Further Ruminations on Gay Marriage

For this post to make sense, I thought I’d just post the question to which it is a response and then go from there. In the comments made to this post, a friend left the following question:

I would only ask, what about those that don't believe marriage and sex are primarily for the family unit? While I absolutely agree that within the theology our lack of belief doesn't matter (i.e. the sin is still there acknowledged or not) for a government that claims freedom of religion the decision to view things equally can't be made based on any theology can it? This is one of those "how do we all get along" questions. Hence why it takes three years to ponder it :)

My first response felt like a knee-jerk reaction, but I think may help to explain what I see going on in the church’s willingness to take a political stand on this issue (something the church rarely does officially). For a government that claims freedom of religion, how can we explain laws against polygamy? Would these same people fighting so hard for gay marriage fight equally hard for polygamous marriages? I do know that for some the answer would be yes, but others would say no because polygamy is wrong but gay marriage is okay.

As much as we may not want to admit it, a great deal of the legal code of the United States is based on moral judgments. Certain parts of the law are designed to make things run more smoothly for everyone—i.e. traffic laws. Certain parts of the law are designed to help everything work—theoretically, taxes. But much of what we view as legal/illegal is based in this country primarily on the mores of protestant Christianity. That is, at least, the underlying framework for our country’s legal girdings. The parts attached to that framework have shifted and changed over time—the bill of rights manifests some of these changes—but to a large extent our politicians create laws based on one of two things: 1. What they think is popular and will get them re-elected 2. What they think is the morally right thing.

I think an example that illustrates the sort of lack of consistency in the way we work legally may be the discourse over marijuana. Whether you individually think it should be legalized or not, I have a very hard time understanding why it’s illegal when alcohol and tobacco are both legalized. It seems to me that the science would prove that both are as harmful, if not more harmful than pot, but they are legalized while cannabis is not. For some, this may be about trying to maintain some sense of protection from all drugs (and these same people would probably want to outlaw tobacco and alcohol if they could). For others, thus far marijuana is not popular enough to warrant their attention as they try to keep their jobs.

If this all makes sense, then I can move into a more direct answer to the question. I would maintain that what is happening to some extent is that the LDS church is at least unconsciously aware—though probably more than just unconsciously, we’ve got some very smart people in the leadership—of the moral underpinnings of our legal system. I would posit that their support of Prop 8 is an effort to ensure that if the laws are going to be based on a moral system that that system be one that we can more easily uphold.

Furthermore, if you accept my reasons for the church’s position on homosexuality, then there is another reason for promoting laws that support this position. The fact that it took me three years to come to grips with gay marriage as a legal issue manifests how difficult this issue can become for solid members of the church (yes I count myself as one of those). If, as the church seems to be doing, they oppose gay marriage, but allow civil unions, then the question becomes in my mind one of semantics. This is not to say that semantics can’t be an issue worth discussing, but it is to say that if the church accepts civil unions then this makes it more about preserving the theological roots of the idea of marriage while allowing for homosexuals to share certain legal bonds. This, I am proposing, makes it easier for members of the church to understand the official position in regards to homosexuality. That is to say that we can work together with gays without supporting their lifestyle.

I know there are others out there who have talked on this issue and some much more eloquently than I. This is simply my current understanding and take on an issue that will probably never be fully resolved to the satisfaction of everyone. If this still leaves unanswered questions, by all means ask away.

I also think that it’s pertinent to bring up something my wife mentioned. The church didn’t come up with Prop. 8. They were simply supporting legislation that was conceived, drafted and presented by someone else. I dare say that the church has received more blame for their involvement in this issue than it deserves. If anything, it has shown that the community supporting the gay rights movement is frequently less tolerant than the people they’re railing against. Whether they’re in the right or not, there have been some very inappropriate responses to the result of the vote.

On Mormons and Gay Marriage

[This is a re-posting of a blog post originally posted here]

This issue first cropped up for me three years ago. I was living in Boulder, Colorado and in one of the statewide elections the question of defining marriage was on the ballot. With much less brouhaha than in California, the motion carried to amend the state constitution to define marriage as a legal union between a man and a woman. Since that time, I’ve been trying to reconcile my thoughts onto the issue into some sort of coherent whole.

The first part of the conundrum for me lies in the LDS view on homosexuality. Quite simply, it’s a sin. If you are actively gay, you cannot qualify as worthy to hold a temple recommend. I don’t think you are de facto excommunicated, or dropped from the church records, but it’s pretty safe to say that the church authorities and God view your actions as being very much contrary to the plan of Heaven. This is not to say you’re evil, just that you’re making less-good life choices.

The second part of my dilemma lies in the fact that we believe that this government was divinely inspired. Certainly not all the leaders have been, but the ideals and the expression thereof are of God. Included in those ideals is the concept that all men are endowed with certain unalienable rights, including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That means that everyone should be allowed to pursue happiness in whatever manner they see fit as long as it doesn’t impede on the pursuit of happiness of others, more or less.

So, even if homosexuality is a sin (part one), gays should still be allowed to get married if it’s something they want to do to try for happiness, right (part two)? Keep in mind, I’ve been mulling this over for three years and hadn’t resolved anything.

Recently, I was looking in to this issue again, trying to find some peace of mind for myself and I realized that I’d been looking at things a little askance.

Y’see, in God’s plan, marriage isn’t about pursuing happiness. It’s about creating family units. The original goal of marriage wasn’t to express deep and undying love for another person; it was about creating an ideal environment in which a family, including children, could flourish and develop. Granted, this is much easier if husband and wife are happy together, but that’s not the primary aim. Having a family is.

This is also most likely the biggest reason why homosexuality is such a big deal. Because whether they’re married or not, gay lovers will never produce offspring. The equipment just won’t work for them that way.

This is also also most likely the biggest reason why extramarital sex is such a big deal. Any sexual act, in God’s plan, has the primary aim of creating a family. Pleasure and bonding are secondary to that primary goal. Doing that kind of thing outside of marriage is not part of family building and works against the way the plan is supposed to work.

So, from an LDS theological perspective, gay marriage is a bit of an oxymoron. Since marriage is about creating the ideal family unit and that’s literally impossible from the get-go in that situation, it doesn’t fit into our definition of marriage. So, what is being posited by the church is less a new definition of marriage and more a recognition of the definition of marriage that’s been the de facto definition for eons, and we’ve just forgotten it along the way.

I realize that one may argue then that infertile heterosexual couples fail to meet this definition of marriage, and that may be technically true. However, they have the potential whether in this life or the eternities to be able to procreate. That’s a potential that gay couples don’t have.

In a nutshell, God has always seen marriage and sex as family-building and any deviation from that primary goal is a deviation from the way God wants things done. Admittedly, this doesn’t cover all the questions tied to this issue. If you want to throw out your specifics, I’ll do my best to come up with answers (but it might take three years). I still have some questions I’m working on myself, but this way of looking at things makes sense to me. It’s helped me reconcile things in my own fractured little head and thought it may help those who wonder how this all fits together.

But then again, maybe not.

Snargle-fargle-wargle-nargle

Yes, that is a word, at least as far as the way I feel about how much school work I got done during this very late spring break we got from UNLV.

So, I had grand plans for this past week. The first half worked out more or less the way I expected, but the rest was less than desirable.

On Friday, we went up to Ephraim to visit with the family, to help them install some plumbing and to be there for my brothers’ double eagle court of honor. Check, check, and double check. I got to help install a toilet (a skill I actually learned working for the Utah Shakespearean Festival). I got to spend some time with pretty much everyone in my family, with the exception of one brother who didn’t make it down from Salt Lake City. I even got to be part of the program at the court of honor. I got all duded up in my Order of the Arrow gear and it felt pretty good. I even got to help with the cake.

What I didn’t get to do is much in the way of homework. I figured I’d have the last half of spring break to take care of that. Unfortunately, I ended up being the replacement of pretty much last resort at work. One of the regulars at the temple was out due to a surgery and they needed someone to cover a few days for him. Soooooo, I got Wednesday to try to get stuff done. I did pretty well on that one day, but not well enough.

Heidi has been very helpful and encouraging. She rocks. Stay posted for a blog detailing exactly why she’s the most awesomerest wife ever.

It’s now Monday morning and I have more to do in the next month than I see possible for my little noggin to accomplish. It’s frustrating when things work out that way. For all you who believe in God, send a little prayer up for me if you would. For all you who don’t, I have to wonder who you are, because I’m not aware of anyone who reads my blog who doesn’t. By all means, introduce yourself and stay for a while, and while you’re at it, I’d appreciate some positive thoughts, or whatever it is you do to encourage the cosmos on behalf of you and yours.

Anglo-Saxon Dictionary

This is only for my own benefit.  It's an online dictionary I want to make available to a computer from which I can't access the internet.  Thus, I am copying the html from this site so that I can then copy it to a jump drive to take with me to the computer I will be working with.

Not a high school teacher

I discovered that I don't quite have the physiological make-up for high school. I helped the writing center at SUU host a writing conference for some of the local high schools. Despite the fact that I didn't feel that I did much, I was pretty exhausted by the end of the day. I hope it's easier when my own kids get to that age. I certainly doubt it though.
Admittedly, teaching them day in and day out would be different: in some ways better, but in others worse. Dead Pets Society still motivates me. I'm aware that in order to have that much control over the formation of someone's psyche, the sooner I can manipulate them into thinking as freely as I do (this is, by the way, meant as a joke).
In any case, my experience has strenghtened my resolve to continue with higher education so that I can teach at the level of my choice, not what I am left with simply because I am only qualified to teach to a certain level.

Acceptance

Well, I thought it was about time to report on some less depressing news. I heard back from the University of Colorado at Boulder, and they accepted me. There is a cloud to this silver lining because they didn't offer any financial assistance, but this is a huge deal for me. I've been told that this school ranges anywhere from the top 25 to the top 10 in the nation for English. So, though it may be prohibitively expensive, we're planning on packing up and moving to Colorado. It's taken some getting used to, and a few chats with some professors, but I'm getting excited, still scared yes, but excited.
Heidi and I are trying to figure all the details out, but I think that she is also beginning to look forward to this. I think the biggest issue that both of us are facing is that we like our adventures to take place between the covers of a book. They're much safer that way than to actually try to work through them in reality. We're happy with a slightly changing status quo, and this trip is much more than that. I know one person that will be in Boulder when we move there. We've never been to the area and know basically nothing about it.
Excitement, adventure, pah. [We] crave not these things. --Yoda
Excitment, adventure, danger . . . lurking . . . around every . . . corner--AAAAHH!! ---Flounder

16 Blocks

This last saturday, I dug through my change to see if I could swing a movie ticket. I've heard enough about 16 Blocks that I wanted to give it a shot. Turns out it was worth the effort. Mos Def and Bruce Willis both did excellent work as a petty crook trying to testify and a washed out cop, respectively. Seeing Willis with a belly that lops over his belt, trudging up the steps, worn and tired set the stage for an action/cop thriller where the characters look as if they could have actually been drawn from the rank and file of New York's finest.
It's a tad frustrating that they never explain exactly what Def's character is testifying about. They admit fairly early on, and in the previews that it involves some unpleasant activity by some of the police. Willis has to decide whether or not he wants to side with the cops or with the nobody criminal who dosen't even get his suit in time for his court appearance.
This is an excellent film, in my opinion, with a satisfying and realistic conclusion. There aren't any of those flash-bang explosions, and angels don't come down from the sky to sing hallelujias. Good people suffer some, and you can bet that bad people don't get the full penalty we may think they deserve, but this film is worth the price of admission.

Rejection

I have suffered a minor setback in my grand plan. I heard back from BYU, one of the schools to which I submitted for a masters degree. They said they weren't interested in me at this time, they had many fine applicants, we're trying to be polite while telling you that we didn't think all the time and effort you put into your application was worth enough for us to include you, etc. I grant you that the Y is a fairly prestigious school, and I set my sights pretty high, but it was a bit of a blow to find out that not everyone thinks I'm as great as I do.
I still have yet to hear back from the University of Colorado at Boulder and the University of Utah. We shall see how the wind blows.

Professional Dad

This weekend I was part of a panel discussion at BYU regarding perr tutoring. The panel seemed to go well, but the whole experience reiterated an issue I expect I'll be juggling the rest of my life. Trying to have a professional life and a family at the same time can get complicated and frustrating.
Allow me to expound. The head of the writing center that sponsored our trip made allowances for my family to go up with us. We used school vehicles, and they seemed to be okay with it. The problem came up when we got there. Because my wife wasn't cleared to drive a school vehicle, she had to basically stay wherever I drove her. So, she ended up at the conference, wandering the halls with two children under the age of five. I missed winning one of the door prizes because I had gone out to tell my wife where I was going to be and what I was going to be doing. The people in charge wouldn't let one of the other tutors claim the prize for me. I ended up missing out on the secodn round of panel discussions because I chose to drive my family to the mall so that they had something to do and a place to eat.
I discovered that it's nigh impossible for someone who doesn't have kids to understand the difficulty that they add to logistics. I also discovered that my wife doesn't like having nothing to do, especially when she has two kids to do it with (granted that's not a major revelation, but it still became more abundantly clear this weekend). I also realized that, as generous as your supervisor may be in giving you the opportunity to bring your family, you really need to make sure that there is place for your family there.
I think the thing that got to me was that I wasn't able to really do anything to my satisfaction. I was trying to ensure that my family was taken care of while trying to juggle the logistics of taking care of the other panel members.
In any case, it brings up new issues that I need to address as I go through life.

Apparently, I was an Elf Once

This would radically alter my belief system, if I thought it was true.
A short time ago, I taught a class for one of the professors here in the English deparment. We discussed The Hobbit, and had a pretty good time. Today, the professor told me that one of his students, the new-age, faith healer type, told him that I was an elf in a previous life.
If I believed in reincarnation, and if I believed that elves did in fact exist, I could think of nothing I would want to have been, or be, more than an elf. However, unfortunately, I'm stuck in a more humdrum belief system that disallows reincarnation. As much as I'd like to believe otherwise, I also have placed the reality of elves firmly in the realm of fiction. What a shame. If I could have been a little more openminded, I would have really had quite a past.
But, I guess it could have been worse. The professor was told that he was one the element of fire. Which begs the question, if he was once fire, how did he spin out into a position where he could be a human? How does the element of fire die? Or was he simply the burst of flame from the head of a match?
In any case, it gave my day a bit of surreal twist.