I’m guessing M* was knocked out of service over the weekend by the huge debate over at T&S on, yes, you guessed it, Same Sex Marriage. The debate was so raucous that its effects rocked the entire Bloggernacle, temporarily disabling our server. But, we’re back.
In any case, the Church statement was supposed to be read over the pulpit on Sunday but was not in my ward. I imagine that was simply an oversight by our bishop, not a political statement of any kind. Our bishop supports the First Presidency’s position, as do I. People looking for more information on this issue should visit this website.
(In case anybody doesn’t get my sense of humor, the above was not the reason we were out of service over the weekend.)
Letter from First Presidency of the Church to Church Leaders in the United States
We are informed that the United States Senate will on June 6, 2006, vote on an amendment to the Federal constitution designed to protect the traditional institution of marriage.
We, as the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, have repeatedly set forth our position that the marriage of a man and a woman is the only acceptable marriage relationship.
In 1995 we issued a Proclamation to the World on this matter, and have repeatedly reaffirmed that position.
In that proclamation we said: “We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.”
We urge our members to express themselves on this urgent matter to their elected representatives in the Senate.
If this had the slightest chance of passing then I would think that the effort is worthwhile.
Given that it does not, I seems that trotting out a FMA every two years (not that there isn’t an attempt to pass one in odd numbered years) is playing politics, pure and simple. It is a way of motivating the troops based on promises to do something that they know will never happen. Rather than campaigning on issues that will see actual moviment we have these debates that allows politicians such as Hatch to buff their supposed credentials without having to actually do anything.
Again, if the vote were going to be close then I would feel differently, but this is just a distraction from what is really happening in DC, yet people vote based in this distraction.
Since M* was down, I typed up my response on my own site, which I won’t copy and paste here but I will (gratuitous link alert!) link to…
Basically, calling up your senator and saying, “I believe in protecting the family, but this amendment is a BAD way of doing it.” is entirely consistent with what the FP statement says to do, and the careful wording shows that this is deliberate.
“We urge our members to express themselves on this urgent matter to their elected representatives in the Senate.”
Does that urging including opposition to the amendment?
Kim,
Yes.
Personally, I support the FMA and have urged my senators to vote for it. Having said that, I would encourage everybody to visit the Baron’s gratuitous link in #2 which includes a very thoughtful post on the subject. I disagree with a lot the Kevin writes, but I really enjoyed reading his take on the issue.
This proposal would just be more graffiti on the USA federal constitution. Isn’t there enough there already? I still say get gov’t out of the marriage business. Bring on same sex unions, polyandry, polygamy, etc, and leave all these people in alternative relationships alone!
Alright, I’ve done some web research on this and here’s what I’ve come up with:
The First Presidency letter read in Sacrament meeting is found here.
In an earlier statement, dated April 24, 2006, the Church officially supports a “constitutional amendment” protecting marriage and notes that it has done so on two previous occasions. See here. The previous statements are found here and here.
In the sidebar of that same webpage, the Church links to the website of the Religious Coalition for Marriage. That website includes a statement calling for a Constitutional Amendment, found here. That statement is signed by Elder Russell M. Nelson.
The website also includes the text of a proposed amendment here.
The Church website page on “Same Gender Marriage” also links to a Deseret News article on the LDS position on Constitutional Amendments here.
Elder Oakes talk in 1995 on same-sex attraction is found here.
Draw your own conclusions.
Sorry, the letter is found here.
Thanks to bbell, for directing me to the site on T&S.
Seth: Based on the facts from the Church’s previous comments, including the links you provided as well as the Proclamation, the strongest conclusion supported by those facts is that The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve have counseled us that our support of this particular amendment (since it is the only amendment up for a vote on 6/6/06) would be prudent. I believe the conclusion that “The Brethren” have issued this counsel at this time in order to oppose this upcoming vote on this amendment, (as the Hymn) so aptly states: “makes reason stare.”
Guy,
It certainly looks that way doesn’t it?
Yes, Seth R. and Guy, it certainly does. On the Church website right now, clicking on “News from the Church,” brings up the following headline on the top of the page: “Church Leaders Urge Members to Contact Representatives in Support of Marriage.”
After giving the text of the First Presidency letter, the article concludes with the following paragraphs:
Yet the statement quite does not say what position to tell your representatives to take. If you personally think that there are better ways of protecting marriage the statement seems to be encouraging you to voice them, or if you have issues with some technical aspect of the ammendment you are being encouraged to tell your senators about it.
Yes most Church members will interpret the statement as a sign of outright and unquestioning support for the proposed ammendment. Those that remember the recent Utah ballot measure will remember that the Church’s statement basically quoted one clause of the measure without even mentioning the part that everyone agreed was stupid. So the Church isn’t saying that this is the ideal ammendment and I think that members that wish to express what they think would be ideal are welcome to do so.
arj: Neither does the statement say “if you personally think that there are better ways of protecting marriage” to voice them at this time. If the “Brethren” wanted to include that option in their letter and prior statements they could have done so. Given the Church’s consistent and unambiguous declarations in support of marriage between a man and woman, the timing of this letter in proximity to the Senate vote, I think it a tortured interpretation of the FP’s letter to conclude that they are counseling us to do anything other than support this amendment. Of course everyone is free to choose to follow the counsel or not follow the counsel as they see fit.
Yada yada yada.
At the risk of repeating what I have said elsewhere, I understand that the Church supports a constitutional amendment on the subject, but has not stated a preference of one version of an amendment over another.
The first statement to this effect was in July 2004, and the release stated as follows:
“This is a statement of principle in anticipation of the expected debate over same-gender marriage. It is not an endorsement of any specific amendment.
“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints favors a constitutional amendment preserving marriage as the lawful union of a man and a woman.” (bold lettering added)
In a thread on nauvoo.com, quoting all four official statements of the First Presidency or First Presidency and the Twelve, I explain why I conclude that while the official Church position favors adoption of an amendment on the subject, the Brethren have not stated whether one approach (e.g., federalizing the definition) is endorsed or preferred rather than another (e.g., a federalism/Defense of Marriage Act approach).
http://www.nauvoo.com/ubb/forum/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=000250 [May 27 9:07 pm entry]
I do not doubt many of the Brethren would like an amendment federalizing the definition, but they have not said that is the only amendment approach within the constraints of the official Church position.
And while I also agree that by inviting us to “express [our]selves”, the Brethren hope we will express ourselves in favor of an amendment, or even this version of the amendment, I believe the statement was drafted carefully to show respect for agency and love for those who, at this time, do not agree with the official Church position. (This interpretation is supported by the Church’s April statement urging that its own members show respect for each other’s different views of amendment: “[T]he Church urges those who participate in public debate — including its own members — to be respectful of each other.” )
I also suspect the careful phrasing was used in deference to, or to avoid embarrassing, Senator Reid, who, although opposed to same sex marriage, does not favor this amendment and, as leader of his party in the Senate, does not favor the timing of the vote (which will not even come close to the two-thirds required). Senator Reid issued his most recent statement opposing the amendment just the day before the Church issued its statement over the weekend.
http://www.giveemhellharry.com/page/community/post/harryreid/VMV
This puts Senator Reid in an interesting conundrum, which may have implications for Governor Romney, and even the Church.
1. Senator Reid can retain his position and be in technical compliance with the Church’s official position, but some of the posters here (and many nonbloggernacle members of the Church) will conclude that Senator Reid is a bad Mormon because his position seems opposed to the implied official position of the Church.
2. Senator Reid can change his position and vote for the amendment. He would receive no credit from conservative republican Mormons who, in any event, believe that LDS democrats are all either inherently apostate or ignorant of the true evil of that party. But more importantly, a change in position would undermine assertions by Governor Romney that he would certainly “be his own man” in governing, rather than voting (or changing his vote) as implicitly “invited” by the leaders of his Church.
These pronouncements, especially the most recent one, deeply mire the Church in American partisan politics. As post #1 noted, the ammendment has no chance of passing anytime soon, and everybody knows it. It’s purely an election year Republican maneuver.
David H: This seems like an incredible amount of rationalization (which I do not believe is supported by the facts) to arrive at your conclusion. I thought President Clinton had taken semantics to new highs by redefining “is.” You and anyone else are free to choose what if any response to make to the “Brethren’s” clarion call. I don’t think you are free to rationalize away the clear meaning of the FP’s letter, the last sentence of which clearly states:
Under your explanation there is no urgency. Any or a wide variety of amendments or approaches will do, depending on one’s particular preference at some future point in time. You fail to address the obvious emphasis the “Brethren” have placed on the urgent nature of this issue. Why is it urgent? Because of the Church’s obvious long standing support of marriage between a man and a woman. Because there is a such a constitutional amendment up for a vote in a matter of a week.
I don’t think the Church will ever specify a particular amendment to support. Can you imagine the hue and cry of the “Don’t let the church tell me how to vote” crowd if the FP and the Twelve came right out and specifically instructed LDS members to vote for a specific amendment? In the final analysis it will come down to an individual’s own faith and pondering of this issue in terms of how to respond. Everyone will still get to choose, which is the bedrock eternal principle of the entire plan of salvation.
Thanks for Seth R and Guy Murray for their thoughtful and insightful analysis on this issue. It appears to me the prophet has spoken (repeatedly) on this issue.
Marriage is the legal, social, economic and spiritual union of a man and a woman. One man and one woman are necessary for a valid marriage. If that definition is radically altered then anything is possible. (See the current issue of The Advocate .) There is no logical reason for not letting several people marry, or for eliminating other requirements, such as minimum age, blood relative status or even the limitation of the relationship to human beings. Those who are trying to radically redefine our country’s marriage laws for their own purposes are the ones who are trying to impose their values on the rest of the population. Those citizens opposed to any change in any state’s marriage statutes are merely defending the basic morality that has sustained the culture for everyone against a radical attack.
When same-sex couples seek approval and all the benefits that states reserve for married couples, they impose the law on everyone. According non-marital relationships the same status as marriage would mean that millions of people would be disenfranchised by their own governments. The state would be telling them that their beliefs are no longer valid, and would turn the civil rights laws into a battering ram against them.
Law is not a suggestion, as George Washington observed, “it is force”. An official state sanction of same-sex relationships as “marriage” would bring the full apparatus of the state against those who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. I view this as outlawing traditional morality.
Eliminating one entire sex from an institution defined as the union of the two sexes is a quantum leap from eliminating racial discrimination, which did not alter the fundamental character of marriage. Marriage reflects the natural moral and social law evidenced the world over.
As the late British social anthropologist Joseph Daniel Unwin noted in his study of world civilizations, any society that devalued the nuclear family soon lost what he called “expansive energy,” which might best be summarized as society’s will to make things better for the next generation. In fact, no society that has loosened sexual morality outside of man-woman marriage has survived.
Analyzing studies of cultures spanning several thousands of years on several continents, Harvard sociologist Pitirim Sorokin found that virtually all political revolutions that brought about societal collapse were preceded by a sexual revolution in which marriage and family were devalued.
When marriage loses its unique status, women and children most frequently are the direct victims. Giving same-sex relationships or out-of-wedlock heterosexual couples the same special status and benefits as the marital bond would not be the expansion of a right but the destruction of a principle. . If the one-man/one-woman definition of marriage is broken, there is no logical stopping point for continuing the assault on marriage.
If feelings are the key requirement, then why not let three people marry, or two adults and a child, or consenting blood relatives of any age? . Marriage-based kinship is essential to stability and continuity in our state. Child abuse is much more prevalent when a living arrangement is not based on kinship. Kinship imparts family names, heritage, and property, secures the identity and commitment of fathers for the sake of the children, and entails mutual obligations to the community.
The US Supreme Court declared in 1885 that states’ marriage laws must be based on “the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization, the best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement.”
Isn’t it ironic that a Supreme Court decision which was anathema to LDS members in 1885 is now sought to stem the tide of immorality.
Parents with traditional values are powerless in Newton, Massachusetts (and, perhaps, other Massachusetts cities in the future) to have their children excluded from pro-homosexual propaganda in the public schools. Teachers simply say “its legal now” and they cannot be prevented from advocating homosexuality.
Look, I hate the whole idea of a Constitutional Amendment.
a) Every time the right-wingers have a gripe with ANYTHING, they try to “ammend the Constitution.” It just shows me that they don’t really value it much in the first place.
b) Every time the Church has tied itself up in Amendment movements, it’s gotten a black eye (Prohibition, the Equal Rights Amendment).
c) The Amendment has no chance of passing and is just a partisan play to try and convince the Southern Baptist Convention that the Republican party still cares what they think (which I’m not sure they do).
d) It’s an attempt to divert us from talking about what an absolute failure of governance the past 6 years have been for the Republican Party.
e) The Amendment directly conflicts with basic ideas of fairness. Even passage of the Amendment will not silence the pro-gay voices who are claiming that they are being treated unfairly.
f) It’s possible that, in the future, the voices supporting equal treatment of homosexual couples will gain the upper hand both in the population and in politics. When that happens, we’ll all find that our house of morality has been “built upon the sand.”
g) The Constitution has failed the Mormons in the past, and I believe it will fail us again in the future. An Amendment is just a cosmetic stopgap measure.
h) Until homosexuals get fair protection of their relationships under the law, the demand for government change will not go away. Better to simply grant those protections without reference to marriage.
i) Government’s entanglement with the religious concept of marriage, is endangering the integrity of marriage in America. The benefits of continued government endorsement of heterosexual marriage no longer outweigh the risks. Government has become a liability to marriage. It is an avenue that can be used to attack marriage. Better to remove government from marriage entirely.
j) Who asked for government “permission” to conduct a temple marriage? I sure didn’t. My religion does not need government endorsement to be the one true religion on the face of the earth. Government can just buzz-off as far as I’m concerned.
In short. I intensely dislike this whole hairbrained Amendment scheme.
But I think those who are saying the Brethren are calling for us to support the Amendment have a better argument than those who are arguing otherwise. Perhaps there is some wiggle room. But I honestly don’t see much.
Irritating. But the pro-Amendment folks seem to have official Church support.
Geoff, One final observation if I may: The gay community has had no difficulty in understanding the plain and unambiguous meaning of the First Presidency’s letter–see here.
Seth R, I actually agree with some of your points in #21. I do think people are too quick to jump on the “let’s pass a constitutional amendment” bandwagon. Remember the constitutional amendment against flag-burning or the constitutional amendment for a balanced budget? I mean, give me a break. Having said that, I think this amendment is important enough to support, and I do support it.
Everybody is the product of their life experiences. As you may know, I was a leftist activist during the 1980s and most of the 1990s. During that time, I got to know the minds and inner workings of many of the higher-level activists on the secular left (I worked at the Nation magazine for a time, for example). There should be no doubt in your mind about how the secular left views religious people: they hate us and want to stop us from worshipping according to the dictates of our own conscience. If they had their way, they would tear down all of our temples and then go after our meeting houses. Obviously, not all people on the left feel this way, but a core group of influential leftist activists does feel this way.
So, when you say you want the government out of the marriage business, the libertarian side of me says, “right on!” But based on my experience, I also know that eventually the secular left would not leave us alone. They would go after our temples and meetinghouses just as the “religious right” of the 1870s and 1880s did. So, be careful what you wish for.
Everyone, and I mean everyone, should be committed to amending the federal Constitution whenever it seems like a good thing to do. The alternative is to have the Supreme Court start spouting policy based on weak “living document” arguments. Indeed, the real “value” of the Constitution is that it is not, and was never meant to be, a static document. It frankly scares me that people think that amendments show a lack of respect for it; the opposite was anticipated by its drafters.
“This seems like an incredible amount of rationalization (which I do not believe is supported by the facts) to arrive at your conclusion.”
“If the ‘Brethren’ wanted to include that option in their letter and prior statements they could have done so.”
If the Brethren had wanted to endorse one and only one constitutional amendment, “they could have done so.” The statements repeatedly use the phrase “a constitutional amendment” or “an amendment” (look at RoAnn’s post). The only statement in which the Brethren acknowledge that more than one version of an amendment have been proposed specifically states that they have “not endors[ed] a specific amendment.”
Commenters are free to interpret the First Presidency statement to mean that faithful members are invited to support a federalization of the definition of marriage as the only way to protect the institution of marriage. I do not quarrel with a conclusion that that is a reasonable inference. But I do not think it is the only one.
Commenters are also free to condemn me as a “Clinton” rationalizer when I take the First Presidency statements literally. To me, “no endors[ement] of a specific amendment” means exactly that. An amendment yes. This version, and only this one, no.
Ultimately, of course, we answer to our God, not to each other. I respect your interpretation. I hope you will consider respecting mine, or at least agreeing to disagree (see First Presidency statement, April 2006).
DavidH, I have seen a lot of Guy’s comments, and I don’t think he intended to show you any disrespect. I think his point, which is a good one, is that people spend all of their time trying to rationalize the prophets’ messages when they couldn’t be more clear. I am not saying you personally are doing this, but many, many people on the T&S thread went to herculean efforts to take a clear statement by the FP and turn it into something it is not.
I mean, can’t you see all of the people during Moses’s day saying, “well, we saw the Red Sea part and we saw water come from the rocks and manna every day, but we really miss our meat, fruits and vegetables from Egypt so we’re going to parse every word out of Moses’s mouth and turn it into something it is not.” That’s the kind of reasoning that turned people into adulterers immediately after receiving the 10 commandments. I think Guy’s point is that we should be very careful not to do that in our day. The Brethren have spoken clearly, precisely and repeatedly on the issue of SSM.
Senator Hatch has sponsored an unending parade of amendments. Over twenty. He has co-sponsored twice as many. Do you think he does this because he thinks they will pass? I think he does it because he knows that he’ll get re-elected no matter what and therefgore it is safe for him to play politics for the benefit of the national party.
The Church is going to suppport even flawed efforts to avert the coming of gay marriage. I don’t blame the Church for that. I blame Senator Hatch for the flawed attempt that is political rather than practical and borders on dishonest.
ARJ, I will agree with you that I often think to myself, “is Sen. Hatch the best Utah can do?” He seems an extraordinarily weak an ineffective senator at times.
And now it looks like the T&S hit their bandwidth allowance. When trying to go to http://timesandseasons.org I am redirected to http://hyperion.blogomania.com/suspended.page/
Guy,
Neither does the statement say “if you personally think that there are better ways of protecting marriage” to voice them at this time. If the “Brethren” wanted to include that option in their letter
What part of:
We urge our members to express themselves on this urgent matter to their elected representatives in the Senate.
am I misunderstanding? It doesn’t say, “We urge members to wholeheartedly support this effort.” It certainly could have said that. It is clear that the intention of the letter is to generate support for the June 6 vote. But it is also clear that members are being told to express their own opinions.
Are you claiming that the intent of the letter is to tell members that they should be of the opinion that the proposed amendment is the ideal solution and that they should express such? Because if so I am thinking that you are reading more into it than I am.
Will, we have the bandwidth to keep up with those SSM comments while T&S is down. Keep ’em coming, Mormon Bloggernacle! We’re here to help you vent.
Geoff,
I understand that the political left has an axe to grind with the religious.
However, the fact that they are able to appeal to basic notions of fairness (“we’re not being treated the same!”), gains them more allies than they would otherwise have.
I don’t think they’d get half the support they’re getting on the whole marriage debate if those basic fairness concerns weren’t in play.
I’m saying that “fairness and equity” are currently, an unlocked back door for penetrating the fortress of religious marriage. This Amendment does nothing to close that vulnerability.
Close and lock the door!
“I view this as outlawing traditional morality.”
“…If they had their way, they would tear down all of our temples and then go after our meeting houses.”
That is paranoid fear mongering of the highest order. Show me these influential leftist activists who advocate anything of that nature.
This kind of rhetoric is where you lose the argument and will ultimately lose on the whole issue, too. The broader public sees the two sides and says “Hmmm, maybe the gays DO need some legal protection from people like that.”
Seth is absolutely right; it’s all about fairness. I suspect we’ll wind up with domestic partnership laws which are marriage under a different name. It won’t satisfy the extremes on either side, but it will appeal broadly to the middle and at least provide legal protection to every family however configured. It seems as if societal consensus is coalescing around the idea of domestic partnerships as a logical compromise. The UK just went this route to avert a big battle over SSM.
Mike, you may want to see this article:
I will not even refer you to all of the anti-Mormon web sites out that there are much, much worse that the reference I made above. Believe me, it is no exaggeration to write what I wrote above.
Mike, based on your comments, you are in touch with leftist groups in West Hollywood. I grew up in Marin County in Norcal and went to Stanford. I lived in the Valley for a time working for the LA Daily News. I was very, very involved with leftist groups in San Francisco and Southern California. Be honest: you know very well that there are groups that are completely against religion and would like to run religious people out of town. Take a look at the comments of the hateful Mark Morford about religious people. If a guy like Mark Morford can write for one of the largest newspapers in the country, what is next? You also know that people are privately much more bigoted against religious people than they are in print. Be honest: I’d be willing to bet money that some of your friends in WeHo have said incredibly bigoted things about religious people just in the last two weeks (if not, you have very, very unique friends).
Having said all that, the fairness argument is powerful. I agree that there is no reason to deny gay people the right to visit their partners in the hospital and deny them some benefits that married people have. The way to do that is private partnership agreements, and I agree that government should facilitate that. But SSM is not the answer.
Every time the right-wingers have a gripe with ANYTHING, they try to “ammend the Constitution.” It just shows me that they don’t really value it much in the first place.
Seth- the reason they do this is because this is the way the founding fathers provided for us to change the constitution to meet modern problems. You will notice that the hurdles which must be cleared to amend the constitution make it unlikely that every effort made by “the right-wingers” will succeed- in fact, most have been unsuccessful. I take this as a testament to the founding fathers’ wisdom. Amending the constitution is the ONLY proper way to change that magnificent document.
Unfortunately, there are those in this country who have recognized how much easier it is to convince the majority of nine judges to change the constitution than to convince their fellow countrymen as required by the constitution. For each legitimately attempted amendment by the so-called “right-wingers”, there have probably been 10 + lawsuits attempting to read things into the constitution that are not there.
I, for one, am glad that the “right-wingers” attempt to use constitutional means to amend the constitution, and to me, it shows that to these “right-wingers,” the constitution is VERY important and means what it says it means. It cannot be changed at the whim of 5 judges on the Supreme Court. To believe that would devalue the constitution.
Of course SSM is not the answer Geoff.
Marriage is not the answer.
So why not just make the whole thing moot by removing marriage from it entirely?
Mike,
I’d say the anti-religionist left is at least as influencial in the Democratic party as the Christian Right is in the Republican party. But until someone comes out with a convincing study of the whole thing, who knows?
Jordan,
two words:
Flag Burning
It’s still allowed, right, and protected under the First Amendment? There was never an amendment prohibiting it that succeeded. But at least the “right-wingers” were attempting to use a constitutional method to federalize such a ban, regardless of how one feels about the merits of such a ban (I personally think that burning a flag is in poor taste, but that there should be no laws prohibiting it).
I’m not sure I understand what you are getting at.
Parents with traditional values are powerless . . . to have their children excluded from pro-homosexual propaganda in the public schools. Teachers . . . cannot be prevented from advocating homosexuality.
I’m interested to know what you consider to be pro-homosexual propaganda in the public schools and what you think it means to advocate homosexuality. If you mean what I think you mean, than I am at a loss as to why you think such is legal. If you mean what is actually legal, then I don’t quite understand your problem with it.
re: 34 That first link is to the guy in the UK who called the LDS morons and buffoons, which is offensive but hardly a call to violence. That said, I know that there are evil people out there who advocate all kinds of terrible things against Mormons. The worst of them are fundamentalist Christians, though, not liberals. And sure, plenty of people are horrified by ALL religion because of what they perceive as the harm it causes (intolerance, terrorism, middle east conflict, etc).
Historically the Church has been just about the most persecuted religion in the country, which makes it so ironic when contemporary Mormons fall into right-wing extremism and start spouting all this anti-gay, anti-liberal, anti-whatever stuff.
As for myself, unless unbeknownst to me the Pilates class at my gym is a clandestine communist cell, you’d be surprised how far I am from “leftist groups.” I actually skew toward the Log Cabin Republican/Libertarian side of things. My friends are mostly Jewish and Episcopalian. I haven’t heard an anti-religion or anti-LDS comment from anyone in ages, and if I did I would be quick to remind them that they are engaging in the same kind of bigotry they claim to abhor. Anti-Republican, Anti-Bush, Anti-Pat Robertson (et. al.) comments are commonplace, though. Not that I would ever stoop to that…. : )
The polarization of our society is such a tragedy. In a way, conservative religious people have long ago been run out of public life in a place like West Hollywood or San Francisco. Likewise, people like me feel completely unwelcome and under siege in a place like Provo. One of the reasons I enjoy blogging is because it allows me to interact with people with different world views, who I would not otherwise meet.
Seth R:
Eight Words.
Don’t buy into Orrin Hatch’s election-year politicking.
This is politics now, which is sad. Candidates can proclaim themselves pro-family values or pro-abortion and you may never hear what they feel on any other subject. Somehow one or two issues have become the main focus of almost every election I’ve voted in.
Catholic Charities of Boston announced on March 10: It was getting out of the adoption business. “We have encountered a dilemma we cannot resolve… The issue is adoption to homosexual couples.”
Catholic Charities of Boston, one of the nation’s oldest adoption agencies, had long specialized in finding good homes for hard to place children. Because of the decision by Massachusetts Supreme Court, homosexual marriage is legal – and even a private entity not dependent on public funding cannot turn away homosexual “partners” who want to adopt.
In Massachusetts, religious liberty takes a back seat to “political correctness”.
I think it is also interesting what the official Church position is not:
1. The Church does not advocate a constitutional amendment to overturn the Lawrence decision (which found criminal laws against homosexual acts to be unconstitutional).
2. To my knowledge, the Church has never officially opposed laws that permit homosexual individuals to adopt children or raise foster children.
3. The Church has not officially opposed the grant by employers of domestic partner benefits (nor called for a boycott of Disney or Disneyland (which offer domestic partner benefits), as have ministers in some other faith traditions).
4. The Church has not officially opposed laws that forbid employment or housing discrimination based on sexual orientation.
5. The Church has not officially advocated disqualifying teachers in public schools based on their sexual orientation.
6. The Church has not opposed hate crime legislation, adding special penalties for violence driven by animus based on sexual orientation of a victim (and, I believe, the Church specifically announced in Utah that it would not oppose such legislation).
7. The Church has not officially opposed “private domestic partnership” agreements, or their enforcement.
8. The Church has not officially opposed hospital visitation rights and the like for same sex domestic partners.
9. The Church, to my knowledge, did not officially oppose domestic partnership legislation in California, New Jersey, Vermont, or anywhere else.
9. The Church’s general official position with respect to civil unions/domestic partnerships as a general matter may be more nuanced. In October 2004, the Church stated: “The Church accordingly favors measures that define marriage as the union of a man and a woman and that do not confer legal status on any other sexual relationship.” Does this mean the Church opposes civil unions/domestic partnerships? Or does the Church simply not favor them–i.e., neither supports nor opposes? I think I can predict how individual commenters might interpet this statement. At this point, I think there may a tiny bit of wiggle room on civil unions/domestic partnerships.
In other words, the Church has not officially opposed most of the “gay [legal] agenda”, but has drawn the line at same sex marriage (with some ambiguity with respect to governmental recognition of domestic partnerships/civil unions).
Could it be what the GAs really fear is a long term erosion of coming generations to polygamy, especially in the intermountain west, if the stigma and illegality of alternative marriage practices disappears? Gays/lesbians will always be a minuscule portion of the national population and couldn’t possibly warrant all this attention. Multi adult communal marriages, on the other hand, may appeal to many over time for reproductive, economic and other advantages.
And Seth,
Please cut the gross generalizations. I’m one of those “right wingers” you despise, and yet, see my comment #6.
Steve, if we’re going to quit using “gross generalizations” we might as well all log off and get back to work. Because we won’t have any convenient way of discussing anything anymore.
I’m not going to add 3 pages of thoughtful disclaimers every time I try to talk about a group.
I’m talking about an American movement. An overall trend. What on earth does that have to do with you and what a nice guy you are?
DavidH, I think you’re right in #44 to emphasize some of the areas that the Church has chosen not to enter. In fact, a list like that might be interesting to send to some of the leftist fanatics out there to show that the Church is focusing on one area — marriage — and is not interesting in persecuting gays. It also makes it all the more clear what the prophet’s message is: protect traditional marriage now but don’t be hateful or spiteful or arrogant towards homosexuals.
4. The Church has not officially opposed laws that forbid employment or housing discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Um. I hope I don’t disappoint too much by reporting that, in fact, the LDS Church lobbied vigorously in favor of Amendment 2 in Colorado in the early 1990s. For those who didn’t live in Colorado during that period, the cities of Denver and Boulder had both adopted ordinances prohibiting discrimination in employment or housing based on sexual orientation. Amendment 2 was an effort to amend the Colorado state constitution to prohibit cities from enacting such anti-discrimination legislation.
At that time, the LDS Church asked individual members to make cash contributions to support the Amendment 2 effort, and it made a more general effort through communications in sacrament meetings to foster support for Amendment 2. In the end, the amendment passed and became part of the Colorado constitution. I had a small part to play in the effort to persuade the various courts to rule that Amendment 2 violated the US Constitution.
To Seth’s comment, back in #21, you actually did ask for government permission before having your temple marriage. Temples will not perform a marriage until you have a state-issued marriage license there, in the sealing room, for the witnesses to sign. Maybe your religion doesn’t need government endorsement, but temple marriage does; hence the issuing of the manifesto way back when to stop the temples from being seized (at least, according to the official story) and the fear today that the absence of a federal amendment might lead to similar threats against temple marriage.
I’m not saying that this fear is a rational one (nor necessarily an irrational one), but it is there nonetheless.
Seth,
Like any majority political movement, the “right wing” is a coalition. It’s not all religious conservatives seeking to impose their morality on others. While the religious right is the part of the coalition that put the right over the top, you’re spouting off as if that’s the whole coalition.
greenfrog,
I was not aware of Church support of that amendment. Was it well publicized? Was there an official First Presidency/Quorum of 12-directed campaign at that time?
I am not aware of any publicized official statement of the Church opposing legal protection against discrimination in employment or housing on the basis of sexual orientation, but I am willing to be educated.
Was it well publicized? Was there an official First Presidency/Quorum of 12-directed campaign at that time?
Well publicized? It seemed to me to be so, in Colorado. I don’t know of communications outside that. But recall that Netscape was a relatively new critter during those years, and communications were more controlled.
I don’t know of any FP/Q12 involvement, as all of the contact I had with leaders was at the ward and stake level. I doubt that they were off on a detour and frolic.
Thanks for the information, Greenfrog. I had checked affirmation.org before posting what I thought were Church official positions, and did not see mention of the Colorado matter. I may have looked in the wrong place on the website, it may have occurred too long ago for mention there, or it may not been included for some other reason.
Nonetheless, I do think it is fair to say that, at the present time, the Church does not officially and institutionally oppose laws prohibiting discrimination in housing or employment on the basis of sexual orientation.
re: 44 Uh guys, hate to pop your bubble but the Church EXCOMMUNICATES non-celibate gay members. It has successfully maneuvered to keep gays out of Scouting. Gays can get kicked out of BYU for non-sexual displays of affection. The list goes on and on and on. Clever, tolerant sounding PR-spin or not, the Church is probably one of the most profoundly and effectively ‘anti-gay’ institutions in America. No overt dissent is tolerated.
The Church doesn’t have to sign off on all those other items for it to still be thus. Let’s test out your premise of “tolerance except for SSM” by holding Gay Day at the Polynesian Cultural Center, and see how it goes. Don’t kid yourselves, liberal bloggernaclites!
As an LDS Democrat, I was deeply confused by the proclamation in Sacrament Meeting this week. It is not so much that they speak out about this issue, I understand that it is important, but it REALLY bothers me that this is what they choose to break their non-partisan attitude for. Basically they are telling me that this issue (gay marriage) is more important than:
– Voting to give tax cuts to the wealthy while taking away access to medical care and other services to the poor
– Destroying our environment with pro-business environmental policies
– Torture in our name
– Invading other countries and killing their people on the pretense of prtoecting us.
– Plus many more.
None of these issues (which to me are all profoundly Christian and Moral in nature) were important enough for our leaders to speak out on. But when it comes to an Amendment which our own LDS forefathers would have objected to, they feel it is important enough to speak out on.
Do you really think that the LDS church would have supported this amendment 140 years ago? Our whole argument in favor of polygamy was that the Government should not be involved in how people should choose to marry. The rest of America felt that polygamy was an immoral practice (like gay marriage) however we felt our freedom trumped their morality.
How can we truly justify denying others the right to marry who they will when we fought (and lost) for the same right years ago?
Anyway, my faith is whole (you have to be pretty thick skinned as a Mormon Democrat) but I tell you, I wish we would concentrate on the real moral issues; poverty, inequality, health care, education, peace. Somehow I cannot see how as Christians and LDS we can support the Republican positions on these issues.
Feel free to all disagree with me, remember, I have been a Mormon Democrat for a long time, I am used to it 🙂
That’s a lot to infer, isn’t it? This is a proposal the Church likes. The fact that it likes this proposal doesn’t mean that it is therefore pro-torture and pro-poverty. Indeed, I assume it is against torture and poverty, and have yet to see any good reason to believe it esteems those issues below SSM. Maybe you’re privy to a document wherein the Church numbered its political priorities.
Do you have some citation for your implied contention that we fought for the right to marry whoever or whatever we wanted whenever we wanted? I was under the impression we only fought for the right to polygamous relationships.
BTW, Geoff, thanks for posting this letter. I had not heard it in Sacrament Meeting and I do not visit the lds.org site on a regular basis.
Jolard,
You really should be more objective. The next President, Republican or Democrat, and whatever congress he/she has to work with, will be spending less on domestic programs that the current administration, regardless of taxation policy. BTW, federal gov’t revenues are at record levels.
PS — your party gave us the Vietnam debacle and your boy Clinton bombed an aspirin factory in Sudan, apparently to disrupt an impeachment vote against him. Get off your high horse and realize there is good and bad on both sides of the political aisle.
Did we read the same post? I don’t see anywhere that he said the Church is pro torture or poverty, he feels the church is giving a higher priority to SSM over these other issues. When was the last timeyou saw the FP/Q12 issue a public statement concerning poverty/torture? This leads me to think they feel this is the most important political issue they can comment on.
Actually, if money really does talk, I’d say we’re much more anti-poverty than anti-SSM. How much money do we spend every year on helping the poor? I’d venture it’s quite a bit more than what we’re spending on this SSM amendment. Yesterday we shipped a plane full of medical supplies and food to Indonesia that I’m guessing cost more than all of what we’re spending (if anything at all) on SSM.
Perhaps you can answer the implicit question in my post: how does he know which issues the church esteems over others? I’d sure like to know his methodology, or yours for that matter. I’ll state for the record right now that if it’s by what constitutional amendments the church supports, it’s probably a flawed methodology.
Jjohnsen – He was countering the examples given by Jolard re priorities to show how ludicrous the position is. Your statement
“This leads me to think they feel this is the most important political issue they can comment on.” is absolutely correct – as to the second phrase “they can comment on”. We, in the united states, profess to believe in the separation of church and state. The church professes to not espouse one party over another, and tries not to enter into politics.
Tax rates, environment, and the other issues Jolard are overtly political, and while I also believe they are moral issues, the religious content is not as significant a portion as this issue. The Church simply does not speak overtly to all political issues, nor do I think they should.
I get sickened in politics by the sheer audacity proponents of a position will take.
I support the church’s position regarding marriage. Do I feel this will change or should change, no. Should we round up those suffering from SSM into camps, no. Should we change the federal system and constitution to take power from the states? I am hesitant to endorse this position.
Ultimately, we need to have a greater respect for the people who are around us.
“When was the last timeyou saw the FP/Q12 issue a public statement concerning poverty/torture?”
“The church ‘condemns inhumane treatment of any person under any circumstances,’ said church spokesman Dale Bills. “
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635163735,00.html
I wish the statement were stronger and more pointed, and I wish that one of the Brethren had signed the particular statement mentioned with other religious leaders, but this will have to do.
MikeInWeHo,
My point was not that the Church is a “gay friendly” place; institutionally it is not. My point went to the degree to which Church official positions might confine the activism of believing LDS members who subscribe to much of the “gay [legal] agenda”; there currently is relative freedom within official Church pronouncements to advocate greater freedoms and rights for the LGBT community (perhaps including civil unions and domestic partnerships, which, as I think you have pointed out, provide many or most of the benefits of same sex marriage).
On an unrelated note, I would observe that there is even more freedom with respect to official Church positions in the area of abortion. According to the Church’s official website, “The Church has not favored or opposed legislative proposals or public demonstrations concerning abortion.” I suspect that is why conservative republican Governor Romney could claim, at one time, to be sort of “pro-choice” without appearing to challenge Church leadership head-on.
A little thought: The leaders of the Church have a pretty good idea of the spectrum of thought on this issue to be found among the Latter-day Saints. When they ask the members to voice their opinions on this amendment to their senators, a particular overall outcome will result without any individual changing his views or expressing himself counter to his views. The letter doesn’t need to be a call to act in a particular way as much as to simply act. For the bulk of the Saints, this amendment vote would otherwise pass with no more attention than Michael Hayden’s nomination. I had no idea a vote on this amendment was at hand, and I listen to C-SPAN radio most afternoons on the drive home.
John Mansfield,
Finally someone says something that we can all agree with! Thank you!
re: 63 While I admire your ability to carve out an intellectual niche for yourself and not feel ‘confined’ by the Church’s pronouncements on an issue such as homosexuality, the more I mull it over the more it looks like mental compartmentalization to me. Where are these members you refer to, advocating for “greater freedoms and rights for the LGBT community” ?? In their own closet on Sundays, that’s for sure. Saying you support increased freedoms and then giving 10% of your income to an organization that systematically opposes them (and it does), well, that’s problematic unless you are actively lobbying to change the organization. And in the current era, that of course is impossible.
The letter doesn’t need to be a call to act in a particular way as much as to simply act.
It’s pretty clear to most everyone that the Church intended the letter to be a call to act in a particular way. These letter’s don’t get sent out without first being scrutinized by the Church’s legal team. It was written the way it was to give the FP deniability to the claim that they are asking members to act in a certain way. And I think that’s a little dishonest.
The Cato Institute has nicely summarized the problems with the FMA:
Amen.
MikeWenHo
>>>”…If they had their way, they would tear down all of our temples and then go after our meeting houses.”
>>>That is paranoid fear mongering of the highest order. Show me these influential leftist activists who advocate anything of that nature.
*************
Erm – here are some influential right activists that advocate this nature…All it takes is one Evangelical dominated city council to restrict zoning and abuse the use of eminent domain. And those leftists? They are really on the right:
http://www.chalcedon.edu/
http://www.yuricareport.com/
http://www.serve.com/thibodep/cr/words.htm
http://www.theocracywatch.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Zionism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism
http://www.nndb.com/lists/277/000069070/
http://www.religioustolerance.org/reconstr.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rousas_John_Rushdoony
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/7235393/the_crusaders/
http://www.qrd.org/qrd/www/RRR/rrrpage.html
http://www.buzzflash.com/farrell/04/03/far04007.html
Great links. I’m well aware of the Rushdooney-types out there. Totally scary. That’s what makes it so sad and ironic that gays and Mormons find themselves in such conflict. At the end of the day, the extreme Christian fundamentalists hate us both with equal vehemence. They would burn the gay bars and LDS chapels on the same night if they could.
Well, the NY Harrison Temple project was blocked by a group of bigots mainly comprised of secular leftist Jews. There are bigots of all political strips
And secular types, unlike the Rushdooneys, actually have numbers and political power, and many sympathizers and adherents in the courts, the academy, and governing classes.
Yeah, it’s a blessing those right-wingers don’t have any numbers or political power the good ol’ U.S. of A. !
But wait, I’m being sarcastic and thread-jacking. Better read the new string up top on this very subject.
Excuse me for not being up on current doctrine but 2 questions:
Does Elder Nelson have any polygamy in his family tree?
The last I heard was that the the Manifesto was the last word on celestial marriage. My understanding was that the church still believe in it (including the multiple wives part) and someday will practice it again in heaven and on the earth. Is that wrong now?
I am not so young that I don’t remember the 24th being a bigger holiday than the 4th in Utah. I remember people prodly showing pictures of their ancestors in “Sugar House Prison” or “co-hab” stripes. I’m quite proud of my 3 plural marriage lines. Obviously it isn’t ok unless the prophet says its ok. Doesn’t this feel a little funny: “A man and a woman” given our history?
#70: “They would burn the gay bars and LDS chapels on the same night if they could.”
“Gay bars”? I wonder how can a bar be “gay”. In my admittedly limited experience, bars are quite passive, and tend not to be at all emotive. ;->
It also always strikes me that there is such a tendency to use certain really ambiguous characterizations as pejoratives. “Totally scary” or the like seems to be one of the favorites. Seems to show up at one time or another in every camp. Is the speaker meaning to say, “I feel fearful and frightened, and am wont to blame my fears on [some group].” Or perhaps, “I have a strong antipathy toward [some group] and would convince you to feel the same.” Either way, it is seldom a very objective approach. I have no way of determining the mental state of the speaker, whether he might be neurotic or suffer from paranoid delusions.
Interestingly, the proponents of this “be afraid” tactic invariably have a collection of anecdotes as evidence to legitimize their angst. The stories are intended to support a certain position, but the speaker seems to tend to feel little obligation to argue for a specific causality, assuming that if I cannot see what is plain to them, the deficiency must be in me.
It seems a poorly structured and quite irrational approach to argumentation.
“Totally scary” is ambiguous? I’m rather fond of employing contemporary vernacular when blogging, even slang and fragmented sentences at times (which may be related to my fondness for the BoM). In case of post #70, however, you can substitute “I find them frightening” for “totally scary” if that would provide the greater clarity you seek. One must ask who’s being pejorative here…the possible neurotic who finds Rushdooney frightening, or blogger who slaps the label ‘paranoid delusions’ on his rhetorical opponent?