Mormonism-Unveiled provides a discussion of Latter-day Saint (Mormon) doctrines, practices, and current events from the pro-LDS point of view. In Mormonism-Unveiled, note that I speak only for myself and do not officially speak on behalf of the LDS Church. Get all the facts before you join. Mormonism may not be for everyone - but it might be for YOU.
The case resulted from a homosexual Norfolk couple’s lawsuit against the clerk of Norfolk Circuit Court after he refused to issue them a marriage license. The ruling upheld a federal judge’s earlier ruling that the clerk’s decision in accordance with a state constitutional ban against same-sex matrimonial unions violated the men’s rights under the U.S. Constitution. Essentially, the court affirmed that the U.S. Constitution trumps the state constitution’s proscription against gay marriage.
Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, Attorney General Mark Herring, and U.S. Senator Tim Kaine, all Democrats, acclaimed the court's decision. The Virginia clerks were expected to seek a stay of the decision, pending either a rehearing by the full circuit court, or consideration of same-sex marriage by the Supreme Court. Byron Babione, a lawyer with Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal group that represented one of the clerks, said they were considering their next steps. Among other media outlets reporting reaction was the Suffolk News-Herald, and the response of 48-year-old Annette Lewis, identified as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, was included. Here's the excerpt:
Annette Lewis, 48, referred to marriage between two individuals of the same gender as an “abomination.” “I don’t have anything against gay people,” she said, “but the Bible that I read says that it’s wrong.” Lewis said she reads the King James Version of the Bible as well as the Book of Mormon, as a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. “The court made a wrong decision, because it’s supposed to be Adam and Eve, not Adam and Paul, and you can quote me on that,” she said.
The LDS Church officially defines marriage as only between one man and one woman, but has disavowed any intent to take disciplinary action against Church members who support legalizing gay marriage.
According to the Washington Post, as of July 28th, 20 states allow gay marriage, and bans against same-sex marriage have been ruled unconstitutional in 11 other states, including Virginia. Court challenges against gay marriage bans have been mounted in all other states.
In fact, Mormons were perceived to be one of the three most unfriendly religious groups towards gays. Catholics lead the way with 58 percent perceived as unfriendly, while Mormons checked in at 53 percent and Evangelicals at 51 percent. Interestingly, on the flip side, while 27 percent characterized Catholics as gay-friendly and 24 percent thought Evangelicals as gay-friendly, only 13 percent of respondents characterized Mormons as gay-friendly. This was the only part of the survey in which Mormons were highlighted.
-- Read the 23-page description of the survey methodology and the questions HERE.
Other issues examined in the survey include gay marriage, parenting and adopting by gay and lesbian couples, employment nondiscrimination laws protecting LGBT people, and perceptions of discrimination and bullying in society. A few factoids of interest:
-- The survey estimates that only five percent of the U.S. population identify as LGBT. PRRI found that most respondents tended to significantly overestimate the percentage of LGBT people, with only 14 percent correctly estimating five percent. This can be attributable to media infatuation and oversaturation, a problem identified by Kathryn Skaggs in her post about Disney's Frozen movie.
-- Support for gay marriage has jumped from 21 percent in 2003 to 53 percent in 2013.
-- Support for gay adoptions has jumped from 38 percent in 1999 to 58 percent in 2013.
-- 72 percent of respondents support extending antidiscrimination protection to gays.
-- Democratic support for gay marriage increased from 39 percent in 2003 to 64 percent in 2013.
-- Independent support for gay marriage increased from 39 percent in 2003 to 57 percent in 2013.
-- Republican support for gay marriage increased from 18 percent in 2003 to 34 percent in 2013.
The remarkable success of the Gay Mafia's sustained propaganda campaign must be turning Joseph Goebbels green with envy. The Salt Lake Tribune noted that only the issue of marijuana legalization looks anything like this in terms of rapid reversal in favorability.
The survey was designed and conducted by PRRI; they sampled 4,509 adults 18 years of age or older in the U.S. from November 12th through December 18th, 2013. Margin of error estimated to be +/- 1.7 percent. Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to research at the intersection of religion, values, and public life. Their mission is to help journalists, opinion leaders, scholars, clergy, and the general public better understand debates on public policy issues and the role of religion and values in American public life by conducting public opinion surveys and qualitative research. As members of the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR), the American Political Science Association (APSA), and the American Academy of Religion (AAR), their research team strives to follow the highest research standards of independence and academic excellence.
The proverbial "Gay Mafia" is always on the prowl for opportunities to discredit and defame anyone who speak out against the promotion of homosexual behavior. And they found a juicy target in the person of Kathryn Skaggs, a leading Mormon blogger who posted her assessment of the new Disney movie "Frozen". After seeing the movie three times, Sister Skaggs got the impression that it promoted a pro-gay message. The following statement best sums up her assessment of the movie; midway through her post, Sister Skaggs wrote "It actually gave me a good opportunity to confirm my initial reaction, and in so doing, I could blatantly see that the homosexual agenda, to normalize the practice, was not simply an underlying message in the movie Frozen, but is the actual story".
Of course, the critics all piled on to the comments section of her post and vented their spleens. Some criticism came from fellow Mormons, and not all of it was constructive. The "homophobic" epithet was slung about faster than hash at Mel's Diner. While she finally found it necessary to disable further comments, she let most of the comments stand as a testament, in part, to the emotional and irrational hatred displayed by the Gay Mafia and its allies against those who question their agenda. On February 21st, Kathryn Skaggs fired back, seeking to clarify the misunderstanding of her position and the resultant misinformation published in a number of outside media sources such as Pink News and HuffPo. Here's the meat of her rebuttal, along with my comments in italics:
I'd like to make a few clarifications about some of the things that I wrote in the post, which are being misrepresented, misunderstood, or were never said: -- I did not say that people should boycott Frozen, rather, I liked the film. This is true; at no time did she call for a boycott. -- I do not think the movie Frozen is evil, although I do see a strong gay theme running throughout the film. This is her honest assessment, although as Sixteen Small Stones points out, the movie actually demonstrates broad applicability to many different human experiences, which explains its popularity. -- I never said that children who watch Frozen will become gay. This is true; at no time does she say or even imply that watching Frozen will turn anyone gay. -- I do not believe people who advocate for SSM are evil. This is true; she clearly states she has no problem with those who find the homosexual messaging good, or important for society, from their perspective. -- I do not hate homosexuals. This is true; one of her five kids is a non-practicing lesbian who's married to a man and who is an active LDS member, and Sister Skaggs says she loves her very much. -- I never said that Christian parents who didn't see a gay message in Frozen are stupid. This is true; she merely said they could be clueless, which can mean they could have been honestly duped. Satan is notorious for twisting around otherwise worthy messages to mislead us, misdirect us, and subject us to his yoke. -- I am aware that others see different themes in Frozen, which are positive. She points this out numerous times in her original post. -- I believe a progressive element is strongly rooted in all forms of media and intentionally influences culture, in order to normalize that which currently is opposed by mainstream society - often so subtle that most don't detect it. This is putting it mildly. Progressives have virtually hijacked the entertainment industry, glorifying anti-heroes, misfits, malcontents, and other losers. And progressives have hijacked all the national media organizations except for the Fox News Channel.
Perhaps another reason why Sister Skaggs sees a gay theme in the movie is because some of the Gay Mafia have so enthusiastically taken ownership of it. Topless Robot wrote, in part, "Frozen's subtext is so gay, it's barely subtext; it's just on-the-nose text". And Bad-Ass Digest wrote, in part, "Is Elsa gay? I think there’s certainly a valid queer reading to be found in the film". So one can understand why some would focus on a gay theme in the movie. But Sixteen Small Stones gets it right when they opine that many people who are marginalized, for many different reasons, can relate to the movie. But Kathryn Skaggs does not deserve to be raked over the coals merely for sounding a voice of caution.
This may come as a surprise to regular readers of this blog, since I am a hardline social conservative who opposes gay marriage. But I have misgivings about a piece of legislation passed on February 21st, 2014 by the Arizona State House. The bill, if signed into law by Governor Jan Brewer, could be flipped around by anti-religious extremists to target members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and other religious conservatives for discrimination under protective cover of their own beliefs.
Update February 26th:Governor Brewer vetoed the bill. She said the bill was unnecessary legislation that threatened the state’s recovering economy by driving away high-profile events such as next year’s Super Bowl and corporations looking to relocate to Arizona. She also said the proposed law was too broadly worded and could have resulted in unintended and negative consequences. Good move, Guv...it was too broadly worded.
The Arizona State House passed SB1062 (also known as HB2153) by a 33-27 vote on February 21st, just one day after the State Senate passed the same bill by a party-line 17-13 vote (17 Republicans, 13 Democrats. The House vote was almost party line, with only three Republicans voting against the bill. The bill's original sponsor, Sen. Steve Yarbrough (R-Chandler), said it was prompted by the infamous New Mexico case in which the state's Supreme Court allowed a gay couple to sue a photographer who refused to take pictures of their wedding. An unscientific online poll conducted by the Arizona Republic indicates only limited public support; over 81 percent of respondents want Gov. Brewer to veto the bill. Gov. Brewer has five days to sign it into law, veto it or do nothing and allow it to become law. Although Gov. Brewer vetoed a similar bill in 2013, the Arizona Republic suggests it may not be a clear predictor of what she’ll do this time, because according to her veto letter, her decision to reject last year’s bill was due more to a political battle over Medicaid expansion than objection to the legislation. CNN claims that Gov. Brewer has expressed her personal belief in the right of business owners to deny service in the past.
According to the Arizona Republic (which provides only a limited number of free views per month), the legislation proposes the following specifics:
-- Expand the state’s definition of the exercise of religion to include both the practice and observance of religion.
-- Allow someone to assert a legal claim of free exercise of religion regardless of whether the government is a party to the proceedings.
-- Expand those protected under the state’s free-exercise-of-religion law to “any individual, association, partnership, corporation, church, religious assembly or institution or other business organization.”
-- Establish wording that says that in order to assert a free-exercise-of-religion defense, the individual, business or church must establish that its action is motivated by a religious belief, that the belief is sincerely held and that the belief is substantially burdened.
Caveat: Although this legislation may appear to protect conservatives on the surface, it may be a double-edged sword. What's to stop a business owner who's a member of a gay-friendly church like the Metropolitan Community Church to refuse service to Mormons because the LDS Church opposes gay marriage? And what's to stop an Evangelical business owner from refusing service to Mormons because of his theological belief that Mormonism is a "cult"? This bill could easily be used as a weapon against us, and while we may be able to successfully defray such action, there's no guarantee that a judge will rule sensibly. After all, no one dreamed that unelected judges would invalidate the constitutional definitions of marriage in Utah and Oklahoma.
Now we better understand why the LDS Church leadership has pursued a two-track strategy in dealing with gay activism. While the Brethren have circled the wagons in defense of traditional marriage and are pulling out all the stops to prevent gay marriage, the Brethren have expressed no opposition to anti-discrimination legislation protecting gays in other areas. The Brethren correctly perceive that gay marriage poses a greater threat to civilization than anti-discrimination ordinances. Once again, the Brethren have shown that they're on top of the situation and want to protect our right as Mormons to advocate publicly without fear of discrimination; this also keeps the window of opportunity to evangelize the world wide open for as long as possible. While Jesus Christ is indeed the real head of the LDS Church, let us not forget that he has delegated His authority to his chosen servants upon this earth. The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve constitute that chosen authority, not because they are inerrant or infallible, but because they're good enough for Christ. When we have Primary children sing "follow the prophet", we are asking them to follow the Savior as well.
According to the Supreme Court's SCOTUS blog, the order appeared to have the support of the full Court, since there were no noted dissents. The ruling can be interpreted as an indication that the Court wants to have further exploration in lower courts of the basic constitutional question of state power to limit marriage to a man and a woman. Had it refused the state’s request for delay, that would have left at least the impression that the Court was comfortable allowing same-sex marriages to go forward in the thirty-three states where they are still not permitted by state law. But they caution that the order cannot be interpreted as a dependable indication of how the Court will rule on the issue when it finally decides to do so directly.
In response, Trestin Meacham, an ordinary LDS member who previously ran for the Utah state legislature as a Constitution Party candidate, chose to end his 15-day fast. Meacham pledged to fast, consuming only water and vitamins, until Utah stopped performing same-sex marriages; since the Supreme Court ruling prohibits further same-sex marriages, his fast accomplished its advertise purpose. On his Twitter site, Meacham proclaimed initial victory, but said it's only a first step and still wants Utah to exercise nullification. Meacham also added that while he is opposed to same-sex marriage in principle, the reason for the fast was the unconstitutional nature of the ruling. He also said that another purpose of the fast was to "expose the hatred of the supposedly tolerant homosexual movement", which was expressed in spades. The Daily Mail reports that Meacham will give up football next time.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court stay leaves same-sex marriages already performed in limbo. For example, can newly-minted gay couples file state taxes jointly, or must they continue to file individually? In response to this dilemma, Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes said "We don’t know the answer yet as to marriages already performed. Utah’s Office of the Attorney General is carefully evaluating the legal status of the marriages that were performed since the District Court’s decision and will not rush to a decision that impacts Utah citizens so profoundly. There is not clear legal precedent for this particular situation." Since California experienced the same problem during their Proposition 8 debate, Reyes should probably examine how they handled it as additional guidance.
Nevertheless, Utah Governor Gary Herbert was pleased with the Supreme Court decision, saying "Clearly, the stay should have been granted with the original District Court decision in order to have avoided the uncertainty created by this unprecedented change. As I have said all along, all Utahns deserve to have this issue resolved through a fair and complete judicial process. I firmly believe this is a state-rights issue, and I will work to defend the position of the people of Utah and our State Constitution".
The Salt Lake Tribune documented reaction from the ACLU and an assortment of gay rights lobbies. Of greatest interest is the reaction of the three same-sex couples who started this legal conundrum. Their attorney, James E. Magleby, merely stated "Every day that goes by, same-sex couples and their children are being harmed by not being able to marry and be treated equally". Yada, yada, yada. Just 24 hours earlier, the Tribune published an editorial basically advising the state to let it go, marginalizing the freely-expressed will of 66 percent of Utah voters in 2003 by suggesting that Amendment Three would not pass today. The Tribune also noted that the LDS Church has gone from actively participating in the marriage wars to simply explaining its own beliefs and practices, and on that basis, the Tribune proclaims that "the tide has turned".
Interesting that the Tribune doesn't propose a new election to see if voters really have changed their minds. But that's how progressives operate -- they like democracy when the vote goes their way, but prefer oligarchy when the vote doesn't go their way.
Positive response came from Gayle Ruzicka, president of the conservative Utah Eagle Forum, who also called for the estimated 900 homosexual marriages that were performed in the state before the stay to be summarily invalidated. The National Organization for Marriage was also pleased, characterizing Judge Shelby's original decision as "lawless", and adding that the Supreme Court's decision will allow the state to appeal in an orderly fashion. The LDS Church has not issued a new statement on this development; their previous statement on December 20th remains operative.
-- Read the 53-page Kitchen et al v Herbert court decision HERE.
Update December 22nd: On this date, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Gov. Herbert's Emergency Motion for Temporary Stay of Judge Shelby's decision because it neither addressed nor satisfied the factors that must be established to be entitled to a stay pending an appeal. The Salt Lake Tribune reports that the 10th Circuit Court couldn’t rule on a stay since Judge Shelby hadn’t acted on the same motion also before him. However, the denial is without prejudice, meaning the defendants-appellants can still file another motion for stay pending appeal if it complies with regulations. The state has now filed another motion for a stay to be heard by the full Circuit Court, and the full court is not expected to make that decision for at least a few months. Read the two-page court document HERE.
After Utahns approved Amendment 3 in 2004, their verdict was incorporated as Article 1, Section 29 of the state constitution:
(1) Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman.
(2) No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect.
The Litigants: Gay couple Derek Kitchen and Moudi Sbeity and lesbian couple Laurie Wood and Kody Partridge filed a lawsuit challenging the amendment in March 2013 after Salt Lake County denied them marriage licenses. Karen Archer and Kate Call, who were legally married in Iowa, joined the suit because Utah does not recognize their marriage as valid. Citing U.S. Supreme Court civil rights cases Brown v. Board of Education, which desegregated schools in the South, and Loving v. Virginia, which invalidated laws banning interracial marriage, as well as the Supreme Court decision gutting the Defense of Marriage ACT (DOMA), the plaintiffs contended that for the same reasons the Fifth Amendment prohibits the federal government from differentiating between same-sex and opposite-sex couples, the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits state governments from making this distinction. The State of Utah, with Gov. Gary Herbert, then-Attorney General John Swallow, and Salt Lake County Clerk Sherrie Swensen, argued that that the federal government cannot intrude upon a state’s decision not to recognize same-sex marriage, meaning that it is up to each individual state to decide whether two persons of the same sex may occupy the same status and dignity as that of a man and woman in lawful marriage.
Summary of Initial Ruling: Judge Robert Shelby, who was appointed to the bench by Barack Obama, swallowed the plaintiffs arguments and said that the state of Utah provided no evidence that opposite-sex marriage would be adversely affected in any way by same-sex marriage, concluding that in the absence of such evidence, the state’s speculations are insufficient to justify the state’s refusal to dignify the family relationships of its gay and lesbian citizens. He added that the U.S. Constitution protects the plaintiffs’ fundamental rights, which include the right to marry and the right to have that marriage recognized by their government. Furthermore, Judge Shelby noted that any regulation adopted by a state, whether related to marriage or any other interest, must comply with the Constitution of the United States, and so he decided the issue was not who should define marriage, but the more narrow question of whether Utah’s current definition of marriage is permissible under the Constitution. Since Judge Shelby concluded that Utah's current law deny its gay and lesbian citizens their fundamental right to marry and, in so doing, demean the dignity of these same-sex couples for no rational reason, he ruled the law unconstitutional. By the way, the unofficial word is that Judge Shelby is not LDS.
The Upshot: Because of Judge Shelby's ruling, Utah is now, as of this post, officially the 18th state to have legal gay marriage. However, if the ruling is stayed, the ban will be reinstituted while the legal fight continues and no more marriage licenses will be issued. A plaintiff’s attorney said marriage licenses issued to that point will be valid, but the state said marriages would be declared invalid if its appeal succeeds.
Governor Gary Herbert issued the following statement:
“I am very disappointed an activist federal judge is attempting to override the will of the people of Utah. I am working with my legal counsel and the acting attorney general to determine the best course to defend traditional marriage within the borders of Utah”.
And the LDS Church weighed in with the following statement issued through spokesman Cody Craynor:
"The Church has been consistent in its support of traditional marriage while teaching that all people should be treated with respect. This ruling by a district court will work its way through the judicial process. We continue to believe that voters in Utah did the right thing by providing clear direction in the state constitution that marriage should be between a man and a woman and we are hopeful that this view will be validated by a higher court."
Although there's no indication that any pastor, priest or bishop would be forced to solemnize gay marriages as a result of this ruling, Utah House Majority Leader Brad Dee (R-Ogden) said he has served in positions as a mayor and LDS Church bishop where he had the authority to marry people and wondered if refusing to marry someone based on his deeply held religious beliefs would be considered discrimination. Undoubtedly that's coming next, but the Gay Mafia is smart enough to feed the sheep only spoonfuls of political correctness at a time.
Additional Reaction: Strong disapproval expressed on LDS Freedom Forum. But jdawg1012 read the four-hour transcript of the summary judgment hearing, and characterized the state's defense as a "joke". Denver Snuffer merely posted Alma 10:27, which states "And now behold, I say unto you, that the foundation of the destruction of this people is beginning to be laid by the unrighteousness of your lawyers and your judges."
Those who were concerned that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was caving in to political correctness when they supported the decision by the Boy Scouts of America to admit gay Scouts need to disabuse themselves of that notion right now. On June 26th, 2013, in response to U.S. Supreme Court decisions invalidating the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and California Proposition 8, the LDS Church explicitly reaffirmed its commitment to defending traditional marriage as well as democratic expression through the ballot box. Here's the official reaction by the LDS Church:
"By ruling that supporters of Proposition 8 lacked standing to bring this case to court, the Supreme Court has highlighted troubling questions about how our democratic and judicial system operates. Many Californians will wonder if there is something fundamentally wrong when their government will not defend or protect a popular vote that reflects the views of a majority of their citizens.
"In addition, the effect of the ruling is to raise further complex jurisdictional issues that will need to be resolved.
"Regardless of the court decision, the Church remains irrevocably committed to strengthening traditional marriage between a man and a woman, which for thousands of years has proven to be the best environment for nurturing children. Notably, the court decision does not change the definition of marriage in nearly three-fourths of the states."
According to Joanna Brooks, local Mormon action independent of Church headquarters is also expected. In one Washington, D.C., area stake, LDS Church leaders sent an email message to members requesting their attendance at a National Day of Prayer on religious freedom convened by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops this Thursday (June 27th) in Arlington, Virginia. At least Brooks is intellectually honest enough to admit that only a minority of Mormons have expressed support for the Supreme Court decisions. Other Christians joining the LDS Church in opposition include the Most Reverend John C. Wester, Catholic Bishop of Salt Lake City, Southern Evangelical Seminary President Richard Land, and American Family Association President Tim Wildmon.
The two decisions rendered by the Supreme Court are available online:
-- Hollingsworth v. Perry: This is the 35-page decision over Proposition 8. From the SCOTUSBlog, a short explanation in plain English. After two same-sex couples filed their challenge to Proposition 8 in federal court in California, the California government officials who would normally have defended the law in court declined to do so. So the proponents of Proposition 8 stepped in to defend the law, and the California Supreme Court ruled that they could do so under state law. But the Supreme Court held that the proponents do not have the legal right to defend the law in court. As a result, the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the intermediate appellate court, has no legal force, and it sent the case back to that court with instructions for it to dismiss the case. Majority opinion by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan. Minority opinion by Justices Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, and Sotomayor.
-- United States v. Windsor: This is the 77-page decision over DOMA. From the SCOTUSBlog, a short explanation in plain English. In ruling that DOMA is unconstitutional, the Court explained that the states have long had the responsibility of regulating and defining marriage, and some states have opted to allow same-sex couples to marry to give them the protection and dignity associated with marriage. By denying recognition to same-sex couples who are legally married, federal law discriminates against them to express disapproval of state-sanctioned same-sex marriage. This decision means that same-sex couples who are legally married must now be treated the same under federal law as married opposite-sex couples. Majority opinion by Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Dissenting was Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Scalia, and Alito.
Unofficial LDS Reaction:LDS Freedom Forum has opened up a discussion on how these decisions may ultimately affect temple marriage. The LDS Bloggernacle, which tends to be left-of-center politically, has exploded with reaction (after the jump):
As you can see in the Wikipedia graphic published above, gay marriage will be legal in 12 U.S. states effective August 1st, 2013. They are Washington, Minnesota, Iowa, Maryland, Delaware, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine. Yet despite this, some gay marriage advocates don't believe plural marriages can be justified.
Back on March 23rd, 2006, Slate published an article by William Saletan in which he justifies gay marriage but opposes plural marriage. Saletan writes "Here's the answer. The number isn't two. It's one. You commit to one person, and that person commits wholly to you. Second, the number isn't arbitrary. It's based on human nature. Specifically, on jealousy". However, this explanation in and of itself is arbitrary. Who empowered Saletan to define human nature for the rest of us? In fact, many make the case that a considerable number of men are, by their very nature, polygamous. And women, too, which explains why adultery is so commonplace in contemporary society. In fact, some religions, particularly Islam and the Fundamentalist Latter-day Saints, insist that plural marriage is ordained of God, although the Quran imposes a limit of four wives upon Muslim men. Worse yet, Andrew Sullivan, a gay man himself, wants legal gay marriage for himself but would selfishly deny legal marriage to polyamorous groups, writing in 2006“Legalizing [polygamy] is a bad idea for a society in general for all the usual reasons (abuse of women, the dangers of leaving a pool of unmarried straight men in the population at large, etc.)”.
The bottom line -- if gay marriage is morally and legally justified, so is plural marriage. To claim that gay marriage is O.K. but plural marriage is wrong is intellectually dishonest. It is selfish for gay marriage advocates to get their brand of marriage legalized but freeze out those who believe someone should be allowed to marry more than one spouse. In contrast, bestial marriage could never be justified because only one party, the human, is capable of knowingly consenting to the arrangement. Animals are not capable of giving informed consent.
If the federal government was to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and declare gay marriage to be legal nationwide, they would be opening themselves up to lawsuits to be filed by plural marriage advocates. Both the Fundamentalist Latter-day Saints and Muslims would have grounds to sue to get plural marriage recognized, at least for religious purposes. While it is possible that such lawsuits would be rejected since neither religious group recognizes the right of women to have more than one husband, this may not stop them from suing. And although the mainstream Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has indefinitely suspended the solemnization of plural marriages, there would be a demand for Congress to formally repeal the Edmunds-Tucker Act and other anti-polygamy legislation used by the federal government to oppress Mormons during the latter half of the 19th century.
If you think gay marriage is complicated, think about the additional complexities of plural marriage. How would the law mandate property rights and responsibilities in partial poly divorces? What about the rights and responsibilities of marriage that merge into preexisting marriages? And how about setting default laws for multiple inheritance in the absence of a will, allocating Social Security benefits, etc.
This is just another reason why gay marriage should be rejected. It opens up a big bucket of worms.
On May 23rd, 2013, the Boy Scouts of America announced its decision on gays in the organization. Of the roughly 1,400 voting members of the BSA's National Council who cast ballots, 61 percent supported the proposal to allow gay Scouts but not gay Scout leaders. The decision takes effect on January 1st, 2014. In their statement, the Boy Scouts stressed that they still would not condone sexual conduct by any Scout –- gay or straight, saying "The Boy Scouts of America will not sacrifice its mission, or the youth served by the movement, by allowing the organization to be consumed by a single, divisive and unresolved societal issue".
Because the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day expressed its willingness to live with this compromise back on April 25th, their reaction is of primary interest. And the LDS Church has issued an official statement indicating that they accept the decision, while reiterating the need for all participants in their Scouting units to abide by LDS Church standards, which are spelled out in the For The Strength Of Youth book and which prescribe total sexual abstinence outside of heterosexual marriage. A letter signed by the First Presidency of the Church reaffirming of Church policies and standards will be sent to every LDS congregation in the United States. Here's the most important part of the statement:
The Church's long-established policy for participation in activities is stated in the basic instructional handbook used by lay leaders of the Church: "young men … who agree to abide by Church standards" are "welcomed warmly and encouraged to participate" (Handbook 2: Administering the Church [2010], 8.17.3). This policy applies to Church-sponsored Scout units. Sexual orientation has not previously been -— and is not now -— a disqualifying factor for boys who want to join Latter-day Saint Scout troops. Willingness to abide by standards of behavior continues to be our compelling interest. These standards are outlined in the booklet For the Strength of Youth and include abstinence from sexual relationships. We remain firmly committed to upholding these standards and to protecting and strengthening boys and young men. The Church appreciates BSA's reaffirmation of its commitment to "duty to God," which includes service to others and moral behavior—central principles of our teaching to young men. As in the past, the Church will work with BSA to harmonize what Scouting has to offer with the varying needs of our young men. We trust that BSA will implement and administer the approved policy in an appropriate and effective manner.
The Assemblies of God, another conservative denomination which oversees units serving more than 2,000 Scouts, said said it could no longer support such units and predicted the policy change will lead to a mass exodus from the Boy Scout program. They suggested its own Royal Rangers youth group as a positive alternative. Meanwhile, the National Catholic Committee on Scouting responded more cautiously, saying it would assess the possible impact of the change on Catholic-sponsored Scout units. Texas Governor Rick Perry has also expressed disappointment with the decision, saying BSA "has been built upon the values of faith and family for more than 100 years, and today's decision contradicts generations of tradition in the name of political correctness."
I share Governor Perry's disappointment. It looks too much like the Scouts caved in to political correctness, which merely encourages more political correctness. If you think the gay rights lobby will stop here, you're sadly mistaken. The struggle will never be over for the American civil rights industry, because it provides too many jobs to too many activists. Like the Soviet Union during its existence, the civil rights industry maintains that what's theirs is theirs, and what's ours is always negotiable.
I'm also disappointed that the LDS leadership is breaking ranks with our Baptist and Assemblies of God brethren and sisters. However, this is where the test of faith comes into play. I intend to exercise faith that the LDS leadership is acting in accordance with the wishes of the Lord, not because they are inerrant, but because they have been ordained and set apart for their positions. Sustaining the brethren means allowing them room to exercise the Lord's will on behalf of the entire church and exercising faith that they are indeed enjoying the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost. Remember, Abraham had an even more severe test of faith -- he was asked to offer his son Isaac up as a sacrifice. Abraham obeyed, and the decision actually turned out well for him and Isaac. We have enough anklebiters and naysayers in the Bloggernacle -- I don't intend to become another naysayer.
Several liberal Idaho media outlets, most notably the Idaho State Journal and the Boise Weekly, are accusing LDS Regional Public Affairs Director Larry Fisher of working behind the scenes with Pocatello city leaders to quash a proposed gay nondiscrimination ordinance that's a part of a statewide campaign by gay activists known as "Add The Words". Their objective is to add the words "gender identity" and "sexual orientation" to the Idaho Human Rights Act; at least four other Idaho municipalities, Boise, Moscow, Sandpoint, and Ketchum, have adopted such a measure. The controversy revolves around the fact that Fisher put city leaders in touch with a pro-family group, American Religious Freedom Program (AFRP), so they could share their expertise in dealing with the construction of nondiscrimination guidelines.
The story began when Larry Fisher offered to bring an attorney from the AFRP to town to provide their expert opinion on nondiscrimination ordinances. City leaders accepted, and on April 4th, 2013, Jacki Pick arrived to represent the AFRP. Councilmen Jim Johnston and Steve Brown met with Pick from 9 to 10 a.m. on April 4th, Councilman Roger Bray met with her at 10 a.m. Eva Johnson-Nye and Craig Cooper had an 11 a.m. meeting, and meeting from 12:20 to 1:30 p.m. were Pick, Mayor Brian Blad, Brown, Bray, and city attorneys, Kirk Bybee and Dean Tranmer. City records indicate no notes were taken because a quorum of the council was not present at any of the sessions. There was also an afternoon session with Pick which lasted from 1:30 to 2:45 p.m. and included Fisher, Grace Lutheran pastor Jonathan Dinger and minister of the New Blazing Grace Church, Jacqueline Thomas. This input was provided along with input from other leading groups such as the ACLU, Too Great to Hate, and Interfaith Fellowship to ensure a proper balance from having the concerns of all constituencies represented. The Boise Weekly reports that another pro-family group, the Heritage Foundation, was also consulted.
Subsequently, a vote on the anti-discrimination ordinance was delayed until after the April 4th hearing and the hearing on proposed changes to the ordinance continued until April 18th. After the second hearing, a split council voted 3-3 with Mayor Blad casting the deciding No vote, essentially killing the ordinance as written. A new hearing on a revised ordinance, which was discussed on May 9th by the city council at a working session, is set for June 6th. Because Mayor Blad and the three council members who voted against the ordinance are all members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, questions arose as to whether it was an organized LDS effort similar to the campaign against California Proposition 8. In response to this concern, Pocatello Council Member Craig Cooper said he voted against the measure not because he's LDS, but because he thought it was too punitive -— the proposed ordinance would have made discrimination a misdemeanor, punishable by fines of up to $1,000 and/or six months in jail. He does not believe strict liability should be imposed; there should be proof of deliberate intent before punishment, since not everyone is going to know the law.
Read the revised eight-page ordinance HERE. The revised ordinance specifies that discriminatory acts must be willfully committed, exempts mom-and-pop landlords and employers, drops the incarceration provision, and allows prosecutors to reduce it from a misdemeanor to an infraction carrying a $100 fine if the violator makes voluntary corrections. In addition, anyone knowingly filing false discrimination charges will be charged with the crime of False Reporting.
Question: Because you are the regional Public Affairs Director for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, did you worry this would be seen as a move by “the church” to influence city politics? Is it an attempt by the LDS Church to wield influence or is this anti-discrimination ordinance something you have a personal stake in? Fisher: We are grateful that Councilman Bray and others sought comment from all interested groups. City officials are elected to represent all citizens in the community, including those who are LDS. The Church has publicly supported nondiscrimination ordinances in Salt Lake but has also been public about the necessity of balance as well. Question: As an influential member of the Pocatello community, what are your thoughts on protections for the LGBT community? Fisher: As I’ve said, we’ve supported nondiscrimination ordinances before and understand the need for balance and representation from all views. Our desire has been to help the city create a nondiscrimination ordinance that satisfies those goals. Question: There is no secret that Mayor Blad and the councilmen who voted against passage of the ordinance on April 18 are all members of the LDS Church. How do you think non-LDS members of the community will view your efforts to bring in an outside “expert?” How should they view it? Fisher: Our desire is to provide insight and expertise that helps all community leaders develop an ordinance that unites our community. That is possible only when all views have been heard and discussed.
There's no evidence of any collusion with LDS Church headquarters. The LDS Statement on Political Neutrality states that the Church does not endorse, promote or oppose political parties, candidates or platforms, and does not attempt to direct or dictate to any government leaders. The LDS Church does expect its members to engage in the political process in an informed and civil manner, respecting the fact that members of the Church come from a variety of backgrounds and experiences and may have differences of opinion in partisan political matters. It also reserves the right as an institution to address, in a nonpartisan way, issues that it believes have significant community or moral consequences or that directly affect the interests of the Church. These are rights accorded to all American citizens regardless of religion. Thus it is unfair to hold the LDS Church to a harsher standard than other organizations.
Update May 23rd: The Boy Scouts announced that they have voted to allow gay Scouts in the organization while continuing to disallow openly-gay adult leaders. The LDS Church has accepted this decision. Updated post HERE.
On April 20th, 2013, the Boy Scouts of America announced that the National Executive Committee will submit a proposed resolution to its approximately 1,400 voting members on May 20th that would remove the restriction denying membership to youth on the basis of sexual orientation alone and would maintain the current membership policy for all adult leaders of BSA. The resolution also reinforces that Scouting is a youth program and any sexual conduct, whether heterosexual or homosexual, by youth of Scouting age is contrary to the virtues of Scouting. The full text of the resolution is available HERE. At the time, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints merely said they would review the language and study the implications of the proposal.
On April 25th, the LDS Church delivered their answer. They expressed satisfaction at what they call a good-faith effort to address a complex, challenging issue, and said that the BSA proposal constructively addresses a number of important issues that have been part of the on-going dialogue including consistent standards for all BSA partners, recognition that Scouting exists to serve and benefit youth rather than Scout leaders, a single standard of moral purity for youth in the program, and a renewed emphasis for Scouts to honor their duty to God. This is a clear-cut indication that if the new BSA proposal is adopted as currently written, the LDS Church will not pull their Scouting units out of BSA.
Reaction: There was a mixed response from Mormons who are socially conservative. On LDS Freedom Forum, reaction is decidedly mixed. One person supports the Church's decision, saying that just because a boy may have experimented with homosexuality once or twice doesn't mean he should be typecast as "gay" the rest of his life, and adding that BSA is NOT planning on changing the Scout motto. But another person disagrees with the Church's response, and said he sent the following letter to lds.org:
"I agree completely with loving our fellow man and accepting the sinner while not the sin. As an adult I see the benefit of associating with different people. However, I cannot accept or support the church's position on Boy Scouting. Our youth are being taught values and standards that will have to carry them throughout their lives. This includes values of morality and sexuality. Our children are already being bombarded with the need to accept homosexuality in schools, with the television shows and movies they see, in news stories. Associations involved with the LDS Church should be a respite from these unwholesome influences. It is admirable to teach our children the need to accept all people with love and understanding in spite of their imperfections. It is another to say we support and endorse an organization which teaches these practices should be allowed. We teach our children to eschew evil, and yet send them into an organization that says evil is okay. Isn't the troubled turbulence of youth difficult enough without getting this mixed message?"
Dr. Stephen Jones, the former BYU professor who was gently kicked to the curb by the school for daring to deviate from the Official Authorized Version Of 9/11, is also skeptical about encouraging more perestroika towards gays, writing "A friend of mine deals with North Sanpete High School in Utah, and said that a big trend there now is for students to say that they are 'gay'. There seems to be a lot of support (and attention) given to those students who make this announcement". I knew it! The secondary purpose of placing these Gay-Straight Clubs in our schools is recruitment, and Dr. Jones has just provided the proof, although North Sanpete is not on this 2010 list of Utah high schools with GSA clubs.
However, another conservative LDS blogger, Kathryn Skaggs, is absolutely supportive of the Church's statement, characterizing it as "brilliant". While that may be a bit over the top, Skaggs points out that the statement is totally consistent with not only our current outreach to gay church members, but it also impresses her as the way the Savior Himself would have responded. Kathryn Skaggs' credentials as a faithful culture warrior are unimpeachable.
Those who are concerned about the possibility that the LDS Church may be wavering in their fundamental definition of sexual morality should take comfort from three different addresses delivered at the 183rd Annual General Conference which assure us that the Church remains firmly committed to defending traditional sexual behavior:
President Boyd K. Packer: During his address, he said “Tolerance is a virtue, but like all virtues, when exaggerated, it transforms itself into a vice. We need to be careful of the tolerance trap so that we are not swallowed up in it. The permissiveness afforded by the weakening of the laws of the land to tolerate legalized acts of immorality does not reduce the serious spiritual consequence that is the result of the violation of God’s law of chastity.”
Elder Dallin H. Oaks: In his address, he said "Latter-day Saints understand that we should not be of the world or bound to the tradition of men, but like other followers of Christ, we sometimes find it difficult to separate ourselves from the world and its traditions. Some model themselves after worldly ways because, as Jesus said of some whom He taught, 'they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God' (John 12:43). These failures to follow Christ are too numerous and too sensitive to list here. They range all the way from worldly practices like political correctness and extremes in dress and grooming to deviations from basic values like the eternal nature and function of the family".
Elder David A. Bednar: In his address, Elder Bednar firmly reiterated the LDS Church's standard of sexual morality, saying "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a single, undeviating standard of sexual morality: intimate relations are proper only between a man and a woman in the marriage relationship prescribed in God’s plan. Such relations are not merely a curiosity to be explored, an appetite to be satisfied, or a type of recreation or entertainment to be pursued selfishly. They are not a conquest to be achieved or simply an act to be performed. Rather, they are in mortality one of the ultimate expressions of our divine nature and potential and a way of strengthening emotional and spiritual bonds between husband and wife. We are agents blessed with moral agency and are defined by our divine heritage as children of God—and not by sexual behaviors, contemporary attitudes, or secular philosophies".
The Community of Christ concluded its 2013 World Conference which took place from April 13-18, and the most significant legislative development of this conference was the decision to rescind General Conference Resolution (GCR) 297, which made the issue of whether or not a person drinks intoxicating beverages a test of fellowship. If it was enforced, it would mean that a church member who drinks an alcoholic beverage could be excommunicated from the church. By rescinding GCR 297, the Conference decided that excommunicating someone merely because they drink alcohol is not a requirement. Rescinding GCR 297 does NOT repeal the Word of Wisdom. In another decision, there is no change to the Community of Christ's baptism policy, only a call for a study about the issue of infant baptism with a report back to the church by the next World Conference.
Visit the 2013 World Conference page and review the official business minutes for each day for more information on other discussions and decisions.
But the more momentous decision actually occurred at the separate 2013 USA National Conference, which convened from April 19-21. This Conference essentially approved gay marriage to be performed wherever it is legal, and commitment services for gay couples where gay marriage is not legal. The decision, if approved by the senior church leadership, would apply only in the United States. Kendra Friend, a member of the church’s communications and media relations team, believes the First Presidency and Council of The Twelve will follow the recommendations of the National Conference. Apostle Linda Booth provided an explanation to KSHB Channel 41: “We believe this is where God is directing Community of Christ, to be an inclusive body where everyone is welcome...We will be able to provide covenant commitment ceremonies in this state, where it's not legal, for anyone who wants to make a long-term life commitment to one another", said Booth. News video embedded below:
The Blue Springs Examiner has some good media coverage, publishing the following stories:
-- "Veazey counsels followers to shape communities", April 16th 2013: Discusses President Stephen M. Veazey's Words Of Counsel to the church. President Veazey urged church members to continue to shape communities that live Christ’s love and mission, and to shape their actions to end people’s suffering and abolish poverty. Read the full text of President Veazey's address HERE.
-- "Service to host community part of World Conference", April 18th 2013: Discusses Jessica Ralston's tasking to lead one of the community service projects during the 2013 World Conference. Ralston headed up a group of volunteers who put together more than 250 necessity bags for the Independence School District’s Family Services Department. In 2012, the Family Services Department helped about 900 homeless children and their families, so this is significant.
-- "Community of Christ celebrates ordinations", April 18th 2013: Reports on the ordination of three new members of the Council of Twelve Apostles: Arthur E. Smith of Independence, Barbara L. Carter of Newark, Del., and Mareva M. Arnaud Tchong of Tahiti, French Polynesia. Adam R. Wade, a native of Melbourne, Australia, was also set apart as a president of Seventy and member of the Council of Presidents of Seventy.
-- "Woman elected to serve as president of Council of Twelve Apostles", April 20th 2013: Linda Booth, already a member of the Council of Twelve Apostles, was set apart to serve as president of the Council of Twelve Apostles April 17th. She is the first woman to serve as president of the Council.
And here are two stories from the Examiner about the separate USA National Conference that took place from April 19-21 after the conclusion of the World Conference on April 18th:
-- "Community of Christ U.S. delegates address same sex marriage", April 20th 2013: Reports on the efforts of delegates to address two issues – same-sex/gender marriage where legal, and covenant commitment services where marriage is not legal and the ordination of people regardless of sexual orientation. A 67 percent majority would be required to make recommendations to the First Presidency and Council of Twelve Apostles for the final decision.
-- "Community of Christ delegates recommend dropping sexual orientation barriers", April 21st 2013: Delegates decided that the Community of Christ should recognize same-sex marriage where legal in the U.S., offer commitment services for same-sex couples where marriage is not legal, and open the door to priesthood regardless of sexual orientation. The policy changes would apply only to the U.S. churches; current policy will still apply in other nations. Read the full proposal HERE. The First Presidency and the Council of Twelve Apostles would have to approve the proposal before it takes effect.
Update April 27th:A member of the Community of Christ has provided a good personal analysis of the decision-making at the Conference. FireTag says there is some strong anecdotal evidence to support the interpretation that the CofChrist is following other mainline American churches into a future where denominationally-affiliated Americans sort into “red” and “blue” versions of the same religious tradition, but the “blue” denominations will be increasingly checked in areas of personal morality by the ethics of the developing world members. FireTag also opines that the leadership of the CofChrist has now established the precedent, in two successive conferences at minimum, that their view of their pastoral, presiding, and/or prophetic roles will not countenance allowing statements of moral principles by subordinate jurisdictions or the World Conference to endanger church members or leaders in individual jurisdictions of the church. They reserve the right to inject morality into politically charged issues to themselves or to those who they choose to delegate with the task. They did, for example, rule out of order, a resolution asking for restraint on a First Presidency statement on United States (and solely United States) immigration policy. They permitted and the conference passed, with a single word change, a resolution directing the church to advocate the abolition of nuclear weapons, although the church has significant presence in only one nuclear weapons state where advocacy regarding aspects of security policy is tolerated.
In FireTag's opinion, the American membership of the Community of Christ is more progressive, or "blue", than the foreign membership.
In order to minimize this confusion, the Boy Scouts have now crafted a proposal which will result in a uniform policy across the board but address the concerns of social conservatives who do not want openly-gay adult leaders involved in Scouting. On May 20th, the National Executive Committee will submit a proposed resolution to its approximately 1,400 voting members that would remove the restriction denying membership to youth on the basis of sexual orientation alone and would maintain the current membership policy for all adult leaders of the Boy Scouts of America. The resolution also reinforces that Scouting is a youth program and any sexual conduct, whether heterosexual or homosexual, by youth of Scouting age is contrary to the virtues of Scouting. Here's the specific language of the resolution, which, if adopted, would take effect on January 1st, 2014:
Youth membership in the Boy Scouts of America is open to all youth who meet the specific membership requirements to join the Cub Scout, Boy Scout, Varsity Scout, Sea Scout, and Venturing programs. Membership in any program of the Boy Scouts of America requires the youth member to (a) subscribe to and abide by the values expressed in the Scout Oath and Scout Law, (b) subscribe to and abide by the precepts of the Declaration of Religious Principle (duty to God), and (c) demonstrate behavior that exemplifies the highest level of good conduct and respect for others and is consistent at all times with the values expressed in the Scout Oath and Scout Law. No youth may be denied membership in the Boy Scouts of America on the basis of sexual orientation or preference alone.
There are about 2.7 million youth members of the Boy Scouts and about 1 million adult leaders. About 70 percent of units are chartered by faith-based organizations. Because 34 percent of Boy Scout troops nationwide are co-sponsored by the LDS Church as of October 2012 according to prominent LDS blogger Joanna Brooks, the reaction of the Church is of interest. More recent figures from BSA indicate that 37,000 troops and 420,000 youth members are sponsored by the LDS Church. In the Boy Scouts' Great Salt Lake Council — one of the largest in the country with 5,500 troops and 73,400 youth — 99 percent of the troops are sponsored by the LDS Church. LDS Church spokesman Michael Purdy issued a statement saying, "Church leaders will take the time needed to fully review the language and study the implications of this new proposal. We note that BSA will make a final decision on this matter at their National Annual Meeting next month."
Update April 27th: On April 25th, the LDS Church delivered their answer. They expressed satisfaction at what they call a good-faith effort to address a complex, challenging issue, and said that the BSA proposal constructively addresses a number of important issues that have been part of the on-going dialogue including consistent standards for all BSA partners, recognition that Scouting exists to serve and benefit youth rather than Scout leaders, a single standard of moral purity for youth in the program, and a renewed emphasis for Scouts to honor their duty to God.
A Southern Baptist Convention spokesman, Roger Oldham, said the SBC would prefer that the Boy Scouts maintain the ban on both gay youth and adults. Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, also reacted unfavorably, saying "The policy is incoherent. The proposal says, in essence, that homosexuality is morally acceptable until a boy turns 18 – then, when he comes of age, he's removed from the Scouts." Perkins fears that the proposed change, if adopted, would subject the BSA to crippling lawsuits because it would no longer be able to argue that excluding gays was integral to its basic principles. The Family Research Council has been circulating an online petition urging the BSA to keep the ban. And in Utah, the Boy Scouts' Great Salt Lake Council – one of the largest in the country with 73,400 youth members – said a survey showed that more than 80 percent of its leaders opposed lifting the ban.
Prognosis: There's a good chance the LDS Church could accept the new policy and keep their Scouting units in BSA for the time being. While the LDS Church continues to support its traditional definitions of sexual morality and marriage, and continues to oppose homosexual behavior along with all other forms on sexual behavior outside of marriage, the Church has supported gay nondiscrimination ordinances, particularly in Salt Lake City. Thus they could look upon it as a discrimination issue rather than a morality issue, particularly in concert with continuing the ban against openly-gay adult leaders. Some of the leading gay rights organization have already said that as far as they're concerned, it is only a first step.
The orchestrated surge of interest in gay marriage which has caused the greater society to take sides has also caused members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to pick sides as well. And that battle has even split Mormon families, to include the famous Osmonds. While Marie Osmond has come out in favor of civil gay marriage, her brother Alan Osmond has come out in opposition.
Of course, the media is all ga-ga over the fact that in an ABC News profile that aired over this past weekend, Marie Osmond, in the course of talking about her lesbian daughter Jessica Blosil, came out in support of civil gay marriage. She said the God she worships is a God of love, not of fear, which is absolutely true. HuffPo then quotes her as saying "I believe in [my daughter's] civil rights, as a mother. I think that my daughter deserves everything that she desires in life. She's a good girl. She's a wonderful child...I don't think God made one color flower. I think He made many."
Of course, Marie Osmond is hinting that she considers marriage a "civil right", a contention which is sharply disputed. The U.S. Constitution does not enumerate marriage as a civil right. And for those who point to Loving v. Virginia, that decision was not intended to transform marriage into a "civil right", but merely to rule that a state could not refuse to sanction a marriage simply because of race. The court ruled that Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. One reason why some people desire to apply the decision to gay marriage was because in Loving v. Virginia, Earl Warren referred to marriage as a "basic civil right" in his written opinion, but that's only one opinion. Comments appended to the WorldNetDaily post on the story indicate the largely-conservative readership did not receive Marie Osmond's announcement well.
Alan Osmond has taken the opposite point of view on gay marriage, going so far as to emcee a pro-family rally in favor of traditional marriage at the Utah State Capitol Rotunda on March 26th, 2013. The rally, entitled “A Celebration of Marriage – Every Child Deserves A Mom and Dad”, was intended to coincide with the national March for Marriage in Washington D.C. in response to Supreme Court arguments over Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Although the Utah media virtually ignored this event, Kathryn Skaggs provides more details. Alan, who currently serves on the high council of the Orem Suncrest Stake in Orem, Utah, previously penned an article in which he opined that being gay is not necessarily genetic and that reparative therapy can work under certain circumstances. Regarding reparative therapy, Alan Osmond wrote the following:
“The fact that not all methods of treating those who struggle with homosexual attraction are successful, and that no method is successful for everyone, has been distorted by activists into the claim that no method is helpful for anyone. … The simple truth is that, like most methods in psychiatry and psychotherapy, the treatment of homosexuality has evolved out of eighty years of clinical experience, demonstrating approximately the same degree of success as, for example, the psychotherapy of depression.” Other researchers note treatment success rates that exceed 50 percent, which is similar to the success rates for treating other difficulties.
Of course, reparative therapy has its problems; ill-informed people have misused it in the past and made life more difficult for gays. Human Rights Campaign has condemned reparative therapy, but there is actually disagreement amongst gays about its value. Unfortunately, those few gays who are open-minded enough to try reparative therapy are often bullied into silence by the gay rights activists. A 50 percent success rate indicates that properly-managed reparative therapy can be helpful.
If reparative therapy for gays should be abandoned because it doesn't always work, then should we also ban air travel simply because a plane crashes once in a while? Perhaps the real reason why gay activists oppose reparative therapy is because it would reduce their numbers -- and corresponding leverage upon the rest of the society.
A member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been rejected for missionary service after telling his stake president that he would defend gay equality within the Church, to include temple marriage for gays. The Salt Lake Tribune has a condensed account, but the value is also in the 250 comments appended to their story.
The original story was published by Joanna Brooks in the form of an interview on Religion Dispatches, where the man is simply identified as Emmett C., a 20-year-old community college student somewhere in the Pacific Northwest. Emmett comes from a family of 11 siblings, including one gay brother and one gay sister, so he's personally affected by proximity (his gay brother actually expressed himself on this subject on No More Strangers). The two gay siblings are still active Mormons, and the parents have come around to the idea of supporting them. In summary, as he prepared to go on a mission, Emmett was afraid that the issue of gay marriage would come up during his mission and he didn't think he could tell people that it was wrong, because he had come to believe in marriage equality. Because he didn't want to be sent home early from his mission for cause, he wanted to get it sorted out before he left.
So he went to his bishop, who was sympathetic, but didn’t know what to do and asked for time to talk with the stake president. A week later, Emmett talked to the stake president, who wasn't particularly sympathetic after Emmett told him he believed that gay Mormon couples who meet all other criteria for temple marriage be gays be permitted to get married in a temple. This, of course, directly conflicts with core LDS doctrine. Since Emmett refused to back down, the stake president not only refused to accept his mission application, but said he would also refuse to give Emmett a temple recommend if he didn't recant. The latter decision hit Emmett even harder, and he says he "died inside" and suffered depression for a month until he could get control of his anger and restart. Nevertheless, Emmett remains a member of the Church at this time, so he may be accepting this as a test of faith.
I hope he does choose to remain with the Church. As a matter of fact, he's still young enough to be reconsidered for missionary service should he come around on the issue. But he must understand that missionary service is the most exacting and rigorous form of service in the Church -- the idea is to serve as a microphone for Jesus Christ for two years. A missionary can privately favor civil gay marriage, but he or she cannot preach that gay Mormons should have temple marriage without a revelation and expect to be allowed to continue serving on a mission. After all, how long would one last if one went to work for a Ford dealer and started pushing Toyotas on the job?
Rodney Spuddie • a day ago The leaders of the church, the first presidency and apostles, discuss and pray for guidance among themselves and then when they receive revelation and guidance, it is relayed to the rest of us via conference talks, scripture, letters to wards and branches, etc. That is how revelation worked in Biblical times and in Book of Mormon times. This is still how it works. It isn't a democracy. It is a Kingdom. God's Kingdom. His truths ARE NOT open for debate. When Moses came down from Mount Sinai, he didn't first poll the populace to decide on what the commandments should be. That should be abundantly clear if you studied LDS doctrine at all. I respect that you may not agree with that process. You may feel that all religions should behave like a democracy in setting doctrinal standards. That may be how many churches do it, but not this one. We know this is Christ's restored church on the earth. The issue here for all mankind is whether or not they want to investigate those claims seriously, pray about them and then upon receiving an answer, adjust their attitudes, beliefs and behaviors accordingly.
To clarify slightly what was published above, the Church leadership receives revelation and guidance applicable to the entire church and transmits it down. However, individual members are free to get confirmation from the Lord through prayer at any time, and are entitled to separate and personal inspiration and revelation affecting themselves and their families and callings. LDS members are not automatons incapable of original thought; in fact, in January 2013, President Dieter F. Uchtdorf counseled LDS members not to blindly accept everything they hear, but encouraged people to think and discover truth for themselves -— expecting that they ponder, search, evaluate, and come to a personal knowledge of truth.
