Gay Marriage, Why?

Well, just to set this on the right path for discussion, the Church does have the right to an opinion, just like you do and just like I do. It’s not evil or wrong for the Church to have exercised its freedom of expression. The Catholic Church was also heavily for Prop 8. African American voters, according to exit polls, voted 70% for the measure, out-pacing even the differential among all religious voters. So, just as you have expressed it, I think this discussion is best handled in why the Church opposed same-sex marriage, and not that they did.

I think it comes down to the Church believing that marriage is the most critical element of our lives. At the same time, the Church teaches that homosexual activity is a sin. So, that put these two prime Church teachings into a fray that couldn’t be solved. I think the Church views the world-wide acceptance of same-sex marriage as threatening to the Church’s divinely inspired doctrine.

Now, a couple of problems with that:

– IMO, I don’t believe the prohibition against SSM is well-supported in our Standard Works. Bible coverage of the topic is very poor, with the clearest enforceable statement coming from Leviticus… yeah, you know… that book about archaic rituals and sacrifices that you skimmed in seminary. BofM, PofGP, and D&C do not address homosexuality in any way.

– SSM will be the law in every country where the Church has a major presence in the next 15-20 years. There is no stopping the tide. I believe that if the Church continues along this line, they will look like holdouts, just like they did with the priesthood ban. If the Church had dropped the ban in the 40’s, they would have looked progressive. If they had dropped it in the 50’s or 60’s they might have been hailed for joining in on the changes. By waiting until 1978, well after the Civil Rights Movement, they permanently had to accept the label as a racist church, for which we still have to answer today. The Church needs to change no doctrine or practice if same-gender marriages becomes legal, they might as well get progressive.

I think the Church is making strides. Prop 8 was a turning point. I think many active and faithful members of the Church had to reexamine their beliefs because of Prop 8, and I think many of them have lost the will to oppose SSM. That’s what happened to me. I was opposed to SSM, mostly out of habit. Prop 8 was a major catalyst for me, and now I am on the other side of the argument. So, the people in the Church are beginning to cause a little bit of a ground-swell. At the same time, the Church is more actively trying to find ways to be accepting, but without changing its doctrine. That’s a good thing. There are more and more families all the time that have a family member who is gay. This will continue to change attitudes. I believe this will be the most significant change that we will see in the Church in our lifetimes. I believe that in the decades to come, we will see the Church accept active members who are gay and in same-sex marriages, removing homosexuality within marriage from the sin category. People in same-sex marriages will hold callings and give talks. Temple marriage? Doubtful anytime soon; I think that is step two… but sometime during the 21st century? Probable, in my opinion.

Why did the church become such a strong opponent against gay marriage? Why is it a big deal …? As far as I can tell the only reason given by the church is that homosexuality isn’t part of the plan of salvation.

Since you filed this under History and Doctrine Discussions, I’m guessing you want an explanation related to LDS doctrine, not politics or culture. The problem is–and this may be why there are so few posts here on what otherwise is a provocative topic–there has never been a clear rationale based uniquely on LDS doctrine to oppose gay marriage.

That’s because there can’t be. As a religion that was established less than 200 years ago and which came out of its isolation in the Intermountain West only well into the 20th century, the LDS Church has always had a huge problem trying to frame its doctrines in the context of the surrounding society. Our doctrines only make sense within the context of the Church and LDS society such as in Utah. So much of what we teach, especially teachings like food storage that are utilitarian, are applicable pretty much only to LDS people who live in a very specific type of society, the kind where Latter-Day Saints live down the street from one another. We even have problems communicating to the outside world about our faith because we have a unique jargon which evolved to serve the needs of this religious system.

In contrast to other conservative elements in American society, the LDS Church isn’t capable of speaking intelligently or convincingly against same-sex marriage. Our church leaders are intellectual lightweights who would be hard pressed to match wits with the average parish priest or evangelical pastor. We have no credibility talking about history and tradition when we were practicing polygamy only 100 years ago. The Burkean preference for evolutionary tradition is actually a very good argument against this headlong rush to legalize gay marriage, but we just sound like the village idiot when we invoke that line of reasoning.

So the only answer to your original question is an emotional one. Our leaders took on this fight because they believed they were going to inherit the mantle of the leader of Christian America. It was to be part of the pre-millenial destiny of the Church. But oops … 2012 rolled around and we discovered to our chagrin that evangelicals and conservative Catholics still think we’re a cult. Many of them refused to vote for Romney even if it meant letting Obama have another four years. And Pew Research showed us that no one likes us, except ironically Jewish-Americans.

I think the base reason the church is opposed to SSM is a reliance on the “multiply and replenish the earth” doctrine. I know that LDS families are not expected to include 8-10 children anymore, but that’s more out of people just not being able or willing to do that than it is a change in church teachings or doctrine. True, it is not ever mentioned in GC anymore, but I think it’s still there as a fairly strong undercurrent. That, too, is why homosexual relations are seen as a sin – children cannot be produced in that way.

Disclaimer: I do not agree with the church’s stance on SSM and question whether “multiply and replenish” actually indicated that we should all have a bunch of children. I have simply stated above why I think the church takes this stance.

(And I agree that the vast majority of our leaders, especially top leaders, are not intellectual lightweights. I think we could and should be better scriptorians than we are, but being learned about the scriptures does not equate to intelligence and vice versa.)

This doesn’t diminish the reality that the Church is special/true or whatever you believe, but it limits us in our capacity both as an institution as well as individuals to explain to non-Mormons why it is that we AS MORMONS are opposed to gay marriage, in addition to all the general arguments against it that already are advanced by conservatives.

Currently I am somewhat neutral on the issue, but even when I could accept it as a demonstration of following the prophet, I never felt I was armed to talk about the issue with anyone intelligently because the only arguments I had were either religious in nature or unprovable predictions of the effects it would have on society. Using the bible as if it were a court case that set a precedent in a political forum just seems a little cooky, and this is the best I’ve seen from the leaders of any Christian sect. I don’t expect the argument to be overly sophisticated, to the contrary, I think there should be a clear and simple, non religious argument, or no argument at all.

I never felt I was armed to talk about the issue with anyone intelligently because the only arguments I had were either religious in nature or unprovable predictions of the effects it would have on society.

But religious people have a right to vote however they want. Just like non-religious people. There is no requirement that anyone ever has to justify why. That’s not how democracy works. In other words, “for religious reasons” is just as valid as anyone else’s arguments… better in some ways, because it requires no proof.

That might seem like a not-very-intellectual approach, but ask yourself this question. Do you think most of the proponents and protesters for a $15 minimum wage are basing their argument on macro economics? Heck no, they just want what is best for them. And that’s OK, because that IS how democracy works.

I don’t see a contradiction between the Church exerting effort to help Proposition 8 and the Church saying that changes in civil law can’t change our understanding and practice of marriage in the Church. We would prefer that civil law remain in harmony with correct principles–hence the effort to help pass Prop 8. But, if civil law does change, that does not change the truth that true marriage is between a man and a woman.