Mormons and the Election

It was a major contributer. And the one that opponents mainly focused on.

Rereading the above I guess I wasn’t terribly clear. My point is sort of when should we vote our conscience and when should we worry about what others think of us. If a Mormon felt they should vote for prop-8 should they even if others will think less of them?

Part of why I put up that NYT map was to show that Utah actually changed fairly significantly for Obama despite the framing of the issue some have made.

I think he meant Mormons rather than funds directly from the organization itself.

Actually, my concern about “self-governance” was more general than the question of state borders. I was thinking more as to why anyone would want to prevent members of the gay community from marrying each other. In the same way that Clark doesn’t mind what the French do with their government, as long as they don’t import it here, wouldn’t it logically follow that one shouldn’t mind gay marriage, as long as one is not required to marry a member of the same sex?

To add, I can completely understand those who say the state isn’t really regulating a religious rite and that people are free to marry religiously how they want and that all this is silly focus over a word. I’d but turn it around and say those opposed to prop-8 appear to take the the word’s significance to be just as important as those on the otherside. The debate really isn’t about rights in terms of government actions since many if not most opposing gay marriage favor full legal rights for gay couples on issues like hospital care, funeral arrangements, custody and so forth. The real debate is over whether relationships are called and recognized as “marriage.”

The analogous situation I think would be whether to be baptized in any particular faith you had to go down to the court house, pay money to the state, and get approved by the state with a license first. Even if you could, after getting the license, get baptized by a Catholic, Mormon, Baptist or some other faith it would be very hard to say that this wasn’t the state getting involved in religious rites.

That’s not to say the state might not have compelling interests in all this. However surely those interests could be met without government regulation of religion.

In a discussion elsewhere someone brought up the lawsuit over prop-8 and brought out as a radical consequence that perhaps the California Supreme Court might simply stop the state from issuing marriage licenses entirely. While this person was attempting this as a reductio absurdum (and I’d think a highly unlikely event) to me that would actually be the best of all possible worlds since it’d guarantee both the rights of gay couples and the religious rites of individuals over the meaning of marriage.

I also confess my personal wish that all this would go away and that we could all just get along. There are so many other bigger worries in the nation and world not to mention California right now. This reminds me somewhat of the flag burning issue from last decade. Something everyone agreed wasn’t that significant relative to the other problems around but that both sides felt rather passionate about even though it was way, way, low down on their list of concerns. And flag burning ultimately was an issue over speech, meaning and symbolism.

One more thing.

Clark: The analogous situation I think would be whether to be baptized in any particular faith you had to go down to the court house, pay money to the state, and get approved by the state with a license first.

This actually is already the case. It’s called a “birth certificate”.

The natural recourse is simply not to perform that rite in your particular religion.

And you don’t see that as a significant infringement on religion? That the solution is to give up marriage as a rite?

I’d be happy to get the state out of the marriage business, but at the moment, there are significant civil protections and benefits provided to married couples, and as long as that is the case, I see no reason why these benefits should not be extended to married couples of the same sex.

I agree. I just don’t think that trampling on religion is the way to get the state to extend those rights.

It’s odd because (due to your writings here, I suppose) I’ve viewed the Mormon church as basically tolerant, and this seems horrifically intolerant to me. How is it that Mormons can privately disapprove of drinking alcohol and “hot drinks” without attempting to impose this view on non-Mormons, but get all fiesty when it comes to certain sets of non-Mormons in love marrying each other?

Well I think Mormons are as prone to intolerance as anyone, regardless of what their leaders preach.

That said though I just don’t think this is an example of intolerance but rather a messy situation due to there being no Church/State separation in the matter of marriage.

It’s purely about symbolism I’d agree. To say that it’s about benefits given by the state seems incorrect since if it were merely about that one could simply extend those benefits legally based on some criteria other than marriage. (Which I favor and which it appears the Church favors)

So really the issue is over the symbolism of a religious rite and whether the State can redefine religious meaning. As I said it’s ultimately a bit of a silly issue but an issue which both sides take very seriously. Meaning is often like that. As I said though I think portraying it as about benefits is simply incorrect.

Well, just to take a step back, do we agree that it is not a matter of practical benefits and that everyone agrees the state ought not tie those to marriage? It sounds like we do.

So the question then becomes whether the state ought be able to license whether a particular act can be done. You say that the license allows people to perform the act how they will. However it is still controlling whether the act can be done. That’s why the birth certificate analogy doesn’t apply.

I’m assuming here that you aren’t familiar with the history in the 19th century which sets an important context for the situation. At one time people tried to marry members of their congregation in religious rites independent of the state. The state reacted by arresting those performing such marriages. Now one can reasonably say, “hey that doesn’t apply today.” Yet it is not obvious that is the case. Certainly not legally.

Thus it is explicit that the state controls whether a religious rite can be performed. That different religions can perform the rite as they wish seems rather beside the point whereas you are making it the key point. The problem is that the meaning of the symbol is controlled by the state yet is simultaneously a religous symbol. This is important since I believe that the gay rights movement doesn’t want to merely have the same legal rights. (I think they are pretty clear on this) Rather they want to be able to marry and have the symbolism of marriage recognized by all. That’s what the argument is really about: the symbol of marriage.

The only way to resolve this, that I can see, is to simply get the state out of the marriage business. The problem is that the symbolism simply isn’t a matter of who performs what but rather that religious marriage and the state marriage are one in the same marriage.

So I completely agree with you that tolerance is to allow people their beliefs and practices that don’t impinge upon me. However by controlling marriage that is impinging upon religious practice and belief. Once again there is a clear and easy way to resolve this such that everyone except for some fundamentalists are happy. That is to simply get the state out of the business of authorizing religious ceremonies.

Now, as far as I understand it, there are no laws prohibiting anybody from getting together and performing whatever religious rites they wish to (as long as the actions performed don’t violate other laws).

That’s actually incorrect. That’s why I said the 19th century history Mormons faced might make us view the issue quite differently.

This was true in the 1830’s when Mormon marriage was not unlike the rest of Protestant America. It was doubly true in the 1890’s when the Edmunds-Tucker act which was a federal designed to disenfranchise Mormons was passed.

I suspect this is why there is a bit of miscommunication over all this. Some see it as no big deal whereas most Mormons, remembering our history, recognize it as a huge deal.

Getting to your other point, Michael. If the standard is why shouldn’t everyone recognize any marriage someone wants to be recognized why is this not applied equally? While I think the Green trial that Mark referred to isn’t a good example. (He wasn’t actually charged, if I am correct, on marriage but on a particular underage sexual relation – that’s what the Utah AG is going after rightly with a vengeance) There are others. Interestingly when I read blogs defending gay marriage they often stop at other sorts of marriage and even get mad that anyone would dare say there is a slippery slope.

I think that the LDS Church has good reasons to not want polygamy legalized. And while they may not have stated that as a reason I suspect it is a strong one lurking in the background.

One other thing I should note, beyond the problem of double standards and slippery slopes. The points I mentioned about government involvement in marriage may seem somewhat alien to us today. At best we can look back at the civil rights era and laws against interracial marriage. However the leaders of the LDS Church who initiated a lot of the activism in California were fairly old. Pres. Hinkley who recently died was 97. That means that a lot of the stuff that seems distant and far off to you in terms of state involvement in LDS marriages was for him something his parents suffered under. Something to keep in mind. While the details of late 19th century persecution are dim for most Mormons if not largely unknown the effects of nearly a century of persecution left their mark on the community. I think Mormons, more so than most, have good reason to distrust the government on marriage on these matters.

I can respect that Michael. I think it undeniable that among many the Church has received quite bad PR from all this. I think though that for many marriage means something special and they feel the need to defend that meaning. As I said there is a solution that would solve all the problems but that isn’t being promoted much unfortunately.

I’d add that I think the interracial marriage is a bad analogy. Those opposing interracial marriage opposed interracial relations in general. The LDS Church favors civil unions and even refused to advocate a Florida law akin to Prop-8 because it was felt that it took away civil liberties for gays. So if the Church favors allowing the legality and legal benefits to stable gay relationships I think it clear the issue isn’t the relationship but the meaning of marriage as a symbol.

That said I think it remains to be seen whether this was worth it. I rather suspect California will end up with SSM one way or an other within the next 6 years. So I’m not sure much will amount from all this beyond some ill will. And I’m enough of a realist to recognize that getting the State out of the marriage business likely will never happen.

If, as I believe, the issue is symbolism (at least for Mormons – I think a large subset of Evangelicals really do wish to limit rights) then I don’t see how an adjective would work. I guess I’m intrigued by how something like that could work but I don’t see how it would.

Note, for an argument that suggests LDS opposition goes beyond the name Ronan at BCC has an argument along these lines. I’m not sure I agree. But I’ll make my arguments there.

I think that’s a better analogy but the analogy is more when someone tries to make it the law that pork is kosher. I think many Orthodox Jews would rightly be upset at that. Saying one could simply change it and use the term “kosher light” or something like that wouldn’t avoid the central confusion over the issue.

I should note that Mormons tend to already qualify marriage. Marriage done in a Mormon temple is a Celestial Marriage whereas other marriages are only civil marriages. However I don’t think that distinction avoids the central problem of the meaning of marriage that they find objectionable. But I think your kosher example demonstrates the problem better than any example I’ve encountered. I might steal it from you since it communicates the idea quite well.

The place it fails is that the religious consequences of redefining kosher seem to be much larger than SSM. I think an orthodox Jew would be upset about something labeled kosher containing pork that just doesn’t apply. But it is the best analogy I’ve seen.

Except that “kosher” is actually used by a lot of Muslims when food shopping and looking like halal foods. (Even though halal certification is more involved)

But your ultimate point is well made. Kosher isn’t quite as universal as marriage is. However I do think it captures the symbolic aspect of the term.

To your last point I agree, but I think that forms the context for why Mormons think the way they did. The precedence of how the Church/State separation was handled in the 19th century means that if meaning and practice is to be preserved Mormons feel it has to be done in the State. Now maybe some of that is unwarranted paranoia due to our past history with the State and marriage. I’m quite open to that. However I do think some skepticism is in order and the ultimate solution, in my view, is just getting the State out of the business entirely.

What I don’t quite understand is why so many gay activists don’t like that as an alternative. My sense is that they like the State in the marriage business and like the religious connotations and are doing this so as to be better accepted. I don’t say that negatively. Were I in their shoes I’d probably do the same thing. But I think it means that compromise is much less likely.

Of course I’m a big Church/State separation kind of guy so I think the State has no business in religious rites period independent of the symbolism question.

I don’t think it a pure concept but clearly there is overlap and the fact it isn’t pure is more due to recent history. That is originally the state demanded control over what was a pure religious view. As religious traditions in the US changed then you had this non-religious religious ceremony. I certainly don’t mind that. If the State were out of the marriage business we could have state civil unions and then non-State non-religious marriages. I think anyone should be able to perform any ritual they want whether religious or not. (For instance I used to do Zen Buddhist meditation and there were rituals that I consider non-religious)

The point about gay activists wanting marriage because of the symbolism is well made. But that’s my point. The debate really isn’t over rights. It is over getting a name and the symbolism and getting other people to recognize and accept it. Now I personally couldn’t care less about this and probably have as my personal feelings about what yours are. However I do understand those for whom this symbolism is more of an issue. The way to handle this is to simply not have an universal concept done by the state. That way the symbolism issue is avoided. (Much like Catholics don’t recognize Mormon baptisms) Right now because of the way the state is involved that’s just not possible (IMO).

Put an other way if there is a symbolic meaning that conflicts then it should be de-universalized. The only other alternative is a conflict over symbols, which is unfortunately what we face now and what is causing so much contention on both sides.

I guess what I’m saying is that when the state controls a symbol it becomes universalized in a way that it isn’t if the state does not have control. It becomes a public symbol in a particular way. Further I’m saying that the very nature of the conflict between gay activists and conservative religious activists recognizes the fact of this play of the symbol. Indeed the conflict makes no sense absent that universality. Therefore the solution and only solution is to de-universalize. The only other solution is to let one side or the other “win” in the control of the symbol. If we want to be fair to both communities then it isn’t right to have one side win. (Which was the de facto case through most of the nation’s history, as Mormons perhaps more than other communities encountered)

Yeah, I think we are. (Going in circles that is) I can but say that while it’s not a particularly important issue to me it clearly is an important symbolic issue for people on both sides. I really just don’t see, given the importance of the symbol, that there is any possible way of reconciling things. I really don’t think the various racist marriage laws are analogous since there just isn’t that deep history to race in religion. Marriage, especially in the Christian tradition, is pretty well defined and very symbolic.

If getting the State out of marriage is unlikely just due to the history and momentum of government involvement in marriage (along with social engineering desires by many on both sides) then also too is the idea of “tolerance” over the symbol. Gays quite understandable aren’t going to be tolerant and choose an other name for their unions. They want their unions to be as normalized and accepted as heterosexual unions. But then conservative Christians also understandably aren’t going to relinquish a religious symbol they feel has a fixed meaning.

Now what I think clearly will happen is that the number of people who will view homosexual marriages as normal will increase until the tide of history is against conservative religious people. It’s almost unthinkable that gay marriage won’t be legalized in most liberal states within the next 6-8 years. Given that I must say that I think efforts like prop-8 are a bit misguided in that they are ultimately futile. However I might be wrong. I make no claims at being able to predict how the culture wars go. I just wish we could all make peace by getting the State entirely out of religion since I think most culture wars are unnecessary and silly.

With regards to how many conservative churches view homosexuality I agree it should (and is) changing. I can’t speak to Evangelicals since the social trends there tend to be different. But I’d say that LDS have made considerable progress in this regard. The view that homosexuality is for all people a choice seems to be out. The implications of that realization also appear to be affecting theology and concerns a fair bit. I think the fact that the LDS Church appears now to favor civil unions is a fairly progressive position to take. Likewise they’ve been preaching tolerance on the issue. Of course that’s not to say the views of all in the membership have changed. (Those tend to lag understandably) But I do think that the Church has adopted some fairly significant changes in thinking even if perhaps it will evolve more in the future. In that sense I think prop-8 might interestingly be more fruitful for gay/LDS relations in that it actually led the LDS church to more progressive policies.

Certainly religion has been used to excuse racism. But that’s not really my point. There are also historically lots of Christian interracial marraiges before African slavery came up. Further most of the racist Christian excuses came out of the Protestant south where there were incentives to keep blacks down. Now I hate such justifications especially to the degree they became aped by Mormons.

But there’s a pretty big difference between that and the centrality of marriage in the Christian tradition as meaning the union between a man and a woman following the archetype of Adam and Eve.

Certainly meanings shift and they may shift sufficient in the future. But that hasn’t happened yet – clearly given the pretty widespread opposition to gay marriage in the country. Heck, even Obama opposes gay marriage.