Oct.16.2009
8:43 am
by Laura
A Response to Elder Oaks
To Elder Dallin H. Oaks, of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
We agree with your recent statement that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) “must insist on our constitutional right and duty to exercise our religion, to vote our consciences on public issues, and to participate in elections and debates in the public square and the halls of justice.” It is precisely this duty which motivates us to write this joint statement urging you to reconsider the role of the LDS church in funding any public campaign to limit the freedom of other religions to practice in accordance with their beliefs.
Support of policies that seek to force the morality of our belief system on others who believe differently and strip existing rights from individuals and religions is contrary to core doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as outlined in the Articles of Faith: “We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all [people] the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may,” and the Doctrine and Covenants: “We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government …” (Doctrine and Covenants 134:9). Our prophets, scriptures, and the history of our own people warn us of the destructive force caused by such actions. We are dismayed at the dilemma of choosing between our allegiance to leaders of the LDS Church such as yourself and the doctrine of the LDS church on this matter. We are also dismayed at the necessity of defending our friends in other faiths from attacks supported by our own church with money we thought had been consecrated for the work of God.
We have invited leaders in other faith communities to sign the following statement of support.
As leaders in our own faith communities we applaud the teachings of the LDS faith described above. Many religions in our country and throughout the world believe in marriage unions and traditions that are not exactly the same as those held by Elder Oaks. Many religions believe that unions between any two consenting adults are sacred and of value to a stable society, and believe passionately in the necessity of allowing all such unions the same legal recognition, rights and responsibilities. We respectfully suggest that the cause of religious freedom is best served in our pluralistic society by not seeking to impose the definitions of one religion on other groups of people, but by preserving every religion’s freedom to practice their beliefs in a society based upon mutual respect.
If you would like to join in signing this statement, send an email to: ForReligiousFreedom@gmail.com
Filed in gay, homosexuality, mormons |
With the significant emphasis the LDS Church puts on the importance of marriage and the family, it doesn’t seem too out-of-line for the LDS Church to put energy and resources into an effort designed to protect the definition of marriage as ordained of God.
A simple reading of “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” should clarify that by defending the traditional definition of marriage, the LDS Church is indeed engaged in what it’s members consider ‘the work of God.’ Therefore, using your rationale, the LDS Church is justified in using donated funds. Then again, from everything I have read, the LDS Church limited donations to ‘in-kind’ donations, not cash donations.
I find it ironic that you express dismay “at the dilemma of choosing between our allegiance to leaders of the LDS Church such as yourself and the doctrine of the LDS church on this matter”, yet you see no dilemma in choosing between clear church doctrine (i.e. Proclamation on the Family) and your opposition to Prop 8.
I don’t see how supporting Prop 8 means the LDS Church is limiting “the freedom of other religions to practice in accordance with their beliefs” as you claim. If your claim was true, wouldn’t that mean those who oppose Prop 8 (like your organization) are therefore limiting MY religious freedom to practice in accordance with my beliefs? How can your claim apply to one side, and not the other?
Another strong (and inaccurate) claim is your accusation that the LDS Church is supporting attacks. Really? The LDS Church is supporting an ISSUE…not attacks. There have been attacks on both sides, so does that mean your organization is supporting attacks simply because you oppose Prop 8?
Finally, is marriage really a right, or is it a privilege? Pretty big difference. If marriage is a ‘right’, why do we need a license for it? Don’t we license things that are privileges - like a driver’s license, or a fishing license? Last time I checked, I didn’t need apply for a ‘freedom of speech’ license, because freedom of speech is a right.
If marriage is truly a ‘right’ of all US citizens, shouldn’t a man legally be allowed to marry his cousin? His mother? His daughter?
Just some notes for those of you who are landing here for the first time and haven’t taken time to look around:
Same-sex marriage is a sensitive topic that is prone to flame wars, name calling and general conversational deterioration. Therefore, comments here are highly moderated.
Because of the moderation issues, and because all of us have things to do in real life, there will be delays in seeing your comments appear.
Please note that any comments following down the well-worn paths about incestuous/bestial marriages, calls to repentance (on any side), licensing requirements, who spent more money and whether that money was from California voters or not, or who vandalized or threatened whom will die quick deaths. We’re all tired of those debates, and if you want to continue debating those issues, feel free to do it at one of the myriad other places on the internet.
Laura,
I appreciate you posting my comment. I recognize the topic is very sensitive and extremely complex. While I have strong beliefs on the topic, I respect that others have equally strong beliefs that differ from mine. I appreciate a mature, constructive (i.e. civilized) discussion on the topic, and hope my tone was appropriate.
That being said, I question your final paragraph. The debates that you mentioned are indeed “well-worn.” Some of the issues listed (e.g. who vandalized or threatened whom) are rightfully dismissed as speculative and somewhat irrelevant. However, other issues (e.g. right v. privilege) are central to the broader debate of gay marriage and deserve to be discussed until they are adequately answered. It doesn’t seem a sufficient answer to simply ignore or avoid the issue of rights v. privileges solely on the basis that you’re tired of the debate. Wouldn’t the debate naturally go away if it were adequately answered?
The central argument of Prop 8 opponents is the idea that marriage is a RIGHT. If true, then we should all be in favor of extending those rights anyone with a pulse. On the other hand, if marriage is not truly a right, then gay marriage activists and Prop 8 opponents are out-of-line in playing off the moral and emotional issues that accompany the withholding of rights.
I hope this does not come across as an attack, but as a sincere question. If you (or anyone else) has an answer that can end the question of right v. privilege, I would be thrilled to read it. More likely, it’s an issue that doesn’t have a lot of black & white answers. If that’s the case, I’m ok to respectfully disagree on Prop 8 and allow ‘we the people’ to decide the issue through the voice of our votes.
Kyle in response to your questions:
Re protecting God-ordained marriage definitions: We are 100% supportive of the LDS Church emphasizing the importance of heterosexual marriage and complete chastity for Mormons. Every religious organization in the United States has a duty and a right to preach and adhere to its own God-ordained moral code and to speak out in public about those moral codes and beliefs. Society is better for this kind of public discourse.
What we are opposed to is any religion forcing its moral code into secular law. Iowa’s Supreme Court ran into this problem not so very long ago: “Recognizing the sincere religious belief held by some that the “sanctity of marriage” would be undermined by the inclusion of gay and lesbian couples, the court nevertheless noted that such views are not the only religious views of marriage. Other, equally sincere groups have espoused strong religious views yielding the opposite conclusion. These contrasting opinions, the court finds, explain the absence of any religious-based rationale to test the constitutionality of Iowa’s same-sex marriage statute.”
Re The Proclamation on the Family: If you haven’t seen other posts at this site, you may not realize that almost nobody’s decisions about opposing Proposition 8 were made without lots of thought, prayer, pondering, studying and fasting. That study included wrestling with the non-canonized Proclamation as well as other statements by LDS leaders and seeking personal revelation about the matter at hand. While many Mormons see the Proclamation as being a very clear, black-and-white description of a plan of salvation (or happiness), there are many others for whom the proclamation raises as many questions as it answers. This is particularly true for people whose experience reveals that homosexuality is no more a choice than heterosexuality.
Re donations from the Church: LDS in-kind donations were not limited to things like paper clips, web hosting and meeting space. They included things like nearly $100,000 in church employee wages, payments for airline tickets, rental cars, hotel rooms, etc. Instead of giving this money to the ProtectMarriage coalition directly, the Church paid for these services and then counted those payments as donations. So at some point along the way, money received by the Church from tithing funds or other donations was paid to support this political activity. Some Church members are fine with that, others are not. Of course, there’s always a possibility that travel expenses for General Authorities and wages for Church employees come from non-tithing funds, but that’s not particularly likely.
Re Limiting freedoms of other churches: There are lots of legal things that Mormons don’t partake of, some of which are integral to other religions. If you don’t want to perform or participate in a same-sex marriage, you are not forced to do so, any more than you are forced to use wine at the Sacrament table because liquor is legal. There are no LDS bishops or temple sealers in Boston or Iowa or Canada being forced to perform these marriages.
This is, after all, one of the tenets of LDS faith, as you well know - everyone gets to worship freely; you don’t stop us from doing things our way and we won’t stop you from doing things your way.
Re Supporting attacks: This is a strong statement, and we recognize that neither we nor Church leaders condone physical attacks, vandalism, or other illegal activity. We also recognize that there are GLBTQ people who feel they have been attacked by the LDS church, just as there are Mormons who feel they’ve been attacked by gay activists. When our GLBTQ friends say our church is attacking them (or supporting other organizations - in word, deed or monetary ways - that attack them) we are frustrated and saddened to know that an organization we have donated our time and money to, either currently or in the past, seems to be using those donations to hurt our friends.
Laura,
Thanks for the well thought out responses to some of my questions.
I need to apologize for my initial disregarded over the struggle felt by LDS members who are trying to reconcile their opposition to Prop 8 and their support of the Proclamation on the Family. I was out of line to suggest it “ironic” that LDS opponents to Prop 8 saw “no dilemma in choosing between clear church doctrine…opposition to Prop 8.” I realize many LDS members (on both sides of the debate) have wrestled significantly with the issue and feel bad that I disregarded those internal struggles.
I personally believe the Proclamation to be quite clear on the subject (paragraphs 1, 4, 6 and 7), and quite authoritative. It’s a “solemn” and joint declaration from the 15 individuals who lead the LDS Church through direct revelation from God. It may be non-canonized, but all scripture starts out that way, no?
You make several valid points that I can respect without debate (e.g. concerns about the use of tithing funds; your clarification on supporting attacks, etc.). Without intending to turn this into a never-ending cycle of responses, I must respectfully disagree with the opening paragraph:
1) “What we are opposed to is any religion forcing its moral code into secular law.” The LDS Church’s support of Prop 8 in no way ‘forces’ the LDS moral code into secular law. The LDS Church does not create law. The LDS Church does not interpret law. The LDS Church does not even vote on the law. The LDS Church does, however, have the right (freedom of speech) to express it’s opinions and beliefs on a very sensitive moral subject at the core of it’s religion. The matter is then left to a vote by the people. The moral code of the majority becomes secular law. Currently, the moral code of the majority in CA just happens to be in line with the moral code of the LDS Church. That doesn’t mean the LDS Church forced its moral code into secular law…it’s because a ‘government of the people, by the people, and for the people’ voted it that way.
Here is the real question: would you (or other groups) feel so strongly against the LDS Church’s involvement if their support was on the other side of the issue? I think many who are currently criticizing the LDS Church would have cheered the LDS Church had they opposed Prop 8 (and many who are currently cheering the LDS Church would turn to critics). Regardless of which side they took, couldn’t you argue the LDS Church was “forcing its moral code into secular law?” Or would they only be accused of “forcing” things when their moral code falls on the opposite side of the issue? Isn’t the core issue whether or not the LDS Church has the right to freedom of speech? That freedom shouldn’t be honored only when the LDS Church falls on the same side of an issue.
That being said, I should also recognize that this site is essentially doing nothing more than exercising the right to freedom of speech as well. With that in mind, I hope my comments have not disrespected that right.
Kyle stated: [I don’t see how supporting Prop 8 means the LDS Church is limiting “the freedom of other religions to practice in accordance with their beliefs” as you claim. If your claim was true, wouldn’t that mean those who oppose Prop 8 (like your organization) are therefore limiting MY religious freedom to practice in accordance with my beliefs? How can your claim apply to one side, and not the other? ]
Kyle, while I do respect your opinion, your argument is completely disingenuous.
The plain fact is, you are free to practice according to your religious beliefs, and marry someone of the opposite gender. I support that wholeheartedly, and wish you well.
Prop 8’s defeat, and in fact the entire concept of gay marriage does not infringe on your rights to practice your religious beliefs in any way whatsoever. You see, your religious beliefs affect you, and those who also practice the same beliefs. However, your religious beliefs have no place in MY life, unless I practice the same beliefs.
In order to “(limit your) religious freedom to practice in accordance with (your) beliefs,” laws allowing gay marriage would have to force you to marry someone of the same gender. Anything short of that doesn’t infringe on YOUR practice - but your support of anti-gay marriage sentiment and your efforts to codify that into the laws that affect ALL people of the United States (Mormon AND non-Mormon alike) definitely infringe on MY rights to practice MY particular religious beliefs.
And let me assure you, no matter how religious, pious, or perfect in your beliefs you may be - you have absolutely NO MORE RELIGIOUS RIGHTS than I do.
In short, the ONLY legitimate, fair, appropriate way to handle this boils down to one simple statement: If you don’t believe in same-sex marriage, then don’t marry someone of the same-sex.
Any attempts to force anything else on me is utter discrimination. Period.
[ 1) “What we are opposed to is any religion forcing its moral code into secular law.” The LDS Church’s support of Prop 8 in no way ‘forces’ the LDS moral code into secular law. The LDS Church does not create law. The LDS Church does not interpret law. The LDS Church does not even vote on the law. The LDS Church does, however, have the right (freedom of speech) to express it’s opinions and beliefs on a very sensitive moral subject at the core of it’s religion. The matter is then left to a vote by the people. The moral code of the majority becomes secular law. Currently, the moral code of the majority in CA just happens to be in line with the moral code of the LDS Church. That doesn’t mean the LDS Church forced its moral code into secular law…it’s because a ‘government of the people, by the people, and for the people’ voted it that way. ]
With all due respect, you’re wrong again, Kyle. And frankly, I find it ironic (to steal your own word) that someone of a religious belief that has faced its own share of discrimination for many years should feel that way. Sort of “I got mine, screw you.”
Simply put, if everything the “majority” voted on became law, and no law ever went against the “majority” opinion, then Loving v. Virginia (the Supreme Court case striking down bans on interracial marriage) would never have taken place, women would never had gained the right to vote, and so on.
The fact is, tyrrany of a minority by a majority is NOT a concept upon which this nation is based, no matter how much you might feel it is.
Let me ask you a question in a different way: If, tomorrow, Propositions were launched in all the states that have that mechanism available, to ban the Mormon Church (for whatever reason; I don’t want to get into LDS good v. LDS bad arguments, as it’s frankly none of my business), and those Propositions PASSED, what would you reaction be?
I’m pretty sure you’d scream bloody murder (so to speak).
And before you dive into the “but religious freedom is written into the Constitution” argument, I’d ask you to do a little research on “equal protection under the law.”
Bottom line: What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. If MY rights (which don’t affect you in ANY way) can be taken away by “the majority”, then so can yours.
Do you REALLY want to go there?
Regarding the statement, “We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government:” Marriage is a religious construct, is not inclusive of all people, has distinct defining traits, and it not a civil union or institution.
Marriage is a religious institution. Its origin and definition are religious in nature, therefore, any “union of two people” constructed outside of a religious context is not a marriage at all. Therefore, the argument that any religious organization should not involve itself in civil government (when the debate is clearly a religious one) is a faulty argument.
It can be said that marriage should be a civil right for all: However, not all people (i.e. immediate family members and/or underage) have the civil right to be married. So it is not a civil right at all, and again, the application of mingling religious influence with civil government does not apply.
Religious and civil actions are quite different. Marriage is constructed by religious code, and although government has legitimized it for centuries, it is religious from its inception. Marriage was defined from religious creed as a union of a man and a woman. Civil government should not have any part in defining its traits and characteristics.
If people want to legitimize the union of gays and lesbians, then construct and civilize a new institution, but don’t change the construct and redefine the traits of the age-old model of marriage to fit the new model. Rather than revisionism, create a new institution (e.g. “Civil Union,” etc.), but don’t call it “marriage” because it doesn’t fit the construct.
[ Regarding the statement, “We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government:” Marriage is a religious construct, is not inclusive of all people, has distinct defining traits, and it not a civil union or institution. ]
Marriage, as defined by our laws (and by the Supreme Court of the United States in Loving v. Virginia), IS in fact a “basic civil right of man.” I’m sorry your religion disagrees; however, I am not trying to be married in your church. I want to be married in the eyes of the law. So for the purpose of this debate, marriage is most certainly NOT a religious construct.
[ Marriage is a religious institution. Its origin and definition are religious in nature, therefore, any “union of two people” constructed outside of a religious context is not a marriage at all. Therefore, the argument that any religious organization should not involve itself in civil government (when the debate is clearly a religious one) is a faulty argument. ]
Your argument that the debate is a religious one is what us faulty. Let me reiterate: I don’t want to get married in your church. And in your church is the ONLY place where your religion is applicable.
[ It can be said that marriage should be a civil right for all: However, not all people (i.e. immediate family members and/or underage) have the civil right to be married. So it is not a civil right at all, and again, the application of mingling religious influence with civil government does not apply. ]
I believe SCOTUS would disagree with you, again in the case of Loving v. Virginia, which struck down bans on interracial marriage. I find it sad that, as usual, someone on the religious side of the argument (which quite frankly shouldn’t exist in the first place) has decided to equate gays and lesbians with committers of incest and pedophiles.
[ Religious and civil actions are quite different. ]
Yes, they are. Which is why the entire religious argument is invalid.
[ Marriage is constructed by religious code, and although government has legitimized it for centuries, it is religious from its inception. Marriage was defined from religious creed as a union of a man and a woman. Civil government should not have any part in defining its traits and characteristics. ]
Then you should not be married in the eyes of the government either. Any difference between your rights and mine is discrimination, whether it is in the name of your religion or not.
[If people want to legitimize the union of gays and lesbians, then construct and civilize a new institution, but don’t change the construct and redefine the traits of the age-old model of marriage to fit the new model. Rather than revisionism, create a new institution (e.g. “Civil Union,” etc.), but don’t call it “marriage” because it doesn’t fit the construct. ]
I believe we’ve tried this before in this nation. The phrase that comes to mind is “separate but equal’”, which accomplished the “separate” part but was inherently unequal.
I have a counter-proposition for you. End ALL government “marriage.” Under my plan, the government would issue ONLY “Certificates of Civil Union” - to any two consenting adults not barred by laws regarding incest.
A government-recognized civil union would bear all of the rights and responsibilities that a government-recognized “marriage” does now. The word “marriage” would generally be used only in terms of the religious ceremony (although let’s be honest, it will be misused for a few generations at first).
You see, I believe that those that object on a religious basis, for the most part, don’t WANT anyone to be equal to them. Which is why I believe most religious folks who claim the problem is the word “marriage” still won’t go for this logical resolution - gay couples simply cannot be as “good” as religious couples, in their minds.
Prove me wrong.
I affirm the quoted article of faith while charitably and solidly supporting prop 8.
Men and women are currently free to realize their sexual natures, be they heterosexual or homosexual, according to the dictates of their own conscience. Marriage, however, is not a right, but a government (the democratic will of the people) endorsement and contract. Homosexuals have no more right to marriage than a childless person has to claim a child-tax credit.
The homosexual community has the right to earn marriage, by persuading the electorate to extend it to them. Unfortunately, however, the homosexual community appears to be “forcing the morality of [their] belief system on others who believe differently.”
Lastly, when citizens are asked to vote their conscience, they are voting their worldview, their sense of justice, their morality. They reflect on truths, as they know it. In doing so, their decisions are highly informed by their religion. As Mormons, we reflect on the teaching of “our prophets, scriptures, and the history of our own people [which] warns us of the destructive force caused by” sexual sin. We come to realize with much thought, prayer, and fasting, that
it is truly Gold’s will to support public policy that protects the fundamental unit of society, particularly with money we know “has been consecrated for the work of God.”
Michael stated:
[ Men and women are currently free to realize their sexual natures, be they heterosexual or homosexual, according to the dictates of their own conscience. Marriage, however, is not a right, but a government (the democratic will of the people) endorsement and contract. Homosexuals have no more right to marriage than a childless person has to claim a child-tax credit. ]
Dearest Michael:
I appreciate your posting your opinion. I would appreciate it far more if you had bothered to read the prior posts.
Please go back and read the prior posts and respond. Specifically pay attention to comments about women’s suffrage, interracial marriage, and discrimination against people of Mormon faith.
When you’ve had the intellectual integrity to do so, please post again. I’d be interested in your response, if it’s actually a response, instead of repeating the same old stuff over and over and over.
Ironically, the Loving v. Virginia Federal Court case of 1967 you cite is used as an opinion in a subsequent Court of Appeal’s case to define marriage as between a man and a woman and for the purpose of procreation:
“… the traditional definition of marriage is not merely a by-product of historical injustice. Its history is of a different kind…it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex…. [not] recognizing a right to marry extending beyond the one woman and one man union… precisely because of its relationship to human procreation” (Hernandez v. Robles, New York Court of Appeals, 2006)
So if your strategy is to disprove that marriage is a religious construct by citing court cases and thereby prove that gay marriage is a civil right, then you’ve failed… because the courts have rejected the notion of gays and lesbians marrying.
If your strategy is to disprove marriage as sacred dating back to ancient Judaism (and Hinduism) by proposing that someone other than deity constructed it so you can promote gay marriage, then again you’ve failed… because no court case has redefined marriage any other way than God’s definition … as a man and a woman.
The court’s have remained true to the God’s original definition, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh” (Genesis 2: 24), and, “When a man hath taken a wife, and married her” (Deuteronomy 24: 1), it is for procreation (Genesis 1:28).
I equated incest (and bestiality) to gays and lesbians is to suggest that boundaries are set by moral codes in the Holy Bible which equates the two by saying, “None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness… Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion… ” (Leviticus 18:6-7, 22,23)
One can only assume that your wanting to restrict religious organizations from freely exercising their religious right in preventing the gay and lesbian community from violating the basic divine principle that marriage is a religious and sacred ritual, with which the Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia agrees is between a man and a woman.
Warning here - don’t wander off into scripture thumping in this thread. If you want to examine the merits of Leviticus 18 and other scriptural treatments of homosexuality, please take them to this other post.
(Because we’re talking about Civil Laws, not Religious Laws. And the main focus here is that religious beliefs of one group should not dictate the actions of civil courts, particularly when there is a diversity of belief among religions. Remember, there are many religions, even Christian religions, that don’t view homosexuality as any more abominable than eating shrimp.)
Warning acknowledged - however, the scripture is applicable in proving that marriage in civil context is also a sacred rite and that it unequivocally contributed to our predominant modern-day moral code upon which our basic laws of marriage and family relations are founded.
Mormons, as well as other religious sects or faiths, have the divine right and sacred prerogative to support an issue financially and organizationally through the democratic process if that organization feels the issue transcends the civil arena and encroaches into the sacred and religious arena. I applaud them for taking a morally and doctrinally-sound position against gay marriage and in-favor of proposition 8.
I have no need to examine the merits of scripture - I am quite convinced empirically of their veracity. I only use scripture to support the court’s opinion that marriage is between participants of different sex, and not extending beyond the one woman and one man union, and for human procreation.
Incidentally, it is not a stretch to envision that once the courts stretch the concept of marriage to fit the gay and lesbian agenda, it will be likely that NAMBLA uses the same argument to advocate that children have the freedom to determine the content of their own sexual experiences and rule that preventing same-sex marriage with children is a violation of civil rights.
Rich,
about the “right” to marry:
You apply a different definition to the term “marriage” than that used in Loving v Virginia. In Loving v Virginia, marriage was understood as being between a man and a woman. If your definition of marriage reflected the definition used by the United States Supreme Court, then Judge Vaughn Walker would not need to waste his time entertaining an upcoming case. In the future, there will be a ruling by the Supreme Court, but to insist that US Constitutional law is currently clear on this matter is dishonest. As such, while all people have the right to marry according to the current definition of marriage (to someone of the opposite sex), there is no federal “right” to marry someone of the same sex.
Today, the determination of whether homosexuals have a “right” to marry lies with the states. The California supreme court acknowledged that voters had the right to restore the definition of marriage to between a man and a woman. In many other states across the country, an alleged “right” of a person to marry another of the same gender is not recognized.
For these and other reasons, I assert that there is no federal right for same-sex couples to marry and there is no state right in most of the states of the union. And when there is no recourse in the courts, homosexuals must earn this right in the political arena. Just as the judges of the California supreme court asserted over and over again to the SSM legal team, the power that lies within a democratic people to extend rights also enables them to revoke rights as they see fit.
Should the definition of marriage be changed to include SS relationships:
Since the people *can* vote to extend or revoke the right to marry, a separate question is should they. This is where I am informed by my Mormon religion. I believe that the most charitable thing I did for the homosexual community was donate money to, campaign for, and vote for Prop 8. I believe that the most important thing I did for the state of California and the country that year was donate money to, campaign for, and vote for Prop 8. I am saddened to see Mormon’s actively and publicly contending with the unambiguous position of Mormon leadership, asserting that they better know and represent the Mormon position. Of course I completely support their right to do so, but have a hard time believing they are anything but disingenuous.
The SSM seeks to censor freedom of religion:
This article was in response to Elder Oaks’ talk in which he highlighted the infringement of the SSM community on the freedom of religious people. He pointed out the intimidation, vandalism, etc that flowed from the SSM community for exercising their civil right to vote. Mormons would not have responded in this way. Consider the many law suits against churches, the Boy Scouts of America, etc in which the SSM community is trying to infringe on the freedom of religion, arguably the foundational freedom of the constitution.
Laura-
“dictate the actions of civil courts.” Are Mormons really “dictating” the actions of civil courts?
Well, I don’t see where I accused Mormons of dictating what civil courts should do. I do, however, see where I reminded readers that questions we are discussing here regarding who has the right to marry cannot be resolved by pointing to individual interpretations of Biblical/religious commandments, in part because no one religion does (or should have) control Constitutional interpretation or any of the laws or statutes subject to it. The Bible is not the U.S. Constitution and should not be treated as such.
Let me phrase it a bit differently. When religious people argue that marriage should be between one man and one woman because “God told us that’s the way it should be,” they are using religious constructs to create/defend civil laws. While that argument might have worked in a less pluralistic society, or in a society established with God and religion as the centerpiece, we have to accept that in the United States in the 21st century, we are no longer a few hundred or a few thousand Puritans or Deists or Christians who interpret the Bible - and Biblical law - in the same way. And even within Christian denominations, there is a wide range of interpretation w/r/t same-sex marriage, running the gamut from embracing to tolerating to condemning.
So, just because one religious group says a law is good or righteous does not make it so. Religious arguments, at least in the case of same-sex marriage, should not be central to lawmakers’ decisions about which adults can or cannot enter into a civil contract in part, at least, because their is a difference in religious doctrine and dogma.
When children can enter into legal contracts without permission from their parents, then perhaps we can address your NAMBLA slippery slope seriously. Until then, please note that most pedophiles are heterosexual, most gays are as disgusted with pedophiles as you likely are, and any further discussion arguing that adults marrying adults is comparable or will lead to children marrying adults of either sex will not make it through the moderation process.
I feel like some of the people posting here are failing to grasp a key concept - the fact that the constitution makes no provisions for the fact that you are a mormon. Or that your neighbor is a jew. Or that your friend is a muslim. This is not a religious issue, it is a social issue, and we really have to ask ourselves if what we want is to grant a specific liberty to one group of people while denying it to another.
Just my thoughts.
There are some in the LDS church that are basing their response on a “line in the sand” sort of fear. The “slippery slope” of having people marry children or even animals isn’t nearly the concern of mine. I’m much more bothered by the slope that would end up with the church being sued for refusing to perform same sex marriages in the temple. Then what happens to OUR free exercise of religion?
Mormons are completely free to determine who is worthy to attend the temple and partake of - or even witness - its religious sacraments. Mormons are also free to choose which of their members are worthy to hold the priesthood (despite the fact that it’s illegal to discriminate on the basis of gender in nearly all corners of the world). Same with Catholics, Baptists, Buddhists, Sikhs, etc. Assuming that there’s a homosexual couple that wants to be sealed in the temple bad enough to go through the expense of a lawsuit against the deep pockets of the Mormon Church: If that couple brought such a lawsuit, and if a judge didn’t throw the couple out on their respective ears for being frivolous, the Church has lots and lots of good attorneys and would see friends of the court briefs filed by the best conservative legal minds in the country and the case would take years to wind its way through the judicial system while lawmakers scrambled to get statutes onto the books which would address the situation.
For now, nobody’s knocking down the doors of the Boston temple (or even the LDS ward buildings in Massachusetts) or any other places in countries or states where SSM is legal, and since the Church is free to excommunicate any homosexual who is dating (much less engaged or married), and since the Church is free to deny membership to any couple (straight or gay) which does not abide by its moral codes, it’s going to be pretty hard to find an otherwise temple-worthy homosexual couple to bring the lawsuit. (Since, in order to be temple-worthy a homosexual must either remain celibate and totally free of any homosexual activity (which probably includes dating and public displays of affection), marriage to someone of the same sex more or less ensures that someone’s either already not or soon will not be temple worthy very long, doesn’t it?)
Here’s something people without a legal education fail to understand–whether marriage is a right or a privilege, and whether gay marriage is a civil marriage (and whether the denial of which constitutes discrimination) are complex legal issues that educated, experienced lawyers and judges argue over and wrestle with every day.
For my 2 cents, and being fresh out of law school, here’s what I know:
In the accepted canon of U.S. constitutional law, there is a fundamental right to marriage. Fundamental right (not privilege). So it’s not accurate to issue a blanket statement like “privileges need licenses while rights do not”.
Even if it were a privilege rather than a right, denying that privilege or right to a particular class of persons (in this case, homosexuals) is absolutely 100% the legal definition of discrimination. But not all discrimination is illegal. The LDS Church can discriminate all it wants–after all, we don’t allow women to hold the priesthood, and we don’t allow non-members to enter dedicated temples. Those are both instances of discrimination, but they are legal and for the most part don’t cause anyone any heartache.
Sexuality receives an intermediate level of scrutiny under the law–not as much as race or ethnicity, but still a significant level of scrutiny. There needs to be an important (not merely rational) relationship between the law and an important government goal to be achieved. What is the goal here? NOTHING.
What is most alarming to me about Elder Oaks’ comments is not the fact that he urges us to not be intimidated or silenced when speaking about our religious beliefs or exercising our right to practice our religion. But comparing the Prop 8 campaign, where there were (and still are) numerous attacks, misstatements, lies spread, etc. on BOTH sides to the disgusting and evil attacks made on African Americans during the civil rights movement is unacceptable, insulting, and just plain clueless! Here’s what Elder Oaks missed: African Americans were trying to exercise a right previously being denied them. The LDS Church is trying to deny a basic civil right to a minority–who does that sound more like? The black civil rights workers? Or the whites trying to keep the status quo and maintain exclusive control over a particular right?
By the way, the “slippery slope” argument I’ve heard being batted about is beyond ridiculous. If you want a more complex legal analysis, look for the BYU law professor’s educated, reasoned response to the incendiary “Consequences if Prop 8 Fails” circulating last fall.
The Church will NEVER be sued for refusing to perform gay marriages. Certain types of discrimination are allowed, and private parties can discriminate all they want. Has anyone sued the church for denying women the priesthood or excluding non-members from dedicated temples? Have you ever heard of private clubs or seen signs at restaurants saying “we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone”?
Constitutional law states that the GOVERNMENT cannot engage in certain types of discrimination, and if a law is passed or proposed (even if such a law is passed by a majority of the voters) that has a discriminatory purpose, effect, or intent, it will be subjected to a certain level of judicial scrutiny depending on the type of classification created by the discrimination. That’s the American legal system, because educated, experienced judges are far more capable of understanding the complexities of legal precedent than the mass public. That’s why we have the judicial branch–to review laws to determine their constitutionality.
That’s why claims that the church will get sued and have to allow gays to adopt or get married in the temple are absolutely ridiculous. Religious freedom/free exercise is firmly entrenched in American jurisprudence. No way will anything change that. So stop hiding behind such a lame argument/excuse!
Laura, just wanted to thank you for bringing this discussion back to what it should be, a civil issue, not a religious issue.
Sheryl
I can’t understand the importance of hanging onto the word marriage. We’re debating a little bit of semantics here. It’s muddling the debate. I have found Mormons looking at “marriage” as those ceremonies performed anywhere outside of a Mormon Temple; whereas, a “sealing” is what they call marriage that is performed in a Temple ceremony.
Mormons can lay claim to the word: “sealing” for their marriages then.
There are many ironies in your premise that the Mormon church should “reconsider” its role “in funding any public campaign to limit the freedom of other religions to practice in accordance with their beliefs.” Religious sects have supported and funded, and should continue to support and fund, public campaigns that are considered by religious organizations as immoral, and reinforce its continued illegality.
If a religious sect’s practice is determined by the general society as illegal or immoral, it is incumbent on that society (and that society’s religious organizations) to utilize the democratic process and associated rights, including its opposition through the democratic process (e.g. referendum process), regardless of any purported “infringement” on that religious sect’s religious expression or exercise.
Religious sects with relevant legal cases include the Church of Reality and its use of marijuana for the purpose of religious expression, and the polygamous unions as practiced in the past by some in the LDS movement, and today by aberrant LDS groups, e.g. the “Fundamentalist LDS” sect of Texas. It is highly unlikely that any responsible person would support the immoral practice of worship as expressed in these two deviant religions… both who regard these quite illegal practices as a main principle of their faith.
So, the conclusion is that gay marriage, at least in the State of California, although it may be a religious practice in some churches, is illegal, and in my opinion, quite immoral.
Regarding the rights v. privileges argument … I think SCOTUS slightly mis-stated the issue in Loving. Marriage cannot be a “right” because rights are freedoms enjoyed by an individual alone. (The right to vote, the right to speak, the right to practice religion, the right to an attorney, etc,.).
However, I think the distinction is (in this case) irrelevant. What we are talking about is not whether marriage is a right or a privilege, but rather the real issue addressed in Loving - whether citizens of a country have a RIGHT (held individually) to be free of discrimination on the part of their government.
In Loving, the point was that the state of Virginia had no business telling blacks, Hispanics and Asians that they were all free to marry each other, but they could not marry whites (and obviously, whites could not marry anyone but whites). It was an equal protection issue (much like what Justice O’Connor argued in her concurrence in Lawrence). We INDIVIDUALLY have the right to not be treated differently by our government based on arbitrary classifications (gender, race, sexual orientation, religion) without the government making the case that these classifications further compelling or at least important government interests.
In this case, state governments have chosen to classify homosexuals and heterosexuals differently. The reasons offered for this difference are, to this Mormon at least, not compelling enough to justify the disparate treatment homosexuals and heterosexual couple receive. (If someone disagrees, I would like to hear a compelling case on why it is important for the state - NOT A RELIGION - to maintain marriage as an institution exclusively for heterosexual couples.)
In short, the only options under equal protection are:
1. Eliminate all the state rights associated with marriage. Single people or people in committed relationships (heterosexual or homosexual) should be entitled to no different Social Security benefits, insurance benefits, tax breaks, etc. than anyone else.
2. Continue the state rights associated with marriage, but extend them to all monogamous couples equally.
3. Continue the state rights associated with marriage, but extend them only to monogamous couples who meet a stringent set of requirements unassociated with sexual orientation (for example, only those on their first union … only those current in their child support obligations … only those who have obtained premarital counseling … etc.) So long as all groups are treated the same.
In any of these cases, all groups are treated the same, and equal protection is satisfied. And NO religion will be affected, since all religions will be free to continue to perform the same marriage ceremonies they always have, and afford married couples the exclusive religious rights of marriage, just as they have in the past.
Ru,
You purport that [American] citizens of a country have a RIGHT (held individually) to be free of discrimination on the part of their government” … but that is not necessarily so. Past court rulings have shown that the First Amendment invalidates anti-discrimination laws.
In Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rights Commission Nos. 97-35220, 97-35221 (9th Cir., Jan. 14, 1999), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit invalidated municipal and state nondiscrimination laws by applying a new-found constitutional “right” under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Simply put, the Court upheld the right of landlords to practice “discrimination” by refusing to rent to tenants whose non-marital status violated the landlords’ religious beliefs.
If it was argued that unmarried couples posed a threat to the First Amendment free exercise right, then it’s likely that it could also be said that the free exercise right is paramount to discrimination laws because any other marriage other than a traditional marriage is also a threat to the free exercise of religion.
It’s possible, that the State could maintain marriage as an institution exclusively for heterosexuals because anything else could be an infringement issue–meaning that free religious expression is paramount to any argument for gay marriage based on discrimination.
You have the right to be free of discrimination on the part of your government.
A landlord is not the government. A landlord is a private entity - an individual, if you will. Individuals can be as discriminatory as they want, within certain bounds (think federal employment law). If I am a landlord and I don’t want certain people living on my property, that is certainly my right. But if I am a government-run apartment building … that’s a different story.
I maintain that the government cannot constitutionally set up a two-tiered system where one set of people receive a wealth of government-bestowed benefits whereas another set does not. Either eliminate the benefits for everyone or extend them to everyone.
And I disagree that homosexual marriage would threaten the free exercise right. As has been amply discussed above, churches would continue to be protected by the First Amendment. There is literally nothing about the expansion of marriage rights to homosexuals that would threaten religious exercise. If you disagree, I would please ask that you come up with an example instead of the blanket statement that the right to practice religion and the right to be free of government discrimination are mutually exclusive. I’ve heard a few so far, and I find them unpersuasive.
Private schools would NOT lose the ability to hold students to various honor code type requirements (ie, BYU or private high schools). Once again - these are PRIVATE organizations. Think the Boy Scouts ruling.
Churches would not be forced to perform religious marriages. Period. That one is so obvious I’m confused why people still think it could happen.
Children would not be forced to learn that heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage are morally equivalent in schools. Since when is “marriage” a subject in school anyway?
Same-sex marriage would not open the door to polygamy. There are several compelling government interests in preventing groups of more than 2 people from all enjoying the government benefits of marriage, and bans on polygamy would continue to be upheld in the courts.
I can’t think of any more at the moment, but perhaps you’ll have a few that are better than these.
However, I will add this: Even if there are some minor gray areas where free exercise/non-discrimination would come into conflict, who are we to say that free exercise is so much more important than non-discrimination that we should throw the latter our the window and not even TRY to find a balance between the two?
There were three events that occurred in November 1978 that have had a significant impact in the evolution of gay rights:
• Nov 7, 1978 Briggs Initiative defeated
• Nov 18, 1978 Jonestown Massacre
• Nov 27, 1978 Assassination of Harvey Milk
The first and third items are inseparably connected. The Briggs Initiative (aka Prop 6) if passed, would have resulted in the firing of all gay public education employees and non-gay supporters in California. Harvey Milk was instrumental in organizing the grass roots effort against that Initiative and the battle cry “Come Out, Come Out, Wherever you Are!” was instrumental in uniting both gay and straight opposition to this hateful and bigoted Initiative. Less than three weeks later, Harvey Milk was assassinated. If you haven’t seen the movie “Milk”, you owe it to yourself to see this powerful depiction of these dramatic events. As an aside, Dustin Lance Black, who was raised Mormon, won the Academy Award for the screenwriting of this movie.
While it is easy to see how these first and third events have had an impact on gay rights, the second event, the Jonestown Massacre, might not be so straightforward. I include it here especially for Mormons because it illustrates how dangerous group-think can be and also illustrates why I take exception to Elder Oaks speech.
The Jonestown Massacre was a very memorable event for me personally, because my Son was born the same day. The world was stunned by the events of that day. How could one man, Jim Jones, convince nearly 1000 of his followers to commit suicide by drinking cyanide laced Kool-Aid? They all knew it would kill them, yet nearly 100% of his followers complied. Even young children were administered this Kool-Aid either by drinking it or by having it injected. How could so many parents do that to their children?
Many people today use the term “Drink the Kool-Aid” without realizing that the events of November 18th, 1978 is where this phrase originated. Of those who followed their “prophet” Jim Jones to their death that day, based on an the audio record left, most did it out of blind obedience, some not wanting to have to do it, but not questioning whether it was right or wrong. No doubt some of them knew it was wrong but succumbed to peer pressure or felt they had no other choice. And no doubt some felt that they had received personal revelation, as it were, that it was absolutely what God wanted them to do. The end result was that they all “drank the Kool-Aid” and for the vast majority of them, they all felt they were doing what God would have them do.
So I guess you know where this is going. While it is real easy for all of us to say that the people of Jonestown were following a false prophet, it is just as easy for non-Mormons to say the same thing about Mormons. And for a Mormon to say, “I know our prophet is the only true prophet”, sounds just as ridiculous to non-Mormons (and Ex-Mormons) as Jim Jones followers would now sound to all of us.
Having been a true-believing Mormon for over thirty years, I know how impossible it is for Mormons on this issue. I know that it is absolutely not acceptable for you to say “the Prophet is wrong on this”. I also know that your belief is that you must follow the prophet 100% and if he leads you astray, the sin will be on his head and you will be blessed, regardless. In other words, the member is not held accountable for this own actions if the Prophet tells him to do something wrong and in fact will be blessed for it. Do you realize how “Jonestown” this sounds to a non-Mormon? Part and parcel to the Mormon’s group-think mentality is that If you want to remain in good standing . . .
• The only conclusion you are allowed to come to, is the Church’s position.
• You are not allowed to question authority.
• You are not allowed to study anything that might lead to another conclusion other than the Church’s. (In fact, reading the comments on this website, which is very respectful compared to others, is dangerously close to apostasy.)
• Ultimately your only valid response is, “I know the Church is the only true Church and I know that Thomas S. Monson is the only true prophet”.
But if that is sufficient for you and it works for you and makes you happy, then it is your absolute right for you to believe that way as long as you aren’t infringing on others rights. In the United States you are allowed and protected to do this. Non-members may judge you as a cult, but what does that matter? True Americans will defend your right to practice whatever you choose, just as long as you aren’t hurting each other or infringing on others rights.
But when you choose to infringe on others rights and you use the group-think mentality of the Mormon Church to infringe on others rights, those offended and their supporters have the right to get very angry. And once you have crossed that line, those who would have defended your rights in the past will be less likely to come to your defense. While there were some Mormons who felt the Church’s participation in Prop 8 was not right, most of them felt they had no choice but to go along with the Prophet and support it. But the vast majority of Mormons went along with it without evaluating whether it was right or wrong, merely because the Prophet requested it.
And now I get to the point of this post: Elder Oaks message at BYU-Idaho. I too believe it is absolutely uncompassionate to compare a few business boycotts, some signs taped to fences (vandalism by Mormon standards), picketing of Mormon temples, etc., to what was experienced by Black Americans. That has already been well discussed here and elsewhere. But I have a few other complaints about Oaks speech.
1. Most individual members aren’t aware of how involved the Church was in Prop 8. They aren’t aware of the lies, distortions, illegal activities, cover-ups and lack of integrity with which the “Yes on 8” campaign was conducted. Most members aren’t aware that all evidence points to the Church as the puppet-master of the entire immoral operation. For Church members their truth lies only in what their leaders tell them the truth is. After all, nothing else is allowed if you want to remain in good standing. Given this backdrop, it is no wonder my family and friends still active in the Church don’t comprehend why there has been so much backlash. But Church Headquarters fully understands why the backlash. For Elder Oaks to work up a frenzy by equating the backlash to the horrific events of the civil rights era without allowing the other side of the story to be told, is disingenuous, irresponsible and dangerous.
2. My next complaint about Elder Oaks speech is very simple. Can you imagine the Christ we were taught about and grew to love, ever giving this speech?
3. If the Prop 8 campaign was truly inspired of God, then own it. Be proud of it. Don’t try to hide your involvement. Take the backlash like a man. Don’t complain that it isn’t fair and that other groups deserve some of the backlash too. God will protect you.
Ru,
The government already discriminates based on gender and marital status. Governmental discrimination is legal when performed according to the “substantial relation” test where the action is related to a compelling, or an important, government purpose.
The Internal Revenue Service “discriminates” in approving filing status on the 1040 form by successfully setting-up and enforcing a multi-tiered system where people pay income taxes at different tax rates based on multiple “discriminating” standards, Benefits are extended only to people married to the opposite sex or in a Registered Domestic Partnership (RDP)–just try paying “married” filing-status taxes as a single person and you’ll quickly discover how a government-run entity legally discriminates for the important governmental purpose of collecting revenue.
Churches, and affiliated parochial schools, will not be afforded protection by the First Amendment if the definition of marriage changes. Churches, preachers and parochial schools who continue preaching against homosexual marriage, and are accused of “discriminating” against gays marrying will not be offered the equal protection under the 14th Amendment, will be forced to teach that homosexual marriage is morally equivalent by accreditation agencies.
Same-sex marriage is already being taught in public schools as an “alternative” and appropriate lifestyle–it is not far-fetched to believe that parochial schools will be expected to do the same to receive accreditation:
http://www.foxnews.com/search-results/m/26618832/controversial-curriculum.htm
Preachers are already being treated arrested for preaching against sin and immorality and sin, and just imagine the uproar when preachers preach in accordance with their primary theological texts:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=58294
I vehemently disagree with the premise that religious organizations will not lose their freedoms. Religious organizations who have been involved in the political process of legislating against immorality have already been threatened with losing their charitable classifications or 501c tax-exempt or charitable non-profit corporation status. I mean, just read the above post, now the Proposition 8 people are being equated to Jim Jones and the Jonestown massacre, for crying out loud!
Just FYI, the preacher in question here, http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Michael_Marcavage” rel=”nofollow”>Mike Marcavage, was not standing in a church quietly giving a sermon when he was arrested this time or previous times. He (and others) may preach until Judgment Day, but they must also abide by the other relevant laws of the land (or city), the same way pro-life activists must.
And also FYI, let’s not get sidetracked into a discussion about teaching about homosexuality in schools here, or Jim Jones. And to be perfectly clear, there is no chance that the LDS church’s tax status will be affected by its actions surrounding Proposition 8. First, the amount of time and money spent by the organization itself are miniscule compared with its total operating budget; second, the Church never endorsed a specific political person; and third, as noted previously, the attorneys who work with the Church work very hard to make sure it does not cross the very bright line between religious speech and political activism.
Thanks to everyone for keeping the debate civil and on-topic for the most part. Keep up the interesting discussions.
Mr. Hoen,
Equating the advocates of Proposition 8 in the Mormon Church with the cult members of the Jim Jones’ and the Jonestown, Guyana massacre is simply ludicrous.
Until church leadership begins handing-out cyanide-laced Kool-Aid, demands unwavering allegiance to it “cult-like” leaders, and monitor its parishioner’s votes or voting for them, then it’s incumbent on the moderator to not allow such comments past the moderation process. Until then, please note that parishioners are allowed to make-up their own mind about the morality of gay marriage and are not at all disgusted using the democratic process to legislate against immorality and preserving the sanctity of marriage .
Correlating the majority of Californians that hold to the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman with that of a cult is the ultimate unjustifiable “slippery slope” argument. Furthermore, your comments are a vivid portrayal of what America would look like for a religious organization if your beliefs were actually legislated into law!
Dave,
I have greatly enjoyed the discussion in the various posts (both sides). Yours is the first I have felt compelled to respond to, as your primary debate tactic is hyperbole. I would like to briefly deflate the exaggerations of your post.
1. Comparing The 13 Million member, 180-year-old Mormon Church to The Jonestown cult is more than a bit of an “over-the-top” analogy. It far exceeds the perceived overstatement of Elder Oaks comparison of Mormon voter intimidation to Black voter intimidation.
2.”The only conclusion you are allowed to come to, is the Church’s position.” Untrue. Although there is a strong Church doctrine of obedience to the Gospel, the doctrine of obedience to Church leaders has always been qualified. Since I was a child I was taught to think (ponder) about significant counsel from Church Leaders and seek my own personal affirmation that it is what I should do. I have been told to “never follow Church leaders blindly” literally dozens of times. Perhaps you were raised in a predominantly Mormon community (in Utah?) where the “culture” of the members tweaked the way the doctrine was taught. (it happens).
3. “You are not allowed to question authority.” Untrue. You are allowed to question anything. I would agree that membership implies alignment with the teachings and doctrine. If a member chooses to question these and concludes they no longer agree, then it is appropriate to seperate from the faith. It is not reasonable to expect the Church to change to accomodate the individual.
4.”You are not allowed to study anything that might lead to another conclusion other than the Church’s.” Untrue. I am well read in anti-Mormon writings and arguements, having studied it as well as Church history and doctrine for 35 years, yet I have been a Bishop twice. Your use of hyperbole is typical of the tone found in the writings of almost every disaffected member I have read.
5. You diminish the seriousness and magnitude of the backlash by calling the examples “a few”. They were not a few. Within just my local community of 50,000 those of us who volunteered saw hundreds of signs stolen, vandalized, experienced personal harangues, angry comments, and even a number of threats. In subsequent election efforts on the topic, I hope better accounting of this is done to dispell this erroneous arguement. My sign was stolen or mangled 4 times. Most people I know had to keep several for replacements or bring them in at night.
6. “Most individual members aren’t aware of how involved the Church was in Prop 8″ I disagree that anyone can know this as an accurate statement. As an insider, I would state the opposite, although neither of us know. I admit this without making-up the answer.
7. “Can you imagine the Christ we were taught about and grew to love, ever giving this speech?” Of course, yes, unequivocally.
8. “Don’t try to hide your involvement” This has always been a blogger & media “spin”. This had roots in accusations that the Church “admitted” expenditures, when in fact they were reported on time. Let’s wait for the FPPC to rule on this to set the record straight. I admit there was the unfortunate Spokesperson that said the Church had spent no money on the campaign when there was a small amount of direct expenses and there were large in-kind contributions. Although technically incorrect, if taken in the contaxt that the Church obviously made an effort to minimize direct contributions, and keep them in-kind (most bang for the buck) that statement by the Church spokesperson was still closer to the truth then the accusation of “hiding involvement”.
Finally, Dave, Elder Oaks’ main premise was in support of Freedom of Religion. As he also pointed out indirectly and directly, this also means freedom of thought, freedom of choice, freedom to act. I respect your earnestness and desire to oppose the goals of the Church and its efforts to defend traditional marriage in society. Elder Oaks has encouraged me to expect the same respect in the public square from you. I have considered his advice and have decided it is good. No thought control. My choice!
Marcharino said. . . “just read the above post, now the Proposition 8 people are being equated to Jim Jones and the Jonestown massacre, for crying out loud!”
Your words, not my words. Let me rephrase from my standpoint, what you just wrote. “just read the Oaks speech, now the anti Prop 8 people are being equated to the KKK, for crying out loud!”
Jonestown provides a glaring example of group-think. In my opinion, members of the Church exhibit group-think mentality, not unlike the members of Jonestown. My beef with Elder Oaks speech is that it is disinegenuous, irresponsible and dangerous for a leader of a group-think organization to withhold some important details and then hold up a red-herring.
Here is a definition of group-think and I think many of us recognize that it applies to the membership of the Mormon Church as a whole:
Groupthink, a term coined by social psychologist Irving Janis (1972), occurs when a group makes faulty decisions because group pressures lead to a deterioration of “mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment”. Groups affected by groupthink ignore alternatives and tend to take irrational actions that dehumanize other groups. A group is especially vulnerable to groupthink when its members are similar in background, when the group is insulated from outside opinions, and when there are no clear rules for decision making.
ref: http://www.psysr.org/about/pubs_resources/groupthink%20overview.htm
Just a few quick notes -
I think the existence of this website as well as a number of thoughtful debates elsewhere provide evidence that not all Mormons think and act alike. That being said, there are definitely a number of Mormons who have been and continue to be afraid to ask questions, read literature or speak up in disagreement with Church leaders, and may feel pressured to act in a way which is not their primary choice. I personally believe that many LDS members wrestled with where to stand on Proposition 8, and I’ve heard countless members relate to me, “Well, I don’t see how allowing gays to marry will hurt me or my family, but if the prophet says we are to opposed SSM, then I guess we ought to, so I do.” Whether that kind of support ran straight from the pulpit to the ballot box is known only to God and to the voters who exercised their civil duties, of course.
The internet has given many of those who are concerned about religious and moral matters a relatively safe and somewhat anonymous place to express doubts and ask questions, and has provided a community which helps suppress or diminish the dangers of Groupthink mentality. When we bring our critical thinking skills off of the internet and into real life, it can make a positive difference for ourselves and those around us.
Any group member who turns off his own critical thinking skills and allows the group’s leader to make decisions for him is doing himself a disservice and not taking responsibility for his own actions. That is probably one of the first steps down the Groupthink slope. We all need to take responsibility for ourselves - if we decide to act or think some way, it is ultimately our own decision, one for which we will be held accountable. We cannot lay the blame for our actions at the feet of another human being, whether that person is a friend or enemy, prophet or President, teacher or parent.
Finally, just another reminder that neither side stands guiltless on the “signs stolen, vandalized, personal harangues, angry comments, and even a number of threats” issue. These petty, scary behaviors happened to folks on both sides. Thankfully, none of the official groups advocating for their own positions endorsed these kinds of actions, and have been fully cooperative in tracking down the criminals and vandals who were reported to authorities. Hopefully the next time we are all called to defend our own families we won’t be threatening others’ families at the same time.
Dave,
“Groupthink” most assuredly occurs within the Church. As it does in every church. As it does in every political party. As it does among atheists. As it does among academics. As it does among governments and any organized group of like-minded people, both engaged in good causes and bad.
Which of these examples has internal checks against deterioration of “mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment”? Those with a constitution, a written moral code of conduct. Those organizations whose change is slow, and not quick to adapt fads and recent trends.
Hence better social results & safety in allegiance to the constitution of the United States and its elective process, & religion that adheres to its fundamental scripture. Of course I would add spiritual sensitivity to the internal conscience that is God’s gift to all.
Neither Irving Janus, Philip Tetlock, or John Courtright would have applied the concept of groupthink to the Mormons in the Proposition 8 debate. To be considered groupthink, certain components need to be present:
There must be an absence of ideational conflict to qualify for groupthink. I’ve never, in all of my life, seen more ideational conflict than with proposition 8–with all of the debate, money, advertising, claims of discrimination, violation of equal rights, etc. Furthermore, there must be a shared illusion of consensus when it hasn’t been reached, self-censorship–the symptom that each member believes he or she is the only one with doubts, and dissent is viewed is disloyalty. It’s far-fetched to suggest these are all present and removed ideational conflict.
Most members of large religious organizations may have had doubts, but it probably is not regarding marriage being between a man and a woman. Early consensus and forced conformity must also be evident, however, scripture and church doctrine has been opposed to same-sex marriage for a very long time, and no one watched LDS members vote.
Even if the LDS Church had not supported Proposition 8, it likely would have passed by a majority of California voters anyway… and one cannot blame groupthink.
Wow! I don’t visit here for a couple of weeks and look what I miss;-) In regards to Kyle’s original comment on this topic …
Kyle “I don’t see how supporting Prop 8 means the LDS Church is limiting “the freedom of other religions to practice in accordance with their beliefs” as you claim.”…
…and correct me if I’m wrong, in the mid 1990’s the church pretty much single handedly made gay marriage illegal in Hawaii.
When they were accused of taking religious freedom away from others by their actions, the church claimed they were just helping to promote the will of the majority of the people in Hawaii. A group of Buddhists came forward and said, “You didn’t ask us what we thought, and we disagree with your stance. We would like to be able to legally perform gay marriages in our temples, but now those ceremonies can’t be recognized legally because you took that religious freedom away from us.”
There were actually more Buddhists in Hawaii than Mormons, and yet the Mormons took away the rights of the Buddhists to practice their religion in the way they wanted. Hmmm. What a cunundrum, huh?
For those who think that the majority of Californian’s voted in favor of Prop 8 think about this: Many people (including me) thought it highly unlikely that Prop 8 would ever pass because, after all, CA is such a free-thinking liberal state. (Not really) Of course gay marriage would be legalized, many of us thought. Because of that faulty thinking, lots of people didn’t even bother to vote, including many in the gay community. I’m happy that I did cast my vote - I’d hate to have that on my conscience.
Even HRC (Human Rights Campaign, the biggest organization in the nation for GLBT rights, and EQ CA (Equality CA) both kind of rode on their laurels, not doing as much as they could to ensure that equality would prevail because they simply believed like I did, that in 2008 surely people would be enlightened enough to understand how wrong writing discrimination into the constitution would be. Boy were we wrong.
It’s because of those faulty assumptions that it’s been estimated that the 2% margin by which Prop 8 passed, probably only represents about 2% of the California’s voting population. That’s hardly a majority. I really hope we get it right soon.
Doug and Marcharino –
I could go tit-for-tat with you on what you believe are your cross-blocks of my points, but I am extremely busy and it doesn’t get us anywhere. But I will take a few moments to make a few points in response.
Obviously to mention Jonestown and Mormons in the same post creates some angst for you. As I’ve said, I used Jonestown to illustrate what groupthink is. Jonestown is something that most people over the age of 45 can identify with, so it is a glaring example of groupthink. And to borrow a recent quote from an Apostle, “I believe it is a good analogy”.
Despite Marcharino insisting that the Mormon response to Prop 8 doesn’t qualify as groupthink, for the vast majority of Mormons, groupthink is exactly what happened. For those people, once the prophet says something, the thinking (or pondering) is over. And I know that you know that. Most of the ideational conflict that you speak of, was experienced by a relatively small percentage of members (some of them reading websites like this one), although I think it surprised the Brethren how much conflict it did create. But you’re right, there are many other organizations that exhibit groupthink. Although groupthink usually results in something bad happening, sometimes it results in good things being accomplished (depending on your point of view, of course).
And absolutely Prop 8 would not have passed if the Mormons had not been involved. Elder Ballard even boasted as much on a national television news program. Prop 8 was losing by a wide margin until the lies and distortions in the ads and robo-calls swung the vote the other way. It was Mormon money ($30 million by some estimates) that paid for those ads and Mormon organizational skills and Mormon “volunteers” that ran that campaign. The Mormon money and volunteer base came from groupthink strategy.
Doug, when I listed my bullet points of how members can only come to one conclusion, cannot question authority, etc., I specifically prefaced those bullet points with, “If you want to remain in good standing . . .” I fully agree with you that we as Mormons were always counseled to “think (ponder) about significant counsel from Church Leaders and seek my own personal affirmation that it is what I should do.” But you and I know that once you had completed your thinking, pondering, praying, fasting, etc., if it was a different answer than what the Church wanted you to receive, you would find yourself on the outside looking in. My family and friends believe that they cannot legitimately renew their Temple Recommends if they don’t support the Church on Prop 8 (in spite of the Church’s statement that they would not discipline members for their stance). And you and I know a member is considered second class if they don’t have a current Temple Recommend. Now what was that you were saying about voter intimidation?
As I said earlier, Mormons have the right to believe whatever they want as long as they aren’t hurting each other or infringing on the rights of others. The Church has a lot to offer and if it makes you happy then I’m happy for you. But when they try to take away rights that aren’t theirs to take away, that’s where the rub comes. There are over 1,000 federal rights granted to a couple simply because of a marriage certificate. This list isn’t just some appendix in the Gay Agenda book. This is a list the federal government compiled. That’s right, a heterosexual couple is granted 1,000+ federal rights after one night of drunken partying in Las Vegas, yet a committed, loving gay couple that have cared for each other for 50 years, cannot receive those rights because Mormon church money said they didn’t deserve those rights. Is it any wonder why the backlash? And that will be the new albatross around the neck of the Church for generations to come. That is a shame.
Because the Constitution of the United States guarantees equal protection, something has got to give. With 100% certainty, I know that one of the three following scenarios will occur. I don’t know when it will occur, but I know that one of these will occur, probably within the next few years.
• The federal government will recognize same sex marriage. Churches will be able to choose to marry or not marry whomever they want.
• The federal government will stop recognizing marriage altogether but will recognize civil unions for government purposes. Churches can conduct their own “marriages” or “sealings” but it will not grant any federal or state recognition. “Marriage” will only have significance within that religion.
• The Constitution of the United States will falter and the United States as we know it will collapse. The new regime will define the definition of marriage.
The first option is the easiest and less disruptive for all of us, but Mormon authorities don’t presently want either the first or the second option. And for sure, none of us want the third option.
So maybe it’s time for the Mormon Church to stop kicking against the pricks.
FYI, we put up a response to Elder Oaks. We’d appreciate hearing your thoughts and suggestions -
http://h1.ripway.com/lds4gaymarriage/Oaks.htm
Thanks
Mr. Hoen,
There are 533,741 Mormons in the State of California. Assuming that every Mormon in the State of California voted in favor of proposition 8, and in order for the Mormon vote to have altered the outcome, the following three unlikely events would have had to have occurred:
1) Every registered Mormon would have had to have turned out to vote, and then voted against Prop. 8.
2) Every unregistered Mormon would have had to have been registered to vote, and then,
3) Every newly-registered Mormon would have had to have voted against Prop. 8.
The ‘08 election had a unprecedented 56.8% of the REGISTERED voters turn-out to vote (typically it is much less than 50%). So, even if 200,000 registered Mormons who actually voted would have changed their vote, it still would NOT have negated the margin of victory of 526,695 votes.
To compare the Mormon church with the cyanide-killing Jim Jones Cult is one thing, but to argue that groupthink affected voting and the election outcome is another. Groupthink falls under the category of DECISION-MAKING in groups. A group’s decision can only be considered “groupthink” when the member’s decisions are known. The LDS’s Church member’s vote can’t qualify as a “groupthink decision” because noone, including you, knows how each Mormon Church member voted on the ballot. Every Mormon could have voted against Prop. 8, for all you know! And there are just plain-ole “bad” decisions,” you know–this one is definitely not a groupthink one.
Kyle - The moral code of the majority becomes secular law….a ‘government of the people, by the people, and for the people’ voted it that way.
CM - Thank goodness we have a constitution to protect the rights of an unpopular minority from being infringed by the hostile majority…too bad that the people of CA dodn’t care about the rights of the minority.
K - Here is the real question: would you (or other groups) feel so strongly against the LDS Church’s involvement if their support was on the other side of the issue? I
CM - At least the Church would be following the scriptures if it had. Paul mocked the idea the the moral opinions of others have the right to limit his freedom - 1. Cor 10:29. It’d sure be nice if the Church actually followed them.
We may not know how Mormons voted on their ballots, but we certainly know how they acted in the months leading up to the election. The Election Day decisions were the very smallest part of the program which was put into motion when the First Presidency letter was leaked and read back in late June, 2008.
There’s no question that Mormons do not make up 4% of California’s voting public, and we have no idea what any of those voters finally did in the privacy of the election booth, and that the actual ballots cast by Mormons probably made little difference in the final election. But there’s also no question that, as the New York Times put it not quite one year ago, “Mormons Tipped Scale in Ban on Gay Marriage”. Indeed, after successfully raising millions of dollars, Church leaders told California members that the fundraising portion of the project was sufficient and the time had come to focus on volunteering. General Authorities went so far as to suggest the number of hours members and wards should spend each week promoting Proposition 8 and provided web content for sharing with friends on the internet. A few quick historical internet searches could show how widely that information was spread as a result of LDS bloggers.
It’s fairly clear that many Mormons became politically active regarding Proposition 8 because of the significant amount of time and attention California wards and stakes paid to the election at the behest of The Brethren; and while elections are finally won at the ballot box, it takes thousands of hours of volunteer and employee time to persuade other voters and get them out on voting day. Mormons significantly provided much of that volunteer time (not to mention more than half of the money raised).
Michael - Lastly, when citizens are asked to vote their conscience, they are voting their worldview, their sense of justice, their morality. They reflect on truths, as they know it. In doing so, their decisions are highly informed by their religion.
CM - IOW, we can disregard the rights of others? Your statement could have been said by those who wanted polygamy banned.
M - As Mormons, we reflect on the teaching of “our prophets, scriptures, and the history of our own people….
CM - If we REALLY would have followed the prophets, we would have followed those that condemned imposing morality on others and who promoted separating church and state. If we really followed the scriptures, we would have fought against Prop.8 since it violates 1 Cor. 10:29s denunciation of others being able to to take the rights of others due to the formers moral beliefs. If we would have followed our own history, we would see that when our opponents used their moral beliefs to limit our rights, that they violated 1Cor.10:29. We LDS ignored all that we hold dear and “steadied the ark” in doing so.
If we are going to deny gay marriage and codify marriage along what the scriptures say, the laws regarding marriage will look like this -
Marcharino - …scripture is applicable in proving that marriage in civil context is also a sacred rite and that it unequivocally contributed to our predominant modern-day moral code upon which our basic laws of marriage and family relations are founded.
CM - Well then, shouldn’t our civil law look something like this? -
Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen. 29:17-28; 2 Sam. 3:2-5)
Marriage shall not impede a man’s right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (2 Sam. 5:13; 1 Kings 11:3; 2 Chron. 11:21)
A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut. 22:13-21)
Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen. 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh. 10:30)
If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother’s widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut. 25:5-10)
I doubt many of us would like the laws on marriage to include these religiously based requirements. We should all be thankful for the separation of Church and State.
Michael - Consider the many law suits against churches, the Boy Scouts of America, etc in which the SSM community is trying to infringe on the freedom of religion, arguably the foundational freedom of the constitution.
CM - They are in NO WAY infringing upon the freedom of religion…they are just saying to churches and the BSA that if they want to keep their non-profit status, that they can’t violate the laws regarding campaigning (LDS) or discriminate (BSA). Thgere is NO religious right to being tax exempt.
LDS Music - I’m much more bothered by the slope that would end up with the church being sued for refusing to perform same sex marriages in the temple. Then what happens to OUR free exercise of religion?
CM We discuss this at length on our site -
http://h1.ripway.com/lds4gaymarriage/temples.htm
Hillary - The LDS Church can discriminate all it wants–after all, we don’t allow women to hold the priesthood, and we don’t allow non-members to enter dedicated temples. Those are both instances of discrimination, but they are legal and for the most part don’t cause anyone any heartache.
Sexuality receives an intermediate level of scrutiny under the law–not as much as race or ethnicity, but still a significant level of scrutiny. There needs to be an important (not merely rational) relationship between the law and an important government goal to be achieved. What is the goal here? NOTHING.
CM - Exactly. The Iowa Supreme Court case invalidating state same-sex marriage bans discussed the idea of scrutiny in great detail. See our summary of the case here-
http://h1.ripway.com/lds4gaymarriage/iowa.htm
There are links there to our “cut to the chase” summary as well as the official ruling and summary.
I cannot see ANY unbiased court ruling in favor of SSM bans after reading this case.
M - Simply put, the Court upheld the right of landlords to practice “discrimination” by refusing to rent to tenants whose non-marital status violated the landlords’ religious beliefs.
CM - Perhaps someone’s religious beliefs compell them to not rent to Blacks (curse of Cain), LDS (devil worshipping cultists), women (they’ll get roommates and turn it into a brothel), etc…Consider the quote regarding D&C 134:4 -
“Religious freedom does not imply nor provide license to infringe or impose upon the rights and liberties of others.”
(L. G. Otten and C. M. Caldwell, Sacred Truths of the Doctrine and Covenants [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1982-1983], 2: 375.)
Being libertarian, I feel that people SHOULD be able to do so, but it’s contrary to the gospel when doing so infringes upon the rights of others.
DH - I know that it is absolutely not acceptable for you to say “the Prophet is wrong on this”.
CM - Why? They themselves have said that they’ve been wrong.
See - http://h1.ripway.com/lds4gaymarriage/prophets.htm
They even have interpreted scriptures wrong -
http://h1.ripway.com/lds4gaymarriage/eidos.htm
DH - I also know that your belief is that you must follow the prophet 100% and if he leads you astray, the sin will be on his head and you will be blessed, regardless. In other words, the member is not held accountable for this own actions if the Prophet tells him to do something wrong and in fact will be blessed for it..
CM - Joseph Smith disagreed - “We have heard men who hold the priesthood remark that they would do anything they were told to do by those who preside over them [even] if they knew it was wrong; but such obedience as this is worse than folly to us; it is slavery in the extreme; and the man who would thus willingly degrade himself, should not claim a rank among intelligent beings, until he turns from his folly. A man of God would despise the idea. Others, in the extreme exercise of their almighty authority have taught that such obedience was necessary, and that no matter what the saints were told do by their presidents they should do it without any questions. When Elders of Israel will so far indulge in these extreme notions of obedience as to teach them to the people, it is generally because they have it in their hearts to do wrong themselves.” (Joseph Smith - Millennial Star, Vol 14, Number 38, pages 593-595).
Check these out too -
http://h1.ripway.com/lds4gaymarriage/oaks.htm
http://h1.ripway.com/lds4gaymarriage/scriptures.htm
Marcharino wrote: Marriage is a religious institution. Its origin and definition are religious in nature,
Actually, Marcharino, you are incorrect. The church did not involve itself in marriage until the mid-13th C. CE. Marriage is traditionally a civil institution, intended to cement contracts between two families. It has not even traditionally been one man/one woman in the church. I would recommend that you have a look at these two links:
http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/history_of_marriage_in_western.html
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/2rites.html
Thanks for your kind consideration of the facts at hand.
Hi, Doug. I guess I might feel more sympathy for your position had I not been threatened with physical violence by a Church of LDS member for refusing to remove a No on 8 sign from my own front lawn.
I have nice Mormon parents, Doug. I know the Church’s teachings on this matter, and they are nothing short of hateful discrimination.
One would think that an organization that has been subject to discrimination over the course of its history would know better. Your Church is constitutionally protected in its right to determine whom it marries — just as it does now. I’m not Mormon; I couldn’t get married in your temple without converting — which I will not do, now or ever. You can continue discriminating, whether or not gay men and lesbians are given the right to civil marriage — which is the only thing that they are asking.
While you try to pretend that gay men and lesbians are seeking special rights, it’s actually you and your fellow Prop 8 supporters who do so. You want to keep marriage to yourselves, like an exclusive club. I know that my so-called “traditional marriage” is not harmed by any other couple’s marriage — gay or straight.
To protect his privacy I will not give his name, but here is an excerpt from an email I recieved from an old ward member whom I haven’t spoken with for over 10 years. He rather eloquently expresses his ideas about “groupthink?
“Hi Sheri,
I don’t know if you remember me. I’m [deleted] your former [deleted] neighbor and fellow 3rd Ward member.
I want you to know that I just read your book and am in total agreement with with you. The depth of your honestly objective analysis and the clarity of the expression of your beliefs truly impressed me.
I left the LDS church last October when the Stake President stood in the pulpit and told us how to vote. It wasn’t so much the issue, but the assumption that I would relinquish my personal judgment to blindly follow what some other person dictated turned me away.”
I love the way many of you, including Captain Moroni, Laura, Dave Hoen, have clarified how we Mormons often never take the time to examine our bbeliefs, once the leaders have spoken. (I guess I shouldn’t include myself in the category of Mormon anymore since I officially was successful in having my name removed from the records of the church.)
Fiona64,
The only source one has to go to are the oldest of literature. Since we’re restricted in this particular column from using scripture (or Bible- “thumping,” as Laura has called it in the above post), I will merely point that you’ve failed to consider the very old citation of, “When a man hath taken a wife, and married her… [and given] a bill of divorcement.” This very ancient writing is that of Moses in Deuteronomy 24 written in approximately 1446 to 1500 BC.
This source should suffice in proving that marriage, as we know it today, has its origin in Judaism’s Mosiac Law written by Moses in the Pentateuch and authorized by God. If that isn’t good enough proof of source, then Jesus and the Apostles reinforced Moses traditional marriage, and they never mentioned marriage as a “civil institution to cement contracts between two families,” but intend it to be between one man and one woman.
Marcharino –
Laura did a wonderful job of already responding to your assertion that Mormons didn’t affect the outcome on election day. But since you addressed me and in case you are waiting for a response from me, let me reiterate what Laura said. I apologize I haven’t responded earlier, but as I mentioned in my last post, I’m very busy.
I didn’t imply that the Mormon voting on the day of the election was what swung the vote. Perhaps you aren’t aware, but even though Mormons make up only 2% of Californians, the majority of the $40 million spent by the “Yes” side to create and air the commercials and the robo-calls, came from Mormon money raised at the behest of President Monson. In addition, almost all of the volunteers and the administration of the “Yes” side came from the Mormons. Again at the behest of Church headquarters. This occurred in the months leading up to election day and it was accomplished using groupthink mentality. PERIOD! The lies, distortions and half-truths of the ads and robo-calls, paid for by Mormon money, are what swung the vote.
Mormons who have studied it, are embarrassed and ashamed of what previous Prophets and Apostles have said about African Americans. Let me also assure you that there will come a day when your children and grandchildren will be ashamed and embarrassed of the Church’s participation in Prop 8. Many Mormons are already ashamed. If you truly believe in loving thy neighbor as thyself, you will get to that point too.
Captain Moroni,
You should know that a union between one man and more than one women is, of course, illegal in America because it was forbidden by God in numerous Old and New Testament passages (Deut. 17:17, Lev. 18:18, Mal. 2:14-15, Mt. 19:4-5, Mk. 10:2-8, 1 Tim. 2:2,12, Titus 1:6). So, let’s not pretend that God authorizes same sex marriage because He supposedly allowed multiple childbearers: Rather, God never authorized it, and only tolerated concubines for isolated reasons.
Moreover, IF laws of the Old and New Testament were carried into contemporary American law (ex. infelicitous marital relations) the scripture still provides no allowance for same sex marriage–in fact, God condemned sexual unions and relationships between those of the same sex and you’re still without a scriptural argument advocating it.
Finally, you may be grateful for the separation of Church and State in America, and I am also. However, the existing laws, versus those of scripture, may not bode well for the outlook of marriage (divorce rate of first marriage is 50%, 2nd is two-thirds, and 3rd is three-quarters). So, the Bible may not look so bad after all, especially when your chance of staying married in Biblical times were significantly better than today!
Polygyny is illegal in America because COURTS relying on SECULAR LAW (and in some cases state constitutions) prohibit it. And if you asked any Mormons between about 1833 and (1890) 1904 (and continuing) they’d tell you that God not only authorized, but commanded under severe penalty one man-several women marriages. These Mormons went to jail and hid in exile in order to follow what they believed were God’s commands. And if you asked many currently living, remarried Mormon widowers, they’re looking forward to spending eternity with more than one woman at their side.
Also, while we’re on Bible-as-ultimate-legal-source, there is some dispute as to whether Deuteronomy was written as early as you believe it was written. Other scholars date it to 780-600 BCE. But even if it were written by the hand of Moses in 1400 BCE or so, it certainly does not apply to any of the billions of people around the world who do not trace their civilizations to the Ancient Israel.
And a warning to other respondents as well, please don’t go baiting one another discussing all of the commandments and customs laid out in the Old Testament which we do or do not follow. I happen to like my cotton-poly t-shirts and we just had shrimp for dinner and with my comfortable clothes and my full stomach I have no qualms about some ham-fisted moderation and/or editing.
Some people’s minds aren’t going to be changed and we’re in danger of a quickly devolving discussion here, so let’s not follow any of the red herrings. If you’ve got something new and thoughtful to add, comment away. Marcharino, we’ve given you plenty of rope. What would you like to do with it?
Mr. Hoen and Laura,
I question the veracity of the claims, “the majority of the $40 million… came from Mormon money,” and the citation, http://mormonsfor8.com/?p=242 suggesting that 1.7% of the State of California’s population (individual Mormons), raised $15,305,050.17, or 48% of all Pro-Prop. 8 donations. Both are spurious at best, and don’t proffer reliable source or citations.
Perhaps you’re ignoring non-Mormons that are bastions of politically conservative thought that supported Prop. 8 besides Alan C. Ashton:
1. National Organization for Marriage, Princeton, NJ: $1441k
2. Knights of Columbus, New Haven, CT: $1150k
3. Fieldstead and Co., Irvine, CA: $1095k Howard Ahmanson
4. Edgar and Elsa Prince Foundation, Holland, MI: $650k
5. Former state senator Robert Hurtt & Container Supply Co., Inc, Garden Grove, CA: $527k
6. American Family Association, Inc., Tupelo, MS: $500k
7. Focus on the Family, Colorado Springs, CO: $467k
8. John Templeton Foundation, Bryn Mawr, PA: $450k & wife
9. Concerned Women for America, Washington, DC: $409k
Orange County, a highly conservative city in Southern California raised $6.7 million alone in support of Prop. 8.
So then, what exactly is the complaint? The Mormon Church was among countless other conservative groups and churches spanning the sectarian gamut broadly supporting the initiative and preaching its virtue from the pulpit. Both sides conducted major drives and pushes.
By the way, as of October 21, 2008, overall contributions amounted to $28.4 million donated in support of Prop. 8, and $28.7 million against.
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/prop-gay-marriage-2149199-ban-election?appSession=512027268631038&RecordID=&PageID=2&PrevPageID=2&cpipage=6&CPISortType=asc&CPIorderBy=EMPLOYER
Um, Marcharino? Thanks for admitting that you didn’t even read what I posted.
BTW, unless you are reading scripture in the original Koine Greek or Hebrew, you don’t know what it really says — you just know what your translation happens to say. You are also conveniently ignoring the parts of your Bible that specify polygyny as the order of the day for marriage. I’m not surprised, though; I’ve noticed that a lot of Bibliolators (worshippers of the Bible) like to disregard certain passages in favor of others.
PS to Marcharino: If, as you insist, marriage is a Judeo-Christian religious institution, perhaps you can explain how it is that many non-Judeo-Christian cultures throughout history and around the world have marriage? I’ll be delighted to hear your answer.
Marcharino wrote to me the following -
“…(polygamy) was forbidden by God in numerous Old and New Testament passages (Deut. 17:17, Lev. 18:18, Mal. 2:14-15, Mt. 19:4-5, Mk. 10:2-8, 1 Tim. 2:2,12, Titus 1:6)”.
ME - You gotta be freakin’ kidding me!!
[Moderator's note - Captain Moroni has given some context to each of these scriptural passages, but we're not going to spend time throwing Bible verses at each other. So, CM, we'll just note that you don't see that Marcharino's quotes are relevant to 21st century marriage practices (or, in some cases, Biblical marital guidelines for the 'average Joe and Jane' either). Either that, or they recognized that polygamy existed in the early Christian church in the first place. Then CM goes ahead and shares several verses where God gave a blessing to polygamous marriages and concubines.] CM concludes:
The bottom line is that your assertion that “it (polygamy) was forbidden by God in numerous Old and New Testament passages” is laughable. Sorry, but just because we LDS have additional books of
scripture doesn’t mean that we don’t know the Bible. Never let your mouth write a check that your Bible references can’t cash. In this case you were NSF.
M - So, let’s not pretend that God authorizes same sex marriage because He supposedly allowed multiple childbearers: Rather, God never authorized it, and only tolerated concubines for isolated reasons.
CM - I never said that “God authorizes same sex marriage”. I believe that the scripture is clear that it is a grave sin. Our point is simply that the Lord inspired separating Church and State (jesus also did when we told the apostles to render unto Caesar that which pertains to Caesar’s and to the Lord, that which pertains to the Lord. We espouse C-I-V-I-L / S-E-C-U-L-A-R (through Caesar) marriage for same-sex couples. There is no C-I-V-I-L / S-E-C-U-L-A-R reason to deny them this.
M - Moreover, IF laws of the Old and New Testament were carried into contemporary American law (ex. infelicitous marital relations) the scripture still provides no allowance for same sex marriage–in fact, God condemned sexual unions and relationships between those of the same sex and you’re still without a scriptural argument advocating it.
CM - As stated, I never argued that the scriptures advocated it. They simply advocate that it is wrong for us to deny gays equal C-I-V-I-L / S-E-C-U-L-A-R rights, especially when we do so using our beliefs as justification to do so (1 Cor. 10:29).
1. A couple of months before last year’s election, ProtectMarriage spokesmen told the Wall Street Journal that
2. Shortly after the election, another ProtectMarriage spokesman http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/15/us/politics/15marriage.html” rel=”nofollow”>told the New York Times
The information about half the money being donated was in that same article in the New York Times (after the jump).
October 21st was very, very early in the donation process. The final total for donations shows up in the Jan 30, 2009 Secretary of State’s donation report which tallied donations between Jan 1, 2008 and Dec 31, 2008 at $37,130,742.98.
If you add up all of the large donations by the nine groups you’ve listed, plus donations from all of the other churches which donated money to the campaign, plus the donations by several individual Catholic priests, they still do not come close to even one-third of the donations to ProtectMarriage, and the PM folks themselves said LDS donations were 35-40% of the total.
To bring this back on topic for this discussion thread, the point is that most of the volunteer hours and monetary donations would not have been so amply supplied and donated by LDS Church members had they not been following the call of their prophet and other priesthood leaders. And as a reminder, the call was not a once-per-election call, it was repeated monthly (or sometimes weekly) in nearly every LDS congregation in California between July and October.
So, while LDS votes could not make a difference in the ballot box, LDS time and money (contributed at the request of their leaders) did make a difference. This is part of the reason the backlash was focused so much on the LDS church - it was seen by many as the driving force behind a movement which removed rights from Californians and threatened the families of gays and lesbians by removing a stabilizing force in their relationships for them and for their children.
A significant portion of GLBT marriages and civil unions are performed or blessed by (non-Mormon) religious leaders. These people believe God is calling them to marry/be married as much as Mormon leaders believe God is calling only heterosexuals to marry and be married. Certainly churches have every right and responsibility to speak out on the public square and try to influence voters to “do the right thing,” but as Elder Oaks suggests, “religious persons will often be most persuasive in political discourse by framing arguments and positions in ways that are respectful of those who do not share their religious beliefs and that contribute to the reasoned discussion and compromise that is essential in a pluralistic society.”
For those interested in reading our uneditted response to Marcharino’s claim that God forbade polygamy in both the Old and New Testaments, please check it out here -
http://h1.ripway.com/lds4gaymarriage/majority.htm
(it is WELL worth the read)
We’d love your feedback
OOOpppssss….My bad.
I copied and pasted the file right above the correct one -
http://h1.ripway.com/lds4gaymarriage/marcharino.htm
Getting old is Hell.
For me the issue was simple: how would extending the right to same-sex couples to marry harm my own marriage, or even the institution of marriage? My marriage has only as much significance as I give it and I can’t see how that can be taken from me. For the life of me, I was never able to come up with a single remotely plausible answer to that question. Why should I have governmental and other benefits given to me as a result of my civil marriage, while we discriminate by not allowing two people of the same sex to enjoy the same status and benefits? I just don’t get it…
For me, the issue was about following the prophets. The evidence in both past and modern scriptures of the calamaties that befall nations disregarding the call of the prophets is very clear cut.
The real defining question is whether or not you believe them to be Prophets and Apostles of God. I personally do. They do not see things in just the present as we tend to do. They see things in terms of the past, present, and the future. Proposition 8 may have been just as much about future consequences as it was about safe-guarding the god-ordained institution of marriage from those seeking to alter its historic definition.
Just wondering which historic definition of marriage, considering that the definition of marriage has been altered throughout the ages, do we want to go back to any of those historic definitions such as interracial marriage being illegal? Or perhaps we’d like to go back to the days when the wife was a piece of property and had no rights.
Just be clear that what you mean is that marriage is only between a man and a woman.
And, to me, I don’t see voting against prop 8 as not believing that Prophet is a prophet. I don’t believe that the church, any church, belongs in the political arena. After all, whose church do we decide to base the laws on?
Nothing wrong with a church encouraging its members to vote, but I, personally, will decide how I vote.
Sheryl