There’s been a surge of traffic to my blog about LDS temples being shut down or forced to perform same-sex marriages in the temple. It’s something a lot of people fear, not just Mormons, and apparently it’s on a lot of minds again. I wrote a blog post about this a while back and made these points:
Exemptions are usually written into laws for religious organizations that don’t believe in same-sex marriage
A lot of churches have made LGBTQ members feel unwelcome so even if they allowed same-sex marriage, LGBTQ members probably wouldn’t want to be married in your churches or temples anyway
The LDS Church currently discriminates against any straight member(s) when it comes to marriage (e.g., couples who have sex before marriage can’t get married in the temple)
And there’s a lot of bad information out there on the topic. All we have to do to get good information is read the laws and draw our own conclusions about whether or not this can/will happen. Maryland’s ballot measure is a good example to look at. Here’s the wording of the law:
“Establishes that Maryland’s civil marriage laws allow gay and lesbian couples to obtain a civil marriage license, provided they are not otherwise prohibited from marrying; protects clergy from having to perform any particular marriage ceremony in violation of their religious beliefs; affirms that each religious faith has exclusive control over its own theological doctrine regarding who may marry within that faith; and provides that religious organizations and certain related entities are not required to provide goods, services, or benefits to an individual related to the celebration or promotion of marriage in violation of their religious beliefs.”
20 words related to the rights of gay/lesbian couples and about 50 on religious exemption. So, will churches be forced to perform same-sex marriages? Not a chance — there’s nothing to be afraid of.
The YouTube video below is a really good snap shot or overview of where society stood on gay rights issues in the distant past and how far we have progressed as a society in the recent past. I’ve often wondered what people will ask me in the future about this time. 50 years from now will younger generations understand what the gay rights movement was about? WIll the movement even be over in 50 years? Either way, it’s exhilarating to think history is being written right now. I will be a part of history. You will be a part of history. A question was posed in this video–which side of history will you be on? Do you know? Do I know?
“It’s really embarrassing, when you think about it. Just the fact that people in this century were actually saying things like, ‘No, gays should not be allowed to marry,’ and were getting all up in arms about it, as if homosexuals weren’t full citizens or something. It’s insane.”
Another student asked, “If they thought it was the right thing to do, why didn’t President Clinton or Obama or whoever just say, ‘Hey, discriminating against gay people is wrong, so let’s let them get married’?”
Why isn’t it that simple? I’m not sure. For everyone out there who feels like they should be supportive of gay marriage, why don’t you come out in support of gay marriage? The Governor of Washington State recently explained one reason why she was against gay marriage for 7 years (and why she had a change of opinion): social pressure.
Years ago I participated in an online discussion forum for members of the LDS Church who “struggle” with “same-sex” or “same-gender attraction”. A member of the discussion forum shared an epiphany with the group that went something like this (not an exact quote):
I finally understand. The reason God has asked his prophets [leaders of the LDS Church] to speak out against same-sex marriage is because if same-sex marriage is allowed then God’s children will have fewer families to be born into.
To set the stage a little, not all faithful members of the LDS Church agree with the movement to stop same-sex marriage from becoming legal, and this is particularly true among faithful members of the Church who identify as gay, lesbian, and same-sex or same-gender attracted. I was met with some hostility when I pointed out the epiphany wasn’t logical. I think I was accused of being apostate because I didn’t agree with the logic.
I understand the author was likely speaking of the possibility that if gay marriage becomes legal, then quite possibly some men (gay) and women (lesbian) who would otherwise pursue opposite-sex marriages might pursue same-sex marriages instead. But the argument isn’t really logical because whether or not same-sex marriage is legal, straight couples (at least the ones who can and choose to along with the few accidentals) will continue to have children. In other words, the number of existing straight relationships will probably not increase of decrease when already existing gay relationships are legally recognized. Maybe there’s something I’m not understanding, so please comment if you would like to add to the discussion.
While discussing this on Facebook, someone pointed out the same argument (quoted above). I really like the response a friend made to this argument (minus Katy Perry being spoken of in bad light):
[Kim Kardashian, Sinead O’Connor, and Katy Perry] each publicly married and then publicly divorced in really short time (72 days, 18ish days, and a year or something like that). Those people threaten and destroy the sanctity of marriage and the sanctity of families. I’m not sure how you and Dan’s committed relationship affect my relationship with my spouse or theoretical children or the sanctity of my marriage.
Why is this discussion relevant? Dan talked about this in a beautiful post about my family and how relationships are often challenged because of the teaching of principle of tough love. Perhaps “tough love” is destroying families more than my relationship to Dan is destroying families. An anonymous blogger shared his fear that as the Church continues to argue that gay relationships are destroying families, families with a gay member will continue to be destroyed. Perhaps lobbying against certain kinds of families is destroying families. Years ago I participated in a discussion with a family who lost a family member to suicide. The note the family member left suggested he committed suicide due to the Church’s participation in the political process and ensuing discussions that took place within the walls LDS chapels. They were brought to tears when they talked about what it was like when they learned the Church was advocating for Prop. 8 and encouraging members of the Church to get involved. They worried that more gay Mormons would commit suicide. They were also deeply conflicted: they support the leaders of the LDS Church as their spiritual leaders but they also lost a child because of the Church’s involvement.
This discussion is also relevant because Republican presidential candidates are making similar arguments. Freedom to Marry asserted that Perry, Romney, and Gingrich (respectively) “declared that committed couples wanting to marry are part of a war against religion”, adoption agencies would be shut down if they don’t adopt out to same-sex couples, and that it is not possible to comprehend gay families as families so “we want to make it possible to have those things that are most intimately human between friends”. Rick Santorum is the poster child for the Republican party claiming he will forcibly divorce gay married couples.
Maybe the real threats to religious freedom, family, and child birth are not gay couples, but the people fighting against gay couples. In other words, maybe fighting against my freedoms decreases your freedoms: you can still have babies and go to church while Dan and I go to school, pay our bills, and file our (separate-but-equal) tax returns.
Finally, this discussion is relevant because, let’s be honest, the arguments against same-sex marriage aren’t really about adoption rights, the first amendment, or even tradition, as Cary Crall posited in BYU’s Daily Universe (which, of course, was later pulled from the paper). Crall asked what it’s all about and asserted:
The real reason is that a man who most of us believe is a prophet of God told us to support the amendment. We must accept this explanation, along with all its consequences for good or ill on our own relationship with God and his children here on earth. Maybe then we will stop thoughtlessly spouting reasons that are offensive to gays and lesbians and indefensible to those not of our faith.
An argument for traditional biblical marriage?
If it is your belief that God doesn’t want same-sex marriage, come out of the closet and say so. I’m okay with that. You must also realize that even if that is your belief, we live in a pluralistic society; not everyone shares your beliefs and it is not okay to require that everyone uphold your beliefs. If same-sex marriage becomes legal, you can still have babies and go to church.
If you’re not familiar with debates about gay marriage, they usually go something like this:
Gay man: I should have the right to marry.
Straight man: You do. No one is stopping you from marrying a woman.
Gay man: Well, the problem is, I’m not really attracted to women so…
Straight man: So stop complaining. It’s your choice and you choose not to marry a woman.
More direct debates usually go something like this:
Gay man: I should have the right to marry.
Straight person: No you shouldn’t, because if we let you marry who you want, what’s to stop other people from marrying a horse?
Gay man: No comment.
(But really. People actually use this claim to support their arguments against gay marriage).
In celebration of slippery slope arguments (and more), I’d like to share a cartoon and video. The cartoon explains, in the most simple language, the gay marriage debate. For all the duck lovers out there, the video uses very clear logic to demonstrate how the legalization of gay marriage will facilitate Scrooge McDuck fetishes.
An excellent blog post (see below) on marriage equality written by none other than Dan. I never thought about how stressful tax season will be for Dan and me this year. Hopefully reporting joint investments won’t be too much of a pain. But then again, regular taxes are a pain.