A Moral Case for LDS Same-sex Marriage, in brief

I submitted this paper to the Stand for the Family Symposium on 19 May, and anticipate presenting it at the same in October 2011. I've posted on this subject before, but I managed to summarize my arguments down to 30 pages.  That was no small task.

A Moral Case for LDS Same-Sex Marriage

Outline:

A.    Introduction

B.     26 reasons to consider affirming LDS SSM

C.     Conclusion

D.    Motivations for writing

1.      Timeliness

2.      Our future children

Abstract

The LDS Church has publicly opposed efforts to legalize same-sex marriage in Hawaii, Alaska, and California.  Their Family Proclamation also declares marriage to be between a man and a woman.  Nevertheless, a strong moral case for LDS same-sex marriage does exist, and is articulated below with 26 supporting reasons. 

Introduction

I had to chuckle.  When I sat down to write this paper, I began with a chapter from a book I wrote last year.  When I highlighted the text and formatted it according to the guidelines, I braced myself and looked down at the page number: *cringe.*  159 pages.  Time to summarize!

No doubt many an eyebrow was raised by this paper’s title.  Some have responded to me: “A moral case for LDS same-sex marriage?  There’s no such thing!”  And I have to admit, at first glance, it does seem counterintuitive that a compelling moral case could be made for acceptance or encouragement of same-sex marriage (SSM) within the LDS church.  However, I promise there is more to the story- if you hang in there with me, I hope to show as much in this paper. 

First let me note that I love and support the LDS church and it’s leaders.  I have a firm testimony of the gospel of Jesus Christ and of the LDS church.  This testimony is strengthened by my regular temple attendance (for a year I was also a temple worker), consistent service in the church, faithful church attendance, fasting, and daily prayers and scripture study.  I have always had a special appreciation for the Book of Mormon, whose inspired passages guide my life and decisions.  Though I will make a strong moral case for LDS SSM, please remember:

1)      I do not oppose any doctrines or policies of the church.  I do not believe in forcing the Lord’s representatives (or anyone) into a particular way of thinking.  However, I do believe in badgering the Lord for revelation- because it is the only reliable mechanism for getting answers that I know.

2)      I have publicly and actively opposed same-sex marriage.  In the fall of 2009 I volunteered with Protect Marriage Maine to help call voters in Maine to oppose same-sex marriage legislation there (which opposition prevailed).  In 2010 I sacrificed considerable time to help organize BYU’s Stand For the Family Student Symposium (this conference’s predecessor).  To use another SSM-analyzing author’s words, “I come to this as a true believer in the special importance and unique qualities of the institution of marriage.  For all its failings in particular cases, and for all the stress it has borne lately, marriage is the great civilizing institution.[1]”

3)      That a strong moral case for LDS SSM exists does not necessarily imply that the moral case against SSM is weaker.  A key outcome of a successful education is the ability to make a persuasive argument advancing a proposition with which one personally disagrees.  If successful, my rigorous presentation of the pro-SSM position will help traditional marriage defenders sharpen their advocacy as a consequence of understanding their opposition better.

4)      At the end, I will explain why this issue matters

Now back to the task at hand.  My faith, the LDS church, teaches that homosexual activities are immoral, and opposes same-sex marriage.  Can one marshal an argument in favor of same-sex marriage from an LDS perspective? In this paper I set out to do precisely that.  After considering all the arguments presented below, I hope you will be equipped to judge whether I have succeeded.

Now let me explain the structure of what you’ll read.  Below I will summarize 26 good reasons why, inside this thought experiment, LDS members and the LDS church should either (1) support SSM for homosexually oriented people or (2) be open to the possible acceptability of LDS SSM.  If you’re interested in more than summaries, please read chapter 5 of my book, Homosexuality: A Straight BYU Student’s Perspective, by downloading the pdf from my blog at bradcarmack.blogspot.com.

1. Homosexual orientation is not all about lust

Sexual orientation, be it toward men or women, is about more than erotic desire.  For example- my mother loves and supports my father.  Within her is a sexual orientation toward men, a constellation of romantic/sexual/emotional susceptibilities/inclinations/orientation/attractions /feelings toward members of the opposite sex.  She has chosen to direct that constellation toward loving him and strengthening their relationship, which has resulted in unmeasured benefits to me and my siblings.  What if her sexual orientation were instead housed inside a man’s body?  Would my mother’s ability to choose to direct that orientation be lessened?  Would she (he) be any less capable of being my father’s “help meet?”  Of staying by my father’s bedside when he’s sick?  Would his hands be any less capable of making countless meals for my father and our family?  Of standing by my father through thick and thin?  Of making him a big lunch when he goes away for the day with a love note inside?  Of keeping marital vows?  Of pleasing him in bed (if he is also sexually oriented toward men)?    Of listening to him after a hard day at work?  Of going on long trips to the wilderness with his wanted-to-be-a-park-ranger spouse, despite preferring his familiar suburban home?  Of supporting him when he’s frequently away on church assignments?  Of tending to the kids during the night out of love for him?  I for one do not think so.  Said one:

“It is common to hear the advice, “Even if you’re homosexual, you don’t have to act on your homosexual feeling.” The unspoken assumption in this sentiment is that what a homosexual experiences is lust. But what are the essential, healthy feelings of a gay person? As with heterosexuals, they are love, respect, admiration, or infatuation, for another human being. They are the natural feelings that accompany the dreams of becoming a spouse or partner. They are a love for children and a hope for the security, solidarity, and sanctity of a family. They are the feelings that accompany the hope of being a good parent. They are the feelings we all, heterosexual and homosexual alike, share in common as human beings. What is the origin of these feelings? They are the inheritance of spiritual offspring of divine parents, the results of lessons taught in the homes of active LDS families, all confirmed as good through life’s adult experiences. They are the feelings that have been cultivated by associating with the Saints. Not to act on those feelings? Not to be honest with oneself? Not to know who you are and be true to what you’ve been taught? How would those of us who are heterosexuals react to the suggestion that we should not act on those same feelings, feelings born in part from our innate sexuality and leading us to aspire to goodness and godliness? 

Those not closely acquainted with gay people may not have considered that they are capable of the same type of romantic feelings that characterize heterosexual love, something in addition to urges of a sexual nature. Nevertheless that is true. Falling in love can have the same positive emotional, spiritual, and moral qualities for a homosexual couple as for a heterosexual couple. Homosexual love is not counterfeit. What do Latter-day Saints (and others) who are in a committed gay relationship do? They get up in the middle of the night to care for a sick partner. They fix dinner, out of turn, when the person they love has had a bad day. They sacrifice in order to provide opportunities for the growth and development of their children. They resist the temptation to be unfaithful. They send flowers. They coach little league baseball teams. They say, “I’m sorry.” They help in buying the groceries. They plant flowers and mow the lawn. They delight in the success and achievement of the one to whom they are devoted. They do their best to express the deepest feelings of their heart when they say, ‘I love you.’[2]”

2.  Family: the substance

What is the substance of family?  The core of the institution of the family is the marriage.  Even if no kids are ever brought in (say the couple is infertile), the Doug and Jenny Larsen family is no less a family. [3],[4]  According to a well-known family science LDS author: "united spiritually, mentally, emotionally, and physically, taking full responsibility for nurturing each other, they are truly married.[5]"  One of the most important functions of marriage is to help someone become like God by abandoning a “me” identity and instead merging into a “we.” [6],[7]  Could this principle not apply to a homosexual couple as well as a heterosexual one?

Let us continue to consider this question by exploring a homosexually oriented member’s perspective.  A faithful LDS homosexually-oriented member has primarily four lifestyle choices: 1) heterosexual marriage, 2) fidelity to a single homosexual partner, 3) lifelong celibacy, and 4) homosexual promiscuity.  Since homosexual promiscuity is a demonstrably unhealthy lifestyle, we should definitely seek to create and encourage superior alternatives.  Heterosexual marriage clearly works for some- but is also extremely risky.[8]^,[9],[10]  More recently, "Persons who have this kind of challenge that they cannot control could not enter marriage in good faith[11]" is more of the Church’s stance. Thus, if option is out, and 1 is also advised against, the homosexually oriented person is left with (1) fidelity to a single homosexual partner and (2) lifelong celibacy as the only acceptable means for moving forward.

Some scriptures view advising celibacy negatively[12].  Emphasizing free agency as a resolution to this tension is unsatisfactory.[13]^{,[14],[15],[16]}  Because of the primal importance of family in mortality, encouraging patient obedience until death frees one from homosexual inclinations is similarly unsatisfactory. [17],[18],[19],[20]  LDS SSM, might encourage greater obedience to the law of chastity than some alternatives, since that law is about 1) cleaving to a single spouse and 2) behaving with fidelity, in addition to restricting sexual behavior to one's opposite gender.  Promiscuous homosexual behavior is less moral than fidelity to a homosexual partner- but if the repercussions of each behavior class are equal, there is little incentive for treading the more moral of the two paths.[21] One author who argues for LDS SSM wrote:

“Gay marriage need not be seen as incompatible with LDS doctrine. The Church opposes sexual activity outside marriage; but by recognizing gay married relationships, it would allow the ennobling expression of natural sexuality in a morally responsible way, within the context of commitment. Gays could then be expected to observe the same standards of fidelity to their spouse that the Church requires of heterosexual persons. Channeling gay sexual expression in this way would discourage the promiscuity that gays as outsiders are, not surprisingly, vulnerable to. Surely that would be a good thing.[22]”

Joseph F. Smith taught:

"it has always been a cardinal teaching with the Latter-day Saints that a religion which has not the power to save people temporally and make them prosperous and happy here, cannot be depended upon to save them spiritually, to exalt them in the life to come.[23]"

Neal Maxwell and others remarked similarly regarding marriage and our institutions.[24]^,[25],[26]

3.  Family: the form

God has repeatedly expanded family form through history (e.g. by expanding the “one man one woman” definition to “one man one woman OR one man several women.”)  The rebuttal: “But we know of no case where this precedent extends to same-gender marriage!”  To my knowledge, this is true.  However, the first marriage we know of was one man/one woman (Adam and Eve); thus, sometime between then and now, God must have introduced for the first time and without earthly precedent the marriage form expansion of polygyny.  If God was willing to change the “number of partners” prong of marriage form, He may be willing to change the “number of genders” prong as well.  Notably, the Restoration scriptures (Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, and the Book of Mormon) are silent on anything to do with homosexuality.

Same-sex marriage arguably makes married same-sex couples’ sexual conduct within the church’s law of chastity already, since the church’s law of chastity is tied to “legal and lawful” marriage[27],[28] (sexual relations are limited to one’s legally and lawfully wedded husband or wife – and thus, Buckley’s sexual relations with Michael, his legal husband, are chaste[29]).  No other church moral standard[30] is explicitly tied to an external legal concept.  LDS SSM might not require a departure from historic condemnation of homosexual conduct, since the morality of such was, arguably, always conditioned on the absence of marriage.

The Family Proclamation already contains the “mechanism” for LDS SSM.  In the paragraph declaring marriage between a man and a woman to be “essential to His eternal plan,” it states: “Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation.”  Homosexual orientation is an “other circumstance necessitating individual adaptation” if ever there was one. [31] 

Last, God has frequently turned the doctrinal tables on what consensus church apostles of the day thought was truth.  Preach the gospel to the gentiles?  “Emphatically not!”  (until Peter’s vision of the sheet descending with unclean animals).  Give the priesthood to black men?  “Emphatically not!” (until President Kimball’s declaration).   Give marriage to homosexuals?  “Emphatically not!” (until ______). 

4.  Children

The Williams Institute estimated that in a recent year, about 60,000 gay, lesbian, or transgender couples are raising at least one child under 18[32].  The Family Proclamation states: "Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony.[33]”  Though we usually think that this clause means that parents who intend to bear children should be married, there’s a second part: “children are entitled to birth.” LDS homosexuals can decide between (1) same-sex monogamy + multiplying/replenishing (e.g. through reproductive technologies such as surrogacy and artificial insemination) and (2) celibacy.  Theirs is the dilemma of Adam, who could not both multiply/replenish the earth and refrain from partaking of the fruit, though he could do either.  Most homosexual couples cannot both multiply/replenish the earth and avoid excommunication as a consequence of their same-sex monogamy, though s/he could do either.  Are those who choose same-sex monogamy with reproduction not following the moral example of Father Adam, who chose the better option of multiplying and replenishing the earth “that man may be”?  Why not affirm this difficult decision made by partially obedient, pronatalist homosexuals?

5.  Parenting

Though the issue is hotly contested, the predominance of research to date indicates that:

“there is a consensus among credible scientific researchers which confirms the abilities of gay and lesbian persons as parents, and finds positive outcomes for their children. Statements by the leading associations of experts in this area reflect professional consensus that children raised by lesbian or gay parents do not differ in any important respects from those raised by heterosexual parents. No credible empirical research suggests otherwise[34].  If gay, lesbian, or bisexual parents were inherently less capable than otherwise comparable heterosexual parents, their children would evidence problems regardless of the type of sample. This pattern clearly has not been observed.”[35]^{,also[36],[37],[38],[39],[40],[41],[42]}

In addition to child-benefit-based parent arguments[43], one should consider the parent’s benefit as well.”  Like uniting with a spouse, parenting children is a crucial step in theosis[44] that should take place in mortality where possible.  Lonely celibacy provides neither; SSM both.

6.  Providing reliable caregivers

“We all suffer periods of illness, sadness, distress, fury.  What happens to us, and what happens to the people around us, when we desperately need a hand but find none to hold?  If marriage has any meaning at all, it is that when you collapse from a stroke, there will be another person whose “job” is to drop everything and come to your aid.  Or that when you come home after being fired, there will be someone to talk you out of committing a massacre or killing yourself.  To be married is to know there is someone out there for whom you are always first in line.”[45]^{,also[46],[47],[48],[49],[50],[51]}

Many of the benefits of marriage (which I detail later in this chapter) may come because married people have someone to look after them, and someone to look after- and they know it.  Homosexuals largely lack this assurance:

“One of the first things many people worry about when coming to terms with their homosexuality is: Who will take care of me when I’m old?  When I’m sick?

If it is true that marriage creates kin, then surely society’s interest in kin creation is strongest of all for people who are less likely to have children of their own to rely on in old age and who may be rejected or even evicted—it is still not all that uncommon—by their own parents in youth.  If the AIDS crisis showed anything, it was that homosexuals can and will take care of each other, sometimes with breathtaking devotion—and that no institution or government program can begin to match the love of a devoted partner.[52]”

Providing reliable caregivers is well within the capacities of both homosexuals and heterosexuals.  The benefits from this aspect of marriage accrue to homosexuals and society more generally, including heterosexuals.  Celibacy (and, to a lesser degree, civil union, cohabitation, and domestic partnership) does not do nearly as good a job of providing reliable caretakers as does marriage, including SSM (same-sex marriage). 

7.  Settling young men

 “Much of the history of civilization can be thought of as an effort to adapt these male dispositions to contemporary needs by restricting aggression or channeling it into appropriate channels. That adaptation has often required extraordinary measures… of all the institutions through which men may pass- schools, factories, the military- marriage has the largest effect.”[53]^{also,[54] , [55]}

An article from The Economist arguing for gay marriage:

“Not least important, marriage is a great social stabiliser of men.  Homosexuals need emotional and economic stability no less than heterosexuals—and society surely benefits when they have it… For society, the real choice is between homosexual marriage and homosexual alienation. No social interest is served by choosing the latter.[56]”

 “So what that homosexual men need emotional and economic stability?” a critic might say.  “Young homosexual men can still get married- to a woman.”  In response, I point out the risks to these wives from a 2010 study reviewing 20 years of mixed-orientation marriage studies:

“While gay-heterosexual marriages benefitted from communication and discussion of individual needs, few such marriages enjoyed a mutually satisfying sexual relationship together… Descriptive analysis revealed that all women had anticipated a lifelong, monogamous marriage, even those who had some knowledge of their husband’s premarital homoerotic feelings. Grief, social isolation, and feeling deceived were common responses of women after they discovered the sexual or emotional relationships of their husbands with other men. Forty-eight percent of the participants had divorced, separated, or were in the process of leaving their husbands. Women did not feel at liberty to seek support from friends and family due to fear of stigma. Of the 52% of participants who remained married, three felt secure in their relationships. Most married couples were not sure if their marriages would endure…

Straight women in MOM [mixed orientation marriage] experienced an array of responses after their husband’s coming out, ranging from outrage to relief. Such women’s experiences were often conceptualized in terms of loss, shock, and sadness. Responses included isolating themselves, feeling humiliated, seeking counseling, and attempting to renegotiate or dissolve their marriage.[57]”

By prohibiting SSM, all homosexuals except those who enter mixed orientation marriages are effectively barred from marriage- and thus, for the male subset of that population, from marriage’s (and the prospect of marriage’s) settling and stabilizing effects.

8.  God did not create all people physically male and female

Up to this point, the arguments in support of SSM have largely been some of the same reasons that Latter-day Saints typically support OSM (opposite-sex marriage).  We will now turn to some reasons that are more uniquely specific to SSM.

The Family Proclamation declares marriage to be between a man and a woman- and most members interpret that construction to be a limitation as well (i.e. marriage is not also between man and man or woman and woman).  The nature of marriage as a two-gender institution may be foundational and fundamental- but it will be impossible to apply if gender is indiscernible.  The Proclamation teaches that gender is a characteristic of our spirits, not of our bodies[58]--even though we normally judge a person’s gender by appearance. 

A Bishop cannot be relied upon to correctly identify a bodily attribute of a spirit.  Could he or you or anyone judge the spiritual hair color of a person?  How about the height of an individual’s spirit?  If the Bishop is blind and a person is brought before him, does he know whether that person is a male or a female spirit?  When a sex-ambiguous person (let’s say, an intersex, ambiguous genitalia individual named Taylor, since Taylor is both a boy and a girl name) asks a Bishop to marry Taylor to Sarah, does the Bishop say yes or no? 

If any person appears before an LDS Bishop and requests marriage, and this is key- the bishop doesn’t know with certainty the spiritual gender of the requestor.  In the absence of certainty about spiritual gender, it is irrational to exclude marriage on the basis of apparent physical sex: instead, a bishop charged with marrying male to female spirits must either not marry at all (thus avoiding same-sex pairings) or marry any two people that come before him (thus avoiding the absence of any marriage).  It makes more sense to instead stake marriage access on a more sure and discernible foundation, especially if the relevant determination is of spiritual sex. That foundation is the platform constructed of the planks of 1) two partner, 2) consent, and 3) minimum age requisites, and not 4) indiscernible spiritual sex.  SSM fits the bill: physical man/woman-only marriage does not. 

9.  We can’t be 100% certain we know God’s thoughts on SSM

Below is an interesting study.  Though it lacks rigor, the results are intuitive and belie certainty that God’s will regarding SSM is fully and broadly known:

"The form asked the recipient:

Whether they were currently in favor of or opposed to same-sex marriages (SSM).

Some personal data -- their sexual orientation, religious affiliation, and which "wing" of that religion that they followed.

To seek God's will for same-sex marriages through prayer.

To continue praying until they received a response from God or felt that they could not assess the will of God.

If they were successful in assessing God's position on SSM, then we asked:

- what God's will is, and

- how certain are they that they correctly assessed God's will….

Although the sample size was small, one result was striking: Of the 68% of the participants who believed that they assessed the will of God, every person found that God agreed with their stance on SSM:

All of those who are personally opposed to SSM reported that God agreed with them.

All of those favoring SSM also reported that God agreed with them.

None found that God took a compromise position, saying that God supported or opposed SSM depending upon the specifics of each individual case.

Summary of the study

The most significant result, in the author's opinion, is that:

Those who personally favored SSM found that God also favored it.

Those who personally opposed SSM found that God also opposes it.

God did not disagree with any of the participants' beliefs, even though they are in conflict.[59]

When asking God to reveal truth, one must be open to whatever answer He would give, even one that contradicts what you thought you knew for sure- else there is little point in posing the question.  Most of us are at least a little unsure of exactly what God wants.  Joseph Smith: “Why be so certain that you comprehend the things of God, when all things with you are so uncertain?[60]”

10.  Very few open members stay active

By age 40, an uncomfortably small percentage of homosexuals are still active[61]^,[62],[63].  I think it is reasonable to assume that the percentage is lower than that of heterosexuals.  Gary Watts, the former president of Family Fellowship (Family Fellowship is a predominantly Latter-day Saint support group for families who have Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and/or Transgender members[64]), says less than 10% stay in the church.  This statistic matches my personal experience and I for one find it devastating.  There are doubtlessly many reasons why individuals choose to withdraw their church activity.  However, if these perceptions are even roughly accurate, they are one piece of evidence to suggest that the LDS environment is inhospitable to those who are open about their homosexual orientation.  To tolerate or advocate SSM as a church is likely to make the LDS environment more hospitable to those who do come out (and likely those who don't as well).  It should go without saying that proselytizing efforts to HO people and their loyal loved ones would likely be more successful with than without LDS SSM[65]. 

In addition to losing fewer homosexually oriented people to apostasy or suicide, the church stands to gain from losing fewer people who sympathize with homosexually oriented people. 

11.  LDS divine command theory relies on living oracles

 “Mormonism… calls for thoughtful disciples who will not be content with merely repeating some of its truths, but will develop its truths…. The disciples of ‘Mormonism’… will yet take profounder and broader views of the great doctrines committed to the church; and… will cast them in new formulas; co-operating in the works of the Spirit, until ‘they help to give to the truth received a more forceful expression, and carry it beyond the earlier and cruder stages of its development.’[66]” 

-Elder B.H. Roberts

Because we are a church of living oracles, we have no loyalty to what past prophets have said which contradict the living one.  Also, we hold that the canon is still open: “We believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.[67]”  There is little use in praying for God to reveal truth to us if we place bounds on the answers we will accept.  Thus, we must be prepared to follow whatever direction comes- even a reversal of the current church practice of fighting SSM.  If President Monson pronounced tomorrow that the church will now practice and promote SSM, will we be ready, or like some members after the blacks/priesthood reversal will we fall away?  The stereotypical LDS divine command theory approach demands that level of readiness, sacrifice, and obedience. 

Opposition to SSM may result from relatively recent homophobia in the church. [68]^{,[69],[70],[71],[72],[73],[74],[75],[76],[77],[78],[79],[80],[81],[82],[83],[84],[85]}  Because church stances have changed on other issues (e.g. blacks/priesthood and polygamy), and because we have a responsibility to think through important moral issues[86],[87],[88],[89],[90],[91], we should weigh the advantages and costs of LDS SSM.

12.  SSM advocates may turn out to be pro-family

Was George Washington a traitorous rebel or a freedom fighter?  The answer likely turns not on the nature of his activities, but on the whether the judge is a Tory or a Patriot.  Similarly, some view SSM advocates as a threat to the family.  Others see them as family freedom fighters.  Either view can cause regrettable problems, since each side often demonizes the opposition. 

It would be wise to avoid vilifying advocates or advocacy of SSM, as one cannot be certain whether or when their case will ultimately prevail:

“Second, with marriage in America declining in appeal and statistical success, it can use help from whatever quarter. Homosexuals constitute a minority that wishes to affirm this institution and its ideals…gays are not trying to dismantle marriage but rather to extend its stabilizing influence on society. By entering into it, they are attempting as individuals and as couples to be socially responsible.”[92]^,also[93]

It is not clear to all whether SSM strengthens or weakens the family.  In the meantime, civil and respectful opposition to SSM advocacy is appropriate for those whose consciences so dictate.  

13.  The deadness of the law

Many faithful members of the LDS church feel duty bound to follow the brethren[94] in insisting that 1) homosexuality is chosen and abominable; and 2) homosexual members should try very hard to change, since their orientation is contrary to the Plan and can be routinely reversed.  Either or both of these ideas unquestionably impose excruciating and unnecessary hardship on gay and lesbian Latter-day Saints, as abundantly evidenced by their personal accounts and disturbingly elevated suicide rates.  Though I and many others conclude that members are not duty bound in this way, I do not condemn those who judge otherwise.  However, I recommend by analogy the account of a homosexual-stoning, pre-Christ society of Jews (2 Nephi 25):

24 And, notwithstanding we believe in Christ, we keep the law of Moses, and look forward with steadfastness unto Christ, until the law shall be fulfilled.  25 For, for this end was the law given; wherefore the law hath become dead unto us, and we are made alive in Christ because of our faith; yet we keep the law because of the commandments… 27 Wherefore, we speak concerning the law that our children may know the deadness of the law… that they need not harden their hearts against him when the law ought to be done away.

An embrace of SSM would be one way to send the vital (and arguably overdue) message that the largely inborn characteristic of homosexual orientation is not evil, and instead can be channeled to further God’s purposes for His children during mortality.  

14.  Afterlife claims doesn’t necessarily argue against SSM

 “There are no homosexual unions or marriages in Heaven. As a primary goal of life on Earth is to create eternal family units, giving validity to a same-sex union that will have no validity after this life would be counter-productive for those engaged in it.”[95]

In response, I would first point out that we are not certain of the lack of SSM in heaven.  Second, I compare: what about a woman whose husband dies in a car crash two weeks after the wedding?  A woman can only be sealed to one man, and it would be unfair to her first spouse, who committed no fault, to lose his sealed wife to another man.  What LDS man would marry such a woman, to whom he could not be sealed?  Would their children be the posterity of the first husband?  Will he spend his whole life raising and building relationships with his spouse and another man’s progeny, only to lose his wife and/or children in the afterlife? 

Most of us would, rather than prescribe lifelong celibacy for this woman, encourage her to marry and rear children.  Most of us would hope that a faithful man would not write her off as a marriage candidate.  If we would encourage this couple to marry, knowing they will be separated in the afterlife, why would we do so?  Is it not because the value of companionship, even if it is only during mortality, is better than being single?  Moses 3:18 teaches that “it was not good that the man should be alone.” Wrote one:

“But what about the assertions in “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” those that concern “the eternal role of gender” and declare an “ideal” familial structure for parent/child relationship? Neither need those beliefs be an impediment to supporting gay marriage. The Church need not accept gay marriages as “eternal”; it would not need to offer temple gay marriages. They could be regarded like civil marriages—for this life only. As the Church views the matter, adjustments are going to have to be made in an afterlife anyway for many people, because many situations involving marriage, singleness, or parent/child/nurturer relationships are not ideally finalized. For those who do their best to live uprightly given their varying mortal circumstances, the afterlife will doubtless satisfactorily resolve itself.[96]”

Said another: “If God wants to change the orientation of their sexual feelings in an afterlife, that matter is in his hands, but we can make their lives better here and now.[97]”

15.  A revealed religion need not be conservative

"The Church... is imperfect. [However,] it is the best instrument the Lord has, given our agency, to effect His purposes. If it is at times inefficient, backward, repressive, it is also at times instructive, progressive and liberating. The Church is like us .... I’ll go one step further: the Church is us; it is no better or no worse than we are (and that includes you and me), for the Church is what we make it.[98]"

Many church members and leaders mistook the prohibition against blacks holding the priesthood as doctrine. In retrospect, it was more likely a practice whose doctrinal foundation ultimately failed.  Similarly, were church leaders to alter their stance about the sinfulness of monogamous, committed homosexual relationships, it would seem that the church's policy once again reflected practice more than doctrine.  It is likely that much truth is withheld because people are so steeped in their traditions[99]^{,also[100],[101],[102],[103]}  Members of the church should be prepared to follow wherever God leads them.  If social progress is justifiably moving toward an embrace of SSM socially, religiously, and legally- Christ’s revealed church should be ahead of the curve? 

16.  Because we supported polygamy

“There is an irony inherent in the church's taking a public position opposing homosexual marriages... The leading United States Supreme Court authority for the proposition that marriage means a relationship between a man and a woman is Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878). In that case, in which the United States Supreme Court sustained the validity of the anti-polygamy laws, the Court defined marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman. The court's stress in that case was on one. The modern relevance of the Reynolds opinion is its reference to marriage as being between a man and a woman.  The irony would arise if the Church used as an argument for the illegality of homosexual marriages the precedent formerly used against the Church to establish the illegality of polygamous marriages.[104]” –Elder Dallin H. Oaks

Polygynous marriages had only two genders, but more than two partners; now, the official definition the LDS church supports is only two genders and two partners.  At first blush these two positions manifest a glaring hypocrisy.  Are we not mimicking the type of treatment our polygynist ancestors received in our legal and organized opposition to SSM?  Having so recently received such bitter government persecution (by defenders of traditional marriage!) for practicing an unpopular minority definition of marriage, one might reasonably predict that the LDS church would instead support (or at least refrain from opposing) those who, due to deeply-held beliefs, also desire government recognition and societal tolerance of their practice of an unpopular minority definition of marriage.  Indeed, “many same-sex couples desire to marry for religious reasons.[105]”  Supporting LDS SSM would of course manifest tolerance for the unpopular minority practice, as tolerance is subsumed within support. 

17.  Presuming the principle behind the practice is a hazardous idea

One way to learn about God is to deduce His characteristics based on His behavior.  Since Christ founded and guides the LDS church, it is reasonable to seek to infer some of His attributes from the extant practices in His church.  For instance, in the LDS church bishops lovingly help sinning members to repent.  The principle behind this practice would be that God is forgiving and loving Person.  However, this “principle behind the practice” learning approach is perilous.  Why?

Though the Family Proclamation calls “upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society,” the Church claims to not attempt to direct a government leaders.[106]  Similarly, the Church used its church buildings and other resources[107] to oppose the left-supported Equal Rights Amendment (ERA).  The Church also advocated against SSM in Proposition 8-like state amendments around 1998 in California[108], Hawaii[109] and Alaska[110].  The Church’s overt and covert advocacy against the ERA, which- like their support of Proposition 8, arguably tipped the scales of a close race- suggests that God opposed this gender equality measure.  On the other hand, in the midst of campaigning against the ERA, God/the church felt “significant community or moral consequences… that directly affect the interests of the Church” [111]  sufficient to speak out against deregulating airlines: “the First Presidency asked all western Congressmen to vote against the deregulation of airlines, hardly a matter of faith or morals.[112]”  This advocacy stands in stark contrast to the “aloofness of most LDS leaders toward the civil rights movement of the 1960s because they defined that as a ‘political issue.’[113]”  Many other examples, such as racist teachings and practices, could be given to verify this “principle behind the practice” peril.[114]^,[115] ^,[116]^,[117]^,[118]^{,[119],[120],[121],[122],[123]}  The church practice of forbidding homosexuals to marry each other does not necessarily imply that homosexual relationships are inferior to heterosexual relationships, nor that He will never approved their matrimony.

18.  SSM doesn’t necessarily weaken marriage

BYU’s Philosophy Department refused to rehire Jeffrey Nielsen because of his public views:

“Further, to say that gay marriage will destroy traditional marriage and the family without giving any reasons why is the fallacy of appealing to fear. Indeed, once you get past the emotion, it is quite an unfounded claim. How could the union of two committed and loving people negatively affect my marriage? I believe that quite the contrary is true; namely, legalizing gay marriage reinforces the importance of committed relationships and would strengthen the institution of marriage.[124]”

In another’s words:

“I believe that the norm of sex-love-marriage is the one to go with, because the norm of opposite-sex-only is less important and less fair and is crumbling anyway as the culture adjusts to the reality of same-sex unions.  The fundamental conflict today, if you care about marriage, is not between same-sex marriage and traditional marriage; it is between marriage and nonmarriage.”[125]^{,also[126],[127]}

19.  Increase freedom

The meaningfulness of agency (the power to select an alternative) is inversely correlated to freedom (the number of available alternatives).  Opening up LDS marriage to same-sex couples gives those couples one very significant alternative they didn’t have previously.  Wouldn’t it be wise to join homosexuals in fighting for the option of honorable marriage, so the anti-family alternatives of lifelong celibacy, promiscuity, or cohabitation society has consigned them to will not be their only choices?[128]  Mormon Wayne Schow:

“Do we care enough about the well-being of our homosexual brothers and sisters to allow them a socially approved, supportive structure of love, acceptance, and security like that enjoyed by married heterosexuals, and the opportunity to grow together with a loved one in sustained, committed intimacy? Jesus did say that we should judge human behaviors by their fruits, that is, by their practical outcomes, not by some ideology (Matt. 7:16). Scripture teaches us by implication that it is not good for a man (or a woman) to be alone (Gen. 2:18). If two people of whatever gender commit to each other that they will love, cherish, and support each other without reservation through life’s vicissitudes, will not such commitment likely bear good fruit—and should we not support that? I say yes![129]”

20.  Integrity, Security, Community, and Happiness

A virtue ethics perspective evaluates moral choices based on what character attributes result from conduct, and what way of living results in human flourishing, or “the good life.”  In deciding whether to include or exclude same-sex couples from marriage, a virtue ethicist might ask which produces the superior virtue profile.  SSM, more than its absence, contributes to the character attributes/moral goods of happiness, community, security, and integrity. 

21.  Homosexually oriented people are children of God

Church leaders perform marriages in and out of temples.  The principle of equality supports the proposition that SSM should be made available to same-sex couples.  As children of God, homosexually oriented people deserve the privileges and opportunities equally available to all of God’s children: “God is no respecter of persons.[130]”  Homosexual members are in every way equal before God and are candidates for exaltation.  Even their tithing monies support chapels and temples in which they themselves are forbidden to marry a chosen spouse.  Because homosexually oriented people don’t have equal access to heterosexual marriage (they are for the most part counseled against it) and are by nature generally ill-positioned for it, a logical deduction from equality is that an equal institution should be made available to them: LDS SSM. 

“Ubi eadem ratio ibi idem jus, et de similibus idem est judicium” (when there is the same reason, then the law is the same, and the same judgment should be rendered as to similar things).

22.  There are many benefits from marriage to both individuals and society

Wayne Schow, in a Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought article, argued:

     “First, marriage, as experts agree, does promote stability in people’s lives: better health, fewer risky behaviors, more satisfying sex lives, larger incomes, greater longevity, and in general greater happiness than single or divorced people. Stable lives mean fewer problems that society must deal with... is it not in society’s interest to make the stabilizing influence of marriage available to a significant minority that, not surprisingly, has suffered for want of it? If gays are statistically more subject to health risks and have higher rates of depression, addiction, and suicide, surely the lack of social acceptance and of equal opportunity for socially approved unions is partly responsible. Leveling the playing field would undoubtedly improve these conditions. Consider, for example, how the introduction of gay marriage has the potential of reducing sexual promiscuity among gays (as marriage reduces promiscuity among heterosexuals) and thereby reducing the spread of AIDS.”[131]^{,also[132],[133]}

23.  Benefits from marital homosexual conduct

Sexual conduct between married same-sex partners would be morally beneficial in at least some of the same ways as marital heterosexual conduct.  Why?  First, it avoids the harm of a life without sexual expression for an otherwise celibate, faithful gay member:

     “To understand why we are morally obliged to grant homosexuals the right to marry, we must look at the larger, central, complex role of sexuality in human lives.  Whether or not we like to admit it, we are sexual beings. For most of us, sex is one of the most fascinating, mysterious, and challenging aspects of life... On the one hand, we are like lesser animals in the inescapability of our sexuality; on the other, we sense in it a godlike power. Mythology and folklore from earliest times and disparate cultures perceived this power and framed the creative acts of the gods in sexual metaphors. On some primordial level we know that sexuality is an energy that underlies and drives creation. It is a basic human need, a basic human privilege. And so a life without sexual fulfillment is not a complete life, however good it otherwise may be.[134]”

     

Second, same-sex unselfish, marital sex increases human love.  An expressed Catholic view on this subject will likely ring true for many Latter-day Saints:

“The mutual inward moulding of husband and wife, this determined effort to perfect each other, can in a very real sense, as the Roman Cathechism teaches, be said to be the chief reason and purpose of matrimony, provided matrimony be looked at not in the restricted sense as instituted for the proper conception and education of children, but more widely as the blending of life as a whole and the mutual interchange and sharing thereof.[135]”

24.  Many LDS homosexuals will opt for a monogamous homosexual union anyway

“Many of our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters, knowing that heterosexuality is not possible for them, and seeing celibacy as an unsatisfying and unacceptable alternative, will opt for a loving, spiritually fulfilling monogamous relationship, seeing it as the more moral choice, the one most in keeping with their sense of what God wants for them, even if it means being unable to function in the Church. This decision is made reluctantly, no doubt with agonizing reluctance. These people find themselves in a position they never would have supposed or chosen under normal circumstances – being able to do more to exercise a Christian life of service, sacrifice, and personal growth outside the Church than they would be able to achieve by remaining celibate and staying in the Church.[136].”

If many church members will opt to seek a monogamous same-gender union, necessarily sacrificing their membership in God’s church, why not let them have the union and keep their membership too?  In light of the intense desires of and sacrifices by many of them to keep God’s commandments and live a family life as He would have them, should we not support their attempts rather than prescribe the anti-family institution of celibacy? 

25. Biblical condemnation of homosexuality is not clear

Many cite the Bible to justify opposition to homosexuality, and thus to same-sex marriage.  A number of well-supported analyses suggest that the Bible does not clearly oppose same-sex marriage, nor does it condemn homosexual conduct per se.[137]^{,[138] ,[139] ,[140] ,[141] ,[142] ,[143] ,[144] ,[145]}

26. The utility of suffering argues for SSM

It is not uncommon for me to hear comments like the following from a gay Mormon:

“I have been through the hell of abandonment, loneliness, misunderstanding, confusion, frustration, and despair that accompanies same gender attraction. My soul has shattered from the sheer torture of it. I believe that each and every one of God's children must experience those feelings in this life, maybe even more than once. As unpleasant as they may be, they teach us compassion and love, patience and charity.”

Homosexuals may benefit from the trials associated with the response of others and themselves to their homosexuality.  However, the fact does not support resistance to SSM anymore than molestation victims’ character building supports resistance to child sexual abuse protection efforts.  Instead, we have a moral obligation to reduce, rather than exacerbate, human suffering.  SSM’s comparative benefit/cost ratio is high enough to justify its embrace.

Conclusion

We have now explored 26 reasons why, inside this thought experiment, LDS members and the LDS church should either (1) support SSM for homosexually oriented people or (2) be open to the possible acceptability of LDS SSM. 

Motivations for writing

Though outside the scope of the moral case built above, I would like to touch on my motivations for writing, since I am often asked why I care about LDS SSM.  Indeed, sharing my views on the subject resulted in the loss of my chosen career[146] (and other personal costs).  The short and unsatisfying answer to the “why I care” question is that I don’t exactly remember other than that I felt called to write about this subject.  However, I will offer two reasons why this issue is so vital to others of my generation: timeliness and our future children.

Timeliness

Same-sex marriage is a defining issue of my generation.  The acknowledgement that biologically-caused homosexual orientation exists is relatively new, significantly substantiated only recently, and spreading.  More and more people are choosing to come out, and more and more gay and lesbian people are openly living in lifelong committed relationships.  Due to current and improving reproductive technologies, homosexuals are gaining access to reproduction, including with each other.  Increased gender and racial equality, economic prosperity, no-fault divorce, and other changes have altered marriage from what it looked like in the 1950’s- and I doubt the institution will ever go back.  Now is the time to take a hard look at marriage from both a religious and civic standpoint and forge ahead with a marriage worthy of securing for ourselves and succeeding generations- which leads to my next reason.

Our future children

It is my hope this reason appeals to my Millenial generation peers who are similarly situated.  The reason is this: I plan to marry a woman and raise my own biological children soon.  One or more of those children may be homosexually oriented.  I want the world to be a place where the American dream and the LDS dream, which I believe both include the opportunity for marriage, is as bright for my homosexual children as it is for their heterosexual siblings.  Indeed, at the risk of being overly dramatic, I have a dream that someday soon my children will be judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin their sex, nor their mostly-if-not-wholly-biologically determined sexual orientation. 

 

---

[1] Jonathan Rauch, Gay Marriage: Why it is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America, 2004, pg. 7.

[2] Bill Bradshaw, “The Evidence for a Biological Origin of Homosexuality,” available at ttps://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B4d4HeuA_ceTYzgyODNkMGQtNjY1Mi00OWU5LWI2MmYtMjhjMzk0MTgyNTIx&hl=en pg. 41.

[3] “Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World- a Response,” Documents of the Vatican II, ed. W. ABill Bradshaw, “The evidenced for a biological origin of homosexuality” pg. 43. Available at ttps://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B4d4HeuA_ceTYzgyODNkMGQtNjY1Mi00OWU5LWI2MmYtMjhjMzk0MTgyNTIx&hl=enott, pg. 314-315, also “The Pastoral Constitution” no. 50.  Quoted from McNeil, The Church and the Homosexual, pg. 205-206 (1976). 

[4] Valerie Hudson, "Equality, Love, Marriage, Zion: A Response to Ralph Hancock," May 2009, "Additional Commentary on the Sherlock/Hertzberg/Hancock Debate, Page 2," SquareTwo, Vol. 2 No. 1 (Spring 2009) ttp://squaretwo.org/Sq2AddlCommentarySherlock2.html

[5] Reed H. Bradford, "Family: Teachings About the Family," Encyclopedia of Mormonism 1992, available at ttp://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Family

[6] Verbal communication between me and the friend, around September 2010: “no matter how many puppies you save and battered women you help, you're still alone at the end of the day.”

[7] Verbal communication between me and the friend, September 2010: “We’re being short-shrifted from the ‘we’ universe, and we know it.”

[8] Ron Schow, “Homosexual Attraction and LDS Marriage Decisions,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought Fall 2005, vol. 38, no. 3, pg. 133-134.

[9] Marybeth Raynes, “Homosexual Attraction and LDS Marriage Decisions,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought Fall 2005, vol. 38, no. 3, pg. 144-147.

[10] Wayne Schow, “ A Case for Same Sex Marriage: Reply to Randolph Muhlstein,”  Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 40:3 (Fall 2007): 40-55.

[11] Oaks/Wickman press conference

[12] D&C 49:15: "And again, verily I say unto you, that whoso forbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God, for marriage is ordained of God unto man."

[13] Oaks/Wickman press conference

[14] Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, 561 U.S. ___ (2010), is a June 28, 2010, decision by the United States Supreme Court. The court upheld, against a First Amendment challenge, the policy of the University of California, Hastings College of the Law governing official recognition of student groups, which required the groups to accept all students regardless of their status or beliefs in order to obtain recognition. - ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Legal_Society_v._Martinez

[15] Francis Collins, “Did my genes make me do it,” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfkf716Ufbo

[16] Kendler, K.S., et al., (1994). A twin family study of alcoholism in women. In: Am J. Psychiatry 151, (pp707-715) quoted in ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_dependence “Epidemiological studies estimate that genetic factors account for 40-60% of the risk factors for alcoholism”

[17] God Loveth His Children, 2007, available at ttp://lds.org/topics/pdf/GodLovethHisChildren_04824_000.pdf

[18] Gordon B. Hinckley, “Excerpts from Recent Addresses of President Gordon B. Hinckley,” Ensign, Dec 1995, 66–67

[19] Quoted from J. E. McCullough, Home: The Savior of Civilization [1924], 42; Conference Report, Apr. 1935, 116 and/or in Conference Report, Apr. 1964, 5.

[20] Family- I Can Have One Too, Gay Mormon Guy, Blog: "In these gay mormon shoes."  Downloaded December 2010 from ttp://ingaymormonshoes.blogspot.com/2010/12/arg-family-i-can-have-one-too.html

[21] Andrew Sullivan, Love Undetected: Notes on Friendship, Sex, and Survival 1998.

[22] Wayne Schow, “ A Case for Same Sex Marriage: Reply to Randolph Muhlstein,”  Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 40:3 (Fall 2007): 40-60.

[23] “The Truth about Mormonism,” Out West: A Magazine of the Old Pacific and the New, Sept. 1905, 242.

[24] Neal A. Maxwell, "Spiritual Ecology", New Era, Feb. 1975, 35.

[25] Bill Bradshaw, “The Evidence for a Biological Origin of Homosexuality,” available at ttps://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B4d4HeuA_ceTYzgyODNkMGQtNjY1Mi00OWU5LWI2MmYtMjhjMzk0MTgyNTIx&hl=en pg. 41.

[26] Vincent J. Samar, “The case for treating same-sex marriage as a human right and the harm of denying human dignity,” in Wardle’s What’s the Harm, pg. 241-242.

[27] Compare with W. John Walsh, “Is Interracial Marriage a Sin?” ttp://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/qa/blacks_chosen.htm

[28] An example couple: Hugo Salinas, "LDS Church Threatens to Excommunicate Legally Married Man: Affirmation Member Buckley Jeppson to Face Church Court," March 16, 2006, ttp://www.affirmation.org/news/2006_26.shtml

[29] There seems little reason outside the mere fact of prohibition to condone marital heterosexual but not marital homosexual sex.  For more on the “why’s” of sex, see e.g. Jeffrey Holland’s “Of Souls, Symbols, and Sacraments,” ttp://www.familylifeeducation.org/gilliland/procgroup/Souls.htm (Jeffrey R. Holland was president of Brigham Young University when this devotional address was delivered on 12 January 1988 in the Marriott Center.)

[30] There are likely some exceptions, e.g. the general Article of Faith 12 duty to obey the law

[31] Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 256–7.  "This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted- by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed."

[32] ttp://abcnews.go.com/Health/ReproductiveHealth/story?id=8232392&page=1

[33] ttp://lds.org/library/display/0,4945,161-1-11-1,00.html

[34] ttp://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/documents/Amer_Psychological_Assn_Amicus_Curiae_Brief.pdf, http://wedding.thejons.net/homework/optional_readings.pdf

[35]  ttp://www.cpa.ca/cpasite/userfiles/Documents/Marriage%20of%20Same-Sex%20Couples%20Position%20Statement%20-%20October%202006%20%281%29.pdf .] 

[36] Nanette Gartrell and Henny Bos , Pediatrics published online Jun 7, 2010;  DOI: 10.1542/peds.2009-3153, “US National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study: Psychological Adjustment of 17-Year-Old Adolescents,” available at ttp://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/peds.2009-3153v1

[37] Timothy J. Biblarz, Evren Savci.  "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Families," article first published online: 18 June 2010, Journal of Marriage and Family, Volume 72, Issue 3, pages 480–497.

ttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00714.x/full

[38] “Marriage of Same-Sex Couples” – 2006 Position Statement, Canadian Psychological Association, available at ttp://www.cpa.ca/cpasite/userfiles/Documents/Marriage%20of%20Same-Sex%20Couples%20Position%20Statement%20-%20October%202006%20%281%29.pdf

[39] Wayne Schow, “ A Case for Same Sex Marriage: Reply to Randolph Muhlstein,”  Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 40:3 (Fall 2007): pg. 62, footnote 4.

[40] lds4gaymarriage/children.htm

[41] Family- I Can Have One Too, Gay Mormon Guy, Blog: "In these gay mormon shoes."  Downloaded December 2010 from http://ingaymormonshoes.blogspot.com/2010/12/arg-family-i-can-have-one-too.html

[42] Mark Strasser, “The Alleged Harms of Recognizing Same-sex Marriage,” in Wardle’s What’s the Harm, pg. 29.

[43] Jonathan Rauch, Gay Marriage: Why it is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America, 2004, pg. 79.

[44] Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, “Father, Consider Your Ways,” Ensign, Jun 2002, 12.

[45] Jonathan Rauch, Gay Marriage: Why it is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America, 2004, pg. 22.

[46] Jonathan Rauch, Gay Marriage: Why it is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America, 2004, pg. 23.

[47] "Let them wed: There is no compelling reason to exclude homosexual couples from marriage, and several compelling reasons to include them," Jan 4th 1996, The Economist, ttp://www.economist.com/node/2515389

[48] Jonathan Rauch, Gay Marriage: Why it is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America, 2004, pg. 23.

[49] Jonathan Rauch, Gay Marriage: Why it is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America, 2004, pg. 26.

[50] Marriage ceremony, The Book of Common Prayer, from as early as 1662.

[51] Jonathan Rauch, Gay Marriage: Why it is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America, 2004, pg. 27.

[52] Jonathan Rauch, Gay Marriage: Why it is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America, 2004, pg. 78.

[53] James Q. Wilson, The Moral Sense, 1993.

[54] Jonathan Rauch, Gay Marriage: Why it is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America, 2004, pg. 20.

[55] Jonathan Rauch, Gay Marriage: Why it is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America, 2004, pg. 21.

[56] "Let them wed: There is no compelling reason to exclude homosexual couples from marriage, and several compelling reasons to include them," Jan 4th 1996, The Economist, ttp://www.economist.com/node/2515389

[57] Barbara Couden Hernandez, Naomi J. Schwenke, & Colwick M. Wilson, "Spouses in Mixed-Orientation Marriage: a 20-year Review of Empirical Studies," Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 26 April 2010, pg. 4, ttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1752-0606.2010.00202.x/pdf

[58] Because gender is an aspect of premortal identity, it cannot be physical since none were embodied until mortality.

[59] http://www.religioustolerance.org/god_pra2.htm

[60] History of the Church, 5:529–30; spelling and punctuation modernized; from a discourse given by Joseph Smith on Aug. 13, 1843, in Nauvoo, Illinois; reported by Willard Richards.

[61] Written communication with the author, September 2010 (name of quoted withheld).

[62] Written communication with the author, September 2010 (name of quoted withheld).

[63] Written communication with the author, September 2010 (name of quoted withheld).

[64] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_fellowship

[65] Though certainly some homosexually oriented people convert, see e.g. http://authenticityadvocate.blogspot.com/2011/01/road-to-authenticity-part-3-summer-on.html

[66] Elder B.H. Roberts, “Book of Mormon Translation,” 9. 

[67] Article of Faith 9.

[68] See “The Abominable and Detestable Crime Against Nature: A Revised History of Homosexuality and Mormonism, 1840-1980” by Connell O’Donovan.  Available at ttp://www.connellodonovan.com/abom.html

[69] Connell O’Donovan, “The Etiology of Homosexuality from Authoritative Latter-day Saint Perspectives, 1879-2006,” November 2006.  Available at ttp://connellodonovan.com/etiology.htm

[70] D. Michael Quinn, Same-Sex Dynamics among Nineteenth-Century Americans: A Mormon Example pg. 375.

[71] D. Michael Quinn, Same-Sex Dynamics among Nineteenth-Century Americans: A Mormon Example pg. 95; see also chapter 10.

[72] D. Michael Quinn, Same-Sex Dynamics among Nineteenth-Century Americans: A Mormon Example pg. 272.

[73] See Frank Esshom, Pioneers and Prominent Men of Utah, Comprising Photographs-Genealogies-Biographies (1913), pg. 246, quoted in D. Michael Quinn, Same-Sex Dynamics among Nineteenth-Century Americans: A Mormon Example pg. 272. 

[74] Salt Lake County Probate Court, Civil and Criminal Docket Book, page 240 for 13 sept. and 19 Sept. 1864, Series 3944, Reel 3, Utah State Archives, qtd in D. Michael Quinn, Same-Sex Dynamics among Nineteenth-Century Americans: A Mormon Example pg. 272.

[75] See references in footnote 50, D. Michael Quinn, Same-Sex Dynamics among Nineteenth-Century Americans: A Mormon Example pg. 297.  Quote from page 274.

[76] D. Michael Quinn, Same-Sex Dynamics among Nineteenth-Century Americans: A Mormon Example pg. 232.

[77] George Chauncey, in Gay New York: Gender, Urban Culture, and the Making of the Gay Male World, 1890-1940 (New York: Basic Books/HarperCollins, 1994), qtd in D. Michael Quinn, Same-Sex Dynamics among Nineteenth-Century Americans: A Mormon Example pg. 69. 

[78] D. Michael Quinn, Same-Sex Dynamics among Nineteenth-Century Americans: A Mormon Example pg. 85.

[79] Kenny, Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, 2:227 (16 Apr. 1843), qtd in D. Michael Quinn, Same-Sex Dynamics among Nineteenth-Century Americans: A Mormon Example pg. 87.

[80] Missionary Handbook, “You and your companion are to sleep in the same bedroom, but not in the same bed.” p. 24 (not sure which year- 2000’s somewhere).   Also called the “White Handbook.”

[81] D. Michael Quinn, Same-Sex Dynamics among Nineteenth-Century Americans: A Mormon Example pg. 91.

[82] D. Michael Quinn, Same-Sex Dynamics among Nineteenth-Century Americans: A Mormon Example pg. 370-373.

[83] D. Michael Quinn, Same-Sex Dynamics among Nineteenth-Century Americans: A Mormon Example pg. 370-373.

[84] Bush, “Excommunication and Church Courts,” pg. 84, qtd in D. Michael Quinn, Same-Sex Dynamics among Nineteenth-Century Americans: A Mormon Example pg. 380.

[85] D. Michael Quinn (1995), "Male-Male Intimacy among Nineteenth-century Mormons—a Case Study", 28(4) Dialogue, 105–28.

[86] Wayne Schow, “ A Case for Same Sex Marriage: Reply to Randolph Muhlstein,”  Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 40:3 (Fall 2007): 40-59-60.

[87] 2 Nephi 28: 27 & 30

[88] Wayne Schow, “ A Case for Same Sex Marriage: Reply to Randolph Muhlstein,”  Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 40:3 (Fall 2007): 40-60.

[89] Mac Madsen, "Homosexuality and the Church: Perspectives of an LDS Father," from a paper delivered at the 2000 Sunstone Symposium, available at ttp://www.affirmation.org/resources/homosexuality_and_the_church.shtml.  Also at History of the Church 5:340.

[90] Hugh B. Brown, “A Final Testimony,” in An Abundant Life, available at http://www.lds-mormon.com/brown.shtml

[91] George Handley, "The environmental ethics of mormon belief," BYU Studies 40: 2 (2001) pg. 206.

[92] Wayne Schow, “ A Case for Same Sex Marriage: Reply to Randolph Muhlstein,”  Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 40:3 (Fall 2007): 40-55.

[93] Jonathan Rauch, Gay Marriage: Why it is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America, 2004, pg. 93.

[94] Many statements by church leaders support these propositions; see the collection of statements in chapter 2 of my book at bradcarmack.blogspot.com.

[95] Friend of the author, online communication Fall 2010.

[96] Wayne Schow, “ A Case for Same Sex Marriage: Reply to Randolph Muhlstein,”  Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 40:3 (Fall 2007): 61.

[97] Wayne Schow, “ A Case for Same Sex Marriage: Reply to Randolph Muhlstein,”  Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 40:3 (Fall 2007): 61.

[98] Anonymous, "Letters of Belief: An Exchange of Thoughts and Feelings about the Mormon Faith," Dialogue: A Dialogue of Mormon Thought 9:3 (1973): 11-13, referenced in Robert Rees, "Forgiving the Church and Loving the Saints: Spiritual Evolution and the Kingdom of God," Sunstone, February 1992, pg. 18.

[99] Brigham Henry Roberts, By the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Part 1, Volume 6, page 184. 1844, reported by Wilford Woodruff.

[100] History of the Church, 4:478; from a discourse given by Joseph Smith on Dec. 19, 1841, in Nauvoo, Illinois; reported by Wilford Woodruff.

[101] Andy Fernuik, Dear Mr. Stephens: Letters of Love and of Hope.  Pg. 47-48.  http://www.andyfernuik.com/

[102] Bruce R. McConkie, “All Are Alike unto God,” Bruce R. McConkie was a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints when this address was given at the CES Religious Educators Symposium on 18 August 1978.

[103] 2 Nephi 4:35

[104] Dallin H. Oaks, "Principles to Govern Possible Public Statement on Legislation Affecting Rights of Homosexuals," Memo proposing “general principles to guide those who prepare the text of a public statement if one is needed”, 7 August 1984, ttp://affirmation.org/pdf/oaks_paper_02.pdf.

[105] Gordon A. Babst, Emily R. Gill, & Jason Pierceson, editors, Moral Argument, Religion, and Same-sex Marriage, 2009, xviii.

[106] http://beta-newsroom.lds.org/official-statement/political-neutrality

[107] D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power, 384-398.  “the use of meetinghouses was encouraged in Hinckley’s private instructions to regional representatives, stake presidents, and ‘state[wide] ERA coordinators” (397); “LDS church ‘involvement in the ERA controversy may well have exceeded legal boundaries for tax-exempt institutions” (398); 5 October 1979 instruction: “Church building[s] may be used for ERA education, Any and all Church meetings are appropriate forums for discussing ERA” (384);   “Mormon congregations received leaflets describing how to vote for referendums and sometimes for state legislators” (385); “On crucial ERA referendums Mormon congregations tried to distribute anti-ERA leaflets to the doorsteps or car windshields of all eligible voters.  Wards in Tempe, Arizona, made this pamphlet distribution an assignment for priesthood boys ages fourteen to sixteen” (386); “In each state anti-ERA “civic” organizations of Mormons, sometimes of women only, were organized under the direction of Regional Representatives of the Twelve.  The regional leaders acted under the direction of Gordon B. Hinckley, chair of the Special Affairs Committee at LDS headquarters” (386). 

[108] See Proposition 22, “The Knight Initiative,” ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition_22

[109] Some details at ttp://www.lds-mormon.com/article9.shtml; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii_Constitutional_Amendment_2_(1998)

[110] Some details at ttp://www.lds-mormon.com/gaylds.shtml, http://www.examiner.com/lds-church-in-national/same-sex-marriage-banned-hawaii-the-lds-church-s-role

[111] ttp://beta-newsroom.lds.org/official-statement/political-neutrality

[112] D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power, 399-400.  See additional references in footnote 191.

[113] D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power, pg. 400.  See additional references in footnote 192.

[114] Mark E. Peterson, “Race Problems as They Affect the Church,” delivered at the Convention of Teachers of Religion on the College Level, Brigham Young University, August 27,1954, ttp://www.lds-mormon.com/racism.shtml.

[115] Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, pg. 114.

[116] Mark E. Peterson, “Race Problems as They Affect the Church,” delivered at the Convention of Teachers of Religion on the College Level, Brigham Young University, August 27,1954, ttp://www.lds-mormon.com/racism.shtml.

[117] Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, pg. 114.

[118] Spencer W. Kimball, The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, p. 303.

[119] Mac Madsen, "Homosexuality and the Church: Perspectives of an LDS Father," from a paper delivered at the 2000 Sunstone Symposium, available at ttp://www.affirmation.org/resources/homosexuality_and_the_church.shtml.

[120] Journal of Discourses 10: 109.

[121] Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 1958, pp. 107-108.

[122] Journal of Discourses 7:290-291 (October 9, 1859).

[123] “Excerpts from three addresses by President Wilford Woodruff regarding the manifesto,”

 Sixty-first Semiannual General Conference of the Church, Monday, October 6, 1890, Salt Lake City, Utah. Reported in Deseret Evening News, October 11, 1890, p. 2.

[124] Jeffrey Nielsen: “Legalizing gay marriage would strengthen the institution of marriage” 4 June 2006,

“Three days before the US senate voted on, and rejected, a proposal for writing discrimination into the Constitution, Jeffrey Nielsen, an organizational consultant and philosophy instructor at Brigham Young University, published the following editorial in The Salt Lake Tribune,” available at ttp://www.affirmation.org/news/2006_46.shtml

[125] Jonathan Rauch, Gay Marriage: Why it is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America, 2004, pg. 94.

[126] M. V. Lee Badgett, When Gay People Get Married: What Happens, When Societies Legalize Same-sex Marriage, 2009, pg. 8-9, 213.

[127] Jonathan Rauch, Gay Marriage: Why it is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America, 2004, pg. 81.

[128] Hebrews 3:4, D&C 49:15, Matthew 25:40

[129] Wayne Schow, “ A Case for Same Sex Marriage: Reply to Randolph Muhlstein,”  Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 40:3 (Fall 2007): 40-59.

[130] See e.g. Doctrine and Covenants 38:16.

[131] Wayne Schow, “ A Case for Same Sex Marriage: Reply to Randolph Muhlstein,”  Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 40:3 (Fall 2007): 40-54.

[132] Lexington, "Gay marriage,"  Apr 9th 2009, The Economist, ttp://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2009/04/gay_marriage

[133] Jonathan Rauch, Gay Marriage: Why it is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America, 2004, pg. 79.

[134] Wayne Schow, “ A Case for Same Sex Marriage: Reply to Randolph Muhlstein,”  Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 40:3 (Fall 2007): 40-57.

[135] Cf. Seven Great Encyclicals (Paramus, J.J.: Paulist Press, 1963), pg. 93-94.  Quoted from John J. McNeill, The Church and the Homosexual, pg. 100 (1976).

[136] Bill Bradshaw, “The Evidence for a Biological Origin of Homosexuality,” available at ttps://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B4d4HeuA_ceTYzgyODNkMGQtNjY1Mi00OWU5LWI2MmYtMjhjMzk0MTgyNTIx&hl=en pg. 40.

[137] Cloy Jenkins, “Prologue: An examination of the Mormon attitude towards homosexuality.” 1978.

[138] Bill Bradshaw, “The Evidence for a Biological Origin of Homosexuality,” available at ttps://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B4d4HeuA_ceTYzgyODNkMGQtNjY1Mi00OWU5LWI2MmYtMjhjMzk0MTgyNTIx&hl=en pg. 34.

[139] Jay Michaelson, "Does the Bible Really Call Homosexuality an “Abomination”? This word, used for centuries to justify an anti-gay posture, has been badly translated and even more poorly understood."  Religion Dispatches, July 1, 2010.

[140] Justin W. Starr, “Biblical Condemnations of Homosexual Conduct,” FAIR 2004.  Available at http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/BiblicalHomosexuality.pdf

[141] Cloy Jenkins, “Prologue: An examination of the Mormon attitude towards homosexuality.” 1978.

[142] Bill Bradshaw, “The Evidence for a Biological Origin of Homosexuality,” available at ttps://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B4d4HeuA_ceTYzgyODNkMGQtNjY1Mi00OWU5LWI2MmYtMjhjMzk0MTgyNTIx&hl=en pg. 36.

[143] Clay Essig, Believing the Words of Jesus Christ – a Gay LDS Perspective pg. 4.  http://www.gaysandthegospel.org/articles/Believing_the_Words_of_Jesus_Christ.pdf

[144] Lach, Homosexuality and Scripture from a Latter-day Saint Perspective, quoted in Rick Phillips, Conservative Christian Identity and Same-sex Orientation: The Case of Gay Mormons, 2005, pg. 98.

[145] Peculiar People: Mormons and Same-sex Attraction, edited by Ron Schow, Wayne Schow, and Marybeth Raynes, pg. 125-126.

[146] BYU’s MPA program denied my appeal to reverse their refusal to nominate me for the Presidential Management Fellow program on October 31, 2010.  Despite exceptional performance in the selection criteria categories and glowing reviews from my supervisors at the Maricopa County Superior Court, Idaho Supreme Court, and Government Accountability Office, the MPA program decided to reject me on account of my expression.