Some People Oppose Gay Marriage

There is a point at which argument is futile. When two sides of a disagreement are so firmly rooted in their own perceptions, and those perceptions are coming from intrinsically different structures, there is not enough common ground for discussion.

This is, perhaps, why I haven’t really addressed the gay marriage battles going on in the United States of America since they started. I have listened to both sides, found fault and good with both, and made my conclusions. And most of the time, when I try to share why I believe the way I do, I only invite attack.

I do wish to state, perhaps for my own benefit alone, that I do not support gay marriage. I used to, before I started blogging. Getting involved in blogs certainly catalyzed some of my change of mind. I’m sure there are many out there who discount my opinions because they assume they are solely religiously based, or because they come from a place of ignorance and fear. I can protest as much as I like, but I’m not likely to change the minds of people so unapologetically closed-minded. I’m not even going to bother.

There is much I could say about gaining respect for differing moral stances. The arguments for gay marriage are generally based on the moral structure of secularism, the arguments against gay marriage are generally based on a moral structure espoused by many religions of the world. I believe that “separation of Church and State” in our country was never meant to restrict moral opinions from the public sphere. In fact, I believe that creating a space where individuals can act according to their morality in a public sphere without fear of losing employment, housing, physical safety, the ability to reasonably conduct business according to their conscience, and relative peace in their private lives was a core point of our government.

And, like it or not, the bulk of efforts to remove that freedom from fear is coming from those who think secularly. Many believe that individuals should have no right to exercise religiously-based morality in a public sphere, but ought to be forced to behave according to secular morality.

I would fight—have fought—equally hard to defend a gay person’s right to behave according to their beliefs in a public sphere as I now defend my own. I would shop at a store owned by a gay person. I'm as likely to design a gay friend's wedding invitations as those for a straight friend, were one to ask me. But I believe that the right to behave a certain way is not the same as a right to be publicly supported for it.

Determination of the lines of law—deciding what the public should pay for, support, and condone by law—should only be legally determined by a slow and cautious approach to lawmaking, including ALL the branches of government. Rushing headlong, deliberately bypassing checks and balances in the legal system, will inevitably reap consequences in unexpected directions.

I am afraid, watching the way law is happening now. And even if you support gay marriage, you should be afraid, too. The rate at which individual freedom to act according to personal moral conscience is being denied is frightening. When legal paths have been opened, they are very difficult to close. Almost overnight, changes are being made that alter the way people are allowed to live their lives. Though that may work in your favor today, there are no guarantees for tomorrow.

I do not know if my feelings on gay marriage will soon rob me of my ability to act according to my conscience in my employment. My line of work makes me one of those who could easily be forced to participate in things I find reprehensible. I wish, even if gay marriage wins wholesale, that those of religious moral conscience will be able to win a space for themselves. Not only to protect religious institutions, but to protect religious people.

Make no mistake. This war is not just about gay marriage. It is much more fundamental than that. It is a war between religion and secularism, a clash of whether or not people will be allowed to act according to a religious source of morality. Whether or not their votes will be taken away. Whether or not they can choose to conduct their business as they believe they should. Whether or not they are allowed to raise their children in the faith they hold dear. Whether or not they are allowed to speak their hearts, or must remain silent for fear of dire consequence.

There are many voices of empty reassurance, claiming that such things could never happen. But they are already happening. People claimed that welfare for single moms wouldn't result in more single moms, that loosening divorce laws wouldn't result in more divorces. They are blind to the lessons of history, and ignorant to human nature.

Some rights cannot be granted without robbing the rights of another. You can't give the right to drink and drive without potentially robbing a drunk driver's victim of the right to life. You can't give gay people the right to demand the services they want from whom they want them without robbing the service provider of the right to sell their services to whomever they wish to sell them. There is always a price. Some ideals cannot be legislated without sacrificing other ideals.

I mourn for our country. Not because gay marriage is becoming legal, but because of the way that victory is being won and the intentions in the hearts of those who are winning it. Such desire to silence opposition exists everywhere, male and female, gay and straight, religious and secular, but when it is popular and celebrated—when it is in power—there is no one who will escape the price.

Yet, despite my sorrow for the sins of this world, I know in whom I trust. The Book of Mormon is now more than ever before an obvious warning to the righteous, a chance to prepare. We may be called to lay down our lives as so many before us have. But if we keep the love of God in our hearts even as the mobs mock and ridicule, we will have a rock of faith through the trials to come.

“O, ye nations of the earth, how often would I have gathered you together as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, but ye would not!

“How oft have I called upon you by the mouth of my servants, and by the ministering of angels, and by mine own voice, and by the voice of thunderings, and by the voice of lightnings, and by the voice of tempests, and by the voice of earthquakes, and great hailstorms, and by the voice of famines and pestilences of every kind, and by the great sound of a trump, and by the voice of judgment, and by the voice of mercy all the day long, and by the voice of glory and honor and the riches of eternal life, and would have saved you with an everlasting salvation, but ye would not!”
D&C 43:24-25

I Believe in the Law

Articles of Faith #12
[I] believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

One thing that always mildly interested me as a foreign missionary in Germany was that, although two large religious groups made a habit of knocking on doors and interrupting people on the streets to share their religion, only one had a license from the government to do so. We were instructed to keep this license, a gray passport-like pamphlet, on our persons at all times.

Because we are painstakingly compliant to local laws wherever we go, the LDS church has been granted many freedoms that other religions have not always enjoyed. Countries in the Middle and Far East have welcomed us in as service missionaries when we were not allowed to proselyte. We were one of few religions allowed practice in Cold War East Germany. Doors have opened to us multiple times in multiple places because we show respect to the law.

Historically, the LDS Church was persecuted for practicing polygamy and laws were created to end it. Moving outside of US legal jurisdiction, polygamy was practiced until Utah was swallowed up in Manifest Destiny, and it was clear that there was no legal way to make it permissible. Then, the Church bowed to the law. Many are conflicted by this, feeling that if a doctrine is of God, the Church should never have submitted. But as Wilfred Woodruff asked in the footnotes of Official Declaration 1, "Which is the wisest course for the Latter-day Saints to pursue—to continue to attempt to practice plural marriage, with the laws of the nation against it and the opposition of sixty millions of people . . . or, after doing and suffering what we have through our adherence to this principle to cease the practice and submit to the law . . . ?" In the case of polygamy, the eternal principle of plural marriage was temporally opposed by the principle of this Article of Faith. Eventually, a time came when the cost to the Church in not obeying the law of plural marriage was overshadowed by the cost of continuing its practice under legal opposition.

Joseph Smith also found himself arrested multiple times, but preached one of the most powerful sermons on worldly law found in religious texts. This entire section of the D&C ought to be read and pondered, particularly in the light of recent political unrest. It has given me many things to think about.

Honest Questions

This song has always been a comfort and a strength to me, but in light of the anger directed against my Church lately, and all of the hurt and pain on both sides, it has gained more meaning for me. I believe it holds the key to healing, but I can understand there might be some disagreement on that subject. You can listen to it here, though it is only a fan video, so don't pay too much attention to that.

Can you see
the honest questions in my heart this hour,
opening like a flower
to the rain?
And do you know the silent sorrows of a
never-ending journey through the pain?

Do you see a brighter day for me?
Another day,
a day . . . .
Do you wonder what's in store for me,
the cure for me, the way?
Oh, look down and see the tears I've cried,
the lives I've lived,
the deaths I've died.
Would you die them too,
and all for me? You say:

"I will pour the water down upon a thirsty barren land.
And streams will flow
from the dust of your bruised and broken soul.
And you will grow like the grass
upon the fertile plains of Asia, by the streams
of living water you will grow.
Oh . . . you will grow."

Do you know
the story from the start?
And do you know me,
like you've always told me?
Do you see the whispers in my heart against your kindness,
my eternal blindness?
Do you see . . .

Do you see a brighter day for me?
Another day,
a day . . . .
Do you wonder what's in store for me,
the cure for me, the way?
Oh, look down and see the tears I've cried,
the lives I've lived,
the deaths I've died.
But you die them too,
and all for me. You say:

"I will pour the water down upon a thirsty barren land,
And streams will flow
From the dust of your bruised and broken soul.
And you will grow like the grass
Upon the fertile plains of Asia, by the streams
Of living water you will grow.
Oh, I will pour the water down upon the thirsty barren land,
And streams will flow
From the dust of your bruised and broken soul.
And you will grow like the grass
Upon the fertile plains of Asia, by the streams
Of living water you will grow.
Oh, you will grow."
From Daniel Bedingfield, "Honest Questions"

Discussion of Hate

Thanks to Dennis at Thinking in a Marrow Bone for this interesting post. Please comment there, if you have thoughts on the subject.

Michelle Obama and the Price of a Loss of Religion

As I listened to NPR this morning, waiting for the gym to open, I heard an interesting opinion on Michelle Obama. (I tried to find a link, but I don't think it is yet posted. If anyone knows where it is, please let me know.) The woman speaking, Rachel, opined that the First Lady incumbent had a powerful image that was being made "more comfortable" for the American people. She claimed that America was uncomfortable with powerful women, and that is why Michelle Obama was focusing on work/life balance for women, military wives and other similar agendas. Claiming she was dumbed down for the American people to swallow her better, she said that Michelle was going to be the same First Lady we've had in the past. Her basis for this was that there was a lot of hype about Senator Obama and his children adjusting to the change, but little was said about Michelle having to "give up her identity" and her own paycheck and the adjustment necessary for that.

The discussion got me thinking about the view of motherhood. It was obvious from the discussion that Michelle was losing something by going from a powerful lawyer to a mom and First Lady. It was clear that the speaker considered a woman's value to be tied up in what she did and in having an identity independent from her husband. It is this sort of attitude I believe was criticized when the First Presidency issued the Proclamation on the Family.

Society has increasingly begun to view marriage and family as a mix between a burden and a luxury. Those who marry do so with a feeling of what they will get out of the arrangement. If you listen to the Proposition 8 riots and rhetoric, to much of the feminist rhetoric, and even to television and radio, you will hear marriage almost exclusively discussed in terms of benefits to individuals. In divorces, one spouse didn't "meet the needs" of the other, a couple "fell out of love" or tried to control each other. In discussing gay marriage, it is seen almost exclusively as a right with government benefits.

All of these viewpoints are poisonous. Marriage is not a contract with benefits on either side; it is a commitment. When two people marry, they commit to each other and to their future children. They dedicate all of their resources and time to the betterment of that new family unit. A person agrees to put the welfare of that tiny unit of society above their own individual welfare. It is the arrangement which best allows us to become like Christ, because we mimic His actions when He put the welfare of the world above His own.

Although many argue that atheism—a loss of belief in God—does nothing to remove morality—an understanding of the need to care and provide for another's needs—I think the root of all these problems in society is a loss of belief in God. For this purpose, it does not matter which belief in God you have as long as your belief includes a need to submit the self. Religions which focus on self-attainment or self-perfection miss the mark. I want to note here that Mormonism in practice often falls into this category, focusing far too much on self-purification and too little on selflessness. Our hands are not clean of this sin.

Marriage is not a social arrangement to benefit the self, it is a social arrangement to better the whole. Religion teaches this concept in a way that simple morality cannot. The Christian religion, since that is the one I know best, especially demonstrates this. If God, the greatest of all beings, was willing to lay down His life for an imperfect world, we ought to be able to lay down our lives, whether by living them or by losing them, for our imperfect spouses. I, for one, admire Michelle Obama for being willing to dedicate herself to her marriage and to her husband's glory, just as I admire husbands willing to work in a drudgery job every day to provide for their family, or vice versa. Marriage is a series of submissions from both sides of the equation. That is what the Proclamation on the Family has to teach us. That is what Christ taught us with His life. That is the value of religion and the price we all pay when it is mocked and trampled.

Winning is Such Sweet Sorrow

I was surprised at my reaction to Proposition 8 passing. I did not feel compelled to participate in campaigning for it, and the extent of my contribution was summed up in a few posts here and comments there. Yet, when I heard it passed, I was awash with a complicated flurry of emotions.

First was relief. Although I can understand that others may feel differently, to me it seemed a symbol of morality. Not all is lost, not all lines have been blurred for all people.

Close thereafter was a much more powerful rush of mourning. I knew that the lives of many would be affected by this, and there must be an immense agony incited by the passing of the amendment. Although it is unlikely to be believed, I ache for the hearts of those who believe they are doing the right thing. I hate pain in anyone, and can understand the feelings of loss, rejection and emptiness that must be felt by so many. Many members of the Church have and will leave because of it, much hatred will be deepened. That can't help but sadden me.

Finally, was a feeling of resignation. It is not over. It is likely that the judges will overthrow this decision as well, since they see it as a human rights issue. Moreover, hatred against the Church is reinforced, perhaps beyond repair. I see this as inevitable, given time, but that does not make it easy to witness.

The whole thing has me feeling rather wrung-out, even though I did not participate. My personality is one that just wants everyone to get along, yet I have a streak of loyalty to what I know to be true. It hurts to defend what I believe in, but I must do it. To me it is a choice between evils, and not much of a choice at all.

Unfortunately, that is often the lot of mortality.

Proposition 8: Into the Fire

I dislike this topic, mostly because I know that no matter what I say, people will be offended. There is really no way to talk about the topic of homosexuality without causing a fight. Luckily, I'm a very small blog in a very small corner, so I doubt there will be too much contention. All the same, I feel compelled to share some of my thoughts on the topic. My opinions here and anywhere on my blog in no way represent the stance of the Church or opinions of her leaders. They only reflect my own thoughts as I struggle to reconcile the points made.

Tax-free Status
The first thing I'd like to address is the argument that the Church has no place encouraging its members to support Proposition 8. From what I understand, based on IRS documentation (warning: this link opens a PDF), the Church is within its legal rights to conduct limited lobbying without losing its tax-free status. Also, I've heard a variation on this argument that claims a Church has no right to tell anyone how to behave, especially those who are not members of its organization. Obviously, under free speech, any organization can say anything so long as it's not threatening or damaging, with the exception of a tax-free organization not being allowed to tell people to vote for a specific candidate without losing status. Since Proposition 8 is non-partisan, it's a non-issue according to my understanding.

Polygamy
Another complaint I've heard is that the LDS Church is hypocritical when it opposes same-sex marriage because it practiced (and still practices in a sense) polygamy. (Since this argument really has little to do with homosexuality, it is only an attack on the character of the Church. Since it is often quoted, however, I will still discuss it.) These complaints generally misquote The Family: A Proclamation to the World by claiming the Church has stated that marriage is between one man and one woman. They say they contradict themselves in the doctrine of polygamy. There are two fallacies to this complaint.

First, the Proclamation says that marriage is between a man and a woman, not one man and one woman. The statement is misquoted to begin with.

Second, even if the statement did say what some claim it says, their interpretation shows a different understanding of polygamy than what I have understood. Although a man may marry multiple women, each of those marriages is complete and whole in and of itself. There is no eternal covenant between the women. Nothing that happens between the man and one wife affects the eternal marriage between him and another wife. It is not one large marriage, but a series of several marriages, each between one man and one woman.

Blacks & the Priesthood
This common comment states that because the Church was wrong about blacks holding the priesthood, they'll be wrong about same-gender marriage. Besides the obvious logical fallacy, it assumes that the Church was wrong. I don't believe they were, in the sense that the leaders should have behaved any way other than the way they did. I believe that God's purposes were fulfilled in the timing as well as the reality of the bestowal of the priesthood. Priesthood exclusivity has precedent in scripture. Not until modern days has it been extended to all worthy male members. (This is partially why it does not trouble me that women do not hold the priesthood.) Additionally, I believe that the perfect God I believe in can work with our imperfection. He knows our thoughts, and He knew the thoughts and intents of the hearts of the men who He called to lead His Church. He called them anyways. Therefore, I can only believe that for whatever reason, whether it be to teach and instruct or for some other reason, He wanted things to happen the way they happened. I trust that those leaders were doing the best they could to follow the Lord. That is why they were chosen and anointed to serve in His kingdom at the time and in the place they were.

Gays Were Born That Way
This argument claims that gays were born with homosexual urges. Because these desires are genetically influenced, they should be encouraged to act according to those desires. I cannot swallow this argument because I was born with genetically-demonstrated depression and anger. I have spent my entire life carving myself away from these tendencies, and allowing the Lord to prune them away. Not everything we are born with is good. Some are born with homicidal tendencies. Some are born with attraction to children, or other psychoses. I don't believe that this fact means that society has to allow them that behavior.

Paired with this argument is the nature argument, which says that Bonobos and other species demonstrate homosexuality in nature. Because it is natural, it should be allowed and even encouraged. Again, I fail to swallow this argument. There are many behaviors in the animal kingdom which I do not feel humans should emulate. (Warning: the two previous links may be disturbing to some.)

Agency
Also comes the argument that fighting against same-sex marriage violates the agency of those who wish to indulge in homosexuality. Obviously, no one's agency is being violated any more than it violates the agency of a mass murderer to be thrown in prison. This stems from a common desire to equate agency with lack of consequence.

Similar to this is the claim that fighting against same-sex marriage adds to suicide rates among LDS members with same-gender attraction. I happen to know by my own experience that suicide is a choice, and falls under the laws of agency. Fortunately, I don't have to judge how capable a person is to make the decision or how accountable they are. Although I do believe there are things that can be done to help someone contemplating suicide, in the end the act itself is only between the person and God.

Opposition is UnChristlike
Again, if a person truly believes that same-sex marriage is wrong, and that acting on same-sex attraction will harm the participants as well as those around them, they have a moral obligation to speak out against it. This obligation does not eradicate the obligation to love as Christ has loved. This is one of the delicate balances found so often in the Gospel. Those who have failed this have failed to be Christlike, indeed, but it is possible to love gays and oppose their behavior. I would imagine anyone with parents, siblings, or children who have hurt themselves by their own actions can understand this.

Reproduction (added from below conversation)
I have often heard the lack of homosexual reproduction compared to heterosexual couples who are infertile or too old to procreate. I feel that is also a logical fallacy. You cannot compare the rule of one instance to the exception of another. That infertile heterosexual couples exist is undeniable, but the general rule is that heterosexual couples can reproduce while homosexual ones cannot without going outside of the bonds of marriage (or resorting to sterile fertilization.) If a heterosexual couple cannot reproduce, it is because they are different from the norm. Any actions taken to help such a couple reproduce are attempts to align them with the common situation. The reasoning that homosexual couples are no different from heterosexual couples who do not or can not reproduce is therefore fallacious.

At any rate, these are the thoughts I have had so far. I would welcome courteous comments on them.