On the Definition of Marriage
One of the few things Rush Limbaugh ever said that I thought was worth hearing was, “Words mean things.” Granted, that is a rather simple way of saying that words have definitions and we are required to understand not only what the definitions of words are but also how those definitions affect what we are saying and what we intend to be saying. The English language is vague and there is no way to sufficiently transfer exact meaning of thoughts and feelings to other people, but within social context and literal definition we can get closer to a real understanding of what is meant.
The outcome of all of this is both appropriate speech and innapropriate speech in different social constructs. If you want to get some rather negitive connotations across, the language has wording built into it where the negative can be stated effectively with vernacular that is also very offensive. On the other hand, we have words and phrases that are very appropriate that get different meanings across that are positive in nature. As a result, there are positive words and phrases and negative words and phrases both of which combine with cultural meaning to give substance to what is said.
As a result, when the world talks about marriage it is not simply the union of two people. There is more to it than that. The LDS faith, under President Gordon B. Hinckley, defined marriage, in The Family: A Proclamation to the World:
“… solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.”
This was presented to the world in 1995, thirteen years before people have tried to redefine what marriage is and between whom. In the context of LDS doctrine, marriage is expressly between a man and a woman, is specifically part of The Plan of Salvation, and as such it is essential that members of the LDS faith either believe that when a prophet speaks they are under obligation to find out for themselves whether or not what the prophet said is true. In theory, what this means is that individuals will ponder, search, and pray about the revelation and then act accordingly.
In the context of Proposition 8 in California, what is happening is a redefining of what marriage is. Marriage is, traditionally, only between a man and a woman. World religions do not, pretty universally, acknowledge same-sex relationships. The outcome of this is not that same-sex couples don’t have the agency necessary to make the choice to be couples, but as a religion we do not support the notion that they have the right to redefine the historic, religious, and traditional definition of marriage. Marriage is, again, specifically between a man and a woman.
To me there should be no misunderstanding of what the position of the LDS church is and history dictates that there should be no confusion about what the LDS church will do. The LDS church has gotten involved in political discussions where questions that come up that directly contradict the stated doctrine of the church. I agree with church officials when they state that this is a moral issue and not just a political issue. I disagree with individuals who state that this is only a political issue.
What bothers me is that people make this an issue of equal rights. There are no equal rights questions here. This is not an issue of a minority group being treated differently. Being gay does not make someone a minority. I agree that being black or Hispanic or Asian or one of hundreds of other distinguishable things makes a person a minority. Being homosexual does not.
Claiming that homosexuality makes a person a minority is like claiming that being a theater major in college with an emphasis on bad one-act plays written by cloistered monks makes an individual a minority as well. The difference in this case is that people who are homosexual have more money and more political power than a college grad focussing on something that results in his or her stopping acting and starting the delivery of pizzas. The point is that I don’t think, and you cannot sufficiently argue, that homosexual individuals can be described as a legitimate minority for the same reason that the graduate who decided to deliver pizzas to eat can decide to go back to school or change focus and move on with their lives.
Yes, as the LDS church has stated, I believe that there are some genetic causes for homosexuality. Again, this does not inherently denote that an individual is automatically a part of a minority. At some point in the future we might be able to perform blood tests and see who has the proclivities toward homosexuality. Since that is not possible, at present, and since a homosexual white anglo-saxon male looks the same as a heterosexual white anglo-saxon male and since blood tests and other tests are going to come up identical, a scientific argument is much harder.
Can people believe they are born homosexual? Yes. I can also believe that the moon is made of cheese. My belief does not make it so. However, belief often leads to faith and faith leads to knowledge and since knowledge is the outcome of people expressing theories that are either proved or disproved the outcome is that I will not rule out an individuals belief of sexual orientation. I do know, in the cases where I’ve had intimate contact with homosexual individuals, that they speak in terms of choice and only speak in terms of genetic presidosition only when challenged on choice (or in many cases are tired of the challenge), and as a result, what people say is important.
Do I care that people are hurt by the definition of marriage? Yes and no, but not really. Yes, because I think a lot of honest people had their hopes and dreams crushed by this ammendment to the California State Constitution because they were told and they chose to believe that in order to be treated the same as everyone else the law has to state that marriage can include same-sex couples. This is not true. Which is why I don’t really care.
The reason I stand in opposition of this everywhere is because there is a slippery slope that these arguments tend to follow. In this case, and because I occasionally follow law suits that take place around the country, I’ve also noted that same-sex couples are taking arguments about discrimination in a whole slew of new areas from companies who don’t want to take “wedding” photos of same-sex couples to individuals who don’t want to “marry” them. What this means is that as a member of the LDS church watching as something that is doctrine (definition of marriage) is taken and redefined and watching as the same group is also suing to make groups who inherently don’t believe in or don’t care to deal with homosexuality are being forced to. What this distills down to is that my church, my worship, what I believe in will eventually be taken away or diluted to the point that it no longer means anything.
What will actually happen is that the work in temples will not stop, but marriage in a temple will simply be moved to other places. In England, since the law requires that all legal contracts be witnessed publicly, the outcome is that all marriages take place first in the eyes of the public and second a sealing takes place within the temple. In the United States, at present, the practice is that if a couple is married civily first they have to wait one year to be sealed in the temple. Since marriage and sealing are synonymous to members of the LDS church in the United States, you might connect same-sex marriage and the temple sealing ceremony makes its way onto court dockets and since the courts have the ability to change legislation (and not direct legality or constitutionality of legislation) they also have the ability to force companies, individuals, and churches to change policy. Ultimately, the LDS church will make the same arrangements anywhere where the definition of marriage is obscured or they will only allow marriages to be performed in temples in states that don’t recognize same-sex marriages.
Now, I admit that this is a worst case scenario. And I also admit that it is a worst case scenario that many homosexual members of the LDS church would like to see adopted. And I admit that I support Proposition 8 and will do what I can to support this as the legal definition anywhere I live. On top of all of that, I also admit that I have stopped following blogs and writers and individuals who (in my opinion) negatively support laws and ammendments like Proposition 8. I actually believe people should voice their opinion and support what they believe is right. If they believe that same-sex marriage is right than I support that opinion, though not the practice. When I am attacked for my beliefs in language that does not support the attack and told that my opinion and beliefs are immoral, that is where I draw the line.
Do what you want, but I support a definition of marriage that restricts it to a man and a woman and no one else.
John Hattaway | smokingpen | Alicia Grey | Clockwork Princess | Cassandra West
Real Heroes Fly
[...] issues that seem more prevalent today, I am done. Let me qualify that: I am done talking about it, though I am completely willing to support movements to define marriage as only between one man and o…. I will write why I think redefining marriage is wrong. But, beyond this post, I will not give [...]