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.
