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.

I agree with both of these points, but draw completely opposite conclusions.

Religion has been used on both sides of racial issues, both as a progressive and conservative force, just as it is being used on both sides of the gay marriage issue. Let’s not forget that there are some progressive churches lobbying for gay marriage. However, that’s not the point of the parallel to miscegenation laws; the point is that the Supreme Court has held that in our society, marriage is a fundamental right, and in both cases there are some people trying trying to deny this right to some couples, largely because those couples disgust them.

I also agree that marriage is “pretty well defined”, but this definition had been shifting over time and will continue to do so (like all definitions, actually, for reasons that you and I are quite aware of.)

I hope that the backlash against the LDS church leads it to more progressive policies, but speaking for myself, I fear it is going to take quite a lot for it to regain my respect.

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.

First, I disagree that this is purely a symbolic issue. There are actual, concrete rights at play. (The fact that most of them are Federal is not the point– obviously, getting DOMA overturned will take various states approving gay marriage.) Furthermore, the people supporting Proposition 8 (including the Mormon Church) make no secret of their opposition to gay adoption, and I imagine most of them are opposed to gay anything. Fundamentally, this is a civil rights issue, and many churches are simply clinging to the bronze age in the face of history moving on.

As for the state getting out of the marriage regulation business, I agree (as I said before) that it is desirable, but don’t think it’s likely. I also don’t think it’s likely that the state will get out of the funeral regulation business or food regulation business, either. Oddly enough, nobody seems to mind the state involvement in the latter two.

Also, nobody seems to mind that the state permits divorce, when some major religions do not. There’s a serious double standard here.

I’m sure there were lots of churches opposed to the repeal of miscegenation laws, and I imagine they were making exactly the same arguments that are being made by evangelicals today. Let me quote from the majority decision in Loving v Virginia:

“Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival…. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment”

I’d argue that the distaste towards homosexuality prevalent in some churches is just as unsupportable as the racial classifications were forty years ago, and challenge those on the other side to try to make the case otherwise.

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)

Your point about Halal reinforces my point: that Muslims and Jews both have differing notions of appropriate food (Halal and Kosher) and that USDA certification of beef is irrelevant. The state determines which food can be legally sold; the various religious communities can determine whether or not they find the food appropriate within their particular religious traditions.

However, you seem to be operating from the assumption that “marriage” is a specifically religious construct. Clearly this is not the case: the entire notion of weddings performed by non-clergy, or of “common law marriage” puts lie to this notion. Certainly marriage has symbolism within certain religions; however, it also has a meaning outside of these traditions– unlike “halal” or “kosher”, which are purely religious constructs.

Further, the page that you linked to yesterday made a good case that the argument of Mormon leadership is not primarily about the symbolism of marriage, as you would have it– rather, they make it clear that they are opposed (for instance) to gays being able to adopt, regardless of whether the relationship is called “marriage” or not. In other words, Proposition 8 is not, for them, about the symbolic label of “marriage”, but rather, about placing and maintaining restrictions on what gay people can do.

In Vermont, “civil unions” were approved, granting all marriage rights, but with a different name. At the time, gay activists viewed it as a big step forward, but felt that the new naming was meant to imply a “second-class” status. Your arguments about the “symbolism” of marriage would seem to reinforce their fears– that you seem to think that somehow the institution of marriage would be weakened or cheapened in some way by allowing gays to call their unions “marriage”. As for gays liking the “religious connotations”, I’d remind you that some religions are completely open to the notion of gay marriage, and certainly gay members of those congregations would want to be able to take part. So, why should the “symbolic meaning” of marriage to one group of religious groups outweigh the “symbolic meaning” of other religious groups and the secular community?

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.

So, we’re not redefining “kosher”, we’re just expanding the generic concept of “food” (and leaving it up to the Rabbis to determine if the newly possible foods are kosher or not).

Put another way: there is no single, unified “meaning of marriage” that all religious traditions agree upon (as Mormons know all too well.)