by Caroline
(Painting: The Marriage by Casey Matthews)
Hello Bishop,
It’s been a difficult month for me at church, since I am terribly saddened by the Church’s decision to mobilize the rank and file members against what I see as a civil rights issue. I also have a deep moral conviction that my duty as a Christian is to reach out my arms in love to those who are most despised, most rejected, and most vulnerable in our society.
I see Prop 8 as pushing these vulnerable neighbors away, as drawing ‘us vs. them’ boundaries. as telling them that they are not worthy of the same privileges as we are. I cannot be a part of something that is so hurtful. You may remember Stuart Matis, the LDS boy who shot himself in the head outside his ward building during the Prop 22 days because he felt like there was no hope for him, no place for him in the church he was devoted to. How many Stuarts are there in our ward? How many parents and siblings and friends of homosexuals are there in our ward, whose spirits are violated every time they go to church to worship, but instead have to listen to political statements that are hurtful to them and their loved ones?
I understand that you are just doing your job and that you believe that advocating for Prop 8 is the right thing to do. I can respect that. But please understand that there is a significant minority who are filled with angst over this issue. Please be mindful of this minority when you and your counselors speak from the pulpit, and please understand that it is not in spite of Christ, but because of Him, that we have come to decide to vote no on Prop 8.
I’m afraid I’ve personally reached my breaking point. Now that the real mobilization has begun, I simply can’t bear another Sunday of political announcements, talks, and constant references to the proposition in Relief Society lessons. Until this election is over, I will not be attending our church. Instead, I’ll be going to the United Church of Christ, a wonderful place that opens its arms to gay people.
I’m looking forward to November when I’ll be able to rejoin you at church services.
Sincerely,
Caroline
What would you say to your church leaders about Prop 8?
147 Responses
You raise some important concerns. I’m sorry that I don’t have more to say.
Beautiful, Caroline! Almost every day, I think, “What will I do if this comes to Arizona?” I hope I can show your’s (and our other CA friends) grace and courage.
We had a like comment when I was in Texas and Utah when both had the vote on their amendments and it was always lame. The vote in Utah was the worst, every Sunday it was this and that and how could they. The landscape was dramatically altered after the Mass. decision; now with Cal. it has grown. the prop 8 announcement while a big thing in calf there has been a like announcement in each state that an amendment has come up. I brought up the issue in an elders quorum meeting before the Utah vote, the point that i was making was that marriage as a concept is a legal matter, simply put a legal marriage is a succession of property and entitlement rites. My temple marriage and my legal marriage are two distinct and separate things. After the meeting I got the bishop would like to talk to you arm grab. In that discussion, he asked if I was still temple worthy and I told him yes….. the point being that making clear distinction that a secular marriage and a religious marriage are separate and that a secular marriage is just a legal document that entitle the people to various things, but a temple marriage is different a complete separate thing. Within the vast body of the church most people either can not or do not make this distinction. In actuallity prop 8 and other state amendments cheapen the idea of secular marriage as a whole. Think of it this way, if everyone puts the emphasis on the legal marriage it negates the more important eternal temple marriage. Because the focus is on the legal/secular marriage it (legal) has become “marriage” as a whole. It is difficult for the normal person to make that very specific distinction. Don’t leave till it’s over… stay and make the distinction, there is a difference and it is important that members need to know the distinction and that the focus on secular marriage actually cheapens the idea of a temple marriage. While the proclamation and the idea of the family is important and yes in a temple marriage it should be between a man and a woman but there are laws of man and laws of god, in the U.S. the laws of man they should be gender neutral. Keep your head up as with all thing this too shall pass, for a season it will be bad but as with all things it will pass, just as it has in all of the other states.
I am also saddened by the reactions of some church members. The thing I have always held as the most important principle of the gospel is agency. Its not up to me to judge anyone and its presumptuous of anyone to think they know how god will judge anyone. In other words, its none of mine or anyone else’s damn business.
I think we need to remember, that these are God’s children and that he loves them more than even we do. But he knows what will and will not make either them or the nation happy. This fight is more over acceptance than it is about legal rights. Those rights were already granted.
At some point we need to draw the line and this is where Heavenly Father has instructed us to do so. It is showing them greater love in the long run than any other course will be.
I agree with Zen. We do need to draw a line and I believe that is because of what will follow.
In state or countries where this had been accepted there is now a domino effect against people or churches who think this is a sin and are being forced to accept the behavior.
I am all about accepting the people just not the behavior. And I would like to remain free to worship and not be forced to accept sin by government.
There are many, many actions that are legal in this country that Mormons do not condone (i.e., smoking, premarital sex, being mean, etc.). I find it curious that the Mormons choose to pick on gay marriage. I don’t get it.
p.s. Not all Mormons, of course 🙂
Caroline – I admire you so much.
The Greatest commandment is that we love one another. Have we forgotton that Heavenly Father had a plan, and we were excited about what the Lord was going to ask of us in this life.
I believe from the core of my being, that Heavely Father chreated He them, Homosexuals, to test us as to how judemental and non loving we can be. What if Prop 8 is a test of our ability to love all Children of God?
HT eGovt. through law, forces us to accept sin all the time. Is it not a sin that ur taxes go to frivolous things instead of helping the poor? It is not sin that we take a “conservative” view of starve out the welfare Mom and kids?
Please.
As for me and my family, we will serve the Lord.
simply put a legal marriage is a succession of property and entitlement rites
If this is all legal marriage is meant to be, I don’t understand why it should be restricted only to two-person units, or only to those who are sexually involved and not blood-related to one another.
I also wish the church would stay out of this particular battle, and I’m agnostic on the SSM issue, frankly. It’s no skin off my nose if gay couples can visit each other in the hospital and file their income taxes jointly. I just think it’s ridiculous to argue that this is all about equality and civil rights. If it were, people would not insist on making “marriage” (the very word) the central issue. They would welcome public attempts to accommodate their families, such as civil unions or reciprocal benefits legislation–which would benefit all kinds of “non-traditional” family arrangements, not just heterosexual and homosexual couples–instead of turning up their noses at it and calling it an insult to their relationships.
I’m not one of those people who think legalizing SSM is going to lead to widespread incest and people marrying their beagles or their toaster ovens, but if this is really all about fairness and entitlement, I should think that we’d want to reconsider the whole practice of privileging certain types of relationships above others.
Caroline, I can appreciate your angst over this issue, and I sympathize. Despite my own ambivalence over the legal issues, I would not care to be a Mormon in California right now.
I like what Zen said about God’s love for His children. God does love all of His children.
Having said that, the topic of gay marriage is a tough one for me. I believe our country was founded on principles of equality and fairness. So, although I don’t agree with homosexuality, that doesn’t mean that someone should be kept from having the right to marry someone of his/her choice.
Although, I understand where you’re coming from; personally, I have continued to go to our church in spite of what was said. I feel it’s important to remember that we should not judge the church by its people. People are imperfect while God and Jesus Christ are perfect. I know that the church is true and I have faith and trust in the leaders of our wonderful church. Yes, people make mistakes and say and do things with which we don’t agree. We cannot let what others do deter us from our own beliefs.
For those of us in CA it’s not what would we say, but what will we say, isn’t it?
I believe I will find grace in the text of the First Presidency’s letter, where it says we should do *what we can.* I will certainly do what I can. It is not what people – my brothers and sisters in the ward or my brothers and sisters out of the Church – might expect of me. But, as I pray about this (and I encourage everybody who is in turmoil about this issue to do that!) I am finding more peace than I expected.
I have also found a surprising prompting not to rant in public. So I’m trying to follow that. 🙂
Oh Caroline, I cannot even imagine how difficult this must be. I already find it difficult enough to sit through the war mongering, immigrant hate, Obama bashing and random anti-ERA comments (WTF?!). I don’t know what I’d do if Arizona church members were given the same directive; it would be hard to go to church every week without feeling that my spirituality and understanding of God were being assaulted.
I would say exactly the same thing to my leaders that you’ve said. Your statement is simple, non-confrontational and founded on the belief that everybody is trying follow Christ. I hope you can make it through this difficult time with peace and grace.
P.S. I love UCC; that’s where I plan to worship for the last month of my pregnancy, I always feel the spirit there.
Just this morning I watch a DVRed episode of 30 Days. A LDS woman from California went to live with a same-sex couple and their 4 adopted children. Usually, that show is pretty predictable in that the people start out totally against whatever the idea is, but then open up to it by the end. This woman never did. It made me sad that she was giving the world yet another view of close-minded LDS people.
I applaud your courage. Hopefully, the world will see that not all of us are close-minded.
Maybe some of you can answer my question. Why does the Church get so involved in same-sex matters in the US (such as in California) and yet those of us who live outside of the US never really hear about it? Canada has legalized same-sex marriage, so has Norway. Members here oppose same-sex marriage and we can voice our opinions about it, but it’s a political matter, so we just have to accept whatever the gov’t decides to do and get over it. I’ve never heard any letters being read at church that we should protest or fight the gov’t.
Carolyn, I love this post and it’s wonderful to know members that feel this way. This issue has made me contimplate being a member of the church for a long time. I was raised in western massachusetts and had many kids at my school that came from families of awesome supportive gay parents. I have an aunt and an uncle that were both raised lds and are no longer active. I want them to have the same rights that I do as a straight person. My husband and I are moving to california the end of the month and I can’t wait to register so I can vote no on prop 8. I can’t wait to be in my new ward so that they also know that I’m voting no on prop 8.
I have a difficult time attending church during election season at the best of times. As a registered Democrate from the age of 18 and growing more liberal in my views all the time, it’s gotten to the point where constantly biting my tongue to not cause contention is classes where it’s assumed that everyone agrees with the majority (ie conservative) It’s become even more difficult since the church has decided to mobalize on this issue. The moral issue for me is love, period. Denying people their civil rights and throwing out the “Love the person hate the sin retoric” makes me a little crazy. I often wonder if the people who say actually have any interaction with a gay person or have any friends who have been hurt by this attitutde. Until it’s over, my husband and I have chosedn to spend our Sunday afternoons delivering meals to AIDS patients as a positive protest.
Nobody wants to be hurtful, but we as humans have to draw lines between right and wrong. Those lines have become faded and need to be redrawn. At what point do we no longer allow the wonderful gift of marriage to be watered down. Not only is it a question of politics, taxes from those who disagree with it, to what is excepted. A extreme example would be: If a brother and a sister of age that love each other, want to get married should they be allowed, or a mother and adult son, should they also have the right to get married. Although these are extreme examples and some may laugh, but at one time if you told some one that two men or two women were getting married they would find that ridiculous. There are people out there that would question wether or not this should be allowed, and I’m not afraid to say no. Thats just my opinion.
This is a challenge! My husband has a gay brother who has been in a happy, loving, monogamous relationship for many years.
I find it offensive that there are collection envelopes being handed to individuals during church meetings for the purpose of collecting funds for the cause. If i am handed one such envelope i will politely hand it back and ask that i am not approached again on the matter.
The tone and quality of conversations in preisthood meetings and relief society meetings in my ward and in a dear friends ward are full of fearful hatred and it is very offensive. My girlfriend has a daughter who is lesbian and feels very hopelss for her as a mother according to the teachings and now political bent of the LDS faith. My heart aches over the topic and it is difficult to soothe my husband when he comes home from weekly meetings with steam curling out of his ears over the ignorance and insensitivity used to handle the issue.
Glynn, your remarks resonate with a regular topic of discussion that wehave around this issue. Thank you for your remarks.
Perhaps my biggest beef with the SSM rhetoric is that it is depicted as THE biggest problems facing gay Americans right now. I suspect that it may be so for upper- and middle-class gay Americans, but what about the remainder? They continue to deal with life-and-death problems rarely discussed by the more affluent activist class, most notably the AIDS pandemic and prison rape of gay inmates.
I am sympathetic to the legal benefits issues, but I have a hard time swallowing the human rights angle of SSM.
Caroline, I respect your point of view. However, you have failed to see the larger picture of what this issue is really about. At no time has the church condemned any group of individuals, and they have continually reached out with love to those who struggle with same-sex attraction. We love all of our brothers and sisters no matter their differences or struggles.
This particular legal battle directly threatens the moral and spiritual human rights of all Americans. Indeed, the way I see this, The church is actually defending civil rights by defending freedom of religion. If homosexual marriage is recognized by the governement as legal, then the government (esp. eager lawyers everywhere) would have the right to prosecute against those who are morally opposed to it. This will open up a Pandora’s box of discrimination against religious Americans everywhere who believe in the words of God that states the practice of homosexual acts is sinful, and that the divinely ordained institution of marriage is between one woman and one man. (this is found in the scriptures and has been stated over and over again by God’s prophets)
Our prophet and his counselors are doing exactly what they must do as true representatives of God on earth: defending His laws. If they did not speak out on this issue, than that is when I would be questioning their divine authority, and my church membership!
In the end, the wonderful thing about life is that you are free to choose. But I encourage you to think carefully about your decision. It would be terribly sad for you to deny yourself your holy blessings of partaking of the sacrament and renewing your holy baptismal covenants each week with the Savior. I am sorry, but the commandments are not offered up by God like a fruit basket where we can pick and choose which ones we think are tastiest and most popular, and leave the rest to rot. We demonstrate our commitment to God through our willingness to honor ALL of his commandments, and to follow His chosen prophet on earth – even when (especially when) it is not considered the “popular” thing to do.
I have two problems with this argument. Firstly, you try and make it look like marriage should be completely about love and not about the gender. Fine. You say that marriage shouldn’t be limited to just the classical definition of a husband and wife. Fine. What about if a father and a daughter love each other and want to get married? Should the same tolerance be applied to them? What if cousins want to get married? For that matter, what if somebody loves their pet and decides they want to marry a dog? Is that allowable under your logic? The problem is that you also agree that we have the right to limit who can legally be married, it is really a disagreement about where this line should be drawn. It is important to understand that; because you keep insinuating that those that want to limit marriage to just a man and a woman are inconsiderate/judgmental/sheep/etc. Really, you are also drawing a line, you are just mad that other people think the line should be somewhere other than where YOU think it should be. So, really, aren’t you just mad that others have a different opinion than you? Isn’t that strikingly familiar to what you are insulting in the first place.
Secondly, I have read the letter from the First Presidency. I re-read it. Nowhere does it say that gays should be hated. It only says that gay marriage should not be legal. That’s it. Quit reading more into than is there.
You say that religion shouldn’t get involved in politics, but marriage historically has been a religious foundation, and only relatively recently has it been broadened to make it a political institution. Marriage has always been defined based on what religion defines it as, so why is this so appalling now?
Lastly, I don’t understand your logic concerning religion in general. If you believe in a religion, you should necessarily believe it is divinely inspired, and that the leaders are divinely inspired. If that is true, then what they say comes from God, and you should follow it whether that means that you agree with it or not. If what the leaders say does not come from God, and you get to pick and choose what you follow, then you are saying that you don’t believe your religion is divinely inspired (and thus, true). Why do you belong to any religion that you think is led by men?
I, for one, am glad that the First Presidency doesn’t make their decisions based on a popular vote. I am glad that your input doesn’t influence church policy, just as mine doesn’t. If it did, it would (in my mind) mean that the church was a church of men, and I would distance myself from it as quickly as possible.
Caroline,
Thanks for this thoughtful letter.
Can I ask if you intend to give this to your bishop? (or have you already?)
I didn’t wait for my bishop to come to me, I just scheduled an appointment and took my concerns and a gay “care package” (books, articles, etc. — nothing too controversial, I hope) to him.
I might do the same with my Stake President. I just feel like a coward if I say or do nothing; but at the same time I determine that anything I say or do must be constructive, if possible, not divisive.
Thanks for all the comments, everyone. I’ve enjoyed reading them.
There are so many things to respond to. Because I’ve only got a couple of minutes before my toddler starts harrassing me, I’ll just repeat Janna’s question to Nigil and others like him.
Why bring this particular political issue into our worship meetings? Why are we not organizing to pass laws against drinking, smoking and adultery? Why are we trying to foist our definition of marriage onto non-Mormons?
It’s one thing to teach moral principles. If the Church wants to teach us that homosexuality is immoral, that’s one thing. It’s another thing to not only tell us how to vote, but to also start using Sunday worship time to organize and collect money for a political cause which doesn’t help anyone, but just hurts people.
What a way to kill the spirit.
Yes, I did send it to him. He sent me a kind reply in which he defended the Church’s stance and tried to emphasize that this is not meant to hurt gay people. He clearly spent some time on the email, which I appreciate.
Thank you for this. As a lesbian who lives, and grew up in Utah, with LDS extended family, I feel so overwhelmed by the fear and hatred that is directed toward me and my family (a partner, our daughter) by the Church authorities, that it’s hard to remember sometimes that not all members of the church feel that way. As I have watched the Church mobilize against the decision of California’s highest court about what is fair and right, I feel the same despair as when they mobilize against my being able to adopt my daughter here in Utah. The actions of the organization as a whole color my perception of the individual members until every LDS person feels like an inherent enemy. It’s nice to be reminded that they are not. Though many of the comments on here sadden me, there are enough that make me hopeful and glad to have stumbled across this post.
Caroline,
Good for you. I’m glad that he responded, how did he take the part about you not attending church until November? That seems like the kicker to me. It’s one thing to be upset with the church’s position, and another thing to stay away until the issue blows over.
Thanks for bringing up this topic. I know there was a lot of discussion on the ‘nacle before the letter was read, but it’s good to know how things are going a few weeks later.
I really can’t believe there’s money changing hands for this purpose in the church building. Crazy.
ok, finally some time now that Beast’s in bed.
Glynn, I love your point about the difference between legal marriage and religion-endorsed marriage.
Zen, you say the point is really about acceptance. That may be. But wouldn’t Jesus open his arms and accept gay people? I can’t even begin to imagine Jesus trying to pass laws against gays.
Susanne, good point about the gov’t forcing us to accept sin all the time. I do, however, understand what gladtobeamom is worried about. I don’t thing the gov’t should force religions to perform marriages they don’t morally tolerate (not that that would happen, but I understand that’s the fear.) I hope one day the church will open its temple doors to active gays, but I want it to be voluntary.
Thanks for your thoughts, madhousewife, Ana, Sarah, Mraynes, becca, megan. You guys are great.
Faithful Diss, good question. Like you said, Canada’s legalized it same sex marriage, and the country’s not gone to hell in a hand basket. And Canadian LDS don’t even have to hear about it much in church! Makes me want to be a Canadian. Or a Norwegian.
Matt, love the idea of the gay care package. Awesome way to more dispassionately approach your leaders and try to enlighten them. I tend to err on the side of sweeping rhetoric and loaded language. 🙂
Nicole,
So glad you’re coming to CA!
Troubled, what a great way to focus your Sunday time and energy on truly helping people.
smalltowndad, good questions. I can’t imagine those father-marrying-daughter scenearios would be widespread, but they are good to consider. I don’t know if you lean libertarian, but I think their answer would be to let these people form whatever private contracts they want to.
Alicia,
Yes the money thing is particularly off-putting. Luckily our ward just has the envelopes in the foyer for people to take. At least they are not handing them out.
Ben, good point. Winning the term marriage does seem to be more a symbolic concern than other problems facing the gay community. But I’m a big believer in the importance of symbols, so I deeply sympathize with the pursuit of that term.
Mormonsoprano, I think we all pick and choose, whether or not we want to admit it.
Chicory, thanks so much for your story. I’m so sorry that you feel all this undeserved hate and fear being directed at you. I know Mormons seem like a monolithic mass of conservative ideals a lot of the time, but there are definite subsets who want more than anything for the Church to open it’s arms to gays. I think with time, things will get better.
Jessawhy,
He says he hopes I’ll reconsider and that I’d be greatly missed. That’s a nice comment, but I’m afraid it’s probably untrue since we have the hugest ward. I bet almost no one would even notice.
Chicory,
I am so sorry about your experiences of feeling hatred while growing up in Utah. I grew up in Utah and I think most people that show hatred towards the LBGT community is because they don’t actually know anyone who is gay. I talked to my mother recently about this topic, she was born and raised in southern Utah. She was expressing some very negitive views about how one of my high school friends “decided to be gay”. I asked her what she would say if I told her I was gay, would she love me less, would she see me as a sinner, would she condemn me? She told me she had not thought about it that way, she told me she would not condemn me, that she would still love me, she told me she was wrong for thinking that way.
I’m so sorry for the hatred you have experienced, no one should be treated that way.
I think we need to teach our children to love everyone, no matter what, thats true Christlike love. One of my favorite sayings is “be careful who you hate, it may be someone you love”.
-B
I heart Caroline.
Caroline, as to your question about why this issue is focused on in the church, instead of all the other things we view as immoral…I am willing to bet that if there was a law passed legalizing anything the church stands against, and then the public had a chance to vote on it after the fact, the church would take the same action. I agree with you that money collections shouldn’t be involved in church at all, and it probably shouldn’t be discussed in any Sunday school meetings, but if the First Presidency sends a letter asking bishops to read it over the pulpit, I think then it becomes ok to read that letter over the pulpit. Then again, I have the crazy notion that the First Presidency is divinely inspired.
I’d say – get a clue! While they are funneling millions of dollars into an ad campaign that targets a disenfranchised, vulnerable minority there are millions of people starving on the streets without a roof over their head. Faced with addressing the issues of a homosexual or a starving child, who do you think Christ would turn his attention to first? And – excuse me, didn’t the Church just acknowledge that homosexuality is biologically determined? Do we believe God directs biology? I know, I’m going down a rat hole, but I’d say, get your heads out of the sand and look at what REALLY needs to be addressed in the world.
I couldn’t agree with you more Barbara!
Has anyone else read this open letter from Jeffery Nielson to the California MOrmons? It’s really awesome:
http://www.affirmation.org/media/2008_06_24.shtml
I hadn’t read that. A fantastic letter.
Why wouldn’t the church rally it’s members to defend a basic doctrine of the gospel – that marriage is ordained between a man and a woman? Besides being a divine mandate, what about free speech? OR is that only upheld if the others point of view is not offensive?
I applaud those who have different ideas and want to vocalize them, but allow everyone else to do so in the manner they see fit – the Church can rally if it wants and that in no way means they are not being Christlike.
Christ just wasn’t a good guy – He was the Son of God. Yes, He led a life doing good, He ALSO taught us divine truths that don’t change no matter how much some people want them to or how much we might not understand them at this time.
What good is the LDS faith unless the point is to become more like Christ – to take Him at His word that it will be okay if we follow Him, not tell Him that He needs to adjust his plan because we don’t want to uphold it anymore.
Nigel – So, if we had the chance to re-vote on certain issues such as whether pre-marital sex is legal, then you think the church authorities would encourage us to vote that it should be illegal? This is starting to feel like a slippery slope to me…
If a spiritual law against doing something exists, then whether it is legal in a particular country is irrelevant. God is bigger than an earthly legal system. I find it interesting that the church is pandering to it.
Why are we troubling ourselves?
It’s comforting to know that this time around, there are LDS individuals willing to publicly stand against Prop 8. In 2000, there were very few of us. When I get home from vacation, I will find a website where I can post an essay that Stuart Matis wrote in 2000 and gave to me and two other members with the hope that his words would help others understand what it was like to be Mormon and gay.
Caroline, you should find a welcome in your local UCC. I’m now a member of UCC because of incidents that took place in my ward and stake because of my opposition to Prop 22 in 2000.
Amen, Janna.
Jeanie, feel free to send Stuart’s essay to us, if you’re interested in it going up on a blog. We’d love to feature it. (You can email us at our gmail account if interested.)
Does anyone know anything about the coalition the church is part of on this issue? (or was that a rumor?)
There is one website, so far, organizing a protest against church involvement:
http://signingforsomething.org/blog/
Well the organization we’re supposed to be donating to is called Protect Marriage
http://www.protectmarriage.com. I haven’t explored the site, though, so I don’t know if it talks about the coalition.
Jim, thanks for your imput. I love your comments.
Paula, thanks for that reference to signing for something. Very cool.
Very thoughful posts from all who took the time to share. As a former Bishop please allow me to share mine.
I like many of you have friends and relatives that are gay. My first career out of school was in retail and overnight I was exposed to many facets of the “gay lifestyle”. On occassion when someone gay would find out I was a member of the church they would be rude and make hateful comments. Most of my assoications and interactions were extremely positive. There are more than a few individuals that I fostered strong friendships with. One of these friends has kept in touch with me for the past 20 years. I love him to death and he has always been so thougtful of my wife and kids. I know that if something happened to me he would be the the first one on the scene to help and would more than likely beat my home teachers to the punch.
He will be getting married in October and he is expecting me to be there even though he knows that I am opposed to this. I will attend because I love him and his partner.
Should he have the right and the opportunity to legally share his life with his partner and have all the rights that my wife and I do? Yes I believe it is his right. Should it be called marriage? No absolutely not. Call it anything else and I will rush to the booth to support it.
You see, do not tell me it is what my parents have or what my wife and I have because I do not believe that it is. A matter of fact I know it is not.
The gay lifestyle does not mirror mine at all. Supporting gay marriage lends credence to the lifestyle and I cannot do that. I am sorry I prefer not to do anything that will mainstream this lifestyle and say that “it’s different,but it is ok”.
I have decided this after watching the news during “gay pride” weekend. If this is what the gay community is proud of then you right I cannot support the word marriage be brought down to the level of the gutter. It has taken a bad enough beating already.
Once I was attending a seminar in San Francisco and my friend and his partner offered their place to help me save some money. They wanted to take me to dinner in the Castro that evening and me being a bit naive agreed. I was educated quickly. It become quite apparent that the gay lifestyle is mainly about sexuality with an emphasis on deviant sexuality. My friends partner became embarrassed for me and suggested that it might not have been particularly thoughtful to bring me there. I appreciated the sentiment but it was a bit late.
These experiences have helped me form my opinion. I am not necessarily in agreement with the approach the church has taken because it is a dangerous one that has alienated some members. But their calling is to lead and teach. Sometimes we do not like what our church leaders say. There were many who left the church when the priesthood was given to all worthy males. Guess what that was the right decision then and still is. I believe this is the correct decision for our time now.
At the end of the day the test for members with a testimony is to follow. Leaders will be judged for the counsel and direction they have given and we will be judged on the fact that we followed or did not. Sorry if you do not like it but it is just a plain and simple fact. Feel free to exercise your agency but do so wisely, prayerfully and without malice.
I understand so much! I’ve skipped church 2 times this month and cut out early another time. I can’t stand this and I’m thinking of going to the Unitarian Universalist church until November. Infact I told my RS president I was going out of town a lot the next few months but I exagerated a teensy bit to have an excuse to skip more often. *sigh* The whole thing is too depressing.
thomasb says:
“At the end of the day the test for members with a testimony is to follow. Leaders will be judged for the counsel and direction they have given and we will be judged on the fact that we followed or did not.”
Thomasb, you’re only telling half the story. This is one of those tensions within Mormonism. You can find quotes from leaders echoing what you just said, but I can also find quotes from GA’s saying that it’s up to us to get confirmation of what a leader is telling us and then act accordingly. I think what you propose as the ‘plain and simple fact’ can be pretty dangerous if you have fallible leaders. Remember Mountain Meadows? I doubt the LDS who killed those innocent women, children, and men will be held guiltless in the hereafter just because they were obeying their leaders.
If I am going to err, I’ll err on the side of following my conscience, rather than on the side of following leaders I feel are wrong. But to each her own, of course.
Ayla, you might want to check out a UCC. They are fantastic. I love their music.
I have enjoyed reading this discussion. I was wondering if personal opinions aside, any of you feel that the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the popular vote concerning SSM is unconstitutional? In 2000, 61% of Californians voted “NO” to same-sex marriage. Is there anyone here who supports SSM marriage but feels the popular vote should be upheld? That would be an interesting perspective. (Obviously if everyone feels this is a Civil Rights Issue that wouldn’t matter.) Just wondering.
I am a faithful latter-day saint who ponders this issue a lot because of the wonderful gay people I know and respect. I sincerely just want to stay out of Proposition 8 because of this. However, at this point, I don’t think it’s a Civil Rights issue. My rationalization is as follows: I think homosexuality is a mental illness. I know no one likes to be labeled mentally ill, but perhaps the stigma associated with mental illness is what makes some people uncomfortable with putting homosexuality in that category. Looking at homosexuality through this lense is what makes me not think it’s a civil rights issue and still rationalize that, marriage should be between a man and a woman. I believe that gays should have way more rights, but I just feel marriage is largely about children…Anyways, It’s not black and white for me, but I guess this logic is what makes me feel less uncomfortable with the church’s decision. (Although I am still pretty uncomfortable with the way people talk about gays at church…) The general authorities may have not been unkind in their letter, but many church members still have a long way to go. I have a family who is much more conservative then me and I guess I was just wanting some honest feedback and to see if anyone shares this perspective.
I didn’t mean to put a smiley face in the above post….Just in case anyone was wondering.) It would be totally inappropriate where it landed.:) Sorry.
“Thomasb, you’re only telling half the story. This is one of those tensions within Mormonism. You can find quotes from leaders echoing what you just said, but I can also find quotes from GA’s saying that it’s up to us to get confirmation of what a leader is telling us and then act accordingly. I think what you propose as the ‘plain and simple fact’ can be pretty dangerous if you have fallible leaders. Remember Mountain Meadows? I doubt the LDS who killed those innocent women, children, and men will be held guiltless in the hereafter just because they were obeying their leaders.”
Caroline nice try but it is a bit off the deep end. There is quite a disparity between between voting against gay marriage and murder. Your implication that B. Young or any of the brethren at the time expressly counseled those in Cedar City to murder those in the wagon company that traveled through makes great propaganda for anti mormons so go ahead and run with it, but please it is quite speculative. My grandmother was on the Utah historical society and was friends with Jaunita Brooks and was always quite angry with the church for making John Lee the scapegoat but with all the access she and others had to historical documents in the 60’s and 70’s nothing was ever found that implicated the brethren the way that you are.
So lets just stick to simple matters of faith. It sounds like you listened to the brethren , prayed and have your answer.
I listened to the brethren, took a look around at the world I live and determined that I would follow based on their instruction and what I have have been exposed to in my own life (feel free to refer the my previous post). I am quite comfortable with that. I am quite comfortable where I am at and I am glad that you have found something that gives you deeper meaning and purpose.
If you have not noticed civilazation is deteriorating. It has happened before much in the same way it is now.
The family is under attack and will continue to be.
There are gays in the church that struggle as someone mentioned above. They have somehow managed to harness these powerful feelings they have and overcome the natural man. I admire them. I do not have all of the answers. I do not know why they have to deal with these feelings. I do not know why some men and women have a sexual attraction to small children but they must suppress those feelings. We all have some form of weakness and while it does not seem quite fair it really is not about that. It is about rising above ourselves applying faith and utilizing the atonement for personal redemption. If you trace everything back to that you may have a clearer picture.
I just wanted to add something I heard the other day which I never thought of and it is that Marriage was around before governments, etc. It has always been between man and women. This is another example of what happens when government messes with things they should stay out of.
They have no business decided or defining marriage.
It is interesting that people can have no problems with these kinds of unions because they are so loving etc. Yet they find polygamy so wrong. What if they are loving and it works for them shouldnt we legalize it as well. I guess we pick and choose who should have these same rights. Both groups have their abuses. I just don’t get the discrepancy.
I haven’t said anything at this point. This issues and the church’s stance has made me question whether or not I can continue being a member, and wondering if it is time to resign.
Thomas B-I am still waiting for someone to explain who same sex marriage threatens hetero marriage. I still think that this will fall into the category of blacks and the priesthood and the church stance on the ERA. Later we will hide our heads and be embarrassed, and provide excuses that make everyone uncomfortable. We are the religion that told everyone else to stay out of our bedrooms, yet we will not provide the same courtesy for others that we wanted others should do for us. I still believe that the polygamy practiced then (and still in the temple today) is far more harmful than same sex marriage.
Thomasb,
You misinterpretted my comment. When I said ‘leaders’ I wasn’t talking about B. Young. I was talking about the local leaders who organized and planned the attack. As for civilization deteriorating, I think that’s only half the story as well. I see it deteriorating, but I also see it improving. I think it’s wonderful that in the U.S. slavery is gone, Jim Crow is no more, women can now vote, black people now have temple privleges, many people now value multi-culturalism, etc.
Heavy Heart, I think a lot of Mormons would agree with you about considering homosexuality an illness. I’m personally uncomfortable with that, however. Not only do I not want to tell people that this intrisic part of their identity is a sickness, I also believe that the vast majority of psychologists and other medical experts now characterize homosexuality as a normal human variation, not an illness. Thanks for your comment, it’s clear you’re really thinking about the issue.
gladtobeamom, well….. marriage has taken different forms over the millenia. Check out Coontz’ A History of Marriage for a fascinating rundown.
Confused, although I find polygamy horrific, I think it should actually be legal.
Tanya, I too think this is something that most Mormons will one day regret.
Tanya said “I am still waiting for someone to explain who same sex marriage threatens hetero marriage.”
This is a great point. There are some preliminary studies coming out of countries and localities that sanction gay marriage that show that legalizing gay marriage has a net positive affect on hetero marriages as well. I’m not sure what the connections are, but from a strictly social scientific perspective, there’s not much support one way or the other that gay marriage truly threatens hetero marriage. The argument is entirely a moral one. I bring this up because it is the primary focus of Prop 8 advocates–they are, after all, claiming to “Protect Marriage.”
There’s a deep irony to me in this. At least at the academic level, gays are not united in their support of the marriage institution, gay or straight. There are deeper, more fundamental threats to the marriage institution than gay marriage (say, the growing social acceptance of cohabiting). I assume that issues like domestic violence are pretty threatening to marriage and the family. The Church has not taken the strong, outward-facing public stand on these issues the way that it has against gay marriage.
The Church picks its battles, and it has chosen to focus specifically on keeping the state from sanctioning committed relationships between same sex partners. Ultimately, this has little to do with “protecting marriage” and more to do with subsuming itself in identity politics and reinforcing its own cultural boundaries. And at the root of all this is a deep-seated prejudice against homosexuality and homosexuals.
I have not read through all the comments,
so this may be old news by now:
“Attorney General Jerry Brown has reworded the
ballot summary. The initiative that 1.1 million California voters signed and was to have appeared on the
ballot read “[Proposition 8] amends the
California Constitution to provide that only
marriage between a man and a woman is valid or
recognized in California.””
“With Brown’s creative writing, the new ballot
summary says that it “‘changes California
Constitution to eliminate the right of
same-sex couples to marry.” Further it
claims that the state will be impacted with a
potential revenue loss of several million
dollars-an argument calculated to prejudice
voters in these difficult economic times.”
I also found out yesterday that PG&E has
made a huge donation to the “No on Prop. 8”
group. That means PG&E is using some of the
money I pay it each month without my okay.
I will be voting yes on Prop. 8 because I
fear that somewhere down the line, future
generations will be asking “What’s a wife?
What’s a husband? What’s a mother? What’s
a father?” I am thankful every day that I
grew up in a home with a mother and father.
“I will be voting yes on Prop. 8 because I
fear that somewhere down the line, future
generations will be asking “What’s a wife?
What’s a husband? What’s a mother? What’s
a father?” I am thankful every day that I
grew up in a home with a mother and father.”
This argument never has made much sense to me. I don’t think life and relationships are that black and white. I have lots of friends that didn’t have a stable mom or dad growing up and still have to define what these rolls are for themselves when they get older.
I think people that have this argument need to make friends with a family that has two committed gay parents and see how amazing the kids can be when they have stable parents, no matter what the gender.
Can anyone tell me what rights gay couples don’t have in CA as a result of not being married? I was under the assumption that although they don’t have the title, they have all of the legal rights like taxes benefits and inheritance. What rights would their children not have that children of married couples do have?
Heavy Heart “Can anyone tell me what rights gay couples don’t have in CA as a result of not being married?
Sure. They don’t have the right to say “we’re married”. How about we take that away from people in traditional marriages and see what they said have to say about? We can say “but you have all other rights, what’s the problem?”.
Heavy Heart
Apparently there are differences. Here’s what I found on http://www.infoplease.com.
“The most significant difference between marriage and civil unions (or domestic partnerships) is that only marriage offers federal benefits and protections.
According to the federal government’s General Accounting Office (GAO), more than 1,100 rights and protections are conferred to U.S. citizens upon marriage. Areas affected include Social Security benefits, veterans’ benefits, health insurance, Medicaid, hospital visitation, estate taxes, retirement savings, pensions, family leave, and immigration law.
Because same-sex marriages in Massachusetts and California, civil unions, and domestic partnerships are not federally recognized, any benefits available at the state or local level are subject to federal taxation. For example, a woman whose health insurance covers her female partner must pay federal taxes on the total employer cost for that insurance.”
It sounds from the pp that this is all about money and benefits. It is going to create more of a need which will raise our taxes. I think we All need to quit thinking the big old gov. owes us something or is going to solve all our problems or needs to pay us or take care of us. All this entitlement is going to cause a ton of problems for all of us gay or not.
“The gay lifestyle does not mirror mine at all.”
In about 10 minutes, I have to go drive to bring my preschooler home. At that moment his classmates’ lesbian moms are doing the very same thing.
As far as I can tell the “gay lifestyle” has lots to do with minivans, grocery stores, childcare, soccer, volunteering, and farmers markets. or at least, that’s where I keep running into “those people”.
Good for you.
By the way, this bit of commentary is a great read:
Hypocrisy and gay marriage
http://orangepunch.freedomblogging.com/2008/07/30/hypocrisy-and-gay-marriage/
There’s also a moving YouTube up on the front page of the new ‘No on 8’ website:
To Have and To Hold: Faith Leaders for the Freedom to Marry
http://noonprop8.com/home
Caroline: Thanks for the info. on rights and the link.
Tanya Sue: My question concerning the rights that gays don’t have was sincere. I understand that saying “we’re married” means something. Sorry my question offended you. I realize this is an emotional topic. I would just like to have a educated opinion concerning this matter and thought this would be a good place to ask questions.
Heavy Heart,
This is a good place to ask questions. I’m glad you did.
Chino Blanco, Thanks for the links. Very cool.
As an example of taxes on health insurance, when I looked at putting my wife on my health insurance at work was told it would cost me $1500.00 a quarter in taxes. I’m a peon. I don’t have a spare 6000 dollars a year
I’m dull and boring, while I’d like to live an exotic lifestyle and jet-set around, I can’t afford it. I guess I’ll leave those lifestyles to the heterosexuals I read about in People magazine.
I keep thinking that my greatest concern is not whether being gay is wrong, but the church’s overt involvement in politics.
But, would I feel the same way if the church asked me to put a sign in my yard saying, “No War in Iraq!” or “Vote for Obama!”? Probably not. If church leaders asked me to do so, I would because I believe that the Americans should get out of Iraq and that Obama should be the next president – and I would be super-psyched that the Mormons were driving a more liberal agenda – and I’d start making comments that the Mormons are doing something good in the world.
My point — the issue really is whether you believe that legalizing gay marriage leads individuals and society into moral decrepitude. The pesky, annoying issue is that the church is getting involved, but it’s not the central issue.
I hate to admit this, but it’s true. This is the reason I respect Caroline’s choice regarding church attendance over the next few months. For her (correct me if I am wrong, Caroline), attending worship services that diminish respect for individuals she respects and loves takes away from her sense of discipleship and devotion to Christ or more simply, her practice of moral behavior.
Janna – Excellent points and well thought out.
Caroline – Let us not get on a Mountain Meadows tangent but please no “church leader” gave the orders to kill settlers.
The prophet, who I sustain as the Lords actual spokeman on this earth has aksed me to support this measure. I do not particularly like the fact that the church is as involved as it is and no I did not even have to pray to figure either of those things out. Caroline a great portion of what we will be judged on is how we lead and how we follow. Abraham 3 is quite clear on this. It is essential to the plan.
I am glad you feel the world is becoming a better place. I would differ. Here are some of the things that I point to:
Rampant pornography, greed, self absorbed individuals that will do anything for a brief spot in the limelight (like making a sex tape and posting it to the internet), war for nefarious interests and personal gain, hero worship of athletes that can barely complete a sentence, the lack of femininity in language, action and modesty (wearing shorts that say “juicy” accross the rear is not real classy), ever increasing divorce rates and children being raised (sometimes) in single parent homes, a lack of commitment and integrity in everyday life, abortion and multiculturalism. Ask Great Britain about how that is working out there. No thank you Caroline.
At the end of the day this all comes to semantics. The word “marriage” is sacred to many. To us it has been cheapened. Sorry it is just the way many of us feel.
I will again state that I believe that a committed gay couple should have all of the rights and priveledges my wife and I have. Just call it something else. If the federal government needs to do something then let them do it. After all we do have a democratic led congress and it seems it would be something that they could inact if they really wanted to but lets face it this is about mainstreaming homosexuality.
Hey! There is a new LDS Middle Singles weblog and support group. Join us at:
http://middlesinglesolution.blogspot.com/
Thanks
Caroline,
Homosexuality is a very difficult life choice and I have seen people who struggle with their same sex attraction and people that have struggled because a spouse or parent has left the family for the other partner.
It causes a lot of pain for everyone.
Through all of this political divisiveness do you believe the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints to be the true church on the earth with the real priesthood authority from Jesus Christ?
If it isn’t true, then it really doesn’t matter what church anyone attends or what anyone’s political agenda might be.
I don’t want to add to any grief that you feel, however if the Church is true then I suggest you seek the Lord for understanding.
I had an experience at work that involved, what I perceived as chauvinistic members making my job difficult. I struggled for a long time, but after much prayer, fasting and pondering; all of my questions have been answered and I have felt the love of my Savior. He helped me and gave me knowledge through my limited understanding.
With lots of love, may I recommend giving the Lord a try?
thomasb,
You may want to check out Massacre at Mountain Meadows, the definitive historical book on the subject that just came out – written by active LDS who are employed in the Church History department.
I agree with you that some of the things you mentioned are indeed deteriorations.
Nicole, cchrissyy, amen!
Janna, I think you’re right. I would be a little worried and a little bothered if the Church started to mobilize us to protest against warmongering, or to advocate for something that would help the environment. But I suspect that an even bigger part of me would probably be really happy that the Church was getting involved in the world in a way that I see as profoundly positive.
tk, I have thought deeply about this topic, pondered Jesus’ example, and feel at peace with my conclusions and decisions. I think that peace comes from God. As for the question about whether or not the church is true… well I think it’s a lot more complicated than that. I would ask – how is it true? what exactly is true? is everything that’s said over the pulpit true? Are leaders infallible? When I break the question apart, I have no simple answer to give.
I have posted a response to this post on my own blog (Oh No, Not Another Mormon Blog!). Please go here to view it.
Thanks.
Caroline, I agree the world is becoming a better place. Just look at the US. We started as a country that felt it was ok to own another person based on color. We no longer do that. We have eliminated prejudicial laws against people bases on race. There was a time when a man could not be charged with raping his wife-it was his right to have sex with her whenever he wanted. Same thing with beating her. Women can even vote, go to college and hold office now. We had a viable female candidate for president-instead for that party a man of color won out. We openly get involved and fight child abuse. Women and men can now divorce from abusive and adulterous spouses now if they want to.
I am optimistic that the world will continue and improve and be a better place. While we have plenty of problems, I think that we will continue to learn to address them and improve.
Snielsen, I sympathize. I believe you and your spouse should absolutely get the same health benefits and privileges as I do.
Tanya Sue, exactly. I’m always a bit baffled when people say without qualification that the world is deteriorating. As a woman, I am SO GLAD I was born when I was rather than 50 or 100 years earlier.
Another website with an LDS perspective on why to vote no on Prop 8:
http://www.mormonsformarriage.com
I know I don’t belong here. I’m not part of this community: I was never really LDS and I don’t live in California. But since I commented earlier the continuing comments on this post keep showing up in my dashboard and so I’ve been eavesdropping in on this conversation.
So I thought I’d pop back in and answer some of the questions that have been posed by the people in this discussion.
For me, and my friends, having the ability to have a federal and state-recognized marriage isn’t about being able to say that we’re married. It’s about the very concrete rights that the secular government has attached to that status. If the federal government were to create a “civil union” category with all the same rights as marriage, just called something else, I’d hop on it, and be happy. But that can’t happen. Because there are too many rights and responsibilities tied to the legal word “married”. For instance, in Utah a couple who is co-habitating (living together) but not “married” can’t adopt children. So, couples who are “civil unioned” can’t adopt. Even if the Federal Government were to put together “civil unions” and state that they the same as marriage, the state’s law would still be exclusionary because of the specific language within the law. In fact, the Utah law was written that way to keep such a thing from happening — just in case Utah was ever forced to acknowledge other states’ civil unions — the state wouldn’t actually have to grant the right to adopt to those couples despite their federally-approved status.
I’m sure there are other instances of this sort of legal language segregation. We learned in the 60’s that separate was rarely, if ever, equal.
The thing is, I already have the term “married”. I was married, to my wife, in a state-sanctioned House of Worship, by an official Minster, in front of an enthusiastic and supportive congregation. In the eyes of my spiritual authority that was a sacrament — and I hold it sacred. When people ask me, I tell them that I am married, and spiritually it is true. And no one else has to believe that it is as sacred as their marriage, because this isn’t a competition to see whose marriage is holier.
It’s not about the term. It’s not about forcing people to “accept” me. This is about being able to adopt my daughter, being able to put my wife and child on my insurance; it’s about being able to register my daughter for school, take her to the doctor, stay with her in the hospital. It’s about my child not losing access to the only grandparents she knows (my parents) if my wife were to die and her relatives were to come in and sweep my daughter away from her living mother and her extended family; it’s about being able to leave my social security benefits to my child should I die before she reaches her majority, it’s about knowing that if something happens to me or my wife our remaining family will qualify for survivor’s benefits or be able to sue for wrongful death. It’s about the potential fall-out from tragedy as well as the hundreds of mundane tasks that confront a family unit every day and that are made difficult, unnecessarily expensive, or impossible just because a group of people, who don’t even know us, disagree with whom I’ve chosen to form that family unit.
For those of us who have an immediate, personal stake in this matter (rather than a hypothetical, philosophical, third-person one) these are what the true issues are.
Caroline, I wanted to tell you that your stance, and the way you have been handling this discussion, have greatly touched me. You walk with grace, and I’m glad to have crossed paths, even this peripherally, with you.
Chicory,
Thank you for explaining so eloquently how civil unions do not give the same protections as marriage. I’m so glad you found this post and were willing to contribute. Best of luck to you and your family.
Today during testimony meeting a young man stood up toward the end of the meeting to share his heartfelt concerns over this issue. Ironically, the area authority who is in charge of this proposition for our area was in attendance at our meeting as he is a resident of our ward. This young man very carefully articulated his concerns over the church’s very active participation in the matter and the memberships enthuisiasm for the topic becoming a careless way of making this an anit-gay issue. He also expressed his concern that we are not as active in so many other pressing world issues that are moral issues. He expressed his love for the Savior and his desire to live and do the will of God. But hoped that we would carefully consider the issue at hand. Obviously, our area authority was sitting on the stand. He was anxious and nervous and looked on several occasions as though he would stand up and interrupt this young mans expressions. He did not. The area authority anxiously, and politely waited then closed the meeting with his own testiomony of our general church leaders love and concern for “all” members of the church and emphasized that this was an effort to protect and define an “ideal”. The area authority shared his testimony of the love held by each of the general authorities for all of the members of the church, no matter what their struggles.
As you can imagine, this was quite an exciting meeting. I was deeply grateful to this young man for his courage to stand up and face criticism,ridicule, and ostracism. He is raised by a very stalwart family that is loved in our ward. His father supported him in conversations following the meeting by supporting his son’s convicitons as well as stating his own view on the matter. My son’s were inspired by his courage. My husband felt connected to the meeting in a way that he has been missing for great period of time. Many members concurred with the heartfelt expressions of this young man.
I was also grateful for the closing remarks of our dear area authority. He is an inspired loving man, who during his tenure as a stake presiden supported me spiritually and emotionally during some difficult times in my personal and family life. His remarks gave me yet another perspective for which i am finally feeling some resolve and peace over the issue. It was the remark he made concerning defining the “ideal”. I do believe that we need ideals to aspire to, to use as guidelines and to draw us closer to our Father in Heaven. I realize that this is not the ideal for the gay and lesbian community and i feel deeply for their desires to have their relationships substaniated.
I have to take issue with a comment posted earlier about “deviant sexuality” being the basis for homosexual relationships or encounters. I know many homosexual couples who are monogamous life time partners. Sexual deviancy is a problem no matter which community you are encountering. Gay or straight. There are problems with adultery, pornography, sexual abuse among married partners, and more. All of which are deviant behaviors not specific to the homosexual community.
I have not yet decided how i will vote. I have however, decided that i will look deeply into my community to see where my volunteerism is needed to aid, lift, love and help those who need more than i do. I have decided to speak up and stand up when something is unjust. I hope that i will not be alone, but if i am i will not be afraid.
Lastly, i do believe that God has laws and commandments that he wants us to live. I do understand that we must try to live all those laws to the best of our ability and I want to do so. I cannot however, follow for the sake of following, simply because my leaders have said that it is the right choice to make.
Alicia,
Without commenting on the specific politics of this issue (I myself am personally somewhat undecided), I would like to point out that it is a sociologic fact that homosexual males are more sexually active and promiscuous that heterosexual males. I first learned this fact in medical school, and I attended medical school in a fairly liberal region of the country. See, for example, the scientific article entitled “The Contribution of Steady and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV Infection Among Homosexual Men in Amsterdam.” Of course there are homosexuals who are faithful to their partners, but they are the exception to the rule, statistically speaking.
Jay,
I think you would agree that statistical data don’t tell the whole story, and we have to be careful with how we intrepret it.
Of course there are homosexuals who are faithful to their partners, but they are the exception to the rule, statistically speaking.
I don’t know the exact stats, but just because more gay men are promiscuous than straight men doesn’t mean that homosexual partners being faithful to each other is an exception to the rule. Promiscuity does not equal being unfaithful to a partner. Plenty of unmarried people are promiscuous without cheating on anyone. And that leads to my second point. Society puts heavy pressure on straight people to get married and remain with that spouse for the long term. There is no analogous pressure, or structure, for gay people. We judge them for having extra-marital sex or not adhering to hetero norms, but we don’t let them participate in the societal structures that are part of those norms. It makes no sense to me.
in fact, one could argue that as young gay men realize that they’re gay and come out, all the societal “knowledge” that gay men are promiscuous with an ever-changing stream of partners and random hook-ups may encourage them to become promiscuous themselves with a subconscious (or conscious) train of thought that goes “if I’m a gay man, and this is what gay men do, then I guess this is what I’m going to do”
What if society at large expected gay men, like straight men, to find one partner that they love and desire and settle down and be faithful to that partner in a sanctified marriage? And what if there were also therapists and pastors and neighbors and family who not only expected that, but also supported and encouraged it — and were there to help through the hard times in a relationship, those inevitable times when things start to seem harder than they should be and that grass on the other side of the fence starts seeming oh so greener than your own partner). How would that change the immutable fact that gay men are more promiscuous?
[…] Prop 8 angst and a casualty at […]
[…] Prop 8 angst and a casualty at […]
[…] Prop 8 angst and a casualty at […]
[…] Prop 8 angst and a casualty at […]
[…] Prop 8 angst and a casualty at […]
Excellent point, Petra. And thanks for sharing your story, Alicia.
Why am I apart of a generation that lives for the “now”? Can’t anyone under 40 look beyond what’s tempting them today? Who’s going to teach a girl, raised by a gay couple, how to be a mother? Visa versa for a boy? Say goodbye to gender roles. This site is full of highly, intellegent people who I’m sure can look farther down the road and see the depletion of a complete society. Legalizing gay marriage will literally bring about the end of the world- maybe not tomorrow or in our generation, but sure to come. Who’s going to procreate?…sperm banks and invitro labs! I’m sick of the “american idol vote” mentality. Yes, I am teaching my children tolerance and compassion, but at the same time, I teach them that doing the “right” thing is so often NOT popular!
Charades, well people like me will have kids. I am heterosexual woman who will never be involved for women-they are just not attractive to me. I think if you ask people in your local congregation many of the supportive views expressed here are less than popular. Trust me when I say my opinion is not popular with my very active LDS family-but I still think it is the right thing to do. Also, I think saying goodbye to gender roles is a great thing.
To AnaCA:
Thank you for your post. I live in SoCal and have a gay son. Your take on “what you can do” hit a cord with me. I’ve read literally thousands of posts on this topic and yours is the first to make me feel like I got “an answer”.
charades wrote:
Uniqueness:
“No same-gendered parent figure” isn’t a problem unique to homosexual couples. There are girls being raised by their single, heterosexual fathers. There are boys being raised by their single, heterosexual mothers. If “no same-gendered parent figure” is a standard to legislate against a family, we’d need to legislate against boys being raised by single women and girls being raised by single men as well.
Philosophical consistency:
Is there a directive from Church leadership to adopt as many children as possible from the foster system (who have no parents at all) into traditional, Mormon households?
It seems to me that arguments to limit rights need to be both based on problems which are unique to the rights legislated against and philosophically consistent with the values being espoused. This doesn’t seem to meet either standard.
John(w)
Excellent point. If one can’t learn to be a man or a woman without having a parent of that gender around, then lots of families would be doomed. Including mine. My father died when I was a baby, but luckily my brother figured out how to be a man despite that.
Alicia as to your following comment:
I have to take issue with a comment posted earlier about “deviant sexuality” being the basis for homosexual relationships or encounters. I know many homosexual couples who are monogamous life time partners. Sexual deviancy is a problem no matter which community you are encountering. Gay or straight. There are problems with adultery, pornography, sexual abuse among married partners, and more. All of which are deviant behaviors not specific to the homosexual community.
I did not say that deviant behavior was the basis for gay relationships I said it was the basis for what their community is proud of. Please try to watch the news after “Gay Pride” weekend next year and you will see what they are “proud” of and yes it is deviant.
Are their deviant straight people? Yes but I do not think straights are out celebrating that as what makes us straight.
Marriage is ordained by God as a union between a man and a woman. Such marriage has far-reaching implications, even into the eternities. Since God has the bigger picture and knows what is best for His children, I would not presume to argue with Him or ask Him to re-define it.
Of course, it is sad that there are people who are confused about their sexual identities. We should certainly love them and reach out to them and help them as much as we can. That is what Jesus Christ did while he was living upon the earth also. He invited God’s children to come unto Him, to partake of His love, to repent of their sins, and to enjoy the blessings of obeying God’s commandments. Jesus did not ask God to change His commandments to accommodate those who did not want to live them.
Although there are many who do not have the knowledge of the Gospel or the Plan of Salvation, as we do, we must still be willing to stand up for what we have been blessed to know is right. Of course, it is difficult, but I believe this battle may very well be one of the most important things our Heavenly Father has asked us to do. If we truly want all of God’s children to experience real and lasting joy, it is the only course we can take.
I’m sorry, but how many of you raised your hand in general conference and sustained the prophet? I know I did, and by doing so, I made a covenant that I would follow him and what he says. He says marriage is ordained of God, and between a man and a woman, and that’s how it should stay. I covenanted to follow him, and that’s what I’ll do. If it gets political in the process, that’s fine. Because I sustain and love the prophet, who gets his words direct from the Source. I’m sad that you would stop going to church about this. And I can pretty much guarantee your bishop will notice, and miss you, just like Christ would notice the missing one out of the 99.
I just can’t help myself. I usually do not comment on blogs this late in the conversation. Sometimes I do not read all of the way to the end of such long conversations, but today I have. I hope my comments will be edifying and may influence someone to consider very seriously their consequences when choosing where they stand in this issue.
In our ward we have an Enrichment activity we call “Scripture Study.” Using the Institute manuals we study the scriptures in depth on a weekly basis. This year we are studying the Old Testament. Today’s lesson was from the book of Ezekial. I have felt impressed to share with you the scripture and the quote that pertains to the question about whether or not our leaders should speak about “social issues.”
Ezekial was called by the LORD (i.e. Jehovah, i.e. Jesus) in Ezekial 3:17-21 “17 I have made thee a watchman unto the house of Israel: therefore hear the word at my mouth, and give them warning from me.
18 When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.
19 Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.
20 Again, When a righteous man doth turn from his righteousness, and commit iniquity, and I lay a stumblingblock before him, he shall die: because thou hast not given him warning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteousness which he hath done shall not be remembered; but his blood will I require at thine hand.
21 Nevertheless if thou warn the righteous man, that the righteous sin not, and he doth not sin, he shall surely live, because he is warned; also thou hast delivered thy soul.”
The manual refers to this selection and clarifies it thus:
‘There Can Be Jeopardy in Being a Watchman
Ezekiel’s prophecies did not fall on friendly ears. But, as a watchman, he had to raise the warning voice. The analogy of the watchman referred to the military watchman who had to stay awake and who faced execution if he failed to warn the city when the enemy appeared. Such a watchman was in jeopardy always: the enemy sought to destroy him to keep him from raising the warning and, if he did not raise the warning when it was needed, his life was in jeopardy at the hands of those he was responsible to warn. Likewise, watchmen in the Lord’s kingdom have a serious responsibility with far-reaching consequences, as Elder Ezra Taft Benson taught:
“As watchmen on the tower of Zion, it is our obligation and right as leaders to speak out against current evils—evils that strike at the very foundation of all we hold dear as the true church of Christ…
“As one of these watchmen, with a love for humanity, I accept humbly this obligation and challenge and gratefully strive to do my duty without fear. In times as serious as these, we must not permit fear of criticism to keep us from doing our duty, even at the risk of our counsel being tabbed as political, as government becomes more and more entwined in our daily lives.
“In the crisis through which we are now passing, we have been fully warned. This has brought forth some criticism. There are some of us who do not want to hear the message. It embarrasses us. The things which are threatening our lives, our welfare, our freedoms are the very things some of us have been condoning. Many do not want to be disturbed as they continue to enjoy their comfortable complacency.
“The Church is founded on eternal truth. We do not compromise principle. We do not surrender our standards regardless of current trends or pressures. Our allegiance to truth as a church is unwavering. Speaking out against immoral or unjust actions has been the burden of prophets and disciples of God from time immemorial. It was for this very reason that many of them were persecuted. Nevertheless, it was their God-given task, as watchmen on the tower, to warn the people.” (In Conference Report, Apr. 1973, pp. 49–50; or Ensign, July 1973, p. 38.)’
Jacob 1:19 and 2:2 states:
“1:19 And we did magnify our office unto the Lord, taking upon us the responsibility, answering the sins of the people upon our own heads if we did not teach them the word of God with all diligence; wherefore, by laboring with our might their blood might not come upon our garments; otherwise their blood would come upon our garments, and we would not be found spotless at the last day.
2:2 Now, my beloved brethren, I, Jacob, according to the responsibility which I am under to God, to magnify mine office with soberness, and that I might rid my garments of your sins, I come up into the temple this day that I might declare unto you the word of God.”
With this scripture in mind I wondered how President Monson might be feeling as we prepare to listen to his message at General Conference may we pray for him and remember the weight of his tremendous calling upon his shoulders. He opened his remarks last conference with:
“My beloved brothers and sisters, over 44 years ago, in October of 1963, I stood at the pulpit in the Tabernacle, having just been sustained as a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. On that occasion I mentioned a small sign I had seen on another pulpit. The words on the sign were these: “Who stands at this pulpit, let him be humble.” I assure you that I was humbled by my call to the Twelve at that time. However, as I stand at this pulpit today, I address you from the absolute depths of humility. I feel very keenly my dependence upon the Lord. I humbly seek the guidance of the Spirit as I share with you the feelings of my heart.”
The prophet and all of those we sustain as ‘Prophets, Seers and Revelators’ will always speak on issues such as this. Otherwise they are held accountable. It is up to us to respond and when we do it is our eternal life that hangs in the balance. Agency is a choice for individuals not for nations or groups. We must realize with our power to choose comes the responsibility for those choices. I can only choose for myself but I have and will continue to raise my voice to warn my Internet neighbors that this is a slippery slope.
I don’t think that the last couple of posts should be allowed to have the final say on this topic.
First, the relationship between the individual and prophet is both a very poor (limiting and totalizing) way to understand individual beliefs and actions in an institutional setting such as the Church. Second, the relationship between the prophet and the individual is not as important as the relationship between the individual and the spirit. Church leaders may speak in the name of the truth but it is only the spirit that confirm the degree to which or the ways in which the prophetic voice is aligned with God’s. Further, its only the spirit that can tell the individual what course of action to follow, what aspect of theology to emphasize, etc.
Lets also keep in mind that Christianity structurally relies on transgressive logic. There is no love if we only love those who love us in return, there is no community if we only salute our brethren, there is giving if we only give what we can give with comfort, there is no hospitality if we only play host to the one who’s arrival we anticipate. Service to God means allowing for an other that radically transgresses our expectations and norms. But its also by the transgressive nature of Christianity that we need to insist that there is no instruction by the spirit, there is no agency, unless we are open to the possibility that the spirit will lead us in unexpected directions, that the spirit won’t confirm specific teachings of the church, that the spirit won’t testify different things to different individuals. So say otherwise is to insist on what Kierkegaard described as domesticated. Its the desire to make things safe, its the desire to tame challenging scriptures and aspects of our theology. The urge to domesticate is also involved in dividing “us” from “them” of creating a sense of belonging for some and a sense of exclusion for others.
I want to always speak out against the domestication of Church teachings, and the urge to deny the transgressive logic that defines God’s work among and within us.
In solidarity with Caroline, I admit that I am nearing my personal limit. This week we were told from the pulpit that we had to vote yes on prop 8. and that it was part of being “God’s army” that it was essential to holding the priesthood.
The spirit was chased right out of the room.
I recently went through some media training with Art Cribbs the leader of a local United Church of Christ and I have to agree with Caroline that such a place could be a good refuge until after the first week of November since the political pressure, the misinformation, and the fear tactics continue to increase.
I just want to give a different story here. In AZ, we have Prop 102, which is essentially the same as Prop 8 (though I don’t know the likelihood of it’s passage).
My Bishop invited me into his office on Sunday and began by telling me of his gay friends and love for the community. He told me of his struggle with reconciling the church’s position on this issue, but that he had and the three reasons for his decision. He essentially bore his testimony of his position to me, then invited me to tell him what I thought.
He is a good man, he loves my family and respects me and my opinions. I was honest with him, and told him that I didn’t believe the scare tactic (#2 of hi 3 reasons) that temples would have to marry gay people, or not perform marriages at all if gays were allowed to marry.
I told him that I hadn’t humbled myself prayed to know if my feelings were right, or if the prophet was right. He wasn’t surprised, and when I muttered, “I’m sorry.” at the end of my monologue, he said, “You don’t need to apologize.”
It was kind of strange, but he said that he knew I was deeply thoughtful person about political issues and wondered if this was an issue I struggled with as he had.
In the end, it was a good conversation, he’s very politically moderate, and a good man who wants to do the right thing.
We talked about typical ward members who seem to be glad that God’s on their side, rather than being concerned with being on God’s side.
We were also grateful that here, the phone bank (manned by Gilbert Mormons) is only asking if a person is registered, then urging them to vote for what they think is best (or something like that).
I haven’t heard anything from the pulpit, or from my meeting with the Bishop, about the church coming down hard in favor of Prop 102. It has been behind the scenes, I know they have done fundraising, but that’s just rumors I’ve heard, I haven’t seen it.
So, that’s my experience here, FYI.
I’ve actually been thinking a lot about what I might say to my own bishop about Prop 8. Last time when prop 22 was on the ballot, I was still quietly doing battle with my SSA and wondering how things would ever work out for me. I wasn’t against 22, at the time I never conceived that same sex marriage would ever be a viable option for someone like me who had gained a testimony of the gospel. A few summers later though, I did find myself in effect praying for God to allow gay marriage– that’s where both my utter frustration and my inner most desires had finally led me. I had gotten to the point where I felt completely broken.
I discovered God was kind enough not to reprimand me in my angry and exhausted tears and hear my plea but nothing, nothing was going to change.
For a couple of years, I grieved as I finally confronted what I couldn’t have. The death of that desire was one of the most painful things I’ve ever allowed myself to endure. Every time I was remotely attracted to someone of the same sex, I allowed myself to remember the ultimate dead end it was and it wasn’t long before I started to associate those feelings of attraction with only deep heartache and loss. I was letting it go and though I struggled with depression for a long time, I was putting that hope to rest because of other promises and aspirations to be found in the teachings of the Church. I wanted the blessings of a temple marriage and I had found that in other aspects of my life, putting aside my will to strive for God’s will was ultimately the most meaningful and illuminating to my soul. I looked to others also who seemed to be living meaningful single lives and resolved to keep the commandments as they did no matter what.
My SSAs gradually began to dissipate with this line of thinking and I eventually started to feel free and in control of my life. Even still, for a long time, the fruitless results of dating seemed only to stir up doubts about the direction I had chosen.
Eventually, however, I was able to develop a genuine love and attraction with someone of the opposite sex. I say we fell in love at first chat and there were wonderful spiritual experiences confirming him as a choice eternal companion. Line upon line, God had helped me put the pieces together ever so gradually and carefully, it’s too long to go into in full detail but suffice to say, as I anticipated my temple marriage and began living my life with my eternal companion thereafter, I felt my life was truly a miracle. For so long the world had been telling me that being a lesbian was my true self and just to be that self but in the teachings of the church I felt empowered by the reminders of my agency and the capacities of Christ’s atonement and came to find deeper layers of myself that were just as innate and really true.
Since then there has been so many times I wished I could get up and bear my testimony about what God and the teachings of the Church had done for me and how profoundly grateful I am. But this is strange topic for the pulpit and a very political topic for the bloggernaccle so I‘ve only really blogged about it once before this.
But as Prop 8 has now cropped up, and I’ve gained my own confirmation of the Church’s involvement in this issue as I’ve pressed forward in good faith to support it ( I was ambivalent at first), I again have a strong desire to get up at the pulpit and somehow convey the miracle of having a husband and the children we share. — as someone has stated — the Church is defending this as the familial ideal — they are not becoming politically active in withholding rights from practicing homosexuals. The Church’s defense of that ideal up to this point has made all the difference for me. I feel an indebtedness for the clarity and guidance that I found only in the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the midst of my struggles with competing ideas and interpretations of what I should do and who I should be. I’ve thought about telling my new Bishop my story and seeking with him to find a way to channel my gratitude and my unique experience into some further action for this current cause but have yet to act. Perhaps now that I’ve written this, I will.
Best to All,
Laura
Douglas, you said it perfectly. Beautiful.
Jess, I’m glad you haven’t had a horrific experience with your prop, or with your leaders. It’s been a nightmare here in my stake.
Laura, thanks for sharing your story. I appreciate it for its honesty and sincerity. I, of course, would take a different viewpoint – I really do think that the Church is absolutely becoming politically active in order to withhold marriage rights from homosexuals – but like I said, I appreciate the sincerity of your stance and your personal story. I just can’t help but hurt for those lesbians and gays who are simply not able to embrace a heterosexual life.
“they are not becoming politically active in withholding rights from practicing homosexuals.”
Sorry but this statement is categorically false. The very purpose of prop. 8 is to eliminate the right to marry for same sex couples. A right they already have in California.
As for the rest f your post, its wonderful that you have had a positive outcome in your experience, but one of the things we should avoid is the universalizing of our own individual experience. Believing that how it is for us, so it should be with everyone else.
One of the positive things that could come out of prop. 8 is a more honest discussion of human sexuality that it occurs on a spectrum and includes far more than who turns us on physically.
Hi Douglas Hunter,
So often this subject is debated in black and white terms and so I think it can be easy to miss nuances or assume how someone who takes the opposing position must think but please, you have misrepresented my position in assuming “one of the things we should avoid is the universalizing of our own individual experience. Believing that how it is for us, so it should be with everyone else.”
That is not my position at all — please show me in my post where I have asserted as much. I don’t have to universalize my experience (which I don’t) to be for upholding traditional marriage.
As to your assertion about rights:
“California already has on its books (and has for several years) laws granting domestic partners (homosexual and heterosexual) the same civil
rights as married couples. This is a point that many people seem not to understand. Here is the language of just one California statute: “Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or another provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.” Moris A. Thurston
AND
“The focus of the Church’s involvement is specifically same-sex marriage and its consequences. 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.” LDS Newsroom
Hence, this is truly a matter of semantics, symbols and ideals. I’m not going to enshrine it as anything else. I do agree more open and educated discussion of sexuality would be a nice potential byproduct but I’m not holding my breath — so often the thrust of politics tends to obscure rather than illuminate ie. Mitt Romney and Mormonism.
Hi Caroline,
Thanks for a kind response to my post. I appreciate and share your committed compassion for those who still struggle thought it appears we will part ways on how we apply our compassion at least in the voting both. Perhaps you will offer us a blog on your experiences with the Universalists in the coming months?
Laura,
I was not accusing you of universalizing your experience but it looked like you might be moving in that direct so I mentioned it, that’s all. If it was an accusation it would have been worded as such.
As for CA family code, I am very familiar with it. to a degree I think that there is some merit to the idea that a lot of the current debate is about semantics. But this does not change the fact that same sex couples do have the right to marry in CA and if prop. 8 passes that right will be removed. The removal of that right is fundamental to prop. 8.
Prop. 8 does one thing, it asks us to vote on a right held by one group of people. This is unheard of. We should not be voting on rights, period.
Hi Douglas,
I imagine we will ultimately continue to disagree. In the UK the conglomeration of rights available for same sex partners is entitled a civil union. This package of actual and practical rights matches that of hetero marriages but has not assumed the title of marriage. It does not have the “right” to be called marriage. Marriage continues to be distinctly defined as it always has been — the union of a man and a woman. I think it is an equitable compromise and an exemplary lesson in positive and respectful pluralism while what has occurred in CA is not.
I do not agree that the ability to put same sex Partner A and Partner B on an application form and stamp the word marriage on it is a civil right. Marriage is a symbolic institution. One does not have the right to be included in a symbolic institution unless one fits the definition of that institution. An attempt to change the definition of a symbol is not about civil rights, its about an ideological agenda.
If anything, the current status of this issue in CA is a sad overreaction to two sides who took too long to find some common ground and to give each other an inch.
My Best to you and all
Laura
Laura,
There is no doubt that marriage here in the US is a different beast than it is in the UK. One of the reasons for this may be the history of marriage in the US generally and in California specifically.
Here in CA marriage was determined to be a fundamental right in 1948 in the case Perez V. Sharp that overturned the ban on interracial marriage. So marriage may be a religious and symbolic construct, but in California it has been established for 60 years as a fundamental civil right in way that has been agreed upon by people across the political spectrum. I don’t know if there is anything similar to this in the UK but I think this helps explain why the distinction of marriage is so important over here.
The supreme court’s decision also directly addresses why the court felt it is a civil rights issue. The text of the decision can be found here if anyone is interested:
http://www.latimes.com/media/acrobat/2008-05/38894545.PDF
Laura, in the U.S. the debate is not one of semantics. A California civil union doesn’t enable partners to participate in the Federal rights which come with the word marriage: Social Security benefits, citizenship tracking, spouse-of-military serviceperson benefits…. According the federal government there are 1000 federal benefits which flow simply from being married.
Hi JohnW and Douglas,
Thanks for your most recent posts — they both have definitely helped me understand the debate better though I of course must do some more of my own homework on what you‘ve offered in the near future.
I am not opposed to same sex partners having Federal benefits but still I don’t want the word marriage to be applied to such unions for a number of symbolic reasons and qualitative differences and so I would hope there could be another way of achieving that goal besides how things have played out in CA.
Best to you both
Laura
Hello again,
Just another thought. Despite the legalization of gay marriage in CA, I believe The Defense of Marriage Act signed into law by President Clinton continues to this day to block same sex partners from federal recognition and federal benefits. Hence, a yes vote for Prop 8 is not yanking federal benefits away from such partnerships that they still do not have. No matter how one votes on Prop 8, those Federal benefits for such couples won’t be granted without Supreme Court intervention? No? So again, is this specific vote really about rights?
I welcome hearing either of your thoughts you might have.
laura says:
“I am not opposed to same sex partners having Federal benefits but still I don’t want the word marriage to be applied to such unions for a number of symbolic reasons and qualitative differences and so I would hope there could be another way of achieving that goal besides how things have played out in CA.”
i have asked this before and i will ask it again:
what exactly are the qualitative differences between homo- and hetero-sexual marriages and/or relationships?
i have yet to hear an answer that makes any sense whatsoever. you can say that in the one there is no possibility for procreation and in the other there is, but that argument only lasts until you meet your first entirely infertile hetero-sexual couple. and i don’t believe it anyway. i just don’t think that the love two people who want to be married to each other is qualitatively different based on their sexual orientation.
plus, who says that all heterosexual relationships are qualitatively similar? i think anyone who says that is fooling themselves. marriages happen for so many different reasons that it would be like looking at the world blind to make such an argument.
i’d be happy to hear an argument that made some sense, but my suspicion is that this argument of qualitative difference is little more than a mask for disgust at, fear of, and prejudice against something that is not understood.
Hello Amelia,
On qualitative differences you said:
“but my suspicion is that this argument of qualitative difference is little more than a mask for disgust at, fear of, and prejudice against something that is not understood.”
Actually I understand quite well and the occasional persistence of my homoerotic thoughts don’t disgust me though I do keep them in check because they are qualitatively different than the hetero-erotic thoughts I have towards my husband and you know, they’re just disruptive at this point in my life.
I also think there is a qualitative difference in having my children with my husband versus your friendly neighborhood sperm bank. Sperm bank works for others — ok for you — but personally I don’t think that reproduction via the anonymously donated sample is entitled to the same symbolic significance.
Moreover, as soon as you can think of a touching little narrative that I can offer my sweet little girls about their noble “father” the sperm donor and how they really don’t have or need a dad, then I may stop making such qualitative distinctions.
OK, Sorry
Chopped off my last line — should read :OK, Sorry to be so flippant, but I am being told that I am prejudiced against myself and It’s late.
*plonk*
To anyone who still cares to gain an appreciation of my perspective. You may think the things I’ve written are trivial but these are real life choices I’ve had to make. They aren’t trivial to me. And since this is a Mormon blog, really having a Mormon cosmology, the differences in the afterlife for me if I had a chosen to further pursue a homosexual partnership vs. a temple marriage are vaste and unending which played a huge role in my decision.
Best to All
Laura
Laura Writes
“Just another thought. Despite the legalization of gay marriage in CA, I believe The Defense of Marriage Act signed into law by President Clinton continues to this day to block same sex partners from federal recognition and federal benefits. Hence, a yes vote for Prop 8 is not yanking federal benefits away from such partnerships that they still do not have. No matter how one votes on Prop 8, those Federal benefits for such couples won’t be granted without Supreme Court intervention? No? So again, is this specific vote really about rights?”
Sounds like there is some confusion here. It is true that same sex couples currently have no federal protections, and Prop. 8 only operates on the state level. No one has claimed otherwise, that would misrepresent reality. Congress, the IRS, or the federal courts, etc. could work together or independently to grant federal benefits to same sex partners, but this has not happened yet.
Prop. 8 is about rights for the exact reason I stated earlier. That California established marriage as a fundamental right in 1948. Remember that here in the US marriages are regulated by the individual states. The federal government does have rules and regulations that address how married couples are dealt with, for example as a matter of the federal tax code. But who can get married is an issue dealt with by individual states. So again prop. 8 if it passes removes a right that same sex couples currently hold in California. So Prop. 8 is directly about a right. That is a simple matter of fact. The court’s decision that I linked to previously goes into considerable detail regarding marriage as a fundamental right in California.
As citizens I think their should be way more caution regarding prop. 8. Regardless of what each of us thinks about gay marriage, prop. 8 asks us to directly vote on the rights of one particular group of citizens. Just in terms of basic democratic governance, putting the rights of a minority group up to popular vote is a very strange thing to do.
We keep talking about “rights” here, but we are talking about rights that should not have been granted in the first place. Proposition 22, which passed by 61% of Californians in 2008, was very clear. Four activist judges overturned that decision–something they should not have done.
It is the same thing that happened in the Book of Mormon when Gadianton robbers got themselves into position as judges in the land and then passed laws that would protect the evils of their friends and fellow secret combination makers. (Read Helaman 5-9)
Let’s not play around with words here. Heavenly Father and a living prophet and the scriptures are quite clear on the wickedness of homosexual behavior. Not to say that homosexuals are inherently wicked people. It’s just that homosexual behavior thwarts the plan of Heavenly Father for His children–therefore it is wicked. The author of the secret combinations of the Gadianton ribbers was Satan himself, just as today he is definitely behind the push to destroy the sanctity of marriage and family. Satan knows the surest way to destroy our society and bring us all down to hell (to be his miserable partners)is to weaken and destroy the institution of families. If we could only have the faith to see just a glimpse of what our prophet knows is ahead, we would not have any doubts about where this is all going if Prop 8 is not passed.
“After the Ball – How America will conquer its fear and hatred of Gays in the 90s.” – Penguin Books, 1989 by Marshall K. Kirk and Hunter Madsen, is an outline for how to change the world from one that shuns homosexuality to one that tolerates and even embraces it. Only then would they “unmask” their true identity as deviant and completely unacceptable sexual behaviors would then have room to grow unchallenged..including pedophilism and other gross misbehaviors.
Reading this book is like reading WWII-era propaganda from Germany, describing how to get the common Germans to allow Hitler to do what he did to the Jews. It’s very scary. Is this not just a taste of what the Gadianton robbers did in Book of Mormon times? Will we be like the Nephites who let the robbers settle in comfortably “in the more settled parts of the land”, or will we be like the Lamanites who hunted them down and rooted them out?
I was assuming we are all Mormons here. Will some of you be so blind as to not see what is going on? Talking about not “universalizing” truths to all, as if one could redefine the highest laws of our Heavenly Father. Or deciding to just not attend church until it is more comfortable. Being a member of God’s true church upon the earth brings with it responsibilities which may not be comfortable. But then, it has been foretold that in the last days, even the members would face trying times that would test their faith and obedience.
When Prop 8 is discussed in our church meetings, I would not say that the Spirit is chased away. I would say I am thrilled to be asked to do something so important to my family, my grandchildren, and to all future generations. I am thrilled that my Heavenly Father trusts us enough to ask us to fight this battle. I am thrilled to be on the Lord’s side. And I feel the Spirit helping me and guiding me as I go door to door to share this knowledge with my neighbors and urge them to vote yes on Prop 8!
When I joined this Church, I knew it would not always be easy to be a member. It is not always a popular place to be. I urge you to read the scriptures and pray that you might have the vision to fully understand this issue for yourselves!
And Laura, your story was absolutely beautiful. Thank you so much for sharing it with us. It confirms the power that God can have in our lives if we will let Him guide and direct us. I cannot say that I have had to overcome anything similar–you are an inspiration. May you continue to be blessed richly by your marriage and family. I hope you are able to share your story with others in a way that will benefit those who are struggling with same-sex attraction. Perhaps an anonymous article to the Ensign?
There are a number of problems with Tamarasw’s comment but I’ll only mention one, the last line:
“I urge you to read the scriptures and pray that you might have the vision to fully understand this issue for yourselves!”
I am continually amazed when other act as if those who oppose prop. 8 have not done the most basic level of spiritual and intellectual work. It’s really offensive.
What you should be do is assume that we HAVE been doing a lot of prayer and study and then start to look into the question for yourself of how or why the spirit might move some individuals to a position that you don’t understand.
Your lack of understanding is in no way a comment on the spiritual and intellectual effort that folks such as myself, Caroline or others have been doing and continue to do.
I should add one more thought, this being that since I moved to CA I have voted against every single ballot prop. that would have altered the CA state constitution (they appear on the ballot every at every election.) because as a matter of principal I do not think ballot props. are an appropriate way to amend the constitution. I was even in favor of the intention of some of those props but I voted against them because they were the wrong way to achieve the desired end.
None of the religious arguments I’ve heard for prop 8 address the civic issues involved in voting in an election generally or prop 8 specifically. I’ve read the Supreme Court’s decision, I understand it, and I think its very well written and well reasoned. Are we supposed to ignore basic issues of governance, of civic procedures, or how rights are traditionally dealt with in democratic society? I don’t think so.
” Prop. 8 only operates on the state level. No one has claimed otherwise, that would misrepresent reality.”
Douglas, please see JohnWs original post which does raise his concern about federal protections…
JohnW wrote
“Laura, in the U.S. the debate is not one of semantics. A California civil union doesn’t enable partners to participate in the Federal rights which come with the word marriage: Social Security benefits, citizenship tracking, spouse-of-military serviceperson benefits…. According the federal government there are 1000 federal benefits which flow simply from being married.
…which prompted my response you’ve qouted on the topic of above DOMA.
You also said
“Prop. 8 is about rights for the exact reason I stated earlier. That California established marriage as a fundamental right in 1948. Remember that here in the US marriages are regulated by the individual states. The federal government does have rules and regulations that address how married couples are dealt with, for example as a matter of the federal tax code. But who can get married is an issue dealt with by individual states. So again prop. 8 if it passes removes a right that same sex couples currently hold in California. So Prop. 8 is directly about a right. That is a simple matter of fact. The court’s decision that I linked to previously goes into considerable detail regarding marriage as a fundamental right in California.”
I think we could argue in circles on this one though overall, I have appreciated being able to have this discussion.
3 out of the 7 CA Supreme Court justices disagreed with this ruling which I also disagree with while you accept. I don’t doubt that the 4 who have ruled in favor on this matter have a perfectly sound legal argument to back it up which you have cited but the 3 who did not vote in favor of this ruling can also make a perfectly sound legal argument to back up thier position. Any biological anthropologist will tell you that racial catagories are merely sociological constructs while the catagory of sex is not. For me, that is enough to throw out the comparison outright.
But I wouldn’t accept or translate either sides voting justifications as “a simple matter of fact” but rather different interpretations of the law which I am free to question and reject and I’m glad we live in a country where there is a civil and appropriate avenue for people to challenge such rulings. Hence, we have Prop 8.
Again other pluralist countries have resolved this matter differently and it’s not been because they have withheld actual rights from same sex partnerships.
With federal marriage benefits currently blocked by DOMA, and state benefits already included in CA statutes, any assertion legal or otherwise that a yes on Prop 8 takes away actual and practical rights to me is a weak one.
Hi Douglas,
I just read your second post. I hear what you’re sayin. I actually think it’s more democratic to be able to vote on specific issues though rather than on candidates who change thier stances once in office all the time. I’m a registered independant in CA. I hate having to pick candidates by wieghing out which issues are more important to me than another because my politics don’t fit tidily into a major party platform. But again I see your concerns as valid. Most of the time I find myself voting no on the propostions too.
Did I say plonk?
Laura writes:
I’m afraid you’re not with the Brethren on this one, Laura. In 1949, the First Presidency issued a statement that the Black skin of the Negro was a curse from God.
Here’s the link again. It’s the very first text section after all the links:
http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/neither/neitherappx.htm#Appendix
I urge you to get on board with the multiple Prophets who have spoken on this issue. Anthropologists might say one thing, but this letter from the FP is as clear as can be about this issue.
I’d also point you to the CURRENT Aaronic priesthood manual, which quotes SPK:
Laura,
I missed that. John’s wording could have been a lot better. But lets be clear, if same sex couples retain the right to marry in CA that does not grant them any different federal status or status in other states, John’s poorly worded comment aside.
Moving on, you don’t seem to understand my point of fact. I was speaking to the law here in CA. The legal reasoning behind the case, or the fact that 3 judges dissented does not matter (although both are interesting!). The court’s decision, pragmatically, as a matter of law in California, includes same sex couples in the fundamental right to marry that was established by the court in 1948. That is a fact.
As a result same sex couples can and do marry in California. That is a fact.
We can discuss legal reasoning until the cows come home, but that does not alter the reality that same sex couples have the right to marry in CA and that prop. 8 seeks to remove that right. Good, bad, or otherwise these are the facts.
“I actually think it’s more democratic to be able to vote on specific issues . . .”
Yes, it is indeed more democratic, in the sense that it is direct democracy rather than representational democracy. one citizen = one vote and all that.
But we are talking about different issues.
I believe there are two issues here that are being overlooked. The first is this – Do you believe the Prophet is called of God and it is his responsibility to defend the doctrines of the gospel of Jesus Christ? The second – Do four judges, not called of God but man, have the right to overturn the will of millions of voters? On which cases should they be allowed to do this? I have a brother in law who is gay. I love him and support his right to live as he pleases but I do not feel he should be allowed to break the law of chastity. When I broke that sacred law I was disfellowshipped and rightly so. The laws don’t and shouldn’t show favoritism just because we cannot or will not control ourselves to obey them. Yes Jesus taught that we should love all men as ourselves. He also taught accountability and responsibility for our obedience to His laws which are eternal. Why should someone who breaks the law of chastity have the same rights and privileges as someone has lives the law?
“The court’s decision, pragmatically, as a matter of law in California, includes same sex couples in the fundamental right to marry that was established by the court in 1948.”
Here you talk about the “right to marry” as if it is an individual matter. Marriage is an institution that has certain eligibility. One person alone does not have the “right to marry.” A person does not have “the right to marry” their Grandma because the institution is by definition conjugal. The 1948 decision did not expand the definition of marriage beyond heterosexual conjugal relationships. It established that anyone has the right to enter into a marriage contract with a consenting adult of the opposite sex. That this was the nature of marriage, of course, went without saying back then, but it was the underlying framework of the historical particularity you refer to. The recent court decision is about expanding the criteria of eligibility for a conditional right, not providing what was always meant to be an unconditional right to any conceivable dyad.
The question now really is, how do you define this institution? Everyone has the right to enter into traditional heterosexual marriage (the “hetero” aspect of which was taken for granted by the 1948 court). But to say same-sex couples have been previously denied a status that has been rightfully theirs since 1948 is like saying Mr. Jones who earns $200,000.00 a year has been denied the right to Medicaid. Or to be more cliché, Tom Green has been denied “the right” to marry his three wives. If they fit the criteria of eligibility this would be true, but they don’t (unless you find anti-bigamy laws unconstitutional). There may be good reasons to change the definition of marriage. However, the argument you are using seems to imply that marriage is an unconditional right, which leaves the remaining conditions on the “right” to enter the institution unjustified.
best..
jd
Please consider these statements by a prophet of the Lord. I am not a sheep because I have faith in the Lord’s anointed. Remember Amos 3:7 as well.
No doctrine is a doctrine of this Church until it has been accepted as such by the Church, and not even a revelation from God should be taught to his people until it has first been approved by the presiding authority–the one through whom the Lord makes known His will for the guidance of the saints as a religious body. The spirit of revelation may rest upon any one, and teach him or her many things for personal comfort and instruction. But these are not doctrines of the Church, and, however true, they must not be inculcated [taught or distributed] until proper permission is given.
No man possessing a correct understanding of the spirit of the gospel and of the authority and law of the Holy Priesthood will attempt for one moment to run before his file leader or to do anything that is not in strict harmony with his wish and the authority that belongs to him. The moment a man in a subordinate position begins to usurp the authority of his leader, that moment he is out of his place, and proves by his conduct that he does not comprehend his duty, that he is not acting in the line of his calling, and is a dangerous character.
We can accept nothing as authoritative but that which comes directly through the appointed channel, the constituted organizations of the Priesthood, which is the channel that God has appointed through which to make known His mind and will to the world… And the moment that individuals look to any other source, that moment they throw themselves open to the seductive influences of Satan, and render themselves liable to become servants of the devil; they lose sight of the true order through which the blessings of the Priesthood are to be enjoyed; they step outside of the pale of the kingdom of God, and are on dangerous ground. Whenever you see a man rise up claiming to have received direct revelation from the Lord to the Church, independent of the order and channel of the Priesthood, you may set him down as an imposter.
Joseph F. Smith Correspondence, Personal Letterbooks, 93–94, Film Reel 9, Ms. F271; cited in Determining Doctrine: A Reference Guide for Evaluating Doctrinal Truth, edited by Dennis B. Horne (Roy, Utah: Eborn Books, 2005), 221-222, emphasis added.
Smith, Gospel Doctrine, 185, emphasis added.
Smith, Gospel Doctrine, 41-42, emphasis added.
Hi Douglas,
Despite your assertion that I don’t understand the points you are trying to make, I do and I’ve given you my thoughts on them and listened to you reiterate them again. I’m not sure what else your after here but I think I’ve pretty much said as much as I want to say on the perspective you‘ve given in this thread.
Regards
Laura
Hi Tamarasw,
Thank you for your very kind words to me. I really appreciate your enthusiasm to support our Prophet.
Best to you and your family too,
Laura
John,
sorry if my post was confusing. I was summarizing from the court’s decision. I was not interjecting my opinion about it I was using the court’s language. It was the court itself that made reference to the Perez case of 1948 as establishing marriage as a fundamental right. That is the language of the decision, its not my language.
. . .”right to marry” also comes directly from the decision.
Poeticnurse,
We’re definitely on the same page, you and I. But there are a few on this blog who feel that the Prophet’s counsel and warning does not apply to everyone. Trying to justify a position by debating the finer details of the law isn’t going to change one iota of the law of God. We can only pray that someday everyone will come to know the truth.
To the sweet former bishop with the gay friend:
Gay Pride is a version of what straight people would be doing if they couldn’t get married. It’s completely juxtaposed to getting married. It’s people just like your friend who want to love someone for the rest of their lives who are looking for the right to marry.
In another universe we could be looking at strait people misbehaving and decide that that’s the reason they shouldn’t get married.
And remember, the more you (plural, hypothetic you, not the nice former bishop any more) take away right for gay men to marry someone they are attracted to, the more likely it is that they will try to disguise themselves and MARRY YOUR DAUGHTERS, and your daughters don’t want that. Let people follow the longings of their hearts and not feel like a criminal.
Caroline,
Curious to get your thoughts as they relate to
the talk given in the following link –
http://www.lds-mormon.com/fourteen.shtml
Particularly, point #5, 7, 8, 9, and 10.
Just in case any LA area Exponent folks are interested there is going to be an interfaith No on 8 event tomorrow at noon at.
St. John’s Cathedral
514 W. Adams Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA. 90007
There are going to be a number of wonderful speakers from different denominations.
Not surprisingly given the eminent election, four “prop8-omonies” were born today at church. They still have me riled me up.
After one particularly drawn out one from one of the YSAs who felt reprimanded for not acting on his conviction, and was thus going to take off the next two days of school to make calls and encouraged people to join him, I got up.
“I am grateful for fast and testimony meeting today, for the diversity that exists in this branch. I am grateful for the opportunity we have to testify of the fundamentals of the gospel. I know God lives, I know he loves us, and that we have a Savior. Those are the truths I hold to be most important. I am grateful for this church, even though I don’t always agree with or understand everything, especially lately … In the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.
This probably spurred the remaining “prop 8-omonies” even though I didn’t spout my political platform (which actually fits neither side). And really I was sincere, my testimony was drafted in my head earlier.
Seriously, I am tired of politics in church. I think some members are way over stepping their bounds. I keep telling myself I just have three days, but unfortunately I think tension will continue.
And the thing is, after being opposed for most of the summer, I have decided to vote yes on 8. But I am sick of the tactics used to try to get members of the church to support it.
I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. However I am voting for the prop because I want it to be overturned. I believe heterosexual and homosexual couples should be entitled to the same privileges (although I don’t consider marriage a right). I read an interesting article that said they could foresee only civil unions for all being recognized as a consequence.
That’s what I want – I think everyone should go to the courthouse for legal rights and to the church for their religious ceremony. I think it would put a lot more meaning on the temple sealing.
But that doesn’t really fit either side.
Anyone have any other thoughts as we approach Tuesday …
I imagine many of you may have already seen
this clip –
http://www.brightcove.tv/title.jsp?title=1822459319&channel=1156873697
The Parker family is just plain wrong, right?
Daryl,
There is a lot more to the story than that video lets on. But also keep in mind that 5 year olds all over California have already been exposed to gay marriage and it was done at church! Because for months now its been discussed from the Pulpit in our wards! If it was not for the Church’s activism the numerous talks I’ve had with my 8 year old about gay marriage would not have been necessary. Yesterday she was crying in Sacrament meeting because in her own words her “emotions felt assaulted.” She’s 8 and Church has become a negative place for her. That is not a positive development.
Supporting Prop 8 is a test of faith. Not blind faith, but good ole’ plain regular faith. Any individual who believes that God calls prophets today should prayerfully consider the invitation to support Prop. 8. If you don’t feel comfortable in church it is usually a sign that something is not in harmony with yourself and the Lord. I would tell the Bishop that I will prayerfully ponder the First Presidency message and I hope to be able to follow their counsel.
Eric,
With all due respect, its a huge mistake to think that those of us who do not support prop 8 haven’t done a great deal of prayer and other spiritual work.
You will not understand this but I felt called by the spirit to discuss ethics, to talk about the experience of listening to gay friends and the stories of their lives. To speak about empathy and the nature of human sexuality and relationships. I was called by the spirit to speak out in these ways and I have done so. I never criticized the Church or it’s leaders, I never said the Church should change its position, but I was active in the No on 8 movement. I gave interviews to print and broadcast media and spoke at public events. I stood shoulder to shoulder with civic and religious leaders in my community. During this time I have been deeply blessed and have been able to bless others both in and out of the Church. There are those who think what I say is impossible, but it is true and I would say that to my Church leaders about Prop 8. I am also NOT a homosexual but I am temple worthy priesthood holder. On this issue there is simply more than one model of Mormon faithfulness.
I am actually disappointed that this material is on your website. There is a reason for the church getting so involved in Prop 8. Whether we understand it or not we have to trust the Prophet that knows what he is doing. I have always valued the lesson material given on this website, but after reading this I won’t be returning.
angie: one of the purposes of this blog is to give voice to more than the mainstream perspective. it’s obviously your choice (and each of ours) about where you’ll turn for help in preparing lessons. i’d simply point out that this particular post is similar in tone and kind to many posts that have been published here before. nothing has changed.
personally i think it’s vital that caroline’s voice, and people like her, be heard. i have been personally thanked by many people for my willingness to speak openly about my disagreements with church leadership while continuing to express my belief in the principles of the gospel. surely there is room for multiple perspectives.
if not, well where does that leave us? multiple perspectives are unavoidable. we may lie to ourselves and believe that somehow we all think the same way, but that’s simply impossible. seems better to openly acknowledge and listen to the viewpoints of people from all points of view.
[…] 30: Member of LDS church states on blog, “I simply can’t bear another Sunday of political announcements, talks, and constant […]
I just stumbled onto this thread while looking for ideas on RS Lesson 27 on apostasy. I fear that many who have written the comments here are on a slippery slope toward apostasy. If you question counsel from a prophet of God, you aren’t convinced that he is a prophet. One commented that he looked forward to the day gays would be welcomed into the temple. Homosexuality is a sin. Period. Should adulterers and fornicators be welcomed into the temple? No scientific evidence proves that homosexuality is something we are born with. If, however, one has those tendencies, one can choose to fight them…just as many must fight their urges to watch pornography or have an affair with the neighbor. If I have no opportunity to marry, or if I lose my husband, I do not have sexual relations. I don’t question the church’s stand on adultery and immorality. God will not require of us anything that he won’t help us achieve. I know that from personal experience. We can love all people without giving into the fallicy that to love others we must condone their way of life. Marriage has always been defined as being between a man and a woman. Insisting that we change the definition of marriage is unkind and unChristian. If marriage is redefined, homosexuality will become more and more popular as it is accepted by society. Young people will think it is a normal choice. It is not. Homosexuality is a sin, as the scriptures tell us, and it should be resisted at all costs. It goes against nature. It frustrates the plan of happiness. That’s why it is a sin. God will enable all who love and follow him to keep all his commandments, even the tendency to be attracted to those of one’s same sex. Celibacy is an option. It hasn’t killed anyone.
I suggest that those who believe the church should change its stand on homosexuality should immerse themselves in the scriptures, fast and pray. Reading Lesson 27 of the Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith would also be a good thing to do.
[…] “What I would Say to my Bishop About Prop 8” Clint Martin’s “How to Support a Same Sex Marriage Ban without Coming off as a Tool” Clint […]
[…] Caroline’s “What I would Say to my Bishop About Prop 8” […]
[…] What I Would Say To My Bishop About Prop 8 by Caroline […]