LDS Church Support of Proposition 8

While the U.S. Presidential Election is dominating the scene this November 4th, I’m beginning to wonder if the decision on Proposition 8 in California may be more important to many. Why? Well, a friend (with libertarian leanings) IMed me election day morning and suggested the silver lining to early indications of an Obama victory may be that liberal California voters would be more likely stay home, giving Prop 8 a better chance. More importantly, however, I ran across an article entitled "The Divine Institution of Marriage; on the Newsroom page of the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (or LDS church, of which I’m a member).

The topic of the article wasn’t surprising. Everyone who knows anything about the LDS church knows its position on the family and marriage. From "The Family: A Proclamation to the World;

We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 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. … The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. … Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.

What surprised me, however, was the length to which the church was going to actively support Proposition 8. You see, while many might group the LDS church in with the "religious right," the church itself maintains its political neutrality. As far as I can tell, it lives up to this claim: The LDS church doesn’t get involved in the political races of its members (e.g., Mitt Romney, Henry Reid, etc.), and I know many LDS church leaders and members (in good standing) that have strong liberal and conservative political leanings. When it comes to Proposition 8, however, things are a little different.

Earlier in 2008, the LDS church accepted an invitation to participate in ProtectMarriage, a coalition of churches, organizations, and individuals sponsoring Proposition 8. Additionally, the church distributed a letter entitled "Preserving Traditional Marriage and Strengthening Families; in June, which was read in all LDS church services in California. This letter encouraged church members to "do all [they] can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of [their] means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman." The LDS church means business, it appears.

Perhaps more interesting than what the church was doing or encouraging its members to do, however, was the justification for why it doing it. Yes, there is the typical foundation based on doctrinal views others may not share (i.e., reiterations of the principles cited above), but the article also includes non-religious arguments. It contrasts the popular-vote approach (used by traditional marriage proponents) and the appeal-to-the-courts approach (used by gay marriage proponents), which I think makes implications about so-called "legislating from the bench." It discusses the ideal home as being one with a mother and a father by appealing to science (via a quote from prominent sociologist David Popenoe). And it warns of inevitable conflicts between gay rights and religious freedom.

I think this last point is really the most critical, and I speculate it is what brought the LDS church into its active role on the issue. Applying the term "marriage" to same-gender relationships would, the church argues, lead down a path that not only weakens the core unit of society, but would infringe on private/religious freedoms. It gives a number of examples, but appeals to the non-religious and non-partisan by listing an NPR piece entitled "When Gay Rights and Religious Liberties Clash; in the side menu. (Yes, that’s right – the official LDS church article linked to NPR. There’s one to an op-ed in the LA Times written by a "liberal Democrat," too.) This article identifies some ways the gay rights movement has butted heads with private, religious and business decisions made by private, religious, and business organizations. Some examples:

• A wedding photographer was fined $6,600 for declining to shoot the commitment ceremony for a same-sex couple.
• A Methodist organization was told it could not refuse to rent its boardwalk pavilion to a lesbian couple for their civil union ceremony.
• The Boy Scouts in San Diego lost access to the city-owned aquatic center for discriminating against gay men in their leadership.

No wonder the LDS church is worried. Could it not be the next private/religious/business organization forced by a court decision to use its means/property against its will – and to undermine the very things it holds most precious, no less? The church’s reaction seems oddly proper. In a world of extremes, it’s approach is a far cry from fighting simply over the definition of a word (on one hand), or abusing the privacy of gay citizens and seeking to takeover the government on the other.

And yes, that latter point is alleged by some, although I fail to understand it. I mean, if the LDS church was seeking to remove benefits or social recognition, why isn’t it going after California Family Code section 297.5? This law states, in part:

Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.

The simple answer is because seeking to suppress these rights is not aligned with the purposes of the LDS chuch. Proposition 8, on the other hand, is – and the explanation used in the church’s justification is about the best that could be expected from a religious institution parlaying into the mix of opinionated people and a secular government. The church is fighting to preserve "the environment best for the child and for the rising generation" – something any reasonable person or organization should be encouraged to do. The church also fights to keep religious and moral instruction in the home and avoid the inevitable serious clashes "between the agenda of the secular school system and the rights of parents to teach their children traditional standards of morality" – again, a clear and respectable position. And, perhaps most importantly, the church is fighting to preserve the right to govern itself and its property – an argument any secularist could love.

The church isn’t fighting for a presidential (or any other) candidate this election day. It isn’t even looking to undermine gay social benefits. No, it has thrown its full weight behind Proposition 8, providing detailed (and bi-partisan) support along the way – while remaining clearly religious. It’s approach is well-within the bounds of the Democratic process, but it is not your typical "red state" propaganda – and that makes me happy to be affiliated, no matter my political leanings.