The fact is, I use to support gay marriage because I didn't understand what the long term consequences could be. Because of my Christian upbringing, I believe that homosexuality is wrong. At the same time, I do believe that some people are born with same sex attraction. How do I reconcile this with my religious beliefs? I'll quote a scripture that sums it up for me:
"I give unto men weakness that they may be humble; and my grace is sufficient for all men that humble themselves before me; then will I make weak things become strong unto them."
Ether 12:27
I could write a novel about why we have weakness, sickness, trials, hardship and struggles. But in a nutshell, I believe we all have our own personal challenges because they can help mold us into better people if we let them.
I sympathize with those who struggle with same sex attraction. I have no idea what that would be like. I do not hate them or condemn them. I know of gay men and women in my church who choose to "bridle their passions," trust in God, and manage to find happiness in their life while living a chaste and moral life. Others choose not to take that difficult path because they see no happiness or fulfillment down that road. Who am I to judge? I certainly struggle with my own weaknesses that I find difficult to bridle.
We are all children of God, despite the decisions we make in life. We shouldn't discriminate against anyone whether it be race, religion, gender or sexual orientation.
However, the interesting thing about rights and freedom is that your rights end where another's begin - and religious freedom is one of the basic rights granted to us as US citizens.
It's easy to say "well what's wrong with loving couples marrying and starting a family, even if they're same sex? They're not hurting anyone or forcing you to do the same."
If that were the case, I would still be for it. The problem is; legally redefining what marriage actually is, opens up a can of worms for religious people who by law, have the right to think homosexuality is an "abomination."
If marriage is redefined to include same sex couples, the line between separation of church and state would become muddled. Many churches would refuse to perform or recognize same sex marriages because of their religious beliefs. But that would be contrary to the law which would then recognize these marriages as legal.
(See more on this topic: What is Marriage Anyway?)
If same sex marriage is legal, then children in public schools can be taught that a family can be any combination of groups, including two dads or two moms. Some would hail this as progress. But to those with beliefs against homosexuality, this is the equivalent to how atheist parents feel about prayer in school.
Churches and clergy can legally be sued if they do not allow same-sex marriages in their facilities, or do not wish to perform them: A Methodist church lost its tax exempt status because they refused to allow a same sex couple to marry in their facilities (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/nyregion/18grove.html)
Ministers who preach against homosexuality could be sued for "hate-speech" and can be fined by the government. This has already happened in Canada. (http://www.wayoflife.org/index_files/category-homosexuality.html)
Religious adoption agencies can be sued or shut down if they refuse to place children in gay households: In Boston, MA (where gay marriages are legal,) Catholic Charities have closed their doors because the state required them to allow adoptions to same sex couples, and they refused. They were a large and worthwhile charity with great power in the state and they were overruled. (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/29/us/for-bishops-a-battle-over-whose-rights-prevail.html?pagewanted=all)
Religions that sponsor private schools will no longer be able to deny admissions to gays based on their honor code and will be required to provide housing for same-sex couples.
Physicians who refuse to do fertility treatments on same sex couples because of religious reasons, can be sued. This happened. The physician lost and the state is requiring him to treat everyone as equals.
If Gay Marriage is supported by the government, then those who are same-sex married, who are 'LDS' and legally recognized as married by the government, can sue to be married in the LDS temple. If the church did not comply they could lose their tax-exempt status. (http://protectingmarriage.wordpress.com/2008/09/14/six-consequences-the-coalition-has-identified-if-proposition-8-fails/)
Whether or not you agree with the stance of many religions on gay marriage, they are protected by the constitution to have those beliefs and not be dictated to by the government.
This is why many are in favor of civil unions. It's a compromise for churches to allow civil rights to gay couples without putting into jeopardy, the religious rights of a large majority of US citizens.
Well said!
ReplyDeleteI was thinking about this yesterday when a popular talk show host applauded pres obama for sticking to his morals and speaking out...and I thought, hmm, I know someone else who is sticking to their morals and also speaking out...however he will not be applauded...interested. Cool blog I just found it!
ReplyDeleteI have thought that as well. People only applaud those with the same view. You never hear someone say "Thank you for standing up for what you believe in even thought it's different than what I believe."
DeleteIt's interesting that the main stream media labels a change in position "Evolving" when they agree with it, but call it a "Flip-Flop" when they disagree. Its not very objective or unbiased in my humble opinion.
DeleteRachel - John Kerry would disagree. He got hit with the flip-flopping charge, too.
DeleteYou added some very practical results that I had not thought of, but we do see the legal ramifications against conscience in the cases of people not wanting to be involved in abortions. Thank you for expressing your ideas.
ReplyDeleteVery well said.
ReplyDeleteI wish others could understand or wanted to understand why many of us feel this way. I'm not imposing my beliefs on you, just simply trying to live and raise my family as God has asked. I'm grateful for the elegant way you expressed your views, they also mirrored mine. Thank you and many are standing with on this. I love this country and the freedoms we have but if we aren't careful so many of those freedoms will be taken from us.
ReplyDeleteThat is my concern as well. Things that seem innocent or "fair" can have a back door to loss of liberty, and that's what we need to look out for.
DeleteCouldn't have said it better myself! Thank you!
ReplyDeleteBut just to point out, I don't think the LDS church can be sued by same-sex couples who are denied the rights to be married in the temple, since even traditional marriages sometimes are performed outside the temple if both people are not worthy of the temple blessings. If this were possible, it probably would've happened by now by some couple who felt unfair treatment because their choices were not in accordance with the standards required. Does that make sense? But everything else you said--- spot on! And I applaude YOU for sharing your thoughts!
I think its in the realm of possibilities for the LDS church to be sued over this issue - especially in these Sue Happy Times. The legal system would have to be pretty screwed up for them to win though. I agree with you there!
Deletehttp://freedomcenter.org/freedom-forum/index.php/2011/11/pike-county-ky-church-denies-membership-interracial-couples/
ReplyDeleteJust last year a church in Kentucky denied membership to interracial couples, and stories like this surface all the time. I'm sure they will cite several passages in the Bible which call an interracial marriage an 'abomination in the eyes of God," yet somehow millions of interracial couples have found love, happiness, and a path to their God.
Gay marriage will hold the same ramifications as interracial marriage did 40 years ago, and faces the same opposition. I don't envision some apocalypse of marriage as we know it by allowing couples to join together legally, because social reform of this magnitude has happened before.
Interracial couples have the same right to sue for the denial of wedding rights as a gay couple would, and society and religion did not fall apart when rights were granted.
Yet there are still vast differences, in terms of the Family as the fundamental unit of society, when comparing male/female interracial marriages (where natural procreation is possible) and same-sex marriages (where natural procreation is IM-possible). They can not be effectively compared as analogous examples as there are vast differences in the implications surrounding each of them.
DeleteClearly, if one believes that the family unit was and is a critically fundamental component of the foundation of our society as we know it then it must be defended and protected at all costs. If the family is not held in such high esteem then it is much easier to toss it aside as an "old-fashioned" approach to organizing societies.
Munro - the problem with your analysis is that 80-year-old heterosexual couples, for whom natural procreation is "IM-possible," are allowed to marry.
DeleteNatalie Jane, plus quote me one verse in the Bible that states interracial marriage is an abomination. I do not know the the Bible perfectly so I am honestly asking you to show me a passage that indicates interracial marriage is an abomination. You will find many scriptures against inter-faith marriage, but not interracial that I know of.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Rachel for so eloquently stating your views and the facts on this topic. I couldn't have said things better myself.
ReplyDeleteI agree 100%. Great Job Rae, can't wait to share this article!
ReplyDeleteInterracial marriage is a bad idea but same sex marriage is wrong and a society that allows it will not be supported by God. The two senerio are unrelated.
ReplyDeleteSome great points about how we don't want the government to start dictating things we do with our religious institutions. However, technically, the Constitution is silent on marriage...period. It does not speak to heterosexual marriage, and neither does it speak to homosexual marriage. The best argument I've heard FOR keeping "marriage" between one man and one woman is that it is in the best interest of society. Meaning: that is how we reproduce and reproduction is in the best interest of society so that society, as a whole, can continue. That is why states (this should not be a Federal law or mandate regardless) give benefits to "marriage." They want to give incentive and encourage procreation, for the propagation of society. Nobody is saying that gays are not able to co-habitate...they just don't get the benefits that states give to marriage, because they cannot procreate.
ReplyDeleteI couldn't agree more Bruce! In fact I'm working on a blog post that addresses exactly that subject. Thanks for giving me motivation to finish it ;-)
DeleteIf that is true, if gays should not be allowed to marry because they can't procreate, shouldn't heterosexual couples who are infertile also be forbidden to marry? The procreation argument is not a good argument against gay marriage.
DeleteAlso, "gay" is not contagious. Heterosexual procreation will not stop or slow down because gay couples are allowed to marry.
Thank you so much for writing this post. This really says how I've been feeling and explains it so eloquently. Looking forward to the other post as well.
ReplyDeleteOne major flaw I see in the "Marriage is for reproduction" argument....Nobody seems to have a problem with allowing two straight individuals to get married even when it is known that they can't reproduce do to infertility.
ReplyDeleteMen and women are designed to reproduce together and the majority are physically able to do so. Infrequent anomalies don't make for a strong argument IMHO.
DeleteSomething to consider.... Only about 3.5% of the U.S. population self identify as LGBT. http://www.gallup.com/poll/147824/adults-estimate-americans-gay-lesbian.aspx While nearly 10% of women ages 15 to 44 strugle with infertility. http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/infertility/#2
DeleteI am simply saying that if we allow infertile straight people to marry let's not use "Procreation" as our argument for not allowing Homosexuals to marry. These figures don't even take into account all of those who get married in old age with no intention of procreating.
Good point.
ReplyDeleteThank your for your thoughtful and respectful explanation of your position. Discussion of this issue often gets heated and once that happens, there is very little that anyone can learn from the other. However, the very separation of church and state, that you cite as the basis for your argument, at the same time undermines it. This saying is not in the constitution but is used in reference to the 1st amendment which states:
ReplyDelete"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
When congress makes laws that regarding religious sacraments (such as promoting one faiths view of marriage above another's) they are in fact establishing religion. And though you have outlined some of the potential impacts of upon religion, they fall short of demonstrating how a law allowing same sex marriage prohibits you from exercising your religion. Congress can not promote one group's religious value's over another's and here is where the church and state argument falls flat. There are churches that support same sex marriage and the constitution promotes their right to do so in the same way that it promotes your own right to observe your faith.
I was hesitant to read this, because I am in the middle of coming out of the closet identifying myself as a "straight ally." But, you made some interesting, valid points that I found very thought-provoking. I am always interested in discussion that expands my worldview--in any direction. So thank you.
ReplyDeleteI have often heard the argument of complete separation of church and state when it comes to marriage--gay or straight. If any consenting adults wish to apply for a civil union so be it. And if any of those wish to seek out a church that will preside over and perform a religious "marriage," so be it. Less messy.
Now as for the comparison of this issue with how atheists must feel about prayer in school . . . that connection made perfect sense to me. (No, I am not atheist.) However, just in the spirit of irony (because it's fascinating and makes for great discussion) this means that traditional marriage supporters are to government force the same way as atheists are to school-prayer-supporters. I find that sociologically amusing.
Thanks for the fun.
I really appreciate your comment. You're right, the whole thing is sociologically amusing and I think that in our natural state, all human beings are hypocrites. While this has become a word to be abhorred, we need to accept that it is natural for us to be that way, yet make more of an effort NOT be that way. The first step is recognition. Oh the irony!
ReplyDeleteI agree with a lot of what you have to say, but maybe we're missing the bigger picture. If we truly believe that marriage is ordained of God, then why is it a legal arrangement? Marriage (as taught by the LDS church) is essentially between a husband, wife, and God- anything less than that would be a civil arrangement- hence why marriages outside of the temple are typically referred to as "civil ceremonies". I believe I am married by the power of God, not the goverment. The govt. just allows me to file joint tax returns. IMHO, the govt. should not be involved in a sacred ordinance. Can you imagine if we had to obtain a state issued license/permit for baptism?
ReplyDeleteThanks for bringing up this issue. I think the more dialogue we have about this issue the better. I take issue (respectfully) with some of your points. Here goes:
ReplyDelete1.) The claim about the Methodist Church losing tax exempt status is a bit more complicated than that. Its not a church but a pavilion owned by the church which is part of a larger portion of land owned by the church. Only the pavilion lost its tax exemption. The land owned by the church is part of a program in which the state of New Jersey promotes the use of private land for public use. Public funds are used for maintenance and repairs which muddies up the issue even further. Typically if you accept public money, you've got to play by the "rules" so to speak. All I'm saying is this is much more complicated than a church having tax exempt status taken away. It isn't the same thing as if a same sex couple sued the Mormon church because they couldn't be allowed to marry in a temple.
2.) The reference to ministers being sued in Canada is an interesting one, mainly because Canada doesn't have the same rights of free speech that America does. Slightly more amuzing is the article you used as a reference. Way of Life Literature. I thought I'd look up what he has to say about Mormons. Here's an article where he is slamming Evangelicals for getting too friendly with Mormons: http://www.wayoflife.org/database/evangelicalsmormons.html I perused his site a bit more and this guy is extreme right wing Baptist. Maybe you agree with his other positions but I will personally take what he says with a huge pile of salt...
3.) With the Catholic adoption agency closing down in Mass. again, the issue here is somewhat more complicated as well. This charity again received TAX PAYER money. Also, the laws requiring adoption agencies to not discriminate against couples based on sexual orientation had been on the books since 1989 and the Catholic charity had even placed children with same sex couples during that time. New management of the charity came along which was more conservative and didn't want to continue "gay adoptions". Many board members (maybe all?) quit because of this and the charity decided to close down rather than cater to the law.
Will some groups try and sue churches to allow them to marry, including in Mormon Temples? Sure, I'll grant that, but suing and winning are two different things. You're correct when you say: "Whether or not you agree with the stance of many religions on gay marriage, they are protected by the constitution to have those beliefs and not be dictated to by the government." This in my opinion weakens your argument. They do have a constitutional right to those beliefs, which is why a slippery slope argument doesn't work here.
There's also the option for the Mormon church to do in this country what is done in other countries. People get married civilly and then sealed later. If however unlikely some group won such a lawsuit, this seems like a pretty easy work around...
I think the strongest argument however against your position is that we don't deny rights to other individuals just because many people disagree with them having those rights.
Anyway, just my two cents.
Here is something to consider: if you were told that you could not have what most people consider to be the most meaningful things in life (a spouse and children) would you accept that for yourself? Does that fact that virtually no one does accept that for themselves tell you anything?
ReplyDeleteI think you should think this through again.
ReplyDeleteSome things that you presented are not facts and in reality are the opposite of facts-- you present false notions as if they are true. Case in point: you suggest that churches could be sued if they would not recognize gay couples or allow them to use facilities. That is not the case. The only case where such a thing has precedent in law is if a church is in the habit of renting out a facility to the general public and *then* discriminates against gays. It is hard to believe that churches would open something up for use of the public and then yank it back, but I'm afraid it has happened. Otherwise, it is not the case that churches would ever be legally pressed to recognize or serve gay people. Churches have had the ability to discriminate for many millennia and nothing has changed or will change by allowing equal access to civil contracts.
Sincerely,
Marni Zollinger, Crowne Point Ward, Gresham Stake, Oregon
You seem to conflate civil marriage with holy matrimony. You know which is the most important: do you go to church, synagogue, cathedral or temple to get divorced? No. You go to the court house.
ReplyDeleteNobody is going to take away holy matrimony from private institutions which have a legal right to be as discriminatory as they see fit.
But let's not conflate that with our equal protection under the law granted by the 14th Amendment. Civil Marriage = Equal Marriage.