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.
No they won’t. Don’t flatter yourself or your religion. And no, churches in Denmark aren’t being forced to perform same-sex marriages.
An article at http://www.telegraph.uk.co that suggested churches will be forced to perform same-sex marriages is inaccurate.
The Church of Denmark is a state church, meaning it receives financial support from the government. When the government passed marriage equality, any institution receiving financial support from the government must perform same-sex marriage. However, there is a caveat in the law: priests opposed to same-sex marriage are not required to perform the ceremony; they simply direct the couple to a different church or priest who will perform the marriage. The LDS Church does not receive financial support from the government in Denmark and therefore is not required to perform same-sex marriages. Moreover, even if they did receive financial support from the government, they would simply direct the couple to a different church.
There is talk that the LDS Church is going to redefine marriage yet again. In fact, this redefinition would mean they will stop performing marriages altogether. Instead, they will refer to marriage (or unions) as a “sealing” and only perform sealings. If the talk is true, this might mean sealings performed in temples and marriages performed in meetinghouses will not be state-sanctioned. In other words, my marriage would be equivalent to an LDS marriage or sealing: none of us would receive any legal protection for having a ceremony. However, heterosexual (Mormon) couples could still obtain a marriage certificate from the state. This might be a good move for the LDS Church.
LDS temple in Salt Lake City, Utah
Regardless, even if things continue as is, the LDS Church won’t be required to perform same-sex marriages in temples or meetinghouses. Here’s why: they don’t even have to perform marriages for heterosexual members if they don’t want to. Couples who engage in pre-marital sex (even though they have the legal right to marry at a state level) aren’t allowed to marry in an LDS Church or temple. The fact that heterosexual marriage is legal does not dictate to the Church what they do within the Church. There is no reason to believe it is any different for homosexual couples.
Finally, remember how you’ve made gay and lesbian members feel unwelcome at church? They’re still going to feel unwelcome when same-sex marriage is recognized.
Will the legalization of same-sex marriage bring with it gay and lesbian members of the LDS Church who want to marry same-sex partners in the temple? No.
Gay couple kisses in front of the LDS temple in Salt Lake City, Utah to protest Proposition 8
I really like what this kid–apparently a Christian–had to say about marriage equality. I think he covers the topic with simple language while getting to the heart of the issue. He tells the story of a gay couple who parted in a hospital unable to say goodbye because same-sex marriage is not legal. Religion is a beautiful thing to me when it is used to improve lives and promote equality and social justice. As the kid in the video said, “The Mennonite Church has made it its mission to mirror the life of Jesus by working with the marginalized and weak–the outcasts of society… I believe that if he were here today, Jesus would be a champion for homosexuals just like he was a champion for women, for the poor, for the weak, and for the unloved.”
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.
unambiguous 