Open Thread: Your experiences in church today w/ the LDS anti-gay marriage statement

What I think is funny is that the church minds more about this kind of issue in the US than in other countries. As someone said on another post, it has been legal for same sex couples to get married for two years now. In France we have the PACS which is the same as being married BUt for adoption. PACS is for either opposite sex couples as for same sex couples and I believe this kind of thing exists in other countries. I wonder what is the big issue about it IN THE US?

As someone has said on a previous post to find a new word would probably be a good idea because as for myself I am 100% for gay couples to have the same rights as the ones I can have marrying a man. Yet when I think about “same sex marriage” I have a problem. And then I know it is only because of my education in the church. It is nothing but a word after all. I see this whole issue about the importance of the word as as wrapping thing. On my b-day I really couldn’t care less about the wrappings of my gifts. To have a wrapping is nice, to have a beautifull wrapping is even better but in the end what I want is the gift and I want it not to be broken. I guess it is really a matter of sensitivity.

So we have not heard about it over here in France I am not looking for it. I know a sister who will not be offended by it but who may be hurt. I know she will remain faithfull but I also know it could make her sad and I love her with all my heart.

I see this whole issue about the importance of the word as as wrapping thing

Correct me if I’m wrong, if you have to qualify something by adding ‘gay’ or ‘same sex’, doesn’t that make it qualitatively different and not just nominally different? It’s more than just words. The whole disagreement comes from whether gender is an integral part of our definition of marriage. I don’t know much, but I know that men and women are physiologically different. And even if gay marriage has legal existence, it doesn’t mean that it will have popular acceptance.

As far as the announcement is concerned, I don’t think that there would be much reaction. Most people are indifferent to the whole gay marriage thing. There are a few rabid supporters and a few rabid detractors, but most people don’t care. My prediction is that very few people will take advantage of gay marriage once the novelty has worn off.

This is not particularly about the announcement in sacrament meeting, but goes along with the thread I think. A friend, whose parents live in Claremont, reported that the priesthood leadership was asked to attend a satellite broadcast from SLC with the Q12. They were told that members should support the amendment but not be “anti-gay.” Classic hate the sin, love the sinner. But I don’t think we are capable of that yet as a people.

This was my experience: http://sunstoneblog.com/2008/06/29/am-i-a-sheep-or-a-goat/

Also, meant to mention that I too am very confused about why same sex marriage was essentially ignored in Massachusetts, Canada and Denmark in the last ten years or so. Why is it such a big deal in California.

I think that there may end up being even more pressure on members to participate this time. Last time Prop 22 had much wider support even at the start of the campaign than the amendment does now (currently slightly less than 50% support it). I’m not expecting support to grow for it either, and I think as it gets closer to the election, we’ll have much more pressure to participate. I’m hoping that I’m wrong.

Where the cows have already left the barn, closing the barn door in one jurisdiction will not have any effect, especially where full faith and confidence between jurisdictions will create further litigation and will be hard to void a marriage of 5 years after the fact.

The influence of the Church as a vocal minority. It was the church that played a major role in the defeat of the Equal Rights Amendment in the late 1970s. Studies show that Church members, although representing less than 2 % of the population of the last states to ratify, they accounted for more than 90% of the letters to legislators. Although that is another issue, the parallels are there to suggest the voice of the people is such that the loudest voices get all the attention from legislative bodies.

i really don’t think the criticism that the church wasn’t active in massachusetts or other nations holds much water. the church is very pragmatic. they simply don’t have the population base in the other places mentioned to make much of a difference. in california–well, mormons are definitely a minority but they’re a significant one and the church is old and well-established here. it doesn’t surprise me at all that the church would pick its battles and, in doing so, pick california but not massachusetts. and jared is right–california is hugely influential in setting national trends. it tends to be a few years in advance on quite a few social and/or “progressive” issues.

that’s not to say i don’t see the inconsistency in the approach. i just understand the approach. it’s also not to say i agree with the church’s approach. i find it incredibly distasteful. i don’t think the church should *ever* instruct its members to participate in politics in some way. what happened to “teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves”?

as for my experience (in orange county; and in a particularly conservative part of that already conservative bastion of a county):

1. there were no protesters outside (i think Stephen M asked about this on AdamF’s thread).

2. i would have walked out, but my sense of obligation to fulfill my calling prevented me. which i find amusing. i’m the organist and to have walked out would have made it difficult, if not impossible, to play the sacrament hymn. may have made my walk out more of a statement, but it would have been more disruptive than i was comfortable with.

3. i did buzz my hair off and wear a rainbow ribbon to at least visibly state my support for gay marriage. it’s not much, but it’s something. and at least a few people noticed.

4. i did walk out when the speaker essentially had us worshiping america instead of god; specifically when she moved from singing the praises of historical americans to praising the current leadership and the current war. but that doesn’t have much to do with homosexuality or gay marriage.

Meet Rameumptom, Inc: Schubert-Flint

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/06/meet-rameumptom-inc-schubertfl.php

“….out when the speaker essentially had us worshiping america instead of god; specifically when she moved from singing the praises of historical americans to praising the current leadership and the current war”

Goodness! What’s wrong with americans, seems they don’t get it.

I came to Church wearing a rainbow ribbon. I don’t know if anybody noticed or not. When they read the letter, I didn’t notice any nods, a few squirms maybe. I was planning on walking out, but I felt prompted not to. During the sacrament, I pleaded with my HF to ensure that if there were any gay people in the ward that they would feel loved and that they would feel like there was a place for them. I was pleasantly surprised when two of the talks were about “Caring for/Seeking for/Encircling the One”. I can’t quite remember the correct phase, but they were two excellent talks about how some members leave the church because they feel different or because they feel there is no place for them, and how important it is to search for the one lost sheep. I felt the spirit so strongly, and I felt really good that I had come to church and that I had not walked out. I am planning on wearing my rainbow ribbon to church every Sunday until November. My hopes is that people might talk to me privately (who either share or don’t share similar viewpoints) and maybe some healthy dialog can ensue. Is the ribbon disrespectful in any way? I do not want to be disrespectful or distract from the spirit. I felt like it was the most respectful, non-intrusive thing I could do.

RE 14,

And I have issues with gay Mormons, current or ex-, thinking they can use Fast and Testimony meeting pulpits to air their grievances.

Well, most F&T meetings have the airing of all kinds of different grievances (like Festivus). I suppose that ought to be expected when you have “open mike day” at the chapel.

Further to MoHoHawaii’s point, the religious issues here are not in issue. Nobody is trying to legislate away the constitutional guarantees of freedom for religion, instead a couple of religions are trying to negative in the most absolute manner possible a group of people that the highest court in a jurisdiction has determined are entitled to equal treatment. That is the issue for me. The church can teach whatever it wants, it can send out all the missionaries it has into California to convert all who can be convinced and avoid the occurrence of same sex marriage; however to step into the public forum with the express and sole purpose of depriving a minority group of the rights determined by an impartial judiciary to be an inalienable right, then I have a problem.

# 20 N8Ma

Problem is praising the current president and the Iraq war.

ie she wrote “….specifically when she moved from singing the praises of historical americans to praising the current leadership and the current war”.

my personal opinion is that the church should be consistent. if it’s such a pressing issue, they should ask their members to do the same regardless of the size of the mormon population. they should make their position known, regardless of how likely it is that doing so can make a difference.

please note: i’m making a statement here about consistency; NOT about the church’s position on gay marriage (with which i disagree).

my position aside, i think the church is simply very pragmatic. which explains its treating the issue differently in different places.

were you in the longfellow park ward when i was there?

Harvard Law professor Mary Ann Glendon wrote in 2004, during the same-sex marriage debate in Massachusetts, “The experience in other countries reveals that once these arrangements become law, there will be no live-and-let-live policy for those who differ. Gay-marriage proponents use the language of openness, tolerance, and diversity, yet one foreseeable effect of their success will be to usher in an era of intolerance and discrimination … The ax will fall most heavily on religious persons and groups that don’t go along.”

I totally agree with the above comment, taken from a good article in Meridian on this issue:
http://www.ldsmag.com/familyleadernetwork/080627marriage.html

(I know Meridian is a hiss and a byword among liberal Mormons and I too often read it only out of morbid curiosity, but once in a while they have good stuff I overall agree with.)

Chris #33 “Gay marriage proponents use the language of openness, tolerance, and diversity, yet one foreseeable effect of their success will be to usher in an era of intolerance and discrimination.”

You mean as opposed to the current era of intolerance and discrimination? But hey, I’m fine with swapping one era of intolerance and discrimination for a new era of intolerance and discrimination. We can call the era “I&D 2: Electric Boogaloo”. Why should religious persons be the only persons who get to be intolerant? That’s just not fair. I say let the Gays have their run at intolerance and discrimination as well.

Yes, we certainly have a lot to look forward to: a level playing field, where anyone can marry; and anyone can be intolerant and discriminate. Woo hoo!!!

Yes, the end of civilization is nigh. And fearmongering is alive and well in the halls of Harvard and Meridian.

i agree with matt. i see no reason why the assertion that discrimination and intolerance may result from marriage equality should keep us from changing something that should change. it’s not as if we live in a world in which there is no intolerance or discrimination.

and i really don’t think blanket generalizations about “actual events” in other countries are justification for trying to make people frightened that the church will lose its tax exempt status or that suddenly our society will discriminate against religious people. if those things have happened in other societies, the point is not to then be frightened into maintaining the discriminatory, intolerant status quo; it’s to change the status quo to make it less discriminatory and intolerant in the ways it currently is so while building in appropriate protections against potential new forms of discrimination and intolerance.

i’m not really asking anyone to accept something on faith–at least not purely. i’m asking that we believe that we can make real change in this world, rather than sitting around bemoaning that human beings are flawed. it makes no sense to refuse to make needed changes on the grounds that they’ll bring about negative consequences.

so what i’m calling for is in part about faith. but it’s also in part about hard work. i don’t think the point is ever to sit around and wait until the good thing happens to us; i think we’re meant to construct the good things. refusing to do so on the grounds that it will be hard and will pose difficulties is a real problem.

#36. Could you actually post some examples of reverse discrimination in other countries that have legalized gay marriage so we can have some idea of what we are talking about here?

working mother – Not actual examples here, but these threads on this topic have gotten me thinking. Is the purpose of SSM to give homosexuals access to partner benefits, ability to adopt, etc.(meaning to eliminate discrimination), or is it to make SSM equally acceptable with traditional marriage in society? If the agenda is the former, case solved, legislation is not necessary or could be changed to reflect that. Access to partner benefits should be a concern of employers primarily and the govt could regulate that partner and dependent benefits can’t be restricted in discriminatory ways. As for ability to adopt, I know many gay people who have successfully adopted children. So again, moot point.

If the real goal is equal social acceptance, that is an interesting agenda indeed, and frankly, the more likely agenda here. Legislating social acceptance does mean that if you don’t consider SSM equal to traditional marriage, then you are in fact discriminating and can be punished by law. Legally, this could lead to affirmative action (often considered “reverse discrimination”). Here are some potential examples:

1 – adoption agencies could be sued for discrimination or licensing withheld if they don’t have a proportionate representation of SSM adoptive parents. Perhaps that’s okay, but some adoption agencies are religiously affiliated. Does that mean they would be shut down or restricted if they refused to allow SSMs to adopt?
2 – real estate agents could be sued for discrimination or have licenses suspended if they don’t sell a proportionate represenation to SSM couples. HOAs that fail to have a representative amount of SSMs could be considered discriminatory.

Those are the first two that came to mind. The church preaches PoF (children have a right to both a mother and a father) so the adoption example (which someone cited elsewhere as an issue that has occurred in Europe) could be a very real issue. Downfall of society? Perhaps not. Eroding of principles in PoF? Yes.

one other thought: i don’t know that the issue is to legislate social acceptance, so much as to legislate equal access to existing civilly recognized marriage. the consequence of legislating equal access to marriage may be social acceptance of homosexuality without ever necessarily legislating that social acceptance itself. which could avoid both of the problems you identify, leaving problematic situations to be resolved through existing anti-discrimination laws.

i generally agree with your solution to the problem, hawkgrrrl. except i wouldn’t even attempt to assign the term “marriage.” every one enters into a civil union. they then choose whether they want to have that civil union sanctified by a particular religion (or bike club or whatever). the religion may refer to that sanctification ceremony as marriage or as something else, as they see fit. and individual couples can call themselves married–regardless of whether they simply had a civil ceremony or if they had a civil ceremony followed by a religious one–if they think that’s the best word to describe the relationship they have.

as a student of language and literature, the fight over a word baffles me. because words are far too slippery to control. there’s certainly no way we could ever police who calls themselves married and whether they actually had the requisite religious ceremony to earn the title. i just don’t understand the motive for trying to limit that term.

You can’t unring the bell. This is about civil rights- and one group of people being denied a right given to law-obiding others- and that is illegal in this country.

As far as arguements about quotas with HOA, adoption agencies and the like- I call hogwash. There are no such quotas for interacial couples or any other designation. Once upon a time, it was against the law for a black to marry a white- and that is incomprehensible to most people these days- yet it was true. This is the same thing, and will likely be looked at in the same light. Don’t let fear cloud the vision.

The equitable solution is to have a civil union for all couples, then allowing churches to have ecclisiastical authority to confer their own Marriage upon couples who meet their membership requirements. Already, to be a card-carrying member of the LDS church, you have to abide by it’s membership rules. No difference here, and the church’s (or any other church’s) autonomy need not suffer.

This will come to pass. It may not be this year, it may not be in California this time, but this is what eventually will happen.

(card-carrying, active, has gay family, adult convert, native Californian, living in WA state)

Another thing… as long as I have this pesky bee in my bonnet… this splitting hairs over the word “marriage” (to be reserved only for religious heteros) vs “civil unions” (okay, fine, we’ll let gays use that term, and heathen heteros who don’t marry in a church) just seems so, I don’t know, “lame”, I guess would be the word that comes to mind.

I’m picturing society down the road… I meet a nice heterosexual couple wearing wedding rings. I ask them, “So when did you guys get married?” The wife smiles politely, if a little stiffly, and replies, “Oh no, we’re not Married, we’re Civil Unioned.” Whatever. Very Starbelly Sneetches-ish.

It feels like we’re saying, with a sigh, “Okay, fine, we’ll let them get married…” but holding something back at the last minute, “…but they can’t use the word ‘Marriage’! That’s where we draw the line in the sand.”

Reminds me of 1978 when Blacks finally got the Priesthood, but someone had to add that embarrassing little caveat… “BUT… we strongly recommend whites don’t marry blacks.” Or something like that. Someone please feel free to supply the real quote, either from the press release or from church news. That also had a we’ll-give-in-but-hold-something-back-at-the-last-minute feeling, which dampens an otherwise glorious revelation and moment in Mormon History.

in response to matt (53):

there’s the quote C.L. Hanson writes about regarding advice from spencer w. kimball that people not enter interracial marriages. but this particular quote comes from a 1976 devotional which was published in 1977. i have no doubt, however, that the advice lived on well beyond the 1978 revelation.

that quote is here:

http://latterdaymainstreet.com/?p=328

I prefer the term “shacking up,” but whatever.

I think the United States should adopt the practice of most European countries which follow the Napoleonic Code: the state recognizes as LEGAL only civil unions. Such civil unions would be required for legal recognition, including but not limited to inheritance rights, property settlements, employment benefits, etc. Any religious or traditional ceremony would be up to the parties.

Thanks AAe-M. These weak justifications for prejudice and hold-something-back ideas re gay marriage will look just as unbelievable to our children and grand-children’s generations as the justifications for prejudice against Blacks do to us today.

Again, not to kick a dead horse, but his quote re Blacks sounds similar to many I’ve read re gay marriage here and elsewhere:

“I think I have read enough to give you an idea of what the Negro is after. He is not just seeking the opportunity of sitting down in a cafe where white people eat. He isn’t just trying to ride on the same streetcar or the same Pullman car with white people. It isn’t that he just desires to go to the same theater as the white people. From this, and other interviews I have read, it appears that the Negro seeks absorption with the white race. He will not be satisfied until he achieves it by intermarriage. That is his objective and we must face it.” — Apostle Mark E. Peterson, August 27, 1954

The church has retracted those statements and that stance so long ago.

Well, this year’s Aaronic Priesthood manual (can someone verify that this is the one indeed being used this year?) is still discouraging interracial marriage:

“We recommend that people marry those who are of the same racial background generally, and of somewhat the same economic and social and educational background (some of those are not an absolute necessity, but preferred), and above all, the same religious background, without question” (“Marriage and Divorce,” in 1976 Devotional Speeches of the Year [Provo: Brigham Young University Press, 1977], p. 144).

The quotation is pre-1978, but it is still quoted in a current manual.

Jonathan Blake – Well, I can certainly affirm that I never heard those quotes in YW. Apparently they aren’t in the YW manual or if they are, my teachers chose to ignore them. The only recent “marriage advice” statements I’ve heard say the bit about economic, social and educational background commonalities, which is probably true. I always assumed that’s because so many elders married locals they met on their missions and then found the cultural boundaries made married life difficult for one or both of them, resulting in divorce and unhappiness. I always assumed even that was just advice – take it or leave it, and use your own prayerful judgment.

At what point are we to move past the barriers of race, class, or education? When should a people get about the business of being ‘one people.’

Jeff,

It seems that the word “discourage” has different connotations for each of us. For me, the word means something like recommend against, dissuade from. You seem to define it as forbid. The church is at the very least recommending that certain couples exercise caution when getting married because of their dissimilar background. In this case, it is at least recommending that interracial couples not marry.

If you’ll allow me to parse SWK’s quote a little:

We recommend that people marry those who are of the same racial background …

Conversely, he doesn’t recommend that people of dissimilar racial backgrounds marry.

… and of somewhat the same economic and social and educational background (some of those are not an absolute necessity, but preferred) …

It follows that some of those aspects are an absolute necessity. Given the date of the quote, if I had to guess, I would think SWK meant that marrying within your racial background is of absolute necessity. It’s pretty clear to me that the church has a history of discouraging interracial marriage, and this quote is part of that history.

The question is why is the church still using this quote in its official materials if it has put that history behind it?

Jeff,

You’re misreading the tone of my comments. I just want to point out where the church is still discouraging (i.e. recommending against) interracial marriage. I don’t want to portray this as particularly ominous or evil. Allow me to quote myself from another thread:

To be fair, I think these factors should be taken into consideration when deciding to get married. Marriage is hard enough without having such socioeconomic differences. In this case, race is mostly a placeholder for different cultures. An interracial couple still faces external bigotry in many communities, but if I had to guess, the big difficulty is usually in the cultural differences that those different races imply.

However, I obviously don’t think it’s wrong to marry someone significantly different than yourself, it’s just riskier. Marriages would be more stable if people didn’t believe that love could conquer all.

You can draw your own conclusions from the fact that the SWK quote is included in official church material. Are you denying that this quote discourages (i.e. dissuades from) interracial marriage? Or denying that it is included in current official church materials?

Hmmm, how far we have come – I vaguely remember JS teaching that the Lamanite would be made white by elders of zion intermarrying with Lamanite maidens, no?

Also, if we go to only civil unions, could we call divorce civil dissolutions, you know just to take away the stigma of the word divorce?

Jonathan,

OK, it appears we are more in agreement than disagreement. I would hope that quote would be removed from the manual at the next revision. I, for one, would never tell my AP YM that quote.

Green Man, there are more races than just the African race, so it must apply more universally than your one-trick pony. But it’s old news anyway.

This is kind of interesting. Yesterday in Priesthood a member of our Bishopric said the area presidency had asked our Stake to go to each of the Wards and take an anonymous poll about the California Marriage Initiative. They wanted to gage the feelings of the local membership. They assume the First Presidency asked the Area Authorities to do this poll. Each ward was asked to create this informal poll their own way, it was not provided. So they passed out a slip of paper that asked, “What are your feelings about the Marriage Initiative?”, and then you checked marked next to these options, Strongly Support, Support, Somewhat Support, Do not Support. We then folded it and placed it into a paper bag.

Just thought I’d pass that on.

Dissent is one thing, Marc. Misusing the term “homophobe” to apply it to anyone, much less a Prophet, is quite another. You can make your general point very well without resorting to that kind of name-calling and mis-representation.

Sorry, I meant to say that BY’s views didn’t mean he WASN’T a prophet.

(This comment is off-topic, but the blog on suicide created Augut 14th was closed. Please forgive.)

I am a nondescript (not homosexual) member of the church. On August 14th, I attempted suicide. I think isolation was my undoing. We do a lot of talking TO and ABOUT people – often out of obligation instead of sincere interest – when it’s the talking WITH that is perhaps more helpful. I can’t honestly blame anyone for my decision, but I’m rather confident that if I had found an outlet for sharing my distress, I would have made a more healthy choice. May the teacher learn.