Article written for Edger by Jon Adams.
I’m late to the discussion over Proposition 8. I’ve been following the news, digesting the defeat, tempering my emotions, and articulating my thoughts. But as an ex-Mormon bisexual living in the heart of Mormondom (Utah), I feel compelled to break my peace and make a foray into the issue. So here it goes.
The LGBT community endured an emotional rollercoaster on Election Day. One moment, they were assured “Yes we can!” The next, with the passage of Proposition 8, they were told “Um, no you can’t.” They are still suffering from that whiplash.
Over the past week and a half, that pain has manifested itself as anger (and understandably so) toward those who supported Proposition 8—particularly the LDS Church.
The LDS Church has been quick to note that they were not alone in supporting Proposition 8—they were party to a coalition of hundreds of churches*. Point taken. There were admittedly many culprits: the majority of older voters and black voters, a dishonest YES campaign, an inept NO campaign—all these contributed to and share some blame for Proposition 8’s passage. But this ignores the fact that the LDS Church was undoubtedly the most influential backer of Proposition 8, donating $23 million dollars to the cause and demanding support of their church members.
Given the church’s extensive involvement in Proposition 8, it’s not at all surprising that there have been worldwide protests at their temples and church-houses. But Mormons have cried foul. “It is disturbing that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is being singled out for speaking up as part of its democratic right in a free election,” wrote Kim Farah, the spokeswoman for the LDS Church and (incidentally) my neighbor.
“While those who disagree with our position on Proposition 8 have the right to make their feelings known, it is wrong to target the Church and its sacred places of worship for being part of the democratic process.”
Translation: We can get in your pants, but you can’t get in our face.
Did the LDS Church think it could help deprive people their marriage rights with immunity? Protests are the price the church paid to participate in our democratic process. The church didn’t have to stick its nose in Californian affairs. If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
That said, I do have some reservations about the recent spate of protests. The LGBT community and its allies are upset, and I think it’s wholly appropriate for them to communicate the profound pain wrought by Proposition 8. But I fear that the protests will prove counterproductive—especially those protests targeting Mormon temples and church-houses. They play into Mormon prejudices about homosexuals and feed their martyrdom complex.
Mormons are no strangers to persecution. Indeed, persecution strokes their identity as a “peculiar people” (their phrase). And it will only strengthen Mormon resolve against what they perceive to be threats to their religion, like gay rights.
Also, an angry unfocused response to Proposition 8 invites irresponsible behavior and speech. Just a few days ago, for example, some punk mailed suspicious white powder to two LDS temples. Such actions must be swiftly and forcefully condemned.
Signs like “Keep your cult out of the culture wars” and “F**k you, bigots!” aren’t helpful either. If they do anything, they just make our calls for tolerance ring hollow.
Now, I don’t think violence or vitriol typify the protests. But sadly, that is what’s making the news.
The protests are making it easier for the Mormons to claim that they are the real victims, not the homosexuals whose marriage rights they helped rob. No matter how poor the LDS Church’s public image is, we cannot allow this debate to be framed as a religious liberties issue. We’ll lose. Time and time again.
Remember that the public opinion turned in favor of Proposition 8 only when the YES campaign dishonestly claimed that homosexuality would be thrust upon Californians in their churches and in their children’s schools. In other words, the YES campaign effectively painted the opponents of Proposition 8 as invasive and intolerant—they made us the bad guys.
At the same time, however, we cannot let up on pressuring the LDS Church. Bowing to pressures—both internal and external—in the past, the church gave up polygamy and the priesthood ban for blacks. What exactly a measured and effective amount of pressure would be, though, I don’t know. But I do know what it’s not: http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2008-11/43235098.jpg
There are already legal challenges to Proposition 8. The ACLU has filed a lawsuit claiming that a mere amendment is not adequate to strip people of what the California Constitution says is a “fundamental right”—marriage. A revision is required to strike the “fundamental right” language, and that takes a 2/3rds vote by citizens of California.
http://aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/37706prs20081105.html
Don’t invest too much in this lawsuit, though. From my understanding, the ACLU’s case is shaky and the California Supreme Court has rejected the “revision” argument in other cases.
Glenn Greenwald thinks there’s another answer to Proposition 8: A repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). This would effectively gut Proposition 8 and render it useless, he argues. And thankfully, Obama has committed to repealing DOMA.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/11/06/doma/
These legal and political approaches to gay rights are fine so long as they are coupled with grassroots efforts. That might mean the occasional protest. Protests get our voices heard, which is important. But they rarely get our voices listened to. Gay rights advocates need to work on building bridges of dialogue. Abraham Lincoln said, “The best way to destroy your enemy is to make him your friend.”
I hope I haven’t been a downer; I’m really quite optimistic for the future. Equal rights will win out eventually. We (LGBT persons and allies) are on the winning side not only of an argument, but of history also.
Just half a century ago, the LDS Church and most of society opposed interracial marriage. In 1947, the First Presidency (the Mormon prophet and his two counselors) stated: “The intermarriage of the Negro and White races [is] a concept which has heretofore been most repugnant to most normal-minded people from the ancient patriarchs till now…We are not unmindful of the fact that there is a growing tendency…toward the breaking down of race barriers in the matter of intermarriage between whites and blacks, but it does not have the sanction of the Church and is contrary to Church doctrine.**”
You know, for a church that claims to be protecting marriage, the LDS Church sure has a difficult time defining what exactly it is defending. One man, many women? One white man, one white woman? One man, one woman?
Progress, while hard-fought, is the natural arc of human history. And those institutions anchored in the past will drown with the rising tide of tomorrow.
If you are interested in the history of Mormon anti-gay policies and rhetoric, check out this link: http://www.affirmation.org/learning/anti-gay.shtml
I have also written about certain anti-gay policies at Brigham Young University: http://secweb.infidels.org/?kiosk=articles&id=764
*According recently leaked memos, LDS Church joined the coalition to have it serve as a cover. The LDS Church said that they want to take an activist approach against gay marriage, but was reluctant to be “out front.” The church had the money, but recognized that “the public image of the Catholic Church [was] higher than [their] church.” The LDS Church’s alliance with the Catholic Church is yet another oddity in this whole affair, as historically Mormons have vilified the Catholic Church as “the whore of Babylon” and “the great and abominable church.” (http://www.abc4.com/content/news/state/story.aspx?content_id=4a8a2464-6cf3-45d1-a0bd-606f034bae33)
**Even that ignorant statement represented progress over what Brigham Young (the second Mormon prophet) taught: “Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.”
Anti-theist at a Christian Wedding
Saturday, January 17th, 2009I don’t usually allow emotions to run rampant in my writings, but it is a necessary recourse toward an important end. The emotions will dampen as we proceed. As many know, I try not to let emotions have any impact on my writings whatsoever. I even state I will not deal with emotions as a legitimate defense, because ideas must stand on their own merit not one what feels good or right. That simply misses the point. Nonetheless, when it comes to those I love, emotions are a big factor. As Russell highlighted, those we love can safely be left up to intuition; it is those we hate that must “fall under the domain of reason”. And not just people but ideas, too.
Thus I allow leeway because this involves the people I love.
I live in Cape Town, but my mother’s family lives in Pietermaritzburg (most readers will not care but it means I had to take a flight to see them). I arrived to warmth and happiness which is the stable diet of my maternal family. It is unlike any other reception one can have. Thus I cherish it. My cousin, 24, had found the woman who he was ready to “spend the rest of his life with” (as they say).
Now, personally, I find marriage, romance and romantic love quite silly, crass and shallow. It is not fulfilling for the most part and simply bizarre for the rest. I did not tell my family or cousin this – I do not tell most people. It simply is not appropriate. They do not even know about my views on god, religion and so on. And, as with most nonbelievers I’ve met, I have spent more time than they have on the topics of gods, faith and the afterlife. It is using thinking and self-reflection that results in the abandonment of faith after all (if you ever had it in the first place).
We attended the wedding ceremony today, in a beautiful church. The wedding began with the pastor speaking. What I noticed was this: 90% of his subject was his god, 5% had to do with how marriage is eternal and will be hard, and 5% had to do with my cousin and his bride. I was appalled by this brazen display of dismissal. I could stand all that, but I got protective when he uttered following statement: “You may be able to live without god, as many millions of successful people do…” this was followed by silence, then… “but you can not die without god!”
That sounds like a threat to me, with an undertone of Pascal’s Wager. Correct me if I’m wrong but did he not just say – ignore the smile and warm face, many pedophiles and sociopaths were better looking and more eloquent before making smiles in people’s necks – “You better believe in god or else you will die and burn in hell.” I can find little else he could be speaking about. He is obviously referring to the afterlife; and given that the notion that you will be tortured and decapitated and other torrid examples of dehumanisation only occurs in the New Testament (not the Old, as far as I know), this must be the case.
This proved to me quite finally that when it comes to weddings, funerals and so on, the faithful often have a disgusting appraisal of normal human sensibility. The argument that one needs religion for human binding and self-expression is as patronising as saying all religious people are stupid; or, all atheists are immoral. None of those latter statements are true. However, the religious have no argument when it comes to ceremonies except that their establishments have the two major advantages that will conquer everything: time and money.
When it comes to secular events, it will usually have the undertone of being personalised to the nth degree. Readings from their favourite writers, poets or songwriters. Or their favourite artist. Something that can be researched and have the flavour of the persons involved. Afterall, it should be the couple’s day not god’s. Naturally, I would like to see my fellow man remove the shackles and cull the living flower, to paraphrase Marx, but I do not see that happening. Instead, it should at least raise our hackles that god is mentioned more than those we love during ceremonies made for them. Notice how much the focus is refracted toward their god and consider if you think this is a good thing. If you do, why is the focus on a god more important than the focus on the couple in a wedding? If you want to add god, fine, but why more than the couple? (Ignoring for the moment the argument that marriage is a religious duty; to people I know it their expression of love and that is what I’m focusing on).
The major point is this: Religious festivities only appear to have the power of rituals and expression from groups. But secularists and nonbelievers have as much, if not better ones. The reason: It is focused on the individual people, thus meaning more work and personalisation. Once again, religion has outlived its purpose and needs to go the way of alchemy and the belief that Elvis is alive. It can hold no water against the nature of one’s fellow man, his self-expression, compassion, art, and individualism. It is truly more beautiful than the constant reference to the deity, whilst the couple fades into the background. This is their time to shine.
I will leave you with one last thought: Think of any ceremony that is traditionally performed by religions, (funerals, weddings, etc.) and think of one example where adding the notion of a god would make it better than one which does not mention gods, but simply focuses on the person or couple. This does not make it atheist or anti-theist, but keeps gods simply out the picture to cater for everyone. This to me seems reasonable. But I write this for interesting responses and bitter critiques.
Tags: ceremonies, god, marriage, nonbelief, religions, secularism
Posted in Commentary | 17 Comments »