There are a million reasons why I am glad I don’t live in California: the traffic, real estate costs, Santa Ana winds, Disneyland, Californians, etc. But the number one has to be the bizarre role of voter initiatives and proposals, which exist in many states (not much in NM, though) but seem to have their roots in the most populous state in the union. To me, voting on laws is, to use a term that gets too much play by the right, un-American. In a three-branch government, we elect legislators to enact laws, an executive branch to enforce them, and a judiciary to ensure the constitutionality of laws. Skipping the whole process seems narcissistic of voters and an abdication of the duties of the legislature. It just bugs me.
The good folks in the Golden State seem to have taken this to the extreme by making constitutional amendments a matter of electoral politics, and the new big issue is this year’s Proposition 8. (I’m on the outside looking in, but will a simple majority make this part of the state’s constitution? Is it that easy to amend the constitution of California? Doesn’t this freak everyone else out?) Here’s why I oppose the proposition, and why, if fate had me in California, I would be torn on what to do in November.
I believe in the separation of church and state written into the Bill of Rights and espoused by the founders of this nation. The tyranny of state religion in Europe, as well as the early history of what would become the first 13 states in this nation, convinced Jefferson, Madison, Adams, et al that there could be no freedom without freedom of religion. That initially was meant to permit a narrow band of orthodox Protestant faiths (and in some places tolerance of Catholicism), but, being what it is, America soon invited new religious expressions.
Even with the constitutional protection afforded to religious expression, the early founders of my faith were the objects of immense and indefensible hate and violence. Brigham Young is rightfully acknowledged with having created one of the most religiously tolerant political atmospheres of the late-19th century, in part, I believe, because he and his contemporaries had seen too much of religious intolerance to permit it in the Salt Lake Valley.
But I also believe that both church and state—when operating ethically—must permit both expression of faith and expression of doubt, that the non-religious (and even the irreligious) must have the same rights to conscience as the ardent believer. To act otherwise is to invite hypocrisy and scorn, the polar opposites of faith and love.
In our day this also translates to an acknowledging of diversity regarding sexual orientation. The leap may seem big, but here’s how it goes, in my mind. I believe that marriage between a man and a woman, solemnized by the authority of God’s priesthood in a House of the Lord, binds husband and wife together through the eternities. Most people on the earth do not believe this, and, as such, do not live the lifestyle I have chosen to follow. I have no legal right to deny them the right to marry simply because they do not marry the way I do or live the way I do. And to pretend to have such a right would make a mockery of the faith I profess.
Among those who believe differently from me are those who believe that a consensual sexual relationship between two adults of the same gender is moral and acceptable. To deny them the legal rights I enjoy as a married man is, to me, no different than denying that right to a non-Mormon couple, or a non-sealed Mormon couple. My belief is different than theirs, but in a political sense, no more or less valid.
Recently, the church published a document explaining why it supports—and asks it members to support—Proposition 8 in California. (Full disclosure--I have thought about this issue for years, and this is the first piece that made me consider the argument against same-sex marriage to be more than blatant homophobia--my first read was a profound experience.) The document makes some solid claims and presents some true concerns with the widespread legal recognition of same-sex marriage. It largely amounts to a slippery-slope argument: if same-sex marriage is legally recognized, then institutions that do not recognize those unions face government prosecution and the repeal of tax exempt status. To me, this is a fallacious argument. That is not to say that such efforts would not happen, but they seem separate from the immediate issue; to me, marriage and religious freedom (which must be protected, and if threatened, must be defended), while related, are not inseparable issues.
As an aside, I am very disturbed by language such as this, from the Protect Marriage website: “earlier this year, four activist judges based in San Francisco wrongly overturned the people's vote, legalizing same-sex marriage.” This issue, like many, seems to rely entirely on demonizing one branch of the government. Judges should be activists; their job is to ensure that laws are enforced equitably and that such laws do not violate the higher law of the constitution. That’s activism by nature
The right seems convinced that the only way to fight a ruling they don’t like is to call out, intimidate, and threaten judges. Or, ala Bush administration, ignore and disobey the courts of the land. It’s a dangerous mentality, one that I hear too often in church. For example, at a recent Stake Conference, a visiting Area Authority—with no background in law—spoke on this issue and referred to the 5-4 decision in California permitting same-sex marriage as judicial activism against the will of the vast (61%) majority of California voters from the 200 initiative. In the judiciary, a 5-4 decision is as valid as a unanimous one, at least in legal terms. To denigrate the judiciary, rather than fighting for intelligent legislation and the sane crafting of legal positions, is a real threat to American democracy.
So, what would I do if I lived in California? I’m not sure, which may sound odd, given the rhetoric of the preceding paragraphs. I believe strongly what I have said, but at the end of the day, would I vote against the proposition? I can’t say for sure. I also believe that prophets and apostles lead this church for a reason—namely, that they have wisdom and inspiration that I lack. It would be a much harder decision in practice than in theory. So, for the time being, I’ll rant, link to sites such as this, and be thankful I live here, not there.
10 comments:
I tend to be a bit less tolerant than you Dave. But I by and large agree, though for different reasons. The problem that I see it is this: marriage is both a civil and a religious institution.
As a civil institution it provides the back bone of most societies. Marriage prescribes roles in what has been seen as the most productive setup for a civilization, it controls an otherwise destructive force in society (single men), and it provides the state with a theoretical ally in raising children as good and responsible citizens.
The religious element varies from tradition to tradition, but it's almost universally true that marriage is a rite or faith. It's a passage for most overseen by a priest or other ecclesiastical authority. Within mormonism of course the idea of marriage is not even limited to this earth, with the presiding priesthood authority solemnizing the relationship into the eternities.
For centuries these two meanings of marriage have worked in concert to improve society and the state has only been to happy to abrogate its social responsibility to churches to see their parishoners shackled in the bounds of holy matrimony. With the church finding less and less hold over people this relationship no longer makes sense. Religionist, with good reason, want to define the qualifications of who marries as they are participating in the rites of their faith structure. The state doesn't care so long as the couple pays taxes. And so the two once allies find themselves at cross-purposes.
The solution is not to outlaw certain types of marriage. We all know how well that worked in the Utah Wars. The answer to this problem is to dissassociate the civil marriage from the religious marriage. Remove the power granted by state to regulate the union of man and wife (or wife and wife, or man, wife, and wife, and wife....etc.) from the religious authorities. Make it so that all unions must be solemnized at town halls for the civic authorities. Then people can do whatever they want for their religious services.
Okay I'm done ranting.
How about just the opposite? What if the government stays out of the marriage business entirely? No need for legal recognition. This would require a huge change in the laws and how people are taxed, etc. But overall I think it would actually simplify things.
Bill, that is something I can get behind.
This separation of church and state business has always been a little murky. Over the millenniums church and state worked closely together or in complete opposition depending on who was ruling. Ours was the first government to have multiple church's to deal with and chose to separate the powers. I don't think that just because I'm married I should have any more benefits from someone who chooses to live with someone else. So there should be no reason for someone to marry other than for religious principles. It should be left in the hands of the churches and the churches alone.
Just as a sidenote... The lawyers are all behind same sex marriages because they will now have more divorces to deal with ;).
Roy, sorry you had to be so wishy washy in your comments :). Being a HC puts you in a sticky situation if you don't agree with the First Presidency. I have a clear rule and it keeps things pretty clear, once the Prophet signs his name to something my mind is made up.
TTFN
If I had my copy of Marriage: A History in front of me, I could defend this statement, but I don't. A true traditionalist would say that no one needs to marry unless there's an exchange of land and/or power, religion has nothing to do with it.
Marriage has changed a lot over the centuries. As much as I like the idea of the government staying out of people's private lives, I think people would still want to marry because of what it has come to signify now. Even to those of us with purely secular marriages, it's a partnership that is recognized by a person's community, with the rights and privileges that implies. That recognition as being part of a valid partnership is important. I wanted for my partnership with Mark to be recognized by my community. I shouldn't be denied that because I don't believe in god or belong to a religious institution.
I have never been asked to show proof of marriage when documenting Tammie as my spouse. Never on any tax, insurance, hospital, banking, or school forms. It just doesn't seem required. I'm sure, if audited, then the requirement of proof might creep up.
My community recognizes my marriage, even though I did not marry for secular reasons, and so far without proof. Therefore, it stands to reason that, if the laws are written in such a way as not to require any legal recognition, then you can say you're married, partnered, unioned, or whatever, with whomever you want. The community ascribed rights and privileges should still be implied. The community will then give equal rights to a marriage performed in a temple, a church, or by Elvis in a swamp.
I, too have not entirely bought in to the idea that same-sex unions, marriages or whatever they might be referred to as, somehow diminishes marriage between a man and a woman. Thus I remain and shall not settle either way until I hear a truly convincing argument for one side or the other. By remaining up in the air about this, I have thus far managed to avoid having to decide...for there are parts of each side that make me squirm. Thus I remain a 'fence sitter', neither hot nor cold and the suspense is palpable. Not all will agree with me on this I realize, but I do sincerely feel God's position has been well documented (through His own word and action) on the intimacy level of this issue, but he does 'allow' his children to make choices. I believe we shall one day have to own up to any unrighteous judgments of others that we indulge in on a personal level.
Because of my great love of all children everywhere and their good outcomes, I find I have strong feelings about drawing the line where same-sex unions desire to include in their union the parenting of children. Although studies have not been absolutely conclusive - see http://www.acpeds.org/?CONTEXT=art&cat=22&art=50 - they cast enough doubt on the practice that I see it as a risk no child should be subjected to.
I too have a great desire to subscribe to the spoken and written word of the man whom I revere as Prophet and Seer...believing that he has been given the ability to see and understand things beyond my capacity and knowledge. Therefore I try very hard not to slam doors on his counsel. There is probably much for all of us to learn further upon this subject and I am attempting to leave the doors and windows open to further light and knowledge.
As a side note, I also have never been required to present my marriage certificate for any reason (that I recall) until a few weeks ago. My retirement paperwork which I am currently filling out requires a copy of it. I suppose it has something to do with the money that might be distributed to my spouse in the event of my demise. Money...
I have never been able to understand the argument opposing same-sex marriage that it somehow diminishes or invalidates MY marriage or MY family. Someone please explain.
Also, as far as same-sex couples raising children. Why is it so bad that a loving couple who wants children, and can raise them in a happy and loving environment, be denied that opportunity? There are so many children out there who are unwanted in their homes or abused and neglected. I know a child being raised by a same-sex couple and I couldn't have more respect for them as parents. She is taught and loved and given chances she wouldn't have otherwise, as she came from a brutal background.
I love being married and raising children and I wouldn't want to deny that right to others who love each other as much as I love Roy.
If the prophet asked me, point blank, to vote no on this issue, I would choose to follow him. But, as Roy pointed out to me, if you read the statement from the First Presidency carefully, he hasn't done that.
No, marriage documentation is not frequently required. But without some kind of documented proof, upon a person's death, as mom points out, proof of marriage does become an issue. In a document-free society, anyone could claim to be that person's partner. Anyone could claim rights to the property of that person. Anyone could claim to have a right to take over the raising of their children. As long as we, as a society, place some value on ownership and the passing on of that ownership, we, as a society, will expect proof of someone's right to own.
As far as parenting goes, there are millions of homosexual couples out there who would be excellent parents. There are also millions of heterosexual couples out there who are terrible parents (I sometimes count myself among them). Heterosexuality does not give us a monopoly on good parenting.
I'm not sure why marriages are performed by government anyway. I understand religious marriages but in reality are there any legal benefits to being married. As others have mentioned, I have never had to prove marriage to anyone it seems you can get all the benefits by simply saying you are married and in many states simply living together for a certain amount of time makes you married by "common law."
I do sympathize with this position. Prior to reading the Church's statement of support I was on the fence as well. If I put myself in the position of someone with homosexual tendencies, I can see why they would want to have a marriage. Marriage wasn't invented by man however, it was invented by God and adapted by men and governments to suit their needs. Perhaps churches should marry and governments should perform some kind of union which has only temporal benefits. For me the real benefits of my marriage come from the covenants my wife and I have made with our Father in Heaven. Honestly, a civil marriage doesn't resemble an LDS marriage except in name.
I do agree with the prophet when he speaks however and therefore I support the legal definition of marriage to be only between a man and a woman. As for the comment that the prophet hasn't directly asked you to vote on the proposition, it's only because you don't live in California. In a letter read in sacrament meetings in California the first presidency asked, "We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman. Our best efforts are required to preserve the sacred institution of marriage."
For me, if you could be eligible to vote, voting would be something you could do to support the proposed amendment and assure that marriage is legally defined as being between a man and a woman. A resident of california who abstains from voting on this issue will not magnified their call to "do all [they] can."
If any of you understand the legal benefits of marriage, I would be curious to know what they are. It seems to me the tax benefits of marriage have certainly gone by the wayside.
It seems to me that the only reason documentation is required for retirement or other property disbursement upon death is because the law requires marriage to be legally recognized. It's true that without such a requirement anyone can lay claim to it, but this is easily taken care of with a will.
Personally, I think government bureaucracy has ruined the sanctity of marriage and turned it into a business arrangement.
Post a Comment