Difference between revisions of "Question: Do Mormons seek to impose their version of morality on others?"

Revision as of 14:59, 1 March 2012

1. REDIRECTTemplate:Test3

This article is a draft. FairMormon editors are currently editing it. We welcome your suggestions on improving the content.

Questions

==

Critics charge that by its political opposition to same-sex marriage, the Church is attempting to "impose its own morality" on those who are not members.

To see citations to the critical sources for these claims, [[../CriticalSources|click here]]

Detailed Analysis

==

TEXT  ^{[needs work]}

The Church opposes legislation that seeks to control conscience or suppress the freedom of the soul and has supported legislation that expands the freedom to choose same-sex relationships. It has also sought to preserve the legal definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman. These two things do not conflict.

There is a difference between supporting and protecting individual's freedom to choose how they want to form their families, and accepting their definitions as the legal definition that applies to everyone. Preserving the definition of marriage does not impose morality nor does it take away rights. The Church recognizes the unique benefit that a union between a man and a woman has to society and child raising and has sought to keep that recognition in laws. Individuals are still free to chose to form their families differently and the Church has supported laws that would help them make that choice.

In California, same-sex couples have many of the same rights that the state gives to married couples, including having their relationship legally recognized and subsidized by tax payer money. The church is on record as not opposing any of these rights.

The Church believes in agency

According to D&C 134:4

"We do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul." D&C 134:4

Definitions do not impose morality

The government uses legal definitions to lay out a legal framework in which citizens interact with each other. Different people may come up with their own definitions, but legal definitions affect everyone. For example, drinking while driving is illegal in most places. The Word of Wisdom prohibits drinking whether you are driving or not. However, the legal definition and the definition under the Word of Wisdom is different. Under the legal definition, the cut off is a blood alcohol level of 0.08%. Under Mormonism, the limit is any consumption of alcohol. The difference between the legal definition and the Mormon definition does not prohibit our exercise of religion. We are free to use our definition for our purposes while the legal definition is what is applied in legal cases.

The same applies to marriages. There needs to be a legal definition of marriage to set a framework for citizens to interact with each other, but people are still free to consider themselves married even though the government may not recognize it. Many countries do not recognize religious marriages. In these countries, the legal definition of marriage requires being married by a civil officer. However, this does not affect the right of individuals to consider themselves married when they get married in their church. For example, a couple may get married in the Catholic Church, but not have a legal union. We do not recognize their marriage, even though they might. While they are free to consider themselves married, when it comes to a legal framework for interacting with other citizens, they are not considered married. Because of these laws, many Latter-day Saints couples are forced to get married outside of the temple and later be sealed in the temple. In these countries, the legal definition of marriage does not include temple marriages. Other churches are not forced to view temple marriages as marriages, but this does not prohibit our ability to recognize temple marriages as marriages.

Proposition 8 did not affect the ability of same-sex couples to define themselves as being married. What it did, was set a legal framework so that other citizens do not have to consider them to be married. Same-sex couples are free to practice whatever morality they want when choosing to form families. Changing the legal definition to include same-sex couples changes it for everyone, not just for the same-sex couples. Having a traditional definition of marriage be the legal definition would allow same-sex couples to consider themselves married, but insulates other people from having to consider them married.

Definitions are different from rights

A legal definition in and of itself does not give or take away rights. It is how the definition is applied that affects those rights. For example, the legal definition of being drunk would not mean anything without a law discriminating drivers who are drunk against those who are not. It is the definition of being drunk together with the law against driving while drunk that discriminates against drunk drivers.

The same thing is true for marriage. It is not the definition of marriage itself that gives people rights, but how that definition is interpreted in law. For example, Portugal has changed the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples, but have not given them the right to adopt children. Compare that to Nevada, where same-sex couples have the right to adopt, but not the designation of marriage. Definitions work hand and hand with laws.

Usually, when there is an inequality, we try to rectify it by changing the law, not the English language. For example, it used to be only men could vote. We could keep the law and change the definition of men so that everyone was considered a man, or we could keep the definition and change the law so that both men and women could vote.

There are many rights that same-sex couples do not have. For example, let us consider the case of a same-sex couple traveling in a place where there relationship was not legally recognized. Let's say that something were to happen to one of the partners, and they became incapacitated. If this were to happen to a married couple, the other partner could step in and speak for their partner, take care of them, and make medical decisions for them. However, since the same-sex partner has no legal connection to their partner, they would not have the right to help their partner.

Let us suppose that we want to prevent this from happening. There are two ways of doing this. We could change the laws so that either a spouse or a same-sex partner could speak for a incapacitated partner. This would have the desired effect without unintended consequences. The Church does not oppose this option. The other option is to change the definition of marriage so that they would fit under this law. This would have a much broader effect and have many unintended consequences. The Church opposes this option.

In short, there are many ways to extend rights to same-sex couples without changing the definition of marriage. The Church's opposition is limited to the definition of marriage, not the rights. Beware arguments that say because you do not support the change in definition, you do not support the rights.

Effects of Proposition 8

Proposition 8 did not significantly effect how the law treated same-sex couples. Because of previous Supreme Court cases, the Californian law requires civil unions to be treated the same as marriages. The Church does not oppose these rights. These Supreme Court cases only apply to Californian law. It does not apply to the United States law. Same-sex couples do not have the same rights as opposite sex couples in California because it is treated differently under the United States law, not because of the definition in California. Changing the definition of marriage in California would not give Californian same-sex couples equal rights under United States law. The passing of Proposition 8 did not affect any right of same-sex couples, except the right to a definition. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals explains:

Proposition's 8 only effect was to take away that important and legally significant designation [of marriage], while leaving in place all of its incidents.[1]

California is an interesting case since there are both same-sex couples who are married and same-sex couples that are in a domestic partnership. There does seem to be a few difference in the rights. For example, in order to register for a domestic partnership, the couple already needs to be living together, which might prove problematic for those whose religion forbids them from living together until after marriage. There are other inequalities that have been reported that FAIR has not been able to verify. Why these inequalities exist after an order from the Supreme Court that they be treated equally, or why the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals was unable to determine that these inequalities exist, is beyond the scope of FAIR. Sufficeth to say that the Church does not support any of these inequalities.

Definitions recognize distinctions

Legal definitions by themselves do not impose morality nor do they take away rights. They do show a need to make a distinction between two different concepts. They create a separate category, which is inherently unequal. We believe that a union between a man and a woman has a distinct benefit to society that a union between two men or two women cannot bring to society. We believe that by recognizing this value, we can promote environments where God's children will have the greatest likelihood to be raised by a father and mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Elder Oaks explains:

"We believe that we must contend for the kind of mortal families that provide the best conditions for the development and happiness of children—all children...

"There are many political, legal, and social pressures for changes that confuse gender, deemphasize the importance of marriage or change its definition, or homogenize the differences between men and women that are essential to accomplish God’s great plan of happiness.[2]

The legal definition does not impose morality or take away rights, but it does effect how things are discussed in official settings, taught in schools, and ultimately viewed in the public. While people are free to form their families in any way they choose, many are looking for the best way to form their families. By understanding that having both a father and a mother makes a difference for children, many people will chose to form families in a way that would give that benefit to their children.

This effects both homosexual and heterosexual people. Many heterosexual people today make choices in their lives to bring children into the world outside of marriage, or they do not honor their marital vows after children are born. Changing the definition of marriage may be a continuation of this. There is less incentive to sacrifice to make marriage work, if marriage is just for the enjoyment of the two people involved, and less about providing children with a stable home headed by both genders.

Homosexual people who are in an opposite-sex marriage, may come to believe that in order to be true to themselves, they need to leave their spouse and find a same-sex spouse. While they should be free to do so if they so chose, they should not feel as if they are expected to do so. Often, their children lose their right to be raised by a mother and a father.

This is not an insignificant number of people. Homosexual men account for 3.0% of all divorced men and homosexual women account for 6.2% of all divorced women.[3] According to the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, "most children of same-sex couples are biological children of one of the parents". This does not include donor insemination[4], but for the most part are people who were in an opposite-sex relationship, but made changes in their life so that their children no longer had both a mother and a father. Dr. Gary Gates, research fellow at the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law and an expert on census data involving gay and lesbian households, estimates that "only 6 percent of same-sex parents have an adopted child, and a sizable number appear to be living in some kind of step-family arrangement, in which parents come out later and have children from an earlier heterosexual marriage or relationship,"[5] The Family Pride Coalition estimates that 20% of gay men and 40% of lesbian women are currently in an opposite-sex marriage, and 50% of gay men and 75% of lesbians have ever had children with an opposite-sex partner.

Many of these families are wonderful families who are doing their best for their children. We include these statistics to show that this is not an isolated phenomenon. While the church teaches that children have a right to be raised by a father and a mother, the church also teaches that parents must love their children, be faithful to each other, teach their children to be kind and honest, and many other things. It would be a shame to judge a whole family based on one characteristic. However, that does not mean that the one characteristic has no value. We still believe that fathers are important, and bring a unique value that cannot be simply replaced by a second mother. Likewise, we believe that mothers are important, and bring a unique value that cannot be replaced by a second father. While we feel it is important to recognize the distinct values of fathers and mothers, there are obviously many people who are orphaned, raised by single parents, by same-sex parents, or even abusive parents who turn out to be wonderful human beings.

Answer

==

The Church seeks to preserve the definition of marriage. Preserving the definition of marriage does not take away any rights from same-sex couples. Even after proposition 8 passed, same-sex couples were not only free to practice any morality they want, but also have their committed relationships recognized and subsidized by the government. There are rights that same-sex couples do not have in California, but the Church does not oppose these rights nor did Proposition 8 substantially change those rights.

Preserving the definition of marriage recognizes the benefit that a union between a man and a woman has for society that a union between two men or two women cannot offer, particularly in child-raising. This recognition does not take away rights from families that are founded on something other than a marriage relationship.

== Notes == None

Further reading

FairMormon Answers articles

Template:SSA wiki

FairMormon web site

Template:SSA FAIR

External links

Template:SSA links

Printed material

Template:SSA print