors abortion, etc. Certainly movement conservatives don’t claim him.
(2) Schwarzenegger has come out against courts deciding social policy. Possibly he has, I don’t know.
As to the conservative publications, and Utah’s AG, your cry of hypocrisy only makes sense if
(1) you think they should have a near-instantaneous response time. Which is absurd. Personally, I predict that some conservatives will denounce Ahnold for shoving responsibility on the issue off the courts instead of taking a stand himself.
(2) Opposition to courts usurping the functions of other branches of government is tantamount to expressing approval of anything any democratic process might accomplish. Which is absurd.
(3) Opposition to the courts usurping the functions of other branches of government is tantamount to expressing approval of anything any legislature might accomplish. Which is also absurd.
(4) its impossible to be against both courts usurping their functions and to be against gay marriage, and therefore hypocritical to raise more of a ruckus when both principles are being gored instead of just one. This is also absurd.
(5) courts upholding bans on gay marriage are just as activist as courts imposing gay marriage. I think this is wrong, for reasons we’ve discussed ad nauseam.
In short, yes, instead of directly attacking the church’s position you once again are making specious attempts to discredit the people and groups associated with it.
John Fowles,
Unknown isn’t worth the effort, valiant as your effort has been.
Elisabeth: I live in a Southern state. I’m not so convinced that you couldn’t get to that 60% number today in some counties around here. And I can promise that if religious liberties were up for a vote the faith that brings us altogether would be voted out of all but a few Western states.
Sheesh, we can’t even get our legislatures to go metric like the rest of the world. Do we really want to allow our civil rights to ebb and flow at the whim of the mob?
So you think the courts should require us to go metric? Anything at all that you think should be outside the competence of our robed masters?
Isn’t this story a bit more complex? I am from Texas so I don’t know the whole story but I thought that there was a proposition in California banning gay marriage that passed. Does this supercede that? I say let the people decide and let God be the judge.
Oh Adam, you’re so predictable.
My analogy was that even on morally-neutral issues like going metric we can’t get legislatures to move. Do you really think that they’re suddenly going to be enlightened on civil rights for groups that aren’t necessarily well-liked?
re # 16: that’s why we have a republican form of government, and not a democracy. See e.g. Federalist 39.
Indicting the legislature for not passing the metric system only makes sense if you think it isn’t morally neutral.
More to the point, your answer presumes that what are civil rights and what are instead morally neutral questions is obvious and compelling, enough so that judges will be able to discern them, but somehow not so obvious that legislatures and the population at large will. Permit me to be skeptical.
Mobs know how to fill legislatures too.
You’re pretty familiar, Chad Too. Do I know you?
I am only playing with you guys. I agree that social policy should not be decided by the courts. But, as Elisabeth has stated, the courts must also decide when the will of the majority represents a tyrannical situation that denies the minority their basic rights. You can hardly expect any legislative body to enact an objective moral law. It is against their nature. They wil gravitate to the will of those who will ensure their continued power (whether corporate, religious, or secular interests).
There are too many examples of this throughout the world to attempt to deny it (i.e. the Saudi royal family and the Wahhabis). The problem comes in when the majority of the people begin to choose self-interest over national or societal interests. There is no easy way out of that hole without the some type of minority dictating moral behavior. I am sure the clerics in Iran feel they are keeping the country from falling into moral decay by subverting the democratic will of the legions of their westernized youth. The same goes with the Chinese government.
Please let me make it clear that I never even gave thought to the church in all my postings. And in no way was I attacking its positions (directly or indirectly). Adam, you were making an assumption that this discussion was about the church’s desire on this issue. I was just having a general discussion about the hijacking of the political process and how it can be hypocritical to claim the will of the people is being served when representative government is all about serving the will of those with the power and money.
Jeez! And you would think that I would be the uptight one given that I am the gay one stuck living the law of chastity for the rest of my second estate.
Here’s the statement by Gov. Schwarzenegger’s spokeswoman.
“The people spoke when they passed Proposition 22. The issue subsequently went to the courts. The governor believes the courts are the correct venue for this decision to be made. He will uphold whatever decision the court renders. “
See also, perhaps even more apposite to this issue, Federalist 63:
owever, that you were only being facetious, Unknown.
Adam, I’ve said nothing of judges at this point. I’ve only held that holding that putting all faith in a legislature when making decisions regarding civil rights is a risky and dangerous proposition– one I’m not convinced you’d support if it were your religious rights on the table.
Your position seems to presume enlightenment on the part of the legislative branch that I’m not willing to grant so quickly. I’m not going to argue that judges have all the answers either, but the safeguards the founders put in place (including an independent judiciary) help make sure that mobocracy (whether direct or through a majority of elected representatives) doesn’t become the de-facto form of government.
John: To claim that The People ™ have no recourse against judicial rulings they don’t like overlooks the Constitutional Amendment process. Difficult, sure, but it can (and has) been done.
I doubt we’ve met, Adam. I think I’m more-than-a-few years older than you so I doubt we’d have run into each other at BYU or something.
But if you wear the vest to the next bloggersnacker I’m sure I’ll recognize you and I’ll introduce myself if I can make it. ;-)
I don’t presume enlightenment on the part of anybody. But, like the Book of Mormon, I presume that the great mass of the people are more likely to be right on great moral questions than elite bodies, and that when they aren’t the country is messed up anyway.
I like the safeguards the founders put in place. I think the courts have slipped them.
I look forward to meeting you too, so we can be familiar without it being uncomfortable or condescending.
You know, none of this gay marriage stuff would even have come up if we kept marriage as it was originally intended; a social contract between a man and a woman to procreate and raise children in a stable environment. Nothing more and nothing less. BUT NOOOOO! We had to introduce romance and completeness and soul mate stuff into it, didn’t we? And then that led to divorce and sexual liberties and personal fulfillment! And once we did that then we redefined marriage as a personal right and not a societal and religious obligation. So we can’t just exclude certain people from romance without being discriminatory, can we?
Get it through your heads, people. There is no perfect partner from the pre-existence. Marriage is not meant to complete you. It is a practical and pragmatic institution meant to support those coming down from their first estate.
Adam, I have a question for you. If the majority of people do not want a law banning divorce, does that mean they are making a moral decision or a societal decision? If divorce is a moral issue, then why are we not having judges impose their will on the people and refuse to issue divorces? I bet almost every judge will agree that divorce is a horrible, horrible thing and that it undermines marriage. If they could, I am sure they would all agree that it should be banned (especially when children are involved). If a husband is abusive, he should be sent to counseling to get him to change his behavior rather than destroy a valuable insititution that has existed for millenia.
But the will of the people have spoken through their representatives and they have decided that they will choose the immoral option of divorce. How should we correct that as Latter-Day Saints?
re # 27: Interesting. Usually it is the opponents of the judicial tyranny of bench legislation in the creation of social policy, e.g. Scalia, who resort to the admonition that the appropriate procedure for the creation of new rights is constitutional amendment rather than the judicial invention of such rights in untextual penumbra. But you are saying that it should be fine for judges to create new rights because if the people don’t like that, they can amend the Constitution to eliminate any such new judicially created right. This view is certainly post-modern and “nuanced” but it doesn’t fit with the constitutional defaults that our founding document puts in place. Rather, it puts such defaults squarely on their head and turns the constitutional order around to a tyranny of unaccountable judges subject only to the constitutional abridgment of their supposedly enlightened but in practice highly paternalistic proclamations.
Get it through your heads, people. There is no perfect partner from the pre-existence. Marriage is not meant to complete you. It is a practical and pragmatic institution meant to support those coming down from their first estate.
Unkown, this is very interesting. I am inclined to believe this. I also think that marriage, and even sex, is primarily for the specific purpose of procreation, and not “fulfillment.” The latter can be a secondary and beneficial side-effect of a marriage done right, including an appropriate sex-life that does not debase the dignity of the human being in any way.
But, actually, marriage is meant to “complete” you in the sense of helping you attain perfection (=completion) in the celestial kingdom after the Atonement has been applied to grant forgiveness of sin that has been properly repented of.
“Get it through your heads, people. There is no perfect partner from the pre-existence. Marriage is not meant to complete you. It is a practical and pragmatic institution meant to support those coming down from their first estate.”
Amen, amen, amen.
“I bet almost every judge will agree that divorce is a horrible, horrible thing and that it undermines marriage. If they could, I am sure they would all agree that it should be banned (especially when children are involved).”
I’ll take that bet. :)
But even if you were right, the appropriate response in our system would not be for judges to outlaw no-fault divorce. We just have to try and educate the citizenry.
John, please don’t read into it more than I intended. I merely said that it’s not completely closed-ended; the people have an alternative via the combination of their federal and local legislatures is an alternative.
Amendment is also a two-way street. Not all judicial rulings are liberal. Amendment can add rights where it was ruled none exist, but it can also take away rights where it was ruled they exist.
Oh dear, I didn’t mean to come off as condescending (oh, whoops, on second read I suppose the “predictable” comment would be taken that way, sorry). I would be happy to shake your hand someday, Adam.
“But even if you were right, the appropriate response in our system would not be for judges to outlaw no-fault divorce. We just have to try and educate the citizenry.”
Adam, you are avoiding the question. Should we not be spending our time and resources to pass consititutional amendments banning divorce?
There only are 14 words in California’s Proposition 22, which were added to the Family Code. Here’s what was offered to the voters:
—
Text of Proposition 22
This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the provisions of Article II, Section 8, of the California Constitution.
This initiative measure adds a section to the Family Code; therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are printed in italic type to indicate that they are new.
PROPOSED LAW
SECTION 1. This act may be cited as the “California Defense of Marriage Act.”
SECTION 2. Section 308.5 is added to the Family Code, to read:
308.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
(Source: http://primary2000.ss.ca.gov/VoterGuide/Propositions/22text.htm)
—
I haven’t seen anyone here propose that the Church’s position is other than what’s stated in Prop. 22. My understanding of the Church’s position on marriage, and on activism to support it, come from the Proclamation on families. It has many useful points in between, however the Proclamation’s first sentence and last two sentences are:
“We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children. […] we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets. 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.”
That’s a call to activism.
non-partisan political activism is different from judicial activism
Chad,
We could also impeach the judges. But this possibility does not make it okay for judges to do as they wish, crying “impeach me f you don’t like it!” any more than the amendment process obviates the need for judicial restraint.
Kaimi,
This issue brings to mind Schwarzeneggar’s battle to get rid of the massively distorted legislative districts that render California’s Assembly largely unaccountable. Perhaps if the legislature thwarts the voters often and loudly enough, Californians will get rid of the gerrymandered districts. And so we’d have a happy, democratic outcome to the whole deal. Certainly though, and without a doubt, I prefer this stuff to come from a legislature that must go before the voters on a regular basis, rather than a judiciary that needn’t.
And welcome to the world of goofball Californian politics. May your stay be as entertaining as mine was!
A note: My understanding is that under the California state constitution, the legislature lacks the authority to repeal or modify a law adopted by a ballot proposition. In California Prop 22 purported to deal with the issue of gay marriage and its meaning is now being litigated in the courts. The state legislature is attempting to intervene in this process. If I am correctly informed about California constitutional law — by no means a foregone conclusion — then legally speaking the Governator’s position is much more complicated that Kaimi’s gotcha post implies. Of course, Kaimi is a California law professor, so it may be that my understanding of California constitutional law is wrong…
For the record, Goodrich was an awful decision. The notion that traditional marriage lacks a rational basis — and this was the actual ground of the Goodrich decision — is absurd.
See. The proclamation doesn’t preclude us from expending our energy on the ravages of divorce and personal fulfillment. We should be spending our precious resources on banning divorce which impact milions of unprotected children instead of the few thousand gays and lesbians wanting acknowledgment of thier romantic relationship.
“Should we not be spending our time and resources to pass consititutional amendments banning divorce?”
I think that is a bad idea under current circumstances. Laws and amendments will only work once people have been persuaded. Persuasion is going to have to be local and incremental.
I happen to think the issues are related, Unknown, and that what the public learns on the latter can be turned to good account when trying to work on the former. Besides, its much easier to halt a bad idea than it is to reverse it.
Frank,
Again, I’m not passing judgment on the “goodness” or “badness” here, just saying that for John to claim the people have no recourse against a judiciary they view as out of control is inaccurate.
Not to threadjack, but I’d love to see Eldred v. Ashcroft and the recent Kelo decision reversed by amendment, but I don’t think my little voice is loud enough to make that happen.
Adam, with all due respect, I feel that your response is a cop-out. If we totally rely upon persuasion then we will never improve society without a major destructive event resulting in a return to God. It is very difficult to persuade people to give up their self interests. The BoM is clear that the downward spiral in the last dispensation is unavoidable unless we repent and return to the Lord. So if we have few resources to use, wouldn’t we want to apply them to make the most dramatic impact for good?
Its either persuasion or insurrection, Unknown, as long as we have a republic but not a majority. I prefer persuasion.
You are correct that we should apply our few resources to “make the most dramatic impact for good.” This means being politically savvy and understanding what’s possible and what isn’t. A constitutional amendment on divorce is not possible. Dead on arrival. Dead before arrival. if the public got wind of such a thing it would instantly kill the chances for any changes at the state level–guilt by association.
There are just no easy answers in the last days. Everything is going down the toilet. I really believe we need to move to Alaska or the Yukon territories or the Australian Outback or something and start again.
Or Space! (Note: I’m serious.)
It is 6:12 pm and I am leaving work to go home to my empty, celibate house. It has been a blast you guys. Later.
What ever happened to natural right? I think republicanism is the greatest form of government. However, it only works if the representatives are grounded by “virtue”. Even leaving God and the Church aside, can’t one see that so called “gay marriage” is against nature? I have no problem with gay people living their life styles – however, I do think the life style is not in harmony with nature. This disharmony restricts goodness and is indicative of a declining society. Thus, to have a good society, its representatives must understand goodness. Virtually ALL politicians couldn’t care less about what is naturally right – they’re only concerned about themselves (hence the last minute “trick” by the gay Ca. legislator to tack his agenda on as an amendment to an environmental bill). Therefore, republicanism can never really work well even though it is a good structure and ideal.
Wade–careful with the arguments about “natural” behavior. After all, many would argue that there is nothing natural about life-long monogamy.
Costanza – so make the argument…?
Why don’t y’all define what you mean by nature, first? Costanza sounds like she’s talking biology and Wade Poulson sounds like he’s using a more classical conception.
Eugene Volokh agrees with Nate Oman–
http://www.volokh.com/posts/1126136423.shtml
–apparently, under the California constitution, regular initiatives are inferior to the California constitution but superior to legislative enactments. So it appears the CA legislature is acting badly after all. I have to apologize to the Gov. I thought he was just trying to shirk responsibility, but I guess not.
Adam –
Indeed I was referring to the classical definition of “nature” as defined by the likes of Leo Strauss. However, unless one ascribes to a view of biology that humans are mere animals and have no powers of intellect beyond the animal, I don’t necessarily see a difference between the classical definition and a biological definition. Furthermore, I don’t see the difficulty in something other than “life-long monogamy” – but that term should also be defined.
[Deleted at Commenter’s Request — the kindly editors]
Help! Could someone please erase that comment I just made! Sorry.
“Should we not be spending our time and resources to pass consititutional amendments banning divorce?”
Adam – yes, that is the next step – banning divorce, banning property rights to those that are not Evangelical Christians, Christian Jihad/Blood Atonement, and Christian Sharia are also the next steps. Yes, divorce is in this very mixture should Christian Reconstructionists continue to gain control in the political system.
Everytime we support a far right candidate, we are supporting their goal of growth to a Christian State (a theocracy in America) where only the moral majority would rule. BTW, LDS, are not in that majority and are considered a cult – therefore, we would be wiped from the country. Under their law of obtaining Zion on earth, only Born-Again Christians would be eligible to live in Zion. Zion would be policed by a morality squad assuring that everyone was “pure”. Zion would be a state where “men of the cloth” would lead over all others, rather than Christ and the Gospel. Um…where’s the agency in all of that.
We need to be careful what we are REALLY going to fight for. True the gay/marriage thing is a moral issue, but in supporting it (and other issues) we are supporting a contingency of people that would ultimately take away our liberty and agency.
Anon –
Some of your statements are irrational! It is absurd to think that supporting marriage between opposite sexes will eventually lead to the loss of our liberty and agency. You miss the major point of those opposed to granting so called “same sex couples” state sponsered marriages. There is a huge difference between tolerance of the homosexual lifestyle and official state sanction of it. Furthermore, don’t we already have a “morality squad” – called police officers? If we’re going to sanction gay marriage why not the use of drugs. After all, drugs are only used by “consenting adults” and prohibition of their use limits our “liberty” and “agency”. Also, zoning laws which keep porn shops away from residential neighborhoods are part of the existing “morality squad’s” agenda – why not allow the shops to be where ever they want to be. After all, restrictions on sexual expression and liberty only limit our “agency” and only “born again christians” don’t like it anyway (ad nauseam).
Again, the problem is not seeing the reality – natural right no longer exists in the public at large. It is patent hyperbole to suggest maintaining the status quo of marriage between opposite sexes will eventually lead to the loss of our liberty!
In some ways, the creation of no-fault divorce was the first huge hole in the dike (no reference to New Orleans intended), but when couples jointly pre-arranged the hotel room, the female friend and the private eye to take pictures, I’m not sure how that could have been dealt with. But beyond that, the quickie marriages and divorces in places like Nevada seem to be even more corrosive to marriage than the gays attempting to get married. I think in Nevada (someone with more knowledge than I should comment) that it is possible to in 48 hours, meet someone, marry them and divorce them.
I’ve got a neighbor who has buried two wives (after a total of 50 some years of marriage), has had prostate cancer (and so can’t have relations) and who has become romantically involved with one of the women who was a caregiver for his second wife in her last days. She has kids, I’m not sure if she is widowed or divorced. Even if they joined the church and got married, I’m not sure he would be interested in getting sealed to the person he is involved with today *and* would be hard pressed to decided which of his former wives to be sealed to…
Randy
“Adam – yes, that is the next step – banning divorce, banning property rights to those that are not Evangelical Christians, Christian Jihad/Blood Atonement, and Christian Sharia are also the next steps. Yes, divorce is in this very mixture should Christian Reconstructionists continue to gain control in the political system.”
This is nonsense, of course. Like refusing to name your child Charles because there’s a website dedicated to restoring the Stuarts.
In response to #61:
Admittedly, I am still up in the air about SSM. While I see it as immoral, I think changing the constitution to support my moral and religious view is using a club to swat at flies. That being said, the point used to compare it to drug legalization is of interest to me. I don’t want to hijack this thread, but I have yet to find anything on the blog that discusses the legalization of drugs. To me, the criminalization of drug use goes right to the heart of the government’s abuse of personal liberties. I’ve not yet seen anyone post an opinion that we should try to keep homosexuals from engaging in relations, only that SSM should not be allowed. I don’t believe that the government should be expected to support a drug user, but I believe I should be able to take what ever I please into my own body. And should I break laws while under the influence, I should pay the consequence.
Again, not to highjack this thread, but if there are any prior discussions of drug legalization and the intelligent thoughts of so many on this blog who have discussed it, please point me in that direction.
Jared
I think in Nevada (someone with more knowledge than I should comment) that it is possible to in 48 hours, meet someone, marry them and divorce them.
I’ve heard of BYU students going to Nevada and doing just that so they can have sex “legitimately,” at least for a weekend. That may just be urban legend, however.
Anyway, back to the topic: In defense of Arnold, I don’t think he was saying that, in general, the courts should decide the issue of gay marriage. I think he was saying that the courts should decide the status of Prop 22 before the Legislature starts invalidating what the people have voted for. It’s not an unreasonable position. He has been quoted before as saying he doesn’t care one way or the other about SSM as long as gays have their rights protected, so his decision in this instance was probably consistent with that (and also the politically safer thing to do).
I think in Nevada (someone with more knowledge than I should comment) that it is possible to in 48 hours, meet someone, marry them and divorce them.
I’ve heard of BYU students going to Nevada and doing just that so they can have sex “legitimately,” at least for a weekend. That may just be urban legend, however.
Anyway, back to the topic: In defense of Arnold, I don’t think he was saying that, in general, the courts should decide the issue of gay marriage. I think he was saying that the courts should decide the status of Prop 22 before the Legislature starts invalidating what the people have voted for. It’s not an unreasonable position. He has been quoted before as saying he doesn’t care one way or the other about SSM as long as gays have their rights protected, so his decision in this instance was probably consistent with that (and also the politically safer thing to do).
“I’ve not yet seen anyone post an opinion that we should try to keep homosexuals from engaging in relations, only that SSM should not be allowed.”
Jared,
Before we even go there, any discussion of limiting personal liberties for the greater benefit of society needs to address the number 1 and number 2 problems. Namely, adultery amongst married individuals and fornication amongst single people. These two items totally dwarf (by a factor of thousands and thousands) fornication between gays and lesbians or drug use by individuals.
I really do have to laugh on the predictability of these discussions. The party of the last days has begun and those in the great and spacious building are OK allowing in the adulterers, the fornicators, and the alcohol drinkers. But we don’t want to allow in the gays, lesbians, tobacco smokers, pot smokers and hard drug users. The veneer of respectability can be maintained with the first three classes of people but it disenegrates with the last five classes.
So you say: “But we cannot win the battle against adultery, teenage fornication and alcohol drinking. We tried all that and it did not work. We will lose credibility if we use our resources fighting against those things. People will just laugh at us.”
So you say: “We need to work hard in keeping the fringe people from enjoying the party. It makes us feel good to keep them out. Besides, I was really justified in my divorce. The spirit confirmed to me that it was the right thing to do. And my teenage daughter was preyed upon by that young man. She would not have become pregnant if he did not take advantage of her.”
Can’t you see how hypocritical this all appears? How can any of us stand before the judgement bar of Christ and really think that these arguments will work?
I try to concentrate on perfecting myself and my family and leave others to exercise their agency as they desire. I support that which is good through patronage and verbal praising.
You just have no practical sense. It will always be easier to defend moral codes that are already respected in law and condemned by society.
In WWII, your voice in council would be saying, ‘Why are we bombing submarines in the Atlantic? Hitler’s in Germany. Why are we invading North Africa? Hitler’s in Germany. Why are we invading Italy? Hitler’s in Germany. Why are we invading France? Hitler’s in Germany.
I have strongly advocated making the law take adultery seriously again, and will continue to do so. I will also continue to advocate against gay ‘marriage.’
Kaimi’s post articulated my initial reaction to the Governator’s statement as well. It sounded absurd, especially for a Republican (even if one that is generally more liberal on social issues). But then I realized, whether conservative or liberal, I don’t think anyone argues that determining whether gays should be allowed to marry lies *exclusively* with the courts rather than the legislature. So, Schwartz’ comments must have meant something different – i.e., that the courts will have to decide whether the legislative enactment has legal effect.
I think Adam unfairly characterized Kaimi as attacking all those who oppose the position of the church regarding gay marriage. What Kaimi should be called out for is blindly attacking as hypocrits those who think courts should not decide the gay marriage issue itself.
My dear, dear Adam,
It has nothing to do with practicality. It has to deal with credibility. The arguments you use against same sex marriage, against gay relations, against drug use are the exact same arguments that would apply against adultery, fornication, divorce, and alcohol use. So those people that are gay or enjoy drugs (within the boundaries of their own houses, of course) see you as being hypocritical because the same standards are not being applied to the larger issues. You cannot target the message without losing credibility amongst those you want to keep from the party. AND you cannot tackle the whole situation together without losing credibility because society has already accepted adultery, fornication, divorce and alcohol use as acceptable phases in life.
My point is that in the first situation you are merely appearing as a hypocritical discriminating bigot and in the second situation you are appearing as a lunatic throwback to a Victorian repressed era.
And your analogy to WWII does not work. By attacking the subs in the Atlantic and by invading Italy, and by invading France and by fighting in the Pacific and by bombing Japan, we were attacking the WHOLE situation at one time (give or take some timing discrepancies). By attacking the whole situation, we eventually succeeded in defeating the evil.
Allocate the resources to the greatest evil (adultery, fornication and divorce) and then the argument against all the more minor items (alcohol, drugs, same sex marriage, teenage pregnancy) will fall apart. No one will be able to say “But everyone is doing it, so why can’t I?”.
Spoken with much love.
I think that Kaimi should also be called out for labeling as hypocrits those who are acting in a significantly more complicated legal context than he suggests. This isn’t a case of the governor saying “Gay marriage should be decided by the Courts.” It is a case of a governor saying, “An issue of interpretation that has been explicitly removed from the competency of the state legislature by the state constitution ought to be decided by the courts.” It seems like a gotcha game pure and simple.
Unknown #67:
I do not profess to be wise nor perfect. However, I do think that if one knows of something that will only drag society further into disharmony and away from goodness, one should be an advocate against state sponsership of it. As proof of the fact that homosexuality is out of harmony with goodness I defer to the Apostle Paul in Romans 1:26-28 as follows:
“God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient.”
Again, I have no problem with what consenting people want to do in the privacy of their own homes, but it is an entirely different matter when they seek to push their unnaturalness upon others through the state.
I also find it interesting that you place yourself in the great and spacious building.
Lastly, your use of the word “hypocritical” is unfortunately incorrect (however the word is virtually missused in every case now days). To be a hypocrite, one must advocate something which he does not believe. Thus, it is not hypocritical to be a realist, i.e. advocate against state sponsered ssm while realizing one cannot prevent others from fornicating or committing adultery. Indeed, the only way I could be a hypocrite in this case is if I were to advocate for SSM while believing it is unnatural and not in harmony with goodness. Thus, the very reason I advocate against gay marriage is because I am NOT hypocritical.
Once again, I think Adam is right here as well.
Unknown:
Please take note. You’re use of the word hypocrite makes no sense and is incorrect!!
Christian Reconstructionists continue to gain control in the political system.�
This is nonsense…
Nonsense? Don’t dismiss it – we need YOU (speaking generally to those that can understand this issue) here to start looking at these issues.
Please start to research the Christian Reconstructionist agenda and political platforms and how Mormonism does not fit into their scheme. You have a great forum and opportunity here to further your talents. Start monitoring they way they will pull apart Romney. Visit a Christian book store and ask for info – the bring back of the Blood Atonement for non-Christians (oh, including LDS). While you look at the pretty prayer shawls, try to imagine the women of your ward enveloped or head covered with them as they are in prayer. Look around outside of Utah, and see if this emerges as a fashion statement. Ponder what America would be like as a theocratic state (remember the Taliban). A state like Utah may not need to legalize when children may be left home alone – where as another state with more of a problem with this may have to place a law on the books. We don’t need a federal government making laws over people that live in states that overwhelmingly naturally/spiritually do not need common sense laws.
Pull out those Articles of Faith, the LDS definition of liberty and citizenship. Then find out how the far right REALLY places Mormons as Christians. Let’s continue to talk about marriage. If you’ve been married in the temple, you are in a marriage that is not recognized by many members of the right wing. Marriages in their view need to be sanctioned by God – their God. What happens if someday, there is a federal law over marriage, and another one over that, and we find we need to go to their version of a JP in order to recieve state recognition. It seems far off – but it’s being looked at by them and should be counter looked at by us.
Already, there is an organization that recognizes only marriages done by certain Church leaders. Not married under their definitions? You may not get legal representation from this group. Not a problem? Think again, they are the largest lobbying group for the freedom you are currently exercising.
Read the writings of Gary North, the late RJ Rushdoony and his Chalcedon Foundation; Pat Robertson; Falwell; check out the teachings at Bob Jones University or Patrick Henry College and find out where their interns are placed; follow some theocracy watch sites/blogs. Really study why the Republicans and Evangelicals raise money to support the return of the Jewish diaspora to Israel (the end of the world cannot happen without it); examine why they are lax on environmental issues (the end of the world can’t happen until the “literal” last tree is felled). Listen to Christian Radio – really listen to it – don’t just agree with the message because it is in harmony with our doctrine (the surface will be in harmony – they can’t offend too many while they are gaining support – gotta bring in the religious masses with something they can agree on).
Their media is a way to rally people together under the common bond – the Bible. It’s easy to listen to – but when you realize that you have no place in their final plan – well, you begin to go deeper about how we can approach the issues in ways that preserve our religion. YOu do not see our leaders supporting Judicial Sunday I and II – or really even commenting on it. The underlying message is too delicate as we try to find common bridges.
Basically, while you study, keep in mind that what you read is similar to our beliefs – BUT, in the end, because we are not a part of THEIR group, we will not have any part in the American political process should it continue to go/grow their way.
President Hinckley had us read the Nicene Creed. Many of us came away thinking there were only a few picky points. But how about this: Many readers taking this challenge found some harmony with our Catholic brothers and sisters – another faith that is in that hazy Christian/Not Christian group with the Evangelical crowd. Are we being prepared to find our allies? We cannot answer – but we can remember our commonalities and realize our differences aren’t so great.
When you are done with your research – I want to see you and others here begin a discourse and your own “watch” of these issues and how they will or could ultimately affect those following LDS doctrine.
Wade,
I don’t know if you planned it or not but your post #72 is making my point exactly as outlined in #67. In quoting Paul, you need to also quote our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ who states the following in Matthew 19:
“The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.”
Wade, the Lord did not mince words. Unless you got divorced because your spouse committed adultery and did not repent, then ANY other divorce means you have broken the sacred covenant of marriage. You cannot get re-married without committing adultery and, if you do get re-married, you have made a mockery of a sacred institution. The church must not recognize such second marriages and you should be tried for adultery if you do re-marry. There is no wiggle room or justification in these words and they come directly from the Savior himself.
How much time do you spend defending this position? I would wager that you don’t even fully believe this position to be true. Therefore, your credibility is shot and you are just an example of a hypocritical homophobic man. (Note: I have chosen to use the current and not the classical definition of the word hypocritical.)
As with my comments to Adam, I speak in love.
The Church promotes gay marriage. The dictionary gives the word’s meaning as bright and pleasant; promoting a feeling of cheer or full of or showing high-spirited merriment. Surely, David and Emma Ray had a gay marriage.
I don’t accept the hijacking of this word as a euphemism for homosexual, which would mean that heterosexual people are not bright and pleasant nor high-spirited. Sometimes I respond to this misuse by converting “happy” into a euphemism for heterosexual: “Is he gay? No, he’s happy.” However, this isn’t finding much traction.
There are towns named Gay in Ga, Mi, and WV. And schools with *Indian* mascots feel they have trouble…
Unknown,
You’re still missing the point – just because you don’t actively fight against adultery because it is not up for legislative, judicial, or executive debate at the moment does NOT make you a “hypocrite”. Your use of pejoratives such as “homophobic” and “bigot” indicate you are incorrectly using the word “hypocrite” for the same reason. There is no such thing as a “current” use of the word, only an incorrect and ignorant use of it.
The FACT is, I am not a hypocrite – I am merely fighting the battle to be won at this time. If adultery were up for debate I would be advocating against it as well because indeed I do ascribe to the Lord’s definition and think adultery is a major force contributing to the decay of our society. This post was directed toward SSM NOT adultery.
Again, you miss the point, SSM and homosexuality is not in harmony with goodness and therefore should not be sanctioned by governement. Do you honestly believe the Lord would think SSM is okay just because adultery is rampant? That’s silly.
I do here declare I am a “homophobe” – because I fear what the homosexual agenda will do to further the slouch toward Gomorrah in our society. Thus, your pejorative use of the term has no effect.
Comment #72:
The salutation is insultingly familiar.
The next two paragraphs suggest no meaning to my mind. Perhaps you are saying that all moral issues require the exact same legal approach. If so, you are wrong.
The two paragraphs after that demonstrate that you have no grasp of political realities. Trying to outlaw fornication would lead not to the end of all immorality but to the end of any credibility for people who favor morality.
The last paragraph is welcome.
I also think Kaimi should make some acknowledgement that he was wrong.
Re the ever courageous Anonymous and his Christian Reconstructionism:
He calls on us to consider a number of groups and the sorts of things they say. From the description, it sounds very much like he hasn’t done that himself, but has instead been paying too much attention to what a bunch of left-wing kooks have to say about a bunch of right-wing kooks.
There are two basic errors here. The first is alarmism–to think that extreme statements mean that folks will certainly take extreme actions, that large political groupings share the opinions of their extreme elements, and that political groupings, when in power, will pursue their maximal aims unchecked. None of these, especially the latter two, is correct.
The second error is purism. Its thinking that one’s allies must share one’s ultimate goals or else they are really enemies.
Adam,
There has been no showing that I was or am wrong on this issue.
Nate,
The issue is only somewhat more complicated than the basic sketch (appropriate for a blog post) would suggest. It’s possible to make the argument that the legislature shouldn’t have been allowed to pass the bill in the first place.
However, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that argument is subject to a very strong counter. As noted by Andrew Sullivan:
As noted by my Prawfsblawg co-blogger Hillel Levin, (1) Prop. 22 is very general and ambiguous, and says nothing at all about future legislative acts by local legislators, and (2) given the fact that Prop. 22 amends the portion of the statute dealing with out-of-state marriages, it is by no means established that Prop. 22 voters believed that they were, in addition, preventing their own legislature from passing a future statute legalizing gay marriage.
Oh, and Prop. 22 was overturned by a court.
So I’m “wrong” because a proposition which has been invalidated as unconstitutional, and which affects a different portion of the statute, should be viewed as apparently emanating some penumbra that prevents the California legislature from having authority to amend section 300.
Somehow, I find that argument less than convincing.
(1) The court ruling is on appeal.
(2) What the public thought they were doing was passing a law that said “Marriage in California shall be between a man and a woman.”
(3) It doesn’t matter whether you can gin up an argument that the California bill isn’t unconstitutional after all. What matters is whether Schwarzenegger and conservatives could reasonably think that it is, which undermines the whole point of your gotcha.
I have to admit right off that I think the legal battle against same-sex marriage after Lawrence v. Texas is a foregone conclusion, leading inexorably to the validation of marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples. If I could predict the future, I think the U.S. Supreme Court will first allow each state to choose whether or not to recognize same-sex marriage. Then, perhaps a few decades later, the Court will realize that a patchwork system of marriage rights is untenable, and will interpret the U.S. Constitution to guarantee marriage rights to same-sex couples.
If the battle against same-sex marriage is to be won, in whatever form, I think opponents of same-sex marriage need to develop a coherent, consistent argument against extending marriage rights to gays and lesbians – something more than arguments based on fear of the homosexual “agenda” or based on assumptions that gays cannot maintain a stable family structure or raise well-adjusted children.
Nate mentioned in an earlier comment that the Goodridge court based its interpretation of the Massachusetts Constitution as recognizing the right of same-sex couples to marry by declaring traditional marriage has no rational basis. On the contrary, the Goodridge court took great care in its opinion to describe the importance of marriage in our society. The court ruled that there was no rational basis on which to discriminate against same sex couples, denying them the joys and benefits of marriage with a loving partner.
When members of our society face discrimination from our government, religious and moral arguments alone rarely persuade courts to sanction this discrimination. Let’s focus on the legal arguments against same-sex marriage (and not merely on whether the people, the courts, or the legislature should decide this issue), instead of on the fear and apprehension many opponents of same-sex marriage share towards homosexuals. Otherwise the battle is lost.
Kaimi: First, if you were to read Prop. 22 as forbidding recognition of out of state SSM while permitting the legislature to allow in-state SSM, then you would run into a major constitutional question under the Privileges and Immmunities Clause, as such a regime would seem to amount to discrimination against out of state move-ins. Given that such a constitutional difficulty arises, under Ashwander, one ought to interpret the ambigious language of Prop 22 (and I do not conceed that it is ambigious) so as to avoid the difficulty, namely as covering both domestic and foreign marriages. Second, as I recall Prop. 22 has been declared unconstitutional by a state trial court which, unless California has a different system than the rest of the common law world (by no means a foregone conclusion) has exactly zero stare discisis effect. (Although, I can’t claim to have been following this closely. Has an appellate court issued a ruling in the case?)
In short, I still think you are wrong ;->…
Kaimi, I strongly disagree with Andrew Sullivan’s statement that the debate at the time centered entirely around the question of out-of-state marriages. There is no doubt that the concrete prospects of other states enacting laws legalizing gay marriage led to the initiative, and perhaps its placement in California’s code should limit its effectiveness. But the debate among the voters was not so limited. The broad question voters thought they were answering was whether California was going to define marriage as between a man and a woman. Period. I don’t think anyone would have anticipated that the proposition would allow the California legislature to recognize marriages between same sex couples if performed in their own state, but would also limit California’s ability to recognize similar out-of-state marriages. That would have sounded as absurd at the time as it sounds now.
Elisabeth: When I reference “traditional marriage” in reference to Goodrich, I meant the exclusion of homosexual unions. It was this exclusion that the Goodrich court says lacked a rational basis. This conclusion is absurd because rational basis is a legal term of art. It doesn’t mean a good or compelling argument, it means ANY argument at all. For example, a law forbidding behavior X in order to stamp out problem Y has a rational basis even though it both leaves most of Y un-addressed and stamps out many an A, B, and C. In other words, wildly over- and under-inclusive laws nevertheless have a rational basis. What is absurd about the Goodrich decision is that the court claimed to be applying this deferential standard of review, when in fact it was applying a strict scrutiny standard. The result is, I think, a fundamentally dishonest piece of jurisprudence. If this was the result that the court wanted, it should have either claimed that marriage was a fundamental right burdened by the exclusion of same-sex couples, or else held that sexual orientation was a suspect classification. Frankly, the first approach has its own problems since it begs the very question at issue in the case, namely the meaning of marriage, and is accordingly circular. The second approach, however, provides an intellectually honest way of reaching the desired results.
The problem of course is that the Supreme Court itself has been cherry-picking rational basis cases since Buckley, Clearburne, and Romer. (And maybe in Lawrence as well, although I don’t really know what level of scrutiny Lawrence purported to apply. The case is an ink-blot to me.) Rot at the top is simply seeping down to the lower courts.
Look, for all I know homosexuality ought to be treated as a suspect classifcation. I think that you can make out a case that homosexuals have been subject to particular persecution in the past. (Although this claim is complicated by the fact that our notion of sexual identity is a fairly recent creation.) However, judges — it seems to me — have an obligation to squarely face the issues presented by the cases they are called upon to decide and honestly state the grounds for their decisions. To do otherwise, corrupts the judiciary and renders the doctrinal structure of the law incoherent, which has real-world costs to the rule of law.
Nate: As you say, rational basis review is not a clearly defined concept empirically speaking. Law professors and legal commentators (and judges) may agree that rational basis review means that any proffered argument passes the smell test, but, as you suggest, judges will co-opt rational basis review to distance themselves from controversial rulings (the Cleburne zoning case, for example.) Similarly, the Goodridge court followed Cleburne and used a “rational basis-plus” argument, although it didn’t credit its own opinion as such (see the Sosman dissent). And, as you rightly point out, this perceived equivocation infuriated many legal scholars.
Switching gears to the equal protection analysis, it’s fairly obvious that laws discriminating against homosexuals warrant heightened scrutiny, and that the SJC failed to contribute to establishing important jurisprudence in this area by choosing to apply rational basis-plus and not equal protection to Goodridge.
Anyway, my main point is that gay marriage opponents need to focus more upon legal principles, and tone down the rhetoric that homosexuals are inferior beings, or are evil and wicked, and that extending marriage rights to homosexuals will signal the destruction of civilization. No court is going to be persuaded by that rhetoric, even if it’s couched in legal terms and argued by skillful litigators.
“Anyway, my main point is that gay marriage opponents need to focus more upon legal principles, and tone down the rhetoric that homosexuals are inferior beings, or are evil and wicked, and that extending marriage rights to homosexuals will signal the destruction of civilization. No court is going to be persuaded by that rhetoric, even if it’s couched in legal terms and argued by skillful litigators.”
Have you seen any evidence that this is the tack litigators are taking? I’m sceptical, but I just don’t know.
Hi, Adam –
Well, the example that comes to mind at the moment is the argument that appeared in the AG’s brief (as well as in some amici), that same sex couples should not be allowed the protections of marriage because they cannot “procreate” as a family. This is a specious argument, since, as women, a lesbian couple has the ability to procreate, and gay couples are allowed to adopt, and they could have biological children from previous marriages.
I think using the procreation argument to prohibit same-sex couples from marrying is misguided, and implies that homosexual couples are inferior to heterosexual couples (many heterosexual couples cannot have or do not want children, and they are allowed to marry regardless of their intentions or abilities to procreate).
I guess I strongly disagree, Elisabeth. It seems to me that procreation (which lesbian couples cannot do) is at the heart of the reasons why gay marriage is objectionable. It seeks to turn marriage primarily into an institution for loving relationships, which I think is a bad idea. Secondarily, I suppose, it seeks to turn marriage is any assemblage of people who want to take mutual responsibility for childrearing. I think this is a bad idea too. As the oldest of 9, I was a third parent growing up, but not a third spouse.
You don’t like legal arguments that suggest differences between married couples and gay couples. But how else is one to proceed? Can one say to the court that they should not impose gay marriage on the grounds that gay couples and married couples are just the same?
Hi, Adam – thanks for your response. I appreciate your tone and your sincere questions.
First, I understand your point about lesbian couples not being able to procreate, but what of the lesbian couple where one of the women supplies the egg and the other woman carries the baby to term? I’d say that was pretty darn close to a couple procreating.
Second, turning marriage primarily into an institution of loving relationships, or an institution for people who want to take mutual responsibility for childrearing, does not necessarily follow from the courts recognizing homosexual marriage.
Who knows why people get married these days?! The courts don’t inquire of heterosexuals whether they are marrying for love, for money, for sex, to please their parents, etc. And the courts don’t usually check in with these heterosexual couples (unless they break a law or want to get divorced) to make sure they are following the general guidelines for how to fulfill their marriage responsibilities (whatever these may be).
Gay couples and heterosexual couples are certainly different. But I’m not sure these differences warrant the government denying same-sex couples the right to marry.
90.
Adam, I know that you don’t mean this how this reads out of the context of the rest of your posting, but “It seeks to turn marriage primarily into an institution for loving relationships, which I think is a bad idea.” would have been a great line for Archie Bunker.
Seems like we LDS internally defeat ourselves in legal debates against homosexual marriages because we look to God for what’s right or wrong, but we don’t use that source in the debate. This leaves us feeling that we’re without a firm foundation and what we have left is susceptible to erosion by the opposition. Accustomed as we are to inspiration followed by shared testimony, we don’t even look natural when we try to cruise along without the tools we believe are to be used to change hearts. We’re further conflicted whenever we say that we don’t want/intend to use religious beliefs or God in the argument because we believe in our hearts that not only do we really want to do just that, but to step in front of the Holy Ghost to offer our own logic is the wrong way to teach moral rightness.
Manaen – I think you’re right, which is why so many people become furious and frustrated with the debate over same-sex marriage. I think the only reason we should discriminate against homosexuals is because God, through our Church leaders, has told us to do so.
I struggle to square this directive, however, with Christ’s beautiful teachings of compassion and love. I also struggle because I have dear friends who are gay, and I’ve seen how discrimination and disgust levied against them tears them apart inside.
Maybe you struggle Elisabeth; but others don’t see any contradiction in showing compassion and love to those that choose to sin; regardless of its form, and refusing to fundamentally alter society by changing the gender of man/husband/father and woman/wife/mother. There is no discrimination involved. Happily, even in California, the majority of the people still know right from wrong. I tremble and fear before the time when this is no longer so. Surely the BoM is instructive in this.
Manaen: I don’t keep the gospel out of it. But I don’t have to use “gospel” talk either. Happily, individual accountability and inflicting costs on others are recognized and legitimate terms of political debate. While others don’t have to believe, absent “scientific” won’t believe it till they see it proof, that homosexual marriage harms families, society & children: there are externalities. Yes, there is a struggle because the existence of these externalities is open to debate; but since God & his Prophet say they exist…I’ll believe and work towards discovering and proving what those externalities are.
“Who knows why people get married these days?! The courts don’t inquire of heterosexuals whether they are marrying for love, for money, for sex, to please their parents, etc”
Which is exactly why the legal contours of the institution define it. Which is why recognizing gay marriage would change what marriage is about.
Frankly, I don’t buy your lesbian couple egg vs. carrier thing at all. If anything, it sounds to me like you’ve already accepted the redefinition of marriage that scares me about gay marriage. Should we recognize the egg donor, the carrier, and the sperm donor as a marriage?
Elisabeth –
How is depriving homosexuals of a state sponsered marriage discriminatory and disgusting? Furthermore, why does depriving them of such a marriage prevent us from showing forth Christ-like love and compassion? Is it similarly “disgusting” for the Church to deprive homosexuals of a Temple Recommend? Based on your reasoning it would seem to be.
A major problem in our society is putting our “feelings” above rational thought! For example (and I don’t mean to start a debate about it), the main argument for abortion concerns the feelings of the mother – Such as “A woman should have the right to end the life of a baby (what those who want the child call the fetus) just because she ‘feels’ like it and instead of giving it up for adoption.” Narcissism is creeping into society in this manner. Proponents’ arguments for SSM are often rooted in it.
Since when should we condone immoral behavior because if we don’t it will offend the actor, i.e. “tear them apart inside”?
Wade,
So what _is_ the value of feelings, anyway? Because we seem to value them pretty highly in our church — we routinely tell people that they need to get baptized because of their feelings. Indeed, the trend that you criticize — “putting our “feelings” above rational thought” — could be viewed as the cornerstone of our missionary program.
Kaimi,
You make a very good point! However, I think we should be very wary of those who base their testimony solely in “feelings”. There is writing from the brethren – particularly from Joseph himself – declaring the foolishness of reliance on feeling alone. Indeed, the Lord has said rational thought must be employed BEFORE he will allow us to have correct “feelings”. He said, “[Y]ou must study it out IN YOUR MIND; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall FEEL that it is right.” (DC 9 – Emphasis added) I have read numerous admonitions from others, including President Kimball, expressly stating that a prominent tool of the adversary is feelings unaccompanied with rational thought.
Furthermore, President McKay has said meditation and rational thought are a prerequisite to revelation. Indeed, virtually all revelatory exeriences recorded in scripture have come about as the RESULT of rational thought. Examples include: the first vision, Nephi’s vision of what Lehi saw, Enos’ forgiveness, official Declarations One and Two, and on and on.
Your point is well taken Kaimi. However, I didn’t mean to portray a belief that feelings have NO place in life, only that rational thought must preceed correct feelings from God and that one should not base beliefs in feelings – only feelings accompanied with thought. Thus, the “correct” feeling toward homosexuals is not that they “deserve” to be married, rather that they deserve to be loved and persuaded to leave their sin. Just as I would not want others to condone MY sins and make them socially acceptable, but rather to love me as a person despite my sin and help me to forsake them! I am a sinner and my sinful nature scares me because I know it leads away from happiness and social goodness just like homosexuality leads away from it and should not be accepted by state sponsored gay marriage.
I am close to a man who is an authority in the Church who never liked it when missionaries would ask, “how do you feel about that” after every principle they would teach. He had some influence regarding allowing missionaries to ask their own questions now instead of the “feelings” questions of the standard six discussions. Thus, your suggestion that feelings are the cornerstone of the missionary program is falacious. The Spirit of Christ is the “Cornerstone” – often referred to as Truth or Intelligence (DC 84:45).
Welcome to TJSL Kaimi and thanks for your insights here!
Wade
Wade,
Perhaps you needed to qualify your statement–putting our ungodly or unrighteous feelings above rational thought (or righteous feelings) is the problem I think you were identifying. I guess Kaimi thought you meant otherwise.
Kaimi,
From a purely secular standpoint, “feelings” might be seen as the cornerstone of the LDS missionary program, its probably something more than that from a believer’s perspective.
93.
Elisabeth,
I agree with what you wrote, but I’d reformulate it some. As you say, the only reason that I’m sure homosexual acts and “marriage” are wrong is because God, through the voices he called and through the Holy Ghost, has told us so. These voices were given to guide us to our purpose, which, incredibly, is to have joy and that in fullness. A key part of this guidance is that the greatest joy is found in eternal heterosexual marriage. Like any of God’s guidance to the greatest joy, any other path eventually leads to less joy.
Eternal marriage of man and woman has vast eternal significance. “’What,’ says one, ‘do you mean we should understand that Deity consists of man and woman?’ Most certainly I do. If I believe anything that God has ever said about himself, and anything pertaining to the creation and organization of man upon the earth, I must believe that Deity consists of man and woman. […] In other words, there can be no God except he is composed of the man and woman united, and there is not in all the eternities that exist, nor ever will be, a God in any other way… There never was a God, and there never will be in all eternities, except they are made of these two component parts; a man and a woman; the male and the female” (Erastus Snow JD 19:269, 270). You discriminate against your friends and deny them the ultimate progression if you deny them the opportunity to accept this.
I do not see this teaching as discriminatory but inclusive because we are inviting our homosexual siblings to join us on the same path to full joy that God offers to everyone else. No one walks this path without changing what blocks their progress on it, including (deliberate use of that word) homosexuals. We aren’t discriminating against others when we invite them to change for other parts of our message like WoW, Sabbath observance, or even having children and we aren’t discriminating against homosexuals in their case. Knowing as we do that this is the true path to full joy, it is less, not more, love to help others to find and to follow it.
Indeed, Jesus and the prophets taught that no one is to be denied the invitation to become like our heavenly parents. “Come unto me, *all* ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” (Matt 11:28) “…and he inviteth them *all* to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth *none* that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile. (2 Ne 26:33)
I share your concerns about compassion, discrimination, and disgust. There is a wide difference between sharing the path to joy with the changes needed to follow it and withholding our love and help to those that don’t follow the part of it that we follow. As I was repenting from disgusting things I did, the compassion and acceptance I received from my priesthood leaders, instead of discrimination and disgust, were important in helping me trust the path and lay down my pride to follow it. I would have failed immediately without their help and super-strength support through the Holy Ghost.
We all are called to help others “We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death. Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him. Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.” (John 3:14-16)
Acceptance and love prepare the repenter’s heart for the Holy Ghost. Substitute homosexual actions, or any other thing to change, for smoking and reverse the activation-conversion comparison and the following words explain how it best works:
“To have the fellowship of the saints while we are working on our problems is a great, great blessing. President Gordon B. Hinckley visited our stake several years ago and dedicated a chapel. He said that an appropriate message might be if there were a large sign outside of the building that said, ‘Smokers Welcome.’
“We have found in our activation efforts that that welcome and acceptance and love is so valuable, and not pressure for them to give up their habits first. When we extend that unqualified welcome and love, we can create an atmosphere where the Holy Ghost can bear witness to their hearts. And herein is the spiritual key to activation. Like missionary work, simple teaching, fellowship, and a humble testimony allowed the Holy Ghost to bear witness and recreate the conversion process.” (C. Terry Graff, Leadership Session, GenCon 4/1985)
I hope you agree that I agree with you. I hope this helps to reconcile your “…struggle to square this directive, however, with Christ’s beautiful teachings of compassion and love. I also struggle because I have dear friends who are gay, and I’ve seen how discrimination and disgust levied against them tears them apart inside.”
Lyle and Wade:
Denying homosexuals the right to marry is an example of state-sponsored discrimination. I’m using the word “discrimination” with that definition in mind. I’m not referring to discrimination based on our own preferences (i.e., I choose to be friends with tall people only) or based on our religious beliefs (such as whether or not to grant someone a temple recommend). I’m talking about our government denying the fundamental right to marry to members of our society based on an arguably immutable characteristic.
Likewise, the legal arguments in the battle against same-sex marriage seem to be based primarily on adhering to long standing tradition and social custom against homosexual marriage. These same arguments were made to deny women the right to vote and to persecute blacks and other minorities. Good intentions aside: separate but equal is not an effective strategy to protect fundamental rights.
Lyle, you say that you are going to work to identify the negative externalities that homosexual marriage would cause in our society in order to further justify your belief that homosexual marriage is wrong. I think this is a misguided approach. I think you’ll find that happy homosexual marriages and families share most of their same characteristics with happy heterosexual marriages and families. And dysfunctional homosexual marriages are probably equally as horrifying as dysfunctional heterosexual marriages.
It’s a personal question, and I hesitate to ask, but I wonder how many of you here have gay friends in your social circle? Gay people are just like you and me – they are not a monolithic force out there with an agenda to upset civilization as we know it. Homosexuals are wonderfully warm, creative, and caring – in the same way heterosexuals are wonderfully warm, creative and caring. Homosexuals can also be mean spirited and angry – just like their heterosexual counterparts. And, just like heterosexuals, some gays and lesbians would like to get married and establish a family, while others prefer to hop from one partner to another.
I think our Church’s position is fairly clear on its opposition to same-sex marriage. But without further clarification from our Church leaders, I think it is misguided and potentially dangerous to speculate much as to why same-sex marriage is wrong. Such speculation can lead to destructive teachings against homosexuals, just like well-meaning people tried to explain why black members were denied the priesthood until 1978.
Adam: I was using the lesbian couple example as an illustration that the procreation argument against homosexual marriage is not nearly as cut and dried as it may appear. Two women married to each other could be both considered “parents” of their child. Just like two men who adopt, or one man who adopts his partner’s child from a previous heterosexual relationship, could both be considered parents of the child.
Wade,
So let me take you up on your “rational thought” hypothesis. A gay man does not choose to be gay. The feelings come very naturally during adolescence just as they do for a straight man. They are just directed in another orientation. Despite the years of trying, praying, therapy, suffering, desiring, obedience and pleading, the feelings will not change. They are hard wired. Period. Keep behavior out the equation. We are only talking about orientation. We are not discussing what causes the feelings or where they come from. We accept they are hard wired because the gay man tells us he is hard wired and we know he would not choose such a difficult path in life voluntarily.
The gay LDS man asks himself why he has these feelings and what he is supposed to do with them. He currently has three choices:
1) He can pretend the feelings don’t exist and marry a woman who will end up being unfulfilled and eventually very hurt when she finds out. He can remain a member in good standing with the Church.
2) He can explore these feelings and try and find a same sex partner with which to establish a monogamous, faithful relationship. He cannot remain a member in good standing with the Church.
3) He can stay single his entire life and live the law of chastity but he will never be able to find completeness in this life. He must recognize at an early age (18 or 19) that he must give up all hope of ever being in love and must be prepared to live a life of loneliness. (Note: we do not ask the single sisters to give up hope anytime during their life. They can always have hope of finding someone and they can fell unashamed for continuing to seek for someone.) He can remain a member in good standing in the Church.
Using your cold, unemotional, rational thought process, I assume you will offer only option #3 as the logical outcome. However, by ignoring the “feelings” part of the equation, you subject the gay man to a true hell on earth.
If we apply your theory to straight marriage, then we would not allow any straight marriages to proceed in the Church if they were just based upon feelings of love. They would need to be practical arrangements based upon social class, economic class, compatible education levels and a demonstrated biological ability to procreate and provide a stable child-rearing environment. Only AFTER these things have been verified would we allow for any potential feelings to emerge.
I don’t agree with your theory. I converted to the church at age 19 and during the following 20+ years, it has been the power of the Holy Spirit within the deepest, most feeling part of my soul that has allowed my testimony to become grounded, rooted, established and settled. My temple experiences have all been based upon feeling the wonder, the awe, the power and the glory of our Heavenly Father and our Savior. The scriptures move me and motivate me precisely because they convey feelings and allow for powerful insight into eternal truths.
As always, this is just my opinion and is spoken in love (or should I say spoken in rational thought).
Adam, in comment 90 you said:
It seems to me that procreation . . . is at the heart of the reasons why gay marriage is objectionable
I know a man and woman (widow and widower) in their seventies who just got married in the temple, for time only. Clearly, the admonition to multiply and replenish doesn’t apply in this case. Everybody acknowledges that this marriage is more about companionship and not being alone than anything else. When these people die, they will, presumably, be reunited with their former spouses to whom they were sealed.
I am not saying that your argument doesn’t have merit, but I think it needs to be expanded or refined to account for situations like this.
Manaen – I appreciate the sweet message of love and tolerance in your comment #100.
I’m not sure you were implying this in your comment, but I don’t agree with the assumption that homosexuals can and should change their sexuality and enter into heterosexual marriages. I think counseling homosexuals to repent and enter into heterosexual marriages can be counterproductive, and harm many innocent lives in the process.
Most of this is way over my head and I only read about half the comments above….
But as MORMONS, are we not straining at knats and at least ignoring the camel??
If gay marriages become legal then it seems obvious to me that POLYGAMIST MARRIAGES will be next. We abandoned plural marriage because of pressure from the government. Isn’t that what the Manifesto says? We still have the 132nd section in the D & C and supposedly we still believe in plural marriage at least in theory and principle, when sanctioned by revelation and not excessively pressured by the federal government. When that pressure officially and entirely ends then what?
Will the ghosts of our forefathers rise up out of their graves and demand that we return to this practice?
My guess is:
1. The mainstream church lead by Gordon B. and his eventual successors will continue to disallow plural marriage. I doubt they are even close to being in the mood of receiving a revelation to start up this practice again and most of their wives would bean them if they did.
2. The various polygamist groups will rejoice and be justified in their stubborn resistance, at least in their own minds and their position will be strengthened.
3. Recruiting efforts by the polygamists among mainstream LDS will become much easier and will be increasing successful. Instead of tens of thousands we will have to contend with hundreds of thousands of them eventually.
4. Social problems relating to polygamy such as incest and teenage marriages (poofers) will become more frequent, although I acknowledge that these problems do not involve all or even most families in plural marriage.
5. Welfare payments to support this iniquity will grow and taxpayers, disproporonately Mormon taxpayers will foot the bill. Legalizing polygamy will not make it noticeably easier to support these large and generally poorly educated families
6. Rather than our historical association with polygamy gradually slipping out of the view of the public, it will increase. More and more people will know more of the details about Joseph Smith and his many wives. We no longer have control over this information and its associated misinformation. And this will hamper missionary work.
The effects of gay marriage may be substantial for some LDS individuals. But it will pale in comparison to the effects of the legalization of polygamy on the image and growth of the church at large. I believe this is why our leaders are fighting the legalization of gay marriage.
Pretty interesting to see the drab polygamists on the same side of an issue as the colorful gay community.
Britain approves the creation of embryos with three genetic parents:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1772135,00.html
“But without further clarification from our Church leaders, I think it is misguided and potentially dangerous to speculate much as to why same-sex marriage is wrong.”
That’s just what you are doing, Elisabeth, as much as we are. That is, you keep *rejecting* reasons why we disapprove of legalizing gay marriage. You are just as much interpreting as we are, with the difference that we impute rationality to what the church is doing.
Your approach is a recipe for defeat. You keep saying that the various arguments we advance won’t work, but how much better will yours work–‘you should oppose gay marriage because my church leaders said so, I refuse to speculate why and think all the reasons that have been suggested are silly.’ You are not helping much.
I think gay marriage is a major Pandora’s box. I could look at my gay friend and her partner and think, “what harm could it do? They’ve been together for years and it seems sensible.”
But if you go ten years down the line to legalizing gay marriage and I think we could be living in a real crazy world. If we start legalizing gay marriage, what else could we legalize?
It makes me think of Rome.
Hi, Adam. Sorry if I’m not helping. I guess my main intent here was not necessarily to be helpful, but to discuss the issue of same-sex marriage as I see it. I appreciate the thoughtful responses so far.
One distinction that I was trying to make, which, as you point out, I may not have made very well, is that there are LEGAL reasons for denying same-sex couples the right to marry, and there are RELIGIOUS reasons for denying these couples the right to marry. I don’t think we should speculate on the religious reasons past the little our Church leaders have said about them publicly, and, for the most part, I haven’t been persuaded by most of the legal reasons presented thus far denying same-sex marriage rights to homosexual couples who meet the same marriage requirements as heterosexual couples. These arguments seem to be recycled from the days of Plessy vs. Ferguson.
Anyway, I came to the same-sex marriage debate on the blogs rather late in the game. So thanks for indulging in another round of discussion. Same-sex marriage raises difficult and deeply emotional issues – especially in a religious context- and I appreciate efforts to remain respectful and kind while discussing them.
“arguments seem to be recycled from the days of Plessy vs. Ferguson.”
I’m done with this discussion. You’ve been closed-minded from the beginning, and now I see that you’ve bought the “traditional marriage supporters are bigots” propaganda hook, line, and sinker. If you want to discuss how the church and I are the equivalent of racists, you can do it without me.
Adam,
I agree with you. I am afraid that to many in the bloggernacle are accepting the secular world view on homosexuality and giving in to accepting sin as normal. I find very few people in church that will actually state heretic views like this to other members in person. As far as I am concerned there is not much to discuss…. the prophets have spoken out against homosexuality for thousands of years.
#109 – Elisabeth,
I too appreciate the respectful discussion. Your last comment has made the point have been trying to get across the whole time – “there are LEGAL reasons for denying same-sex couples the right to marry, and there are RELIGIOUS reasons for denying these couples the right to marry.”
It illustrates my point thusly: Law school (iIm in my second year) seems to distort a person’s moral compass by teaching students to view things in a strictly “legal” sense instead of an “ethical”, or what you call “religious” sense. This is a problem because what is legal is based in what people think is ethical (right and wrong) because every law enacted or interpreted is for some social “good”. Thus, to restrict a person to making only “legal” arguments is useless because what is legal changes based upon what people think is “good”. However, real goodness/truth NEVER changes and it is the purpose of the church to affect society in a positive way by encouraging its members to influence their representatives (and vote for propositions i.e. 22 here in CA) with their beliefs which should be grounded in this unchanging goodness.
I have a strong suspicion that your attack on “religious” arguments by focusing on “legal” arguments is only a way to prevent real goodness from having an affect on the progressive agenda of homosexuals.
And yes they do have an agenda regardless of how kind the majority of them are – we all have an agenda and the political process is to have a clash of agendas with the best ones “theoretically” winning.
Thanks again for your cordial comments.
Adam, assuming you are still around, Elisabeth has made it clear on this thread that she supports the church’s position, but doesn’t understand it. She has asked for some stronger LEGAL arguments. Her invocation of Plessey v. Ferguson was her way of saying she is not convinced by the arguments she has heard, but is open to listening to some more.. I’m pretty sure she doesn’t consider you to be a racist or a bigot. As far as calling the church racist, she is a member just as much as you and I.
Here’s a tip: Once my wife thanked me for being kind and considerate, but I was upset about something or other, and my response to her was along the same line as your comment 110. I became well acquainted with the sofa-sleeper for a few days. Normally, when someone thanks us for being courteous and respectful, it is best to respond in kind.
I am curious if these endless SSM debates (some of which I have started myself on M*) have ever changed anybody’s mind about the issue. Can anybody ever recall a poster saying, “hmm, you really have a point there. You’ve convinced me to change my opinion on this issue?” I would feel more inclined to participate actively if I felt that there were any persuadable people out there. It is of course possible that some readers are swayed one way or the other by a good argument — I just haven’t seen any evidence of it yet.
Here’s a tip:
Elisabeth and I, both members of the church as you point out, don’t sleep together.
Adam-
I’m disappointed that you think I’m closed minded, and that my Plessy vs. Ferguson comment wasn’t helpful. I don’t think you are the equivalent of a racist. I’m saying the legal arguments against same-sex marriage remind me of the “separate but equal” doctrine that turns out not to work so well in practice. Mark, in comment #113, explained generally what I meant by it.
I was hoping to continue the discussion, because I thought it was going so well for a change. I’m sorry that I wasn’t able to facilitate a more productive dialogue.
Wade-
Thanks for your comment #112 – I enjoyed reading it. You may certainly be right about a law student’s moral compass being recalibrated in law school through learning secular distinctions between legal, ethical, and moral standards. I think I read somewhere that an apostle was so concerned about losing his testimony that he ramped up his scripture study while in law school and continued his habit of daily study on through graduation and his legal practice.
I’m not intentionally trying to hide behind legality to attack religion, but only the “legal” arguments will win the case against same-sex marriage. Talk about sin and God will get opponents of same-sex marriage nowhere in the courts. By the way, have you read “The Culture of Disbelief” by Stephen L. Carter? He’s a professor at Yale law school and presents some interesting observations about religion and our secular society in this book.
Elisabeth,
I have not read the book, but will look into it. I agree that only legal arguments will win the case, but only in the context of being in the courts. You see, clearly people in the most liberal/progressive state in the Union have argued against gay marriage based on their idea of goodness (an overwhelming 61%). However, courts seem to high-jack the majoritarian view and replace it with their own – perhaps legitimately so? Thus, my point is, we as citizens and not litigants should adhere to arguments based in goodness and truth and thereby be an influence upon legal arguments an so Governors and Presidents will appoint those with the right views to the bench if we are to be subject to the tyranny of 5.
Elisabeth and I, both members of the church as you point out, don’t sleep together.
To her great relief, no doubt. In what way does that release you from the practice of civil discourse?
Charges of racism and their equivalent aren’t civil discourse. Which is what was done, disclaimers notwithstanding.
Thanks for showing me civil discourse in action with your ‘to her great relief’ comment.
Everyone seems to want to direct the thread towards the moral questions involved but no one has discussed the impact of not having an answer to the biggest moral question actually faced by gays and lesbians in the church.
Wade has not responded to my question in #102. Elisabeth talks about legal arguments that will work in supporting a moral position (there are very few which is why it is hard to argue this issue) but she also recognizes that her friends are suffering.
What do we do with the basic question that I asked about in #102? Does everyone believe that orientation is chosen or do they understand that it is natural? The whole argument, from a moral, legal, and ethical standpoint, changes dramatically depending upon the answer to this question.
The comparison to Ferguson is very appropriate because it presented the exact same dilemma we are facing with gays and lesbians. Is there a moral basis to our belief if the orientation (or skin color) is not chosen?
Adam – sorry I crossed the line.
#120. Essentially it does not matter. For 5,000 years the prophets have condemned homosexuality. Is alchoholism or serial adultery genetic or a choice?
Elizabeth. You come across as an advocate of gay marriage based on your own words above. It could also be that you are grappling with the issue and are having a hard time reconciling your politics with your Mormonism. What is your real opinion? If I am reading to much into your comments forgive me.
Unknown,
Your question arises from fundamental doctrinal misunderstandings:
1. Of course homosexuality is a choice! Even if one ascribes to the “theory” that gays are “hard wired”, that belief does not erase the fact that everyone’s struggles in this life are the result of the rational choice to encounter them before they EVER came here. This is a fact, no one was forced to be born. Thus, being gay for some may be a fact of life – but it is also argued that pedophelia is “hard wired”. This leads to the next doctrinal misunderstanding…
2. The truth about this life is that ALL are “conceived in sin” (Moses 6:55). This means that every single person born into this world is “hard-wired” to SIN and has a “hard-wired” sinful nature. Homosexuality is only one characteristic of this fact! I have a sinful nature too, but I would think legislative propogation and sanction of this nature is distructive to society – a “bad” thing. I am not suggesting people shouldn’t be able to personally choose to act upon their sinful natures without governmental prohibition “every” time. But, propogating the behavior is different and destructive to happiness.
I don’t pretend to think that homosexuals should just “buck-up” and be perfect. I acknowledge that it is a very serious struggle for many. Indeed, I have noticed that every “gay” person I am associated with is typically very very talented and in possession of great abilities. I often wonder if homosexuality is a tool used by the adversary to prevent these gifted people from being a force in the Kingdom?
B Bell,
It does matter. Your comparison to alcholism and adultery relates to BEHAVIOR. Being gay or lesbian is totally separate from the BEHAVIOR you exhibit as a gay or lesbian.
Is a black person innately evil because of their skin color or is it their actions that determine whether they are good or evil? Is an Italian innately evil because of their ethnicity or is it their actions that determine whether they are good or evil?
If orientation is not chosen then you need to fully clarify what it is that makes that “homosexual” evil? Is it having sex? Is it holding hands in public? Is it kissing? What if they are just cuddling? If it is just their being alive then do we eliminate them entirely?
Help me understand the reasoning behind your statement so we can intelligently discuss the legal aspects of that reasoning.
Thaks.
Unknown: With respect, and fully accepting your own claims that you experience no choice in the matter, there are homosexuals, particularly lesbians, who frankly acknowledge that they have chosen their sexual identification. And it’s not at all difficult to conceive of a number of reasons why they would choose to do so, despite the resistance (and worse) that some face as a result. Unless you think that those homosexuals who acknowledge that they have chosen that identification ought to be treated differently under law than those who do not, I’m not sure why the difference is so crucial in a legal context.
That’s quite all right, Mark. I appreciate your attempts to bring civility to the conversation. I just don’t think that some things, however civilly they are presented, are civil at all.
Wade:
So the plan is to have your tyrants replace their tyrants? I’d like to think we could do better than that.
Do we really want a strictly majoritarian view on the court? Let’s not forget that we are a not-as-universally-well-liked-as-we-like-to-think-we-are minority religion with (at best) 2% of the US population. We have depended on several occasions on courts that have ruled in favor of our religious liberties despite the “majority” view. When O’Connor spoke at BYU last, she emphasized that very role:
“Even Democratic majorities can sometimes be oppressive. Although majority rule is at the heart of our democracy, it is not without its imperfections. Protecting the minority against discrimination from the majority is a major function of the Supreme Court.”
You and I may not agree with the lifestyle in question here, but where do we get the legal authority to force our viewpoint on those who disagree with us? And before you jump back into the “well then, we’ll let people steal if they ‘believe’ its OK” let’s not forget that stealing is a crime and homosexual behavior isn’t.
If the only arguments proffered against SSM are decrying sin and “majority rules”, then the arguments are destined to fail in a court.
Rosalynde writes:
“With respect, and fully accepting your own claims that you experience no choice in the matter, there are homosexuals, particularly lesbians, who frankly acknowledge that they have chosen their sexual identification.”
And don’t forget that, due to the most embarrassing “I can’t believe my parent did that to me in public” incident in T & S history, we definitely know that one such person is not your sister Naomi.
Not, to quote Seinfeld, that there’s anything wrong with that . . .
“where do we get the legal authority to force our viewpoint on those who disagree with us? And before you jump back into the “well then, we’ll let people steal if they ‘believe’ its OK” let’s not forget that stealing is a crime and homosexual behavior isn’t”
I don’t get this. You’re saying that we are allowed to make rules against robbery, based on our belief that its wrong, because there are already rules against robbery? I must be misunderstanding you, because thats as circular as a penny.
Chad Too,
You make very good point! I have NO DOUBT that the arguments against SSM will fail in court. I expect to see SSM legalized in every state within a decade. I also acknowledged in my comment above that the job of courts may be to protect minorities, hence I said “legitimately”. My point is, if a minority and their behvior will have a negative affect on “goodness” in society why should they be protected by law?
Why is stealing a crime? Only to protect the property interests of the majority against the minority of thieves. Thus, a governmental ban on gay marriage protects the happiness interests of the majority against the minority of homosexuals.
It sounds harsh, yet it is a legitimate concern: Soon there will be a day in which adults will ask children if they plan on marrying a boy or a girl? I worry about society accepting the homosexual lifestyle because I KNOW it is destructive of happiness (harmony) – the proper order established by Nature. Husband and wife and the nuclear family are slowly being chipped away at and this is a negative aspect of our society.
You ask, “where do we get the legal authority to force our viewpoint on those who disagree with us?” I will then ask, where do THEY get the same authority? It is a clash of ideas, I think mine are superior, thus I will seek to support them!
Unknown,
Rosalynde hits the nail on the head. I know more than a few practicing lesbians and gay males who have decided that being gay is cool and so they became one!!! Then when they break up with a lover they try and decide if they want to become a lesbian or go straight again. Being gay is now pretty cool in a lot of circles in larger cities. Watch TV.
Seems to me that there is a lot of choice going on.
Chad to: Actually it depends on who is sitting as the judges in court cases. Liberal judges are more likely to rule against the church’s opinion. and vice versa. Its not the law or the arguements its the politics of those sitting in judgement. Hence all the fights over court nominee’s.
Wade,
So it sounds as if you believe that it is a natural trait unchosen in this life but perhaps chosen in the first estate. This is an interesting thought. Would it not seem to be a cruel thing to choose though? We know that the genetic dispositions related to alcoholism, drug use, etc. are biological in nature and are destructive to both physical and mental health. But if gays and lesbians chose to forego love in this life, the greatest of God’s gifts. Wouldn’t it have been easier to just make them have a very low sex drive rather than the mental challenge of not only having to forego love but also to having to be tormented by an opposite sex attraction each day?
Gays and lesbians are being asked to forgo a glorious thing, companionship and love. Alcoholic, drug users, and other genetically disposed challenges are destructive in and of themselves. Therefore, if you avoid them, you will be happier. Love is essential to eternal life and well being. If you avoid it, you die.
Adam,
Your reasoning really resonates with me! I appreciate your comments.
Theft is a crime. Homosexuality is not. One who says “I believe it’s OK to be a thief” and acted upon it would find no comfort in the law. One who says “I think it’s ok to be homosexual” and acted upon it would be protected by the law.
Chad to: Homosexual sex was a crime in many states until a recent Supreme Court Opinion threw all those laws out. Different judges might have upheld the laws.
I know a LDS Dallas police officer who in last couple of years prior to this decision saw gay men having sex in cars and literally wrote them tickets for violating the law for homosexual sex (it was like a $75 fine) in addition to public indecency. I am not kidding.
SSM will be the law of the land thru a Supreme Court decision eventually if Democrats appoint the Supreme Court justices. If a Republican appoints them it is far less likely.
Unknown,
Very good point! That is why I acknowledge the very difficult situation faced by homosexuals. It is indeed a tough row to hoe. However, I never said they specifically chose homosexuality. Rather, I said they chose to be conceived in sin and take on a sinful nature – whatever it may be. In essense, pedophiles and other sexual deviants face the same challenge – they can’t act on their “hard-wiring” without commiting sin and negatively affecting society.
“a cruel thing to choose?” I can only say that life is full of darkness because we are separated from God – this makes life cruel for ALL of us. Indeed, it may be harder for some than others and this may be because their large souls require a greater challenge? I don’t know the answer. But I do know that society should not condone sin because it only adds to the greater “cruelty” of life by disallowing order which is harmony which is goodness which is justice which is happiness from being established.
After Lawrence v. Texas, you are correct. So what? Does your description of the current state of the law tell us anything about what kinds of laws are desirable? And if it does, has it escaped your notice that gay marriage is illegal in every state except Massachussetts, where the court imposed it?
Wade, to be honest, I find no clash at all. It’s all a matter of liberty.
Look at Massachusetts. Despite SSM being legal, no LDS person has been forced to indulge in such. No gay person or activist group will be able to force the LDS Church from continuing to sanction only man-woman relationships. That’s what liberty is. Mitt Romney is as heterosexually monogamous as ever.
The idea of a “clash” only comes when you try to force people who don’t hold the same opinions (religious, sexual, and otherwise) as you to live by your standards without a legally supportable reason.
Well, Adam, someone had to be first. California is likely to be next. That doesn’t make a hill of beans difference legally and you know that.
b bell wrote: “I know more than a few practicing lesbians and gay males who have decided that being gay is cool and so they became one!!!”
I respond: eek! While it’s always pleasing to be agreed with, b bell, I’m afraid I can’t return the favor. Although I won’t try to disprove your own experiences, I would probably not include “wanting to be cool” on my list of possible reasons why a person would choose a homosexual identification. Furthermore, in the survey data I’ve seen, it’s a minority of homosexuals who profess to have chosen the identification. However, that doesn’t change the point I originally made.
104.
Elisabeth,
“I’m not sure you were implying this in your comment, but I don’t agree with the assumption that homosexuals can and should change their sexuality and enter into heterosexual marriages. I think counseling homosexuals to repent and enter into heterosexual marriages can be counterproductive, and harm many innocent lives in the process.”
I’m out of the “should” business. I only was centering my comments upon what, as you agreed in your #93, God has told us instead of upon individual leanings and reasons. I believe that we should share God’s path to the greatest joy with anyone who will listen, regardless of (you pick). As to whether they *should* follow it now or later, I’ll leave that for each person to work out with God. My life became much simpler and happier when I started preaching and helping instead of trying to take from others their responsibility for what they should do with this light.
Having said that, I’ll offer a “should” from Pres. Hinckley, “Marriage should not be viewed as a therapeutic step to solve problems such as homosexual inclinations or practices” (Prsthd Session, GenCon 4/1987)
Thank your for your kind response. I hoped my comments would help you when I wrote them.
120, 124
Unknown,
I’m not ignoring you. I haven’t answered because I don’t know either to what degree homosexuality is innate or chosen nor how much that ratio varies from person to person.
All, Check the article in the 9/2004 “Ensign” by a homosexual LDS (Compassion for Those Who Struggle). I recommend that you read the writer’s recounting of experiences, the gospel, faith, repentance, and feelings as a frame of reference for this discussion.
FWIW, I suppose that the next step in this world’s march will be to eliminate the hetero/homosexual distinction and to endorse attraction for anyone that appeals.
“someone had to be first. California is likely to be next. That doesn?t make a hill of beans difference legally and you know that. ”
Maybe it should make a difference–only lawyers, and elite lawyers at that, would take seriously the notion that a fundamental institution of the society that created the constitution might be illegal under it–but you are correct that it probably won’t. Which leaves me scratching at my head at your argument that its ok to criminalize robbery because robbery is already criminal but its not ok to stick to traditional marriage because . . . why, exactly? What’s the connection to robbery?
Rosalynde:
I know three LDS people first hand who have gone in and out of homosexuality during their college years. One of them had what she calls a “gay rebellion stage” where she did it to make her Stake President Dad mad. I also know others who say that they have felt gay since their teenage years.
I would argue that the 5000 years of prophets speaking out against homosexuality to me the trump card in the debate.
Chad,
The word clash means to be in conflict. You honestly cannot say that SSM proponents do not conflict with their opponents in their ideas!
As for “liberty” that discussion should be saved for a posting dedicated to it.
Lastly, gays are not discriminated against nor forced to live by my standards!!! This is the most falacious of arguments. I DO NOT have any more rights than does a gay man: I cannot marry another man, nor can he. Thus, there is no state discrimination.
Adam, I only brought it up because often a counter-argument thrown up against mine is the “well then everyone can get away with anything because they don’t “believe” that it’s wrong. The example I gave was intended to cut that off at the pass.
Wade, that’s a crock. The government had no say in who you chose to wed, why should it have a such say in the lives of two homosexuals? Unless you can come up with a legally supportable reason for the interference, there is discrimination happening.
Chad,
You’re WRONG! The state of California did have a say in WHO I married – that who was required to be female. Thus, there is no discrimination because all males are free to marry females as I chose to do. There is NOTHING stopping ANY ohter man from doing the same! It’s not a crock.
re:144 You can’t honestly say that Baptists don’t clash with Mormons in our ideas either, yet civil liberties allow me to live my standards, them to live theirs, and they have no power to stop me from my worship, I no power to stop them from theirs.
Because the Baptist standards are not destructive to society and no law should prohibit their standards! Good point!
Wade: in California it was illegal for a non-white person to marry a white person up until 1948, when the California Supreme Court ruled that there was no legally supportable reason why such marriages couldn’t happen. The “any white man can marry a woman of his race, and any black man can marry any woman of his race” argument failed. I don’t see much difference here.
You have legally-supportable proof that gays have standards that are destructive to society? Would you share the specifics?
Chad,
Because you don’t see the difference between sex and skin color is precisely the reason your rationality and understanding of goodness and harmony fail to see my point that homosexual marriage is destructive. Because I can see that skin color and deviate sexual behavior are fundamentally different and you don’t is the reason we have a “clash” in ideals!
Where is the legal difference between skin color and sex here? Both are rules set down by the state, and both are challenged by those who don’t think the state has any business setting such a standard. Therein lies the difference.
Chad,
Your focus on legal arguments proves your moral compass is likely broken!! Refer to #112 above. Are you a lawyer?
BTW, don’t make the mistake of assuming that I support same-sex marriage here. I support civil liberties, even when I don’t agree with how people will use them.
Let’s see if we can straighten this out, Chad Too.
1. You are arguing that our belief in traditional marriage should not be a sufficient basis for passing laws to keep it that way, or for sustaing the laws to keep it that way already on the books (or, alternatively, that our belief against gay ‘marriage’ should not be a sufficient reason for passing new laws, or keeping the old laws, that don’t recognize it).
2. You anticipate that some people will counter that our belief that robbery is wrong is the reason we keep robbery laws on the books. How, they will ask, can you justify keeping laws against robbery but not laws against gay ‘marriage’
3) You head off this objection by responding that robbery laws are already on the books.
Is this correct? If not, please clarify for me.
#155.
You are a gay marriage supporter. Just be honest….
No not a lawyer, not that there’s anything wrong with that ;-)
Why would we discuss anything but legal arguments on this, Wade? That’s how this is going to be decided. Speaking of scriptures, prophets, and predictions is great for church, but inadmissible in a court.
Geoff B asked earlier if any of this stuff really changes anyone’s minds. The reason I think it doesn’t is because we have such a strong religious conviction that most of us can’t look past that to the intricate legalities and what’s required of an argument in legal venues. There are two very different processes at work here and most folks just talk past each other.
Christ understood this problem and dealt with it beautifully. When asked his opinion in a thorny legal matter, he simply said “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s (Matt 22:21)”
So, I try to render.
Sorry to disappoint you, bbell.
Chad,
Your arguments make you a supporter. Also all you need is 5-4 in the supreme court to accomplish SSM. It will take 5 libs on the court. I do not believe that the law, the arguments or past practice matters. Its what is in the hearts minds and politics of the 5 SC justices.
Adam, drop the theft thing. It was an analogy that I regret bringing up.
My argument all along has been consistent: Given that homosexual behavior (whether chosen or innate) is a protected liberty interest, no state should be able to use that as a reason to deny a state-sponsored privilege without a reason that would pass strict scrutiny.
My stance has been and continues to be that if we as LDS hope to stop SSM from becoming the law-of-the-land, then we need to come up with something that would pass such scrutiny. Anything else will fail.
bbell: Alexander Doniphan’s refusal to violate the religious civil rights of the early Saints did not mean he supported or embraced Mormonism. His devotion was to the Constitution, not Brigham Young. I like to think my devotion similar. I support the Bill of Rights, not Rosie O’Donnell.
Wade,
If the discussion if whether gay marriage should be legally permitted — not how gay marriage should be viewed on a moral or spiritual level — then of course it’s going to turn on legal arguments.
When deciding whether it is morally or spiritually permissible, legal arguments are going to carry little weight. However, in the legal arena where the legal question is whether such marriages will be legally recognized, it’s not at all surprising that people look to legal arguments.
I see it different on this issue. it just takes 5 votes on the SC. A vote in favor of SSM is a matter of politics/religious belief etc. Ask Justice Ginsburg. She was a liberal lawyer prior to being on the court and she is a liberal judge. Its that simple.
Or ask Scalia. He was a religious conservative prior to the supreme court and his opinions on the court reflect that. Its that simple. People are people with their own beliefs inclinations etc. What happens is judges have an opinion on the “the great issues of the day” and when they have to offer an opinion they cite whatever legal reasoning they can to justify ther decision.
This is blatently true when you watch the fights over court nominees in the Senate. The Court has been a politicised since the 1960’s
Kaimi,
I have no doubt courts, based on “legal argument” will allow SSM. But I guess the question then is, why has legal argument become devoid of correct morality?
Here’s a legal argument for you: The LAW in CA pursuant to Family Code sec. 308.5 requires marriage to be between a man and a woman. This law is the result of morality making its mark on the ballot of OVER 60% of California voters – the most liberal state in the Union. To separate moral argument from legal argument is asinine and disingenuous. The only way SSM will be legalized is by the tyranny of 5 and their favored and so-called “legal argumentation.”
Kaimi,
b bell’s comments in #164 vindicate my position!!!
Elisabeth’s comments comparing the arguments against legalizing SSM to the arguments against allowing women and blacks to own property or vote are flawed in an important sense–no one is saying that homosexuals are intellectually inferior or incapable of understanding the complex political (or familial) issues we all deal with. (At least I haven’t SEEN that used yet!) The arguments against gender/ethnic minority civil rights were usually based on a perceived inability of the minority to carry out the responsibilities that those rights would impose. (Gee, granting rights implies assuming responsibilities, what a fascinating idea…) As I see it, the debate about SSM is not capabilities-based, i.e. can homosexual couples provide a loving environment to raise kids, to pool their resources for a better life for the family, to support each other in a mutually productive relationship? I’ll grant you that some same-sex couples can accomplish all those things, in certain cases probably better than some hetero couples. No, the debate about SSM really comes down to, is it morally right? And I have to say that for me, marriage and sex are reserved for relations between men and women. Your employer may choose to extend certain benefits to a same-sex partner, but that does not obligate the government to do the same. If you want to ensure that your partner receives certain privileges, incorporate yourselves as a legal entity, and sign contracts specifying what rights you’ll grant each other. If a company can survive the death of a founder, then the firm of Tom and John, Ltd can probably find a way to set that up for themselves. But don’t call it a marriage or expect it to be treated as a family, because it’s not. SSM to me is an oxymoron–the words contradict each other.
Unknown, I sympathize with you, because I married late in life and watched everyone else around me enjoy things that I chose to deny myself, out of obedience to our heavenly father. Even knowing that you’re doing the right thing, it hurts to feel that cut off! But I would caution you against equating sex with love. You said “Love is essential to eternal life and well being. If you avoid it, you die.” Maybe–but there are other forms of love besides romantic love, and other ways to express love besides sexually. In fact, the only love you CANNOT live without is that of Christ and Heavenly Father, and you already have that. If you avoid it, I do agree that you will die spiritually…To continue, you imply that the “older” singles are significantly better off because they can at least hope for an authorized sexual relationship (marriage) in eternity, if not mortality. I think that position short-circuits a few things. First, there is no guarantee for ANYONE that they will find Bro or Sis Right in this existence. So we are all potentially looking at a mortal lifetime of loneliness, if we choose to be chaste before marriage. But that doesn’t mean we can’t have friends and enjoy their company. If you had asked me (back before I met my now-husband) whether I felt my life was blighted and crippled by the lack of a male companion, I would have laughed and said I was very happy as I was. So I think it is possible to be happy when single, even for mortality. Second, if you’ll allow me to be so bold, based on your comments, I’d guess that same-sex attraction is not something you hold so dear that you wouldn’t change it if possible. So perhaps when we are all resurrected, with those perfected bodies we are promised, you’ll be attracted to the opposite sex at last, and will have the chance to enjoy all the blessings you were denied for so long. (Or to be totally heretical, perhaps we’ll find out that homosexual behaviour–as opposed to “being” homosexual–isn’t a sin in God’s eyes after all, in which case you’ll have the chance to enjoy a romantic sexual relationship as well, even if it’s not quite what I had in mind. But if that’s a reasonable expectation, then I think we all need to re-examine other things we believe about God and the gospel, and it also undermines the importance of your sacrifice here and now.)
There was a comment made that some people choose to be bisexual or homosexual. If we use what people “choose” to do as the basis for our definition of right and wrong, and not an external standard (like the Lord) then we cannot say that ANYTHING is wrong. Even the standard of “it’s wrong only if it hurts someone else” is too nebulous, because you have to carry that one more step, and say “why is it wrong even if it hurts someone else? Why should I care if they are hurt?” Either there are standards of right and wrong imposed by an external, unchanging source, or there are no standards. (See CS Lewis for a more eloquent version.) And if that’s the case, bring out the sheep and the horses, because hey, that’s not hurting anyone either!
Wade,
There are a lot of things that I think are wrong morally, but are not legally proscribed. I think that it is wrong not to go to church on Sunday. I think that it is wrong not to believe in God, or to believe in Jesus Christ. I think that it is wrong to drink alcohol or coffee or to smoke tobacco. All of those are wrong because they are violations of commandments of God.
None of those acts is illegal.
Are you arguing that they should be? If not, you’re recognizing that there is often a valid disjunct between legal and moral arguments, and between legal and moral treatment of actions. Whether you like it or not, legal arguments are the ones that determine legal consequences of actions.
Space chick,
1. People _are_ saying that gay couples are not as capable of raising families. One prominent example is Stanley Kurtz’s article in the Weekly Standard from a few years back. Similar arguments are routinely made in the bloggernacle.
2. Government recognition is again a red herring. Again, the government routinely grants legal recognition to organizations that we believe advance immoral or spiritually incorrect purposes.
The government recognizes Jerold Tanner’s Lighthouse Ministries as a non-profit religious organization. This is an organization dedicated to driving people from the church. The government has taken affirmative steps to recognize it as a tax-deductible, non-profit organization.
Should we combine law and morality? Should government decisions about what legal relationships can be recognized turn on our moral judgments? If so, do you believe that Lighthouse Ministries should have its non-profit status pulled?
Adam, how does comment 150 differ substantially from comment 109? Because Chad too didn’t mention the church (or the priesthood ban which Elizabeth mentioned in 101, and as we all know, postdates Plessy v. Ferguson by 82 years)? Was it solidarity with former BYU college bowl players, or were you distracted by the robbery analogy?
Because you haven’t mentioned being offended yet by 150, which offers the same legal comparison. Elizabeth explicitly emphasized that she was refering to legal and not religious arguments.
On the other hand, according to the superdome thread, being easily offended means you’re compassionate (but also full of doubts and anxieties, something I wouldn’t have expected in your case).
Let’s switch states for a second Wade. Let’s choose Alabama. Do you think that I could get 60% of the citizens there to support a referendum saying “Freedom of Religion in Alabama shall not be construed to include religions that were not registered with the State within 5 years of Alabama’s original admittance to the Union in 1819.” If it meant those boys in the white shirts and ties would stop knocking on doors on a Saturday morning, you bet they would.
Assuming the incorporation of the 1st Amendment by the 14th, would the 60% number make this any less of the Constitutional violation? After all, it is the will of the people of Alabama.
“Given that homosexual behavior (whether chosen or innate) is a protected liberty interest, no state should be able to use that as a reason to deny a state-sponsored privilege without a reason that would pass strict scrutiny.”
1) Lawrence can be overturned. It’s not the law of gravity.
2) Its not clear to me that what Lawrence did is say that laws regulating, infringing on, or burdening sexual behavior must pass strict scrutiny.
3) Even if it did, laws keeping traditional marriage do not burden sexual behavior or deny a privilege because of sexual behavior. Or do you think we allow men to marry if only they don’t have sex?
“Should we combine law and morality?”
A little late, Kaimi. All laws everywhere are rooted in value judgments. Including our already existing marriage laws.
Kaimi,
I will concede that there is a valid disjunct between legal and moral arguments and treatment of actions. However, when the actions are such that they will have a massive negative affect on society as to contribute to its irreversible decline and decay, they should be proscribed!
I think prohibition was a good thing and so did President Heber J. Grant who marked its repeal as the beginning of America’s decline! I think alcohol probably is more destructive than SSM and that it should be illegal, yes.
Your use of the phrase “legal argument” is merely a way of saying whatever the SC has said is “right” for society.
Do you believe SSM is good or bad for society in general? If you think it is “bad” why not proscribe it? Is it because it isn’t that bad? I suppose our disagreement is one of degree perhaps?
Bill,
Thanks for bringing that to my attention. Pretty disgusting, but one distinction is that Chad T. thinks (wrongly, I think) that the proper legal framework is to treat homosexuals as a protected class, just the same as blacks, and then require compelling government interests, etc., before they can be treated differently in any way. Elisabeth, on the other hand, thinks that the proper legal question is whether there is a rational basis for our traditional marriage laws. Rational basis is a legal term meaning ‘any reason at all, if its remotely plausible.’
I don’t see how someone can believe, ‘religiously,’ that traditional marriage ought to be banned while fiercely maintaining that there are no remotely plausible reasons for so doing.
” Do you think that I could get 60% of the citizens there to support a referendum saying “Freedom of Religion in Alabama shall not be construed to include religions that were not registered with the State within 5 years of Alabama’s original admittance to the Union in 1819′?”
No, I don’t think you could. Perhaps you should move somewhere where you don’t hold such a low opinion of your neighbors.
Thanks for questioning my testimony, Adam.
I didn’t claim homosexuals are a protected class, I claim that choice of sexual partner is a protected religious liberty per Lawrence.
Plausibility don’t feed the bulldog in that case. Strict scrutiny would be the standard.
Perhaps you might want to consider why someone can feel passionately about protection of liberty even when the choices some make may lead them away from God. We kind-of fought a war over the topic back one estate.
Weekend’s here! Time to take my ball and go home. See you next week.
I didn’t question your testimony, son. Re-read #175. Also, re-read Lawrence. Its more or less an inkblot, but whatever it stands for, it isn’t this: “I claim that [the] choice of sexual partner is a protected religious liberty per Lawrence.”
I always find it interesting that some members of the Church seem to take glee in any advance for a position clearly opposed by the Church.
179 Don’t worry. They are not very reliable members of the church. Their grandchildren won’t even know what the church is.
Two comments here…
1)If X is a sin for Latter Day Saints to do, has the church worked (spent money, encouraged members to work politically) to make it illegal? In the case of drinking alcohol, the answer is yes (or at least worked to keep it from being relegalized after prohibition. In the case of Coffee, as far as I know, the answer is No. In the case of failing to Tithe, certainly not.
OTOH, if Y is a sin for anyone to do, has the church worked to make it illegal. In the case of SSM, yes. In the case of adultery, I really don’t think so.
Picking the battles they have a chance to win?
Also, I’ve seen the following proposed as thinking outside the box for a solution.
The federal and state governments stop creating marriages. Everywhere in the state law of Maryland (for example) where the word marriage was, the words “Legal Union” are placed. Religious leaders (and temple sealers) get the right to both create a Legal Union between two people *and* if a Legal Union exists between two people, to declare them married. If the second action is performed an additional box is checked on the form and *that’s it*. The church gets the right to determine which of its members are married and doesn’t have to care which people the government given Legal Union to.
Ideas?
Wade and Kaimi (and others),
I’m coming late, but since it’s been raised I want to address the line Mormonism draws between moral and legal laws. The distinction that best fits our scriptures is to use formal mechanisms such as the police power to prohibit only sins of commission. It is moral to prohibit murder, drug use, adultery, and shopping on Sunday, for example, because these are acts of commission. If righteous people constitute a majority it is their perogative and duty to pass laws prohibiting these acts. It is not moral of them to force people to perform affirmative acts, such as tithing, praying, or attending church, however, because coercing these acts strips them of moral value. A person does not receive blessings from tithing, for example, if the tithing is taken from her involuntarily. God says he doesn’t want gifts (and our obedience to his affirmative commandments is a gift) that aren’t given for the right reasons, and he rejects gifts unless their given for the right reason.
God does not respond the same way towards acts of commission. Even if we refrain from killing, stealing, adultery, or using drugs because it’s against the law, and not from a desire to obey God, God still prefers that we refrain from killing, stealing, adultery and drug use.
We can classify sins as being acts of omission or commission by looking at the way the commandment is structured, the rationale for the commandment, and the way the prophets have treated it.
The guidelines for formal church discipline track this distinction, as the Handbook of Instructions says that “transgressions consist[ing] of omissions” are not grounds for a disciplinary council. The nearest “omission” that meets the threshold for disciplinary action is the “deliberate abandonment of family responsibilities,” with the qualifier deliberate transforming the transgression into an affirmative act of commission.
Matt Evans,
I would submit that SSM is a sin of commission in as much as it actively deprives children of either a mother or father (in those cases where children are involved – the state cannot differentiate). Indeed, the raising of children outside the “natural” structure removes a pillar of society whether it be done through divorce or SSM etc.
Furthermore, in response to those who want a legal argument against SSM: If homosexuals are determined to be a suspect class in which case states cannot deprive them of marriage without a compelling governmental interest, one of the most fundamental purposes of government – to protect the innocent – must be raised as the compelling interest. One cannot rationally argue that two mothers or fathers will provide the needed balance in the life of a child that one father and one mother provide. Indeed, even in the case of divorce a child still has one of each. SSM is destructive of society at its very core – the family! Protection of that institution is as a compelling interst as any EVER given! Indeed to willfully destroy it is a sin of commission worth proscribing!
Adam Greenwood:
You mischaracterized my comments. I do not think the “proper legal question” is whether traditional marriage laws survive rational basis review. Please see comment #87.
Wade,
I support traditional marriage and oppose redefining it to include same-sex couples (or triples, for that matter!). As indicated by my comment, I think it is proper for majorities to prohibit sinful affirmative acts, like battery, adultery and homosexual behavior.
“They are not very reliable members of the church.”
George G.,
You are free to argue that their positions on SSM are not fitting for saints, and you are free to privately think that folks with those sorts of positions on SSM are unlikely to be reliable church members, all told, but according to our comments policy you are not free, under the circumstances of this thread, to articulate your view that they are not very reliable church members. Any further discussion on this topic will be inappropriate.
You would also, I hope, not view what you see as the impending apostasy of a line of church members as reason ‘not to worry.’
Wade,
In regards to two men or two women being unable to raise a child:
In the case where a child was born to a woman whose husband (and child’s father) died during pregnancy, would you legally require the woman to either get married or to give up the child for adoption?
Randy
Randy,
Good question. Not at all. I realize there are many situations where trajedy prevents a child from being raised by both a male and female. However, recognizing trajedy for what it is and sympathizing with the child is VERY different from actually making it the law that children SHOULD be raised by only one sex. Do you see my point?
Furthermore, the very fact we consider the death of the father during pregnancy to be such a terrible and devastating thing to a child is just my point! Why do this on purpose??? It flies in the face of rational thought and goodness! Indeed, proponents of SSM suffer from cognitive dissonance in this matter thusly: no one of them can honestly say that a father or mother is useless to a child and yet they seek to persuade people that two fathers or two mothers can do the job as well as one of each. ABSURD and DESTRUCITVE!!!
When one parent dies early in a child’s life its possible for the other parent to create an image of that parent in the child’s mind even when the parent is absent. The image of the parent that is reinforced by the deceased parent’s siblings, parents and the childs older siblings can have a positive function in the child’s life and can represent the gender expectations of the deceased parent. God will even work through the family to provide the child the comfort needed from the deceased parent. In a homosexual relationship that just isn’t possible. The child is presented with confusion. Such self-indugent relationships curse the child. They are wrong.
If you support same sex relationships and get a temple recommend you have lied. The prophet has spoken. There just isn’t any more room for righteous disagreement.
George,
1. You seem awfully happy to steady the ark by adding questions to the temple recommend interview. When you open your own temple, you’re free to structure the interview as you like. Until then, the temple recommend interview that the church actually administers will have to suffice. Last time I checked, “Do you support same-sex marriage?” was not on the list of questions. I’m sure that you yourself are much wiser than the church leaders on this issue. But myself, I’m sufficiently unsure of my own capabilities that I’ll stick to the questions actually in the interview.
2. You’ve already been warned once about our comment policies. Please check over them again if you don’t understand them. Our policies make clear that it is unacceptable to question the personal righteuesness of other commenters. If you cannot abide by this policy, your comments are not welcome here. There are a number of online fora where attacks on others’ personal righteousness is accepted. This blog is not one of them.
Last time I read the family proclamation issued by The First Presidency it said that marriage was between a man and a woman. Last time I had a temple recommend interview it asked me if I sustained the President of the Church as a Prophet Seer and Revelator.
I guess I am not much of a logician but the logic I grew up with would say that you can’t support same sex marriage and get a temple recommend. (But again I am not a lawyer so perhaps it will take more education for me to get over such childish and unnuanced logic)
You also need to look and see what I really said. I directed my comment at no one in particular so I think it is fair game for such a forum.
George,
People are often eager to add to the temple recommend interview questions. Unless you’re the prophet — and last time I checked, buddy, you’re not — you’re not authorized to add to the questions. Period. (But perhaps this is your “childish logic” creeping in again).
The question of whether you sustain the Prophet is certainly in the interview. If a member has a question about what that means, they can ask their bishop or stake president what the term means. There is not, that I’m aware of, any official guidance indicating that “sustains the Prophet” must mean “opposes legalization of same-sex marriage.” If you’re aware of any such official statement, please point it out to me.
Until then, I’m going to take the irrational, awful, unfaithful, dishonest, illogical step — and clearly my grandchildren will all be Jehovah’s Witnesses — of understanding the temple recommend questions to mean what they actually say.
I realize that I’m taking quite a chance by trusting my temple recommend interview to my local priesthood leaders and to the questions as written by church leaders, rather than your extrapolation. But I feel like being a little bold today, so that’s a chance I’m willing to take.
Hey George, you’re making a few of us uncomfortable around here.
Kaimi,
I don’t believe GeorgeG has questioned the righteousness of any commenters. His only fault, as far as I can tell, was expressing just one half of an argument. George’s argument, as I understand it, is that sustain, as used in the temple interview, precludes one from publicly opposing official positions of the church set by the prophets. With that interpretation of sustain, he concludes one can’t simultaneously sustain the prophet and publicly support same-sex marriage, since the church officially opposes same-sex marriage. His argument (as I’ve construed it) is straight-forward, and nothing in our comments policy proscribes commenters from arguing that particular acts are wrong or fall short of the standard set in the temple recommend interview. (I believe everyone knows that temple worthiness is actually determined by local priesthood leaders, not by bloggernacle interlocutors.)
You, on the other hand, interpret sustain to not preclude publicly supporting something officially opposed by the church. That too is a reasonable interpretation, but I don’t believe there’s any basis for your suggesting that your interpretation of sustain is self-evident, or that only you are reading what the temple questions “actually say.” The temple questions emphatically don’t teach us what it means to sustain the prophets.
Nor does the recommend book clarify the meaning of Question 7, whose plain-meaning seems to preclude our supporting groups advocating same-sex marriage:
Of course the plain meaning isn’t necessarily the real meaning, but I don’t think it’s possible to claim that people who see Question 7 as a barrier to same-sex marriage advocates aren’t reading the temple questions for “what they actually say.”
I should add that I’ve always interpreted Question 7 to be inquiring about involvement with apostate groups, though that’s not what the question actually says.
Matt,
Following up on “They are not very reliable members of the church. Their grandchildren won’t even know what the church is” (180) we now have “If you support same sex relationships and get a temple recommend you have lied.” (191). People who disagree with George are not reliable church members, are bad parents, and are liars.
It’s fine to make the argument as you’ve made it. But by personalizing it — “disagree with me, and you’re a liar and a bad church member” — he crosses the line. And the personal nature of the attack — presuming to predict the outcome of people’s families, and presuming to interpret their temple recommend interviews — adds to the affront.
“I think that temple recommend interview question X should be interpreted as follows” is fine.
“People who don’t think that temple recommend question interview X should be interpreted in the way that I see it are bad church members and liars, and their children are going to end up in a mental institution by age 23” is not.
As for lack of specificity (“it’s not directed towards any particular commenter or poster”) that seems disingenuous.
Starting out with:
179. I always find it interesting that some members of the Church seem to take glee in any advance for a position clearly opposed by the Church.
Eric James Stone.
180. Don’t worry. They are not very reliable members of the church. Their grandchildren won’t even know what the church is.
GeorgeG
That seems to be a clear indictment of some of the arguments made by commenters on this thread. Following it up with the second-person phrasing “If you support same sex relationships and get a temple recommend you have lied” (191) also implies that commenters are personally unrighteous by lying in temple recommend interviews. Let’s call a spade a spade — this is an attack on the commenters (previously characterized as “unreliable members”) who disagree with George. And it accuses them of lying in their temple recommend interviews, which is pretty clearly an accusation of personal unrighteousness.
Kaimi, I never personalized my statement. I never directed it at you. My statement was emphatic and if it offends you so be it.
If I said if you commit adultery and get a temple recommend you lied and would that be crossing the line? (Well it all depends on how you define chastity) Or how about if I said if you support the practice of polygamy and you got a temple recommend you lied? (Well it depends on how far you go with the support question). (Neither the word polygamy nor adultery occur in the temple recommend questions.) Have it any way you want but in my opinion anyone who supports same sex marriage and gets a temple recommend is deluded or a liar.
(By the way, where does children in mental institutions” come from?)
(*)
“His argument (as I’ve construed it) is straight-forward, and nothing in our comments policy proscribes commenters from arguing that particular acts are wrong or fall short of the standard set in the temple recommend interview. ”
I have to agree with Matt Evans on this one, Kaimi. I thought 180 was over the line, but the follow up, while too vehemently expressed under the circumstances, makes a point that I think is acceptable here.
199 I flunked legal reasoning Kaimi and you didn’t. I’ll bet you’re a litigator for the plaintiff’s bar.
(*)
200 You say 180 was over the line? It clearly referred back to comment 179 which was a general statement about 179’s bemusement about some members of the Church and their beliefs. 179 didn’t refer to specific commenters (although its clear that it was posted in reference to the entire tenor of the discussion).
I am old enough to have observed the truth of 180 in practice. My only apology is that I said “don’t worry”.
(*)
This is what I love about intellectuals. They really love diversity of opinion.
(*)
Ah, Kaimi and I have found common ground: Clearly George’s comments have been personal attacks on righteousness. Comments about a person’s inability to teach their children truth and to instill testimony is clearly a personal attack – it is quite presumptuous as well considering George does not know Kaimi and others personally! Frankly, George’s comments bring discredit to some of the better arguments made in opposition to SSM.
Now, back to my point about the State’s compelling interest of protecting children and the cognitive dissonance of supporters of the SSM?
Gee Kaimi, I must have really hurt you. I am glad that the Church is more tolerant of diverse opinions than you are.
(*)
“Comments about a person’s inability to teach their children truth and to instill testimony is clearly a personal attack – it is quite presumptuous as well considering George does not know Kaimi and others personally!”
Yes, agreed.
Golly Kaimi, Ya blocked me. Another testimonial for the wide ranging free thinking tolerance of some intellectuals. I think you would have to strain to see anything in my posts directed at you but strain away.
If I committed adultery and got a temple recommend would I be a liar? The word adultery doesn’t appear in the temple recommend interview. It depends on the definition of chastity doesn’t it?
If I supported polygamy and got a temple recommend would I be a liar? The word polygamy doesn’t appear in the temple recommend interview.
I will stand by my comments in 180. They were a reply to 179 which was a nonspecific observation of some “Mormon” behavior. I stand by it based on my experience and my study.
I didn’t judge anyone and I didn’t condemn anyone. If my posts were an invitation to self reflection then I can only say good.
Kaimi,
You’re misconstruing George as badly as you claim he’s misconstruing others. You paraphrase him as saying, “People who disagree with [me] are not reliable church members,” when he’s said no such thing. He said members “aren’t reliable” if they “take glee” when the church loses ground to its opponents. That is a different position than what you ascribe to him.
As for his personalizing the arguments, I haven’t read the thread so can’t speak knowingly, but if his indictment of members who “take glee” at the church’s losses actually hit targets on this thread, then I’m disappointed less with George than with the state of T&S’s commenters. My patience for members who take glee at seeing the church fail in its progress is too short to bother defending them on internet blogs.
George,
Whether you’re right or not, your statement is still calling some who have posted here liars! Such statements are not conducive to an “open” discussion and only discredit arguments. I tend to sympathize with your concern about the “leftization” of certain members – but I don’t think you should ever personally attack such people. Furthermore, I have good friends who make comments they themselves don’t even believe just for the sake of discussion and argument – to test my beliefs and arguments. Thus, your attacks here are somewhat unfounded. Those who resort to ad hominem statements reveal their own insecurity in their arguments.
Wade, Do you think you get get a court to acknowledge that I made an ad hominem comment?
Did I call anyone a liar? Name the person please. I certainly intended my comments to be thought provoking at a personal level. No apologies for that. If you can’t have that level of discussion here then the whole blog is a crock and intellectually dishonest.
Yes, I do believe I can:
First, clearly some on this thread support SSM.
Second, an ad hominem statement is defined as an attack on an opponent’s character instead of his argument.
Third, refering to the supporters you said, “THEY are NOT VERY RELIABLE members of the church.”
Fourth, you said, “if you support SSM and get a temple recommend, you have LIED.”
Therefore, it is clear that although you never said someone’s name, you have attacked the character of those on this thread who support SSM – including Kaimi – instead of their arguments. This is defined as an ad hominem attack! Sorry, but it’s a fact.
Well this is ad hominem Wade, I am not going to hire you to be my lawyer.
Sorry to hear that George…
Even though I tend to sympathize with your feelings about supporters of SSM, I think a forum such as this is a place for rational instead of emotional persuasion.
Perhaps you won’t hire me as your lawyer because my argument about your ad hominem attack is indestructable and this hurts your feelings???
Hmm… I know my opinions are passionate, and yes perhaps emotional but I don’t think they’re irrational.
I don’t think that institutionalized (or any) homosexual relationships are any more debatable by Mormons than adultery, polygamy, or pedophilia. All those behaviors have their advocates but anyone with a testimony of the restoration and claims to support and sustain the president of the church can’t go there and be faithful to his/her testimony. That is a logical appeal. I hope you can take it that way.
This thread from Feminist Mormon Houswives discussed the issue of whether supporting gay marriage makes one unworthy for a Temple recommend. The stake president described in the post seems to agree with George, but most commenters did not.
Good George,
This statement is much more persuasive than calling anyone a liar or saying their grandchildren will not even know what the Church is!!!
I concur with your last comment!
Lastly George,
I DO think making a claim that the grandchildren of those who support SSM won’t even know what the Church is is outright hyperbole. It’s crazy to say that, yet maybe you don’t think the Church is large enough and well known enough for some people to even know what it is?
George,
You were temporarily added to the moderation queue (that is, your comments would need to be approved by a permablogger before appearing) as a precautionary measure due to concerns that arose when you appeared to be posting under multiple handles, some of which were disagreeing with each other. (Posts from that IP address as TexasViolinist seemed to agree with George posts, but the Ahab post appeared to disagree).
Perhaps we’re too gun-shy on this particular issue, but T & S readers know that we’ve had some very negative experience with commenters who create multiple online identities and argue with themselves. When it appeared that you might be going down the same road, I added you to moderation to keep an eye on the situation.
I’ll note that you haven’t confirmed those fears, and the Ahab post may just be an attempt to inject humor into the discussion. Our initial fears (that you were about to start a conversation with a bunch of pseudo-people) seem to have been unfounded, and I’m removing you from the queue. Your prior comments are in the queue, and I’ll approve them now.
Finally, lest anyone worry about deconstructing and reconstructing this conversation after your five on-hold comments are approved, I’m going to mark them with an asterisk. (*). This is solely for informational purposes — I don’t want to unnescesarily make you look like you repeat yourself a lot. :)
(Note that you’ve got six comments on moderation, but one is an exact duplicate so I’m deleting it).
Finally, as to whether I litigate for the plaintiff’s bar — I direct you to my bio, on this site. The short answer is that I am not, and never have been, a litigator for the plaintiff’s bar.
Not that there’s anything _wrong_ with that . . . :).
Bishop Edwin Wooley often disagreed, sometimes energetically, with Brigham Young. It was no secret, nor were the subjects of the disagreements. On one such occasion, Brigham said to Edwin, “Well I suppose you’ll now go and apostatize.” To which Edwin replied, “No I won’t. If this were your church I might, but it’s just as much mine as it is yours.” From Quaker to Latter-day Saint at 449.
At least two of his grandchildren, J. Reuben Clark and Spencer W. Kimball, knew what the church was.
Nice comment David!
Wade and George,
Given your comments, do you believe that adoption by single people (as opposed to a married couple) should not be allowed?
Randy
In general no. There may be some situations where no other option may be available and that a carefully screened single adoption may be the best available choice.
David H,
Bishop Wooley, at least as you’ve shared his story, disagreed with the prophet Brigham Young, but not with the prophet and the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles unified, as do supporters of same-sex marriage. I believe that’s a significant distinction. But may everyone who resists the apostles go on to have progeny in the First Presidency. And who knew that Presidents Clark and Kimball were cousins? I’m surprised I hadn’t heard it before.
Disagreement has never been the problem. Public disagreement has often been the problem.
This is, I think, even more true today than in Brigham’s day because the principle of public vs. private disagreement has been taught and espoused repreatedly, so perhaps ignorance or old habit is no longer an excuse.
Regards #180.
I think that what the comment was trying to say is that members that go squishy on Doctrine (Like SSM) and take the worlds view run a greater risk of not transmitting their values down the generations than those that take a more orthodox view. This idea rings true to me based on the demise of the mainline protestant denominations. Since the mainline denominations went “squishy, “liberal” on a series of issues including SSM their membership has seen serious declines. Sometimes as such as 60% in 30 years I have seen articles where mainline pastors have bemoaned that none of the kids are staying in the mainline church. Conservative Christians write articles about this all the time and warn their own denominations not to go “Squishy”
Exactly! Do a survey. Do you suppose that the grandchildren of any 1950’s and 1960’s era self-styled dissenters are active members of the church today? It is really rare. My family is nearly raised but I doubt that my grandchildren would be active in the church if I dissented from its principles even if (especially if) I held a temple recommend.
George,
The best analog is almost certainly to people who supported the Equal Rights Amendment. (Right? I think the parallels are pretty clear).
And are the grandchildren of any ERA supporters being raised within the church? Why, I don’t even have to look outside the participants in this blog to find examples of that occurring.
I know, it’s probably rude of me to question your obvious knowledge about the childrearing environments of a bunch of people whom you’ve never met. But looking at the evidence of ERA grandchildren, I would say that the evidence suggests that your sweeping, across-the-board assertion is incorrect.
Yawn….
George D., that was incredibly rude. Back off, bub. I’d like you to stick around, because I think you are right on a lot of things, but if you keep behaving this way you wont’ be able to.
As a latecomer, I may be misreading, but it sounds like George’s argument is the following:
If you *commit* adultery, you shouldn’t have a temple recommend, therefore
If you *believe* same-sex marriage should be legal, you shoulnd’t have a temple recommend.
This argument (if I’m reading it correctly) is patent nonsense. The better analogy would be whether one can hold a temple recommend while *believing* that adultery should be legal. Very different question, wouldn’t you say?
Ryan, Is that what passes for logic?
You sound like a teenager in a Sunday School class.
Let me repeat my point for you.
If you believe adultery, polygamy or pedophila are ok (whether you practice them or not) you are not worthy of a temple recommend in my opinion. How hard is that to understand? I don’t care what your Bishop or Stake President think. That is between them and you. Its just my opinion.
Ya know Adam, you can take a hard look at all my posts and you can see that I have never singled anyone out for an insult or an attack but you very tolerant intellectuals here are really quick to find offense when an idea is passionately expressed. It is the one thing our intellectuals can’t tolerate — passion.
Kaimi has repeatedly insulted me and all I have ever said to him is
yawn…
and I’ll now say to you
yawn…
Martyrdom is always so less interesting, George D., when one is martyred for the cause of incivility. Pity. I had hoped you could be an ally in defending the church on gay marriage but now I see you are more interested in attitude than in issues.
George, I actually don’t feel much different from a teenager in Sunday School, so I certainly don’t begrudge you that impression.
If you’ll go back and read your comments 200 and 209, you’ll see that you came very, very close to equating the temple recommend consequences of “committing” adultery with “supporting” polygamy with “supporting” same-sex marriage. I’ll defer to other commenters about whether my reading was justifiable based on your wording of those comments. I think it was.
Now, in comment 234, you’ve changed your tune to only “believ[ing] adultery, polygamy, or pedophilia are ok.” Well, fine, that’s a logically consistent argument. But it’s not what you said in 200 and 209. Sorry if you don’t think that passes for logic, but your words upthread don’t support you.
Kaimi – #230,
Exactly how can you analogize between equal rights for people of color and allowing SSM? How is denying a person of color equality under the law the same as denying homosexuals the right to be married?
First of all, I enjoy no more rights than does a homosexual! I cannot marry another man. Whereas, pursuant to Plessy, blacks couldn’t even eat, drink, or sleep in the same places as whites.
Also, there was no moral reason for denying blacks equality under the law – it was outright hatred for no reason! However, allowing SSM is state sanction (not toleration, but sanction – there is a difference) of homosexual behavior and recognition of SS families. Allowing SS couples to raise children violates the state’s interest in protecting children – Nature requires children be influenced by both a mother and father.
Thus, it is foolish to say the analogy between the ERA and SSM is “pretty clear”.
Wade:
Have you taken Con Law yet? When you take Con Law, these distinctions might make more sense to you. Also, I may have confused your comment, but the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) is about discrimination based on sex, not race. The 14th Amendment speaks to racial discrimination.
The Equal Rights Amendment
Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.
Ryan,
The adultery analogy isn’t parallel because the church isn’t actively working to make adultery illegal. If the brethren had made a similarly comprehensive effort against adultery’s legality, and called on members to oppose it, I think it would be fair to wonder how strongly someone can oppose them in what they consider to be one of society’s gravest issues, yet simultaneously sustain them as God’s mouthpieces.
It’s worth noting that the president of the New York New York stake apparently agrees with George. (Though I don’t know if anyone followed up with the GAs to see if this was appropriate, I suspect he’s a bright guy not prone to patent nonsense.)
Wade,
I’m not meaning to reference the 14th amendment (or the other post-Civil-War amendments) but rather the proposed Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). The ERA was heavily advocated in the 70s by various civil rights groups, and ratified by a number of states during that time. The church officially opposed the ERA. The ERA was not ratified by a sufficient number of states to be added as an amendment to the Constitution.
For one online chronology, see http://www.now.org/issues/economic/cea/history.html . For another, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment .
Elisabeth & Kaimi,
I stand CORRECTED!
My ignorance definitely shines through on that one eh. I was a little puzzled because I wasn’t aware of an amendment to the Constitution known as the ERA – only the Civil War Amendments. Thus, I thought Kaimi was making the all too common argument that discrimination against SSM is the same as racial discrimination.
I’m in my first semester of con law – only a few weeks in. Sorry about the “foolish” comment. What was the Church’s rationale for officially opposing the ERA?
Some official statements by the church about the ERA:
http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1980.htm/ensign%20march%201980.htm/frequently%20asked%20questions%20about%20the%20proposed%20equal%20rights%20amendment%20a%20closer%20look.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0
http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1980.htm/ensign%20march%201980.htm/the%20latterday%20saint%20perspective.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0
http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1980.htm/ensign%20march%201980.htm/the%20church%20and%20the%20proposed%20equal%20rights%20amendment%20a%20moral%20issue.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0
http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1980.htm/ensign%20march%201980.htm/summary%20questions%20and%20answers.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0
Kaimi,
I still don’t see how the ERA is analogous to SSM? Is equal protection under the law for women the same as for homosexuals?
I think what Kaimi is arguing, Wade Poulson, is that the Prophets asked us to oppose the ERA, but some Mormons refused to listen to him and their children are still ‘good’ members; therefore it’s ok to promote SSM though the church opposes it.
Wade,
I was drawing the analogy because in both instances, the church came out in official opposition to the proposed law or change in law, which is an unusual position for the church. The church’s opposition in both was limited in scope, but very broad in breadth. The church has opposed same-sex marriage in the political arena in several jurisdictions, just as it did with the ERA. Also as with the ERA, the church has not incorporated this political prong into official statements about member worthiness. I believe that the question of whether one supported the ERA — like the question of whether one supports SSM — never entered the temple recommend interview.
For those reasons, the ERA seems to be a good test of whether descendants of people who disagree with the church’s position on political, non-worthiness-related issues (at least as clearly defined) are likely to retain church membership. Thus, it seems like a good test for George’s assertion that the descendants of members who support SSM politically will not be church members themselves. If this assertion is true for SSM (disagreement with church political position will lead to non-member children), I would think that it would hold true for the ERA as well, since the church’s position with regards to the ERA is so similar to the church’s position with regards to SSM.
Also, since it has been twenty years since the ERA controversy, it should be empirically testable whether any descendants of ERA supporters retain active membership in the church.
Interesting and relevant FAQ:
Is favoring the ERA grounds for excommunication?
No. Contrary to news reports, Church membership has neither been threatened nor denied because of agreement with the proposed amendment. However, there is a fundamental difference between speaking in favor of the ERA on the basis of its merits on the one hand, and, on the other, ridiculing the Church and its leaders and trying to harm the institution and frustrate its work.
Adam,
Not necessarily that “it’s okay to promote SSM” (that’s an argument for another day) but rather the more limited claim that George’s initial assertion of 180 — that SSM support will guarantee non-member grandchildren — is probably wrong.
Oh Ryan, one other thing, I took George to be using adultery and polygamy not as examples of sins equally serious to supporting same-sex marriage, but to show that the interpretation of the temple recommend questions isn’t determined by the interviewee. (Like “sustain” prophets and “support” for groups that oppose teachings of the church, “chastity” isn’t defined in the questions, but that doesn’t mean each person can decide what chastity means for them.)
So, following the advice of the counsel of Church leaders, and looking at a law allowing same-sex marriage on the “basis of its merits”, one such “merit” of same-sex marriage may be to encourage gays and lesbians to settle down and enter into stable, monogamous relationships. There are many benefits to monogamous relationships, including the prevention of sexually-transmitted diseases and financial and emotional security.
Kaimi,
I see the parallel now – thanks. To be honest, I think George’s comment about “grandchildren” was pretty rediculous as well as presumptuous.
My next question is: Why oppose an official position espoused by the Prophets (even if not done to ridicule or deride the Church as Elisabeth puts it, but personal opposition)?
Although I think George’s comment was presumptuous, my great-great grandfather (who was a temple worker in the SLT until he died) opposed the Church’s sealing policy (his second wife was sealed to her first husband who died and thus my grandfather couldn’t be sealed to her and their 10 children) and his attitude caused a huge dissension in a large part of my family. Thus, I think there may be some veracity to George’s comment if it was toned down a little (because obviously not ALL of my grandfather’s grandchildren went astray – indeed even the apostates “know what the church is”).
Another question: Is it because your an academic that you feel a need to oppose the Church’s position – in other words, are the current “legal arguments” really that persuasive so as to ignore the obvious moral grounding in opposition to SSM? After all, the law changes with time and an argument that something should be allowed because the law says so is, to me, just a cop out.
Yeah, I guess I was a bit inconsistent. Practice and advocate. I’ll go with them all. I think that if you support sin you commit sin. If thinking lustfully is adultery then thinking disobedience is disobedience. It’s about where our heart is, isn’t it?
ps I won’t even put ERA close to SSM even though I agree with the Church’s position. The legal effect of all but ERA has been horrific enough w/o the constitutional amendment. Our ERA-lite society doesn’t make women into men. It makes men into women.
How is that for an aggressively passionate statement that is directed at no one in particular.
Kaimi,
I don’t think George was “guaranteeing” that the grandchildren of SSM supporters would be non-members, anymore than people who say smokers get lung cancer guarantee that everyone who smokes will get lung cancer. It would be interesting to see whether the children of 1980 ERA supporters or opponents are more active. We could get a list of Mormons who published articles for and against the ERA, then see where their children are today.
Matt,
That would make for a VERY interesting study!!!
The study would be of great interest to many! You should do it!
“following the advice of the counsel of Church leaders, and looking at a law allowing same-sex marriage on the “basis of its merits”
Elisabeth, the answer to the FAQ was that members who restricted themselves to arguing the merits would not be excommunicated. How that means the Church’s stance *against* SSM is really a call for us to promote its merits is too subtle for me. I leave it to your active intelligence to explain it to us.
It used to be that we had arguments about prophetic statements that weren’t canonized. Now, not even canonization is enough. Nothing that isn’t explicitly mentioned in the temple recommend interview is important to believe or do.
Adam: I’m sure your active intelligence can no doubt discern the difference between discussing the merits of an issue and promoting or advocating the issue. Seems to me that a discussion of both the benefits and disadvantages of same-sex marriage would be appropriate within a discussion of same-sex marriage in general.
The FAQ on the ERA followed this pattern of discussion, and concluded that the disadvantages of the Amendment outweighed the benefits of such.
Matt, it’s trivial, but I want to clarify my comments. I wasn’t saying that for someone to deny a temple recommend on the basis of SSM support is patent nonsense (although I personally think it’s overreaching). What I said was patent nonsense was George’s argument equating the support of SSM with the commission of adultery. That’s what I think it patent nonsense. Sorry if I was confusing.
You’ve never met a disadvantage that you liked, Elisabeth. When you say discussing the ‘merits,’ that’s what you mean.
On temple recommends:
It seems to me that the pro-SSM people are the equivalent of folks who try to persuade Mormon youth not to serve missions. The Church has clear positions on both. Neither position is in the temple recommend interview.
A few of us remember the drama of the Church’s stand against the Equal Rights Amendment. It was more awkward than the stance against SSM. That is, the position, in essence, was that the Church supported equal rights for women, but opposed a constitutional amendment, at least as worded in that proposed amendment.
It was also awkward because it was late in the game, and many Latter-day Saints (and LDS politicians) had made public statements in support of the ERA long before the Church announced its opposition. Indeed, support for the ERA had been part of the Republican platform for many years. Following the Church’s announcement, some LDS politicians and others changed their position about the ERA, but many did not.
The Church’s strong opposition to the ERA led to motions that Judge Callister, an LDS federal judge in Idaho who was regional representative (essentially like an Area Authority 70) should recuse himself from hearing a case challenging the extension of the ratification period of the amendment. He denied the motion, and ruled that the extension of the ratification period was unconstitutional. Before a decision could be made on appeal, the extended ratification period expired.
Just as many questioned whether JFK (or Mitt Romney) could exercise judgment independent of their church leaders, many questioned whether Latter-day Saints were required to agree with official Church political positions (particularly matters deemed to be moral issues) in order to be in good standing. Many asserted that Judge Callister, as a line leader, must have been biased because, to be a good member or a good leader, he would be required to “toe the line” in ruling on a question that could affect whether the ERA could be ratified.
If, as some suggest, we are required to vote and do all we can to support the official Church position on a political/moral matter, in order to hold a temple recommend, that would suggest that an LDS politician must answer not to his or her constituents, but must vote God’s will as expressed by the Brethren.
This would be a troubling position to me.
I understood then, as I understand now, that we are free to hold opinions different from the official Church position with respect to the ERA or SSM, and remain in good standing. That is, the Church has implicitly determined that our agreement (if we agree) with the official stance should not be coerced by threat of withholding a recommend. Otherwise, no one in the public domain could know whether our support of the Church’s position was our own, or whether we were taking it only to be worthy of a recommend.
To me, the fact that the Brethren have not decreed that agreement with the official position on SSM is a requirement to remain in good standing means that discussions may be had, and some good members may disagree with the official stance.
I don’t think the Church’s stand against SSM is a nullity, as suggested by DavidH. I would be surprised if our leaders thought that’s what they were about. Using excommunication as a guide to which Church pronouncements are genuine is even more absurd than using the temple recommend interview.
Finally, no one here is a public official. Public officials are free to state that there private views about what should be done are one thing, but that they are deferring to the their constituent’s views.
Adam:
Well, I would say that I’m confident that you’re covering the disadvantages of same-sex marriages effectively, although I’ve heard little about your substantive views on this thread regarding such. I know that you think the people who discuss the merits of same-sex marriage are “promoting” same-sex marriage, and that you think that people who “support” same-sex marriage are akin to subversives who would undermine a potential missionary’s plans to serve a mission.
It’s not as clear, however, how and why you came to this conclusion, and how you would tackle the legal arguments against (and for) same-sex marriage as a fundamental right, instead of taking offense as to this comparison, and refusing to answer questions about the subject.
Recently Elder Oaks noted that some people have suggested that questions about pornography be included in the temple recommend interview. He said that the suggestion should be rejected because questions about pornography already appear in the temple recommend interview in several places.
In my opinion it is pharasiacal to say that unless a question appears explicitly in the temple recommend interview that we can be advocates or practicioners of that are contrary to authoritative teaching. The temple recommend interview is a self test of our testimony, our loyalty to the church and its leadership, and the restoration.
When they make clear and authoritative statements about pornography, same sex marriage, pedophilia, spouse abuse etc. we can neither practice these nor advocate them and honestly receive a temple recommend.
Adam and GeorgeD,
If you were Joseph F. Smith during the Smoot hearings, and were asked whether an LDS voter or politician could take a position against the official Church stand on a political/moral issue–and remain in good standing (i.e., hold a recommend)–how would you have answered?
Adam and GeorgeD,
You are in confirmation hearings on your nomination to the Supreme Court, and you, as Judge Roberts was today, are asked whether you agree with President Kennedy: “I do not speak for the church on public matters, and the church does not speak for me.” How do you respond?
There are a few issues that you can differ on legitimately. Perhaps nuclear waste disposal in Tooele Valley or MX basing in western Utah may be some likely candidates for disagreement. Sodomy and pedophilia are not.
Hey. I’m back. In some sense of order:
Adam, re 178: I inadvertently left an extra word in when I was editing my sentence. It should read,”I claim that choice of sexual partner is a protected personal liberty per Lawrence.”
Eric and George, re 179 et al: Very nice. What a joy to come back to this forum today having had your judgment that I’m *this far* from apostacy. So much for intelligent discussion.
I defy either you to find one post I’ve made where I take “glee” in opposing the Church. In fact, I have not opposed the Church at all. I have not said that I approve of gay marriage, nor encourage it. In fact, my arguments have said very little about the church and much much more about civil liberties. If the Church want to interject into that realm, it has every right to do so, but the playing field changes. No court is going to rule against SSM simply because the LDS Church has come out against it.
Wade, re 184: Did the State of California make you sign an agreement when you married that you’d have children? Did you have to go through some sort of qualifiying process before you were allowed to engage in activity that might produce a child? I know I didn’t have to, but I married in Nevada, so who knows?
Point being, civil marriage for heterosexuals doesn’t require a commitment to have a child nor any proof that you’d be a good parent before you can have a license. Heck, many these days don’t even wait for the license to begin families. If it’s not required for heterosexuals, it would certainly be a violation to deny homosexuals a marriage license on those grounds.
bbell, re 228: I have not once suggested that we get “squishy” on the doctrine of the church. The Church considers homosexual behavior to be sinful, and it has every right to do so. With that as the rule, I fully concur that any Church member discovered to be a practicing homosexual stands in danger of judgment. I fully support that.
D&C 134 speaks a great deal about how government and churches should interact. It’s worth a read.
Elisabeth, re 257: You’ve put so well the disconnect I mentioned earlier that happens when these things are discussed. Thank you (and others) for understanding and support.
Adam, re 260: Your analogy is off. Those who seek to impose our morality on those who don’t hold to it are the equivalent of those who would fault a non-member 20-year-old because he wasn’t out serving the Lord. We have every right to hold our own member’s feet to the fire.
Chad Too:
You appear to believe that the Church as only stated that it does not approve of gay marriages. Such is not the case. The Church opposes the *legalization* of gay marriage.
Elisabeth:
What are the disadvantages of gay marriage?
David H.:
I respond, ‘As a judge I would follow the law, not what my church thought the law should be. That’s for voters and politicians.”
I respond, ‘the church rarely takes a stand on political issues. When it does, the church does not expel members with honest differences of opinion on the correctness of that stance or how best to apply it.”
What this has to do with your idea that nothing the Church says is prophetic unless it they excommunicate people who think otherwise is beyond me.
Adam,
We may have misunderstood each other, or simply should agree to disagree.
Your hypothetical answer for Joseph F. Smith did not answer the hypothetical question I posed in the Smoot hearings. My question did not ask about expelling members, but about holding a temple recommend. Would you or GeorgeD have told the Congress that the Church policy is to withhold recommends from people who have honest differences of opinion with a Church stance (at least the SSM stance)?
I am curious why you construed my comments to mean that the Church’s stand against SSM was a “nullity” or not “prophetic.” I actually agree with the Church’s position, and I do think the Brethren were inspired to issue it.
My comment addressed what the requirements are to be a good member, particularly to be eligible for a temple recommend.
I can honestly say I reached my position against SSM without fear that a temple recommend depended on my conclusions, because I believe one can hold a temple recommend and have an honest disagreement with official Church positions on political/moral issues–including SSM or the ERA.
I respect your apparent position that a person who does not agree with a Church pronouncement should not seek or use a temple recommend. You and GeorgeD are certainly free to interpret the questions that way for yourselves.
I suppose part of the issue is how “good” of a member must one be to hold a recommend. I am hesitant to claim, or argue, that honest disagreement with an official Church position is a sufficient reason to deny a recommend or decline to seek one. Apart from the link that Matt provided, I have not heard of a Church leader (certainly not a general authority) stating that disagreement with the Church’s position on SSM (or ERA) meant a person was, or should consider himself or herself, ineligible for a temple recommend.
DavidH,
When you said ‘in good standing,’ I interpreted that to mean ‘in full fellowship.’ I now see what you were getting at. I would answer that I didn’t know but that I suspected members who favored SSM were not denied temple recommends (why Congress would or should care about this is beyond me).
I can see why you think its my position, but I’m actually of two minds about whether people who do not agree with the Church’s position on SSM should seek a recommend. I lean towards thinking they should, but maybe they should bring it up and talk it over during the interview?
But what I’ve really been arguing is that Church pronouncements mean something even if they are not incorporated into the temple recommend interview. I don’t see prophetic pronouncements as irritating hurdles on the strait and narrow. I see them as blessings. Like you, I had arrived at my position against SSM before the Church said anything, but I was happy when the Church said something about it. There are several imponderables about SSM that I just had to apply assumptions and presumptions too, and I was glad to get a little divine confirmation.
With regards to this issue, it is important to recognize the emerging scientific consensus that a homosexual orientation, once thought to be purely a “choice”, or perhaps due to upbringing or social environment, is now known to be largely (if not exclusively) biological, and certainly not a “choice”. Here is a brief summary of some of this evidence:
1. A homosexual orientation is at least partly genetic. Here are statistical correlations between different types of siblings:
Homosexual Homosexual
Men Women
Identical twins 57% 50%
Fraternal twins 24% 16%
Non-twin siblings 9% 14%
Adoptive siblings 11% 6%
Conclusion: Homosexual orientation has at least a 50% genetic component.
2. A homosexual orientation may be partly due to stress on the mother, or even previous male children in the womb. In one study, conducted in part by LDS researchers, male rats whose mothers were subjected to stress on a certain day of gestation were significantly more likely to be “gay” (disinterested in female rats; attempt to mount males).
3. Homosexuals have a slightly different brain structure than heterosexuals. The volume of the brain structure “INAH-3” in HS men is significantly smaller (on average) than in hetero men.
4. Homosexual men have a 34% greater probability of being left-handed than hetero men; homosexual women have a 91% greater probability of being left-handed than heterosexual women. Also, in hetero men, the ratio of fourth finger length to second finger length is significantly closer to unity than in females (on average); in homosexuals, the ratios are reversed (on average).
5. Homosexuals appear to be different in fundamental cognitive areas. Heterosexual men prefer maps and compass orientation when navigating, whereas women prefer landmarks (on average, based on population studies); this difference has been linked to evolutionary specializations from hunter-gatherer days. In homosexual men and women, these preferences are reversed (on average). In a similar way, while heterosexual women tend to be more fluent with words in conversation than heterosexual men, in homosexual men and women these tendencies are reversed (on average). Homosexual men lack a male-typical response to a visual dot detection test. Homosexual men show an EEG pattern resembling hetero women while performing various verbal and spatial tasks.
5. Homosexuals have different responses to pheromones. Using a brain imaging technique, Swedish researchers have shown that homosexual and heterosexual men respond differently to two odors that may be involved in sexual arousal, and that the heterosexual men respond in the same way as most women (on average).
DHB,
Sexual desire in general has a nearly 100% genetic component. That did not stop Christ from telling us it is a sin to look on a woman to lust after her. Nor does it stop fornication from being a sin. Our predispositions are not judged, but rather our actions and, to the extent we control them, our thoughts and desires.
Also, if identical twins only have a .5 correlation then that would seem like a maximum genetic component, rather than a minimum. Of course you could say some twins are lying, but setting that aside, twins often have very similar environments, some of which as your data for non-genetic siblings shows, leads to correlation in homosexual tendency. Thus the .5 is both the genetic and the environmental correlation. The strictly genetic correlation would presumably be lower.
“With regards to this issue, it is important to recognize the emerging scientific consensus that a homosexual orientation, once thought to be purely a “choice”, or perhaps due to upbringing or social environment, is now known to be largely (if not exclusively) biological”
Why?
Because if orientation is not a matter of choice, and if it doesn’t “go away” (the long-term success rate of orientation-change “therapy” is *very* low), then, at the least, we have to rethink any negative, judgmental attitudes we might have towards those with a nonstandard orientation. We also need to rethink how we deal with such persons, both within the church and in the larger society. I don’t know the answers here, but I do know that judgmentalism dosn’t work and isn’t right.
#275: Flesh this out for us that oppose SSM and consider homosexual acts to be sinful: “I don’t know the answers here, but I do know that judgmentalism dosn’t work and isn’t right.” What I am reading form this that its wrong to consider SSM and homosexual acts a sin because its judgemental? Then all looking at sin in a negative light is also judgemental. Or maybe you believe that Homosexual acts are not sinful anymore.
Great, Let me teach my kids that there is no sin then they will have pre-marital sex because to oppose pre-marital sex is “Judgementalism”
I guess nobody needs to repent because there is no sin…….
So much for the need for an atonement……..
man I am not paying 10% anymore…….. Wait there was a BOM character that taught this very thing.
See where this can lead us?
I think you’re taking my view to (and beyond) alogical extreme.
You might not like this. But do you consider a homosexual orientation by itself to be a sin? Even if he/she has never had any sort of relationship with a person of the same sex? If so, then given the scientific evidence (that orientation is inborn), this makes a person a sinner right from the day of his/her birth. That sounds like original sin to me!
Again, I don’t know the answer here. But I do know that we need to be very careful here, and to carefully examine our own attitudes towards such people, and how we deal with such people in the church and in society.
Sin requires action or bad thoughts.
I think my logical line was pretty straight on. Your view matches up with the secular world view that there is really no sin.
I am confident that the Lords prophets over the last 5000 years have the answer. Not the secular world. We as LDS need to decide. The world or the church? President H or the world? Paul in Corinthians or the world? Traditional Christian teaching on sexual sin or the world?
Here come the threshers of the wheat.
This is an interesting discussion. But it is made less so by several people who are sure they know exactly what everyone else is thinking. How, exactly, is that possible? Five lines of text are probably not enough of a window into someone else’s soul that you can definitively say what other people believe or do not believe.
A little discretion, humility, and–best of all for purposes of a discussion–clarity would make the conversation more interesting.
People assume a wide range of views on this issue. Perhaps Bell and others could indicate where along this sample spectrum they are most comfortable. I’m probably somewhere between #3 and #4.
1. Homosexuality in any form or degree, including feelings of attraction to a person of the same sex, is unnatural and wrong. Any person who has such feelings must immediately repent and take action to rid him/herself of such feelings. Any claims by scientists that orientation is biological and/or inborn must be false.
2. Homosexuality does exist, in the sense that some people experience same-sex attraction. However, this is due to childhood play or effects of family environment, and certainly not any inborn or “natural” causes. Such persons need to get counseling (and/or a good marriage) to correct these unholy feelings.
3. A certain portion of the population evidently is born with (or acquies early in life) a homosexual orientation, and there is little if anything that can be done to change it. Such a condition is not by itself considered sinful, so long as persons do not act on such feelings by pursuing a personal relationship with another person of the same sex — ie, such persons must live a celibate, single life, as difficult as that may be. But we should not support gay marriage for such persons.
4. Homosexuality is part of the inborn nature of a certain fraction of the population, and it is unrealistic to expect that all or most such persons can life a permanently celibate, single life. The best practical alternative is to encourage such persons to form long-lasting bonds with committed partners — e.g., civil unions with comparable obligations and rights to marriage. For church members in this situation, celibacy is still required, although ecclesiastical leaders should try to be understanding.
5. Homosexuality is fine and should be recognized by adopting gay marriages and/or unions — this is certainly better than promoting promiscuity. The traditional religious injunctions against homosexuality were mistaken and should be changed.
6. Sexual relations of any form between two consenting persons are not in any way immoral, and social and/or religious views to the contrary are antiquated relics of a patriarchal past.
DHB,
I am somewhere between 2 and 3 and always think that Priesthood leaders should be understanding of the personal struggles that people encounter in this world (end of 4) I think that the official Church stand is somewhere between 2 and 3. That is just my opinion though. I think that there is some choice, environment, and genetics involved.
This is a very good scale.
I agree that current Church teachings are somewhere between 2 and 3. Which is interesting because it wasn’t that long ago that they were somewhere between 1 and 2. Where will they be 30 years from now?