You know, it’s not often I get the chance to say one of the leaders of a religious denomination is so full of shit his eyes are green but Mormon Elder Dallin Oaks has given me the chance. (For those not in the know, Elder is his actual title, not simply a term of respect.)
From today’s Trib:
LDS apostle Dallin H. Oaks on Tuesday likened the post-Proposition 8 backlash against Mormons to the persecution blacks endured during the civil-rights struggle.
What a buffoon. To quote Bugs Bunny, “What an embezzle! What an ultramaroon! What a poltroon!”
Jeanetta Williams, by contrast, is not a buffoon.
Jeanetta Williams, president of the NAACP’s Salt Lake branch, said there is “no comparison.”
“I don’t see where the LDS Church has been denied any of their rights,” she said. “What the gay and lesbian communities are fighting for, that is a civil-rights issue.”
I spent some time reading through the transcript of his remarks and let’s just say it goes wrong at the beginning and stays wrong pretty much throughout.
From Oaks’ speech:
In choosing my subject I have relied on an old military maxim that when there is a battle underway, persons who desire to join the fray should “march to the sound of the guns.”[i] So it is that I invite you to march with me as I speak about religious freedom under the United States Constitution. There is a battle over the meaning of that freedom. The contest is of eternal importance, and it is your generation that must understand the issues and make the efforts to prevail.
Oaks’ here is frame his entire concept – and doing it falsely. It’s a favorite conceit of religious conservatives to claim that growing numbers of persons who claim no religious affiliation and who expect the government to behave in a manner which is actually neutral with regard to religion constitutes an attack on religious freedom. He then frames this not as an issue of policy but as an issue of “eternal importance” – in the vision he’s creating, Oaks’ is telling his audience that they serve God and anyone who disagrees with them is opposed to God. He then talks about Joseph Smith, which we can disregard as having no actual legal weight. I’m also going to skip past his pedestrian tale of inspiration in which daring Mongols become Mormons except to say he’s using that tale not to offer religious inspiration, but as a dishonest rhetorical device; religious neutrality from government is not the same thing as state sponsored hostility to religion such as existed in many formerly communist and socialist states, such as Mongolia; Oaks here is engaging in the beginning of a systematically dishonest argument which attempts to create the impression that religious practice is endangered by religious plurality and public acceptance of atheism and disbelief. It’s a theme he returns to repeatedly in his speech.
Oaks’ then moves to a favorite theme of religious conservatives. I’m going to spend some time here because he is deliberately mangling Enlightement ideas with pre-modern religious mumbo-jumbo (emphasis added):
One of the great fundamentals of our inspired constitution . . .
Along with many other religious people, we affirm that God is the ultimate source of power and that, under Him, it is the people’s inherent right to decide their form of government.
This language echoes the Declaration of Independence but involves a major difference – the idea that God is the source of power and that God grants us the right to form a government. Jefferson never made such a claim. Instead, the plain text of the Declaration argues that government’s exist to secure human rights and government exist not because God allows them but the governned consent to their existence. Jefferson’s simple statement about the “consent of the governed” argued that the right to form a government belonged to us because we are human, no further justification was or is needed. Jefferson was also making an eminently pragmatic – without the consent of the governed, no government can be successful in the long term.
This principle of sovereignty in the people explains the meaning of God’s revelation that He established the Constitution of the United States “that every man may act . . . according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment” (Doctrine and Covenants 101:78). In other words, the most desirable condition for the effective exercise of God-given moral agency is a condition of maximum freedom and responsibility – the opposite of slavery or political oppression.
I find this passage simultaneously disingenuous and dangerous. The argument in this passage is mind-boggling. It starts with the absurd claim that God established the US Constitution. A favorite trope of the religious right is that the US was specially created by God for God’s purposes. It’s nothing more than America-first chauvinism. And it is ridiculously wrong. The Constitution was conceived, written and adopted by people. The US was not created by God. People did the work and in the Revolutionary War, people did the dying. The claim that our moral agency is god given is another flaw; our moral agency is inherent in our status as human beings and God had flap all to do with it.
Oaks’ then distorts history:
The American colonies were originally settled by people who, for the most part, had come to this continent to be able to practice their religious faith without persecution, and their successors deliberately placed religious freedom first in the nation’s Bill of Rights.
The New England colonies were founded by people seeking religious freedom for themselves but unwilling extend it to others. The Southern colonies were primarily founded as economic ventures. The Mid Atlantic colonies were a mixture. Oaks’ is apparently ignorant of the history behind religious freedom that John McGowan lays out – that it was an essential compromise worked out as a way of eliminating religious wars and violence. The view of the world that the US was established by God is a step backwards towards howling barbarism and religious murder.
The free “exercise” of religion obviously involves both the right to choose religious beliefs and affiliations and the right to “exercise” or practice those beliefs. But in a nation with citizens of many different religious beliefs, the right of some to act upon their religious principles must be qualified by the government’s responsibility to protect the health and safety of all. Otherwise, for example, the government could not protect its citizens’ person or property from neighbors whose intentions include taking human life or stealing in circumstances rationalized on the basis of their religious beliefs.
Again, Oaks elides something very important. Religious freedom also means the right to not believe and to not have religious practice forced on one’s self. It also means that the government cannot privilege one religious practice or belief over another, nor should it privilege religious doctrine over other beliefs. The right to not believe and not practice is every bit as central to freedom as is the right to believe and practice.
I actually think the crux of Oaks’ argument about religious freedom comes in one sentence:
During my lifetime I have seen a significant deterioration in the respect accorded to religion in our public life, and I believe that the vitality of religious freedom is in danger of being weakened accordingly.
He then adds this self-serving statement:
But unless the guarantee of free exercise of religion gives a religious actor greater protection against government prohibitions than are already guaranteed to all actors by other provisions of the constitution (like freedom of speech), what is the special value of religious freedom? Surely the First Amendment guarantee of free exercise of religion was intended to grant more freedom to religious action than to other kinds of action. Treating actions based on religious belief the same as actions based on other systems of belief should not be enough to satisfy the special place of religion in the United States Constitution.
Oaks’ is making a bald-faced argument that religious believe deserves special treatment, and that simply claiming “It’s my religion” should exempt one’s actions from criticism and examination. He is arguing that religious freedom should be privileged at the expense of other crucial civil rights. To take this statement seriously – not even to its logical extreme but to it’s obvious next step – is to believe that we can and should limit freedom of speech if it criticizes religion, that in setting public policy we should defer to religious belief over scientific findings, that we should defer to religious dogma rather than social science in setting public policy. Oaks’ is interpreting religious freedom here the same way the Taliban interprets religious freedom, the same way the various ayatollahs in Iran interpret religious freedom. Such an interpretation is dangerous for a pluralistic and contemporary society. Such an interpretation is just one step backwards toward the barbarism and religiously justified oppression wrought by the Taliban.
Among the most threatening collisions in the United States today are (1) the rising strength of those who seek to silence religious voices in public debates, and (2) perceived conflicts between religious freedom and the popular appeal of newly alleged civil rights.
Can you say strawman?
Atheism has always been hostile to religion, such as in its arguments that freedom of or for religion should include freedom from religion. Atheism’s threat rises as its proponents grow in numbers and aggressiveness. “By some counts,” a recent article in The Economist declares, “there are at least 500 [million] declared non-believers in the world – enough to make atheism the fourth-biggest religion.”[viii] And atheism’s spokesmen are aggressive, as recent publications show.[ix] As noted by John A. Howard of the Howard Center for Family, Religion, and Society, these voices “have developed great skills in demonizing those who disagree with them, turning their opponents into objects of fear, hatred and scorn.”[x]
Such forces – atheists and others – would intimidate persons with religious-based points of view from influencing or making the laws of their state or nation. Noted author and legal commentator Hugh Hewitt described the current circumstance this way:“There is a growing anti-religious bigotry in the United States. . . .
“For three decades people of faith have watched a systematic and very effective effort waged in the courts and the media to drive them from the public square and to delegitimize their participation in politics as somehow threatening.”[xi]
I suspect Oaks’ has either not read or not understood the writings of the so-called New Atheists – people like Victor Stenger, Ricahrd Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens. Certainly, on this topic, Hugh Hewitt does not know what’s he talking about. What Dallin Oaks is protesting here is not an attempt to drive religious persons from the public square, but to deny that religion has and deserves a privileged place in public policy debate and discussion. What sets the New Atheism apart is the willingness of non-believers to openly confront many of the claims of believers – such as the claim that religious freedom should be privileged over other freedoms, that religious views should automatically hold sway in public policy discussions, and that examining the claims made by religion is somehow beyond the pale. The real claim made by proponents of a relgiously neutral public square states simply that religious belief and non-belief should be treated legally the same, that just as we should not force someone who is Mormon to participate in Catholic services, so we should not force someone who does not believe in God to participate in public prayers and other religious observances. The very request being made of believers is simple – when in the public square, you should not and cannot expect religiously based arguments to carry the day.
Hence, the claim that same sex marriage is religiously unacceptable is insufficient to deny same sex couples the right to marry. Thus, when Oaks’ later said:
The marriage union of a man and a woman has been the teaching of the Judeo-Christian scriptures and the core legal definition and practice of marriage in Western culture for thousands of years. Those who seek to change the foundation of marriage should not be allowed to pretend that those who defend the ancient order are trampling on civil rights. The supporters of Proposition 8 were exercising their constitutional right to defend the institution of marriage – an institution of transcendent importance that they, along with countless others of many persuasions, feel conscientiously obliged to protect.
he was turning the entire debate upside down. (Not for nothing, but it’s interesting to note that Oaks’ is speaking from deeply within the framework of strict father morality here.) Denying same sex couples the right to marry on these grounds constitutes discrimination and in fact causes very real hardship on same sex couples. Legalizing same sex marriage in no way prevents the Mormon church (or any church) from performing the marriages they deem moral; nor does it require them to perform marriages they deem immoral. Catholic doctrine does not recognize divorce and remarriage; Catholic priests are free to refuse to perform second marriages and such a legal arrangment has successfully worked for many decades. Legal same sex marriage – like divorce and remarriage – does not require any church to change its doctrine or practice. In fact, the debate over Prop 8 was entirely about trampling and denying same sex couples their rights; in California same sex couples were legally marrying before Prop H8 passed. The Mormon church played a key role in the passage and now same sex couples cannot marry. Oaks’ just doesn’t like his church being labelled an agent of intolerance and well he should not; but the answer is not to deny that gays and lesbians suffer as a result of the Mormon church’s actions or to pretend denying gay people the right to marry is not an injustice but to change the church’s behavior.
Just for a thought experiment, I’m sure if a state government, in say Mississippi, were to pass a law denying any legal standing to marriage performed by the Mormon church, Dallin Oaks would be screaming the rooftops down about denying the civil rights of Mormons. When his church played a key role in denying the right to marry to same sex couples, he instead pretends it is some higher calling, some issue of religious freedom. The bigot’s shoe is not comfortable and it doesn’t feel right and Oaks’ whine it pinches his precious “heterosexual and free to marry the person he loves” feet. It should hurt. Maybe when it hurts bad enough, he’ll change. And maybe some day he’ll realize that his freedom to believe and practice his faith is safer when we are all free to live our lives with equal dignity and protection. In the meantime, he’s just another bigoted crybaby who thinks his beliefs should be beyond question.
#1 by RC on October 15, 2009 - 12:06 pm
He doesn’t come across that way to me. His political opinions are not mine, but I do respect what he thinks and the way he presented it. I found it interesting food for thought and grounds for some quiet introspection.
#2 by Richard Warnick on October 15, 2009 - 12:10 pm
Oaks’ speech was a fascinating insight into the religious authoritarian mindset. His perspective on the ongoing struggle for civil rights never takes into account the fact that blacks once were not allowed to legally marry, and now they are.
LDS church leaders could point to the fact that their own forebears were harassed and sometimes jailed for illegal marriage practices, and say that this kind of injustice is un-American. But no, the once-persecuted want to become persecutors.
Last night Keith Olbermann gave Oaks the number three spot on “Worst Person,” commenting that the record of polygamy in the Mormon Church ought to make them very reluctant to weigh in on the topic of marriage.
Over on “Just and Holy Principles,” the Sutherland Institute’s Matthew C. Piccolo summarized:
In other words, Oaks contends that civil rights have gone far enough, and that “religious freedom” includes the right to oppress people in the name of religion. All are equal in his America, except that religious authority figures are more equal than all the others (apologies to George Orwell).
But freedom of religion clearly implies freedom FROM religion. You can’t have the former without the latter.
#3 by Larry Bergan on October 15, 2009 - 1:35 pm
The church won’t stand up against wars of profit, but they will stand up against gays getting the right to marry. This hypocrisy doesn’t go unnoticed and is causing an exodus from religion.
In the best biblical language I can muster: As to your detractors, look not to they, but to thyself.
#4 by K. Larsen on October 15, 2009 - 4:06 pm
Marriage is not a right that is governed by the Constitution, it is governed by law. The majority ruled the vote in California, and people from both sides of the argument have the right to participate in elections, vote their conscience, and do so free of retaliation. That is the message of this talk. Would the gay community feel retaliation was appropriate if they had won? Then why is it appropriate for others?
#5 by James Farmer on October 15, 2009 - 4:16 pm
Larson:
Marriage is, in fact, a fundamental right provided under the Constitution. And then, of course, there is this pesky little thing called the Equal Protection Clause, also found in the Constitution. California’s “majority” got it wrong; but, don’t worry, because in short order, the courts or a different majority will get it right!
#6 by Nathan Lloyd on October 15, 2009 - 8:46 pm
I was wholly disappointed by the tone and manner of this article. Your brazen disregard for the actual argument made in his address is as predictable as it is sad. Oaks argued- and apparently you missed this while your mind was no doubt spinning this obtuse rebuttal – for tolerance of all views, whether opposed to Mormonism or not. The article was pushing for the freedom from oppression stemming from expression of religious, political, etc. ideas. That is what the Constitution ensures, that is what Oaks correctly points out was fought for in both the Civil War and Civil Rights Movement, and that is what is eroding currently in our society. That is why Oaks compared what happened during the Civil Rights Movement with what happened after the passing of Prop 8.
Farmer – mind your legal manners in flippantly throwing out the Equal Protection Clause by researching its applicability in this instance.
#7 by Cliff Lyon on October 16, 2009 - 6:13 am
Nathan,
Tolerance for bigotry is the opposite of tolerance for equality. May our minds free us to see the truth.
Lets be honest (honesty does not come easily for the human mind); If Dallin Oaks were advocating “tolerance 4 all views” might not his authenticity be compromised by the context?
To claim ‘tolerance for all views’ to deflect criticism of is at best lazy. High road principles can always be defended by invoking justice.
Tolerance for discrimination does not foster justice. I respect your personal spiritual faith, but let us not confuse ancient loyalties with justice and a MORE tolerant, dare I say, a more loving and affectionate, society.
Please?
#8 by JHP on October 16, 2009 - 8:15 am
Glenden,
I am also disappointed by this post. I’ve really enjoyed reading some of your other posts that have been much more civil. Using a tone like this only marginalizes your opinion with people who don’t always agree with you.
That said, you do bring up some interesting arguments. On the Constitution and Founding, yes, we do believe that God inspired men and women to come to America and to create a legal framework of liberty and responsibility that would bless all nations. Is it not possible that those people were instruments in God’s hands to bring about his purposes?
#9 by Glenden Brown on October 16, 2009 - 10:08 am
Nathan – you need to reread Oaks’ statement – he’s not defending all points of view and he states that he believes religious viewpoints should be privileged over other perspectives. That’s not a call for equality. And protests against the Mormon church’s actions do not constitute oppression; the protestors weren’t trying to deny Mormons the right to worship or marry or believe as they wish. The protestors weren’t protesting mormon belief or religious practice; they were protesting the church’s role in rolling back a civil right granted to same sex couples.
JHP – I think Oaks’ argument that protests against the church were anything like what African Americans experienced in fighting for civil rights is at best risible; no one set police dogs on Mormons, no Mormons were arrested for trying to order at a lunch counter, no Mormons were jailed and beaten by corrupt law enforcement agencies or murdered by gangs or had fire hoses turned on them. Some protestors outside a few temples isn’t oppression or prejudice or discrimination.
Is it possible that the founders were God’s instruments? Yes, it’s possible but it strikes me as completely improbable. Nothing in the biblical or apocryphal writings indicates that God has any favorable opinions concerning democracy even if we could trust those sources. Let’s say God did have a hand in it – why wait until the 1700s? If God wishes the world to be governed by democracies, why wait thousands of years? Why wouldn’t god have acted long before then – why put people through the horrors of the middle ages? Let’s say god really did have a hand in the founding. Why did god permit slavery and deny suffrage to women? The answer of course is that even if God is real, God apparently doesn’t take much of a hand in human affairs. Our Constitution – impressive though it is – is too flawed a document to really be the product of divine intervention. No, the more acceptable, simpler explanation says that the founders were people, just like us, with flaws, blindspots, prejudices and while they may have been uncommonly bright and in many truly exceptional, they were stull completely human in their inspirations and aspirations.
#10 by anonymous on October 16, 2009 - 10:12 am
as an employee of the u of u (and thus writing anonymously here today), i was dismayed to see Pres Young quoted in the trib article affirming that gay rights represent a threat to religious freedom.
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_13552589?source=most_viewed
if i could ask him directly i would, but i will ask you all (those of you defending Oaks) instead:
why is your religious freedom more important than mine? if i believe with all my heart and soul that i am who god made me to be, why is my religious freedom not worthy of being protected under the law?
#11 by Richard Warnick on October 16, 2009 - 10:42 am
I think it’s important to remind ourselves what the First Amendment really says about religion…
In other words, the United States of America will have no laws based on religious doctrines or prohibiting religious practices.
I doubt that Dallin Oaks would agree with that, so he had to make up a fantasy version of the Constitution that gives a “special place” to religion and grants “more freedom” to religious authorities.
The Fourteenth Amendment clearly says a state government cannot “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.
#12 by Glenden Brown on October 16, 2009 - 11:00 am
Richard – don’t forget the Constitution also prohibits any religious tests for holding public office.
#13 by Kevin Owens on October 16, 2009 - 11:24 am
“Elder” is an honorific in Mr. Oaks’ case, not a title. You wouldn’t say “Dallin H. Oaks is an Elder,” for example. You would say “Elder Dallin H. Oaks is an Apostle.”
Whether oppressive or not, the violent tactics sometimes used by protesters (arson, vandalism, harassment, etc.) are wrong.
#14 by JHP on October 16, 2009 - 11:42 am
Elder Oaks said, “In their effect they are like the well-known and widely condemned voter-intimidation of blacks in the South that produced corrective federal civil-rights legislation.”
He did not say that the same tactics were used. His point is that people in the 1960’s were trying to intimidate a specific group of people from participating in democratic processes and that the same thing is happening today with those who voted for and supported prop 8. Don’t take my word for what he meant, though, hear Oaks explain it for himself on the video on my blog:
http://justandholy.blogsome.com/2009/10/14/elder-oaks-says-religious-freedom-is-threatened/
#15 by Richard Warnick on October 16, 2009 - 11:47 am
Kevin–
Vandalism of LDS church property is a problem that predates Prop 8. Do you have evidence connecting recent incidents of vandalism to protests against Prop 8?
If you don’t have evidence, I think it’s inappropriate to imply that people who disagree with you are guilty of criminal acts.
#16 by Glenden Brown on October 16, 2009 - 11:50 am
Kevin – I meant to go back and fix the line about Elder – one more reminder to proofread.
Oaks’ isn’t arguing against specific tactics he’s arguing the protests themselves were acts of oppression. I would also point out that while there have been incidents of arson and vandalism against some Mormon buildings, as far as I recall none of those were actually linked to protests against the church’s activities or to protestors. The issue of harassment is more complex than it might appear – some people experience even the presence of protestors as a form of harassment. The upset expressed by many Mormons concerning those protests seem to me to be crocodile tears. If the shoe were on the other food, Mormons would be howling from the rooftops that Mississippi was oppressing them by denying Mormon weddings any legal standing.
#17 by JHP on October 16, 2009 - 11:51 am
Glenden,
I certainly can’t explain why God does or doesn’t do things, I can only tell you what I believe He has done.
I agree that the Constitution is not perfect, but I do think it’s the best government framework the world has yet seen, and I think its endurance and America’s prosperity, relative to all previous human history, demonstrate its uniqueness. Fortunately, it even includes an amendment process which has allowed us to improve it over time and will allow us to continue to improve it. I believe that the Constitution is a very good thing overall and that anything that is good comes from God through good people.
#18 by Kevin Owens on October 16, 2009 - 12:10 pm
A quick Google search for “mormon vandalism” brought up the following:
Mormon church in Orangevale vandalized in wake of Prop. 8 vote
Feds investigate vandalism at Mormon sites
California Mormons wary after post-Prop 8 vandalism
Mormons, Knights of Columbus Face Chilling Threats and More Vandalism for Prop. 8 Support
There is evidence that at least some of the vandalism has been done in protest (such as the graffiti reading “No on Prop 8″ last year).
#19 by Kevin Owens on October 16, 2009 - 12:19 pm
I don’t think so. When the Church practiced polygamy, the government not only denied Mormon marriages legal standing, they also arrested Mormons for marrying and passed laws to disenfranchise the Church if such marriages continued.
If the shoe were on the other foot, I think Mormons would be happy just to be left alone. They would probably be able to overlook the fact that their weddings had no legal standing on earth, because they have standing in heaven.
#20 by Glenden Brown on October 16, 2009 - 12:22 pm
JHP – let’s look at the context of that sentence:
How is boycotting a business that supported the effort to stop me from getting married illegitimate? When African Americans held the bus boycott, were they intimidating whites?
His argument here is fundamentally false (as his analogy). The argument isn’t that religious persons should stay out of public debate, the argument is that religious views do not deserve automatic acceptance. To put it other terms: to claim that religious tradition prohibits same sex marriage is not a legally compelling argument.
#21 by anonymous on October 16, 2009 - 12:44 pm
JHP and others – i would still like you to address my question. Why is my religious freedom less important than yours?
#22 by Richard Warnick on October 16, 2009 - 12:51 pm
Kevin–
Perhaps Prop 8 protesters committed crimes, that’s possible but far from proven. From your first link:
Most of the articles you linked to are careful not to jump to conclusions, saying only that vandalism occurred after the election. Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a well-known fallacy.
Have you considered the possibility that some of the incidents were the work of Mormon church members trying to justify their own paranoia after seeing huge protests in the streets?
I joined the march in Salt Lake City. Nobody advocated violence, only equality.
#23 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on October 16, 2009 - 1:39 pm
We Mormons are being denied the civil right to prevent other people from doing things we don’t approve of. It’s persecution, I tells ya!
Actually, I think it was a poorly chosen example, intended to express disapproval of the way outspoken opponents of Proposition 8 have been ostracized for expressing their political views, similar to the way blacks were treated for expressing theirs. The problem comes in the fact that blacks were speaking their mind FOR civil rights, not AGAINST them.
#24 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on October 16, 2009 - 1:46 pm
It is silly to assume that people as passionate about an issue as those fighting for a proposed right to marry would not be a diverse enough group to include those who tend towards violence or criminality as a common response to opposition. Asking Kevin to prove that there was violence or vandalism specifically targeting Mormon churches as a response to Prop. 8 is about as reasonable as asking an anti-Mormon to prove that Mormons have committed crimes before. They are both self-evident, simply by the psychology of diverse social groups.
#25 by Uncle Rico on October 16, 2009 - 2:15 pm
Answer: Because “they” don’t like your religious freedom.
#26 by Don on October 16, 2009 - 2:19 pm
“If the shoe were on the other foot, I think Mormons would be happy just to be left alone. They would probably be able to overlook the fact that their weddings had no legal standing on earth, because they have standing in heaven.”
Oh, if only we could test this hypothesis . . .
Unfortunately there’s a little thing called the Constitution preventing anyone from seriously challenging the legitimacy of LDS marriages through a simple majority referendum. Damn!
Kevin, you are ignorant and naive if you think Mormons would sit idly by and let their civil rights be taken away in the way they have taken away those of gay people. Furthermore, you must know that most of us who support equality for gay people also support equality for religious people (yes, including Mormons) and would be wholeheartedly against any campaign to deny basic civil rights to any religious group.
#27 by Don on October 16, 2009 - 2:27 pm
anonymous,
They never answer that question. Why? Because they can’t. Why should a same-sex marriage from one religion be denied equal treatment under the law compared to marriages performed in other relgions? Denying legal recognition of same-sex marriage is religious discrimination.
#28 by Kevin Owens on October 16, 2009 - 2:45 pm
Don, I don’t really want to get off on a tangent here, but–despite the Constitution–the legitimacy of LDS marriages were seriously challenged in the past.
In the end, the Mormons were outnumbered and overwhelmed by the opposition, so they capitulated. That’s why Utah’s constitution says that “polygamous or plural marriages are forever prohibited.”
For those few who held on, well, they are still facing persecution from the government over their marriages. And they’re “sitting idly by” while their civil rights are being taken away, while their children are being taken by the government, while their leaders are arrested and their assets plundered.
#29 by Don on October 16, 2009 - 2:53 pm
Kevin,
Let’s leave aside arguments of the past for now. Do you really think denying legal recognition of LDS marriages today would garner any non-fringe level of support? Do you really think Mormons wouldn’t scream and holler (rightly so in this instance) that they were being persecuted and discriminated against? If you truly believe this I think you are highly deluded.
#30 by Kevin Owens on October 16, 2009 - 3:10 pm
Don,
Yes, I believe that denying recognition for plural marriage today would have vast non-fringe support. It already does! It’s illegal to have more than one wife, and not just in Utah. Sure, the oppressed minority complains, but there’s just too much support for discrimination among the majority.
Now, you may say that one man having two wives is a different kind of marriage, so it’s OK to discriminate. But guess what? That same argument can be used against gay marriage. (A man marrying another man is not the same as a man marrying a woman.)
It’s a total double standard to support gay marriage but not polygamy.
#31 by Don on October 16, 2009 - 3:46 pm
Kevin,
You are creating a straw man out of plural marriage. I’m not talking about plural marriage. I am talking about current, legally recognized marriages performed by the LDS church.
#32 by Don on October 16, 2009 - 3:48 pm
And by the way Kevin, who said anything about whether or not I would support polygamy?
#33 by Glenden Brown on October 16, 2009 - 3:55 pm
Kevin,
I can’t think of a single polygamous culture in which very young girls are not married to much older men, and in which those girls are not forced into those marriages. I think most people don’t really care about polygamy beyond the sexual abuse of young people (and general abuse that seems to take place in such communities). One can oppose polygamy as currently practiced in Colorado City without opposing the general principle.
As a general principle, I have no objections to polyamory (of which polygamy and polyandry are two subsets) provided it is consenting and free of exploitation and coercion. I hear through the grapevine an acquaintance of mine from college is in a poly family of four – two men, two women and they have children and a house and a stable life. But, they formed that family as adults free of coercion. From what I hear, it’s a healthy, functioning family. There’s no reason their family should be denied legal protections.
#34 by Glenden Brown on October 16, 2009 - 4:11 pm
I would describe polygamy as a red herring not as a strawman. It’s also part and parcel of the “slippery slope” – the idea that if we allow one thing we won’t be able to make distinctions between other things. Rick Santorum’s “man on dog” thing was all about the slippery slope – building a case that if we allow same sex couples to marry we have to allow any sort of union. Of course that’s nonsense. But it’s also about building an argument that what matters is form only, not content.
If you ask people who are happily married what makes their marriage work, you almost never get the “she’s a woman I’m a man” or “he’s a man I’m a woman” answer. Instead you get answers that talk about treating one another with respect and dignity, communicating well, sharing values and ideals and enjoying one another’s company. Your plumbing doesn’t make a good relationship. When opponents of same sex marriage argue that “one man one woman” and “complementary traits” they’re expressing the idea that biology is fate – women are nurturing and men aren’t, men are daring and take charge and women are meak and need men to govern them and so on.
#35 by Uncle Rico on October 16, 2009 - 4:24 pm
Since we’re off on a tangent here, I thought the Mormons ended plural marriage because of divine revelation, not for political expediency. Am I wrong?
#36 by Kevin Owens on October 16, 2009 - 4:53 pm
I brought up polygamy not as a red herring, a straw man, or a slippery slope. I brought it up because it’s a good analog for same-sex marriage. It’s structurally a little different from traditional marriage, it’s unpopular, and it’s illegal.
Actually, now that I think of it, I only brought it up as a very narrow response to Glenden’s “If the shoe were on the other foot…” statement. Because the shoe has been on the other foot, and I wanted to chime in with how we responded when it was.
Uncle Rico, you’re both right and wrong. The practice of plural marriage was ended because of divine revelation and political expediency. As evidence, here is a quote from Wilford Woodruff regarding the revelation (with apologies for its length:)
- Official Declaration 1
#37 by Cliff Lyon on October 16, 2009 - 6:42 pm
JHP,
It is unlikely that the Paul Mero types will put forth an argument for your question notwithstanding the most convoluted argument you’ve ever heard and the one that only Paul Mero can execute. Paul Mero are you there?
As for the rest of us regular folks, we get that none of us are equal until all of us are equal.
But for the desperate, shrill voices of a few white Church leaders, for whom heterosexuality IS a choice, we would not be discussing this subject except in high school History Class.
#38 by Richard Warnick on October 16, 2009 - 8:28 pm
Some people in California (who have a wicked sense of humor) think Prop 8 did not go far enough to save traditional marriage. After all, what’s the most serious direct threat to marriage?
If you guessed “divorce,” well, great minds think alike. And they have T-shirts you can buy!
#39 by Cliff Lyon on October 17, 2009 - 5:11 am
Kevin,
You win the most pathetic argument award. You can’t equate equality for same sex partners and plural marriage.
The diff may be too subtle for you so consider this. Hint: Its about equality.
In the case of government sanctioned marriage. Gays are denied something not denied to same sex couples. Thats inequality.
Plural marriage is not an issue of equality because it is a right given to NO ONE!
K? I KNOW u can grasp that.
That said, plural marriage is a religious issue on which basis, I support it until there is a compelling state interest against it, like child abuse, spousal abuse, etc.
I defer the the genius of Paul Mero to explore the State’s interest here.
Start with the right to marry one person.
#40 by Clinton on October 17, 2009 - 6:38 am
I don’t understand ‘gay marriage’. Male and Female relationships make babies. Other relationships do not without exotic medical tampering. Therefore Marriage is desireable to protect the unique power of that relationship. It is the first relationship in human society, the prototype for all others and the one that all others are based on. People wrapped up in a homosexual relationship might pretend that it is a marriage but people who are not caught up the emotion see the difference; Of course heterosexual marriage has a unique legal status. Its bizarre that only dumb religious people can see that.
#41 by Glenden Brown on October 17, 2009 - 6:54 am
Make you a deal Clinton – when we limit marriage only to those couples who procreate, I’ll take your argument seriously. Nothing in our legal or cultural practice makes marriage dependent on procreation. We don’t dissolve the marriages of post-menopausal women who can’t conceive, we don’t dissolve the marriage of couples who choose to not have children, nor do we prevent couples who are unable to conceive from marrying. We don’t require a fertility test before we allow couples to marry.
In our society, two drunk 18 year olds who don’t know each others names but who happen to be heterosexual can get legally married and have more rights and protections than a same sex couple that has been together for 40 years and raised a dozen foster kids. That makes no sense.
#42 by Uncle Rico on October 17, 2009 - 7:31 am
Then don’t get one.
#43 by Cliff Lyon on October 17, 2009 - 10:15 am
Clinton,
Its not just dumb religious people. Its dumb non-religious ans smart religious people too.
#44 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on October 17, 2009 - 2:41 pm
Everybody–
Let’s just make this simple:
1) Heterosexual marriage can’t be defined according to procreation, or those heterosexuals incapable of procreation would not be eligible.
2) Marriage is frequently self-defined; hence the homosexual tendency to define their union as “marriage” while it evidently doesn’t fit the etymological definition. Therefore, “polygamy” can be considered a form of marriage as easily as “gay marriage” can, whether you want to define it in terms of form OR function, by varying standards. You can be sure that polygamists would make many of the same emotional arguments as homosexuals and logical arguments as heterosexuals to defend their union.
3) Cliff says, “Plural marriage is not an issue of equality because it is a right given to NO ONE!” Well, so is marriage to the same sex, in most states. The universal right, that of heterosexual marriage, is available to everyone, regardless of sexual orientation. By his argument, continuing to deny same-sex rights marriages causes no harm to equality.
4) This is enormously an argument of definitions. We can approach this a) conservatively, by protecting present traditions; b) liberally, by letting everyone do whatever they want; c) democratically, by letting the majority choose our definitions; or d) alternatively.
The alternative, in my opinion, is to simply let marriage be a non-legal social institution. Let child-bearing be a legal one, as it’s the only one which involves a non-voluntary relationship. If two people have lived together in a committed relationship, why shouldn’t they be able to say they’re “married?” What meaning does the definition have, anyway? Is it indicative of club membership or something? I’ll create my own club if I want to, and as long as my club has no legal power, why should anyone care if they’re denied membership?
Legally speaking, anyone should be able to declare anyone else to have power of attorney, visitation rights, and so on; anyone should be able to sign a statement of shared financial liability and benefit; and anyone should be able to call their union whatever they want, as long as the terminology has no legal implications. Similarly, NOBODY should be required to personally legitimize any other belief system or relationship, no matter what those who engage in it want to call it.
Child-bearing and marriage are not the same. That fact’s ALREADY a part of our national social paradigm, regardless of the legalization of gay marriage. Child-bearing should be a legally-protected and enforced position. But marriage? Gay people have been living together for a long time already, and it hasn’t damaged mine, no matter what they call it. Has it damaged yours?
Dwight Sheldon Adams
#45 by anonymous on October 17, 2009 - 6:24 pm
I just wanted to point out that this is a ridiculous argument. Clinton, can you honestly say that you have no emotion tied to your relationship? i don’t know if you are married, but if you are in love with someone, can you separate the emotions of that love from your desire to take care of that person and provide for them? Aren’t you “wrapped up” in your relationship? if you are in love, if you are married, if you have a “significant someone” in your life, then you should know that the love i feel for my partner is the EXACT SAME kind of love you feel for your wife/partner/whatever. she is my entire life, and i would sacrifice my own life to protect her.
Are you trying to imply that being gay is somehow a disease or an ailment of some kind? if only i could get “sober” from my relationship, i’d be able to see it as deficient in some way?
this is why i feel, as a gay person, that we are fighting an unwinnable fight. it’s what i’ve been waiting for someone to say, in so many words – my religious freedom isn’t as valid as yours because whatever it is i think god has told me isn’t considered valid by the mormons and other conservative religions. what god has told you is “true” and therefore what god has told me cannot be.
i just wish someone in the mormon hierarchy would think of the argument cliff has made – the “slippery slope” argument is just as easily applied to what the mormons are trying to do. once you outlaw MY religious belief, what’s to stop the baptists from outlawing yours?
#46 by Glenden Brown on October 17, 2009 - 6:41 pm
Dwight – I just want to start by saying that in the time you’ve been posting comments on OneUtah I’ve seen what feels like a huge change in your perspective and your voice as a writer – you’ve developed a great deal more clarity in your comments and it seems to me as if you’ve evolved into a more systematic and systemic thinker; I hope you keep up the good work.
I think marriage matters – not per se because it’s marriage but because the host of rights and protections it grants to couples are so important in day to day life. Paradoxically, the Terri Schiavo case proved that – her husband spent thousands of dollars for her care, finally determined that there was nothing else to be done and made the choice to end life support. Her parents sued – repeatedly and seemingly endlessly, funded and supported by movement conservative activists and aided and abetted by interference from conservative politicians (succeeding only in delaying the inevitable). I don’t think there was a judge in the entire process who sided with her parents – again and again they said her husband as her husband had the legal right to make medical decisions for her. At no point did the legal system side with her parents. For same sex couples, without marriage, no such protections exist; the legal paperwork can be created (it costs something like $10k) but it’s not uncommon for families to successfully challenge those arrangements. As a result, same sex partners get kicked out hospital rooms and houses.
As a matter of public policy, our goal with regard to children should be created stable, nurturing households. As an example of policy, I read an article a few years ago pointing out that while a majority of children in Sweden are born out of wedlock, they are raised in a household with their biological parents. Sweden’s social policies have created an environment where a broad number of rights and protections are granted to persons that do not depend on marriage – so couples don’t marry as early (the same article pointed out that many couples eventually marry – with their children participating in the ceremonies and celebrations). Our interest isn’t necessarily, though, in children being raised by their biological parents so much as being raised by parents who care for them, nurture them and provide them the support they need to become successful adults.
As to your final point – there have always been gay couples and always will be. The question is whether or not we as a society can be honest about it.
#47 by Cliff Lyon on October 17, 2009 - 6:48 pm
Dwight,
I have been enjoying your awakening.
Per your #3 above. I think you shoudl reexamine your logic.
If a right is afforded to NO ONE, there cannot be an issue of EQUALITY. i.e. Polygamy.
That all states sanction monogamous marriage, is uequal treatment – male-female vs same sex.
Plural marriage vs same sex marriage is not issue of equality. One is about religious expression, the other about sexual preference and identity.
While I do support plural marriage rights, they are not the same.
Slow down when you read.
#48 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on October 18, 2009 - 7:51 pm
Anonymous–
The problem is that most people don’t realize that “the slippery slope” is the name of a logical fallacy. Rather, they use it to PROMOTE an argument; as if slippery slopes were the norm in decision-making rather than an unlikely exception. It would be like openly claiming that creating a straw-man had actually transformed your opponent’s argument, such that you had won the argument. I can just imagine the politician responding to that one: “Blast! How dare you change my argument against my will! I have no choice but to cede my point.”
(sarcasm ON)
The problem is that if one of us uses the slippery slope argument and is allowed to get away with it, we’ll never ever have the ability to engage in meaningful discussion again! We have to stop this before it ruins public discourse with slippery slope mania! THERE SIMPLY IS NO WAY TO REPAIR THE SITUATION IF WE LET IT DEGENERATE! HUMAN BEINGS ARE INCAPABLE OF CHANGING WHEN THEY REALIZE AN ERROR!
It’s probably best just to keep polarizing the argument, demonizing our opponents, and playing the martyr. That’s SURE to get public support and engender social progress.
(sarcasm OFF)
Dwight Sheldon Adams
#49 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on October 18, 2009 - 8:00 pm
Sorry that this is so long. For those of you who don’t want to read a whole essay, I have bolded my main points.
Cliff–Thanks for enjoying my “awakening.” I’ll bet Kate Chopin would be thrilled as well.
In your analysis of my logic, you seem to misunderstand my premise, which is embodied by #4: that this argument is largely one of definitions.
To answer your argument, let me ask a question: are we discussing specific forms of marriage, or of the relationship which marriage supposedly embodies?
If the latter is the case, then all marriages in all possible ways should be honored. Under such circumstances, defending our position on the subject of marriage would become difficult, indeed, if we wish to prohibit or limit any of its forms. I know that Glenden has opposed pedophilic marriage on the grounds that young teens are too immature to engage in committed relationships (defend your position on this if you wish, Glenden; I agree with it, fyi). This is an example of one such position which would become considerably more difficult to defend without simply copping-out. The sensibility of the argument may be self-evident to you–but try arguing sensibility to the newly-empowered sense of indignation possessed by those seeking such a marriage.
Note: lest you detect too much of a slippery slope fallacy in the previous paragraph, just know that I’m not that concerned about “man-dog” marriages being validated; the above example is real and frequent. Furthermore, Glenden has his fears of plural marriage, due to the tendency of polygamists to force young girls to marry old men. You have to recognize the difficulty that arises when you expand the definition of a thing; by throwing out arguments against the expansion, you run the risk of defeating your own similar arguments.
The weakness of an argument of forms (which this debate almost unerringly is) is that one must establish specific definitions of every aspect of the forms of which you speak in order to be effective, and find at least one notable difference within those definitions in order to create different criteria for judging them.
For example: Cliff, you claim that the plural marriage issue is about religious expression, same-sex marriage is about sexual preference and identity. That may be true TO YOU. Your judgment criteria is personal, rather than definitive. If you think that there isn’t a single atheist who wishes for government-sanctioned plural marriages, or at least one same-sex marriage advocate who doesn’t use religion as part of their argument, you need to get out more.
My opposition to your argument lies in that, formally, plural marriage is only inherently different than traditional marriage in terms of the number of participants. Same-sex marriage, on the other hand, is only different in terms of the sexual orientation of the participants. All other aspects are as equally variable and as equally defined as in traditional marriage (excepting options for sexual behavior, time which may be devoted to a single partner, and reproductive capacity; the impact of these may be debated as well). Your argument is that traditional and same-sex marriage are identical–therefore, if one is a right, then so is the other. But you neglect the one definitive difference that exists: one involves two sexually distinct participants, the other does not. Your argument should seek to validate the same-sex relationship on its own merits, rather than claim homology between it and the heterosexual one.
I’m not disagreeing with your support of gay marriage per se; but, in terms of definitions, I can find definitive difference between traditional and same-sex marriage in the same way that you can find definitive difference between traditional and plural marriage. I simply think that there’s a better way to do things than have a semantical battle–as is currently happening. Because, if you want to argue that gay marriage is identical to hetero-marriage, you’re going to lose that fight. Even if you argue that they’re qualitatively the same, quantitative differences are self-evident. This is one of the chief weaknesses of the rights argument: if equal rights are to be assumed by two different groups, it must be established that the rights themselves are not defined so specifically as to deny one group, or that they are defined by the differing qualities of the groups. Skin color, for example, should have little bearing on rights, simply because it is not inherently tied to anything but itself. Skin color doesn’t demand a certain culture or certain behaviors. It is free of any such associations of necessity. Sexual preference, likewise, has few demands and therefore few implications on rights. But sexual relations are behaviorally definable. As such, they at least MIGHT have an impact on the dispensation of rights associated with them.
Simply put: “homo” and “hetero” are just as different as “poly” and “mono.” Those differences may be insignificant to you, but only because of the criteria with which you judge them. You must recognize that others won’t use the same criteria. Your insistence that one of those pairings is protected by the same set of rights but the other is not is fallacious. Sometimes I get the impression that Kevin has a better grasp on this issue than you do, simply because of your apparent inability to perceive differences. I wonder if, in your mind, people are just numbskulls; if they would just listen to you, they’d be hit by the revelation of your genius. I hope you understand that other people have their own well-reasoned opinions, and that reasoning criteria is NOT universal.
Human beings have a right to interpersonal association, which right is natural and intrinsic. But marriage is a legal right, not a natural or intrinsic one, used to codify certain forms of association which we choose as a society to validate and reward. My solution involves de-codifying forms of social association which have no specific bearing on social interactions outside of the association itself.
You want to restrict the discussion of equal rights to monogamous vs polygamous marriage. If that’s all we’re talking about, then you’re right. But, I’m sorry, I have little interest in proving your point for you by arguing by your arbitrary rules. Discussing “rights” is inherently troublesome, because they are, as Kevin would say, inherently negotiable. Before anyone freaks out, consider that anything that HAS BEEN negotiated is by necessity negotiable–we just have very strict standards for such negotiations. You are all, in fact, engaging in such negotiations as we speak, in this very discussion. Read your history books if you disagree; as noble as our present perception of “rights” may be (which nobility is disputable), it was generated through a complex serious of negotiations and the creation of intentional social definitions, all of which has changed both subtly and dramatically over the years.
So, Cliff, in the grand tradition of posing insults as recommendations: speed up when you think.
Dwight Sheldon Adams
#50 by Jennifer Stathim on October 18, 2009 - 9:19 pm
This and quarter used to get you a cup of coffee.
#51 by Glenden Brown on October 18, 2009 - 9:25 pm
Jennifer – yeah I can tell you’re Mormon – anyone else would know that a quarter can’t buy a cup of coffee.
#52 by Jennifer Stathim on October 18, 2009 - 10:12 pm
Learn to read Glen, it says “used” to buy a cup of coffee, and I’m not Mormon. Mormons don’t drink coffee right?
#53 by Cliff on October 20, 2009 - 9:56 am
Glenden, As you know, there is a facebook discussion still raging about this issue as well as this post (Staheli, Derrek et al.)
I just posted this in response to Franks nasty comment about you.
Frank, I’m surprised by your characterization of Glenden and I strongly disagree. I am a much more pernicious name caller.
I found his critique of Dallin Oaks comment to be exceptionally polite and thoughtful. But for the Crybaby Buffoon in the title (titles are important), the piece was quite respectful and gentle.
For your reference. http://oneutah.org/2009/10/15/dallin-oaks-crybaby-buffoon-of-the-week/... Read More
btw: I DO get Derek’s point. You dont get OUR point.
We all respect your right to religious beliefs. But we don’t have to respect those beliefs at the point in which you decide to:
A. Bring it into the political realm and spend church money to jam your archaic religious beliefs down EVERYONE ELSE’S THROAT.
B. Claim religious persecution (crybaby part) and then compare it to the violence suffered by Blacks fighting against the very thing your church endorsed while Black peole WERE BEING LYNCHED!
Frank, consider for a moment. Those of us fighting for equal rights for homosexuals, are really fighting for equal rights for all of us.
Personally, I have never been and will likely never be a victim of inequality. I fight for Justice For All.
You fight for a narrow, small-minded and frankly shameful religious doctrine that is ALL ABOUT YOU.
Thats your choice. I think it is a bad choice.
I know damn well you support full marriage equality for gays.
What I wish is that an intelligent and purpose-driven people such as yourself, would devote more time fighting for important issues (like insisting that your church stay the hell out of the everybody else’s business.)
Peace and Love
Cliff
#54 by Glenden Brown on October 20, 2009 - 10:18 am
Cliff – I had no idea there was discussion going on about this at facebook concerning this post.
I should probably log onto facebook more than once every three months, shouldn’t it?
#55 by Richard Warnick on October 20, 2009 - 10:20 am
Nobody has brought this up as far as I know. Until 1978, the Mormon Church officially discriminated against black people.
You can’t ignore the irony when they try to wrap themselves in the mantle of civil rights.
#56 by Jesse on November 12, 2009 - 7:49 am
Disclaimer: Mormon.
It seems to me that “Crybaby Buffoon” is a label better applied to the author of the article, as opposed to Dallin Oaks.
This isn’t a subject on which either side can compromise. Gay Marriage is the political equivalent of a zero-sum game; somebody has to lose, and lose big.
Dallin Oaks is saying that he is not obligated to lose because of the First Amendment, and in fact that it gives him the right to fight for what he believes in.
I’m sorry that you don’t believe in the same thing Mormons do, but what you are arguing for is governmental preference for atheism. That is a violation of the First Amendment, and that is Oaks’ point.
You are welcome to think and act in any way you wish, but government is not. That is the heart of the debate here. Gays don’t want to be married; they want to force other people to acknowledge that their relationship is exactly as valid as traditional heterosexual marriages. You’d have better luck trying to get polygamy legalized than gay marriage.
#57 by Glenden Brown on November 12, 2009 - 8:43 am
Jesse -
Whether you are Mormon or not, I think you’re still making the same mistake that Oaks made in his speech. The logical fallacy at the core the argument is the excluded middle. Government neutrality toward religion is not a preference of atheism; in a religiously pluralistic society, strict government neutrality on religious issues may be the only way we as a society can function. Legalizing same sex marriage is religiously neutral; it does not in any way force any church to recognize or perform those marriages. Same sex marriage is NOT a zero sum game. Of course gay couples want to be married – they are asking for the same legal rights, responsibilities and protections for their relationships their straight siblings already have. As far as same sex relationships being as valid as heterosexual relationships: Look at it this way, a same sex couple can be together for 30 years, live together, care for one another, plan their lives together and under our current system, if one of them gets sick, their partner can be legally denied hospital visitation, can be kicked out of their shared home, have no right to have any say in what happens to their partner. By contrast, two straight people can get drunk off their asses, meet in a bar, go to a justice of the peace and get married without knowing each other’s last names and have every legal protection for their relationship. It’s the content that makes a relationship valid, not the form.
I don’t believe nor did I argue that Oaks doesn’t have the right to fight for what he believes in; I think what he believes on this issue is profoundly flawed and ignores the realities of the world. His comparison of some protests to what African Americans went through during the Civil Rights era is wrong, offensive to the memory of those persons and whiny. Read my follow up post to this one where I examine his arguments in depth and see more about that.
#58 by Kevin Owens on November 12, 2009 - 9:25 am
Glenden, for the government were strictly neutral on religious issues, then it must not interfere with which kinds of marriages religions recognize. By legalizing same-sex marriages and forcing people to recognize them, the government is no longer neutral, inasmuch as same-sex marriage is a religious issue.
I disagree with you that same sex marriage is not a zero sum game. The fact is, marriage between a man and a woman carries with it a certain amount of prestige, which is useful as a social currency. Legalizing same sex marriage would reduce that prestige. Thus, for the gays to gain some social currency, straight people would lose some.
#59 by Uncle Rico on November 12, 2009 - 10:14 am
Kevin- with all due respect, you are just plain wrong about this. Please explain how governmental recognition of a secular, civil institution forces say the Mormon Church to place gay marriage (or civil heterosexual marriage for that matter) on equal footing with the the Ordinance of Celestial Marriage. In fact, how does governmental recognition of gay marriage have any impact whatsoever on the doctrine and teachings of the Mormon Church or any other religious institution? Government is government and religion is religion.
Parenthetically, the refusal to recognize civil gay marriage is not a state of neutrality as you suggest. Rather, it is the government’s expression of a preference for heterosexual marriage that derives, if not entirely, then to a substantial degree, from religious belief systems. So, what you are really arguing for under the guise of “neutrality” is the marriage of religion and government, at least when it comes to this issue.
#60 by Glenden Brown on November 12, 2009 - 10:26 am
Kevin – the government already does not interfere with the kinds of marriages churches recognize. The Catholic church, for example, does not recognize divorce or remarriage. Some churches don’t recognize and won’t perform interfaith marriages. Would you say the government is “forcing” those churches to “recognize” those marriages? Isn’t it convenient that those violations of religious dogma are considered immaterial but this one isn’t?
Your argument about prestige doesn’t make sense. It’s as if there’s only so much “prestige” to go around and once it’s gone, there’ s no more; that’s obviously false. It also only makes sense if you start from the assumption that gay and lesbian persons are “less than” heterosexual persons and same sex relationships are “less than” heterosexual relationships, which is definition of bigotry. Successful relatonships are successful not because of the gender of the persons involved but because of a set of values and behaviors; to put it more bluntly, gay people can have relationships that are just as good as straight people.
#61 by Kevin Owens on November 12, 2009 - 10:58 am
Uncle Rico,
Right now, people in the Mormon Church can ignore same-sex relationships if they want. If they were legal marriages, though, then people in the Mormon Church would be forced to recognize them. Currently, it’s up to an employer whether to give benefits to the gay lovers of his employees, for instance. If they were legally “married,” that employer would be forced to give them the same benefits he gives to his married employees, whether he believes in same-sex marriage or not.
Not really. If the issue of same-sex marriage is purely religious, then the government has no business saying one way or another whether gay marriage should be recognized. If this is the case, however, then the government’s recognition of normal marriages is not neutral. True neutrality would mean the government doesn’t interfere one way or the other.
Glenden,
Yes, but that doesn’t mean it’s right. Maybe Catholics shouldn’t be required to recognize remarriages after divorce.
When it comes down to it, as a nation we need to come together and draw a line somewhere for what constitutes a legitimate marriage. I, along with a majority of voters in every state which has ever tested the issue, believe same-sex marriage doesn’t belong in that definition.
Your conclusion is not obvious to me. If marriage were expanded to include any romantic coupling anyone felt like, then it would be pretty watered down and wouldn’t mean much to anyone. It would be just a notch above being “boyfriend/girlfriend,” or “boyfriend/boyfriend,” as the case may be.
Yes, I’m starting from that assumption. I think that’s the general state of the social totem pole right now. And incidentally, it’s not the definition of bigotry; “stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own” is.
#62 by Glenden Brown on November 12, 2009 - 11:20 am
Kevin – Try reading what I wrote again. The Catholic church is NOT required to recognize divorce or remarriage; the church had had to learn to live in a society in which they are legal but not sacramental (and has adapted quite nicely). The Catholic church is free to treat the children of a second marriage as illegitimate (and does); the Catholic church is free to refuse to recognize a divorce (and they do). They’re not being “forced” to recognize anything.
You’re not being intellectually honest; “recognize any romantic coupling any felt like” is not the position same sex couples are taking so you’re arguing against a position that doesn’t exist. The case for same sex marriage is simple: same sex couples are asking for the exact same rights, responsibilities and protections as their heterosexual siblings have for their relationships. Not something new or unheard of or experimental. A good analogy is to heterosexual couples who choose not to or who cannot have children; they still receive a host of protections, rights and responsibilities for one another. What real world difference is there between that heterosexual couple and a same gender couple? We don’t privilege child-bearing, we privilege marriage. We grant those protections to couples because the protections themsevles are important. Let me give you a simple example: a man and woman meet, fall in love get married; the man has lots of assets, the woman has lots of debt; her debts are now his. Let’s say a same sex couples falls in love; they can’t marry so the one with all the debt defaults on his debt and goes bankrupt and lets his partner keep buying all the great stuff, taking them on vacations and so on. Let’s say a man and a woman meet, fall in love and get married; the man gets sick, but he’s on his wife’s insurance so the hospital gets paid. Let’s say a same sex couple which can’t get married finds themselves with one sick partner – not on his partner’s insurance so the hospital doesn’t get paid and has to write off the cost (or worse, he doesn’t get treatment and he dies – are you really saying he should die because he’s gay?). These aren’t far-fetched examples; they happen all the time. Or how about this: a same sex couple lives together for 40 years, they build a house together, pay for it together. One partner dies and the other’s family has him evicted from their home because his name wasn’t on the title and they weren’t married. A married heterosexual couple, however, even if one partner never paid a dime for the house or its upkeep, has an automatic legal right to stay in that house. It’s also important to note that a majority of Americans (not a small majority but around 75%) favor some form of legal recognition for same sex couples (it’s divided between marriage and civil unions, btw). So the problem isn’t the relationships, it’s the word “marriage.”
As yes, your assumption is bigotry; that lots of people hold that position doesn’t change it from bigotry to something else. Used to be the majority believed interracial marriage was immoral and wrong, that didn’t make interracial immoral or wrong. Same sex marriage is like interracial marriage. Don’t pretend that opponents of same sex marriage are the victims of intolerance; it’s dishonest. Sure, they’re coming in for some harsh criticism, but being criticized isn’t being victimized; losing the right to marry (California anyone?) and being relegated to second class status is.
#63 by Uncle Rico on November 12, 2009 - 11:31 am
You’re confusing “force” with “tolerance.” If gay, civil marriage was recognized by government, then members of the Mormon Church would only be required to tolerate it on a civil and secular level. Doctrinally, nothing would change.
Its really no different than a whole host of things that are frowned upon by the Mormon Church but otherwise allowed in a free society. For example, do you feel Mormons are “forced” to accept that coffee, tea, cigarettes, beer, wine, and booze are not violative of the Word of Wisdom simply because government recognizes the rights of others to enjoy those items? Or do you feel that Mormons must simply tolerate others who use those items without abdicating their personal, religious belief systems? What about shopkeepers who open their doors on the Sabbath? Do you feel Mormons are “forced” to abandon their belief in the holiness of the Sabbath day because government doesn’t step in and enforce that belief system? Of must they just accept the fact that in a pluralistic society, there are going to be others who don’t view life the same way they do?
If you answered “yes” to both of the above questions, your complaint really isn’t about being forced into someone else’s belief system. Rather, its a lamentation that the government won’t step in and assist you in forcing your belief systems upon others. If you answered “no,” then civil, gay marriage should be no more a threat to your belief systems than a cup of coffee.
#64 by Kevin Owens on November 12, 2009 - 12:50 pm
Uncle Rico,
That’s government’s job. It’s why it exists. The whole point of government is to enforce the rules that have been decided on. If the people of Provo decide they don’t want alcohol to be served on Sunday, let them make that rule! If a business owner doesn’t want to serve coffee to his employees, fine! And if the people of Utah don’t want to formalize same-sex relationships, that’s OK too! It’s democracy in action.
Why should we as a people be required to tolerate behavior we believe is wrong? If enough people think it’s wrong, they vote on it, and it becomes a crime. We don’t have to tolerate things we don’t agree with.
In a pluralistic society, sure, we have to tolerate things we disagree with. But Utah isn’t a pluralistic society! Mormons are a majority, and if Mormons don’t like gay marriage, we don’t have to tolerate it. If you still want to get a gay marriage, you can get it in another state. But to allow it here, where such an overwhelming majority think it’s wrong, would be as perverted as giving public money to Goldman-Sachs.
Also, let me clarify that I don’t think same-sex marriage is strictly a religious issue. I think people are primarily opposed to homosexuality because it intrinsically feels wrong. Religion is not the source of the feeling–but that feeling has been formalized in religious rules. There’s some root cause out there for homophobia, and I don’t think that cause is Jesus.
Glenden,
Then what does make something immoral or wrong? Since every one of us is different, we need to come to a common agreement somehow.
I’m not pretending that. I totally agree with you here.
#65 by Kevin Owens on November 12, 2009 - 12:53 pm
Glenden,
I apologize for not including this in my last post, but you made a really good point in your comment at 11:20. There is definitely merit in providing some degree of protections and regulations of nontraditional romantic relationships. We’ll disagree about where to draw the line, but most everyone, myself included, believe there needs to be something.
#66 by Uncle Rico on November 12, 2009 - 2:16 pm
Ahh, so at the end of the day Kevin, it really isn’t about being forced to recognize gay marriage is it? Its all about having to tolerate gay marriage. And the irony, of course, is that the only ones desirous of forcing others to recognize and live in accordance with their belief systems are the people loudly screeching that they are being forced to recognize and live in accordance with someone else’s belief systems.
#67 by Glenden Brown on November 12, 2009 - 2:29 pm
Kevin – I think the stumbling block for a lot of people is simply the word marriage – and I can respect that but at what point does the distinction between say marriage and civil unions simply become unnecessary? Washington state voters for instance passed teh “everything but the marriage.” At that point, what’s the reason for denying the word? Doesn’t that seem like an attempt at “separate but equal” which never really works out as billed? For some of the less common models – polyamorous families for instance – I have no idea what kind of legal arrangements would make sense. But for couples – it seems to very simple – just call it a marriage and get it over it; there’s no need for a whole new set of laws when a very simple change makes it happen.
As to your question – whta makes something immoral or wrong – well that’s both harder and easier than it should be. For instance, where sexual behavior is concerned, I’ve tried to follow the ethic of “agreeable mutual and mutaully agreeable” – that’s another way of saying that a lack of coercion, the presence of the consent, mutuality in which the partners value one another as whole and wholly valuable persons – and it has mostly worked out. In that sense, I have no problem arguing that certain behaviors are clearly unacceptable. But where two consenting adults are concerned, why should any of the rest of us care what they do together? And if they wish to commit to one another, we won’t be harmed. From what I’ve seen, having a relationship with one person while married to another is tremendously harmful – certainly the spouse rarely agreeable or mutual in that circumstnace (I’m not saying I don’t understand why it happens, just that I find it troubling when it does). Actions which harm others are clearly wrong.
I know that a great many opponents of same sex marriage argue that it would harm people. So in a case like that I want to look at the questions of harm. I know that today, right now, there are same sex couples being harmed by their inability to marry; they are suffering financial harm, personal harm, relationship harm. The harms predicted by opponents are highly suspect and theoretical, and often demonstrably false; in the recent campaign in Maine, opponents argued legalizing same sex marriage would require that kindergarten students learn to have gay sex. It’s a ridiculous claim. One argument is that children would grow up knowing that it’s okay to be gay; opponents argue that’s bad because people will “choose” to be gay. But sexual orientation is not a choice in any way. So in that case, for me, I see theoretical harm against real harm and decide we need to stop the real harm taking place today.
I’m working on a post that touches on this but the distinction to me is about form versus content. Form says, “They are a straight, married couple, therefore what they’re doing is moral.” Content says, “Okay but he rapes her and that’s not moral; just because they are married, does not mean he has permanent consent.”
#68 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on November 12, 2009 - 10:19 pm
Incidentally, there are many groups which request persecution–demand it, even. They perform actions which interject them into a heated debate that’s already in progress, then act astounded when they receive heated responses.
That said: you’re all a bunch of doody-heads!
Sorry. I couldn’t help but interject myself into the debate with some self-referential humor. I hope to make a more substantive post soon.
Dwight Sheldon Adams
#69 by Bret on March 15, 2010 - 2:47 pm
In a world of moral relativism where the majority no longer believe in absolute truth, we will never solve these problems. Gay marriage today. What will be the fight tomorrow? Legal marriage between adults and minors? I know of some who are advocating that. It just seems that when the prevailing opinion is that whatever you think or feel is right and that there really in no absolute truth that can be held up as a standard that we will never settle these issues. Past civilizations have been here before and unfortunately it didn’t go well for them. Heaven help us! Well I guess until we will acknowlege heaven’s existence there will be no help coming.
#70 by Richard Warnick on March 15, 2010 - 2:52 pm
Bret–
The Constitution requires all laws to apply equally to every American. That’s what this is about.
#71 by brewski on March 15, 2010 - 6:32 pm
Richard, I am stil waiting for that day.