It would be better that a millstone ...

It has been a busy weekend with back-to-back scientific conferences in two states. It has been a tiring few days, but in my spare moments I have been thinking a lot about the LDS Church’s new policy towards children of same-sex parents. I’ve absorbed what I could on-line: denunciations of the policy by critics of the Church, stories of families affected by these changes, and even a few defenses of the offensive policy. I’ve tried to assemble some thoughts early this morning, on a flight, and now at the PDX airport.

The new policy targets LGB people and their families in a few ways. First, it establishes that same-sex marriage is an offense of apostasy, and therefore requires mandatory Church discipline. (Note that not even actual serious crimes like child abuse mandate automatic church discipline.) It is a clear message to LGBT Mormons that the Church condemns the relationships that are most likely to bring them happiness. It sends a message to bishops that they cannot just let the nice gay couple in their ward sneak under the radar without punishment. Second, the policy sets out administrative rules for the children of parents that are (or have even been) in same-sex relationships. These children now cannot receive the main saving ordinances of the Church, including baptism, until they are 18. At that time, they cannot not reside in a same-sex household, they must attest that they do not accept the legitimacy of same-sex relationships (including mom or dad’s), and they must have permission from the highest authorities of the Church to then be baptized.

One has to seriously question any notion that this policy is needed to clarify church doctrine. If there is one thing anyone in the United States would know about the Mormons these days it could very well be the fact they are opposed to same-sex marriage. If that wasn’t obvious from Proposition 8, consider that it is repeated ad infinitum in general conference talks, press releases, stories by news media and by faithful members as they post their views on social media with family and friends. In fact, the Church’s anti-gay marriage position may be so well known that it could run the risk of drowning out the message that Mormonism should really focus on bringing to humanity – following Jesus’ example of love and service to transform one’s own soul.

As I’ve thought about the possible motivations for issuing the policy, it is impossible to surmise the actual intentions of Church leaders. Perhaps it is a way for church leadership to assert its relevance into questions of gay marriage and gay relationships that the Church has been solidly losing in the courts and in public discourse. One blogger thought the motivation might be a simple act of flexing institutional power, an assertion that wouldn’t seem inconsistent with other moments in Mormon history. Mostly, it seems very controlling to me. But regardless of the motivations, the potential for harm is great. True, for many Mormon or ex-Mormon individuals and families, this will have little relevance. For others it will result in disruption and conflict. In the end, it serves the interest of the Church only and few else. That is a sad indictment of a religion that claims to speak for God.

In my present circumstances, I don’t think the policy directly affects me or my children. I am still married to my wife (and not in a same-sex relationship) and my spouse and children only partly attend church. But we very well could be affected directly under different circumstances, especially as life evolves into the future. Thursday evening as I read the breaking news flooding over social media as I walked the isles of the supermarket, I felt a lot of anger. I felt hurt again, like an old wound was yet again being opened. Not content to leave us in peace, the Church needed to remind us of our “sin” yet again. The Church needed to remind us that God doesn’t approve of gay relationships yet again.

I do know of former gay Mormons who are much more likely to be impacted. These are friends and others who have previously been in mixed orientation marriages. They have divorced and left the Church, but their still-believing spouses wish to raise the children in Mormonism. These are among the families affected by this policy and these families are not necessarily a small minority in the LGBT community. I could write volumes about how difficult mixed orientation marriages are for everyone involved – straight spouse, gay spouse, and children. My own experience, which is no where from nearing its end, has involved years of navigating sorrow, disappointment, and confusion.

If I could articulate the root of my anger, it might be the repeated insensitivity of LDS church leadership towards the broader LGBT family, and especially towards those of us working through the complexity of mixed orientation marriages. Indeed, it was the doctrine and culture of Mormonism that created an environment in which these marriages were more likely to occur in the first place. Now, our complex and trying circumstances are left scattered over the battlefield Mormonism has waged with the LGBT community and we are largely abandoned. There is no official apology: “We are sorry to have once encouraged you to marry; we apologize for teaching false information about homosexuality; we regret that our doctrine on the family has been so narrow; we are sorry that you felt so much pressure to conform to a heterosexual ideal that doesn’t fit who you are.”

If the Church wanted to really help our families, policies that might further divide families should be the absolute last thing it would consider. It would provide resources to help us through family adjustments or through divorce; it would replace its false teachings about homosexuality and gay relationships with sound research on sexuality; it would plead with God to reveal a healthy and sustainable path for LGBT people within the Church. It would not issue a policy that only makes it harder for some of our families to reach a place of peace and reconciliation.

I don’t believe anymore, and for many reasons, not just because I’m gay. In many ways this chapter of life is over. Yet through extended family and close friends, because of a decade and a half of life dedicated to the Church, and through the cultural imprints that will continue to influence me in even small ways going forward, I won’t ever know a time when I’m not touched in some way by the Church. In many respects that legacy has been positive. But on sexuality, the Church is dead wrong. It owns a long legacy of incorrect teachings about homosexuality and it bears much responsibility for the damage that has caused to individuals and families.

The best outcome now for me is to part peaceably from the Church. I have done so all but officially. But, the Church needs to leave us alone too. If church leadership consistently chooses to turn LGBT issues into a cultural war, they will lose. If you look at the emerging science of sexuality and gay relationships, you will know they have lost. If you get to know a gay person, and see their struggle and humanity, you will know the church has lost. And if you consider the un-severable bond between parents and children, even gay parents and their children, you will know they have lost. Only a fool would think to stand between a mama bear and her cub.

To my LDS friends: please speak up about this policy. Please speak with your local Church leaders or write to Church leaders. Please support the LGBT Mormons and ex-Mormons in your lives, and especially the children of these individuals. 

San Francisco Pride

Squid hats!

San Francisco was a sea of rainbows on Sunday. I don’t think I’ve ever seen so many LGBT people in one place, let alone people period. There were flags on street poles, flags in the parade, flags in the crowd and visible gestures of happy pride from San Francisco businesses. There were even rainbow squid hats!

Over a million people were estimated to have attended the pride festivities this weekend. The parade lasted for some six hours. Civic Center was closed off for blocks and large crowds listened to music on several stages. Most of the day was celebratory and peaceful. Given a gathering of that magnitude (and that it was pride in San Francisco), there were also a few obligatory nude folks (it’s almost never the people one wants to see naked that are the self-appointed exhibitioners, right?), and a few other annoyances like excessive trash on the streets.

Some photos: 

Panorama of parade attendees along Market Street.

Jim Obergefell, who was the lead plaintiff in last week's Supreme Court case.

Civic Center

Many welcome signs.

Steve Grand performing at the main stage at Civic Center.

The Apple contingent in the parade They must have had 5000 marchers. It went on forever.

Happy pride!

Changing attitudes

I’ve been following news about same-sex marriages in Utah over the last week, both in formal media and in accounts I’m seeing on-line in social media. I was really surprised to hear that a district court ruled Utah’s Amendment 3 unconstitutional, paving the way for same-sex marriages to begin in the state. 

For me there is definitely a temptation to feel like karma has descended on Utah, given the heavy involvement of the LDS Church in California politics during Proposition 8 five years ago. Those months are a sore spot for me.

Putting that aside, there is a lot of good news coming from the mountain west recently. Several petitions for immediate stays of the ruling have so far been denied and I’ve read reports of a celebratory atmosphere in Salt Lake City as many couples were married. 

It is also encouraging to read of Latter-day Saints who support marriage equality. Many of them are willing to stand in support of marriage equality even though Church leadership will not budge on this issue. It seems like I’ve heard many more positive stories than not, though my Facebook feed is far from a representative sample of liberal celebration versus conservative outrage.

Attitudes about gays and gay marriage are changing, and they are changing remarkably fast. I found the following analysis of estimated state-by-state support for gay marriage from the Williams Institute at UCLA. In the figure below I graphed support for gay marriage in 2004 versus 2012 for two “liberal” states (California and New York), two “swing” states (Florida and Ohio) and two states that typically vote very conservatively in national elections (Alaska and Utah). In each case (in fact, for all 50 states according to the Williams Institute analysis), support for gay marriage has increased over the last decade.

Modeled support for same-sex marriage in 6 selected US states in 2004 and 2012. Error bars show 95% confidence intervals.

Another dataset on Utah opinions about same-sex marriage was compiled by the Center for the Study of Elections and Democracy at BYU. According to these polls, between 2004 and 2012 there was an increase in the percentage of people in Utah that supported at least some legal recognition for gay couples. Pretty much all of that increasing support was for civil unions. 

Public opinion polls in Utah about legal recognition of same-sex relationships in 2004 and 2012.

There are still some entrenched points of view in Utah, no doubt. Two recent opinion pieces in Utah newspapers following Judge Shelby’s ruling carried the inflammatory titles “massacre of marriage” and “judicial tyranny”. There has long been a culture of misunderstanding, marginalizing and maligning gay people in the Church and broader society that will take time to change. But LGB people are in the open like never before. It will be increasingly difficult to look a gay brother, child, cousin, best friend, teacher, or parent in the eye and say that their love doesn’t count.

Whoa, Utah?!

Yesterday a federal judge overturned a Utah state constitutional amendment adopted in 2004 that limits marriage to opposite-sex unions. Who would have thought that this would occur right now in the Mormon heartland?! I read through much of the judge’s legal opinion this morning and was pleased to find that he cogently addressed many of the arguments that have been made over the years by opponents of same-sex marriage.

This ruling may not be the end of the matter as far as Utah and gay marriage is concerned, but for the time being, wow! Some excerpts from yesterday’s ruling:

“The Constitution guarantees that all citizens have certain fundamental rights. These rights vest in every person over whom the Constitution has authority and, because they are so important, an individual’s fundamental rights ‘may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.’ W. Va. State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943).” (p.17)

“The right to marry is an example of a fundamental right that is not mentioned explicitly in the text of the Constitution but is nevertheless protected by the guarantee of liberty under the Due Process Clause. The Supreme Court has long emphasized that the right to marry is of fundamental importance.” (p.18)

“The State [of Utah] asserts that Amendment 3 does not abridge the Plaintiffs’ fundamental right to marry because the Plaintiffs are still at liberty to marry a person of the opposite sex. But this purported liberty is an illusion. The right to marry is not simply the right to become a married person by signing a contract with someone of the opposite sex. If marriages were planned and arranged by the State, for example, these marriages would violate a person’s right to marry because such arrangements would infringe an individual’s rights to privacy, dignity, and intimate association. A person’s choices about marriage implicate the heart of the right to liberty that is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. See Casey, 505 U.S. at 851. The State’s argument disregards these numerous associated rights because the State focuses on the outward manifestations of the right to marry, and not the inner attributes of marriage that form the core justifications for why the Constitution protects this fundamental human right.” (p.23-24)

“The State points to Supreme Court cases that have linked the importance of marriage to its relationship to procreation. … The court does not find the State’s argument compelling because, however persuasive the ability to procreate might be in the context of a particular religious perspective, it is not a defining characteristic of conjugal relationships from a legal and constitutional point of view. The State’s position demeans the dignity not just of same-sex couples, but of the many opposite-sex couples who are unable to reproduce or who choose not to have children.” (p.25)

“The State argues that the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage is justified based on an interest in promoting responsible procreation within marriage. … The State has presented no evidence that the number of opposite-sex couples choosing to marry each other is likely to be affected in any way by the ability of same-sex couples to marry. Indeed, it defies reason to conclude that allowing same-sex couples to marry will diminish the example that married opposite-sex couples set for their unmarried counterparts. Both opposite-sex and same-sex couples model the formation of committed, exclusive relationships, and both establish families based on mutual love and support. If there is any connection between same-sex marriage and responsible procreation, the relationship is likely to be the opposite of what the State suggests.” (p.44)

“The State’s second argument is that the Plaintiffs are really seeking a new right, not access to an existing right. … The alleged right to same-sex marriage that the State claims the Plaintiffs are seeking is simply the same right that is currently enjoyed by heterosexual individuals: the right to make a public commitment to form an exclusive relationship and create a family with a partner with whom the person shares an intimate and sustaining emotional bond. … If the right to same-sex marriage were a new right, then it should make new protections and benefits available to all citizens. But heterosexual individuals are as likely to exercise their purported right to same-sex marriage as gay men and lesbians are to exercise their purported right to opposite-sex marriage. Both same-sex and opposite-sex marriage are therefore simply manifestations of one right—the right to marry—applied to people with different sexual identities.” (p.27-28)

“The Fourteenth Amendment protects the liberty rights of all citizens, and none of the State’s arguments presents a compelling reason why the scope of that right should be greater for heterosexual individuals than it is for gay and lesbian individuals. If, as is clear from the Supreme Court cases discussing the right to marry, a heterosexual person’s choices about intimate association and family life are protected from unreasonable government interference in the marital context, then a gay or lesbian person also enjoys these same protections. The court’s holding is supported, even required, by the Supreme Court’s recent opinion concerning the scope of protection that the Fourteenth Amendment provides to gay and lesbian citizens.” (p.30)

“As noted in the court’s discussion of fundamental rights, the State argues that preserving the traditional definition of marriage is itself a legitimate state interest. But tradition alone cannot form a rational basis for a law. The traditional view of marriage has in the past included certain views about race and gender roles that were insufficient to uphold laws based on these views. And, as Justice Scalia has noted in dissent, ‘’preserving the traditional institution of marriage’ is just a kinder way of describing the State’s moral disapproval of same-sex couples.’ Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 601 (Scalia, J., dissenting). While ‘[p]rivate biases may be outside the reach of the law, . . . the law cannot, directly or indirectly, give them effect’ at the expense of a disfavored group’s constitutional rights. Palmore v. Sidoti, 466 U.S. 429, 433 (1984).” (p.48-49)

“Although the State did not directly present an argument based on religious freedom, the court notes that its decision does not mandate any change for religious institutions, which may continue to express their own moral viewpoints and define their own traditions about marriage. If anything, the recognition of same-sex marriage expands religious freedom because some churches that have congregations in Utah desire to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies but are currently unable to do so.” (p.49)

“Applying the law as it is required to do, the court holds that Utah’s prohibition on same-sex marriage conflicts with the United States Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection and due process under the law. The State’s current laws deny its gay and lesbian citizens their fundamental right to marry and, in so doing, demean the dignity of these same-sex couples for no rational reason. Accordingly, the court finds that these laws are unconstitutional.” (p.2)

More progress

Today the governor of Illinois signed a law that legalizes same-sex marriage, making it the 16th state in the US to recognize gay marriage. This comes just after similar good news emerged Hawaii, where the legislature there also granted marriage equality to gays and lesbians. Gay marriage was approved in Hawaii despite organized conservative religious opposition.

It is instructive to look back just two or three years to see the rapid progress of marriage equality in the US. In fact, the sadness of proposition 8 in California seems almost like ancient history, though it was just five years ago that marriage equality was vigorously debated in my home state.

It was not too long ago that I recall reading about how opponents of same-sex marriage noted that gay marriage was only making headway because of "activist" judicial actions that flaunted the will of the people. But today we know that this "rogue" judiciary now includes the relatively conservative Supreme Court and its nullification of DOMA. Furthermore, of the sixteen states where gay marriage is now legal, the path to equality has come not just because of the courts, but also because of state legislatures and direct votes of the people.

On Sunday, a young gay Mormon came over to have dinner at my place. We were discussing the rapid evolution of public sentiment on gay marriage in the US. He predicted that marriage equality would even spread to Utah in five years. While I'm not sure I share that level of optimism, the rapid progress in this new wave of American civil rights is mistakable. Perhaps my children will look back on this time as adults and be unable to imagine a nation in which gay relationships were treated as second class by the law.

States in the US with some form of legal recognition for same-sex relationships as of 20 Nov 2013. I modified this map from a Wikimedia commons file, licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. Click here for a list of original and subsequent authors of the map and a link to the license.

Tomorrow is a big day

Apparently the US Supreme Court will issue rulings tomorrow on the federal Defense of Marriage Act and on California's Prop 8. The court has a conservative leaning, but hopefully it will recognize basic principles of equality under the law and rule in favor of further extending marriage rights for gay couples.

I cannot speak to the legal matters relevant to these cases, but I feel strongly that fairness and non-discrimination demand that we overturn laws that put gays and lesbians on unequal footing through no fault of their own. Though slow - even backwards - at times, the social and legal trajectory of this nation has long been in the direction of extending greater equality and fairness towards marginalized groups of people. May tomorrow be another milestone in this great tradition worthy of celebration.

The tipping point

Last week’s elections were a historic moment in public acceptance of same-sex marriage. After thirty some consecutive defeats in state-level contests, all four states in which marriage equality was being contested in 2012 gave victory to advocates of same-sex marriage. Maine citizens overturned their previous rejection of gay marriage. In referenda in Washington and Maryland, the majority of voters affirmed the same-sex marriage laws passed by their state legislatures. Minnesota defeated an effort to incorporate a gay marriage ban into the state constitution.

These state-wide votes were not anomalies, but are part of a more gay-affirming environment that has very recently emerged in the public life of America. In the election last week voters also rejected an effort to unseat a Republican legislator who had supported the legalization of same-sex marriage recently in New York State. Tammy Baldwin was elected as the first openly gay person in the United States Senate. A half year ago, President Obama became the first president ever to give public support for marriage equality. Two recent federal court rulings on DOMA rejected discrimination against LGBT marriages. With repeal of the “Don’t ask, don’t tell" policy gays can now serve openly in the US military.

The political victories of November 2012 are remarkable in light of the long road that gay people have traveled to be accepted here in our broader American society. And they are remarkable because of their speed: our other national civil rights movements to gain full equality under the law and in the workforce have been a long uphill battle that even continues in some degree today.

The tipping point seems to be upon us now. I don’t expect that every legislative debate, court case or state initiative will side with marriage equality from this moment forward, but it is more likely than ever that the coming victories will outnumber the setbacks. Younger Americans are strongly behind marriage equality. My own 10 year old son (with whom I have had very few conversations about homosexuality) said as much as we listened to a discussion of gay marriage on the car radio today. Without any prompting from me, he expressed that anyone should be able to get married regardless of who they are. Yes, on the question of equality, it is that simple.

In a way the gay rights movement is only partly about the right to marry. I think the broader struggle involves the collective aspirations of a minority people that have long been brewing and the consciousness of a nation more ready than ever to make peace with homosexuality. This movement is not just about a list of rights gained when civil authorities recognize a relationship. It is about achieving a society where gay people can walk down the street hand-in-hand with a loved one without shame or fear. It is about the hope that gay Americans have that their public and private realities can be one. It is about freedom from marginalization, shame, criminalization, vilification, misunderstanding and prejudice. It is about a nation, mostly straight, that is identifying the pull of justice on its conscience and finally moving to take public action on that faith. There remains those opposed to this broader movement, but momentum is not on their side. As evidenced at the ballot box and in the other political signs of the times, the tipping point appears to have arrived.

Ref: New York Times, 8 Nov 2012, page P7

Portland pride

On Sunday, I attended only my second pride event. It was a parade in downtown Portland. And…I not only attended, but marched in the parade as well. My friend Jon (who blogs here) and another person invited me to march with other Latter-day Saints under the auspices of the Mormons for Marriage group. I was hesitant for a while because I consider myself pretty distant from the Church lately, but our group actually ended up being a mix of (probably) mostly straight Mormons in more Church-like dress and some gay (ex)Mormons. I just dressed casually and waved a rainbow flag.

The crowd was generally very welcoming and cheered our group of a few dozen marchers. The cheers were properly for the brave LDS folks supporting us gays, but once in the parade you have to smile and march. There were a variety of expressions from the crowd – a few tears, smiles and, I’m sure, some looks of incredulity. The straight allies who marched in our group really deserve kudos for having the courage to support same-sex marriage publicly, or at least to show their love and support to LGBT people if they personally don’t support gay marriage.

This is a picture of the banner that led our group.

This was one of the best signs by far and received audible comments from the crowd.

Here is a short video I took as we marched (evidently, I am not so good multi-tasking):

Tender ironies

I don’t believe very strongly in Mormon doctrine anymore. As I have written on this blog before, I still find much good in the teachings of the Church. And of course, I very much like many of its current and former members. While it is neither necessary nor productive to turn over every doctrinal cobble, I have suffered enough of my unease over Church history and policies in silence, and no longer feel as compelled to self-censor my thoughts.

This week, a three member panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an earlier judicial finding that Proposition 8 in California is unconstitutional. Of course, further legal wrangling is all but certain, but along with Washington State being on the cusp of legalizing gay marriage, this ruling was one more small step towards marriage equality in the US. The following was part of the majority opinion:

“Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples. The Constitution simply does not allow for ‘laws of this sort’.” Further the court determined, “The People may not employ the initiative power to single out a disfavored group for unequal treatment and strip them, without a legitimate justification, of a right as important as the right to marry.” (1)

In response to the ruling by the Ninth Circuit, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued a short statement on Tuesday that reads in part:

“The Church…regrets today’s decision. California voters have twice determined in a general election that marriage should be recognized as only between a man and a woman. We have always had that view. Courts should not alter that definition … Millions of voters in California …expressed their desire, through the democratic process, to keep traditional marriage as the bedrock of society …”. (2)

Obviously, the Church is welcome to express its opinion on the merits of gay marriage. Superficially, press room responses like the one above give the impression that the Church holds a simple and popular position. However, like so much in Mormonism, one needs to dig a little deeper to find the deep ironies that sometimes characterize the deceptively simplified narrative the Church offers. In other words, some historical context is needed.

Point 1: The Church repeatedly avows its loyalty to the US Constitution, but in its response to the judicial ruling by the Ninth Circuit, it is being selective. Its statement lauds the initiative process but attacks the judicial functions of balanced government. In doing so, it joins, at least in spirit, other conservatives who decry the actions of “activist judges” with whom they disagree. The complete system of governance in the United States involves not only means for the majority to enact law, but institutions and concepts such as checks and balances that are designed to protect the rights of the people. Fundamental civil rights, especially minority rights, are not intended to be subject to the whims of the majority. The judiciary plays a prominent role in preventing discrimination by the majority. (3)

Point 2: The Church is on shaky ground invoking the supremacy of the democratic process in matters of public policy, because its own structure and modus operandi are far from democratic. The Church is a theocracy, ruled by 15 unelected men who are the final voice in matters of doctrine and policy. Exercise of power at all levels in the Church is supposed to be done in love and righteousness (a laudable goal), but regardless, Church governance flows structurally from top to bottom. It is not democratic. Even if we ignore the silliness of a theocratic institution lecturing on democratic principles, I wonder what the Church will argue when the day comes that the voice of the people in a particular state approves gay marriage. Public opinion on gay marriage is changing, and it is changing very quickly.  Prop 8 did not pass by an overwhelming majority in California.

Point 3: In its very active political opposition to gay marriage, the Church is actively campaigning against the legitimate aspirations of a minority people. In seeking marriage equality, gays are not interfering in the liberties of others, but seeking only to advance their own pursuit of happiness. The Church’s own history of persecution as an unpopular minority should invoke, at a very minimum, deep empathy for LGBT persons who are fighting for equality under the law. Driven from Ohio to Missouri to Illinois, then to Utah, attacked by mobs, and having suffered terrible hardships in the course of pursing their faith in the 1800s, Latter-day Saints are well acquainted with the injustices perpetrated by intolerant neighbors and hostile laws. Nineteenth century Mormons by and large wanted to be left alone to pursue their way of life; twenty-first century gays by and large want to be left alone to love who they love.

Point 4: Recently Church leaders have linked the advance of gay marriage to threats to religious liberty. These arguments are as much of a smokescreen as a genuine concern. Elder Dallin H. Oaks (4) and others (5), for example, may claim that gay marriage infringes conservative religious freedoms, but eliminating the opportunity for gay marriage infringes the rights of other religious groups and individuals to perform marriages that they believe are equally acceptable to God. The religious freedom argument is a twisted one: the Church is seeking freedom from the beliefs of others, not freedom to define its own beliefs. As long as the Church is not forced to perform gay marriages, change its doctrine, or alter its own practices in any substantive way, its religious freedom is not infringed. Of course there may be some legal complexities and some need for compromise to both implement legal gay marriage and preserve freedom for certain religious viewpoints, but blanket prohibition of gay marriage is not acceptable. Hearing a wealthy conservative religion with a public voice disproportionate to its actual membership size crying victim is a little pathetic.

Point 5: Finally, there is great irony in hearing appeals for “traditional marriage” from Latter-day Saint leaders. As much as Church leadership may prefer to whitewash its own controversial history with sexuality, polygamy was a major component of Mormon theology for decades before the practice gradually faded away during the late 1800s and early 1900s following intense public disapproval and persecution from the US government (6). Moreover, monogamous heterosexual marriage – the way much of the rest of modern western society might have defined “traditional” marriage until recently – isn’t a completely accurate expression of current Mormon views of marriage anyway. Theologically, polygamy remains a component of mainstream LDS views because a man can be sealed to more than one woman during the course of his life as long as only one of the women is alive at the time – polygamy is thus believed to exist in the next life (7). Joseph Smith, the first LDS President and founder of polygamy among the Saints, had many wives, some of these women being already married to other men at the time he courted them and one being as young as 14 years old (8). Thus, early Mormons practiced both polygamy and polyandry. Brigham Young and subsequent leaders of the Church continued polygamy for several decades and defiantly challenged laws that prohibited the practice (9). Unfortunately much of this history occurred under a mantle of secrecy and deception so it is perhaps not even well known to most Latter-day Saints. Whether we’re talking about the 1800s or 2012, early Mormon sexuality represented some very unconventional experimentation with marriage! The Church’s position on gay marriage may be consistent over the short span of time that it has been debated openly, but its broader sexual history probably wouldn’t be deemed “traditional” to most people today.

Why the Church has invested so much energy into public opposition to gay marriage is beyond my comprehension. I can only speculate. But the ironies inherent in its political opposition are blatantly obvious to anyone who takes a careful look at Church history, doctrine, and culture. My conclusion is that the Church is exhibiting a bewildering disregard for its own history and culture in the process of publicly defending its position on gay marriage. Perhaps for those of us who have taken the courage to oppose the Church on marriage equality, our frustrations with its position are tempered by this thought: these ironies remind us that we are on the right side of history.

Notes:

(1) Ninth Circuit opinion.
(2) LDS statement.
(3) The desegregation of schools mandated by Brown v. Board of Education is an excellent example of judicial sanity in the face of majority discrimination.
(4) Elder Oaks’s speech at Chapman University.
(5) An open letter from several religious conservatives.
(6) Official Declaration 1, contained in the Doctrine and Covenants, comprises the 1890 manifesto by President Wilford Woodruff that banned polygamy, at least in the US. Despite the modern tendency to interpret this document as a revelation, and perhaps to believe that polygamy ended abruptly upon its reciept, the history is not so clear cut and polygamous marriages continued into the 1900s. For instance, polygamous LDS colonies were created in northern Mexico even though the practice was illegal since 1884 in that country. The Church acknowledges these post-manifesto plural marriages and that phasing out of polygamy was a gradual process. See Quinn, D.M. 1985. LDS Church authority and new plural marriages, 1890-1904. Dialogue 18:11-107 at this link.
(7) The term sealing refers, in part, to an eternal marriage in LDS theology. Theologically, polygamy is enshrined in LDS doctrine in section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants.
(8) This site contains very detailed information on early plural marriages in the Church including source documentation for most of the claims in the document. Most of Joseph’s additional marriages appeared to have occurred during the last few years of his life.
(9) Quinn, D.M. 1985. LDS Church authority and new plural marriages, 1890-1904. Dialogue 18:11-107.

I'm sorry, California

“We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.” – Doctrine and Covenants 134:9 (1835, Kirtland, Ohio).

The unfolding of Proposition 8 was bitter, with ugliness on both sides. My Church was heavily involved in promoting the divisive measure, a short amendment to the California constitution that reads: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California”.¹ After months of divisive debate, Prop 8 passed in California with 52% of the vote. Some estimates suggest that contributions by Mormons to pass the proposition totaled 20-30 million dollars.² This amounted to about 50-75% of the funding in support of the proposition even though Latter-day Saints constitute only about 2% of the population of California. In sum, over $80 million was spent in the campaigns for and against Prop 8, an amount that apparently made it the costliest social issue to reach the nation’s voters up to that time.³

Modeled after earlier efforts to combat same-sex marriage in Hawaii, Church participation in the Prop 8 campaign was channeled through a coalition.⁴ In the 1990s, Hawaii became one of the first states to confront the issue of gay marriage after a case claiming same-sex marriage discrimination made it to the state supreme court.⁵ D. Michael Quinn, a gay Mormon historian, described Church involvement in the Hawaiian campaign against same sex-marriage at both the local level and at Church headquarters.⁶ In fact, Quinn argued that the Church model of political participation via a coalition was patterned after its active opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment during the 1970s. The LDS Church is officially politically neutral and does not endorse specific candidates for elected office, but it strongly asserts its political muscle in matters it finds to be of a moral nature. However, of the numerous moral issues over which the Church might become a vocal political participant (including poverty, abuse, totalitarianism, etc.) repeated political engagement with same-sex marriage rights in various states suggests that it has decided that the fight against gay marriage is of the highest priority.

Proposition 8 brought substantial media attention to the public debate about same sex marriage, but of course it was only a relatively recent event in a long series of political battles within California about same-sex marriage – Prop 22, Mayor Newsom, Judge Walker, the California Supreme Court – this continues to be an on-going saga.

In 2000, I was a new graduate student in southern California. At this point in my life I was very committed to being a faithful Latter-day Saint and was almost thoroughly in the closet about my own homosexuality. This was the season of Prop 22, an initiative put before voters that had exactly the same text as its successor, Prop 8. Passage of the proposition was promoted at that time, as I recall, as being necessary to ensure that California was not forced to recognize any same-sex marriage performed in another state. Same-sex marriage had not yet been made legal at that time in California, so this was a proactive move to halt the legal recognition of same-sex marriages that might be performed elsewhere. Whatever reservations a voter might have had about limiting gays’ rights to be married (e.g., libertarian proclivities), Prop 22 (at least as promoted) could appeal to the state’s rights sentiments of some Americans. Prop 22 passed by a large majority, and by 2005, a court ruled that Prop 22’s power not only limited recognition of out-of-state gay marriage but also prohibiting the performance of same-sex marriages within California itself.⁷

As with Prop 8 later on, the Church actively encouraged membership participation to ensure that Prop 22 was enacted.⁸ I recall participating one day in a small effort to show support for the proposition. Our local institute (young adult religious education) group on campus had set up a booth along the wide walkway that led up to the university library. With a few other students, I hovered around the booth for a short time one day. I don’t recall staying that long or probably doing much more than handing out some pamphlets. Years later, reconstructing my thoughts and feelings of that experience would be difficult, but I can only imagine that I was an uncomfortable mess of emotion and conflict. In the strange myopia that being in the homosexual closet brings, in this season of life I was also probably as much concerned about blowing my carefully-crafted cover as a straight person as I was over the glaring juxtaposition of my own homosexuality and my Church’s anti-gay positions.

In 2008, as Prop 8 efforts began to ramp up, Church pressure on California Mormons to “defend” marriage began again. At first, polls suggested that opponents of the proposition might prevail, representing apparently a large shift in voter sentiment from 8 years prior. This fact did not escape the attention of Church leadership. In official letters from headquarters at Salt Lake City, members were asked to help directly. Local leaders were then responsible for on-the-ground work. Perhaps like all congregations throughout California, our ward appointed a coordinator to lead local efforts. In my ward in a more liberal community in northern California, it was mentioned that members should act with respect. This message of respect for all, even LGBT persons, characterizes official Mormon communications, even if it is not practiced by all members. With Church membership mobilized, the fight was now on. Statewide, there were phone banks, donations, rallies.

By the time Proposition 8 came along and wedged itself for a season into the religious routine of Latter-day Saints, my mechanical acquiescence to the Church was beginning to erode. With a good friend in a key position in local Church leadership, I was still very much willing to listen to arguments against same-sex marriage. More than just an appeal to faith, were there solid rational arguments to oppose gay marriage? My friend and I had some discussions and I listened to his arguments, that now I can more readily identify as classic conservative reasons to oppose same sex marriage.⁹ For instance, a basic argument is that the principle function of marriage is to have and raise children. Gay unions obviously cannot lead to procreation.

As each of these types of arguments were advanced, I could recognize a basis of logic, but there were also valid counter-arguments. The procreation basis for marriage, for instance, suggests that there is no need for marriage for older couples well past child-rearing age or men and women who are unable physically or emotionally to have children. Thus, inconsistent logic emerges from this particular conservative argument – marriage exceptions can be made for heterosexual unions, but not homosexuals.

Shortly after the vote on 4 November 2008, Californians learned that Proposition 8 passed. From time to time an opinion is expressed that the Church was burned fairly badly by its involvement in Prop 8, though I think ultimately it is hard to quantify such an assertion. Certainly specific members were disaffected to varying degrees (some left the Church, others remained active but had wounded testimonies). Did tithing decline? How many members resigned? No doubt that inside and outside the Church, it’s fundamental opposition to gay marriage was and is unpopular with many people. Unfortunately, there seems to be a deeper feeling of distrust that emerged from the Prop 8 episode. In part, it was the tactics used in the political mobilization that left unease – the disproportionate sum of money, Utah meddling in California, and the discussion of politics in meetings where members were supposed to gather for spiritual refuge.

Despite the negative effects of Prop 8 in California, Church involvement in the crusade against same-sex marriage continues. A very recent report from Minnesota describes a letter from Church headquarters asking members to contribute to an anti-gay marriage initiative that will appear on the 2012 ballot.¹⁰ Also this month, a coalition of conservative religious individuals posted an open letter on-line opposing homosexual marriage.¹¹ This particular letter was signed by Bishop Burton, a member of the presiding bishopric of the Church. Recent manifestations of the LDS crusade perhaps have taken on a new political tact, namely that adoption of same-sex marriage by governments will lead to a restriction on religious liberties.¹² The letter Bishop Burton signed, in fact, explicitly complains that religious liberties will be infringed if same-sex marriage becomes a protected right. Without a legal background, I don’t know the various legal implications that same-sex marriage would bring. However, the recent law in New York State seems to carve out a reasonable exception for religious freedom while enabling same-sex marriage. Intentional or not, claiming that gay marriage restricts religious freedom makes the comfortable majority appear to be the victim. What about the religious freedom of individuals who believe that God sees people of all sexual orientations as deserving equal treatment?

During Proposition 8 my most overriding feeling was that I wanted the entire debate to disappear. The larger political debate hit too close to home: my own microcosm of conflict between being gay and Mormon suddenly was being played out on a grand scale. No one in this larger debate was necessarily going to respect the internal sensitivities that I cultivated to prevent the conflict from erupting in fury within my own soul. Gays and devout Mormons each felt that they had an important stake in this debate. But what about persons who were gay AND Mormon? In response to the conflict, I largely chose non-response; I wanted to hide and wait for the election to pass. In the end, I voted in support of Prop 8 just as I had done with Prop 22. It was a reluctant vote, one born of guilt from not following what the Church expected of me I suppose. That day at the ballot box, I tried to balance my disappointment stemming from Prop 8 with my excitement about an engaging presidential election. But on the issue of gay marriage, I was not yet ready to assert my independence. I’m sorry, California. I made a mistake.

In writing this post, I took some time to revisit some of the Prop 22 and Prop 8 history. On the one hand, these were uncomfortable episodes in my journey to understand my sexuality, but on the other hand, I think the dissonance caused by the Church’s involvement probably helped crack the closet door for me a little more with each event. Ultimately, the Church gains nothing of lasting value in these political forays into same-sex marriage. Gay marriage is advancing politically and most Americans of future generations will be embarrassed to look upon the resistance manifest in our day to the further advance of social justice. If marriage benefits individuals, families, and communities by promoting stability, commitment and sacrifice (as strong proponents of marriage reasonably claim), then it is an institution that LGBT persons need too. The pro-family Mormon Church should be a partner in advancing opportunities and freedoms for LGBT people. Yet sadly now it has dug in its heels, and like a stubborn person, it has chosen the fleeting pleasure of obstinacy over the long-term satisfaction of doing justice.

Notes:
1. Section 7.5 of the California constitution.
2. Estimates given by HRC here and here and a magazine article here.
3. HRC figure.
4. The rejection of same-sex marriages within Mormon theology is shared by other conservative religions including the Catholic Church. However, many Americans still feel uncomfortable with various unique aspects of Mormon doctrine, so the Church has seemingly determined that opposing same-sex marriage through a third party is an effective way to engage in the debate. Practically, funneling resources and volunteer efforts through a coalition allows the Church to collaborate with like-minded groups and yet maintain enough distance from the issue to blunt significant damage to the Church’s public image. 
5. See Wikipedia articles here and here.
6. D. Michael Quinn. 1997. The Mormon Hierarchy. Extensions of Power. Smith Research Associates.
7. Some Prop 22 history.
8. Link here.
9. See Sullivan, A. 1996. Virtually Normal. Vintage Books.
10. Support sought for Minnesota initiative.
11. “Marriage and Religious Freedom”
12. Elder Oaks, a Mormon apostle with a legal background, has in particular been in the forefront of making the LDS case that conservative religions are modern victims. See the following speeches at Chapman University and BYU Idaho by Elder Oaks and an article with some alternative perspectives.