mormondemocrats
Browan
Dale Dunkin
adjohn08
brainscientist2008
demlawyer
lisajenkinsSame Sex Marriage
Posted by mormondemocrats on July 20, 2008
This has always been a touchy issue for me. I feel very comfortable with my political views and their consistency with the teachings of the Church. This issue, however, has always been one where I question how closely the two align. Here’s my best attempt at justifying them. . .
For me, it really comes down to keeping the government (ours or any) out of moral/religious issues. The more the government gets involved in legislating morality and, in doing so, taking upon itself the duty to validate or invalidate certain religious/moral behaviors, the more destructuve that government can become. Not only is government poorly suited for making such religous decisions, in doing so it necessarily cheapens the principles it tries to protect. I agree and believe that marriage is sacred, and I do not need my government’s approval of it to make it so. In fact, by taking such an official position, I think the government cheapens the “institution of marriage.”
In many countries around the world, the LDS marriage ceremony is not officially recognized. In such cases, couples are generally required to undergo an “official” government ceremony (at the local courthouse, for example) prior to attending the temple for their “religious wedding.” Many of the couples I knew that were married in Europe attended the official marriage ceremony but waited until their temple marriage (often days apart) to acknowledge their marriage. I find it unfortunate that such goivernments have reduced marriage to the status of drivers licenses. I hope ours does not do the same.
Ultimately, I think we should support measures which protect the freedom of all Americans to live their lives they way they wish, provided that such behaviors do not threaten the health and welfare of the public. We could have a long debate about the destruction to public welfare caused by gay marriage, but I don’t see the point. There are much more destructive behaviors than gay marriage that we freely permit and promote.
For an interesting take on the issue, see http://www.feministmormonhousewives.org/?p=1881#comment-435017
Publicola said
The problem with your stance is that you discount the government’s interest in promoting responsible procreation, which generally gives us a healthy society. This is best done through traditional marriage. LDS doctrine affirms marriage’s role in responsible procreation, thus the need for abstinence prior to marriage. Because of the need to promote responsible procreation, government has a secular interest in investing in its own future citizens by helping them to have a mother and father in the best way possible. I don’t know what could concern the health and welfare of society more than helping to foster the only relationship that combines responsible procreation and child-rearing.
You gloss over this vital point and assume that government’s role in marriage is only to legislate morality. This is a gross distortion of the government’s interest in marriage. Essentially what you advocate is governmental indifference towards its future citizens. That is a dangerous and reckless view of what role government should take.
guitarmas5 said
Publicola, you misunderstand the purpose of government. It is not the government’s duty or right to ensure responsible procreation. It is only the government’s duty to protect its citizens’ freedom to choose whether or not to do so. If a society chooses, on an individual basis, to halt procreation altogether, it is the government’s duty to protect that choice. A government’s only agenda should be to protect the peaceful agendas of its citizens.
mormondemocrats said
While I agree with the value to our society of having healthy families with mothers and fathers in the home, I don’t think that is relevant to this issue. Prohibiting same sex marriage is not going to further familial or parental responsibility. Do you really think that same sex couples will, in response to a constitutional amendment banning marriage, decide to forego their homosexual lifestyle and enter into healthy, happy husband-wife relationships and “responsibly procreate?” Obviously not. So your premise that the ban on gay marriage promotes responsible procreation is simply not correct. There are many other things the government can, and does, do to promote responsible parenting without infringing on peoples’ right to make moral decisions on their own. We have far more problems in homes as a result of dead-beat fathers and divorce than we do from same sex couples raising irresponsible children. These are the problems government should be focused on, and not on legislating one or more particular views on morality. You state above that I ‘assume that government’s only role is to legislate morality,” which is the exact opposite of what I am actually advocating.
Again, my position on this issue is based on my view of the role of government and not on a moral or theological support for homosexuality. I think the government should focus it’s efforts on effective solutions to real problems and I disagree with legislation targeted at particular segments of our society simply because the majority disagrees with their lifestyle. That is an abuse of government by the majority.
Those of us that care about building strong families should focus on doing that ourselves and helping those around us to do the same. We should use the political process to bully those that disagree with us. It doesn’t solve the problem, it doesn’t improve our own families or marriages, but it does engender hate. Many people fuel that hate by referring to this issue as a “defense of the institution of marriage,” but it isn’t marriage that is undere attack, it is individuals that are simply trying to life their lives. You and I might (and presumably do) disagree with their choices, but targeting them with legislation doesn’t solve anything. And a ban on gay marriage doesn’t affect my temple marriage or diminish it in any way. We should defend the family by supporting respoinsibe government legislation to help working class families and not by targeting others.
Brumps said
Amen sista! or brotha!
Right Democrat said
Democrats need to move away from the exotic social issues and focus on being the party of working families. Gay marriage is far from the only threat to the traditional family but I do oppose same sex marriage on both moral and pragmatic grounds. Same sex unions will certainly not help to strengthen the family and most Americans still have tradtional values. We need to focus on the economy and other critical issues like solving the energy crisis.
Brumps said
You’re making an assumption that same-sex couple are incapable of having successful families. That depends on what you consider successful. I’ve seen same-sex couples who have wonderful relationships, while many heterosexual relationships are embroiled in unhealthy behaviors. Why exactly can’t a same-sex couple raise healthy, well-adjusted children? It’s been known to happen. You’re making assumptions based on ignorance. I’m beginning to think “traditional values” is just another way of saying hypocrisy.
Chino Blanco said
It’s not Democrats putting these waste-of-time initiatives on the ballot. That’d be the other guys.
Anyone who belongs to an organized religion in this country should be plenty worried that so many Americans apparently think their vote is a license for mob rule. I wonder how an anti-Mormon marriage initiative on a ballot down South would fare?
And if you’re LDS, you should be especially disturbed that the GOP has been handed the keys that’re allowing them to now play chicken with your church as part of their strategy to boost Republican voter turnout.
Lib said
Agreed re government staying out of legislating morality. Government got involved in the marriage primarily to settle issues relating to property, taxes, etc. It since has become a legislative matter of morality. In some respects I think it confuses the notion of marriage, which really (at least for LDS) is a union between individuals and God. In my opinion, government ought to recognize (for tax, property, etc., purposes) any marriage, union, etc., that two individuals (regardless of gender) contract to create. Mormons (and many other faiths) are going to continue not to recognize, condone, etc., same sex marriages. Indeed, when it comes down to it, for the eternities, LDS believe that there is no marriage other than a temple marriage. Everything else is temporal and not truly a marriage. In some respects, if government got out of the marriage business and left it up to religions/individuals I dare say marriage would have more meaning to LDS. The whole argument of legislative to protect the traditional family, traditional values, healthy society, etc., in my opinion is bunk and fear based. If any combination of men and women want to cohabitate and contract to divide property, etc., fine by me. Those who think it will destroy our society, in my opinion, are looking at the issue all wrong. Leave marriage to religions and leave issues of insurance, property, taxes, etc., to the government.
Jeanette said
I always thought it was interesting that the church takes a stand on this, when my understanding is that the devil’s plan was mandated morality.
I always thought it was hypocritical that Mormons are so against gay marriage because it cheapens the institution, but many I know enjoyed watching TV shows like “The Bachelor” where marriage was a game show prize.
I was taught that home with a mother and a father is the best situation for a child. As a teacher, I have found the best situation for a child is in a home where it is wanted.
There is no statistical data that verifies that straight parents are more successful at child rearing than gays – in fact, there is some evidence to the contrary. Homosexual couples have to really want a child to have one, and have more to prove, so they tend to be more active in their parenting.
I have always admired the church for its emphasis on active child rearing. “Because God said so” is a wonderful way to live one’s life. It is a terrible basis for legislation in a democratic society.
big_smartmouth said
i just want it clarified to me why gay marriage would “ruin the sanctity of marriage”? and how would it ruin it more so than cheating or abusive spouses? should we then ban the right for someone to marry when that someone has evidence against them of having an affair?
Tyler said
We always legislate our morals. It is not lawful to steal or kill. These are moral issues. By punishing these people we are enforcing the moral law that was set. The fact that birth begins at conception and that a baby has the right to life is a moral issue. It is our moral obligation to stand up and make sure that the rights of babies are recognized. In fact if we did not legislate our morals we would have no constitution. We would have Anarchy!!! By supporting the Democratic party you are legislating your morals and they are in direct opposition of Heavenly Fathers teachings.
If we do not legislate our morals then Lucifer will.
Also just to clarify, Lucifer plan was to remove our own accountability. We would have had no choice, and no accountability for our actions. Heavenly fathers plan is for us to have our own choices with rewards, consequences, and accountability.
Brumps said
“By supporting the Democratic party you are legislating your morals and they are in direct opposition of Heavenly Fathers teachings.”
Please allow me enlighten you.
http://www.utahcountydems.com/content/view/178
Eric B said
Oh! Thanks for clearing that up. I’m so relieved to know that it was Lucifer’s pesky morals working in me as I fasted and prayed to the Father in the name of Jesus for the Spirit and guidance in my study of the issues. I guess I wasn’t really making a prayerful study… it was just Satan.
Of course I’m jesting with you Tyler, in the hope you will be more mindful of your accusations of devil discipleship. Mormondemocrats.com is to be a respectful forum. Please be more considerate in helping keep it so.
You say, “If we do not legislate our morals then Lucifer will.” By “we” you must mean all the people that agree with Tyler and not “we the Mormons” or “we the Christians.” Because that just wouldn’t jive with the teachings of Christ and his restored gospel.
Lucifer is going to do his thing until Christ comes and binds him. Fostering the love of Christ in the hearts of mankind is the prescribed way to counter Satan in the mean time.
Jesus said he is knocking at the door and blessed is he that lets him enter. There is no search warrant involved.
Jesus humbly invited “come follow me.” He issued no subpoena.
Joseph Smith said to teach people true principles and let them govern themselves.
You say that when someone supports the Democratic Party they are “legislating” morals “in direct opposition of Heavenly Fathers teachings.” As your brother in Christ I ask you to reveal how you came to the sure knowledge that God wants me to vote republican and that all Mormons must do so to secure salvation?
You gestured at the morality of the constitution but I’m not sure you understand it. I agree that it is a document ripe with moral ramifications. Thankfully the constitution rests not on a theological system but on inalienable rights, as wide as any heaven and deep as any hell to ensure that you, me and others of different ideals have the freedom to prosper according to our own good conscience.
You are right with one of your fundamental arguments. If Tyler feels compelled by God or any other force to advocate his morality, he is free in America to do so. Democrats respect and protect that right.
big_smartmouth said
yes, and tyler was also shown the error of his ways in another post asking us if there was ever a nonrepublican general authority. because he said he didn’t know of any himself, that that must mean we should rethink our political party. nate b. gave him a link to another website that shows many general authorities have been democrats. so, if you combined his thoughts on both these posts, not only should we all here stop “legislating (our) morals…in direct opposition of Heavenly Fathers teachings,” but so should have james e. faust, heber j. grant and wilford woodruff. boy, won’t they all have egg on their faces when they get up to heaven!!
tyler, i know it’s hard, but try and have an open mind to other peoples views.
Steve A said
The government is “legislating” morals on marriage whether it acknowledges gay marriage or not. If the government does not allow “gay marriage”, it is legislating against it. If the courts rule that you have to allow it, the government is legislating that it is accepting it.
I find the debate amusing. What about polygamous marriage? In the 1800’s every good standing church member was a Democrat because the radical right was against “slavery and polygamy”. These issues were joined at the hip. Apparently discrimination was ok then because if you are in a polygamous relationship, you lose your right to vote and your wife has to testify against you. Perhaps polygamy and gay marriage should be joined at the hip along with zoophilia; I mean why shouldn’t I be free to marry an ape or a dozen apes if we love each other?
It seems to me you have three logical choices:
1)Propose defining marriage as between a man and a woman
2)Propose of a man and man/men/women/ape/*** or a woman and woman/women/ape/***
3)The government should just get out of the business of recognizing marriage
Gay marriage is not the same as current traditional marriage. I do not care what the government tells me.
To be true to the principles of the Democratic party and the church, I would think you would have to opt for #3. Barring #3 as an option, you would need to vote against #2 as directed.
With that being said, who ever said Mormons vote the way their church leaders tell them to…
1) Reed Smoot: Remember the Smoot-Hawley tariff act that helped cause the Great Depression? Yep, that’s your guy. A Republican apostle from the state of Utah. They had hearings into whether he was eligible to serve…. Anyway, he was crushed in the election in 1932 in Utah 56.7% to 41.7%. Yep, the mormons in Utah voted out an apostle… How would you have Elbert Thomas (D) his replacement?
2) Prohibition: Heber J. Grant while prophet called on all mormons to preserve prohibition. (He was a zealot on this issue.) Utah was the last state necessary to approve prohibition that did such on 12/5/33. So much for voted as requested…
On Heber J. Grant being a Democrat. He wasn’t the Democrat of today. When FDR unveiled the New Deal… he thought it was socialism… and endorsed the Republican Alf Landon in 1936. He said FDR was “one of the most serious conditions that has confronted me since I became President of the Church.” So much for New Deal policies…
So, Heber J. Grant was not for the New Deal and was against free choice when it came to substances. What kind of Democrat is that?
What is interesting here is that Joseph F. Smith, the previous prophet, did not endorse prohibition. Reed Smoot was against prohibition. Wait the Republican for allowing drug use and the Democrat against it? I am so confused….
The most liberal approach here would be the following.
1) Remove the government from the marriage business
2) Allow people to discriminate
Yes, that dirty discrimination word. Discrimination is fine. We discriminate against rich people and are praised for it. Take there money and redistribute it. Why single them out? Clearly discrimination has been ok’d. Or, is it only ok when it suits our purposes? So, allow people to refuse services to gay people if they wish… people should be free to choose without government interferce in all aspects of their lives.
For now, I think if you live in the state of California, you would be hard pressed to not vote for proposition 8 or Prop 107 in Arinoza if you are Mormon unless you do not want to be able to state that you support your church leaders.
Friday Forum - The Role of Dissent « Mormon Democrats said
[...] example, but there are more. Some other examples have been discussed in previous posts on abortion, same-sex marriage and there are many others. A good discussion of patriotism and dissent is also found [...]
Two Steps Forward - One Step Back « Crazy Game of Poker said
[...] Mormons for Marriage San Francisco Gate Mormon Democrats [...]
Scott said
An honest question:
As a mormon democrat, there are a myriad of things that drive me nuts about the common Mormon culture. However, I am a deep believer in the religion. As part of that, I follow the prophet. I have had a lot of mixed feelings about Prop 8, but when the First Presidency asked me to support it, that was the end of discussion for me. I have since come to a place where I have found peace in my secular mind as well regarding supporting Prop 8. I have heard some bring up past racist, sexist, or just plain wrong statements by past leaders, but that has been the statements of one leader or a few, not an official church declaration like supporting Prop 8 was. The modern church is also much more sensitive to those things and is pretty good about keeping leaders from shooting their mouths off. Supporting prop 8 was an official communication from the prophet to all of us. I just can’t go against that and square it with my religion.
I know there are a lot of good mormons that disagree with me, but I am curious to hear how you square following the prophet while opposing Prop 8. I am not trying to argue or convince anyone. I am genuinely curious.
Browan said
Great question. I don’t live in California, Utah, Arizona, Nevada, Idaho or Florida where the Church has taken official political action in defense of marriage. Though there is some comfort in geographic distance, this certainly doesn’t shield or disqualify anyone from the ramifications of the debate.
If you are looking for clean square corners to frame the “right and wrong” of same sex marriage (SSM) civil policy, you may be disappointed by my response. Asymmetry persists and I’m prayerfully seeking greater light on the issue. Here’s where I’m at right now.
The Divine Institution of Marriage states the following: “As Church members decide their own appropriate level of involvement in protecting marriage between a man and a woman, they should approach this issue with respect for others, understanding, honesty, and civility.”
I have searched this matter in study, prayer, fasting and a lengthy conversation with my Stake President. I feel that my appropriate level of involvement in protecting marriage between a man and a woman consists of building an exceptional marriage with my wife, raising children (our own or adoptive if necessary), sharing the joys of marriage and family with others, and honoring my priesthood and temple covenants.
As of today, I could not comply with a “support Prop 8”-style request from the Church because of reasons detailed below and the fact that I have not yet received a spiritual confirmation that the Churches political course is true. I find this to be consistent with my understanding of Church teachings and prophetic counsel.
Before we get into details, please know that I am only slightly comfortable immortalizing my opinion on this hot-button issue via internet broadcast because Elder Ballard and other Church leaders have recently urged members to express Mormonism via the internet. By sharing my faith and progressive politics (widely assumed to be non-existent or condemned within Mormonism), I am sustaining the brethren’s council and dispelling misconceptions inside and outside of the Church. Thank you Elder Ballard and http://www.mormondemocrats.com!
I believe that the SSM debate will come to a vote in my state within 3 years time and a to a constitutional showdown within 8 years. When the Church asks me to contribute money or vote for something like Prop 8, I anticipate asking my bishop the following questions.
1) My understanding of LDS doctrine is that we do not believe in marriage between a man and a woman. We believe in marriage between a man, woman and God. What exactly are you asking me to do, what is the desired outcome, and what is the measure of success?
2) I have tried, but not yet received a testimony of this course of action. What does this mean for my temple recommend?
3) Political action is often public record and I work in a highly political field. Is it better for me to sustain the prophet in this particular issue and severely risk my career, or keep my faith separate from my livelihood and continue providing for my family? If my affiliation with this campaign costs me my job or renders me ineffective in my profession as it did with Scott Ekern, is the ward prepared to cover my family’s mortgage, food, and health care costs for the 6-12 months it typically takes someone to find a new career?
4) My understanding of politics and history strongly suggests that LDS sanctioned political activities result in contention, gross embarrassment, a slow softening of policy, defeat, and a painful 10-20 year long public relations recovery. We’ve already seen the contention in and out of the church, embarrassing assocations and actions, and Church policy shift from “…whether it is civil union or domestic partnership or whatever label it’s given, it is nonetheless tantamount to marriage.” to “The Church does not object to rights (already established in California).” My testimony is very weak in this area. Where does your faith come from on this campaign? What do you think will make this political action different?
It’s a difficult question Scott. When it comes down to it, I would like to say in a proud LDS “I KNOW” voice, “I’ll stand by the prophet in defense of marriage.” But I don’t know that. Perhaps I take some solace in the fact that we believe prophets led of God but not infallable. That is a small bit of solace.
In all of this, I can’t help feeling that if Jesus descended in glory right now, some of his first healing embraces would be to homosexual men and women that we reviled as unclean sinners. I also can’t help imagining a not to distant future where we discover something like toxic exposures in our environment increasing bioligical propensity toward homosexuality, and realize we are zealous sinners for not treating homosexuals with the same level of civility we would afford a person suffering from a birth defect. And if a Mormon thinks homosexuality is a sinful choice worthy of barring someone from civil marriage, how will that barring protect marriage more than barring adulterers, sex offenders, convicted liars, and other felonous sinners? If we are really are eager to strengthen the institution of civil marriage, let’s consider all the destructive forces.
Assuming I do not receive a pivotal insight regarding the Churches actions over SSM, and my recommend or membership hangs in the balance because of my behavior on this issue, I will shed many a tear for Zion and beg to abstain from action. If that is not acceptable, I will seek out the least effective participation mode available in the campaign, commit to that and then thoroughly shirk the duty. I’ll probably go to hell because of the prideful glee I’ll have anticipating my PPI with the Savior. But let’s be honest, ineffective people don’t get kicked out of the Church.
Brumps said
It’s my understanding that the “official communication” from the prophet was not technically declared revelation from God. see below. Prophets are human beings and subject to error just like the rest of us. Church history is replete with errors from prophets, not the least of which was Joseph Smith. Need I remind you of Brigham Young as well?
“If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as a revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth.” (Harold B. Lee, The Teachings of Harold B. Lee, edited by Clyde J. Williams [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1996], 544.)
“We have heard men who hold the priesthood remark that they would do anything they were told to do by those who preside over them [even] if they knew it was wrong; but such obedience as this is worse than folly to us; it is slavery in the extreme; and the man who would thus willingly degrade himself, should not claim a rank among intelligent beings, until he turns from his folly. A man of God would despise the idea. Others, in the extreme exercise of their almighty authority have taught that such obedience was necessary, and that no matter what the saints were told do by their presidents they should do it without any questions. When Elders of Israel will so far indulge in these extreme notions of obedience as to teach them to the people, it is generally because they have it in their hearts to do wrong themselves.” (Joseph Smith – Millennial Star, Vol 14, Number 38, pages 593-595)
NotaDemocrat said
As an LDS, I tend to agree to Browan. If SSM is legalized, how will it change me? It will change nothing in me and my marriage. I will not marry another man. If plural marriage is legalized, the possibility is very high that I will embrace it. As a member of the Church, I agree to whatever the Church decide within its confines. We should not force our morality, beliefs to other people, as we don’t want other people to force their beliefs to us.
Utah LDS Dem said
I fully agree with NotaDemocrat regarding the notion that SSM will change nothing in me or my marriage. What I do want to state, and it may have been previously stated, but sorry I did not take the time to read all of the posts, is that everyone is sent to this earth with things that they have to deal with, overcome, ‘fight’ against, etc. My belief is that there are a number of individuals in the world that their issue is same sex attraction and they need to make a stronger effort to overcome that attraction for I do firmly believe it is against God’s law.
It appears the posts on here are non-combative, and that is a relief. This is my opinion and it is highly doubtful that anyone can change my opinion just as I realize I probably cannot change anyone else’s.
Thanks
Brumps said
Your opinion is based on your religious belief system. These homosexuals do not have your same beliefs and shouldn’t be required to live by them either. They don’t think they were born defective and therefore see no need to “fight” against or “overcome” their sexual attractions. It is what’s “normal” to them. I would surely hate to have to live by the Muslim belief system if, God forbid, they come into power in our country and decide we have to follow their laws and beliefs. This is precisely why our founding fathers wanted a separation of church and state.
blah said
asdfasdf