Reasons Mormons Shouldn’t Care about Gay Marriage (and Why They REALLY Do)
By now you’ve all heard the arguments the Yes on 8 or Yes on 102 or Yes on Amendment 2 folks have made for why gay couples shouldn’t be allowed to marry. And you’ve also heard that the Mormon church has once again entered the fray in California, pouring thousands of dollars and thousands of volunteer hours into the Yes on 8 campaign and preaching against gay marriage at every possibility.
Here is why Mormons shouldn’t care about gay marriage, and here also is why they really do.
Reasons Mormons Shouldn’t Care about Gay Marriage
Reason #1: Mormons believe the only real marriages are called “sealings” and are contracted in Mormon temples between a worthy Mormon man and a worthy Mormon woman. According to Mormon doctrine, sealings were instituted by god in the Garden of Eden, when he married Adam and Eve “for time and all eternity.” So every single other marriage in the world—civil or religious—is a “redefinition” of marriage, from the Mormon viewpoint. And yet Mormons aren’t campaigning to take away non-Mormon straight marriage.
Reason #2: Mormons have totally been on the other side of this issue. Remember polygamy? Remember how today the Mormon church totally tries to distance itself from polygamy in every way, but how they were totally all about it until, like, 1910? And how the Republican Party was founded on the twin-plank platform of getting rid of slavery… and polygamy? And how an army invaded Utah when the Mormon church wouldn’t capitulate? Yeah.
Reason #3: Mormons believe in religious freedom and in the separation of church and state. Or at least they should, according to their own scriptures, penned by Mormonism founder Joseph Smith. Read Doctrine and Covenants Section 102 of you don’t believe me. Also the Eleventh Article of Faith.
We believe that religion is instituted of God, and that men are amenable to him and to him only for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinion opinions prompts them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul. . . .
We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil Government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.
(D&C 102:4,9)
We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let the worship how, where, or what they may.
(11th Article of Faith)
Why Mormons REALLY Care about Gay Marriage
Because their church has told them to care. Also, for many of them, because they find the idea of gay sex icky. Per Green Dads:
The next time you hear anyone speak in opposition to gay marriage, take every word that comes out of their mouth and replace it with “penis, penis, penis” or “vagina, vagina, vagina” because that is exactly what they are really thinking. We all know it and so do they; and sooner or later we’re all going to have to admit the truth of what’s really going on here. Opponents of gay marriage should be ashamed of themselves; they are the real perverts here. (full article)
Why does the Mormon church care? Well… it doesn’t. It couldn’t care less about gays getting married, per se. What the Mormon church cares about is gays being fully accepted in society.
And why does the Mormon church care about social acceptance of gays and their relationships? Because, as a patriarchy, it is so deeply invested in the idea of “traditional” ’50s-style gender roles that it has no choice but to be homophobic. Gays and their relationships threaten the Cleaver-family model by their very existence.
And why does the Mormon church care about the acceptance of gays in California, when it hasn’t intervened on this scale in Massachusetts or Connecticut or anywhere else? Because California has something those other places doesn’t: masses and masses of Mormons, which means masses and masses of relatives and friends of Utahns. And if there’s one thing that scares and mobilizes the Mormon church, it’s the idea of gays gaining any kind of traction in Utah.
Oppose homophobia, even if it’s wrapped up in lies about “protecting the family.” If you are in a state with an anti-gay-marriage measure on the ballot, VOTE AGAINST IT. If you live elsewhere, or can’t vote, add your voice to those speaking out against such measures.
But most importantly, whatever your beliefs (but especially if you agree with me), get out and vote.
Like
November 1st, 2008 at 4:15 am
I’ve been having a constant conversation about Mormonism and homosexuality with my friend Nathan for the past few months. He is very Mormon and always trying to convince me to start going back to church. One of his arguments about homosexuality and Mormons is that “we love them, but not their sins.” I always want to ask him what “sins” he is talking about. Choosing differently? He even started showing me scripture on God’s view of homosexuals and insisted that it is proof enough.
Okay, whatever. I might have started to accept all of that. But what really makes me doubt is when he makes a disgusted noise and grimaces when this subject comes up. Subtle. That makes me want to come back. I really want to be a part of that.
Anyway. I’m having issues with this guy all around, so pardon the bitterness.
November 1st, 2008 at 10:30 am
It really is a visceral reaction for most people. The “icky” comes up and their brains turn off. Or rather, their brains start focusing on rationalizing their disgust and aversion, at which point it becomes almost impossible to reason with them because logic usually can’t touch the real motive behind their resistance. But disgust is just as bad a basis for legislation or constitutional amendments as religion, since disgust is such a personal emotion.
November 1st, 2008 at 10:35 am
Every time a Mormon or rather an LDS person speaks about this subject. I simply put my fingers in my ears and go “lalalalalalalalalalalala” Childish behavior for a childish behavior. An eye for an eye so to speak. I’ve given up on logic, on reason, on simple humanity. There is none to be had. I can not eloquently show them the follies of such thinking. They eloquently (be it faked or real) tell me that a Prophet of THE Lord said something about it and it is in the bible. I can not make Scientology references because mostly none of them know who Xenu is. Plus I start swearing when talking about Xenu, the only way he would have it. Mormons don’t much like swearing and religion mixed. So I’ve come to realize the only time they understand what I’m feeling is when I do the exact same basic thing they are doing to me in conversation. Which is plugging my ears with my fingers and going ‘lalalalalalalala’
But I’m wrong and want to marry the likes of a tree. According to them at least.
November 1st, 2008 at 10:46 am
Yeah, arguing about gay marriage with many Mormons makes me question my will to live. It’s like arguing with a wall.
This just in: Steve Young’s wife Barbara is part of the fight against Prop 8 in California.
November 1st, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Yay for Barbara Young’s!!!
November 1st, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Sean,
Do you think the Mormon embrace of a hyper-normal, 1950’s Cleaver Family approach to family life is related to the history of polygamy in the 19th century? I wonder if a desire to appear normal and enter the mainstream coupled with a sense of shame over the 19th century approach to / theology of family life has affected more recent Mormon attitudes about the family?
Other explanations I’ve heard for why Mormons are so invested in hyper-traditional family life are theological (doctrine of eternal families), geographical (Utah, Idaho, etc. were long highly conservative, un-cosmopolitan, isolated areas, that were slow to embrace social trends developed in the large cities), and political (alignment with the religious right faction within the Republican party–despite the tendency of other members of that religious right faction to label Mormonism a “cult”). At any rate, it’s ironic that a group that was once so persecuted for its nontraditional approach to family life is now doing the same thing to another group.
November 2nd, 2008 at 12:28 am
You know, I’m really not sure, Todd. I mean, given their current obsession with patriarchy and preserving gender inequality it completely makes sense that they are anti-gay, but why they can’t soften their stance on gender issues in the first place I don’t know. I see a few different historical factors in play, but they aren’t necessarily factors that are unique to Mormons and not to, say, the Community of Christ, so…
To start with, I’m not completely convinced by arguments that women in nineteenth-century polygynous Mormon relationships were emancipated. Those marriages still heavily favored men as far as I can see, starting with the women often being commanded to enter them on pain of damnation and ostracism. So I see patriarchy as being the norm for Mormonism pretty much from Day One.
The post-WWII push to get women to relinquish their newfound freedom was a nationwide effort, but it seems to me that it was at least most effective in Mormondom, possibly because McKay, et al. again used salvation rhetoric to back it up. What’s hilarious is that they were acting out of a misguided effort to restore a family system that had never really existed before. And now they’re looking back at the ’50s and trying to get back to that, as if such an artificial construct could possibly have been sustained any longer than it was.
In the ’60s and ’70s it started to get nasty… that’s when feminism was gaining traction outside of Utah, and the male Mormon leaders began taking steps to bring all of the female spaces in the church under their direct control. Even now, because of all the anti-ERA rhetoric that got sprayed around in the ’70s, the idea of equal rights for women is still an evil, evil thought for many Mormons.
I assume the Mormon church will eventually soften its stance towards women. But I think gays have no chance until they do.
November 2nd, 2008 at 10:49 am
A co-worker and I were discussing Prop8 and, “even though she has gay friends” she was against gay marriage because it would ultimately infringe on her rights as a Mormon. How can this be? Look at how the government has infringed itself onto the FLDS, who is not to say that the government wouldn’t get involved if a gay LDS person decided they wanted to get married in the church, BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY (i.e. suing ‘the church’ in order to be sealed, or whatever). At that time, I didn’t know what kind of influence government could have over church (although I was recently notified that it’s stand on Blacks in the Priesthood ‘just happened’ to coincide with the government’s tax break on federal tax break for inclusive organizations, or at the very least, ones that did not engage in discriminatory practice) I can see her logic.
I thought it was interesting that’s what her fear was – “Gays can be gay, but they’d better not fuck with my doctrine”.
I think everyone should have access to the same benefits of marriage (tax breaks, medical benefits, partnership rights, etc) although I say leave the failed institution to the zealots and bigots. I just want the party and excuse to buy a really fucking expensive dress I’ll only wear once. ^_^
November 2nd, 2008 at 3:37 pm
The current FLDS and potential LDS situations are radically different. First of all, as ridiculous and unconstitutional as today’s bigamy laws are, polygamy is illegal in the United States. Second, polygamists are often not even prosecuted under bigamy laws but under child abuse and statutory rape laws, in which older men are shown to have pressured young girls into “spiritual marriages” and had sex with them. Child abuse and statutory rape are (rightfully) also illegal. I think the situation of polygamist wives would be greatly improved by legalizing polygamy (among adults) instead of driving it underground the way we have.
Mormons and other fundamentalists claim to be worried that if gay marriage is legalized, their discrimination against and condemnation of gays will open them up to lawsuits. There are a number of problems with this scenario. Religions already can and do discriminate against any kind of marriage they don’t agree with: Mormons against non-Mormons, Catholics against non-Catholics and divorcé(e)s, and any number of them against fornicators, adulterers, felons and the like. Remember that non-Mormons, non-Catholics, divorcé(e)s, fornicators, adulterers and felons can all contract legal marriages as long as they are in a straight couple—and yet this has not opened the Mormons, the Catholics and the others up to lawsuits. If the government refused to issue marriage licenses to these groups, then there would be (and has been) legal action, but religions are fully within their legal and constitutional rights to refuse to celebrate marriages for these people and to refuse them the use of (private) religious property as well.
The United States also has the First Amendment, which goes further than in perhaps any other country to guarantee protected expression, including religious speech and practice. Circumventing the First Amendment in order to take away the freedoms of the religious majority (as opposed to the religious minority, in the form of FLDS churches) would be a near-impossible task, even if anyone decided to undertake it, which to my knowledge no one has.
So basically the religious argument for Prop 8 (and against gay marriage) as far as religious rights go is invalid and selfish. “I’ll take rights away from you right now (or prevent you from having rights) JUST IN CASE a hypothetical person AT SOME FUTURE TIME decides to mount a campaign against my rights using this issue.” So, so unconvincing. And offensive.
I’m actually a fan of marriage, at least theoretically. I hope to see it transform into something a bit more stable and useful in the future, but I think we should start with what we have an improve it instead of scrapping the whole framework and starting from scratch.
November 3rd, 2008 at 10:09 am
LDSinc. is not so much set in 50’s patriarchy and gender roles as they are aware of the consequences of legalized gay marraige……polygamous marraige between consenting adults will soon be legal and that will be more than awkward considering their doctrinal theology that still considers polygamy to be God’s way in heaven…..and on earth when legal.
November 3rd, 2008 at 10:49 am
I’m not sure what you mean, spence. When you say the Mormon church is “aware of the consequences of legalized gay [marriage],” are you saying they are worried about polygamy, which “will soon be legal and that will be more than awkward,” or are you talking about the lies, slurs and misinformation the Mormon church has been spreading to try and get Prop 8 passed? Or perhaps are you talking about other consequences, perhaps reasonable, non-fear-mongering ones that the Yes on 8 camp has failed to make public?
November 3rd, 2008 at 1:49 pm
The Mormon church has never been afraid to use lies, smears, and misinformation. They are more than adept at these tactics in a variety of issues not just Prop 8. I believe that they fear legal polygamous marraige as perhaps the most serious threat to their future public relations.
November 4th, 2008 at 2:09 am
Hmm. I agree that the Mormon church is eager to distance itself from polygamy, and I also agree that it is for purely public relations reasons, but I don’t agree that they’re against gay marriage because of polygamy.
November 4th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
I don’t know how familiar you are with LDSinc. but from my perspective (born 5th generation…left literally at 18….only one in the entire family line as far as I know…and admittedly not gay) I think that they obviously care enough about it to risk all the money and publicity over prop 8, but I really think that it is more of a smokescreen to issues more pertinent to the future of internal LDS politics. I could be mistaken but I do not picture these cynical men sitting around and simply being grossed out by gayness. They are cunning men who are using this issue as a chess piece for other concerns.
November 4th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Well, I’m at least sixth generation, and I spent more time as a Mormon than you did. Does that mean my wild conjectures on this subject are worth more than yours?
In any case, I agree that the Prop 8 battle is a cynical political maneuver by cunning men, and I don’t necessarily think it has to do with homophobia on their part, although I do think they are at least partly to blame for the homophobia that permeates the organization they run. On the other hand, I still don’t see what Prop 8 has to do with polygamy, other than the fact that the Mormon church is far, far too concerned with controlling its public image.
November 4th, 2008 at 11:50 pm
You are spreading hate, exactly what you preach against. Aren’t there other ways you could use your time more wisely? I’m sorry for whatever experiences you have had that interfere with your ability to have an open mind. I can tell this subject is very difficult for you.
November 5th, 2008 at 1:04 am
Pointing out bigotry is not the same thing as “spreading hate,” Jessica. Also: my mind is quite open, thank you, but if you want to know more about my experiences, feel free to read the rest of this blog.
November 5th, 2008 at 1:31 am
Really? It is hateful to fight oppression and bigotry?
Yeah, all those black people in the 50s and 60s were just full of hate. Bastards.
November 5th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
I’m a Mormon, and I’ve for the most part just tried to embarrassingly turn my head the other way on this one. I don’t feel quite informed enough to really argue with fellow-LDS about it, and to be honest it’s really not that big of a concern for me. Had I lived in California, I wouldn’t have actively done anything in protest, but definitely would have voted “NO” (I suppose this makes me part of the problem, but I guess I’ll just have to let that weigh on my conscience). However, the other night, an acquaintance-friend on Facebook had her status set as “rooting for Prop 8″. I definitely didn’t want to hurt her feelings or anything, but I figured I would write a (satirical) comment to show my playful disagreement:
“Yeah, those darn gays. They’ve been out-dressing average Joes like me for centuries, and don’t even get me started on those parades. Let’s take some revenge on them with this one! Plus, if they’re not out marrying each other, that’s gives you a larger pool of hairstylists/platonic sassy gay friends to choose from! Hooray!” A comment which, by itself is mildly offensive I suppose, but not if taken in the context of “Is this seriously what we’re all thinking here?”
Of course, she immediately commented back: “Haha! That’s the best argument I’ve heard in favor of Prop 8 yet!”
…I’m not sure if arguing with some of these people is going to do any good…
November 5th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
That’s the best argument for Prop 8 I’ve ever heard, too! …which is not saying much, I’m afraid.
I almost, ALMOST went on a de-friending rampage on Facebook this morning. But I managed to restrain myself. It’s not their fault they have been bamboozled by scheming tricksters. *sighs*
November 9th, 2008 at 10:41 am
Hey, Sean. I just found the response to my comment a while back, and want to thank you for your friendly welcome. After the tone you take with the whole of the Mormon church, I have to admit, I was surprised you were willing to make an exception and extend hospitality to me.
I’m not sure exactly what that welcome embraces, so I’m venturing to participate here knowing full well that my remarks may actually be received with disdain, or even rejected entirely.
I wanted to add some remarks to those I felt were appallingly one-sided, especially from someone with your intelligence, who has loved ones in the church.
I disagreed (predictably) with your reasons Mormons shouldn’t care about gay marriage.
Reason #1- It isn’t true that Mormons believe the only real marriages are those sealed for time and eternity. I’m sure you could write this next part better than I could, but since you chose to ignore it completely, I’m giving it a shot. You know that we believe God not only accepts civil unions, but requires them for an institution wherein His children can procreate and have sexual relations. You know that there is no doctrine calling to repentance married people who aren’t sealed. The ordinance is simply a blessing of the possibility of an eternal bond for couples who are already married for time.
Reason #2- The reason the church “distances itself from polygamy” is quite explicit. President Gordon B. Hinckley stated the following about polygamy in the Church’s October 1998 general conference:
“I wish to state categorically that this Church has nothing whatever to do with those practicing polygamy. They are not members of this Church. Most of them have never been members. They are in violation of the civil law. They know they are in violation of the law. They are subject to its penalties. The Church, of course, has no jurisdiction whatever in this matter.
“If any of our members are found to be practicing plural marriage, they are excommunicated, the most serious penalty the Church can impose. Not only are those so involved in direct violation of the civil law, they are in violation of the law of this Church. An article of our faith is binding upon us. It states, ‘We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law’ (Articles of Faith 1:12).”
As for the reason behind the relatively brief time period some of the members were commanded to practice polygyny, and although I personally believe you, the majority of your readers, and even the majority of society, is too cynical, bitter, and closed-minded to benefit from any kind of enlightenment on the subject, I will offer a brief excerpt from the LDS Newsroom website:
“The standard doctrine of the Church is monogamy, as it always has been, as indicated in the Book of Mormon (Jacob chapter 2): “Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none. … For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.”
In other words, the standard of the Lord’s people is monogamy unless the Lord reveals otherwise. Latter-day Saints believe the season the Church practiced polygamy was one of these exceptions. “
It seems the reason behind the command to practice was a matter of numbers. And although from your point of view, more “Mormons” was a bad thing, it is obvious that a growing membership was vital for the church to take root during this dispensation. Maybe people who believe God is more of a magician would have preferred he converted the minds of people himself to strengthen the numbers, or just *poof* created a few more people on his own. Personally, I believe He uses the tools he has available to accomplish His purposes according to His universal laws, and those instruments happen to be the very children who are His work and glory.
Reason #3 You know I believe you have the right to worship how, when or what you may. From my point of view, this isn’t about worship, it is about sin. We simply are on two sides of a very basic issue. You believe it is not a sin for two men to engage in sexual relations, and I do believe it is a sin. From that fact stem two completely separate paradigms of thinking. Every nuance of every facet regarding this proposition: gender, religion, government, even love itself, is colored by that view. I’m willing to admit that and try to work with it. What it comes down to, is we each have to regard the other’s basic points of view, or we’re left with an immature view of the world around us, which view is manifested by use of words like “bigot,” racial and religious epithets, and derogatory terms. I’ve seen the immaturity on both sides.
As to the reasons Mormons really care about gay marriage. I’m a Mormon, here are my reasons.
First, to tell the honest truth, I was actively writing and participating in the discussion before I had an inkling that the church was asking for help. I actually found out from people slandering the church. To this day, I’ve never directly heard anything from a leader as to such a request, so I guess either I’m out of the loop, or the request was directed toward Utahns and Californians. Nevertheless, I felt strongly about the issue because of the love I have for my gay friends. Maybe it sounds crazy, but I actually believe the doctrines of the religion I practice. I truly believe I am happier for the knowledge I have, and truly believe that obedience to commandments has natural consequences. Knowing that I believe you are sinning, would you expect me to act otherwise? Would you consider the family of an alcoholic compassionate if they stood idly by and let them waste away? If they took action to provide an environment with less temptation would you call that hatred? If they objected to propaganda spreading the word that alcohol wasn’t at all hurtful, would you call that bigotry?
Like I said- the analogy doesn’t ring true to you because you are not working from the viewpoint that sexual relations between those of the same gender are a sin. But to those who believe it is, and believe the atonement doesn’t exclude anyone, it makes perfect sense.
I know you’ve been through a lot of pain at the hands of ignorance. Not dismissing that fact, you still can’t assume everyone is completely ignorant and hateful, anymore than you can assume you know everything.
I’ve got an idea. I’m actually considering writing a book to draw people like you and me together. At least to provide some kind of translation dictionary for our completely differering points of view. I’m looking for people who have experienced what you have, who are willing to be honest. It would take some effort on your part, but it might be ultimately as therapeutic as blogging. I’ll give you more details, but right now it’s in the germinating stages… Will you let me know if you could collaborate? I’d even love it if you would just comment on my blog…
Anyway. I hope none of this was offensive. I hope you know I’ve never forgotten what a great friend you were to me, and I never will.
Love, Summer
November 9th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Summer, your patient, respectful and non-inflammatory comments indicate that you desire real discourse and not one-sided conversions.
With that said, however, what you and many Mormons (and Catholics, and baptists, and…) lose sight of is the fact that the laws and your religious beliefs, when combined, are dangerously similar to those of the Taliban and any other “religious” group who has sought to oppress those whose faiths are different than their own.
“It is a sin” has absolutely no bearing on the legitimacy of discriminating UNDER THE LAW. As I love to point out to everyone who makes this argument, Christianity is not the only religious belief in this country and, as this country has always prided itself on its inclusion of ALL cultures — remember “America, the melting pot?”
So, with that in mind, let’s substitute “Futzit” interference in the nation’s lawmaking practices for those that the Mormon Church recently involved itself in (and you can call it slander, but I’ve seen the letters that went out to the faithful, and they were threatening in tone).
Let’s pretend that all Futzits banded together nationally (using all resources available to them) to get a constitutional amendment enacted to the Utah state constitution which would make it mandatory for all women to cover their faces and, failure to comply would result in mandatory imprisonment. Let’s say (and we’re only pretending here) that this is an unwavering and key belief of theirs. Adding to that indignation is the appearance of passages of their own book of worship in courts of law, along with judges who do not hide their own affiliation with Futzism. And there’s nothing that those of “Christian” faith can do about it.
But let’s be more realistic. Let’s say that you, a Mormon, move to Virginia where they have just passed a state constitutional amendment which would invalidate any marriage solemnized in the Mormon Church.
Can you see where this is heading? What group is next to lose basic human and civil rights, based on ONE group’s religious beliefs? Using the argument “it’s a sin” and “my religious beliefs” is not just a slippery slope, it’s a cliff with nothing to cling to. And it is completely UNAmerican.
[Edited once by Sean]
November 9th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Sorry, I actually didn’t mean to use Muslim as an example and thought I changed it all to Futzits. My deep and sincere apologies to any/all Muslims.
I changed it, Pat. —Sean
November 10th, 2008 at 1:09 am
Summer, you and I apparently have very different ideas of how we should treat our friends. My definition of friendship, for instance, would not have allowed me to go to a friend’s blog and write a comment like the one you just left on mine, in which you have repeatedly insulted my integrity, questioned my motives and put distasteful words in my mouth.
Below is my response to your individual points. If you have anything else to say or responses you would like to leave, feel free, but try to be more civil in the future. I just banned a person from commenting here for far less inflammatory and personally insulting remarks.
Point 1: I stand by my statement that non-temple marriages aren’t real marriages according to Mormon doctrine. Non-temple marriages are “until death do us part,” “for time,” etc. Sealings are the marriages that are bound by god, and will endure through the eternities. Sure, civilly married couples aren’t engaged in fornication according to Mormonism, but every effort is made to get a Mormon couple only married for time to do whatever it takes to marry in the temple, because that is where the real covenants are made.
Point 2: You are apparently not well acquainted with the history of polygamy in the Mormon church. I would suggest you read this fascinating 1985 article by D. Michael Quinn in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, in which he lays out the time line of polygamy, as supported by contemporary personal diaries, newspapers and internal correspondence. At least two First Presidencies, the Apostles and several other church authorities engaged in a shameful, concerted effort to conceal the officially sanctioned polygamous marriages contracted leading up to the Manifesto and for more than a decade thereafter. They continually lied about it to the government, to their followers and even to each other, while supporting and preaching the practice in secret.
Obeying the law of the land for the sake of obeying it can hardly be the real reason polygamy was abandoned, either, since polygamy was illegal in every jurisdiction inhabited by Mormons—including Mexico and Canada—for all but fifteen years under Brigham Young. Hinckley was well acquainted with all of this information when he made the statement you included, privy as he was to the First Presidency files, but also because Quinn showed him the article before it was published.
By the way, while the reason you give for the practice of polygamy was the one I was taught while growing up, I have never heard any credible argument as to why the Mormons needed the addition of polygamy to boost their numbers, as even when they were monogamous they tended to be incredibly fecund. The church statement you included is certainly the official church line now, but it doesn’t square with what Mormon prophets and general authorities taught as eternal law, both privately and in General Conference and in the temple. Back then the doctrine was that polygamous marriage was necessary for salvation, and rejection of polygamy would damn a man’s soul and stop his increase.
Furthermore, you’re ignoring the inconvenient fact that polygamy is still Mormon doctrine. Men are routinely sealed to more than one wife, as long as he isn’t civilly married to more than one living spouse at a time, with the expectation of remaining sealed to all his wives in the eternities. The Mormon heaven is expected to be a polygamous one.
“I personally believe you, the majority of your readers, and even the majority of society, is too cynical, bitter, and closed-minded to benefit from any kind of enlightenment on the subject…”
This is pretty insulting, Summer. Not a friendly thing to say at all. And if you really believe it, why did you come?
“And although from your point of view, more “Mormons” was a bad thing…”
Please do not put words in my mouth or attribute ideas and attitudes to me that are not mine. It was wrong of me to speak for individual Mormons as to why they disagree with same-sex marriage, and it is just as wrong for you to pretend to speak for me.
Point 3: You believe homosexual intercourse is sin. You also—I’m assuming here; forgive me—believe that heterosexual intercourse outside of marriage is a sin, that drinking alcohol is a sin, that smoking is a sin, that drinking coffee or tea is a sin, that taking the name of god in vain is a sin, that not keeping the Sabbath day holy is a sin, and that speaking evil of the lord’s anointed is a sin. Which of these other sins would you legislate against? Note that it is unconstitutional to outlaw intercourse. Note also that same-sex marriage is not about sex any more than opposite-sex marriage is about sex. Straight couples have hundreds of reasons for marrying, and they receive thousands of benefits from it. Their children also benefit measurably from the stabilizing influence of marriage.
Gay couples exist, and it is impossible to legislate against their existence.
Gay families exist, and thousands and thousands of those families are currently raising children. It would be next to impossible to legislate against gay couples raising children, since many of these children are the natural offspring of one of the gay parents.
How, then, is it more important to legislate your morality and ban gay marriage than to provide more stability for these existing families?
Note, incidentally, that legislating against gay marriage doesn’t even attack the part you view as a sin—i.e., the sex—because it would happen anyway, and is our constitutionally protected right.
As for your personal reasons for wanting to outlaw gay marriage: Yes, I would expect a true friend to keep her religion to herself. I would expect a true friend to not try to deny me rights she has herself, or to take those rights away from me. And I would expect a friend to listen to me when I talk about what truly makes me happy instead of imposing her viewpoint on me and telling me what makes me happy.
To be honest, I found your blog just as inimical and distasteful to me as you have apparently found mine to be to you, and I will not be visiting or commenting there. You’re welcome to come back here, if you can stay civil, and if you feel you have something to contribute. But at this point I don’t feel like there’s much true friendship left between us. Maybe it’s better that we just let it go.
[Updated to fix the URL for the D. Michael Quinn article.]
November 10th, 2008 at 7:21 am
I’m sorry I hurt your feelings, Sean. I think you are right, the friendship we had seems to be gone.
November 10th, 2008 at 10:24 am
Summer, we cannot use our beliefs about sin as a basis for morality. It is immoral to so force our beliefs on others, whatever they may be. Government only has a right to interfere with morality when real temporal consequences are involved. For example, the law is right to interfere on physical violence because it can lead to temporal injury or death. Despite all the bluster of the religious right, there is absolutely no evidence that homosexual relationships or marriage has any negative temporal consequences whatsoever. Therefore, whatever you believe the eternal consequences, it is unethical and contrary to the bedrock principles of our nation to use such means as Prop 8 to protect for our homosexual brothers and sisters.
November 10th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Summer, you obviously don’t get what the separation of church and state means, and why it is in your best interest to adamantly oppose any religion from having any legislative influence.
November 10th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
I misspoke in my last comment. I meant to say “we cannot use our beliefs about sin as a basis for governance.” Our beliefs on sin are inextricably tied with our beliefs on morality, but we cannot use government to compel that morality unless some sort of negative temporal consequences result.
November 11th, 2008 at 10:03 am
Sean, would you please email me (using the link)? I’ve got a project I’m thinking about and I think you might be a good resource.
Thanks!
November 11th, 2008 at 10:04 am
Interesting comments to this blog. You all make some good points. I am not only gay, Sean’s Aunt, and fortunate enough to have married the woman I love prior to the election, but I have also given this topic a lot of thought in the past couple of months. I have tried to look at it from both sides, which as an x-Mormon I do have an advantage, as do many of you. I struggled with why the Mormon Church would put so much money and effort into this proposition that takes away my rights and the rights of millions of people, and the only conclusion I came up with (after asking several of my friends and family for input) is this: Fear.
Fear that they will be sued to either perform gay marriages, or to lose their right to perform marriages at all.
Fear that the vast wealth of their “non-profit” organization will suffer the greatest price of all, hundreds of millions of dollars paid out in discrimination lawsuits.
To stand on a soapbox and claim to be fighting this proposition for the sake of “righteousness”, for the sake of “protection of marriage & families”, was their way of convincing the blind followers to carry out what I see as a very un-Christlike abomination.
To promote Hate under the guise of love is Satan’s work.
Do I have an opinion on this matter, you bet I do, and I am probably overreacting due to the fact that I am married and may face losing this gift, and because I was, for 20 years one of the blind followers…and I am angry at myself for not seeing it.