In this post I intend to draw a controversial analogy between the subprime mortgage and credit crisis and the resulting economic upheaval and the potential societal upheaval that could result from the redefinition of marriage.
To set things up, let me share my personal experience with the economic crisis.
I’m afraid that whomever wins the day in the California Proposition 8 legal battle, we all lose in the long run. I’ve been trying to follow the arguments presented by both sides to the California Supreme Court and while I support Proposition 8, I think the arguments being made by both sides are pretty dangerous. A lot of the argument goes back to the fundamental arguments made during the formation of the U. S. Constitution and then solidified during the Civil War.
On the one had we have democracy which is the rule of the majority. The government derives its just powers from the people. So a government has to be fundamentally democratic to wield any power justly. A government that foists the desires of a minority over the majority would be an unjust oligarchy, and tyranny of the minority.
However, the founders were also very suspicious of pure democracy because more often than not it devolved into a tyranny of the majority, where the majority unjustly tramples the rights of the minority.
So while keeping the government fundamentally democratic, they structured the government with a series of checks and balances based on distributing democracy to competing scopes that would prevent the states with large populations from tyrannical rule over the states with small populations, while still allowing government action to be derived justly from the people. They called this a Democratic Republic.
In the case of Prop 8 the majority has ruled to uphold traditional marriage norms through democratic vote.
Those who favor same-sex marriage lost at the ballot box and view this as an act of tyranny of the majority, so they have turned to the courts to try to overthrow it.
Those who favor traditional marriage view the court case as an act of oligarchy, a usurpation of the democracy from which the government derives its powers.
Now we come to the arguments made by the lawyers before the California Supreme Court.
Lately I have seen a lot of activity in blog comments and social websites where people who are promoting California’s Proposition 8, which will amend the state constitution to define marriage as only between a man and a woman, are being called bigots, homophobes, and fools, and their arguments dismissed as irrational, ignorant, and unfounded.
While there are certain to be fools and bigots among the opponents of same-sex marriage, just as there are among its proponents, opposition to same-sex marriage is not irrational. It is not ignorant or uninformed.
Just as those in favor of same-sex marriage have legitimate concerns and rational arguments for their stance on the subject, so do those of us who oppose it. Going around trolling the blogs and facebook walls of those who support the traditional definition of marriage and describing their position as irrational and ignorant certainly isn’t going to win you many converts.
So rather than shut down constructive conversation by treating those with whom you disagree as idiots, why not acknowledge that at least some of their points are valid concerns; that you can see how they would be concerned, even if you think that other considerations should overrule that concern.
Same-sex marriage advocates certainly have some strong arguments in their favor. So do opponents. That fact should be acknowledged.
The LDS Church has a new official website, PreservingMarriage.org to support their efforts to preserve the traditional definition of marriage in California. Check it out. Also, LDS members everywhere can help support the effort by embedding church sponsored widgets and video from the site into their own blogs, websites, and facebook or myspace accounts. Check out the video below and embed it on your own website. You can get the embed code at the website.
I watched the Vice-Presidential Debate last night. I think both candidates did quite well.
If you missed it you can watch it online at:
One issue that stuck out to me that hasn’t received much commentary in LDS circles that I have seen is the exchange concerning same-sex marriage and rights policies of the respective candidates (probably because everyone is sick of the topic in general).
In his first response to the issue, Biden clearly stated, “We do support making sure that committed couples in a same-sex marriage are guaranteed the same constitutional benefits as it relates to their property rights, their rights of visitation, their rights to insurance, their rights of ownership as heterosexual couples do.” (emphasis mine)
So Biden, either on purpose, or by Freudian slip, refers to “committed couples in a same-sex marriage” as if it were a given. Perhaps he meant “same-sex relationship” but he said “same-sex marriage.”
Then, after Palin had clearly stated that she supports rights for same-sex couples, but not if it means changing the definition of marriage to anything other than between one man and one woman, the moderator asked Biden for a non-nuanced clarification. “Do you support gay marriage?”
Biden responded, “No. Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage. We do not support that. That is basically the decision to be able to be able to be left to faiths and people who practice their faiths the determination what you call it.”
It seems clear to me that, despite the moderator’s exhortation to avoid nuance, Biden’s words were very calculated to be nuanced. Either that or garbled and self-contradictory. On the one hand he says that they do not support redefining marriage from a civil side, but then he continues on to say that the decision of what to call it should be left up to individual faiths. So which is it? Do they think that it should it be defined by the civil government or should it be left up to individual faiths?
If Obama and Biden do not support redefining civil marriage, then how is that not a contradiction of the letter sent from Obama to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club in July, previously discussed on this blog, in which he not only opposes Proposition 8 in California, which would specifically define civil marriage as between one man and one woman, but that he wants to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which is what protects individual states from having to recognize same-sex marriage contracted in other states.
So which is it? Is the Obama campaign for or against redefining civil marriage to include same-sex couples or not? On a state level or a federal level?
The Issues section of the Obama website is woefully vague. Which section should I read to find his same-sex marriage position? Civil Rights? Nope. Nothing there. Family? Nope. Nada there either.
Let’s try site google to search the site for gay . Results: A number of blog posts, some of which seem to say he is against redefining marriage, a PDF Flyer that discusses his support for “Full Civil Unions” and against a federal marriage amendment, but no definitive, official statements about same-sex marriage.
Let’s try googling the site for marriage . Results: The same PDF Flyer, plus a different one with essentially the same content, more of the same blog posts. No definitive, official statement on same-sex marriage policy.
Why doesn’t Obama have a clear statement on same-sex marriage in an easy to find location on his website? If, as Joe Biden claimed in the debate, they are both against changing the civil definition of marriage, then why isn’t there a clear, easy to find statement?
Their lack of a clear position reinforces the view that McCain and Palin have both tried to pin on Obama by contrast: that he tells different groups contradictory things depending on what they want to hear. He wants the gay and lesbian vote, and he wants to attract moderate Christians, who don’t want to redefine marriage but are attracted to his other policies. So he lets them both believe that he is on their side on the issue of homosexual marriage.
I want a definitive statement. And I think that LDS Members who are concerned about the redefinition of marriage in California and elsewhere should demand a statement before they decide to vote for Obama.
To be fair, it isn’t obvious from the main Issues section of the McCain website where to find a statement on same-sex marriage, but if you poke around a little, there it is under Human Dignity and the Sanctity of Life
McCain’s statement is basically that traditional marriage is the ideal and to leave it up to the states to enact constitutional amendments defining marriage according to the will of their own people and not up to the courts.
I would have liked something a bit stronger, but at least it is clear and relatively accessible on the website.
Here is the full transcript of the pertinent portion of the debate:
IFILL: The next round of—pardon me, the next round of questions starts with you, Senator Biden. Do you support, as they do in Alaska, granting same-sex benefits to couples?BIDEN: Absolutely. Do I support granting same-sex benefits? Absolutely positively. Look, in an Obama-Biden administration, there will be absolutely no distinction from a constitutional standpoint or a legal standpoint between a same-sex and a heterosexual couple.
The fact of the matter is that under the Constitution we should be granted—same-sex couples should be able to have visitation rights in the hospitals, joint ownership of property, life insurance policies, et cetera. That’s only fair.
It’s what the Constitution calls for. And so we do support it. We do support making sure that committed couples in a same-sex marriage are guaranteed the same constitutional benefits as it relates to their property rights, their rights of visitation, their rights to insurance, their rights of ownership as heterosexual couples do.
IFILL: Governor, would you support expanding that beyond Alaska to the rest of the nation?
PALIN: Well, not if it goes closer and closer towards redefining the traditional definition of marriage between one man and one woman. And unfortunately that’s sometimes where those steps lead.
But I also want to clarify, if there’s any kind of suggestion at all from my answer that I would be anything but tolerant of adults in America choosing their partners, choosing relationships that they deem best for themselves, you know, I am tolerant and I have a very diverse family and group of friends and even within that group you would see some who may not agree with me on this issue, some very dear friends who don’t agree with me on this issue.
But in that tolerance also, no one would ever propose, not in a McCain-Palin administration, to do anything to prohibit, say, visitations in a hospital or contracts being signed, negotiated between parties.
But I will tell Americans straight up that I don’t support defining marriage as anything but between one man and one woman, and I think through nuances we can go round and round about what that actually means.
But I’m being as straight up with Americans as I can in my non- support for anything but a traditional definition of marriage.
IFILL: Let’s try to avoid nuance, Senator. Do you support gay marriage?
BIDEN: No. Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage. We do not support that. That is basically the decision to be able to be able to be left to faiths and people who practice their faiths the determination what you call it.
The bottom line though is, and I’m glad to hear the governor, I take her at her word, obviously, that she think there should be no civil rights distinction, none whatsoever, between a committed gay couple and a committed heterosexual couple. If that’s the case, we really don’t have a difference.
IFILL: Is that what your said?
PALIN: Your question to him was whether he supported gay marriage and my answer is the same as his and it is that I do not.
IFILL: Wonderful. You agree. On that note, let’s move to foreign policy.
Since the California Supreme Court struck down the state’s ban on same sex marriage yesterday, I have seen a number of people make an argument that has been accumulating disciples during the last few years. A growing number argue that marriage should be left to religion, and that the government should “get out of the marriage business.”
While this view may sound reasonable and is a seductive sounding solution, I believe it is overly simplified, contrary to history and good government, and ultimately a pernicious proposal.
Thanks to everyone who commented on my previous article about Superchastity and Same-Sex Attracted Members of the LDS Church.
I was writing a response to a comment by m&m and it started getting long enough that I figured it deserved to be a follow-up post instead of just a comment.
I have two cousins, brothers, who near the ages of 16 and 17 years were in a terrible automobile accident that left one paraplegic and the other quadriplegic. Both have triumphed despite these great trials. Both have gone on to college and excelled. The younger, paraplegic cousin recently engaged to be married. However, it is very, very unlikely that his brother will ever experience any kind of physical or emotional intimacy with someone to whom he is attracted.
I had a chance to visit briefly with this cousin a couple of months ago when he was in town. Despite what many would call an awful situation, his faith, optimism, and sense of humor are inspiring. He exudes great hope in the resurrection. He, and those like him, are inspiring and deserve praise for their faith and example.
While analogies between such individuals and same-sex attracted members are instructive and helpful, I think that we should acknowledge that in the case of those same-sex attracted in the church, there is an additional aspect that deserves attention:
For those like my cousin, or Elder Wickman’s daughter, their lack of intimacy is an aspect of their lives that is primarily out of their control. They practice superchastity because they are compelled to by circumstance.
On the other hand, the challenge to same-sex attracted members of the church is that such intimacy is relatively readily-available, but that participating in it is contrary to the standards that the Lord’s prophets have established. If they do practice superchastity, it is out of pure moral determination and humble, faithful submission to the Lord and the authority of His church.
The end result for both groups is the same, and the hope they must place in the resurrection and the restoration of their souls to proper form in the next life is the same. But I think that it is appropriate to acknowledge those same-sex attracted members who do practice superabstinence out of faithfulness and not because they are compelled. I think that such an acknowledgment can help encourage them and validate their efforts and accomplishment.
Let me say here that I am very opposed to competitive righteousness. And my article here is not intended in that spirit at all.
I believe that words have power. Framing our struggles with the proper vocabulary can make a huge difference. Too often the words we have to work with in the realm of same-gender attraction place the focus on the nature of the temptation itself. Terms like superchaste or extra-abstinent are useful in that they provide an alternative vocabulary for members to use in the context of same-sex attraction that places the focus on the positive objective instead of on the temptation. They supply positive labels of praise that same-sex attracted members can self-apply and feel good about as well as a point reference to which they can reorient themselves if they have fallen short and are in the process of repentance.
In that vein, let me echo here my comment on the previous article:
Perhaps the term Superchastity causes a little too much confusion in that it gives the impression that it is a different law than than the law of chastity. A better term might be Extra- or Super-Abstinence, to clarify that the law of chastity is the same, but of same-sex attracted members it requires Extra-Abstinence to adhere to that law.
I have been thinking a lot about the interview with LDS authorities Dallin H. Oaks and Lance B. Wickman on the topic of Homosexuality and the Church, which I recently posted about here. I wish that they had elaborated more about the issue of celibacy. Perhaps they would have if the interviewers had asked a question raising the issue.
In general, single members of the church are only required to refrain from specifically sexual behavior. They may appropriately express physical and emotional intimacy with members of the opposite sex through close physical proximity, dancing together, holding hands, dating, writing love letters or poetry to each other, and affectionately kissing and still be celibate and chaste.
However, members who struggle with homosexual temptation are expected to refrain from all physical and emotional intimacy with members of the same sex to whom they are attracted. This is a similar but even more restrictive degree of abstinence than is expected of full-time missionaries, who can at least write affectionate letters to their girl or boyfriend. And unlike missionaries, members with same-sex temptation are expected to maintain it for their entire life and not just the two years of missionary service.
Perhaps this degree of abstinence should be distinguished with a unique and laudatory expression such as “Superchastity” .
We might regard those members who abide by this law of superchastity because of same-sex attraction somewhat like the biblical lifelong Nazarites, who took upon themselves certain behavioral restrictions that were not required of the majority of the faithful, with the important distinction that a Nazarite life was voluntary, whereas a life of superchastity is a requirement of the unique, earthly challenge of same-sex attracted members.
I think that we ought to recognize this distinction between the chastity the Lord requires of single members in general and the superchastity He requires of members with same-sex attraction.
I have often thought that if, as the scriptures say, where much is given much is required, then the corollary is that where the Lord requires much, much will be given. I have no doubt that since the Lord requires superchastity of the same-sex attracted, he will also bless them an extra measure for their obedience, even if the full measure of that blessing is not meted until their exaltation in the next life.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has published what I consider to be an very important interview with Apostle Dallin H. Oaks and Elder Lance B. Wickman, a member of the Seventy, on the topic of Homosexuality and the Church.
Some Excerpts:
ELDER OAKS:
Yes, homosexual feelings are controllable. Perhaps there is an inclination or susceptibility to such feelings that is a reality for some and not a reality for others. But out of such susceptibilities come feelings, and feelings are controllable. If we cater to the feelings, they increase the power of the temptation. If we yield to the temptation, we have committed sinful behavior. That pattern is the same for a person that covets someone else’s property and has a strong temptation to steal. It’s the same for a person that develops a taste for alcohol. It’s the same for a person that is born with a ‘short fuse,’ as we would say of a susceptibility to anger. If they let that susceptibility remain uncontrolled, it becomes a feeling of anger, and a feeling of anger can yield to behavior that is sinful and illegal.We’re not talking about a unique challenge here. We’re talking about a common condition of mortality. We don’t understand exactly the ‘why,’ or the extent to which there are inclinations or susceptibilities and so on. But what we do know is that feelings can be controlled and behavior can be controlled. The line of sin is between the feelings and the behavior. The line of prudence is between the susceptibility and the feelings. We need to lay hold on the feelings and try to control them to keep us from getting into a circumstance that leads to sinful behavior.
…
The Church does not have a position on the causes of any of these susceptibilities or inclinations, including those related to same-gender attraction. Those are scientific questions — whether nature or nurture — those are things the Church doesn’t have a position on.
ELDER WICKMAN:
…merely having inclinations does not disqualify one for any aspect of Church participation or membership, except possibly marriage as has already been talked about. But even that, in the fullness of life as we understand it through the doctrines of the restored gospel, eventually can become possible.In this life, such things as service in the Church, including missionary service, all of this is available to anyone who is true to covenants and commandments.
…
…same-gender attraction did not exist in the pre-earth life and neither will it exist in the next life. It is a circumstance that for whatever reason or reasons seems to apply right now in mortality, in this nano-second of our eternal existence.The good news for somebody who is struggling with same-gender attraction is this: 1) It is that ‘I’m not stuck with it forever.’ It’s just now. Admittedly, for each one of us, it’s hard to look beyond the ‘now’ sometimes. But nonetheless, if you see mortality as now, it’s only during this season. 2) If I can keep myself worthy here, if I can be true to gospel commandments, if I can keep covenants that I have made, the blessings of exaltation and eternal life that Heavenly Father holds out to all of His children apply to me. Every blessing — including eternal marriage — is and will be mine in due course.
I think that this interview is groundbreaking in that it establishes the framework which, if the membership will follow it, allows those members of the church who suffer from same-sex attraction to participate in the church and contribute their valuable gifts and characters to building up the kingdom, as long as they remain celibate.
Hopefully the heterosexual members of the church can come to value those individuals and the contribution they make and encourage and support them in their celibacy, and even admire them for their commitment to the gospel and their personal sacrifice to be obedient to the Lord.
They struggle with a difficult temptation. The church membership should lend strength and fellowship to them as they bear one another’s burdens while at the same time standing firm on those standards of chastity and the definition of marriage consistent with the plan of happiness that God himself has ordained.
Read the entire interview .
On May 26th, the prophet of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and his two counselors sent a letter to be read in all of the LDS congregations in the United States urging members to contact their Senators to support proposed amendments to the Constitution that would define marriage as only between a man and a woman to prevent the establishment of legal, homosexual marriage in the United States.
Since the release of this letter of counsel to the members, I have heard of several critics of the church, internal and external, who try to discredit the Church’s position against homosexual marriage as hypocritical in light of the Church’s own struggle against the United States government’s prohibition of the former LDS practice of Polygamy in the late 19th century.
These critics try to draw a parallel between the church’s fight to keep the government from prohibiting its religious practice of plural marriage and the modern fight by homosexuals to prevent the government from prohibiting same-sex marriage. “How can the church support government prohibition of same-sex marriage,” they ask, “when the church itself fought to prevent the government from interfering with their right to marriage in the 19th century?”
This criticism reveals a very superficial understanding of history and the church’s 19th century position in regard to congressional proscription of polygamy. Like the common comparison of the homosexual movement to the civil-rights movement, it is an effective rhetorical device with emotional appeal, but has little basis in reality. It is effective because it is superficially compelling and easily expressed in only a few words while an effective refutation of it requires a lengthy explanation.
In debates I have participated in over same-sex marriage, its proponents have often asserted that the practice would have negligible societal effect. They maintain that after the standardization of gay marriage everything will continue as it has. Such an assertion, it seems to me, requires an unbelievable degree of willful self-delusion or dishonesty.
The Weekly Standard has a sobering article that gives us a thorough preview of the upcoming train-wreck:
