There is an old story told so often it’s now almost trite. But recent events have convinced me that it bears repeating. The story goes that during his reign[ref](approx 985-1035 AD)[/ref] King Canute wanted to teach a lesson to his flattering courtiers. They were saying that since he ruled over the entire area that included the North Sea, he should be able to ride on it without getting wet. For the rest of the story, I quote Henry of Huntingdon’s Chronicle:
[H]e commanded that his chair should be set on the shore, when the tide began to rise. And then he spoke to the rising sea saying “You are part of my dominion, and the ground that I am seated upon is mine, nor has anyone disobeyed my orders with impunity. Therefore, I order you not to rise onto my land, nor to wet the clothes or body of your Lord”. But the sea carried on rising as usual without any reverence for his person, and soaked his feet and legs. Then he moving away said: “All the inhabitants of the world should know that the power of kings is vain and trivial, and that none is worthy the name of king but He whose command the heaven, earth and sea obey by eternal laws”. Therefore King Canute never afterwards placed the crown on his head, but above a picture of the Lord nailed to the cross, turning it forever into a means to praise God, the great king.
This lesson, that the laws of men cannot override the laws of nature or God, should be obvious, but, sadly, they are not. Perhaps our good sense, not to mention our morals, have been addled because many of us are taking our cues from song lyrics and television sitcoms instead of more timeless sources.
This fact hit home to me a few years ago when I saw the cover of People magazine, which had on its cover the picture which purported to be of a pregnant man. Reading the article, you will discover that this story is not as newsworthy as it appears. The “man” is not a man at all, he is a woman living under a legally sanctioned fiction that he is a man. In contrast to pregnant men, women getting pregnant is quite unexceptional, even if some of those women may appear quite mannish. To me, what’s newsworthy is that this is news to so many people. If I were writing the headline to the story, it would read: “People Magazine readers surprised that biology, laws of nature have more force than legally imposed falsehoods.”
You can tell where this is heading. It is not altogether surprising that, for the time being at least, gay “marriage” is legal in Utah. I am surprised at the speed with which it has been imposed. What has been not only surprising, but disheartening, is the number of friends who are self-described believing Latter-day Saints who have hailed this ruling as a good thing.
I have been pondering why people who consider themselves believing Latter-day Saints would celebrate this action, particularly the specific means by which it was imposed in this case, which has some fairly dire implications for religious freedom. I think there are two reasons for it. First, these people believe that homosexual sex, under at least certain circumstances, is not sinful. Secondly, these people believe that there is no qualitative difference between homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships. These premises are both wrong, however, and I will discuss each in turn.
Homosexual behavior is a sin
I really think the great divide over gay marriage, within the Church at least, is whether homosexual behavior is sinful. This belief will never be volunteered, especially at first, because then the actual basis of the person’s (hopefully partial) apostasy will be clearly revealed. (I am grateful to Blake Ostler for this insight.)
Ostensibly, the legalities of gay marriage are a completely separate issue from the moral question. There are plenty of things I think are wrong that I do not believe should be illegal, after all. I do not think homosexual practice or partnering should be illegal, even though I believe, with my Church, it is wrong.
However, I have taken Brother Ostler’s advice and asked Latter-day Saints who support gay marriage whether they think homosexual activity is wrong. Some of them will refuse to answer the question. “Who am I to judge?,” they say.
“I am not asking you to judge a person,” I reply, “I am asking you to give me your judgment of an abstract principle.” They still won’t tell me. Others will straight up admit it. Conceding that, for example, in the context of a committed, monogamous relationship, they do not think there is anything wrong with homosexual sex.
Homosexual behavior is included among many kinds of sin that God considers wrong, according to scriptures that Latter-day Saints claim to uphold, and confirmed by many Prophets and Apostles they claim to sustain. I will agree that sometimes there is an overly hysterical reaction to homosexual sin where heterosexual sin is often winked at (“ah, young people in love!”), but my point is, you don’t see it winked at in scripture, or over the pulpit at General Conference.[ref]There are plenty of sins that are worse than homosexual behavior, in my opinion. I am reminded of the scripture in Doctrine and Covenants 64:9 which says if we fail to forgive, our sin is worse than the thing we will not forgive.[/ref]
Another set of people will say that the Church will eventually come around to blessing homosexual unions, just like they did with blacks and the Priesthood, perhaps the precedent being the now-discarded practice of adoption sealings that were performed in the early restored Church. There is much more to say about this issue that I will do in a future blog post, but for now it will suffice to point out that it would have been wrong to ordain a black person in May of 1978, even if you knew with a certainty that is changing the next month.
The specific observances and rituals God asks His people to observe have changed over time, no doubt about that. God used to command animal sacrifice. The shedding of animal blood was done away with upon the death of Christ. The Book of Mormon tells us that after the sign of Christ’s birth was given, some people didn’t think they needed to observe the law of Moses anymore. After all, it had been long predicted that Christ would usher in a new law, so now that Christ was born, they didn’t have to keep it anymore, right? “But in this thing they did err,” the Book of Mormon explains:
But it came to pass that they soon became converted, and were convinced of the error which they were in, for it was made known unto them that the law was not yet fulfilled, and that it must be fulfilled in every whit; yea, the word came unto them that it must be fulfilled; yea, that one jot or tittle should not pass away till it should all be fulfilled; therefore in this same year were they brought to a knowledge of their error and did confess their faults.
Latter-day Saints who believe that homosexual behavior is not sinful and may eventually be endorsed by the Church are also in error.
Same sex couples are not the same as opposite sex couples
The other thing you will hear from LDS advocates of gay marriage, among many other people, is that “same sex relationships are exactly the same as opposite sex relationships.” On its face this is so obviously false something else must be meant by it. Because if there is truly no difference between a man with a woman and a man with a man[ref]or a woman with a woman[/ref], why do we even need to legalize the latter? If you replaced one of the partners in a gay male relationship with a woman, I am quite sure the other partner would notice quite quickly that things were not the same as before.
Perhaps what is meant is that gay couples love each other just as much as opposite sex couples do. I think that is true, from what I have seen. But what does love have to do with marriage?[ref]Oh, when you said “love” you meant you were in fact referring to a specific form of love, romantic love? But what evidence is there that the government’s interest in marriage, or even God’s, starts and ends with romantic love? Is there case law or statute which claims that if people aren’t married, they don’t love each other, or love each other less? I have looked at the marriage license applications in dozens of municipalities, and on none of the forms I have seen is there even one question about whether the parties to the marriage love each other. There are a quite a few questions which reveal the state is concerned that such unions remain stable, that they be undertaken between people who are able to consent to it and are doing so of their own free will, and several provisions that try to protect offspring from various problems by mandating (in some places) blood tests, or forbidding cousins to marry.[/ref][ref]Gay marriage advocates claim that marriage is not about children at all, that this is a recent invention by homophobic conservatives. A review of case law, including anti-miscegenation laws, will show the opposite. Anti-miscengenation laws weren’t designed to prevent people of different races from falling in love. It was about preventing them from reproducing mixed-race offspring, keeping the races “pure”, which was clearly unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment. The point is, even when states improperly interfere with marriage, in this case as in the Griswold v. Connecticut case where they tried to ban birth control, their interest in marriage is primarily because it is (or at least used to be) the principal vehicle through which offspring are created. The first gay marriage case in the country, also affirms the importance of children to heterosexual marriage. You have probably never heard of Baker v. Nelson, but the Minnesota Supreme Court wrote, “The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis.” That decision was written in 1972. They had as good a reply as any to the “but childless couples are allowed to marry” rejoinder: “Petitioners note that the state does not impose upon heterosexual married couples a condition that they have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate, posing a rhetorical demand that this court must read such condition into the statute if same-sex marriages are to be prohibited.? Even assuming that such a condition would be neither unrealistic nor offensive under the Griswold rationale, the classification is no more than theoretically imperfect. We are reminded, however, that “abstract symmetry” is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment… ‘[t]he Constitution does not require things which are different in fact or opinion to be treated in law as though they were the same.'” To put it more pithily, I would say, just because heterosexual marriage could be regulated more strictly than it is, does not mean that therefore, marriage should not be regulated at all. Because there certainly are plenty of laws that show the state most definitely is concerned with the reproductive potential of marriage.[/ref]. If love is all that is required for people to have the right to marry, how much love is enough? Must it be deep, passionate love, or merely fond affection will suffice? I love my parents and siblings deeply, and that love is not cheapened by the fact that I do not have the right to marry any of them.[ref]Certainly in scripture we are commanded to love our spouses. And while I don’t think there’s anything wrong with romantic love in marriage (I’m strongly in favor of it!), we have also all seen, often to our sorrow, that people are very capable of romantic love even outside of marriage. Romantic love, for good and ill, is not exclusive to marriage. And in a religious context, there is a more important word used to describe what marriage is supposed to be. That word is “cleave”, which means “to adhere strongly to, to become strongly emotionally attached to.”[/ref][ref]God is concerned about man and woman becoming strongly attached to each other and then having offspring within the context of that commitment. He says in Genesis He created us, male and female, for this purpose[ref]Some aspiring theologians in favor of gay marriage will often say that Jesus says nothing about gay marriage or the importance of heterosexual marriage. While it is true that Jesus never specifically condemns homosexuality, unless you count his reference to Sodom as an oblique reference to homosexuality. I think his reference to Sodom and Gomorrah is about what sexual impurity does to people’s receptiveness to the messengers of God, and the punishment in store for those who persecute God’s messengers. So my own opinion is that while attempted homosexual rape, and sexual licentiousness in general (see Jude 1:7-8), is certainly part of why God was displeased with Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed, it was only one aspect of the many problems there.[/ref][ref]Whatever the case may be, He certainly did condemn sexual impurity, and he certainly did endorse heterosexual (that is, male-and-female) marriage as ordained of God and worthy of man’s support:
Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.[/ref]
Perhaps what is meant is that while the types of genders involved in the two types of relationships are different, in all other respects they are identical. However, this is also false, both phenomenologically and empirically.
By phenomenologically, I mean, the way those relationships are experienced is very different.
In one sense of the word, we have had gay marriage for some time. I should know. I am in one. I experience same sex attraction, and yet I am married. In my case, however, I am married to a woman. True, there are many marriages like this that do not end well. We all know those stories, and there is no doubt that a marriage under these circumstances should only be undertaken with the utmost care. Not everyone who feels homosexual attraction is ready or able to do so. Nevertheless, I am indebted to my friend Josh Johanson, who has demonstrated that there are almost three and half times times as many men like me (experiencing same sex attraction but married to a woman), than there are men in a same sex relationship[ref]How many of them–gay couplings or, by comparison, those in mixed orientation marriages–are faithful? According to Josh’s numbers, 71% have of the traditionally married men with SSA (that is, married to a woman) have been faithful in the past year, whereas only 45% of the homosexually partnered men describe themselves in a monogamous relationship with their same sex partner. I’m not thrilled by a 29% infidelity rate, but it’s a lot better than 55%.[/ref].
As I can attest personally, it is far from a merely irrelevant and pedantic point to say that gay men already had the right to get married. In fact, there are far more of us married to women than there will ever be who are married to another man. We are not the exception, we are the rule.
As someone who has been in both heterosexual and homosexual relationships, I can attest that they are very different. Before I got married, I was quite confident that I would be able to be happy in a gay relationship. I had much less confidence that I could be happy in a heterosexual relationship. But I was involved with both kinds, and I can confidently say they were very different experiences. While both types of relationship were rewarding and had their positive elements, they were far from the same.
When I say empirically wrong, what I mean is that by the things that we can measure or observe, all we see are differences between homosexual and heterosexual relationships. In the countries where it has been legal long enough to measure, in every single one homosexual marriages have a higher divorce rate than heterosexuals divorce in the same countries. There is more promiscuity and domestic violence in homosexual partnerships as well. While the data are very thin on the ground, and will be for quite some time, so far every study of children of homosexual parents shows that they are more likely to have sexual experiences earlier than other children, and they are more likely to experiment with homosexual behavior. Gay couples have fewer children than heterosexual couples. And I will be very surprised if, in ten or twenty years, studies fail to show a lower marriage rate as well among children of homosexual unions (though the deprecation of the special status of heterosexual marriage will cause marriage rates overall to also continue to decline). The biggest difference, rooted in biology, is that children in a heterosexual union can be produced with just the father and the mother, and this is how it happens for the vast majority. Gay couples who have children require at least a third person. If Heather has two mommies, for example, it means that Heather also has a daddy somewhere, and she is bound to be curious about him even if her two mommies refer to him merely as a sperm donor.
Do not misunderstand. I am not saying that all homosexual relationships are promiscuous or abusive, not at all, or that all children of homosexual parents will be lotharios. Nor am I speculating as to why these differences exist (homosexual relationships being more promiscuous could have more to do with the fact that it’s two men in the relationship than anything inherent to the same sex nature of the relationship itself). But if they really were exactly the same as heterosexual marriages, then the statistics comparing them would show no differences either, right? Whereas in actual fact, on every measure with which we can compare, they are demonstrably different.
As a thought experiment, imagine a man who is perfectly bisexual, he is truly indifferent to the gender of his sexual partner. Let us further imagine that he has two suitors, one of each gender, with whom he gets along very well, is attracted to, and is equally capable of loving. Which gender should he choose to be with? Which is better for him, for his children, and for society as a whole? Your answer to that question will determine whether you think government ought to encourage, through tax and other advantages, traditional, committed marriage over certain other kinds of relationships. This is exactly how marriage gained the status it once had in the culture and in the law.
Some people think the government should get out of the marriage business altogether. That may be right. But this case before us now is not about whether people are allowed to love each other and enter into private contracts with one another. It’s that we are henceforth legally required to equate a certain type of relationship with a completely different type of relationship.
I will not yield in my assertion that the best thing for any civilization is for its children to be born and raised by their biological mother and father in a committed, low-conflict marriage. And that governments and its citizens should be free to encourage and privilege such relationships over all others.
My assertion is backed up by over 30,000 outcome studies which show that this is the best (and cheapest) way to raise healthy, successful children. My position is also backed up by God’s word, as revealed through scripture and affirmed by his modern-day Prophets and Apostles. I’m with Peter in saying, we ought to obey God rather than men.
[M]ake no mistake about it, brothers and sisters; in the months and years ahead, events will require of each member that he or she decide whether or not he or she will follow the First Presidency. Members will find it more difficult to halt longer between two opinions (see 1 Kings 18:21)…
President Marion G. Romney said, many years ago, that he had “never hesitated to follow the counsel of the Authorities of the Church even though it crossed my social, professional, or political life” (CR, April 1941, p. 123). This is a hard doctrine, but it is a particularly vital doctrine in a society which is becoming more wicked. In short, brothers and sisters, not being ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ includes not being ashamed of the prophets of Jesus Christ…
If people are not permitted to advocate, to assert, and to bring to bear, in every legitimate way, the opinions and views they hold that grow out of their religious convictions, what manner of men and women would they be, anyway?…
When the secular church goes after its heretics, where are the sanctuaries? To what landfalls and Plymouth Rocks can future pilgrims go?
Before the ultimate victory of the forces of righteousness, some skirmishes will be lost. Even these, however, must leave a record so that the choices before the people are clear and let others do as they will in the face of prophetic counsel… We will know the joy, on occasion, of having awakened a slumbering majority of the decent people of all races and creeds—a majority which was, till then, unconscious of itself.
Hesiod taught us millennia ago that artistic creations “know how to speak many false things as though they were true.” That bears repeating. And our modern corollary to that principle is that the agents of the law can lie as well. Yet neither art nor law can stem the rising of the tide.