The Mormons and The Gays
June 4th, 2006When the Mormon church asked for its members to send money to California to support the “Knight Initiative” in 1999, it countersunk the holes the church had already drilled in my dead beliefs. The Knight Initiative became Proposition 22 in 2000 and was intended to ban gay marriage in California. Prop. 22 was passed by over 60% of the state. I was not among those who voted in favor of Prop. 22 and that the Mormons got involved opened my eyes to the politics of hate coming from Salt Lake. I have friends who were conveniently away from church that day, but it didn’t lessen the awakening sting of realization.
The irony of my discomfort with churches being political isn’t lost. If it wasn’t for church organizations in the south in the 50s and 60s, where would the civil rights movement be today?
However, the fundamental difference is easy to see for me; asking for rights and denying rights seem to have a clear demarcation in American churches. Asking for humans to be treated as equals would seem to follow Christian ethics and mores. Today, most churches want to take away rights or “defend” a status because they feel threatened or believe that God will punish those who believe differently. Is this so different than what was being said about African Americans in the mid-20th century by those who didn’t want to grant equal status?
Last week, the Mormons who attended church services were read a letter (PR release from church) from the leaders in Salt Lake. The letter tells the followers that they need to contact their Senators and voice their support for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and defining marriage as between a man and a woman. There are a couple of ironies in the anti-gay stance of the church in this instance. First, the church allows men to have plural “eternal” wives by allowing them to remained sealed for all time and eternity despite a secular divorce. So a man marries a woman in the mormon temple. They later divorce. He remarries another woman in the temple. Without going through a “temple” divorce, the church allows him to keep his temple marriage to the first wife and the second wife. Polygamy. So much for “a man” and “a woman”.
The second irony is that church marriages in the Mormon temples in England (at least when I was there) weren’t recognized by the state as being legitimate. Mormon couples had to first be married in a “civil” ceremony (which could be performed by a Mormon bishop) and then travel to the temple for the temple ceremony. The couple was not allowed to consummate their marriage until the temple ceremony had been performed. This discrimination against the church and its teachings might lead one to think that the church would warrant a more open, accepting stance on marriage issues.
In my idealistic mind, I’ve always felt the church could take the lead on being open about marriage. Not so much “open” marriage, but open to the idea that it’s not just “a man” and “a woman”. A chance to lead, not follow.
I remember having a discussion about ten years ago with a friend about how political the church is and how they trod dangerously close to the law when doing so. He was shocked and denied that the church would do any such things. I believe most members agree. Here are some examples of the kind of political thinking that most Mormons in Utah exhibit.
While the church, indeed any church, has the right to lobby its members, not all members agree with the church’s stance. I wonder how long he’s going to have his job at BYU…
In an election year where the GOP hasn’t shown a lot of leadership ability, they know it’s over unless they can somehow divide and conquer. What better than a wedge issue? Are you buying it? o
i was raised mormon, but mormon no more. it was more than 22 years since the last time I had been to a mormon service when my mom died. I went to the service, listened to the speaker condemn me to hell for not believing (I didn’t take it personally, he was speaking generically about belief/non belief). the sympathy card i got from one of her friends, though, really irritated me: she suggested that unless i repented, I would never see my mother in the after life, and would condemn my mother to an eternal life of pain and distress over my un-saved soul. this to me is typical of the “love” that i experienced in the mormon church; on of shaming and blaming. so the idea that the mormons can’t allow a loving union that they don’t understand doesn’t surprise me.
i love this post, jon. i have so much more to say but i can’t get it to settle into something coherent.
Hi. Practicing member of the LDS church here. I appreciate and echo the thoughts of Leeloo (especially her last two paragraphs) and then have this to add…
In the letter read in church on Sunday, the First Presidency reiterated their stance on marriage, it’s true. But pay special attention to the last sentence of the letter: “We urge our members to EXPRESS THEMSELVES on this urgent matter to their elected representatives in the Senate.” And that’s what I plan to do. And guess what? neither my bishop, nor stake president are going to call me in and ask me how I expressed myself (coincidently at a ward memorial day picnic I told my bishop to his face that I have a different opinion from the first presidency in this matter). I can express myself anyway I want to my elected officials and it won’t be questioned by my local church authorities (I wasn’t questioned by my bishop at the picnic). Now I’m aware that not every member of the church shares my opinion, nor my fine bishop. But sometimes, well, life sucks.
Jon, I love how both yours and Heather’s sites bring together such a disparate group of people: ex-mormons, mormons, atheists, other faiths, no faiths, etc. I’ve read a comment before on your site from someone asking you to share a point of doctrince or principle from the Mormon faith that you still hold, and I agree that would indeed be a good read. Perhaps it could be a principle that was shared among all (most) of your readers, thus bringing them together. I understand your frustration with the mormon church, but it’d be interesting to hear your take on a point that might highlight your reader’s commonalities, and making for, possibly, more interesting comments than the standard “..and that’s why I don’t go to church,” “…nevertheless I still attend church,” and “organized religion blows” fare.
I am continually impressed with your readers that, while they do profess many different opinions everyone still gets along. Unless of course you’re editing out the hater-ade drinkers. In that case the Senate could use your comment editing prowess so, as Harry Reid pointed out in the link Jonell pointed to, they could keep divisive politics out of the Senate. But then it just wouldn’t be politics, would it?
I’ve never once walked in on a church service and shouted, “I don’t believe in what you’re saying, and I’ll do my damndest to get laws passed so you can’t practice your faith in public anymore.” So why can’t I receive reciprocal consideration from religious types?
What really saddens and confounds me, though, is how many in America’s black community are vocally opposed to gay rights/marriage, and refuse to see it as a civil rights issue.
http://tinyurl.com/3akoh
http://tinyurl.com/kwzae
http://tinyurl.com/fufao
As a caucasian who’s always actively and vocally supported the rights of minorities, I feel like this kind of attitude of “Civil rights for me…for you, not so much!” is a slap in the face.
Religion getting into politics, ..That’s so funny. It reminds me of the time those people tried to make Jesus a king, and he ran away. – John 6:14
I was one of those people “conveniently absent” during the special prop 22 sacrament meetings.
But I was in church last week, and I didn’t hear any letter about gay marriage. Not in Oregon, anyway. Perhaps the church has given up on us as a lost cause.
Sorry about the double post, but has anyone else noticed that the Senate will take up the gay marriage matter on 6.6.06?
The ammendment of the beast!
It’s nice to see the support that comes from blurbomat.com and it’s readers, but obviously, majority of the comments are from people that support gay marriage. Has anyone on here ever taken the opposite stance on it? A good debate on the merits of why gay marriage is bad would be nice to see.
I think that the majority of us realize that this is just Bush’s ploy to distract. But WHY is it a distraction? Why does this one topic bring up enough emotion to change the face of politics as we see it.
An article that I read not too long ago was showing that Bush’s approval rating in Utah was the highest in the country. Why? Because the people there “trust” him and “believe in faith in God”. Horse-pookey. Bush knows that heís got folks in Utah by the balls and it just goes to show that people are more gullible than you think.
People, I’ve said it once and I will say it again. It’s not in the “eyes of the Lord” that I care my partner and I are married — it’s the fact that if something happens to me, *HE* can make choices that concern my well-being.
The general public, just like organized religion, is in many counts stupid and can not think for themselves. You have to be told what to think. A person that stands his ground, speaks to the world, and shows confidence that I’m right because some higher being told me so is going to insight followers. God forbid someone to look at what’s going on. They are told to believe “this is WRONG, donít do it cause God will punish you” — that your “marriage” will be completely wrecked and worthless if you let gay marriage proceed. I beg to differ. A 50% divorce rate in this county (many of which come from those same folks that scream sanctity of marriage) does not fuel a healthy life style. If you get a divorce, in my opinion, you made a bad choice in partner. Things happen, yes, but how does getting a divorce not lessen the “sanctity of marriage”? Apparently, since God makes all the laws concerning what happens in the country, us non-believing homoís are just screwed every which way we turn.
Seems the majority here are not against same sex marriage, then why the hell did over 10 states vote it down last presidential election in one form or another.
I would love to marry my same-sex spouse of over 7 years. Hopefully “you-all” are voting. I think while you may not be against it, it’s really not so important to you that you are voting.
well, i think that the reason that churches could get behind civil rights for african americans and not for gay and lesbians is because a lot of people, i feel, seem to think that homosexuality is contagious. that has always been my impression. i think that is why they keep trying to say that it is a choice. because what really bothers them is that they are afraid they will “catch it”. this is why i’m pagan.
great post!
For me, the most galling thing is when people use the argument that marriage between a man and woman is a long-standing tradition. The definition of marriage has always been fluid and defined by the cultural mores of the time period. To think otherwise is ignorant and factually inaccurate.
When speaking historically about marriage, people seem to forget that women used to be only one step above cattle and goats in a business deal negotiated by men. We have only recently moved on from this kind of practice in our culture and it is still happening throughout the world.
I don’t see anyone waxing nostalgic for that definition of “traditional marriage”.
I’m surprised The Church feels so threatened by gay marriage that they would be bold enough to get political — especially about a civil rights issue. Can you imagine how ridiculously hateful they are going to look in retrospect when gays do get the right to marry? (and i do believe that they will.) You’d think they’d have learned something from that whole blacks-can’t-hold-the-priesthood nightmare. (But then again, they are the masters of rewriting history…)
I can’t understand why being gay has to be a religious issue anyway. The whole adam and eve argument is so tired and embarassingly empty of meaning. And even if we did all promise Heavenly Father in the pre-existence to come to earth and have a family, I’m still not seeing the problem. Gay people can have families too through adoption and insemination — methods many straight couples have to employ as well.
What it always boils down to is fear and us/the familiar versus them/”the other”. And Mormons will always have much to fear until they are able to soften and loosen some of their exclusive and limiting beliefs. Which makes me sad, because they are such good people.
“In an election year where the GOP hasnít shown a lot of leadership ability, they know itís over unless they can somehow divide and conquer. What better than a wedge issue? ”
This is it, in a nutshell, really.
We’re listening in when you talk to your great aunt Nora in Ireland, we’re completely f’ing up the education system, that cow your eating, it’s diet consist of other bits of dead cow, when you vote, sorry, but there’ll be no paper trail, thousands of young men and women are dying in a foreign country… but hey don’t pay attention to that… Leslie and Lisa want to get married…. now that’s just wrong……
The fact that the government can’t do anything in regards to Darfur, but can get the right wing constituency all riled up about man on man love is just …. sick.
In light of the Mormon church lobbying Congress to ban gay marriage, I encourage everyone to contact their senators and rep. to let them know that you think Mormon Temple marriages ought to be banned constitutionally because those secret rituals are kind of creepy and not very much in keeping with traditional marriage.
(This is a rhetorical argument to make a point, people. Don’t get too worked up about it.)
For more info about this lobbying effort to ban Mormon Temple marriage (and to find your reps’ email address), go to http://tinyurl.com/ru4cl
Just noticed that in their amazing wisdom the ad company that provides your content-appropriate ads is marketing LDS clothing (no, not THAT clothing) on this page. So close, and yet…