As some readers may know, the Church acted quickly yesterday to express its disappointment about the California’s Supreme Court’s imposition of same-sex marriage on the state (despite a 2000 initiative against SSM that passed overwhelmingly). There are very few public issues on which the Church has taken such a clear public stand, and in my opinion there are strong reasons for that. The purpose of this post is to gather the arguments supporting the Church’s position. Comments attacking Church authorities or the Church’s stand are not welcome, although there is room for discussion to refine and comment on the Church’s stance on this issue.
Here’s what I have been able to gather in a short few hours. Please post additional comments with links or arguments I have missed.
The California Supreme Court decision is arrogant and confused
“We have banished morality from serious public discourse”
Destroying the institution of marriage is only the beginning
Gay marriage opponents are not giving up
The “discrimination” claim is completely bogus
It is extremely clear that children do best when raised by a mother and a father
More children being raised by a mother and a father lowers the crime rate
There is very little long-term demand for marriage among gays and lesbians
somed00d,
The state has to be involved in sanctioning legal unions of some sort. It does not *have* to be involved in “marriages”. There is a difference. (Iow, your #3 does not have to include “marriage”.)
“Marriage is not just about a couple (narrow view).” – Nobody here made that claim. Nobody.
“You can whine and complain, nash your teeth and foam and the mouth” – Nobody here did that. Nobody.
“Anyone who thinks that if the state got out of the business of marriage, then divorce would not longer be a problem is not thinking things through.” – Nobody here said that. Nobody.
Marriage is just about a couple .
I’m am whining and nashing my teeth, and flailing about, and foaming at the mouth.
Divorce really won’t be a problem.
No Ray! Take back what you said!
See; told you nobody said those things.
Mark IV: “There are literally hundreds of studies, involving tens of thousands of kids, over a period of decades, which tell us that gay parents don’t harm kids.”
I don’t think there’s much conclusive evidence one way or the other when one is talking about the effects of gay marriage versus straight marriage on children. SSM hasn’t been around long enough to make such research possible–and what legal SSM there is at this point is probably too insignificant to supply a robust study with the numbers needed.
That’s where the thinking was a couple of years ago, anyway. I don’t think the research has caught up yet–nor will it until SSM becomes a viable institution.
That said, I’m dubious of anything that would purport that children are as well off being raised by two adults of the same sex as they would be by two adults of the opposite sex–all things being equal. There has GOT to be some qualitative difference between the two scenarios–and it is highly doubtful that the pluses and minuses of each respective scenario would be equal–whatever the arithmetic . That would be an insane coincidence.
Mark IV, this is really one of my pet peeves, but I think it needs pointing out. I have linked to a post by Stanley Kurtz, who writes very regularly for National Review and is, among conservatives, one of the more respected defenders of traditional marriage. To claim, as you do, “Kurtz isn’t taken seriously by anybody, including some of his own colleagues at NR,” is really a very weak argument. First of all, if you read NR regularly, you will note that there is a wide divergence of opinion among conservatives, and some of them like Kurtz and some don’t, but the pooh-bahs who run the magazine/web site wouldn’t tout him as one of their regular commentators if he “wasn’t taken seriously.” So with a broad brush you strike down every argument, the millions of words the man has written on marriage, because he “isn’t taken seriously by anybody.” Please excuse me because you often make excellent arguments, but this is just balderdash, and it is something that needs to be pointed out. Character assassination simply is not a good way of making a convincing argument. I think a much better way of making a convincing argument is to say, “well, I’ve read Stanley Kurtz’s many articles on the death of marriage in northern Europe, and he confounds correlation with causation. There may be a correlation between the death of marriage in northern Europe, but he has never been able to prove causation.” Now, that would be a good argument, and in fact it is one that Kurtz needs to do a better job on in my opinion, but to say he isn’t “taken seriously” is, I’m sorry to say, just an intellectually lazy thing to claim.
Kaimi, I promised you an answer to your post way, way up there (no numbers on Wordpress). Your question was:
“Why, though, do you think that gay marriage is more like theft or murder — a religious rule that is codified as a legal rule — and not more like graven images or coveting?”
Answer: just to be clear, I am not advocating the Bible as our moral code. I’m not advocating stoning adulterers, for example. My only point is that there IS a moral component behind law. One of my pet peeves is the constant argument you hear from people these days, and I really think it is an argument that people have not thought through very carefully, which is “government has no business regulating morals.” This argument is completely nonsensical because the same people who generally say government should not regulate morals want to impeach President Bush because he has acted in an “immoral way” and “Bush lied.” And on the subject of homosexuality, these same people say it is “not fair” and “discriminatory” and “immoral” not to provide same-sex couples the “right” of marriage.
So, in fact they DO believe government should regulate morals — they simply believe government should regulate the morals they believe in, not the morals I believe in.
So, let’s do away with the silly argument that “government should not regulate morals.” This is because all laws are based on some morality. Something is illegal because (hopefully a majority) of people decide it is “wrong.” My example above is that it is “wrong” to go steal a person’s bicycle, even if you can get away with it. Let’s instead have a discussion what kinds of morals are important.
There are a variety of ways of interpreting the first commandment, and to claim it is all about “graven images” is a legalistic sophistry, because you know that is not what it is about. It is really about having the Lord Jehovah (Jesus Christ) first in your life and to not allow yourself to have idols and other material objects that are more important than Him (see Pres. Kimball’s talk on the subject). But you are correct that this is a religious commandment that cannot become the law of the land, at least in modern-day America. I would argue that the tenth commandment (no coveting) is indeed a factor in modern-day criminal law because you are more likely to prove somebody is guilty of something if you can prove they coveted it — imagine the difference between telling a jury “he has always wanted that 1967 Mustang I had — he would look longingly at it every day — and then he stole it!!” and not having that evidence. So, clearly, coveting does have a place in the law.
But your larger point that some religious tenets cannot have a place in modern-day America is certainly undeniable. So, in that case, we must line up a variety of arguments. My arguments are:
1)There is no overwhelmingly societal need to overturn the millenia-old definition of marriage as a one man-one woman institution at this time, especially since very few gay/lesbian people even take advantage of SSM once it is instituted, and when they do, they divorce in greater numbers.
2)SSM is one of the factors, but not the only one, degrading traditional marriage. This hurts society and hurts children, and one of the goals of people who care about society should be to uphold institutions that will lower crime, drug use and in general improve conditions for children. There are direct societal costs to us all when the institution of marriage is degraded.
3)People with same-sex attraction have other solutions, which is to go to a sympathetic pastor/justice of the peace and to get “married” in front of their friends and loved ones and carry out personal, private contracts between each other.
4)State courts’ imposition of SSM on the people, especially when they have clearly voted against it, is a clear case of judicial over-reach. It involves inventing “rights” out of thin air, and is an extremely dangerous judicial precedent. Kaimi, as a law professor, I would think you would be extremely concerned about this issue. What if times change and a state supreme court in 2020 suddenly decided that because of global warming the population needed to be decreased and therefore all people over 55 should be executed as a population control mechanism? To do this, they cited a long trend of court cases in favor of increasing government involvement in preventing global warming and they said the U.S. Constitution includes a “right to the survival of the planet” and a “right to health care?” Considering the events leading up to the gay marriage decision, in which rights have been invented willy-nilly, I think we all should be extremely concerned about this judicial trend, but especially you.
5)I am extremely concerned about the new trend toward limiting religious expression. Canada is already suffering through this, and pastors who simply read from the Bible can suffer sanction from “human rights” commissions in Canada. What will happen to Latter-day Saints when our positions are considered “intolerant” and a violation of “human rights?”
6)As a member of the Church, I consider it one of my temple covenants to uphold the Church and consecrate myself to the Church as much as possible. This includes sustaining Church leaders on a local and international level and sustaining and supporting the positions that the Church takes on public issues. If the Church were involved in politics all the time, I would have a problem with this, but this is one of the few public issues the Church has taken a stand on, and it seems to me the least I can do to uphold my temple covenants is to point out I will support the Church. Other people may make other decisions — that is between them and their consciences. (I would like to point out that your BCC post shows you are considering this issue very carefully, and you get kudos from me for doing this).
7)Law should have moral components. I consider the normalization of homosexual behavior immoral. Other people consider people who oppose the “right to choose” immoral. Well, I will vote for my moral beliefs — they can vote for theirs. The legalization of SSM involves the normalization of homosexual behavior, and I’m agin’ it.
You will notice that the “moral argument” is only one of many I use on the SSM issue.
I guess I understand what people mean by “The state should get out of the marriage business.” Relabel marriage to unions and define them as genderless. I’m good with regular expressions.
Genderless Marriage – s/Marriage/Unions/g
Geoff B.
I think you are absolutely right. It was wrong of me to be so dismissive of Kurtz’s work. If you will allow me to repent, I would just like to say the following: I’ve read Stanley Kurtz’s many articles on the death of marriage in northern Europe, and he confounds correlation with causation. There may be a correlation between the death of marriage in northern Europe, but he has never been able to prove causation.
Thank you for the reminder!
Jack,
As far as children being raised by gay parents goes, I intivte you to read the baron’s excellent summary over at watersofmormon.org. We have tracked over a million kids raised by homosexual parents, and there is simply no evidence to suggest that they are harmed by it. And they are far better off being raised by two homosexual adults than by only one hetero adult.
This is important, because Utah’s adoption law is especially perverse, although Utah is not alone. The law there does not allow children to be adopted into homes where to gay adults live. Instad, we allow them to go for years in foster care. Let’s be clear: foster care is the worst of all possible outcomes for these kids. Physical abuse, sexual abuse, even death, is so prevalent among foster children that it literally turns my stomach. We apparently don’t allow gays to adopt due to a vague fear that we are on a slippery slope. But for the kids in foster care, there is no slippery slope; they are all ready at rock bottom.
Wow, what incredible verbiage! I really like the way you phrased that!
Anyway, you just hit on one of my sore spots — I really get tired of the intellectual laziness that goes on (mostly on the left) these days. I can’t tell you how many times I’ll read somebody say, “everybody knows Ann Coulter/Bill O’Reilly/Sean Hannity (pick your name) is a complete idiot” as if ANY right-thinking individual MUST KNOW they are idiots. Well, sometimes they are idiots. But sometimes they make good arguments. The point is, listen to the argument, weigh the evidence, look at the entire body of work, etc. There are some arguments that even Ann Coulter has made that most thinking people agree with. There are some that are asinine.
I spend a lot of time reading conservative web pages/magazine/editorial pages, and I just don’t see that as much. Yes, they make fun of the NY Times as a liberal newspaper, and there’s some of the “liberal media” gang-banging, but for the most part you don’t read, “everybody knows that Frank Rich/Michael Kinsley/Michael Moore is a complete idiot” (well, sometimes it happens with Michael Moore, but anyway). I really do see a lot more attempts to take the arguments seriously, even in the case of Michael Moore, and try to de-construct them and counter them instead of hating people just because it’s the “in” and politically correct thing to do.
So, I put your Kurtz put-down in the category of “everybody knows he’s an idiot,” and it’s simply not true. Some of his arguments need some work, some of them have been refuted, but some of them are really quite good, and are taken quite seriously in some circles.
I agree with you, Geoff, re: the sort of lefty closedmindedness and laziness that thinks the word Coulter is a punchline.
I guess I was mostly reacting to the way that Kurtz doesn’t do a very good job of defending his work against the critiques that other people at NR make. When he tries to answer even some of his conservative colleagues (which really should be like preaching to the choir), he just doesn’t do a very good job of it. It seems to me as though he is often grasping at straws.
Mark IV, following your advice, I looked at that Waters of Mormon post. The Baron repeats an estimate that there are over one million kids being raised by homosexual couples in the U.S. That’s not the same thing as a million children being tracked for outcomes. If there are some good studies on outcomes for such children, I would be interested in taking a look at them. I’m particularly curious what the measures of good outcomes will be.
And to turn a cliche on its head in a darkly humorous way, I’ve known foster parents who, as far as I can tell, didn’t abuse or murder their charges.
Hmmm, actually the source the Baron pointed to estimates over a million children being raised by homosexual parents, mostly single, not homosexual couples. The estimate is given as from as low as one million to as high as nine million, which means no one is counting anything, just having some fun throwing out assumptions and order-of-magnitude estimates.
John,
Google is a wonderful thing. I just googled ‘children raised by gay parents’ and looked through the first wo pages of results, including studies by the APA and AMA. Good outcomes are defined by educational achievement (same as everybody elses’ kids), rate of reported mental illness (same as everybody elses’s kids), social adjustment (same as everybody else’s kids), and sexual orientation (same as everybody else’s kids).
The baron is correct, social conservatives have to meet a high burden of proof if they want to continue opposing adoption by gays on the grounds that it harms children.
Of course there are great foster parents. But I continue to believe that, overall, foster care is a worse alternative than being raised by to homosexual adults.
This is a pretty good summary:
http://www.rossde.com/editorials/childrenofgays.html
Mark IV, thanks for the link. I’ll see if I can find the mentioned American Academy of Pediatrics report. One concern I have, and it may be incorrect, is that the summary you linked seems to say that at least some of the study involves comparing children reared by homosexual couples with those reared by divorced single parents and finding that there is no difference between the two groups. If so, that says something (“Two mothers are no worse one on her own.”), but not necessarily that the outcomes are same as those experienced by children reared by a father and a mother.
John,
Here is a good place to start looking:
http://search2.aap.org/search?site=Search_all_sites&client=default_frontend&proxystylesheet=default_frontend&output=xml_no_dtd&q=gay+parents
The other option, since supporting the Church’s position is an invitation for mockery and scorn, is to quit worrying about the damned great and spacious building and wait for it to fall.
Mark IV,
Here is a paragraph from the link you provide:
“Because most children whose parents are gay or lesbian have experienced the divorce of their biologic parents, their subsequent psychologic development has to be understood in that context. Whether they are subsequently raised by 1 or 2 separated parents and whether a stepparent has joined either of the biologic parents are important factors for children but are rarely addressed in research assessing outcomes for children who have a lesbian or gay parent.”
Here is a plain admission that there simply is not enough research to determine whether or not children fare as well under the care of two parents of the same sex as they do with a mother and a father–all other things being equal. That is the point I’m driving at.
I’ve been curious about the research on good outcomes for the children of same-gender couples, since it doesn’t seem to square with the research that shows negative outcomes for both boys and girls raised without fathers (negative outcomes including, but not limited to, earlier promiscuity, drug-use, and for boys, increased behavior problems.)
Well, I’ve now read through that 2002 AAP technical report, and it’s claims are quite a bit more modest than what those who point to it say. The bulk of the studies that are summarized in the AAP report are comparisons between children raised by divorced single mothers and those raised by lesbian couples. They don’t seem it even look at divorced mothers who have remarried.
The outcome I would be most interested in is the ability and willingness of children to form and maintain marriages of their own compared with others of their age, but none of the studies appear to have examined that question.
I also find interesting this 2006 Pediatrics article “The Effects of Marriage, Civil Union, and Domestic Partnership Laws on the Health and Well-being of Children.” The findings that it summarizes are the same as the 2002 technical report four years earlier, and the studies cited in both summaries are mostly from the early and mid 1990s. Contrary to the article’s title, little research is cited regarding the effects of the civil union laws of the 1990s; there is only a summary of what the laws are.
Hardly a large enough sample, I knew one person who was raised by an openly lesbian couple. I met him when he was a senior in high school. He acted hyper masculine. He screwed every female he could. He said he wanted everyone to know he wasn’t gay.
I can just imagine how Junior High was for him.
Children have a right to a Mother and a Father.
The people of California voted to define Marriage as only between a man and a women. The majority of people in the US agree with the Church’s position.
BUT then someone becomes learned, then they think they are wise and they hearken not to the counsels of God. Don’t worry people, God will probably understand. Right now it is a commandment to become as learned as you possible can. How can you help it?
The issue of government’s role in the institution is an interesting one for me.
Is “marriage” not the vehicle through which our cities and states are populated, re-populated and provided with capable, working tax payers?
It seems to me that a nation without a state-sanctioned and state-governed institution that legally binds together the biological parents of the future building blocks of that self-same nation is an entity that has no concern for the interests of its citizens.
There is no better way for our nation’s government to protect the investment that is the USA than to take an active role in defending and defining “marriage.” The issue isn’t simply random, independent citizens whose actions and unions have no way of effecting the whole. It involves our responsibility to contribute to the building up of our country. While heterosexual unions morally shouldn’t and couldn’t be mandated to procreate, that potential to do so is what makes the sanctity of marriage very much the business of the government and especially the Church.
WesleyW,
I wholeheartedly agree. Creating new “citizens,” or the potential to do so, is indeed the business of government. In fact, I daresay that a good and moral government is dependent upon married heterosexual couples to produce the contributing, law-abiding, and well-balanced offspring who will uphold the values upon which this country was founded and continue to maintain the social contract.
I am an educated man, but I am not really interested in studies that try to disprove the obvious. Men and women are different, and each contributes unique and complementary elements to the development of their children. This idea that men and women are interchangeable, and that children raised by same sex couples have the same outcomes is grossly flawed. If studies show they have the same outcomes as children raised by heterosexual married couples, I’m inclined to think it’s because the vast majority of children are still raised by hetersexual couples, and this has a norming affect. If the norm was 90% homosexually-raised children, versus 10% heterosexually-raised children, I think we’d be talking about a much different world.
Geoff, I’m with you almost all the way on this, but I think it’s risky for Mormons to publicly make the following argument:
The problem is, our own leadership has in the past used this argument, only with monogamy cast as the villain: as you probably know, Brigham Young, George Q. Cannon, Orson Pratt and others publicly proclaimed that at the root of Rome’s downfall was monogamy. In more recent times, it has been said to have been homosexuality. Our opponents know about these statements, and where to find them, and how to cast them up to us.
We need better arguments. You’ve been advancing several, but I just wanted to nitpick and suggest you reconsider this one.
Chuck, I’m unaware of the claims by early Church leaders that monogamy led to Rome’s downfall, and frankly that sounds pretty fishy to me. I guess it would depend on the context. A lot of the claims of early Church leaders saying strange things are taken out of context.
As for reconsidering that argument, well, it’s not in my calling to reconsider the Proclamation. But I will agree with you that you definitely need to be careful how you use these arguments, and that’s good advice.
Regarding the threat to traditional marriage. There was an article in the LA Times on this topic that is insightful.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-stern17-2008jun17,0,5628051.story
Thank you, Tim. That was quite enlightening (and frightening).
As a Canadian Latter-day Saint I have followed the church’s position on prop 8 in CA with much interest. As many of you may know Canada has had legalized same sex marriage for several years now, and I am proud of this fact! Right before the vote on this issue in the Canadian parliament the stake president showed up in our ward and asked all members to write a letter to their MP (congressman) stating that they oppose same sex marriage. Many of us ward members scoffed at the idea, the church is supposed to be politically neutral and it had no business telling us what position we should take. (Just a note: Republicans are considered to be in league with Satan to many Canadians and this plays a big part)
Now for my part I oppose the “idea” of same sex marriage. I believe a marriage is between one man and ONE woman. I also believe that homosexuality is sin and against God’s law.
However, I don’t believe that I or any one else has the right to impose their religious beliefs on those that do not share them. If gays wish to sin, the laws of agency give them that right. Also gays should not be denied the same benefits that married people receive. There is nothing in the Canadian Constitution that will allow for discrimination against gays. And preventing them from marrying and receiving spousal benefits the same as heterosexuals is discrimination.
So on the basis that Canada is ruled by a Constitution I support same sex marriage. Even though personally I believe homosexuality is a sinful practice. The same as fornication and adultery amongst heterosexuals is a sin.
In closing here is a fact that will shock many of you Utah Mormons. Scouts Canada has allowed in homosexual boys for well over 10 years now, and the LDS church in Canada is still very active in Canadian scouting.
Yet in the USA the church has said it will pull out of scouting if gay boys are allowed in.
If the church continues to support Scouts Canada with homosexuals allowed in, why can’t they do it in the USA as well?
Walter
This is the best argument I have heard against gay marriage.
Gay marriage doesn’t satisfy life’s purpose
It is amazing to me the extent that people will go to in order to achieve their personal goals. Take, for example, Prop. 8 that was on the ballot . This is the second time the California voters have passed this law, and yet those who fought against Prop. 8 continue to fight against the will of the people.
They keep saying this is a religious issue. That is not true. Everyone needs to answer the question of “What is the purpose of life?” Leaving religion out of the answer, as well as the Bible and personal opinions, there is only one answer that can be given that will satisfy the laws of NATURE. That answer is: “Reproduce yourself and your species.”
Can two female or two male marriage partners conform to this law? No! So, this is not a religious issue alone. It is an issue that defies the laws of nature. The animal, bird, fish, insect, and plant kingdoms all live this law. They reproduce themselves as per nature’s laws.
If any of these kingdoms failed to live this law, their kingdom would become extinct in a short period of time. If the plant kingdom failed to live this law, there would be no food for man or animals to eat. We would soon become a dead planet.
Only man wants to defy this law of nature. In so doing, they become destroyers of, rather than contributors to, the human race.
Society is based on the family of husband wife and children. This is how the next generation rises. I can just see states or countries legalizing gay marriage and then losing population.
Jon M,
Humans are social animals and, as social animals, not all have the breeder role. In fact, universal mating yields a weaker species, not a stronger one. How many species practice universal mating? Moreover, gays can assist propagation of their genes via assisting related breeders.
Oh, in case you’re wondering, I’m a breeder with my genes thrown back in the pool six times now.
Steve EM:
Sorry. I don’t understand you.