Latter-day Saints for Civil Same-Sex Marriage
HOME
What We Are Proposing
What People Ask
Additional Support
  your comments and questions

Isn't Opposing Civil Same-Sex Marriage
Defending Marriage?

Evangelical Protestants often accuse the LDS Church of being a cult because we believe things not historically taught by mainstream Christianity. They claim we have perverted historical teachings and therefore are a heretical non-Christian cult. They have "counter-cult" ministries designed to convince people of our alleged errors and to fight against us. When logic and evidence are considered however, their claims are revealed to basically be misleading propaganda designed to enflame passions and rally the faithful. The same is true for those opposing Civil Same-Sex Marriage. They claim that those championing it have perverted the historical teachings regarding marriage and are therefore heretics. The opponents' arguments are likewise designed to basically misleading propaganda designed to enflame passions and rally the faithful. When logic and evidence are considered however, their claims are also revealed to be lacking. Please consider the following evidence and judge for yourself.

Regarding defending the institution of marriage, please consider this editorial from the Lewiston (Idaho) Morning Tribune -

“As soon as we have finished protecting the noble institution of marriage, from the threat of being trivialized by homosexual marriages, we need to do something to reverse the way it has already been trivialized by heterosexual loons.

One of these days, we who cherish the institution of marriage have to do something about Elizabeth Taylor and people like her who change spouses the way people change their socks.

We have to do something about all those old rich guys who marry 18 year old 'trophy wives'. Not to mention people of any age who marry for money, power or unplanned pregnancy.

They’re all tearing down the institution of marriage. Their kind needs to be included in these 'defense of marriage' bills that are being introduced in state legislatures.

If we're going to defend marriage, let’s defend it with more than the half measure of merely saving it from the horror of homosexual unions. There are some pretty horrible heterosexual as well. We all know snarly marriages that are a mystery to others.

Actually, I have a little trouble seeing the need for protecting marriage as an institution. The worth of my marriage is based on what my wife and I do with it, not what you other weirdoes do with it.”

Amen! Civil Same-Sex Marriage in no way harms or affects the marriages of heterosexuals. Heterosexuals are the ones harming heterosexual marriage. Massachusetts allows Same-Sex Marriage and yet the state has the LOWEST rate of divorce in the country. There hasn't been a rash of people becoming homosexuals and leaving their spouses and children for their gay lovers since Same-Sex Marriage was legalized. Are the LDS temple sealings no longer for time and all eternity if sealed in the Boston Temple due to Same-Sex Marriage being legal there? There is obviously no effect. Since Civil Same-Sex Marriage doesn't harm or affect the marriages of heterosexuals in any way, how can opposing Civil Same-Sex Marriage, in any way, be considered defending marriage?

The LDS practice of “plural marriage”, and its use of the term "marriage," was an affront to, and a perversion of, the traditional Christian use of the term "marriage" meaning one man to one woman. Those who fought to outlaw plural marriage undoubtedly thought that they too were defending marriage. There is no difference, in principle, between what we LDS did then and what gay people wish to do today - to marry another adult of their choice, despite it being unpopular with the majority and the majority culture and without government imposing subjective restrictions on them. This was also the case regarding laws prohibiting inter-racial marriage. The Supreme Court recognized marriage as a right and subjective laws restricting adults from marrying as wrong. Those racists supporting such inter-racial marriage laws undoubtedly thought that they too were defending marriage. Those supporting eugenics, and its advocating marriage and child bearing for only the smartest and purest, undoubtedly thought, as did the racists above, that they were doing what was best for society. History has shown that those desiring to pass laws restricting the right of all adults to marry any other adult of their choice, do so not to actually protect marriage, but to promote their own subjective political and social goals rather than the equality and Equal Protection of all.

In 2004, a study, conducted by Ellison Research (which has done several Clergy Studies) among a representative sample of 695 Protestant church ministers nationwide, asked pastors of several denominations to identify the three strongest threats to families in their own community.

The three most commonly named threats were divorce (listed as one of the top three by 43% of all ministers), negative influences from the media (38%), and materialism (36%). These were followed by absentee fathers (24%) and families that lack a stay-at-home parent (22%). The rest of the list included:

  • Co-habitation before marriage (18%)
  • Pornography (17%)
  • Morality not being taught in schools (14%)
  • Poverty, unemployment, and/or a poor economy (13%)
  • Parental alcohol use/abuse (12%)
  • Parental drug use/abuse (11%)
  • Drug use/abuse among teens or children (8%)
  • Teen sexual involvement/activity (8%)
  • Alcohol use/abuse among teens or children (6%)
  • Adultery (5%)
  • Poor schools or quality of education (4%)
  • Teen pregnancy (2%)
  • Sexual predators or sexual abuse (1%)
  • The expense of child care (1%)
  • Other issues (12%)

This was reported in the secular media as well as the Christian media such as Agape Press.

Please note that homosexuals, much less gay marriage, didn't even make it into the top 20 threats to families per the clergy. Gays are not a threat to families. There are few external things that force themselves on families that can't be resisted by otherwise strong families. Most of the threats to the family are self inflicted as the above list shows. Families aren't being attacked from the outside so much as they are decaying from the inside out. We shouldn't be looking outside our windows for supposed threats to our families. We need to look inwardly at ourselves and our own efforts and shortcomings to building strong families.

Those who oppose giving marriage to gays are like those who opposed giving the vote to women via the 19th Amendment. "We are protecting the institution of democracy the way that it's been practiced for 2000 years...'one man / one vote'. Not 'one woman / one vote'. We must defend this sacred institution upon which our society was founded." Doesn't that sound like the position of those opposing same-sex marriage? You bet! Democracy was strenghtened by giving the vote to women and to Blacks as well. Likewise gays will strengthen the institution of marriage by showing all people that it is worth fighting for.

Consider these other ways in which denying gays the right to marry in no way promotes righteous ideals -

  • Opposing Civil Same-Sex Marriage is anti-family.
    • There are a number of gays that have children through artificial insemination/surrogate mothers, adoption, or from previous heterosexual relationships. These kids are being denied legal benefits such as insurance coverage, Social Security survivor benefits, etc...(Click here for a list of these rights)..if their legal parent isn’t a wage earner but instead stays at home (like many LDS mothers) while the parent’s partner supports the household financially, the parent and the children can be put out on the street without the parent receiving alimony or community property protections. The kids also aren't given child support protections. The parent and the kids are also denied insurance coverage. Therefore -
  • Opposing Civil Same-Sex Marriage is anti-child and anti-"stay at home parent".
    • Would LDS wives and mothers be willing to raise their kids under those conditions? Should we force others to?

  • Opposing Civil Same-Sex Marriage neither prevents nor discourages sin.
    • It simply denies gays their civil rights. Gays will still do their thing and outlawing Civil Same-Sex Marriage doesn’t legislate against homosexual acts. Such acts have been deemed a civil right by the Supreme Court. We LDS could discourage/prevent more sin by outlawing two piece bathing suits and double mocha lattes.

  • Opposing Civil Same-Sex Marriage actually encourages sin by disincenting monogamy in the gay community.
    • If gays had their civil rights to marry, it would encourage them to settle down into stable/monogamous homes, as occurs with heterosexuals, instead of being promiscuous and increasing the likelihood for disease that can be spread to others, even straights.

  • Opposing Civil Same-Sex Marriage isn’t defending the moral aspect of marriage since opposing Civil Same-Sex Marriage doesn’t prohibit gays from performing weddings in their own churches.
    • Prohibiting that would abridge their 1st Amendment and 11th Article of Faith rights. Their God allows gay marriages.

    The bottom line is that opposing Civil Same-Sex Marriage is in no way "defending" marriage and claims to the contrary are, like the claims of the LDS Church being a cult, basically propaganda designed to enflame passions and rally the faithful. Neither are reasonable claims when logic and evidence are considered.