Prop. 8 and the Backlash

I do a lot of fluffy talk on this blog, with an occasional foray into something deepish re: books or whatnot, but ever since Donnie posted about opponents of Prop. 8 banding together to boycott Utah for being 60% Mormon, I am all tore up, as they say. I didn't have to exercise my vote on the issue this time, but one day I might need to, and I need to figure myself out. I'm awake at 7:30 am on Saturday, so clearly I need some sorting.

Of course I am hurt on the first level, because I am a Mormon, but I have gay friends and I love them and I want them to be happy in their lives just as I want that for my heterosexual friends and myself. When I was in California for that wonderful wedding with my immediate and extended family, our conversations naturally gravitated towards Prop. 8, and I will admit to expressing reservations. Not about its content, because that I believe, but about changing the Constitution. I do feel better about changing a state's Constitution than the Federal one, and in general, support a State's rights to handle the problems of its constituency vs. making it Federal.

But knowing that many members of my church were backing it with their time and their money, in addition to the fact that our church's leadership encouraged its support, left me unsettled. It's uncommon for them to choose a side, and in general, our church leaders extend the all-encompassing message to exercise your civic duty and vote your conscience. For plenty of people that is Democrat and for plenty it's Republican; we have Senators and Congressmen of both parties in office, and I've certainly not polled it, but if my circle is any indication, Republicans are not necessarily a dominant party within the American church like Utah seems to indicate.

Nonetheless, the defining of marriage solely between a man and a woman looks and feels like a Republican issue (if the parties are even recognizable anymore), and certainly many people who are socially conservative are registered Republicans. Abortion is the same kind of issue: both are things which are considered morally in opposition to God's commandments - from whatever scriptural or church source you receive them - and therefore, people assert, ought to be legislated away.

From a voting standpoint, I am more comfortable with my personal rejection of those actions than I am of supporting legislation against them solely for morality's sake. In the case of marriage, I think it's useful to factor in some legal or secular argument that it would be in a state's interest to keep the definition of marriage status quo. I like what I read here, in a piece written for the MIT newspaper in 2004, when Massachusetts was having its own battle over the issue. (Thanks to my cousin Cam for the link.) The gist of Adam Kolasinski's piece is that states have a compelling interest to permit marriages that could result in offspring; of course it's not accurate to suggest that all heterosexual couples will have children, but, he argues, "without mind-reading technology, excluding them is impossible." His ultimate point is that it is not the state's obligation to guarantee you a marriage based on your "sexual love."

That may be oversimplifying a tremendously nuanced issue, but it is a compelling point to me, and certainly one that I would research further if my state were to put this measure forward for my vote. So to lump me, and others who have reservations about law-changing, into a mass of people (Mormons and not) who you, Mr. John Aravosis, consider to be bigoted and discriminatory, is wholly unfair. It's one-sided discrimination and it's damaging to your cause.

I understand why people think it looks like discrimination against them; in some cases, it might be. If you look at the long list of churches and organizations and individuals who publicly declared their support of Prop. 8, I'd venture you'd find some people in there who do fall on the side of bigotry and small-mindedness, just as you would find people on the other side of the cause hating Christians en masse. If you are not religious and don't have any interest in that side of the argument, I understand why it looks cruel.

But the whole thing is based on a fundamental truth that we (Latter-day Saints) hold sacred, and I'll explain it as I see it: marriage between a man and a woman only is the unit God has outlined for His children to live in on earth, so that we may also have children and live together as families. Sex is for unification and strengthening of that marriage and for the potential creation of children, so men and women who are not currently in a marriage are celibate. No one is going to tell you that being celibate is easy, not by a long shot, but if you come to this spiritual conviction, then that is what you choose to do, if you are straight or you are gay. If that's your choice, you figure out how to live a happy and fulfilled life regardless. (Those are my own words of the Church's official stance, which you can read here, if you want.)

Barack Obama won this election for a lot of reasons, but I've read over and over that it was in large part because of his supporters' presence on the ground, in getting people registered, out to vote early, and voting for him because they found in themselves some kind of conviction that he was the right candidate for the job. The same thing was done here, this time by sympathizers and members of churches with myriad reasons to support Prop. 8, finding people with myriad reasons to vote for it themselves. So, with the same kind of free speech and democracy in action, it passed, and I know it feels devastating to its opponents. I understand why it does, but people vote on their convictions, be they religious or otherwise, and it's the fabric of our system. Now I've told you mine.