Continued from "Is the Church of Jesus Christ Homophobic?"
The LDS Church and Same-Sex Marriage
"But to defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to condemn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions... To question [the U.S. Supreme Court's] high-handed invalidation of a presumptively valid statute is to act (the majority is sure) with the purpose to 'disparage,' 'injure,' 'degrade,' 'demean,' and 'humiliate' our fellow human beings, our fellow citizens, who are homosexual. All that, simply for supporting an Act that did no more than codify an aspect of marriage that had been unquestioned in our society for most of its existence - indeed, had been unquestioned in virtually all societies for virtually all of human history." - Antonin Scalia, Supreme Court Justice
"The gay rights movement has long involved three related goals. One has to do with liberty from government repression - freedom from sodomy prosecutions, from police harassment, and the like. A second has to do with equal treatment by the government: The movement to recognize same-sex marriages is the most prominent recent example. A third has to do with delegitimizing and legally punishing private behavior that discriminates against or condemns homosexuals." - Eugene Volokh, same-sex marriage advocate
"The gay rights movement has long involved three related goals. One has to do with liberty from government repression - freedom from sodomy prosecutions, from police harassment, and the like. A second has to do with equal treatment by the government: The movement to recognize same-sex marriages is the most prominent recent example. A third has to do with delegitimizing and legally punishing private behavior that discriminates against or condemns homosexuals." - Eugene Volokh, same-sex marriage advocate
On the previous page, I explained the theological reasoning behind The Church of Jesus Christ's insistence on heterosexual marriage as a requirement for the highest level of heaven. It has also focused on heterosexual marriage as a baseline for the family, and the family as the fundamental building block in society. Many understandably wondered, why didn't the church just refuse to offer same-sex marriages within its own ranks and leave everyone else alone? Why did it try to impose its teachings on people who don't believe them? After same-sex marriage was legalized throughout the United States in June 2015 this rhetoric almost immediately shifted to villifying the church for having such teachings in the first place, but the original question remains legitimate.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints opposed same-sex marriage in the United States and elsewhere through various legal channels for many years. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the prospect of same-sex marriage was one of its stated reasons for opposing the Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but its focus on that specific issue apparently dates back to late 1984 when former lawyer and new apostle Dallin H. Oaks discussed it in a mixed religious/legal brief. Most of this opposition took place behind the scenes and through various front organizations, most notably in Hawaii during the eartly nineties, during which time President Gordon B. Hinckley announced "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" to clarify the church's stance in no uncertain terms. It drew obvious inspiration from similar documents by other conservative Christian groups. I don't agree with everything in it, and I'm annoyed that the church's Relief Society (women's organization) presidency was never consulted on it or even told it was in the works.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints opposed same-sex marriage in the United States and elsewhere through various legal channels for many years. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the prospect of same-sex marriage was one of its stated reasons for opposing the Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but its focus on that specific issue apparently dates back to late 1984 when former lawyer and new apostle Dallin H. Oaks discussed it in a mixed religious/legal brief. Most of this opposition took place behind the scenes and through various front organizations, most notably in Hawaii during the eartly nineties, during which time President Gordon B. Hinckley announced "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" to clarify the church's stance in no uncertain terms. It drew obvious inspiration from similar documents by other conservative Christian groups. I don't agree with everything in it, and I'm annoyed that the church's Relief Society (women's organization) presidency was never consulted on it or even told it was in the works.
In 2008, when the church was asked to join a coalition of various faiths that successfully worked to pass Proposition 8 and codify a heterosexual definition of marriage in the California Constitution - repealing the existing right to same-sex marriage in that state - these political efforts came into the spotlight and generate considerable outrage. After it passed, members in California and elsewhere were targeted with protests, threats, vandalism, job loss, and boycotts from those ostensibly fighting for love and tolerance.
Even within the church, many were hurt and confused by this political action that felt at odds with their understanding of both constitutional rights and the gospel of Jesus Christ. Two years later Elder Marlin K. Jensen of the Seventy attended a special meeting of the Oakland California Stake and listened to some of their stories. He reportedly said, "I have heard the calls for change in our church’s policy on this subject. I have read Carol Lynn Pearson’s books and wept as I read them. I don’t think the evolution of our policies will go as far as many would like. Rather I think the evolution will be one of better understanding. I believe our concept of marriage is part of the bedrock of our doctrine and will not change. I believe our policy will continue to be that gay members of the Church must remain celibate. However, I want you to know that as a result of being with you this morning, my aversion to homophobia has grown. I know that many very good people have been deeply hurt, and I know that the Lord expects better of us." The church was noticeably absent from state-level same-sex marriage debates or legislation during the 2012 election cycle when Mitt Romney, a Latter-day Saint, was running for president of the United States.
Proposition 8 still allowed same-sex civil unions, which the church never opposed and which, in California, were essentially the same thing under a different name. Participants could consider themselves married but no one else had to. When plural marriage was going on in the church, the government did not merely refuse to recognize it; it disenfranchised church members, arrested practitioners and split up their families, and intended to seize all church property. Same-sex couples in this century were never in danger of that happening. My gay dance teacher in New York was "married" to a man years before it was legally recognized there. At that age I didn't even realize that it wasn't, and hardly gave it a second thought. (I was looking at his wedding pictures and thinking "All these pictures are of him and the best man - where's the bride?")
In Ireland, Brendan O'Neill noted, "What we have here is not the politics of autonomy, but the politics of identity. Where the politics of autonomy was about ejecting the state from gay people’s lives - whether it was Stonewall rioters kicking the cops out of their bars or Peter Tatchell demanding the dismantling of all laws forbidding homosexual acts - the politics of identity calls upon the state to intervene in gay people’s lives, and offer them its recognition, its approval. For much of the past 50 years, radical gay-rights activism was in essence about saying ‘We do not need the approval of the state to live how we choose’; now, in the explicit words of The Politics of Same-Sex Marriage, it’s about seeking ‘the sanction of the state for our intimate relationships’. The rise of gay marriage over the past 10 years speaks, profoundly, to the diminution of the culture of autonomy, and its replacement by a far more nervous, insecure cultural outlook that continually requires lifestyle validation from external bodies. And the state is only too happy to play this authoritative role of approver of lifestyles, as evidenced in Enda Kenny’s patronising (yet widely celebrated) comment about Irish gays finally having their ‘fragile and deeply personal hopes realised’."
Of course, in the minds of many politicians and activists, religious freedom is null and void outside of a house of worship, and thus same-sex marriage and related efforts have already infringed upon it with few complaints. In Canada, the government has tried to stop Catholics from teaching their own doctrine and force their schools to host gay-straight alliances. I see nothing wrong with gay-straight alliances, but if the Catholic Church does then that's their right. In Denmark, all Evangelical Lutheran Churches are forced to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. Many similar issues have arisen in the United States, starting with Catholic orphanages in Massachusetts, leading to several Christian bakeries, flower shops, and other privately owned institutions facing legal challenges and outpourings of public hatred for refusing to cater same-sex weddings. Some LGBTQ+ activists are among the most hateful, vindictive, and yes, bigoted people I've ever seen. They aren't wrong to be angry, but sometimes they've only hurt their own cause.
Proposition 8 still allowed same-sex civil unions, which the church never opposed and which, in California, were essentially the same thing under a different name. Participants could consider themselves married but no one else had to. When plural marriage was going on in the church, the government did not merely refuse to recognize it; it disenfranchised church members, arrested practitioners and split up their families, and intended to seize all church property. Same-sex couples in this century were never in danger of that happening. My gay dance teacher in New York was "married" to a man years before it was legally recognized there. At that age I didn't even realize that it wasn't, and hardly gave it a second thought. (I was looking at his wedding pictures and thinking "All these pictures are of him and the best man - where's the bride?")
In Ireland, Brendan O'Neill noted, "What we have here is not the politics of autonomy, but the politics of identity. Where the politics of autonomy was about ejecting the state from gay people’s lives - whether it was Stonewall rioters kicking the cops out of their bars or Peter Tatchell demanding the dismantling of all laws forbidding homosexual acts - the politics of identity calls upon the state to intervene in gay people’s lives, and offer them its recognition, its approval. For much of the past 50 years, radical gay-rights activism was in essence about saying ‘We do not need the approval of the state to live how we choose’; now, in the explicit words of The Politics of Same-Sex Marriage, it’s about seeking ‘the sanction of the state for our intimate relationships’. The rise of gay marriage over the past 10 years speaks, profoundly, to the diminution of the culture of autonomy, and its replacement by a far more nervous, insecure cultural outlook that continually requires lifestyle validation from external bodies. And the state is only too happy to play this authoritative role of approver of lifestyles, as evidenced in Enda Kenny’s patronising (yet widely celebrated) comment about Irish gays finally having their ‘fragile and deeply personal hopes realised’."
Of course, in the minds of many politicians and activists, religious freedom is null and void outside of a house of worship, and thus same-sex marriage and related efforts have already infringed upon it with few complaints. In Canada, the government has tried to stop Catholics from teaching their own doctrine and force their schools to host gay-straight alliances. I see nothing wrong with gay-straight alliances, but if the Catholic Church does then that's their right. In Denmark, all Evangelical Lutheran Churches are forced to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. Many similar issues have arisen in the United States, starting with Catholic orphanages in Massachusetts, leading to several Christian bakeries, flower shops, and other privately owned institutions facing legal challenges and outpourings of public hatred for refusing to cater same-sex weddings. Some LGBTQ+ activists are among the most hateful, vindictive, and yes, bigoted people I've ever seen. They aren't wrong to be angry, but sometimes they've only hurt their own cause.
However, after same-sex marriage was legalized in the U.S., the church issued a statement that read in part: "The gospel of Jesus Christ teaches us to love and treat all people with kindness and civility - even when we disagree. We affirm that those who avail themselves of laws or court rulings authorizing same‐sex marriage should not be treated disrespectfully. Indeed, the Church has advocated for rights of same‐sex couples in matters of hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment, and probate, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches." In November of that year, the church implemented a very controversial policy (identical to the longstanding policy for polygamous families) that categorized same-sex marriage as "apostasy" and denied baby blessings or baptism to children of same-sex couples until they reached age eighteen and disavowed their parents' lifestyle, unless they received special permission from the First Presidency. This policy was intended to avoid creating conflict between what the children were taught at home and what they were taught at church. After huge backlash and deep hurt in and out of the church, it was rescinded in early 2019.
I understand that the leaders of the church, like other people of faith, are doing what they believe is right. Catholic Professor Robert P. George, a frequent ally of the church, said: "These forces tell us that our defeat in the causes of marriage and human life is inevitable. They warn us that we are on the wrong side of history. They insist that we will be judged by future generations the way we today judge those who championed racial injustice in the Jim Crow south. But history does not have sides. It is an impersonal and contingent sequence of events, events that are determined in decisive ways by human deliberation, judgment, choice, and action. The future of marriage and of countless human lives can and will be determined by our judgments and choices, our willingness or unwillingness to bear faithful witness, our acts of courage or cowardice.
"Nor is history, or future generations, a judge invested with god-like powers to decide, much less dictate, who was right and who was wrong. The idea of a judgment of history is secularism’s vain, meaningless, hopeless, and pathetic attempt to devise a substitute for what the great Abrahamic traditions of faith know is the final judgment of Almighty God. History is not God. God is God. History is not our judge. God is our judge. One day we will give an account of all we have done and failed to do. Let no one suppose that we will make this accounting to some impersonal sequence of events possessing no more power to judge than a golden calf or a carved and painted totem pole. It is before God, the God of truth, the Lord of history, that we will stand. And as we tremble in His presence it will be no use for any of us to claim that we did everything in our power to put ourselves on the right side of history."
Dallin H. Oaks, who had a long history of homophobic statements, acknowledged in late 2021, "As a religious person who has served in government at both federal and state levels and now as a leader in the worldwide Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I have always known of the tensions experienced when persons who rely on the free exercise of religion are conflicted between duties to God and duties to country. More recently, I have come to understand better the distress of persons who feel that others are invoking constitutional rights like free exercise of religion and freedom of speech to deny or challenge their own core beliefs and their access to basic constitutional rights. I deeply regret that these two groups have been drawn into conflict with one another."
I understand that the leaders of the church, like other people of faith, are doing what they believe is right. Catholic Professor Robert P. George, a frequent ally of the church, said: "These forces tell us that our defeat in the causes of marriage and human life is inevitable. They warn us that we are on the wrong side of history. They insist that we will be judged by future generations the way we today judge those who championed racial injustice in the Jim Crow south. But history does not have sides. It is an impersonal and contingent sequence of events, events that are determined in decisive ways by human deliberation, judgment, choice, and action. The future of marriage and of countless human lives can and will be determined by our judgments and choices, our willingness or unwillingness to bear faithful witness, our acts of courage or cowardice.
"Nor is history, or future generations, a judge invested with god-like powers to decide, much less dictate, who was right and who was wrong. The idea of a judgment of history is secularism’s vain, meaningless, hopeless, and pathetic attempt to devise a substitute for what the great Abrahamic traditions of faith know is the final judgment of Almighty God. History is not God. God is God. History is not our judge. God is our judge. One day we will give an account of all we have done and failed to do. Let no one suppose that we will make this accounting to some impersonal sequence of events possessing no more power to judge than a golden calf or a carved and painted totem pole. It is before God, the God of truth, the Lord of history, that we will stand. And as we tremble in His presence it will be no use for any of us to claim that we did everything in our power to put ourselves on the right side of history."
Dallin H. Oaks, who had a long history of homophobic statements, acknowledged in late 2021, "As a religious person who has served in government at both federal and state levels and now as a leader in the worldwide Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I have always known of the tensions experienced when persons who rely on the free exercise of religion are conflicted between duties to God and duties to country. More recently, I have come to understand better the distress of persons who feel that others are invoking constitutional rights like free exercise of religion and freedom of speech to deny or challenge their own core beliefs and their access to basic constitutional rights. I deeply regret that these two groups have been drawn into conflict with one another."
