The best article from an LDS author on the topic of gay marriage is Homosexual “Marriage” and Civilization by science fiction writer Orson Scott Card. But it’s pretty long and you might have a short attention span so I’ll try to summarize some points from the article along with my own thoughts.
So, do Mormons hate gay people? No. If Mormons don’t hate gay people, why are they against gay marriage? Why are they forcing their religion on other people and taking away their rights? Why would they want to rob committed couples of the opportunity to legalize that commitment?
Mormons don’t hate gay people any more than they hate people who steal batteries. Mormons see the homosexual act as a sin, but they don’t hate people who sin. Mormons recognize that everyone is a sinner, and nobody has the right to say “I’m good and you’re bad” because we all fall far short of perfection. We are all “bad” if you want to look at it that way.
But there are two ways we can look at “badness”. We can either say “I’m bad, but I want to be good” or we can say “There is no such thing as being bad.” Mormons want to be good, and want to help others be good as well. Mormons believe that legalizing gay marriage is a way of saying that there is no such thing as bad and good or right and wrong, and Mormons believe that if people think something that is truly bad is accepted as being good, then that will lead to increased levels of general unhappiness. Legalizing gay marriage doesn’t change what it is. It forces society to accept it, but doesn’t make it acceptable. If California legalized stealing batteries we would all be forced to accept battery thieves, but we would all know that it’s still stealing, whether it’s legal or not.
Or would we? What message would it send to our children if we legalize stealing batteries? What if a child’s parents teach them that stealing is wrong, no matter what, but then at school they learn that stealing is usually wrong, except for batteries? In at least some cases might this not result in the child doubting the teachings of the parents? And if everyone else believes stealing batteries is ok, but my parents don’t, what else might my parents be wrong about? And what’s the difference between batteries and music CDs? Why is one ok and the other wrong? What about cars? If it’s ok to steal batteries, isn’t it ok to steal anything?
Of course legalization of the theft of batteries wouldn’t result in every child becoming a thief. But what if it negatively affected the actions of 1%, 2%, or 5% of the population? Might the actions of that small percentage be enough to negatively effect the entire population?
Likewise, the legalization of gay marriage will send a message to children that what their parents teach them at home and what they learn outside the home are at conflict. This will force them to either doubt the legitimacy of the government, or the legitimacy of their parents as authoritative figures. It puts parents at odds with the government in the education of their children.
Of course this isn’t the first time this has happened, but can you expect parents to not oppose anything? If the government wanted to legalize stealing cars would you oppose it? Of course you would. Why? Because stealing is wrong. It hurts people. Making stealing acceptable would hurt all of society. Mormons and others see legalization of gay marriage the same way. The only difference between you and them–assuming you were against Prop 8– is that they’ve drawn the line in a different place. You are willing to accept things Mormons aren’t. But we all believe discrimination is good, we just don’t always agree on what should be discriminated against. We can all agree that discriminating against negative behaviors like murder and theft is good for society (except for some real nut-jobs), and we generally agree that discriminating against inherent characteristics like gender and skin color are not good for society. But homosexuality falls into a gray zone where we’re split. Some think it is a similar issue to skin color, and others see it as a behavior, like stealing things.
The question has been decided democratically, by the vote of the people. I don’t oppose the right of those who are trying through legal means to stop Prop 8 or overturn it. I think they have every right to try as long as they don’t circumvent the laws of the state and country. If they win someday, as I’m afraid they may, I won’t react the same way they have with protests and hateful words, nor will I hate them. I’ll be disappointed and frustrated but I’ll deal with it.
While these are clearly my own opinions I believe they’re held by a majority of Mormons. In my 33 years as a member of the LDS faith I have never heard any hateful talk about gays. On the contrary I’ve heard much about love and compassion and I expect to see more of it as time goes on and Mormons come to understand the issue more thoroughly.
Mormons do not hate guys. They don’t agree in people being gay because that is not what our God in Heaven put Adam and Eve down here for. He made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve. That is about all I need to say. Oh and also I didn’t read your entire thing just about 2 paragraphs.
What about Caster Semnyna the dual gender athlete born without a womb but with internal testes? 1 -2000 humans are born with this normal variation. David, who should Caster marry to be right with the Lords plan in your view, because she is clearly not an Adam or an Eve. The fact is, gender is not binary as some would like to think..
Yes: It is a fundamental right under the U.S. Constitution.
David Boies
is the chairman of Boies, Schiller & Flexner in New York (Philadelphia Inquirer – link below)
In the debate over gay marriage there are two related but distinct questions.
One question is whether people believe, for religious or other reasons, that people of the same sex should not fall in love and marry each other; many people have strong and sincere beliefs on each side of this question.
The second question is whether state laws prohibiting persons of the same sex from marrying each other violate the equal-protection and due-process clauses of the U.S. Constitution; this is the question that former Solicitor General Ted Olson and I are now litigating in our case to overturn California’s Proposition 8, which prohibits gay marriage in that state.
People’s personal views of the appropriateness of same-sex relationships naturally influence their views of our lawsuit. However, it is important to remember that the legal question does not, and under our Constitution cannot, depend on people’s personal preferences.
The constitutional issue is quite simple. The Supreme Court repeatedly has held that the right to marry the person of your choice is a fundamental human right guaranteed by the equal-protection and due-process clauses of the Constitution:
In 1967, in Loving v. Virginia, a unanimous court overturned the laws of more than 20 states that at the time prohibited interracial marriage.
In 1978, the Supreme Court, in Zablocki v. Redhail, vacated as unconstitutional (by an 8-1 vote) a Wisconsin law preventing child-support scofflaws from getting married. The court emphasized, “Decisions of this court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”
In 1987, in Turner v. Safley, the court, in a unanimous opinion written by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, struck down as unconstitutional a Missouri law preventing imprisoned felons from marrying, holding that marriages were “expressions of emotional support and public commitment. These elements are an important and significant aspect of the marital relationship.”
In 2003, Lawrence v. Texas held that states could not constitutionally outlaw consensual homosexual activity. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia noted that the court’s ruling undermined the rationale for any state limitations on gay marriage.
There are five basic arguments that are made to support state prohibitions. First, it is argued that the prohibitions are the result of the democratic process. This is true but irrelevant to the constitutional question. The purpose of constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process is to limit the power of the majority to restrict minority rights.
Second, it is argued tautologically that marriage by definition is between a man and a woman. That is the question, and a circular answer does not advance the analysis. In fact, marriage is not, and has not been, limited to persons of different sexes. Not only are there historical examples, but there are a number of states in this country (including Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, and California before the passage of Proposition
and a number of foreign nations (including countries as Catholic as Spain, as different as Sweden and South Africa, and as near as Canada) that have embraced gay and lesbian marriage.
Third, it is argued that same-sex marriages are inconsistent with religious teachings. As a Christian, I would disagree. (See Matthew 22:35-40.) As a lawyer, it is irrelevant. The First Amendment guarantees the right of religious opponents of gay marriage to express their personal disapproval of such unions and the right of churches that forbid same-sex marriages not to perform them. But the same First Amendment, as well as the due-process and equal-protection clauses, precludes anyone from using state law to enforce his or her religious beliefs on others.
Fourth, it is sometimes argued that permitting gays and lesbians to marry will somehow undermine heterosexual marriage. There is no evidence that this is so, and contrary evidence from places where same-sex marriage is permitted. Moreover, it is difficult to the point of impossibility to envision two heterosexuals in love deciding not to marry, or to get a divorce depending on whether their gay neighbors are permitted to marry.
Fifth, it is argued that it has “always” been true that gays and lesbians have been prohibited from marrying. As already noted, this has not been, and is not, true. Moreover, as Justice Anthony M. Kennedy elegantly wrote in Lawrence v. Texas, rejecting the notion that a history of discrimination might trump constitutional rights:
“Times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.”
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20091101_Yes__It_is_a_fundamental_right_under_the_U_S__Constitution_.html