8: The Mormon Proposition

Yesterday a friend sent me a link to a trailer for an upcoming film at the Sundance Film Festival entitled, 8: The Mormon Proposition.  The film is essentially an attack on the LDS church for its support of Prop 8 in California. The person that sent me the link is a supporter of gay-marriage and has read my blog posts on the subject.  This person jokingly suggested that I might want to put a link to the trailer on my blog.  I chuckled but politely declined.  After watching the trailer again, and listening to the comments made on the trailer, I decided this might be a good chance to address some of the claims made by gay-marriage supporters.  I wrote down the statements made by several people appearing on the trailer then offered my rebuttals.  Tell me what you think.  First, check out the youtube clip:


1) “California was the first state in US history to use the constitution to take rights away from people.”
This statement is just dumb on its face. Even if one supposes that the constitution was used to take rights away from people in California (which I do not, but we will get to that), it would clearly not be the first time that had happened. Ever hear of slavery?


2) “What we are seeing happening is the demise of our democracy. These folks want a theocracy.”
I have a hard time even knowing where to start with this statement. What could possibly be more democratic than a referendum? That is the very definition of democracy!! If anything, it is the pro-gay side that was anti-democratic. An LDS Apostle, Elder Dallin H. Oakes, explained it best in his recent speech to students at BYU Idaho:

"Along with many others, we were disappointed with what we experienced in the aftermath of California’s adoption of Proposition 8, including vandalism of church facilities and harassment of church members by firings and boycotts of member businesses and by retaliation against donors. Mormons were the targets of most of this, but it also hit other churches in the pro-8 coalition and other persons who could be identified as supporters. It is important to note that while this aggressive intimidation in connection with the Proposition 8 election was primarily directed at religious persons and symbols, it was not anti-religious as such. These incidents were expressions of outrage against those who disagreed with the gay-rights position and had prevailed in a public contest. As such, these incidents of “violence and intimidation” are not so much anti-religious as anti-democratic."

As for the bit about LDS wanting to create a theocracy, I suppose gay-marriage supporters are implying that LDS are trying to impose their religious morals on others.  I will defer to President Obama to address this point.  This is from a speech he gave in 2006 (link here...it is an excellent speech if you are inclined to read the whole thing)

"But what I am suggesting is this - secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square. Frederick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, Williams Jennings Bryant, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King - indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history - were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause. So to say that men and women should not inject their "personal morality" into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition."

'nuff said.

3)  “You guys aren’t acting like a church.  You’re acting like a political action committee.” 

According to the Congressional Quarterly (link here), "Political action committees (PACs) are organizations that raise and distribute campaign contributions to candidates for Congress and other offices."

Regarding the LDS church's stand on political matters, the church has posted the following guidelines on their website (link here: lds.org):

The Church does not:

• Endorse, promote or oppose political parties, candidates or platforms.
• Allow its church buildings, membership lists or other resources to be used for partisan political purposes.
• Attempt to direct its members as to which candidate or party they should give their votes to. This policy applies whether or not a candidate for office is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
• Attempt to direct or dictate to a government leader. 

The Church does:

• Reserve 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.

 The LDS church did not, in the case of Proposition 8, assist in acquiring contributions for a political candidate.  That is the definition of a PAC.  The LDS church did encourage its members to donate their time and financial resources to support a vital moral issue. The LDS Church considers the legal definition of marriage to be a matter of significant moral consequence.  What else is the purpose of a church if not to speak out on matters of morality??

4) "We want equal rights.  The same equal rights that you have."  

Before we address the issue of 'equal rights',  I would ask gay-marriage supporters to answer two important questions:

1) What is the definition of marriage?

2) Why should the state regulate marriage thus defined?

Here are my answers:
Marriage is the union of two persons on all levels of life: the spiritual, emotional, dispositional, and biological.  What differentiates a marital friendship from other forms of friendship is, however, the capacity for organic, or biological unity.  Professor Robert P. George explains it this way (link here):

"Since men and women are essentially embodied (and not simply inhabitors of a suit of flesh), the biological union of spouses in reproductive--type acts consummates and actualizes their marriage, making the spouses truly, and not merely metaphorically, "two in one flesh." The sexual union of spouses--far from being something extrinsic to marriage or merely instrumental to procreation, pleasure, the expression of tender feelings, or anything else--is an essential aspect of marriage as an intrinsic human good. Marital acts are the biological matrix of the multi--level (bodily, emotional, dispositional, spiritual) sharing of life and commitment that marriage is.

But, one might ask, is a true bodily or "biological" union of persons possible? Indeed it is. Consider that for most human functions or activities, say, digestion or locomotion, the organism performing the function or act is the individual human being. In respect of the act of reproduction, however, things are different. Reproduction is a single act or function, yet it is performed by a male and female as a mated pair. For purposes of reproduction, the male and female partners become a single organism, they form a single reproductive principle. This organic unity is achieved precisely in the reproductive behavior characteristic of the species--even in cases (such as those of infertile couples) in which the nonbehavioral conditions of reproduction do not obtain."

The western legal tradition has always held that an essential element of marriage is the capacity for a couple to unite bodily.  This is seen most clearly in the historic consummation requirement.  If, following the marital vows, a couple engaged in an act of sodomy, or other forms of sex play but never performed a reproductive type sex act the marriage was not viewed as completed.  The law did not preemptively inquire as to whether a reproductive act had taken place.  However, if either party in the marriage wanted out, and a reproductive type act had not taken place, it was grounds for an annulment of the marriage, not a divorce.  In addition, infertility was never seen as grounds to deny marriage as long as the infertile couple was capable of performing an act that fulfilled the reproductive behavior of the human species.

When the historic definition of marriage becomes clear, it is evident that denying marriage to gays is not an act of discrimination.  Since gays are incapable of completing the biological unity that is an essential element of marriage, they are incapable of becoming married.  No, gays do not want equal rights.  What they want is to redefine marriage.  And by redefining marriage, they are abolishing marriage.

Fortunately for those who live a homosexual lifestyle, we live in a time where society does not interfere with their sexual preference.  It is quite another matter to ask for government to promote and protect their lifestyle as being morally equivalent to a marital lifestyle.  My contention is that the traditional side of the debate is the only side with a good answer to the question, "Why should government regulate marriage according to your definition?"  Please refer to my first few blogs on marriage for my answer to this question.

5)  “I was wanting to drive my jeep off of a cliff.”... “I can’t believe people could hate us this much.  They don’t even know us and they hate us.  [They say] that you are a pervert.  That you are going to burn in hell?  They don’t know me.  I’m a good person.”

There were a number of these types of statements in the trailer.  What they seem to imply is that by teaching that homosexuality is immoral, the LDS church is making people who experience same-sex attraction feel bad about themselves.  So bad about themselves that they entertain thoughts of suicide.  Since there are clearly examples of gay people who have committed suicide, they would probably even argue that the LDS church is responsible for those suicides.

Suicidal thoughts are a symptom of depression.  Having struggled with depression myself, I have learned that depression is the result of distorted thinking patterns.  Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) teaches that depression results from not seeing things as they really are.  It is clearly a distortion of reality to believe that you will never feel good about yourself until society approves of your lifestyle.  Such a widespread acceptance and approval of a particular lifestyle is impossible to imagine, whether the lifestyle in question is appropriate or not.  There will always be detractors. If a gay person is truly comfortable with their lifestyle, they should not require the approval of others to feel a sense of self-respect, dignity, and self worth.

Once again I turn to Robert P. George in his book Making Men Moral:  

"He might regard the law as backward, stupid, insensitive, or unjust.  He might express anger toward, or even sorrow for, those responsible for, or supportive of, the law.  He might feel as though he is being treated as a second-class citizen for engaging in conduct which he believes to be acceptable or even enriching.  He might work for the repeal of the law, and even practise civil disobedience.  He might deem himself a martyr if he is punished for engaging in the proscribed conduct.  He might do all of these things, but, so long as he regards himself as right and the law as wrong, his sense of self-respect does not suffer."

Hard to argue with that.