(Rather than accept the terminology
widely accepted by gay persons themselves, the LDS Church typically uses its
own term to describe LGB persons, “Same Sex Attracted,” or (SSA). In this post
I will generally eschew the label placed upon our LGB brothers and sisters by
the Church, and simply use the more common “LGB,” or “gay.”)
Recently, in the midst of a conversation
about gay relatives, a co-worker casually mentioned that the Church treats its “same
sex attracted” members in exactly the same way it treats its heterosexual members.
It is a sentiment that we have heard from LDS leaders and publications, from
friends and family, and on social media. The Church, it is said, only holds its
SSA members to the same standards as it does its hetero members[i]—all are expected
to be equally obedient to the law of chastity. This, according to many a
sincere believer, is equal treatment for LGB and hetero members.
When I attended the temple prior to
doing the mission, I “covenanted” to obey the law of chastity. What I agreed to
was to not “have sexual intercourse[ii] except
with [my] wife to whom [I was] legally and lawfully wedded.”[iii] The
most recent revisions have attendees covenanting that “the women of my kingdom
and the men of my kingdom shall have no sexual relations except with those whom
they have legally and lawfully wedded according to my law.” So to live the Law
of Chastity, sex has to be restricted to within the confines of legal marriage.
If same sex marriage does not exist,
then in a sense it is true to say
that LGB and hetero members are equally expected to not have sex outside of
marriage.
With the legalization of same sex
marriage, holding LGB members to the same standard would imply, at minimum,
accepting that same sex couples having sexual relations with their partners
with whom they are “legally and lawfully wedded” are not violating the law of
chastity.
Having historically been on the
receiving end of persecution for practicing a form of marriage that was both
not legally recognized and not accepted by society at large, one might be
forgiven for tenaciously hoping (though not expecting) that the Church would be
empathetic to a marginalized group likewise being discriminated against for
hoping to practice a form of marriage not legally recognized and not accepted
by society at large.
However, instead of accepting that
married LGB members are not violating the law of chastity, (at least) two
salient things occurred that diminish the case for the Church’s earnestness in
its ostensible equal treatment of hetero and LGB members.
First, at the behest of the First
Presidency[iv], the
Church led the fight to try to ensure that same sex marriage not be legalized.
In the fight to “protect marriage” in California, 80-90% of canvassers and some
50% of money raised came from the LDS.[v]
Second, just months after the Supreme
Court in the US legalized gay marriage, the Church quietly revised its Handbook
of Instructions to explicate that same sex marriage is a form of apostasy requiring discipline, and made it
official policy to exclude the children of same sex married parents from full
participation in the Church, denying these children what it believes to be
necessary saving ordinances, until the age of 18 when they could renounce their
parents relationship.[vi]
In fact, The Church has gone so far as
to call for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as only between
opposite sex partners.[vii]
If LGB members were being held to the
same standards as hetero members, with the legalization of same sex marriage, married
LGB couples would not be violating the Law of Chastity. The reaction of the
Church to the gay marriage issue indicates that the Church does not even want
the possibility of having to hold its
LGB members to an equal standard. The fact that the Church reacted the way it
did, to try to block marriage equality and redefine marriage equality as
apostasy is one way that the Church broadcasts its disingenuousness when it
asserts that LGB members are held to the “same standard.”
The above raises an obvious question as
to why the Church would be so adamant in its opposition to the legal acceptance
of same sex marriage.
The answer is found in an official
communication from the Church, “The
Divine Institution of Marriage,” issued
in response to the fight for marriage equality in California.
The communication starts by quoting the
Church’s Proclamation
on the Family: “Marriage is sacred and
was ordained of God from before the foundation of the world.”
A majority of the piece is focused on
the procreative role marriage:
From the
beginning, the sacred nature of marriage was closely linked to the power of procreation.
After creating Adam and Eve, God commanded them to “be fruitful, and multiply,
and replenish the earth…” Only a man and a woman together have the natural
biological capacity to conceive children. This power of procreation—to create
life and bring God’s spirit children into the world—is divinely given. Misuse
of this power undermines the institution of the family.
…in almost
every culture marriage has been protected and endorsed by governments primarily
to preserve and foster the institution most central to rearing children and
teaching them the moral values that undergird civilization.
The special
status granted marriage is nevertheless closely linked to the inherent powers
and responsibilities of procreation and to the innate differences between the
genders. By contrast, same-sex marriage is an institution no longer linked to
gender—to the biological realities and complementary natures of male and
female. Its effect is to decouple marriage from its central role in creating
life.
…same-sex
marriage…is a far-reaching redefinition of the very nature of marriage itself.
It marks a fundamental change in the institution of marriage in ways that are
contrary to God’s purposes for His children and detrimental to the long-term
interests of society.
From the above text it ought to be self-evident
that the Church’s fight was primarily concerned with their own private religious
morality—“Divine Institution,” “sacred
nature,” “ordained of God,” “Adam and Eve,” “God commanded,” “create life,”
“God’s spirit children,” “divinely given,” “God’s purposes. The Church’s choice
of language indicates that it is seeking to impose its own private
supernaturally derived morality into legislation that would constrain the rights
and freedoms of those who do not share its religious values.
But there is, as you read above, a
second line of reasoning contained in the article. The Church is asserting that
marriage equality will be “detrimental to the long-term interests of society.”
I suppose that a typical reaction to
such an assertion (well, mine anyway), would be to suggest that the fact that,
at least on the face of it, making the category of marriage and family a little
more inclusive ought not negate the value of those already included in the
category, that what happens privately in the home of my neighbor has no effect
on my family. A carefully stage managed “interview” with Elders Lance B.
Wickman and Dallin H. Oaks, intended to put forth the Church’s position on same
sex marriage, states that the opposite is true:[viii] “What
happens in somebody’s house down the street does in very deed have an effect on
what happens in my house…”
So what is this detriment of which the
article speaks?
On one hand I suppose that there is an
alleged spiritual harm for those who are engaging in “sinful” behaviors.
However, “sin,” per se, is not the province of governments, and so private
religious moralities should not be grounds for legislation. There is scriptural
authority for having the Church avoid interference in political matters found in
D&C 134: 9.
A second harm is never explicitly stated
but is implied by asserting that marriage has (i) “almost” always been about
procreation, and that (ii) it is within the family that “the moral values that
undergird civilization” are propagated.
Let’s briefly deal with (ii) first. It
may be entirely true that the moral values that undergird society are
transmitted through the family unit. For the sake of argument, let’s accept that
at face value. But even if 100% true, there is a huge lacuna here. The link
between the premiss that “families transmit essential values” and the
conclusion that “therefore there should be no legal recognition of same sex
marriages” is left for the reader to fill in. It is difficult to think how one
could move from that premiss to that conclusion, unless, of course, one
presumes that same sex parents are somehow less capable or willing to teach the
values in question, or that the values that undergird society include the
rejection of the legitimacy of same sex relationships. I think it is clear why
the essay wants the reader to fill in this unstated (homophobic) assumption for
themselves rather than state it explicitly.
The claim that (i) marriage has always
been about procreation…
When confronted with the illegal plural
“marriages” of Joseph Smith, including “marriages” to women who were already
married to other living men[ix], and to
girls[x] that
were below the average age of puberty for that time, a favored response from
apologists for the Church is to suggest that at least some of those “marriages”
were not sexual, and were for the purposes of creating “loose dynastic bonds.”[xi] Putting
aside for the moment that non-sexual plural marriages violate the very purpose
of plural marriage as stated in D&C 132—to raise up righteous seed, I find
it slightly hypocritical to hold that same sex marriages are immoral because
they are not about procreation, while at the same time defending Joseph Smith’s
“marriages” as moral by holding that they were not about procreation.
The Utah State legislature, 90% of whom
are LDS,[xii] passed
a law in 1996 allowing first cousins to marry if either they are over 65, or if
they are over 55 provided that “either party is unable to reproduce.”[xiii] The
Utah Legislature is not governed by the LDS Church (*stifled snicker*), but the
fact that influential Mormons would pass a law in Utah that allows a marriage
only on the condition that it is not
about procreation, and that the LDS Church did not fight it, at least suggests
that the Church’s justification for opposing same sex marriage on the grounds
that it is not about procreation is not altogether genuine.
Furthermore, if it not being about procreation really is a moral objection to same sex
marriage because it “decouple[s] marriage from its central role in creating
life,” then surely the Church ought to be opposed to marriage for people who
are infertile, or who indicate that they intend to remain childless, or for
seniors who, like President and Sister Nelson, are past their childbearing
years at the time of marriage. The fact that the Church does not fight such
marriages casts some doubt on the assertion that they oppose same sex marriage
on the grounds that it is not about procreation.
What if the Church is correct in their
description of same sex marriage, that it decouples marriage from its central procreative
role? That, in and of itself does nothing to detract from the value of those
couples who have chosen to have children. Exactly nothing.
The Church is advertising its biases by
claiming that its opposition to same sex marriage is rooted in it not being about procreation while at the
same supporting other types of marriage that are no more about procreation than
same sex couples.
A faithful member, when reading the
above, might counter with the notion that those who marry late in life, or
those who are infertile, will have perfected bodies in the resurrection, and
thus be able procreate then. That’s as may be, but it is a private religious
point of view, and churches ought not try to make those who do not share their
privately held religious views conform to those views through legislation.
The essay goes on to state that “[a]nother
purpose [for publishing the article] is to reaffirm that the Church has a
single, undeviating standard of sexual morality: intimate relations are
acceptable to God only between a husband and a wife who are united in the bonds
of matrimony.” The Church went out of its way to try to deny marriage equality
to our LGB brothers and sisters because it violated that “single, undeviating
standard of morality.” If this is the real reason for the Church’s apoplectic
response to marriage equality, then where is the equivalent fight to make
pre-marital sex illegal? If there is, as they say, “a single, undeviating
standard of morality,” then pre-marital sex is a moral and legal equivalent of
same sex marriage. That conspicuous lack of a corresponding legal battle lays
bare the lie that the Church only wants to hold its hetero and LGB members to
the same standard of sexual morality.
The essay mentions one more potential
harm: “As governments have legalized same-sex marriage as a civil right, they
have also enforced a wide variety of other policies to ensure there is no
discrimination against same-sex couples. These policies have placed serious
burdens on individual conscience and on religious organizations.” It then lists
off ways in which marriage equality requires people or organizations of faith
to treat LGB’s that are contrary to said faith. If I may be so bold as to restate
that in more common parlance, the essay is saying that being denied the right
to discriminate against gays is itself a form of religious discrimination.
Dallin H. Oaks has said so on other occasions.[xiv] This
principle is clearly illustrated in the LDS Church endorsed “Utah compromise”
law[xv] that
says that it is wrong to discriminate against LGB’s unless doing so for religious reasons.
I find myself quite unsympathetic to
this final alleged harm. I find it about as harmful to religious freedom as
being forced to recognize the validity of interracial marriage. Sorry. No
sympathy.
Finally, I’d like to suggest that even
if the Church is holding LGB and hetero members to the same Law of Chastity,
the lived experience of members means that the standard being upheld is very
different. “Abstinence” is the correct term for what is required of hetero
members, but it doesn’t quite capture what is required of the faithful LGB
member. The faithful LGB members is required to commit to lifelong “celibacy,”
with no chance of ever being able to fully express their sexuality. To
illustrate consider a few elements of my heterosexual experience:
When I was 12, I would have a crush on
the cute girl in social studies class. In so doing, did I violate God's law?
Was I engaging in "sexual" behavior?
When I was 13 I would daydream about
cute girls, wonder what sex was going to be like. Was that engaging in sexual
behavior? Was that violating God's law?
When I was 14 I would go to church
dances. I would ask the girls to dance with me. And I would be thrilled at the
prospect of the slow dances. It was fun to “bear-hug,” and it was funny if a
chaperone caught us, and insisted that we stayed “Book of Mormon width apart.” Was
I violating the Law of Chastity? Sinning?
At 16 I
would go on the occasional date. I would love to enjoy the company of a young
lady my age. I thrilled at the prospect of holding her hand. And sneaking a
cheeky kiss at the end of the night! Again, was it a violation of God's law?
Was I engaging in sexual behavior? If my bishop found out, would he judge me
harshly?
At 18 I had
a steady girlfriend. She would sometimes accompany to my ward, sometimes I’d go
to hers. At church we would hold hands. Before separating for Priesthood and
Relief Society, I’d give her a quick kiss. Did anybody look at us with condemnation
for unnatural or sinful behaviors?
I intended
to marry that girlfriend, post mission. And truth be told, when I was 18 I rather wanted to have my wicked way with her. The debate about whether I should give in to temptation and then
repent before the mission, or to muzzle that drive and abstain until marriage
was a constant internal dialogue. I waited, by the way. In my bursting desire,
had I violated any of God’s commands? Was there any doubt that I would be found
“worthy” to serve a mission?
After doing
a two-year mission for the Church, I was at a stake conference, I saw my future
bride for the first time across a crowded room, and my heart skipped a beat. The
moment I met her I thought to myself "I could spend the rest of my life
with this woman!" While we dated I frequently thought of how wonderful it
would be to make love to that beautiful woman. We didn't, we waited. But oh my
heck! We thought about it and talked about it! (And we made our marriage work
for a couple of decades). Did I need to repent? Was I violating God's law? Was
I engaging in sexual behavior?
To all of the above questions, I hope
the answer is an unambiguous, clear and resounding "NO!"
It was OK for me to hold hands with a
girl at a church dance; how OK will it be for two boys or two girls to hold hands
at a church dance? Everything I described above is perfectly acceptable for a
hetero member, but denied to our LGB brothers and sisters. If I had not had
those experiences growing up, my life would be the poorer. Not just a little
bit. My life would be considerably emptier.
If the church is telling its LGB members
that it forbids them from engaging in those same behaviors that were a
necessary part of the formation of my personal identity, then I take with a
grain of salt the claim that it holds gay members to the same standard. The
lived experiences of hetero members practicing abstinence and LGB members
practicing celibacy are worlds apart.
My heart aches for my gay brothers and
sisters who are being denied those wonderful growing learning experiences.
Lattin,
Don (April 13, 1997), "Musings
of the Main Mormon: Gordon B. Hinckley, "president, prophet, seer and
revelator: of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, sits at the top
of one of the world's fastest-growing religions", San Francisco Chronicle,
archived from the
original on May 17, 2012
[ii] This was changed
in 1990 to “sexual relations”
[iii] A peripheral
note—the Church did not historically hold faithful members to this standard as
not a single plural marriage as practiced by the LDS Church was ever in a
jurisdiction where it was legal. Every instance of plural marriage from the
time of Joseph Smith until the time it was discontinued was a violation of the
Law of Chastity, and legally was adultery.
[v]
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/15/us/politics/15marriage.html
[vi] Church
Handbook of Instructions. Salt Lake City, Utah: LDS Church. 1998.
Daniel
Woodruff, "LDS
church to exclude children of same-sex couples from membership",
kutv.com, 6 November 2015.
Cimaron
Neugebauer, "LDS
Church adds same-sex marriage to definition of apostasy",
kutv.com, November 6, 2015.
Walch,
Tad (November 6, 2015). "Elder
Christofferson explains updated LDS Church policies on same-sex marriage and
children". Deseret News. Retrieved April 8, 2016.
Tad
Walch (November 13, 2015). "LDS
Church provides additional information on handbook policies about same-sex
couples and their children". Deseret News. Retrieved
April 13, 2016.
Hi Richard.
ReplyDeleteThank you!
Your post has come at a good time for me and for my nephew.
I don't know if you have seen my recent post in The Mormon Hub FB group about a Youth Conference workshop on being more loving towards LGBTQ youth.
I'm going to ask my nephew (who proposed the workshop to his Stake President) to read your article. I expect that the workshop may result in some pushback from more orthodox members on the basis of supposed "Equal Treatment of LDS LGB's". Your explanations and examples should provide him with ideas on how to handle such pushback.
Hi Malcom, I hope your nephew finds it useful.
ReplyDelete