Why I Support Prop 8

I got this comment in response to the Prop 8 post from a couple of days ago. I'm posting it here so that maybe I can get some discussion from the peanut gallery after I write some of my own thoughts down here, because I know that most of my readers adopt a similar perspective on this issue and can probably articulate some of these points better than I can, or may have an approach that is better than my own. I appreciate the comment and that it seems to be coming in the spirit of dialogue, and not out of contention. That's nice because a lot of what we've been encountering as supporters of traditional marriage is name calling in its most mild form, and property damage in some of the more extreme cases.

Let me start off with a disclaimer - these are strictly my views and not to be interpreted as church doctrine, or representative of the views of all members of the church. Just little ol' me. This is really just my interpretation, and some of the conclusions that I've come to through my own study and my understanding of what it is that the church teaches, combined with my personal opinions on the topic.

Hi, thanks for your post. In the spirit of open dialogue (and not attack), can I ask you a couple of questions? First of all, I am Christian, and married, and I support gay marriage. I'm wondering what it is, specifically, about gay marriage that puts my own marriage into question? If my friend Chris could marry his boyfriend, how would that make my marriage less valid or sacred? How would that diminish my own vows or my commitment to my husband and to God? The notion that allowing gay marriage would somehow put "traditional" marriage in question seems to lie at the heart of this issue, and I'm honestly wondering why you think that's so. I sincerely doubt that gay couples would come knocking on temple doors demanding to be sealed in droves (the priesthood ban on women has been what's kept me away from the LDS church, and I know many women who feel the same way--most people don't go where they know they're not welcome); and even if they did, Mormons need not perform the service if it's against the plan.

I also watched the video you posted (I admit that I haven't followed all your other links, as I'm on my lunch break and have limited time). It seems like the book the kindergartner came home with simply presented the fact that some kids might have two mothers or two fathers. This is already a reality: it's not contingent on legal marriage. Gay couples are having kids, and those kids go to schools. I don't want to here discuss whether or not gay couples should have kids; the fact is that these kids exist. You say that you support (or tolerate) civil unions because those unions extend all the legal rights of marriage to gay couples. If you feel that way, it seems like you're not in favor of open discrimination against homosexuals--perhaps least of all against their kids (who may be considered innocent at this point). If you really feel that way, are you in favor of demonizing these kids' families in their own schools? Are you in favor of just simply remaining silent about the fact that kids come from different backgrounds? This book did not even touch on explicit sexual behavior, or gay marriage, but simply presented the fact that some kids might come from different families. Parents can then discuss whether or not those families are in
accordance with their own beliefs.

Once again, I appreciate your post and am posing these questions in an open spirit of dialogue.

First, I need to start off by saying that I'm always very leary of what comes across fron "anonymous" commenters. I know you closed with your name, which I appreciate, but at the same time, anybody can post as anonymous and then say whatever they want without any real accountability. So that usually makes me leary to respond to Anonymous, but I'm trusting that this is out of a real desire to understand where I'm coming from on this issue.

Second, it seems that both of us are coming from clearly defined positions, so I'm not going to try and convince you of anything, and in turn, don't expect to have me be easily swayed. This is just an explanation, and to be honest, I don't think I can fully articulate all the reasons that I feel this way. There are certain aspects of the support for same-sex marriage (to be referred to hereafter as SSM) that I can really sympathize with. But I think there can be some good to be had from some discussion, even if the only conclusion that we can come to is agree to disagree.

Okay...so here goes. I'm not sure how I should approach the question of how allowing SSM renders traditional marriage meaningless. I've posted a number of links already on this topic. I'll start first with some additional academic stuff beyond what I've posted previously.

For an academic viewpoint, try this Stanley Kurtz article on Gay Marriage. He talks about how opening up marriage definitions to include same-sex couples removes sexual taboos from within our society that promote the ethos of monogamy. He says it much better than I can. In this article, Point of No Return, he comments on the reasons in support of a federal marriage amendment and more specifically about how redefining marriage undermines monogamous relationships. In another article on Love and Marriage, Kurtz points out:

A world of same-sex marriages is a world of no-strings heterosexual hookups and 50 percent divorce rates. The divorce revolution, the sexual revolution, and the homosexual-rights movement all emerged simultaneously in the sixties, and the entirely related advances in these three social movements explain why we are on the verge of legalized same-sex marriage today. Again, you can argue that the gains in freedom and tolerance are worth it, but don't try tell me that the costs to marriage — and to children — of our new cultural mode aren't real.

And later in the article he talks about how the institution of marriage helps promote monogamous relationships by virtue of the man-woman dynamic:

It is the unique sexual dynamic between men and women that domesticates men. Marriage ratifies and reinforces the basic effect, but cannot create it out of whole cloth. The ethos of marriage builds upon a series of shared and pre-existing expectations about the way a man ought to treat a woman — because of her sexual vulnerability, and because of her need for support as a mother.

So contrary to Rauch's hopes, simply redefining the union of two men as a "marriage" will not bring those social expectations into play. Whether the relationship is called marriage or not, if a man sleeps around on another man, or fails to offer him financial support, he will not be condemned as a cad or a shirker. Indeed, a substantial number of gay couples openly reject such expectations and declare that their interest in marriage is confined to its economic and legal benefits. More than this, many homosexuals look to same-sex marriage as an opportunity to intentionally subvert the ethic of sexual fidelity and ethos of sexual complementarity that they consider keys to the "oppressiveness" of marriage itself. So contrary to Rauch's soothing
promises, same-sex marriage will seriously undermine the ethos of marriage, without significantly stabilizing gay relationships in return.

The truth is, but for a few exceptional conservatives such a Rauch and Sullivan (and in some ways, even for them), the movement for gay marriage has little to do with an expanded regard for marriage and everything to do with an attempt to gain social approval for homosexuality. In effect, marriage is being "used" to send a message that has little to do with the institution itself — without anyone having honestly faced the real and harmful consequences to children and families of the change.

That's why advocates of gay marriage and opponents of the Federal Marriage Amendment want to talk about civil rights, states rights, federalism, even love — anything but sex. Marriage springs directly from the ethos of heterosexual sex. Once marriage loses its connection to the differences between men and women, it can only start to resemble a glorified and slightly less temporary version of hooking up. And in the end, it is children who will pay the price.

Opening up the definition of marriage to include SSM erodes the meaning of the institution. Some supporters of SSM try and point to things like rising divorce rates and adultery among heterosexual couples as a reason to allow SSM, without realizing that what they're really saying with comments like that is that marriage doesn't work anyway, so why not just allow for SSM? I don't know, but doesn't that feel like the world's weakest argument for SSM? It can't get any worse, right? so stop excluding them and let them join in. I'm sorry, but that's so weak.

Listen, obviously growing acceptance of homosexuality is not the only reason that the traditional family in modern society has been weakened. As Kurtz points out, up until the sexual revolution of the 60's, we had a pretty good system going that began to distintegrate with the introduction of a number of lascivious practices that undermine the traditional family.

As Greg mentioned in his comments - first jokingly, and later more seriously - it's really about the children and the family. And you can try and dissociate SSM and child-bearing/rearing all you want, but the fact is that marriage is about the family. It's about procreating, and raising children in stable environments with two parents that can provide for them. As it states in the Proclamation on the Family:

All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose...

The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities. By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily
responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.

There is something very important about our gender, and the roles that gender force us into. I'm not strongly endorsing a particular role for women, and the church doesn't either. You mentioned in your comment that women stay away from our church because they're not allowed to have the priesthood, but obviously you don't understand the doctrine that we have that is based on the family. As it mentions in the excerpt above, men and women are to "help one another as equal partners." Equal, in every sense of the word. When God created Adam, he needed a help "meet," which literally means equal. I think creating her by using his rib is very important symbol of the type of relationship that they were to have - side by side, 100% partners in every thing that they would ever do. God instituted and ordained marriage using them as the template. Thus, the commandment, be fruitful and multiply and replenis the earth.

In order to obtain the fullest rights and privileges accorded through the Priesthood, it must come through marriage. It is an interdependent power that is only fully maximized through the union of man and woman. Women, through their sheer physiology have rights and responsibilities that are given to them because of their ability to bear children. Regardless of whether or not they have the priesthood, they have responsibilities that require them to magnify beyond themselves. Men do not have that, so the priesthood provides for that opportunity, but I digress.

Gender is an absolutely vital characteristic of each of our identities. Within traditional families, ideally, children can look to their parents for guidance on the gender roles they are to assume, and also find instruction on what it is that they are to look for. Girls learn from their mothers about what it means to be a woman; boys learn about being a man from their fathers.

There is something inherently unique that only a mother (and only a father) can pass on to their children. SSM does not provide for that. There is just no way that a mother (or two) is fully equipped to assume the same role as a father in a boy's life. Even outside of the church everyone recognizes there are some clear distinctions between men and women. These might some like trivial points, but it means everything in helping children to learn who it is that they are to become, and the type of person that they are to look for when they are ready to get married themselves.

As for the second paragraph, I think Greg cleared up some of my own thoughts on that book. Obviously they're not going to talk graphically to kindergardners about sexuality. They don't do that now as it is. The teachings about same-sex relationships will start mild, and then become progressively more explicit. It seems innocent enough, but the model that the two princes book promotes is atypical. It's not the ideal, and it's not a lifestyle that I endorse.

No, of course I'm not for demonizing those families, but they are the exception and not the rule. For the reasons mentioned above, I believe the traditional family to be the only way to go, but allowing for SSM normalizes a behavior that I do not condone. Legalizing SSM forces the issue into public schools, and forces children to listen to teachings that I do not endorse. I believe we need to not permit SSM, and allow me use my own discretion for teaching my children about alternative lifestyles and families.

I'm not going to touch on every point that you brought up in your comments because I feel like the other post addresses much of those issues. What that post failed to resolve, hopefully I've been able to clarify a little bit more. A couple of other points I wanted to make though:

• Of course women are welcome in our church. We have the largest women's organization in the world in the Relief Society. And I'll bet that in our church women have more opportunities for leadership responsibilities and service than they do anywhere else. I think I can almost guarantee that.
• If a woman doesn't want to join our church because she can't hold the priesthood, then she obviously does not understand the doctrine of the priesthood. As I mentioned previously, in its highest capacity, the priesthood cannot be utilized without the union of man and woman. It is, as I said, interdependent.
• This is the Church official statement on the issue. It's long, but brings up a lot of good points from that perspective.

The links that I provided on this and the previous post I think illustrate much more clearly many of my own thoughts and feelings on SSM. As long as this post may be, it does not fully express the opinions of the author. If there is anything that still doesn't seem clear, please let me know. And if anybody else wants to chime in and help further clarify anything, or if I may have overlooked anything, please make a comment.