In light of the US Supreme Court’s decision today to legalize gay marriage across the US, I thought this post I wrote back in 2013 might be relevant again. I think the conclusion still holds. (You can read the original post and comments here.)
So gay marriage is legal now in Utah. At least for a moment, until the appeals begin. The Church’s response, not surprisingly, is to hope for the ruling to be overturned:
This ruling by a district court will work its way through the judicial process. We continue to believe that voters in Utah did the right thing by providing clear direction in the state constitution that marriage should be between a man and a woman and we are hopeful that this view will be validated by a higher court.
But this was just the response on day one. Longer term, I wonder how hard the Church will fight this. I mean, if they spent so much money (mostly technically out of members’ pockets rather than directly, but still) and time and goodwill to fight gay marriage in California, how hard will they fight when it’s in their own backyard? Or maybe Utah should be considered their front yard.
(An aside: I feel odd calling the Church “they.” I feel like I should be able to say “we.” I’m a Mormon. I attend and participate. But I have zero voice in or influence over what the general Church leadership does, so in this circumstance, I think it makes sense.)
I think there’s a better way, and it comes out of Elder Oaks’s talk in October Conference. He tells us:
man’s laws cannot make moral what God has declared immoral. Commitment to our highest priority—to love and serve God—requires that we look to His law for our standard of behavior. For example, we remain under divine command not to commit adultery or fornication even when those acts are no longer crimes under the laws of the states or countries where we reside. Similarly, laws legalizing so-called “same-sex marriage” do not change God’s law of marriage or His commandments and our standards concerning it. We remain under covenant to love God and keep His commandments and to refrain from serving other gods and priorities—even those becoming popular in our particular time and place.
His intent here is clear, I think. He’s pointing out that even if laws change to allow gay marriage, the Church will still oppose it, so members shouldn’t take cues from secular laws in deciding what’s right and wrong. But the point he’s also making, perhaps unintentionally, is that it doesn’t matter if all the laws change. The Church is fine being out of step with the laws. The GAs will be happy to give a bunch of talks where they dismissively call them “so-called” laws. So given this, why doesn’t the Church take a page out of this talk and just drop its opposition to legalizing gay marriage?
“We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.”
Yes wouldn’t it be great if next conference we went back to pre 1990 and could say marriage without either traditional in front of it, or between a man and a woman after it again. And those who think “Love your fellow man”, has silently; except gays, blacks or whoever they choose, attached, can silently attach whatever they want to marriage.
I wonder how long they kept on about the attack on marriage called, inter racial marriage? I think time frames are speeding up so hopefully, we will accept gay marriage quickly.
I think it may require regime change before we seal gay couples.
The leaders of the church claimed racism was Gods law in 1949. We now admit it wasn’t. I am not aware of A revelation, and there are explanations for the scriptures. When did God make this law, and redefine chastity from “sexual relations with your husband or wife to whom you are legally married”, which would include gay couples, to a wording that excludes them. No revelation, then political view?
I’m not religious,and never have been.
I believe utterly and passionately that the greater good of human society requires the perpetual guarantee of preferential treatment for opposite-sex relationships and that the entire usefulness to humanity of the institution of civil marriage derives from its effectiveness in implementing that guarantee.Unless we can walk-back the demented “Kennedy doctrine” that a predilection for a behavior enrolls one in a class against which it is forbidden discrimination to have a public policy encouraging other behaviors of greater social usefulness,we are better off abolishing marriage entirely.
Louis,
Why should opposite-sex relationships receive preferential treatment?
Dexter,they are the only kind for which there is a public,as opposed to private need,and thus the only kind entitled to public preference.
Louis,
There are many orphaned children in the world. It is a public need for couples of any orientation to care for children without families. Furthermore, same-sex couples can procreate via a number of different reproductive technologies. Even couples composed of two males can procreate via surrogacy and donor eggs. Additionally, multitudinous longitudinal studies show clearly there are no differences in outcomes between children of opposite-sex vs same-sex couples. There is no public need that an opposite-sex couple can satisfy that a same-sex couple cannot satisfy just as well.
You’re wrong, Louis, as usual.
TAKING CARE OF THE CHILDREN IS A PUBLIC NEED. GAY AND STRAIGHT COUPLES SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED TO ADOPT THESE CHILDREN.