Thanks!

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.]

I changed it, Pat. —Sean

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]

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