Proposition 8

A good article: http://www.affirmation.org/learning/prelude.shtml

Gay marriage has taken a back seat to the election.  The major news networks aren't saying much about the intense battle taking place in California.  In June, the California State Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution allows same-sex marriage (equal protection clause).  In response, Proposition 8 is being put on the ballot to amend the Constitution, specifying that only marriage between one man and one woman is valid and legal.  The fundraising battle has been waged in Utah as much as it has in California.  Currently, proponents of proposition 8 have raised about 23 million dollars, with around 43% of that coming from Mormons.  Opponents of proposition 8 have raised around 17 million dollars--with 1 million coming from ex-mormon Richard Bastion, a co-founder of Word Perfect.  The Church has engaged in a massive effort to get members in California and Utah to donate time and money in the effort to pass Prop 8.  Why?  The Church argues that they are defending the traditional family, and the belief that marriage is a divinely instituted covenant that carries over into the next life.  By allowing marriage between any two persons, the traditional family will fade away as more and more people choose same-sex partners, causing great harm to society (I know this a very simple summary of their argument, but it's the basic idea).  

 I have a few questions about this argument.  First, the Church only considers marriages performed in a Temple, along with a life-time of faithful commitment to God's commandments, to be marriages that last for eternity.  No one is allowed to marry in the temple that doesn't earn a temple recommend, and the Church has never been, nor will it ever be, forced to allow anyone in the temple it deems unworthy.  Long after civil rights legislation had passed, prohibiting any form of discrimination based on race, the Church was still prohibiting blacks from entering the temple.  They waited 13 plus years to change church policy and allow blacks full temple rights.  They may have been on the negative end of public relations regarding the issue, but they didn't have any legal compulsion to make the change, they made it of their own volition.  Gay marriage may eventually be legal in all 50 states, and the Church still won't have to perform same-sex marriages in the temple.  The number of institutions and people that currently have the legal authority to marry people has had no impact on the Church's marriage policies.  People can drink beer, shoot heroine, and feeling really good about the ugly person next to them, go get married in a Vegas chapel--legally (most Vegas marriages are based on true love and commitment, creating a good foundation to raise a family).  The Church certainly puts no stock in this kind of marriage when it comes to eternity; only if this couple chooses to do what it takes to earn temple recommends, and then keep their covenants, will this marriage be eternal.  Ted Bundy got married while he was on death row--I highly doubt the Church believes this marriage to be eternal.  From a doctrinal standpoint--the only standpoint that really matters for the Church--this marriage and every other marriage not sanctioned in a temple by God, are completely meaningless after this life.  Sure, these marriages give couples legal rights and recognition, and they can create a stable environment to raise a family, but none of that really matters if it ends at death (the primary argument for temple marriage).  Corrupt governments, priests, casinos, Internet pastors, and all sorts of institutions have performed marriage in various forms for a long time.  Same-sex couples have been allowed to marry in quite a few countries around the world, and what do ya know, those countries haven't disappeared into the sea, and the family unit hasn't fallen apart.  According to studies of these countries, it has actually lessened the promiscuity and disenfranchisement of the gay communities, creating better community relations between gays and their heterosexual neighbors.

I know that was a long first question, but now to my 2nd issue.  It is becoming more and more clear that there is a biological element to sexual attraction--Elder Holland has publicly recognized this.  For anyone that knows someone gay, it doesn't take a lot of effort to realize they aren't consciously choosing to like the same sex.  Most people that are attracted to those of the same gender feel that way from the time they start to recognize feelings of attraction, the same way I started to like girls in 1st grade.  For the homosexual, this is natural; it is all they have known or will know.  There is no "cure" despite claims to the contrary.  Denying the biological nature of sexual attraction is becoming more and more futile, and it won't be long before it will be like denying any other scientifically conclusive fact that used to be in dispute.  Recognizing the biological nature of sexual attraction makes this an issue of civil rights.  If sexual attraction is biologically driven, it really isn't different from skin pigmentation--people don't get a choice in the biology they have.  Irrational fear, bigotry, prejudice--these are the things that drive the marriage debate.  Gay couples aren't going away, and giving them the chance to fit in and be treated as equals won't destabilize my marriage.  

Whether it happens sooner or later, gay marriage will become legal in our country, and gays will become a perfectly normal part of our society.  People can either be ahead of the curve like those that fought for civil rights, or they can look hateful and ignorant, fighting the inevitable.  Proposition 8 is misguided, and the Church's support for it is a mistake.  Hopefully, the Church will recognize a little less belatedly than their previous civil rights battle, and avoid the painful accusations that hindsight could prevent.