I Swear, the Last Thing I Write on Proposition 8...

I’ve never really been one to be undecided on matters political. My presidential votes and my stances on issues have always come pretty quickly, based on both my interpretation of the facts and an emotive or intuitive inclination toward liberalism. So, in what has been an odd election season for me, previous entries here have chronicled my back and forth on the gay marriage issue as it relates to California’s Proposition 8. Logically, I saw (see?) this as troubling, primarily for the precedent of amending a constitution—state or federal—to limit rights, something that we typically don’t do, and that when we do, ends poorly (see Prohibition).

As the debate raged, I was upset, however, by the inflammatory and misleading rhetoric of each side. Those for the proposition resorted to fear-mongering about teaching kindergarteners about homosexual lifestyles, while those opposed to it painted their opponents broadly as intolerant bigots. And once a debate devolves to this level, it’s hard to feel good about any choice.

This has been even more evident in the days since the proposition passed, as the anti-Mormon vitriol has expanded from anger over the election results to attacks on the integrity of the Church and its members. (This reminds me—tough year for Mormons politically. The far right rejects our claims to part of their Christian voting bloc and sends Romney packing. Then the far left calls us bigots for our core doctrines. Rough times. At least both Udalls running for Senate won.)

And it’s here that I have to step back and reconsider what exactly the argument is. If marriage is sought for the legal rights its entails, or even for the public recognition of a meaningful relationship, then I am on board. There are very real rights that I enjoy and that another human being should not be denied simply because his/her most intimate relationship is different than mine. But if marriage is seen as validation of a relationship and grounds for assaulting beliefs that would resist that validation, then I am forced to question a radical agenda that seems to be reaching far beyond rights and toward something much uglier.

This is especially disturbing in the wake of the presidential election results. The gay rights movement has often presented itself as being modeled on the civil rights movement, but it’s clear that the differences matter. No one denies homosexuals jobs or the right to do business, to travel or have access to public facilities. Discrimination in any of these areas based on sexual orientation is illegal, and rightfully so. But to claim that a religion cannot define its beliefs and practices according to its theology is diametrically opposed to the model of the civil rights movement, which operated within a religious context.

In some ways I wonder if these events might result in a public opinion backlash against gay marriage, as people see the hypocrisy of arguments for tolerance from people who refuse to accept religious diversity as part of the pluralistic society in which we live. And perhaps the ugliness demonstrated by both sides of this debate will convince people that we need to step away from the emotionally-charged aspects of the issue and sensibly develop some sort of compromise that allows legal rights for couples while respecting religious freedom and preserving religious diversity. The question then is, “Can we do it?”