Mormons for Marriage
Hera is a lifelong member of the church currently raising two toddlers in California. Her political activism began with the Equal Rights Amendment and continues with efforts to protect the environment, teach her boys to be good citizens, and speak her mind wherever she is.
Why Mormons for Marriage?
I was driving through southeastern Idaho on my way home from a family vacation when I received the text message on my cell phone: “CA Supreme Court just legalized gay marriage.” We started flipping through radio channels, looking for a news station so we could hear the full story. Why is there never a news station when you need one?
We’d been waiting for this ruling for years, and I was joyous for my dear friends who were sure to take advantage of the ruling. When the Knight Initiative, Prop. 22, passed in California eight years ago, its constitutionality was immediately questioned. Although 61% of voters had supported the statutory change that defined marriage as between one man and one woman, voter turnout for that particular Primary election was low – only 7.5 million people, not even one-third of California’s 21.2 million registered voters, even showed up at the polls that day. (There were 4.6 million people who voted for the proposition and 2.9 million who voted against it.)
The Church was quite involved in the campaign process supporting Proposition 22. In my ward and stake, members were organized to walk precincts and call voters. This electioneering was incorporated into our mid-week youth and Relief Society activities. People were called in to bishop’s offices and asked to donate to the campaign, messages were read from the pulpit and signs supporting the proposition were passed out from the Cultural Hall after church meetings. At first, it was not quite clear whether the church’s involvement was coming from regional leaders or from Salt Lake City. By the time the election rolled around, though, nobody wondered any longer. We were told the direction was coming from the prophet himself.
While all this electioneering was happening, people were starting to squirm – was it legal for the church to be involved in political matters, even if they called the matters moral ones? Were bishops really asking members to donate to political campaigns? Were financial goals or assessments being made to various wards or stakes? Was there room for gay people in the church at all? Did they really threaten our homes, families and religion?
Sadly, some people, in their self-justified “calls to repentance” and in the sure knowledge of the righteousness and correctness of their position, took their zeal for all things good one step too far. Souls – and lives – were being lost. As the election came and went, those of us left behind had the task to clean up what was left of the mess. We needed to repair bridges with the community and we needed to convince non-members that we were not homophobic bigots, but mostly we needed to heal our own flocks. People felt unwelcome at church and unloved by God because of what they experienced during that election process.
Fast-forward not quite a decade, and we are re-visiting this issue once again. This time, though, the stakes are higher. This time we are amending the constitution - a document that is primarily for limiting governmental actions and defining citizens’ rights. Instead of preventing marriages, we will be ending marriages. And because of California’s domestic partnership laws, and broad adoption rights, children are found in many of these newlywed homes.
There are also more GLBT people, friends and family, LDS and not, who have come out to share their experiences.
Why me? Why now? I believe there is room for everyone in the church, and somebody needs to stand up and point out the spaces, even for those who don’t support the proposition at hand. The church says, in its document about the Divine Institution of Marriage, that members will “decide their own appropriate level of involvement in protecting marriage between a man and a woman.”
In order for people to decide what to do, they need information. LDS people are probably not going to go searching the web for sites like EqualityCA because there’s no “faithful” LDS tie-in. If they find signingforsomething, they’ll read the bitterness and see the pain and be able to take a stand, but they won’t be linked up to personal stories about homosexuals and the Church. That’s where Mormons for Marriage steps in.
The goal of Mormons for Marriage is to provide a place of support and issues education. It is not a place for heated debate or discussion. It is a place to provide community for members who might feel isolated in their ambivalence or opposition to Prop. 8.
My personal experience has been that as I have stepped forward to speak truth from my heart and soul on this and other issues, that others have joined me, either publicly or privately. It is incumbent upon those of us who have the ability to voice our opinions to do so in a loving manner that we may show by our examples that the Church – and the Gospel – is for everyone.
I know far too many people who have sacrificed too much at the altar of the LDS church’s stance on homosexuality. Too many marriages have been ruined, too many spouses, husbands and fathers who have lost each other, their children and their lives. Too many of my friends have died at their own hands or severely injured themselves trying. Too many of my friends have been beaten, shamed, driven away from home. Too many live in fear that their secrets will be known to the wrong people, and too many children of God grow up learning to hate themselves because they go to church and hear the message that people like them are abominations. Too many of my friends and family members have been cut off from the church they once loved (and often continue to appreciate) because their local bishops and stake presidents did not have the ability to understand them. Their pain is my pain.
After much prayer and consideration, I feel at peace with my Lord and Savior by following this path of love. Surely His grace is sufficient to cover me, and he accepts my best efforts as much as he accepts the widow’s mite. After all, it is all that I can give. It is all that I can do.
Thank you for the website, Hera- it is nicely done and informative.
While I am in perfect agreement about church members being politically informed and involved, everything in me revolts at being told how to vote from the pulpit. Wards should not be torn apart by political issues and each member should be supported in one’s respective right to consider a matter and choose for his/herself. I don’t believe that political action should ever be initiated under the church’s aegis (even if I personally agree with a particular stance, which in this case, I do not)- it’s private. It’s sad that a particular forum needed to be created to support members who feel and believe differently.
Voting is a matter of citizenship, personal revelation and privacy-not church mandated and sanctioned positions.
Comment by Kimberly — August 21, 2008 @ 5:23 am
Every time people start talking about gay marriage at church and how it’s wrong and the Church needs to take a stand, I like to to quote D&C 134:9:
We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.
(emphasis added)
That usually get people to thinking at least.
Comment by Julie F. — August 21, 2008 @ 7:31 am
gets* people thinking.
Sorry for the typo, the cat is rubbing on my hand while I type, trying to be all cute. It’s working.
Comment by Julie F. — August 21, 2008 @ 7:33 am
I loved this post. I am a gay woman. I also grew up Mormon and still feel very much Mormon and a part of the church. Thank you so much for this.
Comment by lemon drop — August 21, 2008 @ 7:42 am
A good topic for discussion! Ive been wondering how long it will take before it is recognized that being truly homosexual is not a choice, but a way that a person is born? How can we possibly be expected to condem a person for something that they are, when it is not their choice to be that way to begin with?
Comment by Ladybug — August 21, 2008 @ 7:59 am
As an faithful gay member of the Church I am encouraged to hear stories of the extra steps taken by Church leadership (local and global) to ensure that people know that the Church’s involvement in Prop 8 is no excuse for hateful or derogatory remarks against gays or the gay community. The issue can still be a difficult one for gay Mormons (or sympathetic straight Mormons) as occasional slur or hateful comment can still be heard, but this go round does seem to be an improvement over Prop 22.
Comment by Cliff — August 21, 2008 @ 8:02 am
Why would gays and lesbians want to be Mormon? No seriously, why? This is a family (traditional in all aspects, even theologically) centered religion. It is hard enough for singles and couples without kids that at least have a tangible theological hope in the next life. Most others are hoping for a pie-in-the-sky hostile theological take over.
As for taking away the rights of gays to marry, that is a bunch of lies. They can marry all they want. No one is going to put them in jail or even sue them over taking private vows. This is about tax breaks and forcing a religious statement by the government. Even polygamists (who really do have laws against them, even if not actually prosecuted directly these days) aren’t requesting those “rights” to be with who they want. I am much more sympathetic to the idea of “Civil Agreements” and so does many who are against gay marriage as that is a secular statement.
To call for full recognition of “Marriage” in this country is recognition of religious values, and not just legal questions. What happened with polygamy should be huge evidence of that. I say that crosses the so called “Church and State” seperation. In fact, I am much more sympathetic to the idea of abolishing any government recognition of marriage. Believe it or not, I was somewhat disgusted that I had to sign a piece of paper for the State for me to take my wife to the Temple and be sealed.
Comment by Jettboy — August 21, 2008 @ 8:31 am
Great post, Hera. My thoughts have evolved on same-sex marriage. At first, I was adamant that the right to marry is not subject to majoritarian voter approval. Now, I have more confidence in the democratic process, and I think it’s crucial that the public examines the issue of same-sex marriage together. Respectfully and honestly. Proposition 8 gives us the opportunity to do that.
That said, the experience in Hawaii gives me pause. I strongly disagree with enacting a constitutional amendment to prevent same-sex marriage, and while I believe the democratic process is important, I hope respectful discussion and debate will lead us to the right outcome.
Comment by ECS — August 21, 2008 @ 8:31 am
Jettboy, you say a lot of erroneous and hurtful things in your comment, and I don’t have time to address them all, but I do want to point out that homosexuals _have_ been penalized for participating in private commitment ceremonies. In one case, for example, the Georgia Attorney General’s office rescinded a job offer to a lesbian who participated in such a ceremony with her partner in an Atlanta synagogue.
If the right to marry includes the right of convicted criminals to marry in prison, and the right of deadbeat parents who refuse to support the children they already have to marry for the fifth and sixth time, then surely the right to marry extends to those who wish to marry a partner of the same sex.
Comment by ECS — August 21, 2008 @ 8:38 am
Sorry ECS, but no it doesn’t extend to them. Marriage is, as I have said, a religious and not a secular based law! Perhaps it should be that no one should be “allowed” to marry - period! Of course, I mean in the recognition of coupling by the State. As for your example, that is a case where I would defend the rights of the lesbian to get that job. That doesn’t mean I recognize the marriage, but that I recognize job descrimination.
Comment by Jettboy — August 21, 2008 @ 8:47 am
Jettboy- you’re missing a few steps. Whether you believe marriage is a religious institution rather than a secular institution is immaterial to the Prop 8 debate. The current debate is whether the state should recognize same-sex marriages, not whether the state should get out of the marriage business altogether.
It’s interesting that many conservatives would rather see the dissolution of state-sanctioned marriages than to extend the right to marry to same-sex couples.
Comment by ECS — August 21, 2008 @ 8:53 am
That is because conservatives see it as a Religious institution and not a State institution. When the State changes the status of marriage, conservatives see it as the State making a Religious claim. They would rather see the State leave the definition of marriage a private matter than have the State essentially make a religious declaration.
Comment by Jettboy — August 21, 2008 @ 9:08 am
Thank you all for the comments so far.
Jettboy, as to why gays/lesbians would want to be members of the Mormon church, well, I suspect it’s probably for some of the same reasons straight people want to be members. Remember that many gays were born into the church and have strong familial and community ties just like many singles and childless couples. Unfortunately, the church doesn’t have a good history of making a safe and welcoming space for GLBT people and their family members, and many do leave, either of their own accord, or by “invitation” from their bishops or stake presidents (via excommunication).
I would encourage you to check out the video links at both Mormons for Marriage and LDSHomosexuality if you want to hear, first-hand, why some gay people want to remain affiliated with the church.
Comment by Hera — August 21, 2008 @ 9:14 am
For a list of personal videos and stories on these issues, check out:
http://ldshomosexuality.com/
Comment by LDS Homosexuality — August 21, 2008 @ 9:15 am
Jettboy makes arguments that are typical of a person in a privileged class that is about to lose some of their exclusive right and/or benefits. They seek to exploit fear and base prejudice to deny rights to others and keep them to themselves. It has happened all throughout history, why should this be any different?
Personally, I don’t think the church’s main argument is one based on homophobia. I think the church is more concerned that this may pave the way for polygamy to be recognized as valid marriage at some point in the future. And the church does NOT want to open that can of worms…
Comment by Phouchg — August 21, 2008 @ 9:42 am
brilliant post hera. thank you for all the information.
Comment by G — August 21, 2008 @ 9:43 am
Hera, I’m so glad to see this posted today. I just returned from visiting my sister in LA last week and their stake is actively involved in the politics of it all (at the church’s request) with phone calls and door knocking. They are even asked to donate money. When I found this out I was shocked and kind of sickened. I had no idea the church would instert itself so strongly when I had thought that my political leanings were my own. Interesting to hear that the same thing was going on 10 years ago.
Thanks so much.
Amy
Comment by Amy — August 21, 2008 @ 9:44 am
For more information about the LDS Church’s involvement in Same-Sex Marriage politics, check here, here and here.
Comment by Hera — August 21, 2008 @ 10:12 am
I was in California 10 years ago, and the things I saw and heard at church were what started me thinking about my testimony and belief, because they were so incongruous with what I thought the church was. It sounds like the activities now are even more explicitly political, so I can’t imagine what it’s like for members who live there and have reservations about the church’s involvement in this issue.
Jettboy - you seem to want it both ways - you want to deny same-sex couples the tax benefits granted by the government to married couples, yet you also claim to want the goverment to get out of the marriage business. Are you ready to give up those tax and legal benefits yourself?
As to why homesexuals would want to be members of the LDS church, I would presume it’s because the LDS church claims to be the restored church of God on this earth, to hold the only keys and teachings that can lead people back to God. I can only imagine that a gay person who believes this also hopes that just as the church was wrong the race issue and eventually came around, they will do the same on the issue of homosexuality. It must be horrible to feel that the church you believe is TRUE also condemns you at every turn, but I don’t think this is a new phenomenon.
Comment by Cheeriogal — August 21, 2008 @ 10:18 am
It’s also interesting to compare the current/recent actions the church has taken regarding same-sex marriage to its actions opposing the Equal Rights Amendment. For an interesting history of the church and the ERA, I’d recommend Martha Sonntag Bradley’s book, Pedestals & Podiums.
Comment by Hera — August 21, 2008 @ 10:18 am
I’m very close to Jettboy’s thinking. I am against marriage period. Gay marriage is going in the wrong direction. I would wager that most of them do not have prenups but most states do not recognise them anyway.
I want the state out of marriage. ‘ Marriage’ to go back to religous institues with no legal status with the state. Just ceremony like communion or confirmation or baptism.
Civil Unions with written renewable contracts licensed by the state the only legal couplings recognized by the state. Strictly contractual.
Marriage is a patriarchial religious system to create dependency of women and to own the product of her body. We are so past that antiquated thinking in this country even in our law. Child support is mandatory for both parents.
Divorce would be eliminated. Without marriage there can be no divorce. To me marriage is forever. It was to me when I married in a church. The state however had the right to dissolve a religious contract because it gave the church the right to sign the marriage license.
Lots of discussion yet to be had re the contents of a standard WRITTEN contract but we have to start. These contracts get written but now they are called divorcee decrees.
Comment by Ruby — August 21, 2008 @ 10:18 am
While people that are religious see marriage as something inherently religious, the governmental view of marriage is purely a secular one as evidenced by the laws definition of marriage:
A contract made in due form of law, by which two free persons reciprocally engage to live with each other during their joint lives, in the union which ought io exist between husband and wife. By the term free persons in this definition is meant, not only that they are free and not slaves, but also that they are clear of all bars to a lawful marriage.
To make a valid marriage, the parties must be willing to contract, able to contract, and have actually contracted.
They must be willing to contract. Those persons, therefore, who have no legal capacity in point of intellect, to make a contract, cannot legally marry, as idiots, lunatics, and infants; males under the age of fourteen, and females under the age of twelve; and when minors over those ages marry, they must have the consent of their parents or guardians.
Black’s Law Dictionary by Garner Edition/Year: 8th ed., 2004 (Standard Ed.)ISBN: 9780314151995
Comment by Julie F. — August 21, 2008 @ 10:19 am
I apologize for this, but one of my buttons was pushed. I’ll be done in a minute
Marriage has meant, in the course of it’s lifetime, a good many things. For example, it could (circa 1305) refer to the money a father gave his son when he took a wife, so the “marriage” was not the act of joining together with a spouse, but was the cash that exchanged hands. (This was also a term that could be applied to a dowry from a woman, so could lead to the sentence, in Middle English of course “Man, she’s hot and she’s got an enormous marriage!”) It could also mean a prospective spouse, as in “my father invited another marriage over tonight, but I decided I didn’t like him so we sent him away.” It’s got a figurative sense as well, that clearly doesn’t have much to do with gender. I submit to you Sir Philip Sidney, in 1590 “The cruell villayne forced the sworde with another blowe to diuorce the faire marriage of the head and body.” I’m assuming that my head and my body are the same gender. The assertion that marriage is a religious institution is (and I am sorry if this sounds rude) ignoring human history pre-1800. In fact, in the renaissance and before, it was a legal marriage if you, in the presence of witnesses agreed to be married, and even if you did it privately (without witnesses) and then had sex, you weren’t guilty of fornication because you were legally betrothed. Unless you were rich, the church didn’t enter into it much until you went and baptized your first child.
Please return to your regularly scheduled discussion
Comment by Beth — August 21, 2008 @ 10:36 am
ARG! Its lifetime. Not it’s. Its.
Comment by Beth — August 21, 2008 @ 10:37 am
“Voting is a matter of citizenship, …”
Comment by Kimberly
I would add secular. That was the problem for me as a member of a religious institute. I had no vote in the church. It still irritates me that women especially stay in organizations that completly shuts them out.
Comment by Ruby — August 21, 2008 @ 10:38 am
Oh Hera. Thank you. I received the first two, but surely not the last, emails from family this week with the encouragement to print off Protect Marriage posters and display them at every turn. There was also one that compared the war in heaven to this ‘War in California’ - I found that one particularly alarming. I find myself in a precarious position. I am not an active Mormon, but have enormous ties to the LDS community including a family who are mostly LDS. Given that I no longer attend I feel so nervous about entering into a ‘conversation’ about the church’s direction re: SSM. Mostly because I know they’ll see my points as invalid coming from someone who doesn’t know the Truth. Your post, as well as the information from Mormons for Marriage has given me great comfort. Not to mention that I feel I can start discussing this now with family and providing a place for them to reference that isn’t attached to my beliefs. I cannot tell you how much I needed this today.
Comment by Shelly — August 21, 2008 @ 10:41 am
I choose to oppose gay marriage. I think that it will contribute to the downfall of the family. While in individual cases it might be “better” to have gay marriage, for future society at large it is harmful to undermine marriage in this way.
I don’t view this as imposing my morality on the government. I view proponents of gay marriage as imposing their beliefs on society by changing the definition of marriage that has been in effect for thousands of years.
Comment by jks — August 21, 2008 @ 10:53 am
Admit it. Many of you who don’t live in CA are breathing a huge sigh of relief that this is something you don’t have to deal with
Well, as California goes, so will go the nation.
Some very interesting posts address this issue over at Times and Seasons. You should check them out.
My problems with Prop 8 stem from the majority of the arguments used against it. LDS who are using scare tactics and faulty reasoning are setting themselves up. Homosexuals are not bad people. Homosexuals are not inherently bad parents. LDS homosexuals who choose to live the law of chastity are, imo, sacrificing more than anyone gives them credit for. There is room for homosexuals in the church, as there is room for bigots. Everyone needs the atonement.
Now, here’s the conundrum. IF you believe in modern revelation, if you sustain local and area authorities, if you believe that there may be consequences from SSM that you may not understand or may not occur in your lifetime, if you make it a matter of personal prayer, and you are being told by your religious leaders that this is an important issue, what do you do?
Comment by Lupita — August 21, 2008 @ 11:00 am
For those of you who don’t know, Prop 22 passed ten years ago. 61 percent of Californians determined that marriage should be between a man and a woman. LDS were specifically encouraged to participate, along with many other denominations. To be clear, LDS are not the only ones who have been asked to participate in campaigns regarding moral issues (e.g. gambling, anti-p*rn, etc.)
A few months ago, some judges ruled 4 to 3 that preventing SSM was unconstitutional. Judges ruled against the existing law. I’m no lawyer (obviously) so feel free to correct and inform yourself officially. Hence, the genesis of Prop 8, which is worded “eliminating the right of same-sex couples to marry”. Eliminating rights–sounds like something you want to be doing, huh?
I know some people who are using this as the last straw to break ties with the LDS church. That is sad to me on many levels.
My question is, is marriage a right? I don’t know.
Comment by Lupita — August 21, 2008 @ 11:16 am
Getting the government totally out of the marriage business isn’t the issue at this point. Only granting our current form of marriage to every one or denying it to some.
I am in favor of marriage for all people rather than just living together without the legal contract. If it is “more moral” for heterosexuals to have a legal contract, then why is it less moral for gay couples. The government already can’t prevent them from living together, so either we give them legal recognition and rights or not. I don’t understand why them having a legal ceremony and legal rights as a couple is somehow supposed to make things worse.
Granting gays the right to marry would not change the fact that a religion can refuse to marry anyone they want to refuse to marry. But if one religion refuses, a couple can go to another religion or a justice of the peace. To say they are not given the right at all to form this legal contract is discrimination.
And until we separate the legal contract from the religious contract, thus denying all religions any right to legally form a union or “marry” two people, we are stuck with the system we have. We call it marriage, but it is still a legal contract as well as a moral contract and a religious ceremony for those who are religious. If we get the government totally out of it, who is going to judge contested divorces or can a person just leave a marriage by changing churches? We need the legal contract as much as the religious contract, so the choice really would be to get “marriage” or civil contracts out of the hands of churches and separate the the legal from the religious.
I don’t think most Mormons want to completely separate out the legal ceremony from the religious ceremony because that would have an effect on temple marriage. It would become in the US like itis in Europe where the “marriage” or civil union has to be preformed outside of the temple because it is done by the government and the sealing only is done in the temple.
Personally, I am in favor of such a system. But that isnt’ the issue currently in California.
Comment by alas — August 21, 2008 @ 11:19 am
Hera, I forgot to thank you for the link. Very interesting.
Comment by Lupita — August 21, 2008 @ 11:22 am
Alas: what is the present written legal contract? I don’t recall having any when I married in Ohio. As far as I know there is none in Texas. Does your state have one?
Comment by Ruby — August 21, 2008 @ 11:30 am
Lupita, thank you for your information. You will note that in the original post, there is some background about the Prop. 22 campaign and results of the election. Perhaps you missed those details when you were reading originally.
As to the genesis of Prop. 8, long before the LDS church was involved in it, a coalition of churches and the folks who originally created Prop. 22 were working hard to gather enough signatures to get Prop. 8 on the ballot. That it was approved for the ballot a few weeks after the judges’ ruling was coincidental. While getting an initiative onto the ballot in California is quite easy compared to other states, it does take time to gather signatures and to check those signatures and qualify them for the ballot.
As for the wording of the proposition, there has been some confusion. In California, voters receive pamphlets describing all the propositions on the ballot. As each proposition is approved for inclusion on the ballot, the state writes a summary of the proposed legislation and describes what the legislation will do and how it will impact the state’s budget. Part of the summary is the title of the proposition as it will appear on the ballot. This summary is extremely helpful for long and confusing legislative issues. While the full text of propositions is always included in the back of the voter information pamphlet, most voters probably don’t even notice the legalese that follows the ballot summaries and pro/con arguments.
Since Prop. 8 is so short (only 14 words) the summary is longer than the proposed amendment.
There’s been some confusion about the summary title and changes made to it by California’s Attorney General. By law, a proposition’s language (in this case the 14 words) cannot change after its been approved for the ballot. Since people signed petitions to get those specific 14 words onto the ballot, that language must remain the same.
In between the time the petition’s signatures were gathered and the ballot summaries were finalized, the Supreme Court interpreted California’s Constitution to say that it overrides any laws preventing same-sex couples to marry. As a result of the ruling, the summary title of Prop 8 (that it was a limit on marriage) became inaccurate, since the law as it exists now allows same-sex couples to marry.
Although some have attacked the Attorney General’s change in the ballot summary title, it is an accurate reflection of how the law currently stands. Same-sex couples have the right to marry in California. Proposition 8, if passed, will take away that right.
Comment by Hera — August 21, 2008 @ 11:39 am
JKS - just because something has been in effect for thousands of years, does that make it right? Thousands of years ago, the Bible said to cut off the hands of those who steal. Should we still do that? And, if you had read all of the comments before yours, you would see that the legal definition of marriage (which is a contract, not a religious ceremony) has nothing to do with man or woman, but rather two persons. Law is always going to be evolutionary, just like it is in the church.
I’m a 26 year old woman who was married in the temple at 19, divorced at 25. I have 7 siblings, some of whom choose to no longer have a relationship with me because of the “sinful” choice I made to get divorced. As well, many of my friends (i.e. ‘perfect’ Mormons) will no longer speak to me because of my choice to get divorced. Often times I was told, “I wish you would have had kids so you would have had to stay together” or “It doesn’t matter how unhappy you are, you made a contract with the Lord and you shouldn’t ever break that.”
Luckily, I saw the light and have left the church. Which brings me to the question that jettboy asked. Why in the world would anyone who is GLBT want to be a member of the church? I do look up to their patience in hoping that the church will do something more about GLBT relationships, but do they really believe that they have to suffer with not being themselves for their whole lives? Is that really what the plan of happiness is even about? Being someone you are not just so someday you can (hopefully) be happy? I obviously don’t believe that being a GLBT person is wrong. What I think is wrong is denying yourself of being your authentic self, or who you really are. I think it’s heartbreaking to see GLBT people suffering, trying to hold on to this church that doesn’t even want them in it anyhow!
Comment by Kay — August 21, 2008 @ 11:39 am
Kay, when I left the church I felt like I had gone to that Limbo of the catholics. I was not ostracized by family etc as my older sister was but I lost a whole community. I had to create a network of support from scratch as tho I was dropped here from another planet.
Human have a need to belong. I doubt that Mormon gays are mormon converts. They likely feel that they belong to the community in which they were raised. As the FLDS boys do until they are ejected.
I would have stayed a lot longer in my church if I had been a equal in a democratic organisation. No church allows for equality or democracy. They are heirarchies and dictatorships.
Comment by Ruby — August 21, 2008 @ 12:13 pm
33. Uh yeah, I have a gift for redundancy
Comment by Lupita — August 21, 2008 @ 12:16 pm
Thanks for the post. I have felt saddened and frustrated by the Church’s activist anti-gay activities. I have felt very alone with my feelings. I am glad I am not. As an active California Mormon, I have felt like running out of church when plans to fight gay marriage are outlined and ‘justified’ as a bitter fight for our moral values. Such a position feels hypocritical to me, a born- in- the- church member with polygamous ancestry on both sides of my family back to the earliest days of the Church. How can we as LDS be asked to fight to stop people from engaging in a non-traditional form of marriage, when we practiced non-traditional marriage ourselves, and complained and cried persecution when others fought against us because of it?
I feel like we are being asked to become just like the tormentors of our early Mormon ancestors, intolerant and mean-spirited, all in the name of ‘morality’.
I am distressed that we are actually collaborating with a stongly evangelical organization to do this, the very people who hate Mormons and actively preach against us and torment us at every turn, even picketing an harassing us in front of our temples. I feel like Alice in “Through the Looking Glass”. It doesn’t make sense to me. Denying gays marriage should not be our fight, irregardless of our feelings about the morality of it. The old adage seems to apply here—People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
Comment by Wendy — August 21, 2008 @ 12:18 pm
Kay -
I believe it’s a horrible shame that your family has reacted to your divorce the way it has. In many ways, the same shaming happens to GLBT people much too often when they come out to their LDS family members and friends. Some of them internalize the belief you shared, “It doesn’t matter how unhappy you are, you made a contract with the Lord and you shouldn’t ever break that.” Perhaps that is part of the reason some feel they must stay in the church.
I think it is up to all of us - in or out of the church - to support our brothers and sisters in their quests for spiritual development and growth. For some, that means walking away from the church, and for others, it means staying. I believe we need to find ways to respect each other’s journeys and not imply that our ways (seeing the light) are the best ways to fulfillment and peace.
The Lord reaches out to all of us - single, married, widowed, divorced, gay, straight, questioning - in many ways. Sometimes the reaching out is done by real people like all of us when we make room for everyone at the Lord’s table. Sometimes we have to stand in for the Lord and hug our neighbors on His behalf. He’s invited each of us to the feast, and how rude would it be for one guest to tell other guests they are not welcome at the party.
Comment by Hera — August 21, 2008 @ 12:26 pm
downfall of the family?
ha ha ha ha…laughing all the way home…
let’s outlaw adultery too. and divorce because that definitely contributes to the downfall of the family
and while we are at it, moms who work out of the home, and interracial marriage
and couples who choose not to have children, and couples that only have one child
hell, lets be against and fight against anything that doesn’t fit your religious views of what is right.
i’m so very tired of this argument…
so very tired of my religion right now…
Comment by mfranti — August 21, 2008 @ 12:28 pm
I’m pretty much with Mfranti. you know what I think damages families?
Taking a lifelong committed couple who live together with kids and a mortgage and calling themselves married and telling them that no matter all that, they’re not married, they never can be married, they don’t get the tax rates and inheritance laws and visitation benefits and insurance policies that the rest of us do, because a bunch of people of some other religion are opposed to their family even existing.
but they do exist. I know those parents and their lovely kids, and they ARE married, and I have no right to say they’re not, and I’d be a real jerk to say they shouldn’t be - those kids are HERE and they deserve a solid home as much as my kids do.
Comment by cchrissyy — August 21, 2008 @ 12:40 pm
mfranti, I’m with you, tired, very tired of my religion and this argument about an individual’s right to marry.
I have problems with the inconsistent positions the Church as taken in my State. During legislation a year or so ago, they supported a bill that would allow 2nd cousins to marry - so long as either individual showed they could not conceive children. Then in the same session, the supported a bill to amend the constitution that made marriage only between a man and a woman. Using the religious belief that the purpose of marriage is for procreation and essential to God’s plan of salvation. Sorry, but they just backed a bill that permitted marriage so long as one or both individuals could show they couldn’t procreate.
So the Church has to come up with better reasoning for me.
Comment by Abby — August 21, 2008 @ 12:47 pm
@Kay: “Being someone you are not just so someday you can (hopefully) be happy? I obviously don’t believe that being a GLBT person is wrong. What I think is wrong is denying yourself of being your authentic self, or who you really are. I think it’s heartbreaking to see GLBT people suffering, trying to hold on to this church that doesn’t even want them in it anyhow!”
Kay, speaking from my personal experience as a gay woman trying to reconcile these things with the church- yeah, I did “leave”. However, I still very much am tied into the Mormon community with my friends and family (I’m from Provo so it’s pretty much a no-brainer) but I just couldn’t handle the weekly onslaught of homophobic rhetoric from people in a spiritual setting. Someday there may be a place for me to worship back in the Mormon church, for now I just study these things on my own and pray the way I was taught.
God knows who I am, and God is the one who made me. I’m not going to stress out about the way the authorities of the church perceive “gayness” or whatnot, just live my life, work hard, serve others, be a good friend.
I guess when it comes down to it, I’m not trying to hold onto the church- or change it anymore at this point, I am just wondering why the church doesn’t want to hold onto people like me.
Comment by lemon drop — August 21, 2008 @ 12:58 pm
this is about a tax paying, law abiding, participating “all men are created equal” citizen of THIS country choosing to enter into a legal and binding contract that says that they will be legally responsible for each other and any children they choose to bring into their marriage.
when, i say, when? are the homophobic bigots going to see them as humans, individuals, neighbors, instead of just seeing the mechanics of their sex lives and then hiding guise of their religion/morality to justify their hatred and discomfort?
Comment by mfranti — August 21, 2008 @ 12:59 pm
the last line of this breaks my heart.
i will hold on to people like you. and so will many of the good women on this board.
Comment by mfranti — August 21, 2008 @ 1:01 pm
Well said mfranti.
Comment by Abby — August 21, 2008 @ 1:02 pm
Abby,
I am curious about the legislation mention about cousins? Do you have and citations? What bill was it? How do you know the curch backed it?
50% of the world’s population marries 1st cousins. There are NO statistically threatening biological anomilies that come from marrying 1st cousins–so I don’t get the necessity of the law personally.
Comment by mami — August 21, 2008 @ 1:04 pm
mfranti - I’m going to look it up and see what I can find.
Comment by Abby — August 21, 2008 @ 1:16 pm
Still working out how I feel about this article. I agree that homosexuals shouldn’t feel like cast outs in the church. In fact Elder Holland’s talk gives a beautiful example of why we should love and support those who are attracted to the same $ex.
I agree with the proposition. I feel the First Presidency has lined out many beautiful things in The Family: A Proclamation to the World.
I had no problem with the church using the pulpit for politics. I agreed with their position and voted yes on the proposition. I guess I don’t have much of a stomach for people not being able to decide things on their own. Whether you agree with the this issue or that, decide on you own. Really, I make my own decisions. I take into account the information I have been given, and sometimes I even look further into it to see if there is anything I am missing. Why is is such a big deal to decide something by yourself? So what if they said it over the pulpit or not, make your own freaking choice.
I never took it that the church was telling me what to do or how to vote. They wanted all the members to understand where their position was if they didn’t get that from reading The Family: A Proclamation to the World . There has never been an secrecy as to how and where they stand. The misconception is in the People, the congregation not understanding the full depth of the Proclamation, and not understanding words like Elder Hollands.
Comment by Sunshine — August 21, 2008 @ 1:52 pm
Neither my husband nor I agree with the Mormon Church’s stand on the marriage issue as we find it outdated, illogical, and unfair. There is not a shred of evidence that gay marriage will negatively impact families. This issue is nothing more than a smear tactic used to generate fear in an effort to control, defer attention away from issues with which the Church does not want to deal, and gain approval from certain established bases. We deeply resent being told by the Church what to think and how to vote and will act according to what we feel is right!
Comment by emma — August 21, 2008 @ 2:06 pm
sunshine, your comment gave me a sort of bittersweet memory; me vehemanetly trying to profess/prove LDS’s Christianity to my anti (evangelical) grandparents. I think I used the exact same line “the misconception is in the People. the congregations not understanding…”
well… I feel much differently about it now. This push by the church for this vote is very much a part of the same long-term bid to be accepted by the right-wing Christian factions in this country.
and the leaders are very much behind it. the congregations follow.
Comment by G — August 21, 2008 @ 2:14 pm
mfranti- I am soooo tired too. Exhausted.
lemon drop- hugs and support from me
Hera- I really like the website and love your comments and write up on the bill. Thank You.
PS. I am very glad to not be California right now.
Comment by Miles — August 21, 2008 @ 2:22 pm
I have heard this phrase a lot at Church and it really chaps my hide , the scriptures, you know- the ones we’re supposed to read everyday? Those say this is wrong.
See D&C 134:9, a revelation given to Joseph Smith sustained by the first presidency and voted on by the people to become those very same scriptures that we say are so sacred today.
Comment by Julie F. — August 21, 2008 @ 2:25 pm
G, of course the leaders are behind the push for the proposition. I was once one that thought as a church member I should hate all gay and lesbians. I should cast them out, so to speak. Then, I read articles like Elder Hollands, and Elder Oaks and realized how absolutely awful I have been.
I am still unsure about my line. If you were to ask me why gay and lesbians shouldn’t have the same rights as heterosexuals, I wouldn’t have an answer for you. I personally feel like the whole Insurance world is absolute BS. They take advantage of so many people it makes me sick. I don’t know how to fix that, but I know I agree with the proposition, and not because the SP told me too. I am such a hot headed person I wouldn’t care if he demanded that I vote…if I didn’t want to, I wouldn’t.
You example of the leaders pushing, just reminds me of the way people follow the president of the US blindly. When people vote, they vote for, what they think are the two best options, when in reality they all suck. The reason they do this is the same reason I think you might be giving, most people don’t want to put in the real effort it takes to make the best choice possible.
Comment by Sunshine — August 21, 2008 @ 2:33 pm
Great post, Hera. I have been struggling with my feelings about the church’s involvement with SS-marriage, as well. I don’t see how allowing others to the legal protections of marriage demeans my heterosexual marriage.
I do have a theological question. As I was in the SL temple endowment ceremony, I pondered the wording of the ceremony. If SS marriage is made legal and lawful, will the covenant wording need to change? If anyone can answer this without getting into sacred ground, I’d appreciate it.
Comment by HMR — August 21, 2008 @ 2:36 pm
I think because the church is true probably covers most of them. At least for me, a married straight guy.
There are many many things (so many…) about the church that annoy me to death, but I’ve had experiences that teach me it is true. So now we move on to the enduring to the end part. I don’t have to fit in, I just have to obey the commandments, partake of the sacrament and other ordinances, and worship best I can. I can’t even let the church take the church from me.
Early in my adult life, I discovered that there are as many people active in spite of church programs as because of them. But active they are.
This is one of those very annoying things and if I were in California I’d be lying very low at church and spending lots of time in hallways during classes trying to find an unhappy little kid to amuse.
Comment by Jim Donaldson — August 21, 2008 @ 2:42 pm
HMR, I am not sure what you’re referring to there. Are you thinking that gay couples would be sealed in the temple if Prop 8 passes? Several emails circulated in California have claimed that we’d be forced to marry gay couples in the temple, but that’s untrue. The California Supreme Court ruling specifically says that it does not change religious practices. I know that there are some who don’t trust that– but think of it this way– marriage between a male and a female is legal everywhere, and we haven’t yet been forced to let anyone marry in the temple who doesn’t meet our guidelines for worthiness. Nothing would change there.
On a different note, I hope that at the very least readers of this blog will take the time to watch some of the videos that mormonsformarriage links to. I think that once you have a human face to associate with this issue, you begin to have a better understanding.
Comment by Paula — August 21, 2008 @ 2:51 pm
Paula,
I think she was getting at how the temple promise of chastity would be interpreted or updated in a world where a gay member in attendance might have an honest-to-goodness legal spouse.
A total side issue, and one that is already applicable in the states countries that have gay marriage, and a moot issue as long as married gay LDS members are prevented from getting a TR in the first place.
Comment by cchrissyy — August 21, 2008 @ 3:02 pm
Thanks for the clarification cchrissyy.
Comment by Paula — August 21, 2008 @ 3:12 pm
Okay, so in response to this comment that I made, I would like to clarify what I meant by politics. I meant any issue that arises that has to do with the sanctity of family I don’t mind hearing over the pulpit.
It isn’t who to vote for, who not to, what party I should belong too, and there was never a moment I felt as though my temple recommend was in jeopardy.
Comment by Sunshine — August 21, 2008 @ 3:15 pm
I openly confess my ignorance. Are there any LDS SSM couples, say in MA or outside the U.S.?
And, could a bishop be sued for not performing a SSM ceremony?
Honest inquiries–anyone know?
Comment by Lupita — August 21, 2008 @ 3:15 pm
Sunshine - The Church has donated in the past to defeat same-sex marriage in Alaska and Hawaii. Notably, the $500,000 donation in the Alaskan campaign was a significant portion of all of the money donated to the cause at the time. Someone would have to do a little more digging to find out whether that money was tithing money or not.
This time around in California, the church is relying mostly on individual member donations of time and money. The pro-8 cause is benefiting heavily by the easy-to-organize structure of LDS volunteers - not many organizations can ask for thousands of volunteers, train them, and have them operating smoothly in less than a couple of weeks. I have a vague memory somewhere of reading that the church was planning to donate a sum of money itself before Election Day, but I’d have to check my notes to confirm that.
HMR - the temple change possibilities are an interesting side note, so it is interesting to consider. My guess would be that those who enter into gay marriages would face church discipline the same way adults desiring sex-change operations would/do, and that potential converts would not be baptized, along the lines of polygamists in Africa who are legally married to more than one wife.
Do a Google search for Buckley Jeppson, an LDS man living in the Washington, DC area, who married his partner in Canada to see how his case was handled. The kids are waking up and demanding some attention, or I’d do it for you
Comment by Hera — August 21, 2008 @ 3:19 pm
Here’s a link to Buckley’s website:
http://buckandmike.com/
And he was on mormonstories awhile back:
http://mormonstories.org/?p=79
Lupita, here is Kaimi’s discussion of some of the legal aspects of Prop 8, including some questions about temple marriage:
http://ldshomosexuality.com/?p=168
I’ve never heard of a bishop being sued for refusing to perform someone’s marriage, and I’m sure that bishops have refused to perform marriages for heterosexual couples in the past.
Comment by Paula — August 21, 2008 @ 3:27 pm
This is seriously a great website. I love the thoughtful opinions and stories shared here.
There are so many amazing people in the church- and I know many people want to carefully think things through, pray about them, think about them. That’s what you have to keep doing. It’s all about the conversation.
Comment by lemon drop — August 21, 2008 @ 3:38 pm
A few here have said that they are glad they are not in California. I live in AZ and me and my husband were called by the Stake Executive Secretary to meet with the Stake President at HIS house. When we got there, turns out the SP has been asked to solicit funds from our Stake to help with Prop. 8. He also said that he has been given a quota from SLC to fill and needs to keep track of how much each person donates. Stake members are being given an amount to donate, if they are able.
We were told by our Bishop, on the sly, that there are many stakes in AZ being issued quotas and stakes were choosing people to ask to donate from tithing records. I don’t like these tactics. I thought the church was supposed to stay out of politics.
Comment by Jane — August 21, 2008 @ 4:05 pm
I just want to clarify that ProtectMarriage.com was not started in CA. It was started years ago, and fights to protect traditional marriage around the country. While it’s main focus right now is on the CA initiative, it is entirely possible some of the funds will go to fight for or against gay-marriage initiatives in states like AZ and Florida this fall.
Comment by mami — August 21, 2008 @ 4:09 pm
The solicitation of funds is hard to fathom, I know, and many people are concerned about it. A member of our stake presidency took the last 15 minutes of Sacrament Meeting this past week to speak specifically about the proposition and what we should do to support it. He pointed out that there were donation forms and envelopes in the foyers and that we should consider giving generously - and that we should be sure to fill in the ward/stake information on the donation forms. Protectmarriage has donation forms that do not request ward and stake information, but they’ve made special forms for LDS members - obviously the LDS donations are being tracked for some reason.
Church members are more than willing to donate, too. Between August 6 and August 19, ProtectMarriage.com has received $76,500 just from people I know in my stake and a couple of neighboring stakes - a small minority of the people on the Secretary of State’s website. That is only donations of $1,000 or more, and doesn’t include the smaller donations which will be reported en masse later in the election cycle.
I don’t know if I’m glad I know about those donations or not. I just hope the donors are as generous with their fast offerings as they are with their political donations.
Comment by Hera — August 21, 2008 @ 4:22 pm
Wonderful post. I would feel so conflicted if I lived in CA and was asked to actively campaign against same-sex marriage since I believe that civil marriage and temple marriage are two different things.
And Jettboy, I surely hope that you didn’t take your wife to the temple. I hope that she chose to exercise her agency in her informed decision to marry you and walk into the temple with you so that you could celebrate your love together.
Comment by Slarue — August 21, 2008 @ 4:42 pm
“I choose to oppose gay marriage. I think that it will contribute to the downfall of the family.”
Can you please be more specific as to what you think will occur to the institution of the family to cause its “downfall”? If families cease to exist (is that what you mean?), what will replace them?
I’m sorry, but the phrase “the downfall of the family” has no meaning for me. I have no idea what is meant by it.
The only way “the downfall of the family” can occur is if something comes along to supplant it which is actually better for the people who otherwise would have been participants in a family structure. I can’t conceive of any such replacement institution or structure.
Comment by Mark N. — August 21, 2008 @ 4:45 pm
Sigh….
Looking at that site Hera provided, and finding names of people I know made this even more real.
Sunshine - I’m glad that you’re so honest to share with us your journey to understanding homosexuality. If we could move so many people at least PAST the notion that we should cast them out. I guess the best question I would ask you in regards to your search for why homosexuals should have the same rights as heteros, is why should you? I don’t mean this in a dukes-up kind of way. We all believe that we are entitled to rights that we have (if not more!).
I’m not sure what your answer would be, but I would imagine that it might be (or at least someone’s would be) something along the lines of: I know the eternal plan and SS couples do not further the plan. I get that. It’s just that is only one set of beliefs. I believe that the church should always be able to say who gets married in the Temple and why. The ordinance performed in the Temple and the beliefs attached to them are religious rights - not secular. That’s why I feel like the argument about SSM changing “traditional marriage” is such an absurd argument in light of Temple marriage.
I have to admit. I thought I was ultra-hip & liberal when I moved from CA to UT. A few years into my marriage my husband’s father came out. Ok. Not a HUGE surprise. He invited us one night to go to a club with him for an AIDS benefit. Ok, groovy. I’m hip. I’m cool, right? Actually sitting there and being in the club I had a horrible realization - I was totally and completely uncomfortable. It was a new experience so far out from any I’d ever had. I’d always touched (um…so to speak) homosexuality with a ten-foot pole. Sure I have relatives that are gay. That was about all I acknowledged though in the ‘Well we all have a token gay friend/family member’ sort of way. This experience propelled me to stop thinking I knew how I felt about homosexuality (because I took the line of what seemed to be hip and liberal) and actually figure it out. To stop reciting words only because I’d heard them in liberal jargon or from the mouths of church leaders. To find my own words and the feelings they’re attached to. I’ve had, as a reaction to both this and my spiritual journey, the opportunity to meets lots of people who identify at every stop along the spectrum. There is no way I could look at any of them and say ,that for a reason that is so fundamental in them, they are not valued enough to have every right that I do.
Ok - that was longer than I intended and a little hodgepodge.
I guess the next thing for me is to find a way to communicate my feelings about Prop 8 with my friends and family who won’t look past the propaganda. Anyway we could get a snacker going (ok, maybe not at the Abbey as has been suggested before) for the like-minded to get together, find support (and energy), and share talking points?
Comment by Shelly — August 21, 2008 @ 5:03 pm
re: 42
I related a lot to your comments, Lemon Drop, although in my case I live in Anti-Provo and my ties to active-LDS are mostly via the Bloggernacle. The last half of your comment resonated with me very deeply.
Mormons For Marriage is an exciting and empowering phenomenon. Even if only 10% of the active membership disagrees with the leadership on this issue, that’s still a heckuva lot of people who can now communicate with each other and stand for fairness.
Someday your posterity will do their geneology and say “Wow, Great-great-great Grandma Hera stood up for gays back when the Church kicked them out, years before the Proclamation on Tolerance and Diversity!”
Comment by MikeInWeHo — August 21, 2008 @ 5:06 pm
IMAGINE!
Comment by mfranti — August 21, 2008 @ 5:08 pm
Julie F., you keep posting the reference to D&C 134:9 as support for your idea that the Church has no business supporting what it deems moral issues.
I’m curious about the possible reason you exclude verses 10-11 from your analysis, as these provide the context to what the declaration considers as “mingl[ing] religious influence with civil government,” specifically: a) government oppression of one religion or support of another, similar to the First Amendment right to freedom of religion (verse 9); b) the right of religions to deal with its members for matters of conduct and good standing, but no “authority to try men on the right of property or life,” (verse 10), but that c) “civil law” is the appropriate avenue “for redress of all wrongs and grievances,” (verse 11).
It’s too convenient to claim that D&C 134 is a blanket prohibition on the Church speaking out on any political issue. It goes against the plain meaning of the Section and ignores the practice of the Church after the declaration was accepted as scripture until the present time. It also is contrary to the pronouncement that it is “just to preach the gospel to the nations of the earth [not just the people, but ‘the nations,’ as in a political subdivision ], and warn the righteous to save themselves from the corruption of the world.” D&C 134:12
Comment by Bull Moose — August 21, 2008 @ 5:13 pm
Thank you for every word you said, mfranti. In Sacrament last Sunday, our closing hymn was “God be with you til we meet again.” When we got to the words “keep love’s banner floating ‘or you” (i don’t think I got the exact wording - but you know the song), I just lost it and started sobbing. What happened to love? Isn’t that supposed to be what church is?
Comment by newbie — August 21, 2008 @ 5:16 pm
Shelly - re getting together with like-minded people, Mormons for Marriage would love to facilitate that kind of thing. There’s a page called political action and education - feel free to announce a date and time. You can decide if you want it to be purely social or have a political bent to it as well.
MikeInWeHo - at just one person per ward, there would be 1200 people standing together in California.
Comment by Hera — August 21, 2008 @ 5:21 pm
MikeInWeHo-
Since I know you are following this thread, I want to apologize for completely taking your comments out of context in our last exchange at FMH. I never got a chance to respond. My bad.
Comment by mami — August 21, 2008 @ 5:24 pm
Shelly, thank you for your words.
It has been a process, a journey. What I keep thinking in my mind, (I don’t know if it is an answer or not) is, homosexuals are children of God in every way, shape and form, and he loves them as much as he loves me. He will place them, well all of us, in the Glory not punishment that he sees fit, and from my understanding of the glories, we will be most satisfied with where we get put. Not all of us will receive the Celestial glory, even those of us that feel we are super righteous, gay or straight.
I don’t believe that homosexuals will be able to receive the highest degree of Celestial glory, but they won’t be condemned either. Does that make sense?
As to why they should have rights? Very god question… why should I be any different? Why should I have rights that they don’t have? And what are those rights?
I hope that it didn’t sound as though I thought that they shouldn’t have any rights at all. I don’t believe that way. My mother does…wholeheartedly… like slap you down if you acknowledge that homosexuals are people. It’s odd. I still don’t know why she feels the way she does.
I wouldn’t mind if partners had the same rights as married couples do pertaining to Insurance problems, but I think that is a change that the insurance company should make. Other than that, I honestly don’t know of anything else that I would have an issue with.
Sometimes I think, what would be wrong with letting them get married? It doesn’t seem like there would be any backlash from that, but … well… I am still working on my view point. I don’t have a family member that is a homosexual, so maybe it would be different if I did.
Can I just be the bridge? Can I agree with both sides? Because right now, that is where I am at.
I don’t like it when people blame everything on the church. It’s either the church is doing this, or there not doing that… not what can I do to change the situation? That aggravates me about society. It is always someone elses fault and never do we take the blame for our own part in the situation.
Comment by Sunshine — August 21, 2008 @ 5:31 pm
@MikeInWeHo: Haha, I’m cracking up over here about the Proclamation on Tolerance and Diversity… love it.
No but really, you have a point. I know growing up in the church I always had a problem conceptualizing the church pre-1978.
My parents always talked with much emotion about when they found out that blacks could enjoy full membership in the church. Maybe I’ll talk tearfully to my kids someday about the moment I found out gay members of the church and their families were completely accepted and valued. Wouldn’t that be something.
Comment by lemon drop — August 21, 2008 @ 5:33 pm
That doesn’t make sense. If they are born with those feelings, why would Heavenly Father automatically deny them entry into exaltation?
Comment by Quimby — August 21, 2008 @ 5:34 pm
dare i say that you know of?
Comment by mfranti — August 21, 2008 @ 5:35 pm
My brother is gay, and happy, and happily married to his partner of 14 years, monogamous relationship, keep to themselves. I love him; he is amazing. I don’t think he chose his sexual preference; he did choose to act on it. Do you believe all this? It is true. I also think he is hurting because of his sin, that everyone who loves him is hurting because of it too, that part of his potential is kept from him…maybe even an eternal family is temporarily being kept from him.
We expect people who are not married to not have sex. Harsh, I know. But true, whether homosexual or heterosexual, it makes no difference in the law, no marriage, no sex.
The Church is not getting involved in political issues; they have not backed up any particular political party or candidate, even on this moral issue. They are asking us to stand up for marriage, which I did. I donated to the cause. I believe in the eternal potential of marriage.
Comment by Elaine — August 21, 2008 @ 5:38 pm
#42 ‘onslaught of homophobic rhetoric”
I sympathize with the fact that many church members deal with an onslaught of rhetoric for the various things that ail us and at times define who we are ( I personally don’t think we are ailed). Being a single mom, it sometimes feels like the ward gangs up and decides to shove the ‘perfect family’ picture downs ones throat. I know this is difficult for unmarried older women and men and those who can’t have children as well. I get so upset when others think they need to fix us or they shun us b-cuz we are a threat to their ideology. It is so important that we embrace eachothers differences and be accepting. I am not tired of my religion, but I am tired of the people who think they are citizens in the City of Enoch.
Comment by big mama — August 21, 2008 @ 5:46 pm
First of all, Heavenly Father did not give these people “those feelings” that BS. What happened is years, if not generations of reasons it so happened that this person is gay.
It is way to hard to explain over a blog, but it relates to Alcoholism. It is passed down through your genes. But why? What is it that gets passed down? Feelings? Thoughts? Decisions? Or just mere genes. Do you know the answer?
Second, they will be exalted, just not to the Highest Degree of Celestial glory. Maybe the lower celestial glory, maybe the Terrestial Glory, maybe the Telestial glory. I don’t know what God will choose, but just because they are homosexuals doesn’t mean they automatically get hell.
And, mfranti, you don’t know my family. If one person knows, everybody knows.
Comment by Sunshine — August 21, 2008 @ 5:47 pm
Elaine - I prefer to agree rather than the opposite, but find I can only do so once with your statements. It’s true that everyone is asked not to have $ex outside of marriage. I agree that, within the church, the standards should be the same whether it’s hetero or homo $exual relations.
And that’s about the end of agreement. This is a political issue. Standing beside a political party is not a requirement for something to have political grounds. Given that the passage would directly effect our state constitution I cannot see how you cannot see the connection.
If it were only about the ‘eternal potential of marriage’ there would be no church involvement. The eternal potential of marriage exists, as far as LDS doctrine is concerned, when someone is married in the Temple or in the afterlife. This SSM amendment has (as far as I can see) no ramifications for the who or what of LDS eternal marriage.
Comment by Shelly — August 21, 2008 @ 5:49 pm
@Sunshine: Just because you’re a straight person doesn’t mean you automatically get hell, either. Right?
Comment by lemon drop — August 21, 2008 @ 5:50 pm
ahhh , this take me back to my first few months as a member of the lds church in CA. prop 22 was the issue of the day and there i was confused as hell why the church that i joined, you know the one that was supposed to be all about family and love and community and Christ and charity and…,
was doing everything they could to keep those homosexuals from being equal to the rest of us
yes, my first taste of the us vs. them mentality that existed in my new home. too bad i was too smitten at the time to fully realize the harm it was doing.
Comment by mfranti — August 21, 2008 @ 5:54 pm
mfranti, you are right. There are reasons why you stay in the closet if you are gay. Maybe one reason is family gossip. Maybe one is shame or maybe fear. All good reasons. A recent friend opened the closet door and I have never seen him so happy. After 2 marriages (to women )and having 2 children. He tried to live the perfect family dream - 30+ years hiding and NONE of his family knew, nor suspected. Thankfully they love him unconditionally.
Comment by big mama — August 21, 2008 @ 5:56 pm
Okay, lemondrop, I can’t really tell what you are implying. If you read my post (because I think you are implying that I am high and mighty) you would kindly note, that just because you are straight, go to church, pay your tithing, and do everything you think is right, mean that you automatically get Celestial life. I am strictly talking about the glories. They are Glories people…not punishment. If it was a punishment then it would say… Terrestial punishment…
sigh….
to hard to explain over the computer, and to think, I was so calm while writing that. Not an angst bone in my body..now I am all wadded up.
I have no problems with homosexuals. They are people loved by God. I agree there should be more tolerance, but how do you out there, reading this, propose to change that? What will you do to make that happen? Blame the church leaders because they are so wishy washy or get your ass out there and do something?
Where’s my bike? Or maybe I should mop my floor again? Or maybe it is me that is blowing this out of proportion…..
Comment by Sunshine — August 21, 2008 @ 5:56 pm
But, Elaine, if you brother and his partner are happy and they are in a monogamous relationship, why can’t your family accept his decision for what it is? I have a gay cousin who is ostrasized from much of my family who is very anti gay marriage and, while they’re polite to him, never accept him completely. It’s so painful for him and for my cousin (his sister) who is very close to him. My family’s actions towards another member of my own family is what’s hurtful and it’s unnecessary. At some point, whether or not you agree with his decision, you have to accept it, embrace him and move on. A former bishop of mine had his son come out of the closet and he disowned him. It was horrible for every person in the entire family and fractured the family unit entirely. When the son contracted AIDS, father and son made amends, they patched up the relationship and dad was by his son’s bedside when he died. Oh the lost time that can never be returned. The fractured family that has yet to truly recover. All for what?
I guess I join the others on this blog that I don’t see how two people who love each other and who are monogamous is a sin. That’s one of the many reasons gays in the church want marriage sanctioned by the state– so they won’t be sinful when having intimate relationships with their life partner.
Last Sunday in my ward, the final speaker also spent the last 10 minutes or so on Prop 8 (I live in Calif) and it just ruined the entire Sacrement meeting for me. Let’s talk about love, acceptance, forgiveness and the atonement and then work towards continually denying gays the right to have their union recognized by the state.
As for sin? Well, I believe that we all do the best we can do and at the end of the day, it’s never going to be enough to live in the presence of God. However, thanks to the atonement, as long as we believe in Him, we can be forgiven and live with Him. We, in the church, all too often focus on works and too little on atonement. Thank goodness that my rebellious, sinful soul will, too, be saved, and not just the perfect church members out there who do everything ‘by the book’. THat’s one of the few things that keeps me sane.
Comment by Lulubelle — August 21, 2008 @ 5:58 pm
that doesn’t mean that a gay loved one has told anyone.
raise of hands, how many of us with gay friends or family haven’t told their families yet?
i can think of 4 right off the top of my head .
Comment by mfranti — August 21, 2008 @ 5:58 pm
oh and sunshine, i wasn’t saying that you have a gay fam member but you might have one and not know it.
Comment by mfranti — August 21, 2008 @ 6:00 pm
Sunshine, I suppose I don’t understand your position.
I am trying very hard to be civil here, so apologies in advance if this doesn’t come across nicely. You say that it’s BS that homosexuals were created with their sexual attraction. And then you admit there is a genetic component. Are you trying to argue that God does not create our genetic make-up? If so, are you arguing that God did not create us?
Comment by Quimby — August 21, 2008 @ 6:04 pm
Comment by Sunshine — August 21, 2008 @ 6:05 pm
Sunshine, it seems to me that by posting this, the bloggers here have gotten off their asses and made a start. Mormonsformarriage is a start too. Refusing to go along when people make unkind remarks at church is another start. But in reality church leaders could make much more progress more quickly than we folks can.
Comment by Paula — August 21, 2008 @ 6:05 pm
Whoops - too many links for moderation. Trying again:
Sunshine - we’re glad you’re here, adding to the discussion and willing to admit that your mind isn’t made up yet. Many people are there “being the bridge” with you. Kudos for trying to learn more from all sides rather than having a knee-jerk reaction.
Elaine, there are video clips at ldshomosexuality.com, as well as comments on this thread, address some personal aspects of why demanding celibacy for straights is different than for gays. Also, in the PBS documentary, “The Mormons” some church leaders commented on this issue as well. I’m getting dinner together so can’t find the link for you on the documentary, but if nobody else comes up with it, I’ll grab it for you after the kids go to bed.
Comment by Hera — August 21, 2008 @ 6:07 pm
@Paula: Or maybe we should just get off the internet, and just go outside and ride our bikes in the sun. Then we can all drink lemonade on the porch after we’ve made it to the park and back. Then we can get back to tackling tolerance for all and what not.
Comment by lemon drop — August 21, 2008 @ 6:08 pm
No I am not arguing that God didn’t make us. Yes he did make us. Okay, So Adam and Eve where created, 4,000 years later, major pollution, plastic, chemicals, drugs, alcohol, and disease later our bodies DNA has changed from the ever perfect DNA of Adam and Eve.
From my research that I have done, there are chemicals is plastic, pesticides, and herbicides that alter the DNA, or for some people make the hormone Estrogen higher in some, including males. There are chemicals that mess with the womens hormone structure, that alter the DNA, so how could it be God, when really it was man? And our choices all along. Maybe if you wan to further this discussion you and me you should email me. I would love to talk more about it, but it might get lost in translation.
Comment by Sunshine — August 21, 2008 @ 6:11 pm
So, if I am understanding you correctly, you are arguing that homosexuality might be caused by chemicals?
But if that’s the case, why is it even mentioned in the Old Testament, period? These chemicals are fairly recent developments; but obviously homosexuality existed thousands of years ago - in OT times, in ancient Greece, in ancient Rome, etc. etc. So, that just doesn’t hold sway.
Comment by Quimby — August 21, 2008 @ 6:13 pm
There’s a page on mormonsformarriage called “How do you respond in church?” There are some great ideas on that thread about things you can do now, today, to make a difference in the way GLBT folks and their families are treated and viewed and how the church’s actions w/r/t prop 8 affect all of us. Feel free to add your own ideas, too.
Comment by Hera — August 21, 2008 @ 6:13 pm
Paula, my apologies… I was caught up in the heat of the moment, and quimby, sorry about the mumbo jumbo… it didn’t come out right.
Comment by Sunshine — August 21, 2008 @ 6:16 pm
I have not read through all the comments, so the question I am asking may already have been answered.
My question is: Should LDS same-sex couples who have been married be permitted to have their marriage sealed in the temple?
I am personally conflicted on this issue. What do LDS same-sex couples truly want? I’m trying very hard to understand what the ultimate goal is.
I’d write more, but I fear I’d just be babbling.
Comment by Kalola — August 21, 2008 @ 6:19 pm
Quimby, good point. Do you know what caused them to be gay back then?
Do you know much about the body and the effects chemicals have on it?
When was it that more homosexuals began to come out of the closet? Or more where being born? (because you said you think that they were born with it)
What are the facts that you have that the only possible way for them to be gay is because they were born like that? Are there any facts? Could it be something other than just being born with it? And why all of a sudden is there an increase?
Comment by Sunshine — August 21, 2008 @ 6:20 pm
Thanks for this. DH and I have been so conflicted because we, too, were happy for our gay friends when they were able to marry. Now we avoid the phone calls from the grassroots organizers assigned in our ward. We lived in Idaho when Prop 22 went through so this whole mingling of religion and politics has been shocking.
I have been nervous to speak out because I am concerned about actively working against the church on something and I am not willing to jeopardize my membership in the church.
Probably the most uncomfortable thing is that DH’s family, none of them members of the church, have not mentioned it to us. They ALWAYS ask us what we think about Mormons in the headlines. They tease us a bit but ultimately seem to understand our odd mix of political convictions and Mormon faith. I fear that this is being tarnished and it seems our relatives are worried about it as well.
And, finally, I just don’t think I could look my dear friends and co-workers in the face–the ones whose weddings we have celebrated–while supporting a movement to end their happiness.
Comment by Thinker — August 21, 2008 @ 6:21 pm
I guess you just don’t get it. God said it is an abomination. He didn’t say it was ok if two people loved each other or if they were managomus. He also said he that loveth a lie is an abomination unto my eyes. I feel sorry for them.
Comment by King Of Texas — August 21, 2008 @ 6:24 pm
when God says it to me, through revelation to me…
i will “get it”
Comment by mfranti — August 21, 2008 @ 6:28 pm
Sunshine, I think you are being rather myopic with many of your assumptions.
How do you know there is an increase in homosexuality? How do you know that it hasn’t always been steady, at around 15% of the population?
This I do know: Homosexuality has been with us for thousands of years. It has been more or less accepted at various times throughout human history and in various cultures.
This I strongly believe: Many people who self-identify as homosexuals are born that way. Why do I believe this? Because almost every gay person I know has told me that from an early age they felt attracted to people of the same sex. Because most gay people I know have fought very hard to be attracted to people of the opposite sex. Because my husband, who grew up with a gay brother, has said that he knew at the age of 3 that his brother was gay, before he even knew what it meant - he knew that he was attracted to people in a different way. Because so many of my gay friends and family members have aunts and uncles who are also gay (even if they are or were deeply closeted).
This is in every fibre of my being: I will defend the rights of my gay and lesbian friends and family to love who they choose to love, and I will fight for them to have equal protection and equal rights under the law. In doing so I am defending the very ideals of Christ.
Comment by Quimby — August 21, 2008 @ 6:30 pm
@Kalola: “What do LDS same-sex couples truly want? I’m trying very hard to understand what the ultimate goal is.”
A place to worship God in the church we grew up in, with love and acceptance from those in our community. A place where we can teach our children the Primary songs and the Articles of Faith without having them be judged that they have “two moms”. That kind of thing.
Comment by lemon drop — August 21, 2008 @ 6:32 pm
Thank you, lemon drop, for your response. I am looking forward to an answer to my first question:
Comment by Kalola — August 21, 2008 @ 6:39 pm
Quimby, that’s fine. I know with every fiber of my being that it isn’t Gods fault that they are gay. I know, from first hand experience, but one that is not the norm for people on here, that it isn’t always the way you think it is, but obviously, my position and experience isn’t as important as yours because I don’t have a gay brother.
And yes that was meant with the tartness it will probably be received. I don’t have the normal way of looking at things, and for that I get a lot of crap, but I don’t blame anyone. Really, Quimby, I don’t mind having a conversation with you explaining my view point, but I don’t feel it is appropriate right here, and if you email me, I will tell you why.
Comment by Sunshine — August 21, 2008 @ 6:40 pm
Ah, you see, I did not say that I *know* with every fibre of my being. I said it is *in* every fibre of my being - meaning, it is an integral part of who I am, that I will defend equal rights. I prefer not to use “know” for non-imperical matters; and I really don’t understand how you can be arrogant enough to claim you “know” the matters of creation.
I have no brothers; I have a gay brother-in-law. I believe I have been quite respectful towards you and I don’t appreciate the hostile nature of your comments. I will be the first to admit that there are many, many times when I am rude and ill-mannered but this truly has not been one of those times.
Comment by Quimby — August 21, 2008 @ 6:47 pm
Quimby, you have access to my email….
Comment by Sunshine — August 21, 2008 @ 6:52 pm
And I am choosing not to use it. I simply do not see what good can possibly come of e-mailing you.
This is an issue that is very close to my heart. If I e-mailed you it would probably be to rip you a new one, and we would both regret that. By keeping this conversation public I am holding myself to a deeper level of accountability.
Comment by Quimby — August 21, 2008 @ 6:54 pm
See, and you say it is me that is arrogant…humm,
I would gladly talk to you on a personal level because once you see a person on their level it is alot harder to be so rude and judgemental, and bitchy but I guess you aren’t that type of person. My apologies that I misjudged you, from your comments you seemed to be a person of character.
Comment by Sunshine — August 21, 2008 @ 7:00 pm
I will however say this: From a theological perspective I would have much less of a gripe with comment re: homosexuals and the Celestial Kingdom if you had put in the disclaimer: practising homosexuals.
Even the prophets and apostles have said that it is not sinful to have those feelings, only to act on them. You would give our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters less lee-way than the prophets.
Comment by Quimby — August 21, 2008 @ 7:01 pm
Quimby,
In Sunshine’s defense, I have a close family member who has a times identified as straight, bisexual, lesbian. It varies from time to time. She herself does not think she, or her female partners, were “born that way”–but that sex is socialized and we make choices. I think Sunshine is trying to simply say from her personal experience, being gay can be a choice, although be it a complicated one (not like someone woke up one day and decided to be gay–or ever made a conscious decision). She appears to be trying to be charitable in expressing her views. You, however, do not.
Comment by mami — August 21, 2008 @ 7:07 pm
Mami, I have not descended into name-calling.
In comment 105 I say: Many people who self-identify as homosexuals are born that way. Please note that I did leave some wriggle room. I know a few people who self-identify as homosexual who will say that their attraction is for one person only; they are not (in general) gay, but are attracted to one person of the same-sex. And obviously there are some people who make the choice (Anne Heche comes readily to mind). However, in my experience, they are the exception.
Comment by Quimby — August 21, 2008 @ 7:09 pm
Additionally you will find a small sub-set within the gay male population that believes that male homosexuality is biological, but female homosexuality is a choice.
Comment by Quimby — August 21, 2008 @ 7:23 pm
Quimby, Okay I will agree with #113. I am not an English major so some of my descriptions may not be as on as yours. I am doing the best that I can to clearly explain my position. Which, I think, has been mangled into a she-man-woman hater…I don’t hate gays. I think they deserve every blessing God has to give them. Just as any one of us would want for our own lives. I believe that they are good people. I don’t understand why, if God created them this way he would destroy Sodom and Gomorah. Is it an evil trick he played on them. Ha ha ha..your gay and now your dead. Not even funny, plus not even God.
And, it was not me that started the name calling.
Comment by Sunshine — August 21, 2008 @ 7:25 pm
There have been discussions, in the past, when I have been rude and ill-tempered. Again, this is not one of them. I have not lost my temper; I have not been accusatory; I have questioned some of your opinions but I have taken great pains to be civil while doing so. I do not choose to fight with you. Nor do I choose to take this off-board, because this is a subject that is very close to my heart, and I would rather be held publically accountable for every word I write to you. That you would see that as evidence that I am “rude, judgemental, and bitchy” and lack character . . . Far be it from me to try to stifle your freedom of speech, but that is grossly inflammatory language. I would give myself full credit for not responding in kind.
There are many different interpretations of Soddom and Gommorah. You will find many within liberal Christian theology who will argue that it is not a morality tale about homosexuality at all; but rather about infedility, pedophilia, rape, and gross sexual sins of that nature.
Comment by Quimby — August 21, 2008 @ 7:31 pm
Sigh. So much misinformation and propaganda on both sides. With comments like the following . . .
. . . could there possibly be another side? Could President Monson and the First Presidency possibly have any reason to support Proposition 8? Or do they really just hate all homosexuals and want to separate us into “classes”?
FWIW, this is the church’s official position on political neutrality. The church is very clear that it is neutral on party politics. However, the church does Reserve the right as an institution to address, in a nonpartisan way, issues that it believes have significant community or moral consequences or that directly affect the interests of the Church. IMO, the church getting involved in this issue is consistent with the official position of political neutrality. It is also consistent with the Proclamation on the Family: We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.
Proposition 8 would add the following words to the constitution: Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. To me, it is specifically preserving the definition of marriage. It doesn’t say anything about civil unions or benefits. It doesn’t say that two people of the same sex who love each other can’t live together or have sex together or have children together. It doesn’t say that they can’t form a civil union or domestic partnership. It does say that marriage is between one man and one woman.
I recognize that the problem with civil unions and domestic partnerships is that they only protect rights at the state level. Fine, pass a national civil union law. I am not opposed to that. I don’t have anything against gay people or civil unions or domestic partnerships. I don’t care what other people do or who they sleep with. But, I do feel that the institution of marriage needs to be preserved as one man and one woman because it is in the best interest of children. I agree with the Family Proclamation when it says Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.
Does that mean I think homosexuals shouldn’t be allowed to have children? No. Individuals have reproductive choices. But, I think that as a society we should uphold families with one father and one mother as the standard. I do think it is important to our well-being as a society. Look at Ruby’s comment #21. Now we should just do away with all marriage and make marriage contracts “renewable”? Yeah, that does a lot to provide security for children who are entitled to be born and raised in a family with one father and one mother.
mfranti (#104)
What exactly is the point of having a prophet then?
Comment by Stephanie — August 21, 2008 @ 7:34 pm
In light of the well-established doctrine that “seperate but equal” is a fallacy, how would a national civil union law work to promote and protect rights equal to marriage? Is it possible to have “seperate but equal” institutions when it comes to marriage/civil unions? Or is it more tenable to do away with marriage altogether in favor of a state-supported “civil union” law?
Comment by Quimby — August 21, 2008 @ 7:42 pm
Quimby, do you know what assume means? Yes, you make and ass out of you and me. Read my statement again, and put it in the context, of me being worried about myself, being rude, judgmental, and bitchy. I didn’t say you, Quimby, were rude, judgmental and bitchy, for that reason, I would have loved to have a personal conversation with you. I find you position intriguing and insightful, but just like you, I want to know why you feel how you do. What in your life and your experience brought you to the point that you have the conclusion that you do.
I also wanted that same respect, but didn’t feel as though I got it from you. I think essentially (except for the prop
we are saying the same thing. Okay, and maybe receiving the highest degree of Celestial glory (which is given to us so that we can procreate. Two women can’t procreate). For crying out loud, I might not even make it. I wasn’t saying that I was going to, simply that there are rules in our religion. You don’t like the rules, choice and accountability, freedom to choose, whatever you want to call it, then it is fine that you find a place where you feel like you fit (you being general, not you as in Quimby, you)
Comment by Sunshine — August 21, 2008 @ 7:45 pm
sun glasses guy was suppose to be prop 8… sorry
Comment by Sunshine — August 21, 2008 @ 7:46 pm
Oh, so that’s how you make
I love learning stuff like that.
Comment by Stephanie — August 21, 2008 @ 8:12 pm
A different question: If an LDS same-sex couple marries, will they be excommunicated?
I’m asking these types of questions because I’m trying to understand why some members of the church are supportive of same-sex marriage when it is clear the leaders are not. Are members of the church focusing primarily on non-members?
Please help me understand.
Comment by Kalola — August 21, 2008 @ 8:25 pm
the man at the pulpit can say what he wants but when it goes against my own freedom of conscious, i have every right , no, obligation, to take it up with god and find out for myself…
i will not blindly follow someone. i will not blindly follow church leadership just because i signed up to be a member. throw all the quotes at me about obedience and the prophet being the mouthpiece for god, i siill have my own agency and i choose to use it.
and
we’ve seen in the past
they can be wrong.
Comment by mfranti — August 21, 2008 @ 8:30 pm
Kalola, I’ll take a stab at both. The church is pretty clear that the sin with regard to homosexuality is in acting on the homosexuality (having sex). So, my guess is that if a same-sex couple marries “in every sense of the word” that no, they would not be permitted to carry a temple recommend, which means that they would not sealed in the temple.
I doubt that a same-sex couple marrying would bring much difference in terms of church discipline than just living together would.
Comment by Stephanie — August 21, 2008 @ 8:32 pm
Kalola, speaking for myself: I believe that marriage has become first and foremost a civil institution, providing certain rights and privileges that aren’t given to those who choose not to enter into it. (Of course there are also certain rights and privileges derived from remaining single and co-habitating, for instance, my understanding is that social security payments are greater for single retirees than for married retirees.*)
Ultimately churches have the right to decide who they will and will not marry. As a non-Catholic, I cannot demand to be married by a Catholic priest. My understanding is that Catholic priests will marry non-Catholics only in very specific circumstances (e.g., the other partner entering into the marriage is Catholic and the non-Catholic partner agrees that all children will be raised Catholic). Likewise a Catholic couple could not demand to be married in an LDS temple. If the LDS church chooses not to marry gay or lesbian couples, they are well within their rights to do so.
However, I do not believe that a religious institution should dictate who can or cannot recieve civil rights and privileges. These rights should be open to all who choose to enter into a contract, simply by basis of their citizenship in the nation that is offering up those rights. There should be no religious, ethnic, racial, or sexual-preference test applied. (Obvious caveat: both partners must be consenting adults.)
*Edited to add - I should clarify that my understanding (and I could be wrong) is that if you are two retired people who are not married but cohabitating, the sum of two seperate social security payments is greater than it would be if you were to marry: eg, not that a single retiree gets more; but that a single retiree + a single retiree gets more than a married couple.
Comment by Quimby — August 21, 2008 @ 8:34 pm
…just as i can be wrong. i’m willing to admit that.
but it’s for me to learn on my own. and this is a process. god wants us to use our intellect, how can i ever progress if i just go along because it’s the comfortable thing to do?
so i will continue to push and test boundaries. i will learn what works for me and what doesn’t and hopefully, at the end of my days here, i did good.
Comment by mfranti — August 21, 2008 @ 8:37 pm
Okay, mfranti, I’m not arguing for blind obedience. I am just saying this- if we can get all the answers through the Lord ourselves (through our own freedom of conscience), then what is the point of a prophet? I mean, if his “advice” is “irrelevant” to so many members, why even have it?
Comment by Stephanie — August 21, 2008 @ 8:38 pm
mfranti, I hear what you are saying (I wrote 129 before reading 128). I am not trying to bait or test you. I was just genuinely curious.
Comment by Stephanie — August 21, 2008 @ 8:39 pm
Stephanie, again, speaking for myself: I have spent many long hours on my knees struggling with this issue. In the end, I cannot reconcile my own personal beliefs with the word of the prophet. When that happens, I can either 1) go against my own personal beliefs and follow the prophet in blind faith; or 2) take comfort in the knowledge that the prophet is only a man, and obey the dictates of my own conscience.
Ultimately I don’t think either is a “bad” decision. Ultimately I don’t think that I am putting my soul at risk of eternal damnation (you know, assuming we Mormons believed in such a thing) by following either course of action. So, in the face of two “not bad” decisions, I make the best decision I can, and trust that the Lord understands my heart and my soul.
Comment by Quimby — August 21, 2008 @ 8:42 pm
i never said his advice was irrelevant.
i tend to agree with most of what they say but in this particular case, i came to the church with a completly different mindset/experience than lifelong members.
that doesn’t just go away because i wore a white jumper and allowed a little boy to dunk me in a tub of water.
if you read my comments here, i’ve been dealing with this for near 10 years. back and forth, quasi going along and then finally one day, i snapped back and said this goes against everything i believe this church to be. this goes against everything i believe god to be. how do i reconcile. the same way i came to know i should be baptized.
it’s really very simple to me, all of this. i really do believe that the lds church has any business fighting against the civil rights of individuals.
Comment by mfranti — August 21, 2008 @ 8:44 pm
On a different note… tonight I saw my first “Yes on 8″ bumper sticker. It was on an SUV with a “CTR” sticker.
And I see from the website that Hera linked to that my Stake President has donated $1000 to protectmarriage.com.
Comment by Paula — August 21, 2008 @ 8:50 pm
i neglected to add a statement like this (because i’m a lazy blogger)
but i believe this to be true
if we are seeking the truth, it’s possible that different things are true to different individuals at different times in their lives.
i don’t know but it sure seems that way. we change so much over the years-at least if we’re doing it right, we do
Comment by mfranti — August 21, 2008 @ 8:51 pm
See, Quimby, that is the discussion that I wanted to have with you. I wanted to know your experiences, what led you to where you are, and to truly honor and respect your decision, even though, my very same process may have a different ending.
So, Mfranti, what is it that you disagree with. You don’t want to the church to be involved in telling someone who they should marry, or do you have other issues?
Honestly, just open discussion. When reading blogs my brain sometimes gets full and I don’t comprehend all that I wish I could.
Comment by Sunshine — August 21, 2008 @ 8:59 pm
mfranti and Quimby, in a way, I agree with both of you. I think that given the current state of our nation with regard to God’s commandments, and how strongly I feel about individual rights and religious freedom, I think that the solution in terms of benefits and all of that is that the state only recognizes civil unions for everyone and takes “marriage” out of it.
On the other hand, if “marriage” is taken out of it, does “marriage” mean much to society anymore? Of course it will always have meaning in the church with our temple sealings. And if couples have to get married in a court and then sealed in the temple, I don’t think it is the end of the world. It doesn’t make the sealings any less valid. But, for a lot of people, they wouldn’t need a marriage. Civil unions would be enough. In fact, if domestic partnerships can grant all the rights and benefits, why even have a civil union that requires a contract? Why not just say that all people living together automatically get the rights? I think this would hurt children because children need stability. They need one mom and dad their whole lives - not just one mom and whoever she is co-habitating with.
Will that “hurt” society? I believe it would. On the one hand, I agree with no-fault divorce because it protects people in abusive marriages. On the other hand, I believe that it has contributed to the downfall of the family. On the one hand I don’t think that adultery should be criminally prosecuted (although I do think it should be used in court to sue for “breach of contract”). On the other hand, I believe that the legalized nature of adultery has led to the downfall of the family. Somehow, legalizing things does make them more normal and acceptable, and I believe that dissolving traditional families as the “norm” will hurt society. It likely will have no effect on me or my children - that is true. But, I do think it will have an effect on other children as families are essentially “irrelevant” (which I believe we are moving toward).
Also, if civil unions were the norm for everyone, and marriage was reserved for churches (or whoever took an interest), would that be enough for “equality”? Wouldn’t we still have people who say that this is “separate but equal” and LDS members who are gay who want a temple sealing and who say that the church is discriminating? I believe the answer is yes.
Anyways, just random thoughts. I have thought about this issue a lot. I wrote a post about it a month ago. I respect the right of others to feel differently, but I agree with the First Presidency and support Proposition 8 (lot of good that does - I’m in Texas).
Comment by Stephanie — August 21, 2008 @ 9:04 pm
yes. i don’t believe the church should be telling anyone who they can enter into a marriage with because it has to do with the civil rights of individuals.
however, they can deny sealings based on whatever reasons they want because it’s based on religious doctrinal teachings.
Comment by mfranti — August 21, 2008 @ 9:08 pm
mfranti, yes, I believe this is true. And I believe that the Lord judges us on the intent of our hearts, which means that even if we make a “wrong” decision, we aren’t necessarily “penalized”. But, I also believe in universal truth - that on some of these issues there is a “right” and a “wrong”. That’s not to say that I am necessarily “right”, but I do believe in universal truth - however that applies.
Comment by Stephanie — August 21, 2008 @ 9:09 pm
i don’t think anything can stop the human family. we humans need to have a “people” and what better “peoples” than the ones you share dna with. so i don’t think that families will ever be irrelevant
and back to homosexual marriage,. the whole point of their marriage, i thought, was to become a legally binding family? to have that contract that says i will and you will and we will do such and such.
Comment by mfranti — August 21, 2008 @ 9:12 pm
You know, that’s a really good point. In Australia, couples who have lived together for a set period of time (anywhere from 6 months to 18 months, depending on the state) have very similar rights to couples who are married. I don’t know exactly how the rights differ; but there are some rights not granted to de facto couples that are granted to married couples. When a de facto relationship dissolves, should either party choose to pursue it, a division of property process commences that is very similar to a divorce. Living as I do in a rural area with many large family farms that are passed down from generation to generation, I have heard horror stories, generally of a “good for nothing, gold-digging” girl who moves in with a “diligent, hard-working” boy for 6 months just to claim half the family farm. I’m not sure it actually works that way in practise; after all these are all, “It happened to a friend of a friend of mine” type stories; and if the family farm is in the name of the parents I’m not sure how the ex-girlfriend could get her hands on it; but the stories are plentiful. (So much so, in fact, that when a friend of mine moved in with her boyfriend, his mother demanded she sign a prenup - never mind the fact that her family farm is worth considerably more than his family farm; the boyfriend’s mother was sure she was just a gold-digger out to get the farm.)
I don’t know that marriage necessarily gives stability. If one partner really wants out of a marriage, all they have to do is walk away. So, on the one hand, I want to say it doesn’t make a difference.
But on the other hand - my friend who works for Child Services says that, almost without exception, every single one of her foster children comes from a home in which the mother and father were never married. (Which isn’t to say that de facto parents are bad parents. I have several friends who are cohabitating who are very devoted, loving, good parents.)
But I keep going back to this: There are already gay families out there whose parents aren’t married. Wouldn’t extending marriage (or civil union) rights to these families strengthen them? And shouldn’t we be in favor of that?
Comment by Quimby — August 21, 2008 @ 9:14 pm
mfranti, I believe that families are already becoming irrelevant. So many men have no interest in their children. Increasingly, we are seeing women who have little interest in their children (like the mom in Florida whose tot is missing). It reminds me of the scripture that says something about “love waxing cold”. (Actually, I don’t know why I wrote “essentially” - I meant “increasingly”)
Yes, having a civil union would create a contract for a same-sex couple and would make that couple a legally binding family. But, using the logic I outlined in my last comment, I still think that the net result to society would be fewer intact families.
Comment by Stephanie — August 21, 2008 @ 9:19 pm
Humm, very interesting. Thank you Quimby, and mfranti for all that you have shared with me. I hope, especially Quimby, that there isn’t a sour taste in your mouth.
Comment by Sunshine — August 21, 2008 @ 9:19 pm
Thinker @102,
There are lots of things you can do that don’t require actively working against the church. Taking a stand for civility and kindness is not working against the church. Showing love and concern for homosexuals is not working against the church. Not volunteering to put up a sign in your yard or donate money or spend time walking precincts is not working against the church. Registering to vote is not working against the church. Studying the issues and going to the polls on election day is not working against the church.
Comment by Hera — August 21, 2008 @ 9:21 pm
and this is a new phenomenon?
the caring, nurturing father, the one that takes his kid to soccer practice, that’s a new phenomenon.
Comment by mfranti — August 21, 2008 @ 9:23 pm
Sunshine, I hope there’s no sour taste in your mouth either. I truly did not mean to imply at any stage that you are homophobic or hateful or anything else. If I came across as rude I apologise. Sometimes when I am trying to distance myself from a discussion (so as to not explode) I tend to be more formal in my writing and I suppose sometimes it comes off the wrong way.
Stephanie - Just to be a bit of a hell-raiser, if someone wanted to take a purely biological tact, most animal species have mothers who abandon their infants. Certain sheep species are terrible mothers. (Merinos are constantly abandoning their young.) In Australia they are having to put down a humpback whale whose mother abandoned it. Cows often reject their calves. Etc. Perhaps we are fighting biology in assuming that all human mothers will be protective and accepting of their offspring.
Comment by Quimby — August 21, 2008 @ 9:24 pm
RE: Bull Moose #72
The scripture I have been quoting, D&C 134:9, is a pretty easy scripture to understand (IMHO), especially when applied to Prop. 8.
The verse reads:
9 We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.
Note the emphasis added.
Prop. 8 seeks to “eliminate the right of same sex couples to vote”.
I have several friends that are homosexual. The majority of them worship at the same church were it is acceptable for them to marry ,however, people are now seeking to take away that right that has been granted, thus going against what that scriptures tells us is acceptable in the eyes of our Heavenly Father.
I hope I was able to make that clear, if I didn’t let me know and I’ll go into a lengthier discourse on it (if you’d like). Sorry it took me so long to get back to you, we had Enrichment tonight.
Comment by Julie F. — August 21, 2008 @ 9:25 pm
Exactly. That is where we are at now. With no-fault divorce, one person can just walk away. A lot of people do, and marriage as an institution is weakened because of it. Does that mean I think we should out-law no-fault divorce? I don’t know. I fluctuate between a person’s right to make their own choices and a person not having the right to injure others because of their choices.
Anyways, on an individual level, I agree with what you say:
Probably. And that’s why I am okay with civil unions. But, I still think that it would have the effect of weaking marriage, and that this will have overall negative effects on a lot of children.
Comment by Stephanie — August 21, 2008 @ 9:26 pm
Quimby (#145) I personally don’t look to animal behavior to define appropriate human behavior.
That might be a good reason why.
Comment by Stephanie — August 21, 2008 @ 9:30 pm
WHAT? No it doesn’t. Please give me some evidence to the contrary.
Comment by Stephanie — August 21, 2008 @ 9:30 pm
But even before no-fault divorces, marriages dissolved when one partner walked away. My grandma’s first husband walked out on her and their 4 kids in the middle of the depression, and ran away with their teenage foster child. How many ways can you say “creep”? My second-great-grandfather fathered a child, went off to war, and let her believe he had died, and then went on to marry another woman and have another family with her. I don’t think you can blame no-fault divorces for the problems families face.
You could argue that the acceptance of divorce has made it more attractive to get divorced - but then, sometimes divorce is a very good thing and I certainly don’t want to go back to a time when people were ostracised because their marriages didn’t work.
Hey, how about a tax credit for couples who stay married, increasing in 5 year increments - so much for every 5 to 9 years, so much for every 10 to 14 years, etc.?
Comment by Quimby — August 21, 2008 @ 9:30 pm
she prolly meant “to marry”
it’s an honest mistake given the discussion
Comment by mfranti — August 21, 2008 @ 9:32 pm
124 - Kalola - “I’m trying to understand why some members of the church are supportive of same-sex marriage when it is clear the leaders are not.”
Kalola, thank you for your questions and your efforts at understanding. If you haven’t already done so, please spend some time at mormonsformarriage. That website lists a number of reasons some church members believe same-sex marriage is not an issue the church should be defending so strongly.
May I also say that we are all products of our culture and upbringing. I’ve been exposed to people and experiences which have shaped my beliefs and preconceptions in ways that my Utah-born-and-bred grandparents could never imagine, both because of the times and places we’ve lived. Similarly, a young girl growing up in China or France or Mexico or Saudi Arabia would think of things differently.
I believe that God takes all of these things into account when communicating with us. God won’t speak to me in Farsi or with Shinto symbols, because I wouldn’t understand the message. God’s messages to me must all be filtered through my late-20th century filters. Sometimes my filter lets things through that others don’t see and sometimes it blocks things out and I am forced to “see through a glass darkly.” I believe all humans suffer from the same limitations in varying amounts.
Comment by Hera — August 21, 2008 @ 9:37 pm
Quimby, thank you, I understand the need to distance. Nonverbal communication is the most difficult to read over the internet.
I love what you wrote mfranti, about us changing and our view points changing. Seriously, that is what life is about, what an awesome statement and very thought provoking. A while back there was a post, I don’t really remember the topic, but I remember who I talked to, Carlton, and dare I say for two weeks after the conversation I was deep in thought and meditation on what he had expressed.
I love a debate, I love to think and use my brain, and wonder, and figure out puzzles and find answers, and this, much like my conversation with Carlton, will make me think more. It may not change my view point, but hopefully it will help me to be what I think I really want to be, a better, more educated person. I love educated people.
Comment by Sunshine — August 21, 2008 @ 9:38 pm
#147 I think it was cchrissy who first recommended this book on fMh. If you haven’t read it and all that’s standing between you and NOT supporting prop 8 is needing more correct information on the role of biology and evolution in child-rearing- get thee to an independant bookstore!
I often tell my little Noodle, “lucky for you mama is getting enough protein in her diet so she won’t abandon you and try again with a more viable offspring.”
Don’t worry, I say it in a sweet voice so it’s not at all creepy.
Seriously though, I considered myself well informed on maternity issues and I didn’t know half that stuff. Quimby’s right: our fuzzy idea of all sacrificing mother is a very modern concept.
Comment by CrazyWomanCreek — August 21, 2008 @ 9:40 pm
Sure, Quimby, any bit of money I keep in my pocket sounds good to me.
mfranti, here are fatherhood statistics from the government. Notable are:
From 1960 to 1995, the proportion of children living in single-parent homes tripled, from 9 percent to 27 percent, and the proportion of children living with married parents declined.
34% of children live absent of their biological fathers
Fathers who live with their children are more likely to have a close, enduring relationship with their children than those who do not.
The best predictor of father presence is marital status.
About 40 percent of children in father-absent homes have not seen their father at all during the past year; 26 percent of absent fathers live in a different state than their children; and 50 percent of children living absent their father have never set foot in their father’s home.
Children who live absent their biological fathers are, on average, at least two to three times more likely to be poor, to use drugs, to experience educational, health, emotional and behavioral problems, to be victims of child abuse, and to engage in criminal behavior than their peers who live with their married, biological (or adoptive) parents.
Compared to children born within marriage, children born to cohabiting parents are three times as likely to experience father absence, and children born to unmarried, non-cohabiting parents are four times as likely to live in a father-absent home.
I guess I consider that evidence for my claim that so many men have little interest in their children.
Comment by Stephanie — August 21, 2008 @ 9:46 pm
Sorry I just can’t type, I meant to marry.
Comment by Julie F. — August 21, 2008 @ 9:50 pm
CWC, well THAT is why I fantasize about abandoning my children! Seriously, I do. And I need to eat more children.
Comment by Stephanie — August 21, 2008 @ 9:50 pm
What? I need to eat more *protein*. See? My head is all fuzzy. I need to eat some meat and go to bed.
Comment by Stephanie — August 21, 2008 @ 9:51 pm
Aha! You’re becoming one of us! Better watch out . . .
Comment by Quimby — August 21, 2008 @ 9:53 pm
#159 I knew I was spending too much time on this site . . .
Comment by Stephanie — August 21, 2008 @ 9:56 pm
#150 Yes. I think this circles back around to Lisa’s post about; were things better back in the day?
My grandpa left my grandma to raise three kids in the 1950’s. Never paid child support, never said sorry when he gave her STD’s. He never should of married her in the first place but he was from a rural town in Arkansas and saying, “I’m gay” wasn’t an option. Being gay doesn’t make him a good person- he’s still an ass, but who knows what he could have been had he not had to lie his whole life.
The saddest argument to support prop 8 (to me) is clinging to the idea that we could legislate one groups idea of good behavior and presto! an imaginary America would appear. It has never existed. What you see as the dissolution of the family to many of us sounds like the nightmare gate of the ghetto finally creaking open. We are asking for so little. Just typing that makes the bile rise- what I’ve always loved about our Constitution is it’s insistence on “inalienable” rights- they aren’t anyone’s to bestow- we are born deserving of them.
I’ll stop before I start quoting Joan of Arc.
Comment by CrazyWomanCreek — August 21, 2008 @ 9:56 pm
#156 Ah ha ha! That is making me cry I’m laughing so hard!
Freudian slip? nah.
Seriously, I think we DO consider abandoning them and starting with more…optimal? (I don’t know about your kids but I have a hormonal teenager and “more optimal is the kindest thing I can say) offspring because our deep reptilian brains tell us to.
That’s my story anyway.
Comment by CrazyWomanCreek — August 21, 2008 @ 10:00 pm
Well, I’m glad someone else is willing to admit it.
Comment by Stephanie — August 21, 2008 @ 10:02 pm
CWC, I’m so glad you picked up that book! I do recommend it as often as possible, it may be the most worthwhile and enlightening book I’ve read in years, but I’m not the first LDS women blogger to bring it up- I got the tip from Rosalynde, who we unfortunately haven’t heard much from lately.
Mother Nature: a history of mothers, infants, and natural selection
Comment by cchrissyy — August 21, 2008 @ 10:03 pm
#159 Quimby, I had that on a tee shirt! One day my clerk at Safeway complimented me on it and I was so pleased- a fellow sufragette. Wrong-o. She thought I was wearing it as an admonition to feminists!
Comment by CrazyWomanCreek — August 21, 2008 @ 10:03 pm
#158 It may be because it’s late but I am shaking with laughter also over the possible idea that fMh, in its infinite wisdom, has set it’s filters to block, “and I need to eat more children”!
ah ha ha ha ha!
Comment by CrazyWomanCreek — August 21, 2008 @ 10:07 pm
Glad I was able to entertain you tonight, CWC. Good night.
Comment by Stephanie — August 21, 2008 @ 10:10 pm
Stephanie, sorry, somehow it ended up in the spam section so it took me a while to find it. By the way from now on I’ll always think of Hansel and Gretl when I see your name . . .
Comment by Quimby — August 21, 2008 @ 10:13 pm
I know it’s hard to fathom, but is there even the remotest possibility that God actually wants people to refrain from homosexual behavior (in spite of how they might FEEL) and/or that he wants to keep marriage between a man and a woman?
FWIW, I’m Irish, so if you don’t like my temper, then just remember…I was born that way.
Comment by Alison Moore Smith — August 21, 2008 @ 10:54 pm
@155 father statistics
What if the church spent 4.5 months on weekly conference calls, training sessions, prescribed talking points, and monetary assessments to get fathers back into homes? Or what if it found ways to keep fathers with children in homes out of time-intensive leadership meetings? Or what if it had training firesides to teach volunteers how to spend nine hours providing resources about parenting and the importance of fathers in homes? Seems that would do more to strengthen families than throwing time and money into a political campaign eager to see gay families go the way of the dodo.
Comment by LRC — August 21, 2008 @ 11:00 pm
This is a very hard issue in many ways. It’s one I have thought and pondered ever since Prop 22 (if not before…I have a gay family member as many here do).
I only wanted to add a few things to the conversation, after reading all of the comments. The Church’s recent document, “The Divine Institution of Marriage” brings up a couple of points that I think are worth consideration in a discussion such as this, particularly since rights are at the focal point of the issue.
-First of all, the Church itself is not against rights for gays all together.
“The Church does not object to rights (already established in California) regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the family or the constitutional rights of churches and their adherents to administer and practice their religion free from government interference.”
-If rights are of concern, then, imo, it’s important to consider the effect on others’ rights as well, which this article mentions. Some want to assert that making gay marriage legal will only affect the rights of gays and then things will just go on as they have before, with no other effects anywhere else in our society. That to me seems to ignore some very real possible infringements on religious rights, free speech rights, and parental rights, to name some important ones. These issues should be discussed more than they are, imo.
We can’t know for sure what the specific effects will be, but that is part of the problem. This to me is a huge social experiment, and we likely won’t know the effects of that experiment until a generation or two (or more) out. By then, our choices on this will have outlived us. This is a very risky endeavor, and I don’t think the potential ramifications are really considered carefully enough in many discussions on the topic. I think there is plenty of logical concern discussed in this document.
-The document also brings up something that has concerned me greatly. I also think it’s important to consider the process of democracy, and that this is only on the ballot because ONE judge swung a vote to be a slim majority of four people of seven. One person overruled the voice of the people. (This also happened in MA.) That, to me, should be something to consider in light of the concern about rights and about what is right as well. I recently read that in Oregon, the people’s voices are being ignored (even though the state’s constitution gives the people the right to and the government is controlling the choices on this issue. To me, people concerned about the principles of democratic rights should be concerned about such patterns as we see with this issue…where the voice of the very few rule the many.
-One other thought: Marriage is not itself a right, either legal or religious, or human, for that matter. It never has been. It is an institution that people enter into. We don’t just give out marriage licenses because one is a taxpayer, or an American citizen, a human, or even a child of God. There have always been restrictions on what marriage is or isn’t, so to claim that marriage is actually a right that should be extended to or protected for gays to me is logically incorrect, because it places marriage into a category in which it has never really existed.
I think the way the Church separated out rights (such as listed above) and the institution and definition of marriage is important to note. Marriage is an institution, not an inherent, universal human right.
So as we talk about protecting rights, I think there is a lot more to consider than is often discussed.
Comment by m&m — August 21, 2008 @ 11:58 pm
LRC,
I think we might be surprised to know how many resources go into supporting and sustaining the family in many ways. LDS Family Services exists to help keep families together, where many volunteers and professionals as well spend their time, and the Church puts a lot of energy, space and money into keeping families together. Bishops spend countless hours counseling individuals and couples to help keep families together. Visiting and home teachers and church members (through callings and teaching and friendships) do much to support and help and teach and advise, too. Talk after talk, lesson after lesson, focus on many different elements of family life and keeping families strong. Stake leaders do things, too — our stake had a whole weekend devoted to marriage and family, a conference of its own. Resources are poured into Church publications that often focus on topics related to the family.
Just a few things to consider….
Comment by m&m — August 22, 2008 @ 12:04 am
m&m
First, the ruling of the judges came long after prop 8 was headed to the ballot - that one judge voted a particular way has no bearing on the proposition’s showing up on the ballot. Signatures were being collected long before the court started hearing arguments on either side.
Second, in California voters elect supreme court justices. The justices are appointed by a governor and confirmed then elected (and sometimes re-elected) by the people. So if the people are mad that the judges split this decision, they can voice their opinions at the ballot box in November.
Third, the role of the courts is to interpret the law and to make sure statutes don’t conflict with the Higher Law of the Constitution. California’s constitution has broader and more explicit guarantees of privacy and prohibitions against discrimination than the U.S. Constitution does.
Part of the process of democracy is called “checks and balances” - we have a legislative branch that writes laws, an executive branch that enforces laws and a judicial branch that interprets laws. In California, it is very easy to get initiative statutes onto the ballot (sidestepping the legislature by having people themselves propose the laws). Prop. 22 was an initiative statute, a law created by the people. The people put it on the ballot and the losers sued in court - it happens all the time here, at nearly every election. That’s part of the reason we get to vote on the same issues over and over and over again.
In the time it took for the prop 22 lawsuit to work its way through the courts, the legislature (the voice of the people) passed two different laws granting marriage rights to all Californians. These laws were vetoed by one person, the governor (executive branch).
So, technically, the people have spoken several times: when they passed the ban on same-sex marriage, when they legalized same-sex marriage via their legislators, when they opposed same-sex marriage via the governor’s veto, and when they affirmed same-sex marriage via judicial interpretation which said that domestic unions are inherently separate and unequal and as such they are discriminatory against a specific class of people. Now the people get to vote one more time, this time to make a change to the constitution.
It’s democracy, California-style.
Comment by LRC — August 22, 2008 @ 12:35 am
My thoughts as an LDS actively participating in the Prop 8 campaign:
1) the church does not oppose gay rights, and I challenge anyone to prove different. (The only exception would be when supposed gay rights impede on religious freedoms. great article at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486191&sc=emaf)
2) CA family code section 297 guarantees same sex domestic partnerships all the rights and responsibilities of married couples, by definition. Neither Prop 8 nor the church have nor will make any attempt to remove these rights.
3) It occurred to me that CA law prohibits me from entering a domestic partnership with a woman. Is that discrimination? Does that mean I have fewer rights than same sex couples? No, the rights are identical.
4) Traditional marriage serves society (in the best of circumstances) by creating stable homes where a mother and father can raise their children. This is the purpose/benefit of marriage as far as society is concerned. As a result society puts social pressure on getting and staying married - which is good for families, children, and society.
5) Some same sex couples want to enter the institution of marriage in order to get state recognition of the affirmation of their love for each other. That purpose for marriage is vastly different than the existing one - to provide stable environments for raising children.
6) Adding same sex couples to the institution of marriage, with their purpose of state recognition of their love, will necessarily change the attitudes and behaviors surrounding the institution of marriage. Not in a day or a week, but over decades.
7) If the purpose of marriage is to get state recognition of mutual love, then why should I participate in it? I don’t need the state to recognize it. Why not then have children out of wedlock? If I’m married and lose that loving feeling, then the purpose of of marriage at that point doesn’t serve me. Under the best of circumstances, children should be raised by a mother and father who love them and each other. I think failing to pass Prop 8 will accelerate the decline of marriage and children will suffer.
Comment by el_guapo — August 22, 2008 @ 12:36 am
As a Californian who actively supports prop 8, I just want to say the judges were just doing their job. I really hate people saying they are “activist judges”. They did what they are supposed to do, protect the minority against inequality.
Comment by mami — August 22, 2008 @ 8:30 am
#172 - I don’t think it is about training fathers. I think it is about values.
Comment by Stephanie — August 22, 2008 @ 8:58 am
I think that it is good if this issue is difficult for people to deal with. It should be. If we have young people killing themselves because they don’t know how to deal with being gay in the church, then we have some major problems that we need to deal with.
I also think that we need to go easy on each other- no matter which side of the issue we’re on. We’re all trying to do what we think is right- do we follow the prophet to the letter, or do we follow the commandment to love others? Do we “stand for marriage” or do we recognize that God gave us agency, and refuse to push our religion on the rest of the world.
Comment by Alliegator — August 22, 2008 @ 9:09 am
Thank you Stephanie, Quimby and Hera for responding to my questions.
Comment by Kalola — August 22, 2008 @ 9:13 am
Thank you Mami for what you said about judges. (Not for supporting Prop 8
) One of the things that really bothers me about this whole debate is the way that members of the church are complaining about the judiciary branch of the government. This complaining seems to me to reflect a basic lack of understanding about how our government is supposed to work.
Comment by Paula — August 22, 2008 @ 9:13 am
I don’t think that following the prophet in this case means that we are not following the commandment to love others.
Comment by Stephanie — August 22, 2008 @ 9:15 am
for starters, we wouldn’t be talking wiht you now. more like, you wouldn’t make me laugh on a daily basis.
sniffle. that’s just sad to think of..
Comment by mfranti — August 22, 2008 @ 9:20 am
Good job, Hera. I’m proud of you.
Comment by Hera's Mom — August 22, 2008 @ 9:25 am
allie,
i heard myself in those comments.
it should be hard. you are right.
Comment by mfranti — August 22, 2008 @ 9:32 am
Marriage is not (solely) a religious institution. There is no religion requirement for marriage. You may get married in an entirely civil manner. “Marriage” is, in fact, a set of civil law rules designed to give specific benefits (taxes, inheritance, medical, and social) to certain unions. Homosexuals marrying has no effect on heterosexual marriage- just as the fact that the Catholic Church did not recognize my marriage to my husband because it was not officiated by a priest made no difference when it came time to get divorced. We got a civil divorce and he didn’t have to get an annullment because in the eyes of the Catholic Church we were simply never married. We were still married… and still divorced. If a particular Church wants to define Marriage as the union of a man and a woman, I have no problem with that…..just as I have no problem with any minister refusing to marry any couple. I wouldn’t even have a problem with a Church refusing to recognize said marriage in church.
What I do have a problem with is trying to call marriage a religious institution. There are civil benefits to marriage that should be available to any two people who wish to take those responsibilities on themselves. I also have a problem with people who say that gay marriage demeans or devalues or in any way effects the integrity of the institution of marriage. Other people’s choices in this matter simply have no effect on my choices.
To me its like saying that because Susie over there is drinking coffee or tea, Joe’s decision to follow the Word of Wisdom is less sacred or less meaningful in some way.
great discussion and post by the way!
Comment by cgbmac — August 22, 2008 @ 10:36 am
California has more than 100,000 households headed by gay couples, about a quarter with children, according to 2000 census data.
el guapo, I pasted your #4 and #5 below because they can’t stand as arguments against same sex marriages. SSM is not just a recognition of love, these are 2-parent families raising children and if your #4 is at all true for straight couples, then the social pressure and stability you mention woudl be a GOOD thing for the children in the same-sex households.
4) … social pressure on getting and staying married - which is good for families, children, and society.
5) Some same sex couples want to enter the institution of marriage in order to get state recognition of the affirmation of their love for each other. That purpose for marriage is vastly different than the existing one - to provide stable environments for raising children.
Comment by cchrissyy — August 22, 2008 @ 10:58 am
Thanks everyone for continuing the conversation, even the big long lectures
There are as many reasons to get married as there are couples. Some young LDS folks admittedly do it just so they can have “legal” sex. Some people do it because they want to solidify a relationship and bring children into their homes. Some do it so they can visit each other in the ICU and make medical decisions for their partners. Some do it for fun. Some do it to show the world they are willing to take on the responsibilities of adult life. Some do it so they can get their names in the tabloids. Some do it just so they can have a reception and get presents. I suspect many do it because society expects people to get married.
Part of the marriage ceremony is the opportunity to state to the public that you promise to take care of someone you love, that you accept that person’s strengths and weaknesses, that you will work together as a unit and share your fiscal, emotional, physical, and spiritual lives. To be able to proclaim this in front of legal witnesses, family and friends is a blessing that is not accorded to people who sign a domestic partnership agreement and mail it in to the registrar.
When we attend marriages as guests, we are saying to the couple that we, as their community of family and friends, will support them in keeping their marriage stable. That stability is in everyone’s best interest. We are rewarding the couple for taking on a large responsibility and a sometimes hard task.
For those who would remove the government from marriage, how would you administer the 1100+ civil benefits of marriage? How would people prove to the state that they were married? If somebody knocked on your door today and asked you to prove you were married, how would you do it if you didn’t have a marriage certificate issued by the state?
Comment by Hera — August 22, 2008 @ 11:22 am
oh, and Thanks, Mom
Comment by Hera — August 22, 2008 @ 11:23 am
So I was just sitting here wondering why no administrator was stepping in to calm mfranti down and ask her to re-read the comments policy, because she’s really spewing some vitriol.
Then I realized she was a permablogger, for which a different comment policy apparently exists. I mean, I’d almost certainly be asked to leave if I called everyone who disagrees with me a bigot, as she did in comment 43. Right?
Or is it viewpoint based? Do you get to be righteously indignant here if your cause is more liberal-minded?
Any help here would be appreciated. I’m just trying to sort all these unspoken rules in my head.
Comment by jimbob — August 22, 2008 @ 11:46 am
mami,
I haven’t seen anyone here call the judges ‘activist judges.’ FWIW.
Comment by m&m — August 22, 2008 @ 11:50 am
Jimbob - it appears king of texas was balancing mfranti out with his “abomination” terminology, and the king wasn’t censored. If you’d like to share your opinion on the subject of the post, I’d love to read them. It would be great if we could all follow my mom’s advice, “If everyone else went and jumped off the Golden Gate bridge, would you do it to?”
In other words, just because someone else does something inappropriate doesn’t mean you should do it too.
So, share away. But I respectfully reserve the right to refrain from conversations with trolls or thread-jackers.
Comment by Hera — August 22, 2008 @ 12:08 pm
if my comment was inappropriate, why didn’t some call me on it in the 150 comments since?
Comment by mfranti — August 22, 2008 @ 12:16 pm
Great work, Hera. There are many of us supporting you, and who feel as you do that this position is consistent with the core principles of the Gospel and the Love of the Savior.
Comment by Derek — August 22, 2008 @ 12:46 pm
You tell me. It’s your blog. You know your constituency far better than I. But it seems to me that calling everyone who disagrees with you on gay marriage a bigot is inescapably contrary to this admonition, which I found here on your website:
No mudslinging. “I disagree” is fine. “I think you are totally, 100% wrong” is okay. “I think you are a stupid idiot” is not.
But maybe the more interesting question, mfranti, is whether I’m reading you correctly. Can I be against gay marriage and not be a bigot in your mind?
Comment by jimbob — August 22, 2008 @ 1:02 pm
Hera,
Just wanted you to know that I stayed up waaaaay too late listening to all of the clips on your website and going through the links. I was very impressed. It’s one of the least polemic sites that I’ve seen (I mean that as a compliment). The interviews are very powerful.
I recently had a bishop in a previous stake share his experiences surrounding his personal journey coming to terms with his son’s homosexuality. It was quite profound and his attitude towards homosexuality (thankfully) transformed.
In my lifetime, there have already been tremendous changes in how homosexuality is talked about. I’ve enjoyed this very civil discussion.
Paula, thanks for the tip on Kaimi’s presentation. I appreciate it. I listened to it quite late at night and have to admit, I did hear him addressing the assumption about temple marriage but missed anything about a bishop being required by law to perform ceremonies. This is an honest inquiry. I can understand how temple marriage might be a different case since all LDS are not permitted to marry in the temple without a recommend. But, what about a bishop asked to perform a SSM? Again, sorry if I missed this in Kaimi’s presentation or if the answer is obvious to everyone else. I have no excuse sleep deprivation.
Comment by Lupita — August 22, 2008 @ 1:12 pm
No excuse BUT sleep deprivation. See?!
Comment by Lupita — August 22, 2008 @ 1:14 pm
Lupita, maybe I’m mixed up about where I heard the part about the bishop performing the SSM. (And I’m glad that the clips kept you up late.) It might have been in discussions with other folks about this. Right now, do bishops have to perform a marriage ceremony for anyone who asks them? I don’t know. But my guess is that they don’t. I don’t see how Prop 8 would change that.
Comment by Paula — August 22, 2008 @ 1:16 pm
Julie F. (146) thanks for your response. Although, I still think you are oversimplifying that verse to support your stance that the Church has no business taking a stance on issues, and especially not pronouncing it over the pulpit.
I think it’s clear from the text of the verse and the subsequent verses that expand on it, that the Saints were reaffirming their rights under the establishment and exercise clauses of the First Amendment, particularly, that no one could be deprived of “property or life” based on religious beliefs or standing in a religion.
I know I’m throwing a match on dry tinder by asking, but, where exactly does Prop 8 say that the right to marry (i.e. to join civilly a man and woman in matrimony) is eliminated?
Comment by Bull Moose — August 22, 2008 @ 1:20 pm
By replacing marriage with civil unions.
Comment by Stephanie — August 22, 2008 @ 1:20 pm
jimbob,
problem solved.
i never called anyone on this bored a bigot. including you.
unless you are a homophobic bigot, my comments shouldn’t affect you. and you are not, right?
Comment by mfranti — August 22, 2008 @ 1:29 pm
Although I don’t feel strongly enough about the issue to get riled up by the church’s involvement in proposition 8, I do take issue with the immediate labeling of “bigot” and the questions of why is the church doing something so hateful to homosexuals. For people who love to claim that life is mostly gray areas, they certainly have been quick to get out the black and white brushes to draw a line in the sand.
I’m in the bishopric in my ward and have been to countless meetings on this proposition 8 coalition. Never has anyone at any of these meetings (ward and stake level) said anything disparaging about homosexuals. Neither have they said anything disparaging about members who disagree with the church’s involvement. The closest thing to negative that I have heard said about the issue was an admonition from our stake president to encourage those who struggle with the church’s involvement to study and ponder the doctrine, summarized in the proclamation on the family.
Obviously there will be bigots on BOTH sides of the argument and I don’t mean in anyway to give them any sort of pass, but please don’t lump all supporters of prop 8 as bigots. Just because I disagree with you (I’m really on the fence on this issue by the way) does not make me a bigot, or indicate that I have a closed mind. It merely means that my opinion is different than yours.
Slightly off topic question. Why does mormons for marriage stress that people not leave opposing viewpoint comments? Seems like it’s just a place for yes-mynery when you silence one side of the argument.
Comment by vbg — August 22, 2008 @ 1:32 pm
cgbmac #184
Please read my comments #119 and #136.
Comment by Stephanie — August 22, 2008 @ 1:36 pm
#180 “I don’t think that following the prophet in this case means that we are not following the commandment to love others.”
I’d agree if it weren’t for so many who seem to get carried away and forget that what the church teaches about not judging others. People hear that they should fight for marriage, and think that means they have to attack “the enemy”.
Comment by Alliegator — August 22, 2008 @ 1:49 pm
Alliegator, then those people who are getting carried away and judging others and attacking others are not following the commandment to love others, but to say that just because someone supports Proposition 8 and the prophet’s position means that they don’t love others is not true, IMO.
Comment by Stephanie — August 22, 2008 @ 1:54 pm
I’m sorry if it came across that way. I think that people have to do what they feel is right, and sometimes two people can interpret the same thing in different ways and still both be right. For me, supporting prop 8 goes against my duty to love and be Christlike, but I am willing to accept that other people view it differently.
Comment by Alliegator — August 22, 2008 @ 2:07 pm
vbg– re your last paragraph. Mormons for Marriage does not say that no comments in support of Prop 8 will be tolerated. In fact there is at least one comment at the site which links to a blog in support of Prop 8. Here’s the complete policy:
“If you don’t agree with the positions taken by mormonsformarriage, this is not the place to make negative comments, call people to repentance or engage in debating the issues. There are many places on the internet where debates about same-sex marriage rage on night and day, and we respectfully request you allow this site to be a place of thoughtful peace. Remember, “We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience and allow all [others] the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.”
Respectful intelligent original comments in support of Prop 8 will be considered for approval, but frankly, that side has plenty of other places to make their point, so the comment would have to be somewhat unusual to be approved.
Comment by mimosa — August 22, 2008 @ 2:30 pm
LRC –to add to your comments about the proposition process in California, I have to add a couple of other troubling points.
–Propositions can be put on the ballot and passed without much discussion. This happened in LA with term limits. The people of California voted for term limits–two terms per elected official. A proposition was put on the ballot to give the city council a third term. It passed quietly during a low voter turnout municipal election after proponents successfully got out enough supporters to pass it. This is all done with $$$ from those wanting to make the change who know how to play the system.
–So, it is very difficult to say an election is actually the voice of the people–it is not often the voice of the majority.
–And, this is why it is important for the Supreme Court to ensure propositions pass the constitutionality test. Prop. 8 will change the constitution which would make Prop.22 constitutional.
Comment by Thinker — August 22, 2008 @ 2:32 pm
Lupita asks, But, what about a bishop asked to perform a SSM?
I’m sure Kaimi pointed out in his talk the quote from the judicial ruling which states, “[A]ffording same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the designation of marriage will not impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official, or any other person; no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.” (emphasis mine)
Comment by Hera — August 22, 2008 @ 2:57 pm
Since nobody else has raised this, I thought I might as well raise the issue of immigration in gay relationships. My oldest friend is an American gay man whose long-term boyfriend isn’t American. My friend can’t sponsor him for immigration, although they’ve been together now for about 7 years. They’ve recently had the opportunity to move back to the US because my friend’s boyfriend is highly sought-after in the banking profession, but there are many, many mixed-nationality same-sex couples that aren’t in the same position. When they were looking into ways to keep his partner in the US, about the only way to do it was to enter him into a sham marriage with an American woman. Surely circumventing immigration laws by undermining them is worse than allowing someone in a committed same-sex relationship to sponsor his or her partner! And surely entering into a sham marriage is more of an undermining of marriage than allowing two men who love each other to get married! Hopefully, as more states recognise same-sex marriages, immigration law will be changed to reflect this.
Comment by Quimby — August 22, 2008 @ 3:05 pm
#200 - VBG — I agree with you that name calling is over the top and that we all need to reach out and be charitable to our neighbors who believe differently. I agree that this is a message church leaders are trying so very hard to put across. I know my own bishopric has bent over backwards reminding people to avoid anti-gay rhetoric and has physically stepped in and stopped conversations where half-truths and rumors were being spread.
Thank you for taking time to look at this post and at the Mormons for Marriage site. As I’m sure you are aware, there are members struggling with their positions on this matter. One of the strengths of the internet is to provide community and support regardless of geographic location. We at MfM saw a need to build a community where people would feel safe to ask questions, research facts and make connections to others who are also struggling. Mimosa has shared our comment policy, as I’m sure you’ve seen.
One way to create a feeling of safety and defuse intensely emotional reactions is to require respectful, thoughtful comments. As you may have noticed from several comments here, it’s easy to get sidetracked in ego-defense, and that really doesn’t do any of us any good. If our goal is communication, we need to avoid shooting the messengers on both sides.
Comment by Hera — August 22, 2008 @ 3:05 pm
cool thanks for the responses 205 and 209. I asked mostly because my experience in reading the bloggernacle is that most opinions in support of the church’s position on anything, whether or not the support is respectfully given, tends to be viewed by the bloggers and other guests as vitriolic or bigotted remarks. I suppose I read the enacted values of the bloggers into that sites espoused values.
I appreciate the response and I apologize for the potential threadjack.
Comment by vbg — August 22, 2008 @ 3:16 pm
More on mormonsformarriage at:
http://tinyurl.com/5c4l7t
Comment by mimosa — August 22, 2008 @ 5:31 pm
Human contact is the road to healing on issues like this. In my past I was in the uncomfortable spot of trying to reconcile my loyalty and faith in the church and its leaders, with the difficult logical issue of why God would create someone who was gay if it was abominable. Trying to work through that problem without real faces and hearts and spirits in place of the labels just makes it an intellectual exercise. Like playing a board game. Once you hear a real person’s story, and really listen, and the issue is now about real people whose humanity you have experienced personally… everything changes.
Here is some love to my homosexual brothers and sisters, from a straight, white, American dude. Let’s see if we can’t get you a little more peace up in here.
Comment by Clay — August 22, 2008 @ 5:32 pm
I really like the website Mormons for Marriage because it helps me feel closer to my gay family members and the website encourages me to think for myself while validating my experience, which experience is different than the rhetoric so often heard at church. Thanks for posting this link.
Comment by Cherylem — August 22, 2008 @ 5:57 pm
What people say and what people hear are two different things. I’m sure many of us have overheard many snarky comments about mormons. I sure heard enough with Romney running. Many of these people would insist they were not bigots with their anti-mormon comments. Maybe they were, maybe they weren’t;but I heard the comments.
Heck, sometimes I open my mouth and out comes a sexist comment. My favorite childhood game was –Smear the Queer. I don’t believe I was consciously advocating gay bashing
People may not think they are making anti-gay comments, but I hear them.
The Mormon church is campaigning to strip me of my civil rights.
I don’t view this as a friendly gesture. So thankyou to all for the positive comments and the compassion. It gets tiresome being a big, scary monster.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — August 22, 2008 @ 6:13 pm
Regarding the Fox news story linked to above. The opening the of article is telling in that it states that we pro-gay marriage Mormons are turning to the internet to say what we might not be brave enough to say in church. I suspect that this is spot on, I certainly admit my own hesitation to speak up at church, and as of yet I have been silent on Sundays, but isn’t this a problem?
I think most of us have powerful theological, personal, spiritual, and intellectual reasons for supporting gay rights in general and gay marriage in particular. Don’t we owe it to our communities to not let the language of assumed unanimous consent heard from the pulpit go unchallenged? I don’t know if the larger Mormon community is ready for it, but I suggest that we should be posing the idea, at the ward level, that faithful members can hold more than one opinion on such issues and still be within orthodoxy. It’s an opportunity to broaden popular Mormon concepts of community.
Comment by Douglas Hunter — August 22, 2008 @ 7:23 pm
Douglas #215 - It’s wonderful when people are willing to speak up in church. Here’s a link to a post at mormonsformarriage with ideas about ways to do that. Please share some of your own as well - it’s easier for some to speak up than others.
Comment by Hera — August 22, 2008 @ 7:39 pm
Clark Pingree’s comparison of anti-mixed-marriage opposition in the 1900’s with anti-gay-marriage opposition today is stunning….
http://ldshomosexuality.com/?p=155
Comment by LDS Homosexuality — August 22, 2008 @ 8:56 pm
(I should have said anti-interracial marriage)
Comment by LDS Homosexuality — August 22, 2008 @ 8:57 pm
The following statements at lds4gaymarriage.org answered my questions and have helped me understand so much more:
Comment by Kalola — August 22, 2008 @ 8:57 pm
The church’s statement on the “divine institution of marriage” actually represents a substantial change in its position from a decade ago. At that time, I was living in California when the church actively opposed a domestic partners registry. If I remember correctly, the proposed registry did not confer any rights–it simply allowed domestic partners to register. Those who registered could sometimes then use that registration to ask their employers for recognition of the relationship, but it did not require employers to grant any rights to domestic partners.
By now saying, “The Church does not object to rights (already established in California) regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the family or the constitutional rights of churches and their adherents to administer and practice their religion free from government interference,” the church has truly done an about-face on this issue.
This suggests to me that the church, having come this far, will eventually come around to recognizing that same sex marriage is not the end of the world.
Comment by Hera's Mom — August 22, 2008 @ 10:01 pm
Kalola - you quoted a website saying: “We are only advocating that laws be passed to allow gays the equal legal rights offered to heterosexuals and are in no way wanting to force churches to perform same-sex marriages.”
Domestic partnerships in CA already allow same-sex couples all the same rights by definition as married couples. This is not about rights. The supreme court overturned Proposition 22 to ensure that same sex couples have the same respect and dignity afforded to married couples. Seems strange to me but that was their rationale.
Please keep in mind this not about rights. Those are absolutely equal as is…
Comment by el_guapo — August 22, 2008 @ 11:04 pm
Hera’s Mom - in what ways did the church oppose domestic partnership registries?
Comment by el_guapo — August 22, 2008 @ 11:06 pm
Hera, #216
It goes without saying that some people will have an easier time speaking up than others. Its my hope that all the internet discussion may serve to make it a possibility for more to speak up. I suppose that even if we don’t speak up locally at least we can say we have found community here on the web, that a sizable community of Mormons have come together for discussion, to strengthen one another and to announce our spiritual and ethical solidarity with gay friends, family and strangers. I hope that the warmth, thoughtfulness, and work of this informal community will persist after the first week of November.
After prayer and consideration it’s clear that my comments need to focus on my immediate community. I have become interested in the language used by the Bishop of my ward, it’s the phrases we have all heard repeatedly now such as “our best efforts are required” “we, and like minded friends from other faiths need to do all we can.” These phrases have become a script read from each week. But who is this “we”? Are “we” an “us”? The use of language is strategic, its broad inclusiveness attempt to obscure the nuances, and differences that exist in our community. The strength of its invitation already puts pressure on those who may disagree. So my comments will take the form of a questioning. Is it alright if we acknowledge that their are a variety of beliefs and opinions among the members of our priesthood quorums? That not everyone in the quorum is represented in the “we” and the “us” that has become the subject of so much encouragement. Or does the integrity of the quorum depend upon the masking of these difference? What course of action is there for those who cannot support Church efforts in this endeavor? These are the first question I am interested in exploring. It allows me to strongly imply that I am anti prop. 8 while asking an honest question about the makeup and meaning of our community. As I mentioned above, I think we have an opportunity to support gay rights and also to expand the notion of Mormon community beyond that of conformity.
Comment by Douglas Hunter — August 22, 2008 @ 11:51 pm
#221 writes “Please keep in mind this not about rights. Those are absolutely equal as is…”
Why not ask the legal experts who have studied the issue if the rights are absolutely equal as is? Lambda Legal defense has studied the issue and has come to a different conclusion. Also keep in mind even if in California hetero and homo marriages are legally equal. That equality does not exist in other states or on the federal level.
Its also about rights on a different level, that we have a certain class of people who are being told that they can not describe or represent their relationships as they see them. Religious conservatives seem to hold the position that they have a unique right to define and use a specific word. That is more than a little bizarre.
Comment by Douglas Hunter — August 22, 2008 @ 11:58 pm
It’s simply untrue that the Church does not oppose gay rights except for SSM. On the contrary! It may indeed have conceded everything but SSM in CA, but the Church has assiduously opposed the gay rights movement every step of the way for decades. When there were sodomy laws (do people here even remember those??!), the Church resisted their removal. When laws protecting gays from job and housing discrimination were proposed, the Church fought against them. When domestic partnership registration was created in some places, the Church opposed it. Not all of this activity was as direct as the current support of Prop 8, but the pattern is crystal clear. An honest look at the history leaves little to debate, make of it what you will.
The most recent statement on the “divine institution of marriage” strikes me as disingenuous. The Church is now OK with domestic partnership laws? Uh, let’s go try and get CA-style gay domestic partnerships passed in Utah or Idaho. Wonder how that would go?
Comment by MikeInWeHo — August 23, 2008 @ 12:47 am
I don’t know if my ward is the exception or if we are so far removed from the immediate conflict in New England- but I haven’t heard a peep about this issue here. Naturally , I am concerned, aside from having a gay brother, I have many gay friends- some of them in very long term committed partnerships, who would like to marry officially. Thanks to the website Hera plugged, I stand ready to speak up if the need arises.
Nothing has been read or spoken about from the pulpit and nothing has come up at any other meetings about this hot issue and I’ve been watching for it.
Is this taking on regional aspects, simply because CA is the hot spot or is this “support” supposed to be global, yet directed at CA?
Comment by Kimberly — August 23, 2008 @ 5:05 am
Douglas, I get what you are saying and I agree. However, even at the ward level there will be those who will give you some version of the ‘ol “Is he the Prophet, or isn’t he” or “When the Prophet speaks, that’s it.”
Comment by newbie — August 23, 2008 @ 9:24 am
Douglas Hunter - let’s assume the CA supreme court has some expertise on this topic, having heard arguments and read briefs from the most informed from both sides. In their opinion overturning Prop 22 they state several times that California “…in recent years has enacted comprehensive domestic partnership legislation under which a same-sex couple may enter into a legal relationship that affords the couple virtually all of the same substantive legal benefits and privileges, and imposes upon the couple virtually all of the same legal obligations and duties, that California law affords to and imposes upon a married couple.”
They further clarify the reason for overturning Prop 22 was to afford same sex couples the same respect and dignity as married couples.
If same-sex couples want respect and dignity, they won’t get that be being able to call themselves married. Let them bring respect and dignity to the institution of domestic partnerships.
Comment by el_guapo — August 23, 2008 @ 9:24 am
I was really moved by the “Mormons for Marriage” website. I do have some questions that I would love for someone to answer, though.
1. How can you keep your temple recommend as a mormon who is sympathetic “to groups or individuals whose teachings or practices are contrary or opposed to those accepted by the Church?” After all, if church leadership is From The Pulpit asking you to support this or that proposition, how can you sympathize w/ the opposing side and not be asked to turn in your TR?
I felt morally compelled to turn in my TR, in large part for this reason. The other reason was that I could not honestly say that I supported my church leaders.
2. If your child confessed as an adult that they were gay, would you be able to forgive yourself as a parent for having raised them in a community such as the LDS church, even if you yourself were a vocal advocate such as Hera for tolerance and equality?
3. How much room in the Church is there really for dissenting opinions? Given the TR question, I personally don’t see any room at all. This church is not a democracy.
I really don’t ask these questions to offend, but rather to gain insight on other members opinions.
Comment by NS — August 23, 2008 @ 9:32 am
Kimberly #226 -
The issue of SSM is on California’s ballot this year, and the church is specifically working with California wards and branches to urge them to get involved in the issue. Similar measures are on ballots in Florida and, if I recall correctly, Arizona, and the church indicated it would be involved there. Perhaps New England is a lost cause?
Part of the reason the church is involved in California is because of the way California’s government is very much run by the people - it’s very friendly to grass-roots action, for good or bad. As such, organizations that are good at mobilizing volunteers and support regularly take advantage of the opportunity.
Another part of the reason the church is involved is due to the heavy influence California has on the rest of the nation. It is often on the cutting-edge of political reform (hey, we allowed mixed-race marriages decades before the rest of the country, and our clean-air standards leave the Feds far behind), so if groups can influence California’s constitution, they can become precedent-setters for the nation as a whole.
Comment by Hera — August 23, 2008 @ 9:43 am
el_guapo, since you are quoting the Supreme Court’s decision overturning Prop. 22, perhaps you would be interested in their reasons why domestic partnerships are not and can never be equal to marriage (emphasis added):
Comment by Hera — August 23, 2008 @ 9:48 am
NS #229 - i see your questions and will comment on them later today - I’ve run out of time at the moment.
Comment by Hera — August 23, 2008 @ 9:51 am
Thanks.
Comment by NS — August 23, 2008 @ 11:14 am
Hera, I went to the government site you posted to see who was donating how much to this cause. A couple of things stood out to me: the folks who live in the La Canada (I don’t have the font to do the thing over the “n”, so just pretend the y-sound there) are taking this very seriously $$ wise. Obviously this issue means a lot to them, but because the dollar amount is so large, I’m wondering if they aren’t also trying impress somebody. Just think what that money could have been used for if donated to the humanitarian fund. On the other end of the spectrum, I see many public school teachers who have donated what would seem to be a large amount ($1,000 and over) given the salary of a public school teacher living in a bad economy with currenty no budget on the books in Sacramento.
Comment by newbie — August 23, 2008 @ 11:22 am
re: 214
I think you raise some very key points. Mormons in general are very sensitive to any perceived persecution or slights (I remember many people complaining about the anti-Mormon “bias” in the PBS documentary a couple years back, a work which I thought was admirably objective and neutral). If we aren’t going to be hypocritical, we need to recognize the potential for others to act the same way.
And frankly, I’m not sure one can oppose recognition of the reality of homosexuality without being bigoted or homophobic at some level. It may not be overt, and they may even have homosexual acquaintances whom they treat well. But there were plenty of people in the middle of the last century who had black acquaintances whom they treated well, but they still opposed full civil rights or even just miscegenation. They may have couched it in very careful terms or religious justifications (descendants of Cain, premortal fencesitters). Weren’t they, at some level, probably subconscious, being bigoted and racist? Isn’t that much like those opposing full freedom of conscience for homosexuals?
I’m not trying to call names or disparage those with opinions contrary to mine. What I mean to do is encourage some self-evaluation. In the past, I’ve made some statements which, after some introspection, I’ve realized were evidence of some bigotry I’d picked up. We shouldn’t necessarily feel bad about having prejudices. I think most of us have prejudices which have seeped into our character from the influences around us (family, friends, society at large). The key is to recognize them and work on eradicating them. The sin is when we instead try to rationalize them.
re:215
I agree, we should stand up more and express our dissent. Respectfully and with brotherly kindness and gentle persuasion, surely, but nevertheless strongly as we stand for something.
re: 220
Thanks for sharing your experience, Hera’s Mom. If your perception is accurate, it gives me hope that the Church can continue to evolve their position.
re: 221
El Guapo, separate but equal does not work. Even if those who established the concept of a Domestic Partnership intended them to provide all the same rights and protections, those rights will erode as long as those partnerships are considered something different from marriage.
re: 229
My bishop and stake president are aware of where I stand on state recognition of homosexual marriage. Neither have found it grounds for denying my a recommend. I do not believe that granting individuals and churches the freedom of conscience to permit homosexual marriage is contrary to the core doctrines of the Gospel.
Comment by Derek — August 23, 2008 @ 11:22 am
I just have to ask: Am I the only one who’s going to feel a bit uneasy when General Conference comes ’round in October?
Comment by newbie — August 23, 2008 @ 11:42 am
Obviously this issue means a lot to them, but because the dollar amount is so large, I’m wondering if they aren’t also trying impress somebody. Just think what that money could have been used for if donated to the humanitarian fund.
Just a question — how do you know that they haven’t contributed large sums to the humanitarian fund? (People in this area are generally pretty wealthy to begin with.) People who are opposing the leaders’ position want the space to make their own decisions w/o people judging them; it seems only fair, then that y’all offer that same respect to those who are choosing differently from you.
Comment by m&m — August 23, 2008 @ 12:00 pm
NS #229:
I have asked myself these same questions. I have struggled for many years with the church’s position on homosexuality, but prop 8 has been so difficult for me that I’ve been seriously questioning how much I want to be affiliated with the church. I haven’t really considered turning my temple recommend in, but it expires in November and I don’t know if I will renew it. I would essentially have to lie about sympathizing with unsanctioned groups/individuals and about sustaining church leadership. Also, I was so disturbed by this post that I am not sure I want to give tithing money to the same organization that is soliciting funds in this way.
In response to number 2, see this post which echoes the experience of my family in dealing with my brother’s sexual orientation. My parents still feel deep regret for the guilt, shame, and self-loathing my brother endured growing up LDS but knowing he was gay.
As for your third question, I have a friend who is a committed environmentalist who also happens to work as a geologist for one of the world’s largest and most destructive oil companies. He has ethical issues with his job, but his attitude is that the best way to change the organization is not by outside activism, but from the inside. I think there is room for dissent in the church - while certainly not for overt dissent, there are ways to change attitudes and hearts. I try to be open when appropriate about my own gay family member, and people are sensitive and respectful. A couple in my ward recently found out that their son is gay. They have embraced him and his new lifestyle without reservation and have made it their new life’s mission to bring this complicated issue out of the closet, so to speak - to be there for families who are going through the same thing, and also to challenge outdated notions and attitudes. Not necessarily from the pulpit, but within the context of being a well-respected and very active LDS family.
Comment by Meredith C — August 23, 2008 @ 1:09 pm
#229– for me, I feel that speaking out is a way to support leaders. When I’ve been in local leadership positions I’ve been happy for people who were willing to express views different than mine because it helped me in decision making.
I do have one son who’s left the church. He’s not gay, but he does acknowledge that there were some very good things about growing up in the church. Hopefully a gay child would feel the same way. In our family, a gay child would probably have felt more accepted than in most mormon families, from the start, because one of my children’s grandparents is gay. I probably wouldn’t feel remorseful for bringing him in the church that has been my family’s church for 6 generations, but I would wish that our church could find better ways of teaching tolerance and respect for all.
I do think that there is room for dissent, or questioning, but that might just be because I’m old enough to remember a pre-correlated church.
Comment by mimosa — August 23, 2008 @ 2:15 pm
#229 - here are my thoughts:
First, this question has generally been considered to be one that is geared toward finding polygamists, so that’s definitely not a problem. Second, the First Presidency has asked for us to take a stand on a moral issue. They have asked us to study the Proclamation on the Family. They have asked us to be loving and charitable to those with whom we disagree. They have also said it is up to members themselves to determine how they can be involved. I don’t believe that supporting and sustaining includes checking your brain at the door and following “because I said so.” When I’ve been in leadership positions, I have been grateful for counselors whose viewpoints differed from my own, and I’ve also been grateful to hear stories from those under my leadership who are affected by my decisions. When they’ve thoughtfully voiced their concerns or opposition, I’ve respected that kind of sustaining much more than I’ve respected the “yes-you-are-always-right” because of the mantle of your authority kind of sustaining.
Ultimately, the decision of worthiness rests in my heart: Am I trying to build up the Church and its leaders or am I trying to tear down the Church? If I have a practicing gay family member and love and support that person, does that mean I am not worthy to attend the temple? I personally feel that I am doing all I can to support my church leaders and, so far, they don’t seem to disagree.
I would feel bad if, during their growing up experiences they felt they had to carry the brunt of religious homophobia on their own. I would also feel bad if they felt they had to wait until they were adults to come out to me, or if they felt they had to hide such a big part of their lives from me. With that in mind, should we ever live in a less tolerant ward, I would not hesitate to either (a) speak openly about the need for tolerance and charity or to (b) find a more welcoming place for my family to worship. I would never choose the church over my family.
The Church is a big place, and, like it or not, it varies greatly from one ward to another. The way dissent is expressed makes a big difference. If dissenters are non-threatening and open, honest, thoughtful, and caring; if they participate as fully as they can wherever they can (service project, anyone?); if they criticize in private and compliment in public; if they are willing to work patiently with local leaders, I think most leaders would prefer to keep their members “in the fold”. At least that’s been my experience while holding dissenting opinions on many things over the past 30-odd years.
Comment by Hera — August 23, 2008 @ 2:44 pm
I want to echo m&m in #237–we really have no way to know how much those same people are donating to the humanitarian fund, or tithing, or for that matter, to their local schools, or animal shelters, or the Red Cross, or Katrina clean-up, or women’s crisis centers, or any of the many charitable causes out there. I also suspect that many of them were unaware of how public the record of their donation would be–and even if they did, they probably weren’t counting on fMh to link to it!
Hera, I do wonder, when you’re willing to link to that list of donors, why the Mormons for Marriage site doesn’t make a similar list of its donors? (Or at least provide a reciprocal link to people who’ve donated to groups in opposition to Prop. 8?) Forgive me if it’s posted and I just missed it, but I looked around on the site, and while the videos are credited to individuals, and many comments are signed with full names, many of the posts are anonymous (”admin”–is that you?).
Don’t get me wrong…I totally understand the desire for anonymity on the internet. I’m posting under a pseudonym here, too! But in this situation, where we are discussing–and in some cases, criticizing–substantial donations from otherwise private citizens, I’m a bit uncomfortable. They donated to a cause they support; they didn’t ask to be analyzed on fMh. So it seems only fair at this point to see the money that’s changing hands on the other side of the issue.
Comment by Melanie2 — August 23, 2008 @ 5:08 pm
I’m coming late to this argument online, but it’s one I’m in the midst of living in California. I agree with many of you who have said you are uncomfortable with politics being preached over the pulpit & being asked to not only give to Protect Marriage, but to also report your donation. My husband & I are struggling with these issues too, along with our distaste for some of the prejudiced rhetoric bandied about & being associated with right-wing nuts.
We had just moved here 9 years ago when Prop. 22 was passed & were asked to participate in that fight. We were hoping we wouldn’t have to again, but clearly we were wrong.
Anyone interested in reading the church’s stance on homosexuality and Prop 8 can go to lds.org, click on newsroom, & read the article entitled “The Divine Institution of Marriage”. In it you will find that by supporting Prop 8, the church does not want to infringe upon the rights of homosexuals but rather protect the definition of marriage.
While traditional marriage has gone through many changes throughout the centuries, the definition of marriage has always been the union of a man & woman. By changing the definition to “the union of any two people” the institution is fundamentally changed because the two definitions cannot coexist. The law cannot usher gays into the meaning or social institution of marriage in order to give them equal dignity because by ushering them in they destroy the meaning of the institution itself.
Those who argue that homosexual marriage will have no effect on heterosexual marriage should recognize that, at the very least, the terms husband & wife will have different meanings because it is marriage that makes a man a husband and a woman a wife. If marriage is the union of any 2 people then can a woman be a husband or a man a wife in a SSM or will there be new terms to describe 2 married people?
This is getting really long so I’m just going to end by sum up by saying that I am uncomfortable with politics in church and any kind of language that does not recognize everyone as a child of God. However, I believe that family is the foundation of society & while there may not be hard proof that genderless marriage will hurt society (how can there be at this early stage?), there is overwhelming evidence that the most beneficial environment for a child is one in which s/he is raised in a home with both a mother and a father.
If anyone is interested in the other side of Hera’s argument can go to marriagelawfoundation.org. I think, though, while we may disagree on the issue itself, we both agree that everyone involved should definitely study and pray about the issue & learn both sides before making a final decision.
Comment by brittany — August 23, 2008 @ 11:15 pm
Just read m&m’s comment way back when. sorry for the repeat about “The Divine Institution of Marriage”
Comment by brittany — August 23, 2008 @ 11:15 pm
Thanks for this link– I’m shaken by this issue and happy to find another source of information and insight.
The “support prop 8 with your time, talents, means and everything” letter was read in our ward in Hawaii a couple of weeks ago. My husband and I wrote letters (posted on the Signing for something site) and sent them to our local leadership. This week we were called into the bishop’s office, and released from our callings in Relief Society and Young Men, told our temple recommends could not be renewed, and that we would be contacted by the Stake president for “the next steps.” The reasons were unclear– something about the “light going out of our countenance” and a violation of “the patriarchal order.”
I’m so shocked and unhappy that our life long commitment to the church– both serving missions, paying tithing, serving callings– could be so easily dismissed– over a letter! A friend put it well– we suddenly realized that our deep commitment to the church is not reciprocated.
I hope that as more members can understand the issues in a compassionate and Christlike way the church can become a safer home for people of all opinions and orientations.
Comment by Becca — August 24, 2008 @ 12:29 am
admittedly, i haven’t really kept up on all of the comments here…
becca, i gasped when i read your post. my biggest fear is that i’ll be forced to make a choice or, rather, that a choice will be made for me when it comes to the church versus this issue. i frantically searched out your letter and, well, it WAS pretty inflammatory. don’t get me wrong, i can get all riled up when discussing this, but i know what audience i’m speaking to when it comes to people at church who are adamantly backing the prop. it’s sad that i have to change my tone and rhetoric, but i guess we all do that depending on what we’re speaking about or to whom.
where do you guys stand now, becca? i mean, in terms of church stuff? waiting for the sp to call?
Comment by makakona — August 24, 2008 @ 1:07 am
Huh. I really don’t know how to respond. The LDS church itself would not have defined marriage so strictly in its early days. There are ample examples throughout history and throughout different cultures of an entirely different make-up to marriage. To say that marriage has always been defined so narrowly is just plain wrong.
Comment by Quimby — August 24, 2008 @ 1:34 am
Dear Britanny-sorry,just not getting that 2 gay people being married will change my status as a wife or my husbands.We have been referring to each other as partners for too long anyhow for this to be anything like an issue.This only degrades marriage as an institution for anyone personally if they allow it to do so-it certainly does not touch my marriage.It’s just an irrelevance to my life,but certainly relevant to those who are not currently treated with equalty in law.I suggest we all keep our heads down and do what’s right in the privacy of the ballot box-a storm that needs to blow itself out -there’s been a few.Those wanting to embrace marriage are by definition moderates-thy want to conform-it’s the promiscuous that really challenge us.
Comment by wayfarer — August 24, 2008 @ 4:38 am
@Brittany (241):
“However, I believe that family is the foundation of society & while there may not be hard proof that genderless marriage will hurt society”
As a gay woman, even if I get married to another women I will still have my “gender”.
Comment by lemon drop — August 24, 2008 @ 6:54 am
re: 241
The terms will only be different for those participating in homosexual marriages. For those who participate in heterosexual marriages, or those who affiliate with institutions which do not authorize homosexual marriage (such as, presumably, the LDS Church), those terms will stay exactly the same. The first amendment guarantees that the government cannot force the LDS Church to perform, recognize, or otherwise accept homosexual marriage.
Comment by Derek — August 24, 2008 @ 9:10 am
brittany, I read the “Divine Institution of Marriage” on the lds website. It is very good, very clear, and addresses a lot of these questions aimed at you.
Comment by Stephanie — August 24, 2008 @ 9:24 am
Becca, I’d like to discuss what happened with you a bit more. Could you send an email to us at mormonsformarriage@gmail.com?
We won’t divulge any of your contact information. I’ll go look for your letter at signingforsomething a bit later when I have more time. Thanks.
Comment by mimosa — August 24, 2008 @ 10:02 am
I live in California. Like others I was here ten years ago when the church went after Prop 22. I was disturbed then. The clear delineation between church and state was trampled on in the name of “morals.”
Last week one of my colleagues came by privately to speak to me. We are both members of the church. I’m inactive and he’s a Elder’s Quorum president. He and I had some conversations about my inactivity. He thinks I should return and I politely decline.
So I was surprised when he came in fuming about the pressure cooker he finds himself in concerning the return of “anti-gay marriage” political stance the Mormon church has taken.
And yes, it truly is anti and political. He has been getting phone calls every night of the week wondering if he has contacted his neighbors letting them know that the sanctity of marriage must be upheld at all costs. On Sunday mornings, donation slips are being collected and monitored. Talks from the pulpit are designed to encourage members to get with the program or lose their celestial standing. Signs are being put up in the community areas and even front yards.
He told me, “It’s like people believe I’m not a member in good standing if I don’t donate, don’t make the phone calls, and don’t profess how wrong the gay community is for demanding equal treatment under the law. I’m starting to think in my next temple interview the question will be asked what is your stance on gay marriage.”
I just looked at him and raised my eyebrows. What did he expect? Here is an organized religion that denies the more controversial parts of it’s own history. A religion that denies women equal footing with men and then justifies it by stating “women have divine roles too” and moves on as if that explains everything.
Of course, the pressure is on. As my active friend noticed, being tolerant of gay marriage is tantamount to be an “enemy” to the church. And why did he come to talk to me? Because he knew I would not hold it against him if he felt that our gay neighbors, who upholding all our nation’s laws as prescribed, were being discriminated against because of their sexual orientation. An orientation that is up for debate even among the big boys, the GA’s. Are homosexuals born or are they made?
Who cares? “And all men are created equal, and are endowed with their creator with certain inalienable rights. The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
Slavery was the first big test of this idea. This country was hypocritical for almost a hundred years over the issue of slavery. Then came the church’s own persecution in the 1800’s. What did the Mormons want? Freedom of religion as described in the Bill of Rights. The Church fought and won a hard battle on that one. But they too were fighting the hypocrisy of the system.
Civil rights movement, Plessy V. Ferguson, Jim Crow, religious toleration, antisemitism, anti-Muslim attacks after 9-11. Just a few examples of the hypocrisy we are capable of in this country.
So now it is gay marriage. Again. The issue should move beyond sexual orientation and whether religiously it is “wrong.” Make those type of judgments in your own home and then live by them. But don’t deny anyone else because of their choices, as the basis to deny them the freedoms that our own documents preserve.
Haven’t we learned yet that to deny one is to eventually deny all? Take the freedom of one away and see those freedoms being denied elsewhere. Maybe in one hundred years our country will decide that religion is irresponsible and that it takes away people’s allegiance to the country in which they live and as such should be made illegal.
Think it can’t happen? Communist Russia comes to mind. Even in our own country look at the Catholics and the “Popists” argument that was designed to disallow European Catholics entry into America because of their great love and loyalty to their Pope.
This is not about deciding if someone’s choices violate God’s laws. God gets to make those decisions and by self-appointed proxy, churches. But, keep it at church. This is why we have separation of church and state. Religions should not be deciding who has access to the privileges of being American.
Comment by CC — August 24, 2008 @ 11:26 am
How do you think Latter-day Saints in California will respond if Prop 8 fails, badly, in November? There’s polling evidence this may occur. Times have changed since 2000, dramatically. Eight years of Bush & Co have left people in CA incredibly disgusted by the Religious Right, which unfortunately the Church has become fully connected with in the public eye. Putting this much effort into passing Prop 8 at least proves that the Church cares about more than just its PR image, though, that’s for sure!
I’m not sure if Prop 8 will pass this time around, but it’s clear that eventually the fairness argument will prevail over the anti-SSM religious arguments. Here’s an ad that’s playing on TV all the time in my neck of the woods.
Comment by MikeInWeHo — August 24, 2008 @ 12:17 pm
Hera - 231,
I understand their rationale for overturning Prop 22 (don’t agree with it but I understand it). My point is that it’s intellectually dishonest to imply that failure to pass Prop 8 will result in fewer rights for same-sex couples in domestic unions. They are by definition equal, meaning if a new right is invented for married couples that right will be by law transferred to domestic partnerships.
It’s not about rights. It’s about respect and dignity. If you agree that Prop 8 should fail don’t talk about rights.
Comment by el_guapo — August 24, 2008 @ 4:09 pm
Well, I guess one could always argue that the right to actually get married would be removed from same-sex couples if prop 8 passes, since they have that right right now and if we pass prop 8 they’ll be left without that right. Unless you don’t consider the right to get married an actual right, that is.
Comment by LRC — August 24, 2008 @ 5:29 pm
I saw the article in People magazine about Ellen and Portia being married. They look so very in love and happy and I’m happy for them.
Comment by newbie — August 24, 2008 @ 7:05 pm
(and wasn’t Portia’s dress absolutely dreamy?)
Comment by Quimby — August 24, 2008 @ 7:19 pm
Re: 245
It’s been weird– we left the meeting with our bishop with no sense about the future or where we stand. We were not invited back to church, and it seemed like we were on the edge of the yawning precipice (sorry for the infernal metaphor)– so very easy to say Fine, you don’t want us, then we’re not coming back.
But it seemed unfair that one angry bishop should be allowed to decide that for us. I’ve worked too hard and too long at understanding and believing the gospel to just leave like that. If I leave, I want it to be on my own terms, not in anger– but with a sense of growth and peace. In some ways this experience has made me renew my commitment to the church and the gospel– I even read my scriptures this morning and found some wonderful verses about how we’re our own judges, and how what we send out returns to us, and how we are judged by our desires. I felt very soothed reading that.
So I think we’ll still go next week (it’s stake conference today– a chance to think about it for a sunday), and maybe just stay for sacrament and then go to the beach.
I’m not sure that I’m willing to meet with the Stake President. I don’t know if anything productive could come of it. But who knows– it may be a chance to meet with an inspired and loving leader? A shepherd of the flock and not a sheepdog? Do I dare hope??
In the end I don’t regret writing my inflammatory letter, even if it scrambles my relationship with the church for a while. Maybe there’s nothing wrong with a good scrambling now and then– a problematizing–that can only lead to greater clarity, whatever the conclusion.
Here’s a link to my letter on signing for something, if anybody else is interested. There are much nicer ones on the site than mine, and also much angrier ones too.
Comment by Becca — August 24, 2008 @ 8:45 pm
becca,
your letter was awesome. i don’t think it ws inflammatory. (but coming from me.. doesn’t say much, eh?)
you did what you believed to be right. good for you and good for me because you’ve validated my position a little bit more.
Comment by mfranti — August 24, 2008 @ 8:54 pm
# 234, la canada isn’t exactly a poor area of so cal. probably why there is a lot of money coming from there. i would say very affluent area if i remember correctly.
Comment by Terina — August 24, 2008 @ 9:18 pm
That’s correct. La Canada (doesn’t look right without the little dots) is in the San Fernando Valley, very affluent, and has a large LDS population.
Comment by MikeInWeHo — August 24, 2008 @ 10:20 pm
Wait, I didn’t mean little dots. I meant the tilde which goes over the N in La Canada, CA.
Comment by MikeInWeHo — August 24, 2008 @ 10:25 pm
Quimby - I recognize that the definition of marriage has been expanded in different parts of the world at different times (including 19th century Utah) to include plural marriage. Believe me, the fact that Mormons have been persecuted for their own views of marriage & are now trying to limit marriage for others is something I have struggled with. But at what point in history has the definition of marriage ever included people of the same sex? i’m not asking to be a smart-ass or to pick a fight, I just don’t know.
lemon-drop - by genderless marriage I mean a marriage in which gender is not considered. If you marry another woman of course you will still be a woman, but you are essentially saying that a woman can fill the role of husband because there is no difference between a man & woman.
derek - both sides of this argument agree that the effect on religious liberty will be very bad for those who oppose the redefinition of marriage. I think it’s naive to believe, at the very least, the church’s tax exempt status wouldn’t be affected by refusing to sanction homosexual marriages.
Let me just say again that my decision to support Prop 8 did not come easily & I was bothered by a lot of the same things that others have mentioned. I respect anybody’s decision not to support Prop 8. I did not receive the same answer Hera did when I prayed & studied about this issue, but I am not discounting her ability to receive an answer different from my own. I had been to the Mormons for Marriage website before I read this post, but I also read info on the other side of the issue too. It’s a tough issue that everyone should study, which is why I posted my comments & included information from the other side. This is a forum for open dialogue, right? It’s not really a dialogue if the other side is not included.
Comment by brittany — August 24, 2008 @ 10:25 pm
I found this article which had quite a bit of interesting information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions
Many of the examples given include transgendered individuals - and of course there is some question over the definition of marriage. (It hasn’t always been as clear-cut as it is today.)
While researching polygamy in Syria I found some accounts of polygamous marriages where the sister-wives were in committed sexual relationships with each other that existed quite separately from their marriage to their husband. Same-sex marriage or not? It largley depends on whether you see polygamous marriages as existing between all partners (eg, the wives are married to each other and to their husband) or as a series of separate marriages between the man and the various women.
You mention “genderless marriage” and define it as a marriage in which a husband or wife can fill the role of the other partner - sounds like bliss to me! What tasks, specifically, are “male” or “female”? I’m of the opinion that pretty much any task, with no exceptions that I can think of other than those that are prescribed by biology (eg, pregnancy and childbirth), can be done equally well by either partner.
Comment by Quimby — August 24, 2008 @ 10:46 pm
Becca,
Your letter was not inflammatory, IMO. However, emailing it to your bishopric probably cornered a rabid dog, so to speak. If things are as high pressure as they sound- coming from the top on down, well…it sounds as if you’ve been made an example for going public about your personal stance. I hope your SP has sounder judgment, though…releasing you from your calling and revoking a TR is overkill. Is it the issue of SSM or was the point made that you bucked the system and criticized church leadership in a public forum the issue your bishopric sought to address?
This whole thing distresses me. One of the reasons my dh left the Catholic church was because he was constantly being pressured to vote one way or another, according to church interpretation of the way laws would translate (and goodness knows, they’ve been wrong plenty of times). He really loved the fact that the LDS church professed to keep out of all that political fray. Now this.
I am ardently praying that our leadership will recall itself to its traditional position of maintaining that separation. Look what it’s doing in individual wards…dividing a loving people.
Comment by Kimberly — August 25, 2008 @ 7:26 am
#264 I’m sorry about your experiences. I wonder if the church leadership took into account all the carnage and casualities that would be left behind after all this is over. Is this issue more important than it’s faithful members that happen to disagree? Can I just say that after many many years of being a faithful, very active member, this is the first time I’ve been embarrassed to be a Mormon? Another issue: even if I did support Prop. 8, the last thing I’d want to do is sign up to join a coalition of Mormon haters.
Comment by newbie — August 25, 2008 @ 8:57 am
How grateful I am to be back in the open minded, accepting arms of FMH after a long week with close minded in-laws. It is so important for me to come here and to remember that I can in fact be Mormon on my own terms, just not by their terms.
The in-laws live in Cali and were enthusiastically taking part in the precinct walks and discussing the “tares” who don’t like that the church is getting involved in politics. I had to sit by silently, knowing that if I spoke up I would be defined as a “tare” and discussed with concern at all future family dinners.
Comment by Roxanna — August 25, 2008 @ 9:34 am
Comments like this make me wonder: why is President Monson doing this? The only conclusion I can come to is that he is on the Lord’s errand. And if he is on the Lord’s errand, then his own opinion or concern about the casualties is really irrelevant. Here is a link to another blog post about Proposition 8. A key quote from it:
Ezra Taft Benson wrote: “in addition to Christ providing us the gift of his life as a model, he has provided us the gift of a prophet. Of all mortal men, we should keep our eyes most firmly fixed on the captain, the prophet, seer, and revelator, and president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This is the man who stands closest to the fountain of living waters. There are some heavenly instructions for us that we can only receive through the prophet. A good way to measure your standing with the Lord is to see how you feel about, and act upon, the inspired words of his earthly representative, the prophet-president. The inspired words of the president are not to be trifled with. All men are entitled to inspiration, and various men are entitled to revelation for their particular assignment. But only one man stands as the Lord’s spokesman to the Church and the world and he is the president of the Church. The word of all other men should be weighed against his inspired words.
Though his prophet is mortal, God will not let him lead his church astray. (See Discourses of Wilford Woodruff, pp. 212–13.) God knows all things, the end from the beginning, and no man becomes president of the church of Jesus Christ by accident, or remains there by chance, or dies by happenstance.
The most important prophet, so far as we are concerned, is the one who is living in our day and age. This is the prophet who has today’s instructions from God to us. God’s revelation to Adam did not instruct Noah how to build the ark. Every generation has need of the ancient scripture, plus the current scripture from the living prophet. Therefore, the most crucial reading and pondering that you should do is of the latest inspired words from the Lord’s mouthpiece. That is why it is essential that you have access to and carefully read his words in Church periodicals.”
He goes on to state “To publish differences we may think we have with the leaders of the Church, to create strife and division, is a sure road to apostasy.”
When it comes down to it, if I have to choose a side, I will choose the side the prophet is on. I am not saying this be divisive. I am just sharing what I have learned through this process.
Comment by Stephanie — August 25, 2008 @ 10:40 am
“….it’s MY church too and I want to be there!
Comment by annon — August 24, 2008 @ 10:38 pm”
It’s not “your” church anymore than a catholic owns their church. I don’t know how the ownership of your church is structured but I read recently that the catholic Bishop owns the churches he governes. When parish councils came into being in the sixties people started asking questions about the ownership, financial access etc. The answers shocked the members. A lot of people left, some stayed but quit supporting them financially, some are still struggling. Truth really does set you free.
Down here in Texas there are new churches popping up all the time. I think this is one way of actually really owning your own church.
Comment by Ruby — August 25, 2008 @ 10:54 am
#227 Newbie
I’m sure that you are right about that. We are already hearing a lot of that sort of comment on the web and in my ward yesterday the Sunday School lesson had a short “shut up and do what you are told.” segment. Nonetheless, I am not put off my such comments because upon a close reading they are interesting because they 1) Show that the people who say such things don’t have a well developed idea of what agency is or how it is used. 2) Those types of comments do a great job of pointing out a very real contradiction in Mormon thought that goes like this: a) the leaders of the Church are humans who can and do make mistakes. And who do not always speak to us prophetically. b) We as individual members have moral agency and as such are moral agents, who are individually responsible for our actions. c) we must always do what the prophet / leaders of the church tell us.
Naturally there is more to it than that but those are a few of the main points. Such as structure is both a spiritual and a logical contradiction. If I have to follow the prophet even when I know he is wrong, can I then invoke the Nuremberg Defense? Claiming that I was merely following orders? Of course not.
So if people say he’s the prophet isn’t he? I am completely free to respond that he was not speaking prophetically in his support of prop 8, and that I through prayer, scripture study, the guidance of the holy spirit and my own conscience choose to follow the ethics of engaging the other found in all scripture. This being that in non-violent situations I am ethically bound to take upon myself the well being of the other as the other defines it for him or her self. Any attempt to engage the other based on our own fears, our own agenda, our own uncertainty is a sign of a profound ethical breech.
Comment by Douglas Hunter — August 25, 2008 @ 10:56 am
Good point, Ruby. It is not our church. It is Christ’s church. He “stands at the helm”.
Comment by Stephanie — August 25, 2008 @ 10:57 am
Douglas, I can buy this argument for quotes that seem “out of the norm”, but for the entire First Presidency to work together to issue a directive doesn’t seem to my like they are merely making mistakes or not speaking “prophetically”. I could see maybe one leader getting off-track, but all three?
Comment by Stephanie — August 25, 2008 @ 11:18 am
Thank you Douglas for being an intelligent, compassionate, articulate, and sound voice of reason. Our church needs many more Douglas Hunters.
Comment by newbie — August 25, 2008 @ 11:20 am
“Good point, Ruby. It is not our church. It is Christ’s church. He “stands at the helm”.”
Should the “of Latter-Day Saints” part be dropped from the title?
Comment by Carlton — August 25, 2008 @ 11:21 am
Thank you Douglas for being an intelligent, compassionate, articulate, and sound voice of reason. Our church needs many more Douglas Hunters.
And I can tell you are intelligent, compassionate, articulate, and endowed with a sound voice of reason because you agree with me.
Comment by sam — August 25, 2008 @ 11:41 am
Ah!!! We all just love that our Church is blessed with continuing revelation, ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….except when we disagree with it.
Then, some of us are no better than a person who moves into a new city and goes church-shopping, looking for a church that agrees with them.
Comment by sam — August 25, 2008 @ 11:44 am
Sam 277 writes:
“Ah!!! We all just love that our Church is blessed with continuing revelation, ………………….except when we disagree with it.
Then, some of us are no better than a person who moves into a new city and goes church-shopping, looking for a church that agrees with them.”
The first problem with this statement is that it takes the Church’s position on Prop. 8 to be a revelation. If it is revelation why doesn’t the First Presidency use the language that we have all come to know as an essential indicator of revelation? Why isn’t organizing on a local level a sustained Church calling? etc. The FP has not expressed that the pro. prop. 8 position was revealed, and we do them a disservice when we take something as from the Lord when they have not said it was from the Lord.
The second problem with this kind of statement is that it reduces the situation to one of simple disagreement. A situation in which the individual through pride or ignorance or something else is simply unable to see that their position is wrong. The solution in such situations is obviously for the individual to conform. By living the principle they will, in time develop a testimony of said principal.
This point of view rejects the possibility that the individual has already been doing a great deal of work concerning the issue at hand, it rejects the possibility that the individual has received conformation from the spirit regarding their course of action, it also rejects the possibility that the individual could have actually been led by the spirit to their current understanding. It rejects the possibility that there is more than one principal at work and that other principals may be equal or greater in importance to the principal of obedience narrowly defined. etc.
But this goes back to my earlier comment about the nature of Mormon community, in that the value held in the highest esteem is agreement, or uniformity of belief and action. It’s very difficult for some to have a vision of Mormon community that can see the possibility of there being more than one spiritually guided path on any given element of theology or practice, or social issue etc.
The thing is that we already live in a community in which temple attending, tithe paying, priesthood holding, call magnifying members DO take multiple paths, do hold a variety of beliefs, do have very different methods of reading scripture and so on. Just because we don’t acknowledge it doesn’t mean its not the case. Often we choose silence as a community rather than asking questions or reading scripture very deeply, or developing a more profound discussion, etc.
Sam The structure of your post was telling. You are not interested in the slightest in what your fellow Mormons believe or think, or in their intimate spiritual experiences, or how the spirit is at work in their lives, all you know is that they are different which by default means we are wrong. Hogwash.
Comment by Douglas Hunter — August 25, 2008 @ 12:35 pm
What language is the “essential indicator” that means that something is a revelation? What supports your position that it is not from the Lord? Why would the FP issue this letter and put this much effort into it if it wasn’t from the Lord?
Comment by Stephanie — August 25, 2008 @ 12:50 pm
I’m asking this question in all seriousness: when the prophet speaks (or the whole FP), what do we use to determine whether it is prophetic? What about the Family Proclamation - signed by all members of the Quorom of the Twelve, First Presidency and prophet? What is our criteria or guideline?
Comment by Stephanie — August 25, 2008 @ 12:52 pm
From what I understand of revelation, I can receive revelation for me and those I have stewardship over. The First Presidency receives revelation for the whole church. So, I can take their counsel and pray about it and decide for me and my stewardship what to do with it, but I am not sure that I can say the revelation is wrong because I just don’t have the stewardship to receive revelation for the whole church (or for all of California). That’s just how I see it.
Comment by Stephanie — August 25, 2008 @ 1:08 pm
Stephani writes:
” I can buy this argument for quotes that seem “out of the norm”, but for the entire First Presidency to work together to issue a directive doesn’t seem to my like they are merely making mistakes or not speaking “prophetically”. I could see maybe one leader getting off-track, but all three?”
Thanks for the comment because I realize that some of my own comments are easily misunderstood and I should clear them up.
Keep in mind that in these comments I am painting in very broad strokes and don’t want my comments to be taken as direct criticism of the leaders of the Church whom I support. In the bit you quoted from me I was briefly describing what I see as a problem in the way agency is broadly understood in Mormon culture. This being the case I was not specifically addressing the current issue in what you quoted from me. Be that as it may, I should not have written “when I know he is wrong” and I fully apologize if this statement was taken as a direct criticism of the Prophet. It was the result of quick and sloppy writing and should be deleted.
For me the importance of emphasizing that Church leaders can make mistakes is to allow them to be human, to allow them leeway, to not insist that my faith rests on their perfection. It doesn’t and it shouldn’t it. I give our leaders past, present, and future very broad leeway to be human and to make mistakes whatever they may be, be they public or private or any other.
So to be clear, my position on the issue should not be understood in terms of right and wrong, inside / outside, orthodox / non-orthodox, supporting our leaders / not supporting our leaders.
To sum up my position I would say that I am not critical of our leaders or those who do what they ask. If they are led by the spirit to that position I don’t have the right to be critical. What I am advocating for is the idea that there is more than one faithful course of action and belief regarding Prop. 8. Personally I believe that following the ethics of hospitality (of our engagement with the other.) as developed throughout scripture, and the teaching of our church is also a valid expression of Mormon faith concerning prop. 8. I have prayed repeatedly about this and received powerful confirmation that following such spiritual / ethical path is what I should be doing.
Sorry for the thread jack, we now return you to your regularly scheduled FMH comments.
Comment by Douglas Hunter — August 25, 2008 @ 1:17 pm
Stephanie #281,
agreement, well put.
Comment by Douglas Hunter — August 25, 2008 @ 1:21 pm
Stephanie- I can’t answer for anyone else but myself. I’m going back to this statement- church issued.
“The Church does not:
Endorse, promote or oppose political parties, candidates or platforms.
Allow its church buildings, membership lists or other resources to be used for partisan political purposes. ”
This is, IMO, one of the most necessary and inspired positions that the church has ever issued. Now, in retrospect, the practices that were erroneous in the first place and required correction by future presidencies involved civil issues…such as ERA and blacks holding the priesthood. When the church became involved politically in civil matters, namely working against the establishment of civil liberties for all except white men, well…they not only failed, but the dire predictions of what was going to happen if they passed were wrong. I attribute the former stances to the culture of the day, fear and resistance to change that was necessary. Also, I don’t think it’s the revelation that evolved, it was the human beings. It was never Heavenly Father who was wrong.
How about polygamy? If it was truly God-given, then why was it taken back? A mistake, maybe? A misinterpretation by a human prophet, maybe (perhaps influenced by the human flaws of lust and covetousness or ego)…because God doesn’t make mistakes, but human beings certainly do. I always suspected there were good indicators within the early history that something was not right if it caused undue tension within the membership, the community and trouble between husband and wife (like polygamy). Moreover, when a prophet has to lie to his wife, essentially repudiating his own 13th Article of faith -”We believe in being honest, true…”- and asking others to keep it secret is another indicator that something isn’t quite right…and then, questioning the righteousness of fellow members and rebuking them for having the temerity and conscience to resist?
I have no intention of convincing other ward members about anything they should or should not support. It’s simply not my business and my politics has no place in church. Accordingly, it is not the business of church leadership to come into my home and tell me how to vote and question my righteousness if I will not post political signs in my yard or contribute cash to a political cause…it’s private and should remain so. Even if I agreed with the cause, I still would keep it separate from church.
Of course my outlook and opinions are affected and influenced by my religious beliefs. It doesn’t matter if I’m for the issue at hand or against it- it’s just dead wrong to strong-arm people and bully them into supporting a political platform. Period. It comes to no good end.
If I’m asked to be obedient about something I’m merely being stubborn about, say, tithing- well, I can tell the difference between my reluctance based upon rebelliousness or some other character defect versus a clench in my guts that screams, “This is just plain wrong and contradictory to what I am supposed to be doing.” Any instance in my life that I’ve ignored that prompting, I have suffered for it.
Comment by Kimberly — August 25, 2008 @ 2:08 pm
Kimberly, I think that the church being active on this issue is completely consistent with its position on political neutrality. (I discuss this in comment #119). The neutrality applies to political parties, not issues. Even the quote you gave says partisan politics. If you go to the church’s position on political neutrality that I link to, it says, that the church does Reserve the right as an institution to address, in a nonpartisan way, issues that it believes have significant community or moral consequences or that directly affect the interests of the Church.
Comment by Stephanie — August 25, 2008 @ 2:52 pm
#270–Ruby, don’t be such a literalist. My church is my community and my heart and soul. I belong to it and it belongs to me. That doesn’t mean I am getting my name put on the front door.
Comment by annon — August 25, 2008 @ 3:19 pm
Stephanie, if we accept the decisions of the prophet without regard for the prompting of our own conscience or the Spirit, are we not then simply guilty of blind faith? What do we do when the Spirit tells us these policy decisions are wrong?
Over the years since we have been using the new RS/Priesthood manuals, I’ve been struck by how often the early prophets warned the Church not to automatically accept their (the Prophets) words, but to ponder and pray over them so that we can determine for ourselves their truthfulness. Is that counsel no longer valid? When I told investigators on my mission that we did not encourage people to trust us on the truth of our beliefs, but that they should seek the Lord’s aid to determine that for themselves?
re: 263
Based on the Constitution, there is absolutely no such reason to fear for the Church’s tax exempt status if individuals and religions are permitted to define marriage as their conscience dictates. Granted, the application of Constitutional rights has been far from perfect over the years. The Mormon Church certainly saw its religious liberty ripped asunder in its youthful years. I agree that the possibility exists that people might try to illegitimately infringe upon that liberty again. But that in no way justifies our attempts to infringe upon the freedom of conscience and religion of others. Indeed, to do so would only put us on that slippery slope and make it easier for others to infringe upon our freedom in the future.
Comment by Derek — August 25, 2008 @ 4:15 pm
Correction: The last line of the first paragraph should have read: “When I told investigators on my mission that we did not encourage people to trust us on the truth of our beliefs, but that they should seek the Lord’s aid to determine that for themselves, was I misrepresenting our position?”
Comment by Derek — August 25, 2008 @ 4:18 pm
Before I answer your question, Derek, I want to be clear that I am not “pointing out how unfaithful [some] must be to be conflicted”. I am sharing things the way I understand them.
In Elder Oaks’ talk on Testimony from this last conference (I admit - I quote it all the time), he said:
Members who have a testimony and who act upon it under the direction of their Church leaders are sometimes accused of blind obedience.
Of course, we have leaders, and of course, we are subject to their decisions and directions in the operation of the Church and in the performance of needed priesthood ordinances. But when it comes to learning and knowing the truth of the gospel—our personal testimonies—we each have a direct relationship with God, our Eternal Father, and His Son, Jesus Christ, through the powerful witness of the Holy Ghost. This is what our critics fail to understand. It puzzles them that we can be united in following our leaders and yet independent in knowing for ourselves.
Perhaps the puzzle some feel can be explained by the reality that each of us has two different channels to God. We have a channel of governance through our prophet and other leaders. This channel, which has to do with doctrine, ordinances, and commandments, results in obedience. We also have a channel of personal testimony, which is direct to God. This has to do with His existence, our relationship to Him, and the truth of His restored gospel. This channel results in knowledge. These two channels are mutually reinforcing: knowledge encourages obedience (see Deuteronomy 5:27; Moses 5:11), and obedience enhances knowledge (see John 7:17; D&C 93:1).
We all act upon or give obedience to knowledge. Whether in science or religion, our obedience is not blind when we act upon knowledge suited to the subject of our action. A scientist receives and acts upon a trusted certification of the content or conditions of a particular experiment. In matters of religion, a believer’s source of knowledge is spiritual, but the principle is the same. In the case of Latter-day Saints, when the Holy Ghost gives our souls a witness of the truth of the restored gospel and the calling of a modern prophet, our choice to follow those teachings is not blind obedience.
When I read this, it tells me that “we can be united in following our leaders and yet independent in knowing for ourselves”. It also says that we can be united in obedience to the prophet but independent in our knowledge of what we are asked to do.
Personally, I don’t see it leaving an opening to find knowledge that is inconsistent with the “doctrine, ordinances, and commandments”. For me, there are two reasons why I am following the prophet’s counsel. 1. I believe it is prophetic counsel, and I believe I need to obey prophetic counsel, and 2. I have reasoned through it and studied it out on my own and feel that it is the right thing for me to support prop 8 (which really means nothing right now until the battle comes to Texas or the nation, which it will).
If someone else reaches a different conclusion, that is between them and the Lord. I’m not going to say they are wrong - just that I can’t reach the same conclusion, and this is why.
Comment by Stephanie — August 25, 2008 @ 4:34 pm
Stephanie, I really admire that you are so non-judgemental in your replies - that you say things like, “If someone reaches a different conclusion, that is between them and the Lord. I’m not going to say they are wrong.”
On this issue, you and I have reached polar opposite conclusions. As I said before, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with following the prophet in faith; I also don’t think there’s anything wrong with following the dictates of your own conscience if it leads you to disagree with the prophet.
Ultimately this is Heavenly Father’s church; it is not President Monson’s church. My relationship with my Heavenly Father is far more important than my relationship with President Monson. I have the utmost faith that my Heavenly Father looks with compassion on those of us who, like me, can’t support Proposition 8. I have the utmost faith that my Heavenly Father looks with that same compassion on those of you who do support it.
The church has been divided before and it will be divided again; but in the end, the sure and simple understanding that my Heavenly Father knows me, loves me, understands my heart, even when my church leaders cannot or will not - that is enough to sustain me.
Comment by Quimby — August 25, 2008 @ 5:02 pm
I agree completely, Quimby.
Comment by Stephanie — August 25, 2008 @ 5:04 pm
285- Stephanie… “platform” is included in the statement, and being anti- gay marriage is definitely an element of a “partisan” platform. The coalition the church joined is unabashedly partisan- conservative Republican, to be exact.
I do not take any issue whatsoever on the statements the church leadership releases to the public- especially on issues they deem as moral. They can refuse performing gay marriages, refuse to condone homosexual behavior…whatever they please.
My argument is strictly focused on politicking on a ward and individual level. Especially when people are taken out of callings or threatened with TR rec withdrawal if their own conscience dictates another view, another vote. I think there is a good reason why the merging of religion and gov’t is going to happen in the millenium- because the only time it won’t go wrong is when Christ is actually with us.
I’m relieved for you that you are okay with this directive and with following it. I hope, for your sake, that you never struggle with having a deep-seated belief that runs counter to any action the church takes- especially one that was previously avowed by the church itself (namely, ultimately, political autonomy). I hope you never have an interview like Becca’s…I wish it didn’t happen to her, either.
We are a free people when we elect to follow.No one is free when one person’s will is imposed.
Comment by Kimberly — August 25, 2008 @ 5:12 pm
Stephanie, I concur with Quimby’s compliment on your replies.
I would note that by opposing the restriction of freedom of conscience, I am not challenging any doctrine or ordinance of the Gospel. I suppose one might consider it a challenge to a prophetic commandment, if one considers the letter read in CA to be a commandment.
Comment by Derek — August 25, 2008 @ 5:16 pm
Good points, Kimberly.
Comment by Stephanie — August 25, 2008 @ 5:23 pm
Derek, I do feel that it is a prophetic commandment, but I can also see room for interpretation. That is why I asked the question: how do we know what is prophetic revelation and what isn’t? I feel that this is. I understand that other people can feel otherwise. I am just wondering if there is any kind of guideline beyond our own feelings (because, honestly, I’m not all that righteous. I am not sure I would trust a feeling I had to go against him because I don’t read my scriptures and pray and attend the temple as often as I should. If I did, I might have more confidence in my own ability to perceive the Spirit But, as it is, I feel better taking his word for it).
Comment by Stephanie — August 25, 2008 @ 5:27 pm
The lord is really clear in the “Proclamation on the Family”. In fact, I don’t know of a truth that is more clear. As members we need to support the Lord and his view on the issue. Sorry, you have gone too far on this issue.
Comment by guest — August 25, 2008 @ 6:10 pm
297–the proclamation talks about familiy roles, not political actions.
Comment by annon — August 25, 2008 @ 6:30 pm
Stephanie, re: 296, I think it largely depends on how you approach the issue. Is it a moral issue or is it a political issue?
It seems that those who support the issue do so because:
1. The prophet has said so, and his word is final;
2. We have been taught that homosexuality is a sin;
3. It is too risky to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples
I am sure I have missed some points. I don’t think it’s necessary to agree with all of the above to support a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage; I believe the supporters of Prop 8 may support one or more of the above.
On the other hand, those who do not support the issue do not support it because:
1. Marriage is a largely a civil matter,
2. We believe in a separation of church and state,
3. We worry about the message this is sending to our gay friends and family members
Again, I am sure I have missed some points; and again, I don’t think it’s necessarily the case that everyone who does not support this issue agrees with all of the above; but many of us will agree with one or more of the above. And I’m sure it’s the case that there are some who believe in all of the above, both pros and cons, and either don’t know where they stand or else value one set above the other and make their judgement accordingly.
There is a pyramid of need that is fairly clear-cut and consistent for all of us: food, water, shelter, love. We all form our pyramid of values differently. As airy-fairy as it sounds, so long as we don’t put our own desires at the top of this pyramid, I don’t think there is a wrong or right way to form this pyramid of values. So, some of us will put more of a value on, “When the prophet speaks, the debate is over,” and some of us will put more of a value on, “Marriage is a civil right, not a religious right.” Some of us will overlook our own discomfort because we believe the prophet is the best person to make these decisions; and some of us will not be able to because we believe the prophet is just a man and hence fallible.
For me to support a ban on same-sex marriage, it would mean I would have to betray some very deeply-held principles, which I believe are based firmly on gospel doctrine. Of course there are those who believe that in not supporting the ban, I am going against the will of the Lord. They are free to think that; and I am free to rejoice that they will not be sitting in judgement of me.
Comment by Quimby — August 25, 2008 @ 6:37 pm
Quimby, Good assessment of the overall situation. I view it through my glasses and make the best decision I can. You view it through your glasses and make the best decision you can. God judges both on of us on our intent. Sounds like a pretty fair system to me, actually.
Comment by Stephanie — August 25, 2008 @ 6:45 pm
“God judges both on of us on our intent. Sounds like a pretty fair system to me, actually.”
Yes. I am thankful every day for that loophole because I’m doing the best I can to live a good life…I make mistakes.
Comment by Kimberly — August 25, 2008 @ 7:39 pm
[…] my favorite little pet site Feminist Mormon Housewives, guest blogger Hera writes about her campaign to support gay marriage and to break with the LDS Church’s activism […]
Pingback by Want to see some heads explode? « The Pop Perspective — August 25, 2008 @ 8:09 pm
God judges us on more then just intent. D&C 137:9 Don’t forget the works too.
Didn’t that old quote go something like “Hell is paved with good intentions.”
Comment by kalon — August 25, 2008 @ 9:09 pm
I think that must be where mercy comes in. Justice would demand we receive a reward/punishment according to our works alone, and mercy allows for intent to be factored in. Based on what I know about Christ, I think he will give us all the allowances allowable.
Comment by Stephanie — August 25, 2008 @ 9:29 pm
Not only that but I believe mercy allows for us to sin and/or make mistakes and still have hope for repentance and change. Justice can only reward us for being righteous, but mercy can reward us for becoming righteous.
Comment by kalon — August 25, 2008 @ 10:20 pm
And since none of us can truly see into the hearts and minds of anyone else, we must err on the side of mercy or risk dispensing injustice. This has been a most interesting conversation, thanks again.
Comment by Hera — August 25, 2008 @ 11:01 pm
This is from the “Church History in the Fulness of Times” manual. I think it sounds pretty much like what is happening today–except with prohibition.
During this era some people in the United States joined in a movement to stamp out many of the nation’s evils and injustices. An essential part of this movement, centered in evangelical Protestant groups, involved prohibiting
the sale of alcoholic beverages. The Church and its leaders supported this great moral effort. Soon the Utah Prohibition League was organized and led by President Heber J. Grant. Some Church leaders, including Senator Reed
Smoot, preferred a local option on Prohibition rather than a nationwide ban on the sale of liquor. Others saw the ban as an infringement upon their freedom and urged Church members to continue to be taught the evils and consequences of consuming liquor, but be left to choose what course they wanted to pursue. The forces favoring outlawing the sale of alcohol, however,
were so strong that the Eighteenth Amendment passed, making Prohibition a national law.
So pretty much the people chose not to follow the prophet–and look how that has impacted the U.S.
Comment by yes on prop 8 — August 26, 2008 @ 7:14 am
woa 307. that’s just weird. cause we all know what a terrific idea prohibition was–?
Comment by hero — August 26, 2008 @ 7:52 am
“guilty of blind faith” comment by Derek
This phrase just struck me. I think it’s been used before on this board. Blind faith is required of catholics. I guess I just assumed that mormons had the same requirement. If not it is certainly helpful in better understanding those of you who are mormons by choice as adults.
Comment by Ruby — August 26, 2008 @ 9:48 am
re: 307
What exactly are the terrible circumstances in which we find ourselves as a result of the repeal of Prohibition? Do you think alcohol was not present during Prohibition? Remember, Prohibition was supported by a great many who had been part of the temperance movement precisely because Prohibition had been so ineffective and led to so many negative unintended consequences.
re: 309
Ruby, interesting you should mention the Catholics. It was the attitude of several faithful Catholics I worked with on my mission which helped clarify in my mind the difference between the faiths. When we invited them to read the Book of Mormon and pray to learn for themselves whether or not it was true, they declined because they preferred to trust their priest and the Pope to let them know if there was anything to the Book of Mormon.
Comment by Derek — August 26, 2008 @ 10:15 am
Despite all of the discussion about Prop 8 it all boils down to the June 22, 2008 letter from the First Presidency. We have been asked to give of our time, means, and best efforts to pass the CA amendment and preserve marriage. This isn’t a policy of the Church but rather doctrine. I am obedient, and I don’t do it blindly. In short, I quote the final words of Nephi: “…for thus hath the Lord commanded me, and I must obey.” 2 Nephi 33:15
Comment by 8ButNoHate — August 26, 2008 @ 10:16 am
Blind faith is required of catholics. I guess I just assumed that mormons had the same requirement.
Ruby, please read #311 for an assessment of how protestations against “blind faith” are handled by many members of the LDS church. I can’t think of a better definition of blind faith.
During this era some people in the United States joined in a movement to stamp out many of the nation’s evils and injustices. An essential part of this movement, centered in evangelical Protestant groups, involved prohibiting
the sale of alcoholic beverages.
This made me laugh. It’s SUCH an injustice when people drink wine with dinner! I can’t imagine why Gandhi never had anything to say about it!
Comment by Chandelle — August 26, 2008 @ 10:25 am
Comment by 8ButNoHate: “the Lord commanded me,..”
So like the evangelical christians mormons talk to their god directly? The directive re this Prop 8 came from the mormon leadership as you stated, the First Presidency. The church. Do you wait to hear from the Lord or do what the church tells you to do? Others on this post seem to make up their own minds. Questioning the wisdom of the leadership is very different from willingness to obey a command.
Comment by Ruby — August 26, 2008 @ 10:47 am
Following this thread has been very interesting and informative. My husband and I could not in good conscience help with passing Prop 8. We don’t live in California, but we are in new state which someone above mentioned has legislation pending. I feel like understand better ways to handle discussions with others and talking to my husband has actually given him some peace about dealing with church members.
Hopefully we can both feel empowered to talk and do so without it becoming divisive.
Quimby- I liked your break down of the reasons for people to choose not to support Prop 8. I think my husband and I fall in all three categories. My husband is very confused about the LDS church’s involvement in all this. He can’t believe we are trying to clarify marriage and mix church and state. Our history is so mixed up in regards to marriages and we also benefit from the separation of church and state.
Comment by miles — August 26, 2008 @ 10:47 am
Ruby
Excuse me, I thought this was a Mormon website. I guess I was wrong. A basic tenet of the Mormon faith is that we believe in a living prophet - a prophet, seer, and revelator who does hear from God. Why would I question the person who is Christ’s representative on earth?
Comment by 8ButNoHate — August 26, 2008 @ 10:57 am
re: 315
Because however wonderful he is, he is also human. Prophets have erred before, and I don’t see why they won’t do so again.
Also because we are told we should seek the confirmation of the Lord, and not just trust in men.
Comment by Derek — August 26, 2008 @ 11:33 am
Quimby
So, your inspiration trumps that of the living prophet? Your “deeply-held principles” are not “based firmly on gospel doctrine,” but on doctrine of your own making. Suit yourself, “but as for me and my house …”
Comment by 8ButNoHate — August 26, 2008 @ 11:44 am
There are good people on both sides of this issue. And there are gay people who oppose same-sex marriage and support Proposition 8. I am one of them.
Proposition 8 is more about protecting those who disagree with same-sex marriage than about denying rights to same-sex couples. Under California’s domestic partnership law, same-sex couples enjoy all of the benefits of marriage.
Government recognition of same-sex marriage has led to government endorsement of same-sex marriage and hostility to individuals and organizations that disagree with it. This has led to government revoking licenses to religious-based adoption agencies that refuse to place children with same-sex couples and compelling physicians to inseminate lesbian couples. This has also led government to withhold funding and tax-exempt status to religious schools that refuse to teach that same-sex marriage is okay. In Denmark, ministers have been prosecuted for hate speach. In Canada, a political commentator is being proscecuted for hate speach.
Comment by Gay in LA — August 26, 2008 @ 11:44 am
Re: 315
It says as much in the name of the blog!
It certainly is a Mormon website!
But seriously, it is true that in times past, the men that the Lord has called to lead the Church have presented doctrines that were wrong from the pulpit (I am reminded of BRM’s opinion of Adam-God: BY definitely taught it and BY was definitely wrong). In my mind the only way to keep from falling down the slippery slope and ignoring everything the Prophet says that we don’t agree with is to grasp TIGHTLY to the iron rod - the word of God from the scriptures and the Spirit. All of us have the gift of the Holy Ghost which testifies of truth, and I know that almost always He will testify of the truth of the Prophet’s words. It’s for those times when our human leaders express their erring humanity that we know we can rely on the Holy Ghost.
Thus, I’d agree that while a basic tenet of our faith is that we have a Prophet as our Priesthood leader for the world, I don’t consider it a tenet of our faith that we have that Prophet as Christ’s representative of Earth - we already have a representative of Christ that is ever more so personal and powerful.
I hope I don’t sound too argumentative, I have trouble with that.
Comment by NoCoolName_Tom — August 26, 2008 @ 11:54 am
#318 ” This has also led government to withhold funding and tax-exempt status to religious schools that refuse to teach that same-sex marriage is okay.”
Government funding ought not go to private religious schools in the first place. This is the pitfall. Taxpayer money comes with strings attached. For self protection these schools are foolish to think that they can escape this caveat.
Except that they are well practised in their techniques if I was a member of the mormon church I’d be very concerned about losing tax exempt status. Separation of church and state is so crucial to us staying a free society.
Comment by Ruby — August 26, 2008 @ 12:20 pm
Tom
Sounds like you believe in a pope and not a prophet.
D&C 84: 42-44
42 And wo unto all those who come not unto this priesthood which ye have received, which I now confirm upon you who are present this day, by mine own voice out of the heavens; and even I have given the heavenly hosts and mine angels charge concerning you.
43 And I now give unto you a commandment to beware concerning yourselves, to give diligent heed to the words of eternal life.
44 For you shall live by every word that proceedeth forth from the mouth of God.
I’ll be wrong with President Monson any day.
Comment by 8ButNoHate — August 26, 2008 @ 12:45 pm
Hi hon. 8ButNoHate.
Proof-texting always wins the argument, dear.
However, ‘Shut up and fall in line’ fails as a discussion facilitator.
And, ‘Papist’ also hasn’t been an insult for several hundred years.
Kisses.
Comment by bloggernacleburner — August 26, 2008 @ 1:10 pm
Does your moral high horse feel good 8ButNoHate? Do you feel better brandishing scripture as a tool with which to beat others down? Is that the righteous indignation of the spirit you hold within your breast, or a spirit of contention that has driven out the Spirit here?
You may be surprised to find that there are in fact Mormons with differing opinions than you on this blog who strive nevertheless to follow God’s commandments from day to day. But to decide that those who blog, lurk, and comment here aren’t really “mormon”, and to condemn those who don’t agree with every word that proceeds forth out of the mouths of church leaders (not God, as the scripture you quoted states) is merely a contentious stirring of the pot, degenerating the conversation to a shouting match. I would hope that you can strive to be more respectful of others’ opinions on this blog in the future, especially those with which you do not agree.
Comment by Observer — August 26, 2008 @ 1:19 pm
#318 - Gay in LA, thanks for such an eloquent post. I find this situation a very difficult one to be in for many reasons. I agree that California’s domestic partnership laws already in place works to give all individuals equal rights under the law. I support prop 8 for the reasons you’ve listed.
I do, however, take issue with the heavy-handed way SOME members of the church are taking it on. I’m a very private person when it comes to political issues (probably because in the world I’m considered extremely conservative, whereas in the church I’m considered a raging liberal). I was fine with the letter, we’ve had them before on other issues. I’d even be willing to donate money to the cause, but only anonymously. I’m not willing to go out canvassing neighborhoods or making phone calls (but this pretty much goes for any issue). If I’m called upon to do so, I will explain why that is not something I will do. However, I will have one-on-one discussions with my friends and family on why I will support prop 8.
Comment by Diana (formerly EnglishTeacher) — August 26, 2008 @ 1:45 pm
Observer - How does one “strive nevertheless to follow God’s commandments from day to day” and not follow the living prophet? Please reconcile that for me. The First Presidency (all called and sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators) has asked (their words, not mine) us to “do all [we] can to support the constitutional amendment by donating of our means and time to assure that marriage is legally defined as being between a man and a woman. Our best efforts are
to preserve the scared institution of marriage.” We were asked (not suggested, not invited) to give our best efforts. Those efforts are required. I’m sorry if this direct language offends some.
“Another fallacy is to believe that the choice to accept or not accept the counsel of prophets is no more than deciding whether to accept good advice and gain its benefits or to stay where we are. But the choice not to take prophetic counsel changes the very ground upon which we stand. It becomes more dangerous. The failure to take prophetic counsel lessens our power to take inspired counsel in the future. The best time to have decided to help Noah build the ark was the first time he asked. Each time he asked after that, each failure to respond would have lessened sensitivity to the Spirit. And so each time his request would have seemed more foolish, until the rain came. And then it was too late.
“Every time in my life when I have chosen to delay following inspired counsel or decided that I was an exception, I came to know that I had put myself in harm’s way. Every time that I have listened to the counsel of prophets, felt it confirmed in prayer, and then followed it, I have found that I moved toward safety. Along the path, I have found that the way had been prepared for me and the rough places made smooth. God led me to safety along a path which was prepared with loving care, sometimes prepared long before.” (Henry B. Eyring, “Finding Safety in Counsel,” General Conference, April 1997; see _Ensign_ May 1997, p. 25)
Comment by 8ButNoHate — August 26, 2008 @ 2:07 pm
So there have been a few comments expressing the basic idea that the prophet has spoken so there is no room for opinion, discussion, prayer or anything else really. It’s an argument often used in an attempt to put an end to discussion and thought in Mormon circles, to alienate those who for their own reasons feel the necessity of doing the work, of investigating their faith spiritually, intellectually and through open dialogue in the community.
Two things: First I wonder if any of the FMH folks have blogged on this topic? Isn’t it inherently a feminist concern when male authority is invoked in a way so as to suggest that women need to keep silent, that the male voice of authority is absolute and all compelling? Second: The specific language of the letter relied heavily on the word “can” a word never present without the possibility of negation. Why do pro prop. 8 folks so often dismiss the “can” in the statement? Or read it exclusively in terms of a narrow positivist notion?
Comment by Douglas Hunter — August 26, 2008 @ 2:14 pm
#325: no comment could possibly persuade you from your own viewpoint, so it’s pointless to argue.While I’m not a perma on this site, and by no means represent the opinions of all who come here for discussion, you may be right that this is not a Mormon website for you. I wish you all the best with your perspectives, 8ButNoHate.
Comment by Observer — August 26, 2008 @ 2:19 pm
8ButNoHate- It may be easy for you to take everthing a prophet says as pure doctrine that you are to follow 100%. But it is not easy for all of us. I have found in my own spiritual yearnings that I have to acknowledge that prophets are inspired, but also are humans who can make mistakes. This belief is one of the only reasons that I have been able to maintain my activity in a church that I love. Isn’t this better than me saying to myself “its all or nothing” and choosing nothing? That is basically what your statements mean to me and I am confident that is not how Heavenly Father wants it.
You can continue on your path and I can continue on mine. You have no reason to come and judge those whose experiences might be different than yours. I can only hope for your sake that at some point to you can gain more compassioni and understanding, I think you will find your life to be a more peaceful one if you can.
Comment by Roxanna — August 26, 2008 @ 2:27 pm
A few people have brought up Prohibition and how it failing hasn’t had any negative consequences. I do see a lot of negative consequences from alcohol in our society: children growing up with drunk parents, a lovely 18 year old girl in Idaho hit by a drunk driver who put her into a coma for 6 months (she came out of it and lives in an old folks’ home because her mother died and she has no one to care for her). My sister’s boyfriend passed away 4 months ago from acute alcohol poisoning. #307 had a good point. Alcohol being legal and available does have a negative influence on a lot of people in society. If only it was something that someone could choose to partake of and not have it hurt someone else, but, unfortunately, many of the victims of alcohol are not the people who legally drink it.
I honestly don’t know all the impact that legalizing SSM would have. I am not saying it would have consequences that can be related to the consequences of alcohol. But, I do believe that the First Presidency can see dangers to society and is warning us, just as Heber J. Grant saw dangers and warned the Saints then. And, I think that Prop 8 will fail just like Prohibition ultimately failed (for a lot of the same reasons) and we will get to see how “prophetic” our prophets are.
Good analogy, yes on prop 8.
Comment by Stephanie — August 26, 2008 @ 2:38 pm
It is always possible that, since the prophet receives revelation for the whole world that the whole world isn’t ready for same-sex marriages. There are certainly places where being openly gay and unmarried is life- and/or safety-threatening.
Californians are often leading the way into uncharted territory - maybe they are ready for SSM now - somebody has to be first. Perhaps in another 50 years, the rest of the world will be ready for SSM and the Mormon prophet will spend hours in fervent prayer in the temple praying for an answer as to what to do about the homosexual saints and potential saints, just as Spencer W. Kimball did with blacks and the priesthood.
Maybe in 50 years we’ll be reading biographies of prophets who prayed about SSM and received the answer, “No, the world as a whole is not ready for this, even if some people are and are asking for it.”
Comment by LRC — August 26, 2008 @ 3:11 pm
Douglas Hunter, the idea that “when the prophet speaks the discussion is over” is something that has been touched on but probably never posted on in-depth, because, let’s face it, it’s such a contentious issue. As you probably know, it’s actually fairly new in LDS culture and dates back to the ERA fight. Prior to the 1970s it seemed much more common to hear a prophet counsel against following blindly, to encourage the Saints to study it out for themselves, etc. etc., than to hear anyone argue that the prophet’s word is always final. Even from the 1970s I can’t think off-hand of any prophets who said words to the extent of, “My words are final and if you don’t agree with me you’re on the right side with the Lord.” The prophets themselves seem much more flexible than certain members.
Comment by Quimby — August 26, 2008 @ 3:19 pm
re: 318
“Some” gays are on both sides? In LA?? That’s just ridiculous. Virtually no (self-accepting, out) gay people support Prop 8. I suspect you’re not even for real, Gay In LA., which would explain the boilerplate rhetoric. Let us get to know you better, but please don’t misrepresent the gay community.
You’ll find more SSM-supporters at the MTC than gay Prop 8 proponents in LA. Even gays who have no interest in marriage for themselves know what this ballot measure represents and how important it is to defeat it.
Comment by MikeInWeHo — August 26, 2008 @ 3:27 pm
LRC, that may be true. How did the members who may have left the church in the 1960’s over the civil rights issue fare (with regard to their testimonies)? They may have been right, but they disassociated themselves from the church and the temple and its blessings. When the priesthood was given to ALL worthy males, did they come back? (I don’t know anyone personally either way. I am speaking hypothetically).
Assuming that your scenario is true, is it worth leaving the church over or losing a temple recommend over?
Comment by Stephanie — August 26, 2008 @ 3:30 pm
…and even the elect shall be deceived…be careful girl…
Comment by Christopher — August 26, 2008 @ 3:30 pm
re: 329
Stephanie, I ask again, as I did in 310: “What exactly are the terrible circumstances in which we find ourselves as a result of the repeal of Prohibition? Do you think alcohol was not present during Prohibition? Remember, Prohibition was supported by a great many who had been part of the temperance movement precisely because Prohibition had been so ineffective and led to so many negative unintended consequences.”
The repeal of Prohibition did not introduce, nor re-introduce alcohol into society. It was always there, much as the various illegal drugs are widely available despite their illegality. All Prohibition did was to give organized crime a market in which to thrive. So it is dishonest to blame the tragic death of any who die as a result of drunk driving on the repeal of Prohibition.
Comment by Derek — August 26, 2008 @ 3:56 pm
Okay, Derek, I agree to disagree.
Comment by Stephanie — August 26, 2008 @ 3:59 pm
I think that fewer parents would be drunk while raising their children if alcohol was not legal.
Comment by Stephanie — August 26, 2008 @ 4:00 pm
[…] We can’t all be divas now. That means, dear heart, if I can get the Kitteh to say ‘Do It Because I Told You So’ when the dear, patient thing reads your comment your point is presented about as well as Snoop Dog […]
Pingback by Open Perfumed Notecard to Mormon Commentators « The Bloggernacle Back Burner — August 27, 2008 @ 6:07 am