The Mormon Church and Marriage Equality
The Washington Post reports today on how pro-marriage equality organizations have recently been targeting the Mormon Church with advertisements and campaigns:
As more states take up the debate on same-sex marriage, some advocates of legalization are taking a very specific lesson from California, where the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints dominated both fundraising and door-knocking to pass a ballot initiative that barred such unions.
With the battle moving east, some advocates are shouting that fact in the streets, calculating that on an issue that eventually comes down to comfort levels, more people harbor apprehensions about Mormons than about homosexuality.
In particular, the article mentions web ads sponsored by the anti-Proposition 8 organization Californians Against Hate. The ads (which can be viewed, along with their accompanying documentation and campaign information, here), appeared on newspaper websites in three states on the East Coast but were apparently rejected by at least some newspapers for being insulting against the Mormon Church.
Why is the Mormon Church in particular being targeted by pro-marriage equality ads? The Washington Post explains how it may have played a big role in the narrow margin of passage for Proposition 8:
A torrent of last-minute contributions from church members across the country financed well-framed TV ads in the final weekend of the campaign. Opponents’ analysis of campaign-contribution reports indicated that Mormons contributed more than half of the campaign’s $40 million war chest.
The Mormon Church seems to be reluctant to actually take public credit for working for the passage of Proposition 8. The Washington Post notes that the Mormon Church was involved with an anti-marriage equality campaign in Hawaii in 1998 and spent $400,000 of church money but requested that the Catholic Church take the lead when it came to the public image of the campaign. This may have something to do with Mormons’ overall low favorability ratings with the American public in general, which declined to 37 percent last year. Perhaps, for this reason, the Mormon Church doesn’t feel that the most effective public face for the anti-marriage equality movement would be a Mormon one.
When it comes to marriage equality, is it fair to target the Mormons? While I am certainly against stigmatizing any particular individual based on his or her religion, the institution of the Mormon Church is fair game for criticism for its strong support for the suppression of LGBT civil rights. The institution has inserted itself into this issue to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of funding and resources for anti-gay campaigns. This is a campaign of bigotry, and the institution must be held accountable for it in the court of public opinion. In particular, Californians Against Hate has been working to illuminate areas that the church seems to prefer keeping quiet, such as the participation of top Mormon leaders in the creation of the the National Organization for Marriage, the national anti-marriage equality organization that drew attention for its laughably poor attempts to frighten people about same-sex marriage.
My one caveat is that I do not want to see this particular focus on the Mormon Church come at the expense of looking at the broader picture of anti-LGBT bigotry. In the end, for a successful campaign to reinstate marriage equality in California and to bring it to other states, the religious and non-religious alike are going to need to understand marriage equality as an issue that is fundamentally about civil rights and equality. This will require massive outreach, but it can be done; indeed, a movement to repeal Proposition 8 is already under way.
Too late, I think you already missed the point. The Mormons were against gay marriage because it would infringe the freedom of religion not because of “hate.” Qualify the law so that churches can’t be force to solemnize immoral unions and the church per we would probably drop out of the picture.
They wouldn’t support gay marriage–attempts to destigmatize and normalize adultery for example still doesn’t make it moral–but I think they would drop out of the picture if the gay rights antagonists weren’t trying to up-end morality plus institutions based thereon.
It wasn’t all that long ago that the Mormons were involved in their own marriage-rights battle to practice polygamy. In fact it was the practice of polygamy by early church leaders like Joseph Smith and Brigham Young that led many to hate the Mormons and kill their leader, Joseph Smith in Navoo, IL. The move west to Utah was so they could practice their faith, including polygamy, in peace.
I know that the LDS no longer practices polygamy but neither have they said it was wrong. They just stopped doing it. There are fundementalist Mormon groups that still practice “the principle” as it is called and feel that they are living god’s way accordubg tio the revelations described by Joseph Smith.
I know of no law that forces a church to marry people it does not want to marry. Catholic churches are not required to perform marriages of couples that have divorced people or non-catholics in them. That argument is nonsense. I’m just surprised that the LDS hasn’t learned from it’s own tragic history.
Why is it that every time gay marriage is brought up, those opposed always bring up the “religious freedom” issue? This argument is completely bogus. If gay marriage becomes legal, that by no means requires ANY church to solemnize or bless the marriage. No separate clause in the law is required to protect churches, because their protection already exists-within the U.S. Constitution.
Currently, divorced persons, couples of differing faiths, couples who do not agree to raise children in a particular faith, etc. are barred from marrying within many churches and religions. They are legally permitted to marry in any state in this country, but no religious body is obligated to participate in or recognize that union. And no court can force them to, because of the Constitution. if this were not true, the Catholic Church would have been buried in litigation long ago over the many marriages that they’ve refused to solemnize or recognize for various reasons.
Furthermore, anyone who believes that the Mormon Church would drop out of the picture if that unnecessary wording were added is naive at best and delusional at worst. The Mormons, along with the Catholic Church and many others seek to codify their religious beliefs into law. They seek to vilify gay and lesbian persons and deny them rights because their beliefs tell them that gays are immoral and going to hell, not because of any real legitimate public interest. If these churches would spend the time and money (that they spend trying to force their version of religion and morality on others) on things that would benefit society (eradicating hunger, homelessness, etc), our country truly would be the greatest on earth.
Finally, Mr. Bogle, why do you keep commenting on these posts and apparently, visiting this site, when you obviously believe in the Christian tradition of forcing religious beliefs on everyone else? Apparently, you believe that homosexuals are immoral, but what do you base this on? The Humanist Movement exists to advance rational thought and the separation of religious superstition from our laws and government, as our founders intended. So, Mr. Bogle, why are you here and not on some right wing website?
I apologize Mr. Bogle-I got my comments mixed up. The last paragraph of my comment was directed at Quandmeme, not you.
As a former gay mormon cult member, I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the real motivator is hate and bigotry.
The church will never stop persecuting gays and no number of mormon cult apologists will ever succeed in changing that basic reality.
Why do homosexual rants against the Mormon church always blame the church for spending so much money? The campaign against prop 8 spent more money than the supports of prop 8 – so if its about money, why did prop 8 pass?
Ron,
Are you assuming that the person that wrote this post was a homosexual? If so, how do you know this? It’s not just homosexuals that are bringing up the point about the money. Also, believe it or not, not all homosexuals are bringing up this point-as we don’t all follow the same train of thought. Believe it or not, homosexuals do not all agree on everything and do not have a set “agenda” despite what Pat Roberson and Rush Limbaugh say.
I would agree with you that it’s not all about money, really the money is not the point at all. The real issue here is the fact that churches (in this case the Mormon Church) are exerting (or attempting to exert) undue influence on government and the political process.
I don’t care which side raised how much money, but I care a great deal when any religious group is using tax-exempt dollars to try to influence the political process. I know it’s legal (it’s only political candidates for office they can’t support or oppose, not ballot initiatives, etc), but it still seems to me to be that if the church wants to get involved in politics it should be taxed just like any other political organization, and it’s donors should not be able to take a tax deduction for their contributions. I can’t deduct contributions to the Human Rights Campaign.
I really think George Carlin had it right all those years ago when he said we need to tax the churches! Let the churches be able to deduct their legitimate charitable expenses (feeding the hungry, etc), but they should be taxed on income they donate to political campaigns, ballot initiatives, spend on building mammoth “mega churches” etc. Separation of Church and State should be absolute, no special priviledges for the supersitious and the delusional!
I think another vital issue with Prop 8 that must be addressed is the premise that people can put other people’s rights up for a vote. Also, the notion that those rights can be taken away with a simple majority. 51 or 52 percent should NEVER be sufficient to deprive citizens of their rights. Just imagine if if southern states had put interracial marriage rights up for a vote-it would still be illegal!
The dialogue on marriage both here and in society in general is unproductive because the real issues are seldom addressed.
What is marriage? Why does the government have anything to say about it? Who authorized the state to define marriage?
Consider privatized marriage. People can make their own choices of whom to marry, of whichever gender they choose, and in whatever number is desired by all parties. That works for corporations.
The role of the government then is to keep records on request, not to tell people what their personal relationships are supposed to be like.
We already have all kinds of laws in place to inhibit force and fraud and to protect children.
The problem with marriage is that as literacy became universal, the Book of Common Prayer and such sources made the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony the standard model of marriage. And in England, the church has government endorsement.
Fundamentalists who proclaim that “traditional marriage” is to be defended are in fact defending the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony.
“Traditional” marriage really means privately-contracted marriage, and the tradition that was most prevalent until the church gained power to control marriage was greenwood marriage, not Holy Matrimony. Church marriage, with the reading of the banns and officiation by clergy, was a privilege of the rich.
We need to restore traditional marriage. Get the religious rites out of civil marriage and the government out of sacramental church rituals. Adopt the French system – marriage is at the mairie, quite separate from the optional church ceremony that may follow.
I agree and have said many times that the government federal, state or local has no business telling people who they can and cannot marry. What you added Francis was a nice historical overview of marriage and puts it in proper perspective.
O.K. this one is so simple it boggles my mind that we are wasting this much time on it. The first amendment frees us from the confines of eachother’s morality. This said IF marriage is a religious term it needs to be excluded from our public documents and legal rights of conjoinment. That’s realy it finito done. Every couple in this country deserves the right to share their home and their work benefits to mutual advantage. If you want to goto the magistrate and register your home as conjoined you should be able to. If your church doesn’t respect your choice, they are not “your” church and you should find a congregation who accepts you as you have chosen to live. No church should be pressed by the gov’t to recognize any union. In truth if one partner in a jewish marriage refuses to convert the marriage is not recognized nor the children accepted, the same holds true in Catholocism, and I’m not certain but I suspect that Islam holds similar views. In truth If the partners can’t agree on a single religion for their household how can the religion trust them to raise good little (insert theocracy here)’s.