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.