The marriage of Adam and Steve

Today in church they read a letter from the First Presidency urging us to support the Federal Marriage Amendment, which will be coming up for a vote on June 6. I hadn’t been following it too closely, but a read through the Wikipedia article gave me a nice overview. As is obvious from the name, it’s a proposed amendment to the Constitution, and there are two parts to it:

• Marriage in the United States of America shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.
• Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

(That’s the 2002 version, and while there’s a 2004 version, the 2002 is the one that’s being voted on next week.)

This is something I would have supported anyway, but having the First Presidency come out with an official statement about it means it’s quite serious. God has spoken.

A more detailed article about some of the possible ramifications of legalizing same-sex marriages is Maggie Gallagher’s article “Banned in Boston”. Some quotes:

“Gay rights supporters often try to present these laws as purely neutral and having no moral implications. But not all discrimination is bad,” Feldblum points out. In employment law, for instance, “we allow discrimination against people who sexually abuse children, and we don’t say ‘the only question is can they type’ even if they can type really quickly.”

And this:

Sexual harassment law as an instrument for suppressing religious speech? A few days after I interviewed Stern, an Alliance Defense Fund press release dropped into my mail box: “OSU Librarian Slapped with ‘Sexual Harassment’ Charge for Recommending Conservative Books for Freshmen.” One of the books the Ohio State librarian (a pacifist Quaker who drives a horse and buggy to work) recommended was It Takes a Family by Senator Rick Santorum. Three professors alleged that the mere appearance of such a book on a freshman reading list made them feel “unsafe.” The faculty voted to pursue the sexual harassment allegation, and the process quickly resulted in the charge being dropped.

In the end the investigation of the librarian was more of a nuisance — you might call it harassment — than anything else. But the imbalance in terms of free speech remains clear: People who favor gay rights face no penalty for speaking their views, but can inflict a risk of litigation, investigation, and formal and informal career penalties on others whose views they dislike. Meanwhile, people who think gay marriage is wrong cannot know for sure where the line is now or where it will be redrawn in the near future. “Soft” coercion produces no martyrs to disturb anyone’s conscience, yet it is highly effective in chilling the speech of ordinary people.

This is chillingly disturbing.

I got an e-mail with the text of the letter the First Presidency sent out:

We are informed that the United States Senate will on June 6, 2006, vote on an amendment to the Federal constitution designed to protect the traditional institution of marriage.

We, as the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, have repeatedly set forth our position that the marriage of a man and a woman is the only acceptable marriage relationship.

In 1995 we issued a Proclamation to the World on this matter, and have repeatedly reaffirmed that position.

In that proclamation we said: “We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.”

We urge our members to express themselves on this urgent matter to their elected representatives in the Senate.

And here’s a press release from the Church, issued on the 26th:

SALT LAKE CITY — The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has sent a letter to its congregational leaders throughout the United States, urging members to “express themselves” on a forthcoming vote in the United States Senate relating to the definition of marriage.

The letter, signed by the First Presidency of the Church — the faith’s highest governing body — draws attention to the Senate vote scheduled for 6 June on an amendment to the federal Constitution that would “protect the traditional institution of marriage.” It will be read to congregations at the start of Church services this Sunday.

“We, as the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, have repeatedly set forth our position that the marriage of a man and a woman is the only acceptable marriage relationship,” the letter says.

In addition, you can go to the Religious Coalition for Marriage website to easily show your support for the FMA. Or you can sign the Family Leader Network petition (which I found through Meridian Magazine).

It’s good to see people mobilizing. I only wish I could do more…

There’s an uncalled-for bias put on that allegation about the OSU librarian. Yes it happened, but the librarian could make a counter-allegation on the same thing and the university would investigate it as well. I really don’t like seeing people making such big deals out of allegations when it’s the results that count. It’s a common propaganda tactic. The fact is, whenever a sexual harassment allegation is made, by law the university has to investigate it, even if it appears frivolous at first. This happens more than you might suspect. I have almost no doubt that there will be no charges pressed and that the issue will be dropped by the university, if this truly is all there is to it.

As for the letter read, I’m really not convinced that it says we should support the amendment itself. The First Presidency says “We urge our members to express themselves on this urgent matter to their elected representatives in the Senate”. The biggest reservation I have is that our country’s government is based on the idea it can be no respecter of beliefs, save when they directly infringe on another person. While I am personally against homosexual marriage, legally my preference has no basis.

I would rather see civil unions strengthened a bit to make them like marriages and allow homosexual unions through that. We can reserve the term marriage for heterosexual unions that way, perhaps. I explored my thoughts on the subject in Homosexuality and Modernism and then further in the entry after that (Modernism and Faith). I personally am still conflicted about what should happen.

Read it carefully. They say that the amendment is “designed to protect the traditional institution of marriage.” And it is, certainly. They then go on to say that “the marriage of a man and a woman is the only acceptable marriage relationship.” Sounds similar to the words of the amendment: “Marriage in the United States of America shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.” If that wasn’t enough, they “have repeatedly reaffirmed that position,” and they quote the proclamation in saying that we need to “promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family.”

That’s clear. And while I still don’t understand all the ramifications of it, I do know that if the First Presidency wants us to support it (and has sent out an urgent letter expressing their position, which as we know rarely occurs), God wants us to fight for it. And that means that legislating it is important. Really important.

As for civil unions being strengthened to make them like marriages, isn’t that opening up a whole big can of worms? I admittedly don’t understand much about it, but it seems to me that it’s not just the word “marriage” that we need to protect — it’s the institution of marriage.

From a comment on Naiahdot, I came across these two articles on Messenger and Advocate: Big Love’s Gay Marriage — To No Marriage and The Not So Lovely Big Love. Interesting reads, especially Judge Scalia’s dissent in the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas case.

Shaun: I have a problem with your separation-of-church-and-state argument, because it really just doesn’t make sense. If my beliefs are religiously based, they aren’t allowed to be part of law, but if they are based on secular philosophy, they are? Separation of church and state is meant to be just that: the government is to take no stance on purely religious issues, like which church is correct, baptism, etc. However, the government should in no way be restricted from representing the moral values of the people, whether those values come from religion or not.

Is it ironic that this amendment is being voted on on 6/6/06? (Mostly joking. I just finished reading a news article on that date. :D)

Well, but if I take a religious stance that marriage is not required to be a male-female situation, which a great deal of people do, then to legislate in that fashion seems arbitrary on one side. Moral values come from people, not the government. In fact, we’ve seen what happens when governments put forth moral values onto the people and it’s been a repressive thing.

The problem I have with now getting in a huff about the institution of marriage is that we’ve already defiled it. Abuse, neglect, divorce, and much more is already rampant and changing the definition on a secular level is hardly a degradation anymore. I believe that any divine punishment will come much swifter and much harsher for that.

The thing is, governmental marriages are largely meaningless except to the government itself. Its reasons for even being involved are sometimes muddied and unclear. Yes, it does provide legal means to enforce deadbeats to uphold their end of the bargain, but there are so many exceptions and other such contradictions, especially in tax code, that the biggest thing a marriage recognized by the government amounts to is a tax break. That’s hardly a noble cause for the institution of marriage.

Another thing to consider is what passing an amendment would mean. For starters, it’s going to give a lot of people another rationalization to hate homosexuals and persecute them. More groups like the church that’s been protesting at military funerals claiming military deaths are God’s punishment for accepting “them” will crop up. There were similar laws banning inter-racial marriage prior to the civil rights movements, also based on religious beliefs that it wasn’t natural or against God’s will, and those laws perpetuated that friction for quite some time.

Additionally, it has been very clear that public support has been waning on the amendment. If an amendment passes, it will be repealed in a matter of years. This does not help our vision on the rule of law and the supremacy of the Constitution if it becomes subject to the whim of public opinion on something like marriage, with us slapping an amendment to it and then ripping it off when it no longer holds our fancy. It will turn out just like prohibition did, only I’d be surprised if it lasted as long.

I’m not making my arguments on a seperation of chuch and state position, but on a religious freedom basis. Even the most unpopular groups in society deserve to have their voice heard and requests considered. Were something like homosexual marriage to infringe on another’s right to marriage or anything like that, making laws with respect to it would be an easy case. I don’t understand why a push for protecting heterosexual marriage because it’s the only union that can produce children, and thus a future for the country is being pursued. Instead, the argument has largely been one of personal religious beliefs.

While something needs to be done to help marriage, I don’t think this is the best route. This avenue alienates a large part of the population (homosexuals and individuals who support them) which will almost inevitably lead to a backlash that will erode marriage worse than simply allowing it would. At this point I think we have the opportunity to talk it out and come to better understand homosexuality and the problem in general. The reason I suggested civil unions is that it’s a way to give the tax breaks and visitation and representation benefits that a marriage license gives (i.e. in the event of hospitalization) and make some concessions there while still preserving traditional marriage as a heterosexual union. It provides an alternative, which I think is especially important because this issue isn’t going to just go away, and an amendment to the Constitution won’t change that.

I’ve been thinking about the letter the First Presidency sent out. I guess what really confuses me is why they don’t come out and say they support the amendment. That would seem like an oversight if such is the case, but I don’t think their wording was happenstance. While they do strongly line out the Church’s position on marriage, the closing statement is for “members to express themselves on this urgent matter to their elected representatives in the Senate.” That’s partly why I don’t think an amendment is the only way to go on this, in addition to being something I consider to be an ineffective approach to the problem.