Traversing Rough Waters

By | January 11, 2014

A while back I posted my thoughts about the demise of traditional marriage and the ascendency of same-sex marriage in Utah. The gist of my opining is that I really am not happy with the track down which I see our society moving. (You can read that post for more on my feelings.)

There has been a bit happening since then along this track, some obvious and some not-so-obvious. First, the US Supreme Court has stayed Judge Shelby’s order, meaning that same-sex marriages have, for the time, been put on hold in Utah. samesexThis caused Governor Herbert to say that the marriages performed to-date should also be put on hold and not recognized by the state, but US Attorney General Eric Holder directed that the marriages will be recognized by the US Government.

The Supreme Court will eventually consider the matter and decide the appeal. The common-wisdom expectation is that they will decide in favor of Shelby’s ruling and that doing so would signal the beginning of same-sex marriage nationally. Time will tell. Frogs in a bucket.

A not-as-obvious development is the issuance of instructions yesterday to the leadership of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints on the matter. The document provides reminders as to the purpose of life, the purpose of marriage, and how people should be treated as we navigate this time of societal transition.

The instructions make excellent and fascinating reading. Of particular import are these words:

Consistent with our fundamental beliefs, Church officers will not employ their ecclesiastical authority to perform marriages between two people of the same sex, and the Church does not permit its meetinghouses or other properties to be used for ceremonies, receptions, or other activities associated with same-sex marriages. Nevertheless, all visitors are welcome to our chapels and premises so long as they respect our standards of conduct while there.

While these matters will continue to evolve, we affirm that those who avail themselves of laws or court rulings authorizing same-sex marriage should not be treated disrespectfully. The gospel of Jesus Christ teaches us to love and treat all people with kindness and civility—even when we disagree.

In these few words the instructions indicate what leaders can and cannot do when it comes to utilizing Church authority or resources in behalf of same-sex marriages. There is little surprising here, and I suspect there will be the usual outcry from societal “progressives” about the narrowness of the Church’s view. (The Church’s instructions are starting to get picked up and commented on by the LGBT press. The headlines selected for such articles are telling.)

What I found fascinating in the instructions, though, is what is missing: There is no outright rejection of the validity of same-sex marriages. The statement says that “sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are … married” and that the Church is “entitled to maintain its standards of moral conduct and good standing for members.”

The point is also clearly made that those who enter into same-sex marriages “should not be treated disrespectfully.” With this I agree, but there is not a clear signal here for leaders as to what they should do with congregants who do enter into same-sex marriages. Are they disciplined? Are they excommunicated? Or are they listed in Church rosters as a family unit? What about bishops providing counseling if same-sex marriages run aground (as many marriages do)? What if they adopt or use artificial insemination to have a child and want that child blessed? What if they (in the case of a male same-sex marriage) want to bless their child? Or baptize them? Or ordain an older one to the priesthood? Are they assigned home teachers and visiting teachers? Are they allowed to hold teaching callings? Any callings?

There are many unanswered questions, even with these instructions. I suspect that time will tell the answer (or, as the instructions say, “these matters will continue to evolve”), but it brings to mind a somewhat analogous situation—the legalization of marijuana.

Wait—what does THAT have do do with the legalization of same-sex marriage? Let me explain.

Happy woman with fresh hemp at cannabis plantA few years ago, some locales within the US went through a loosening of drug laws such that marijuana was essentially legalized for “medicinal purposes.” One such locality was California which has, arguably, the most lenient drug laws in the country. It is now legal within the state for people to use and, in many counties, grow marijuana.

The state guideline is that a person can grow 6 mature plants, which in many rural areas makes marijuana a viable cash crop that can bring in real money to people who otherwise would have very limited income ability. (Think of what the crop size would be at 6 plants per person if there are 6 or 7 people in the family.)

So something that was previously illegal is suddenly legal, and a priesthood leader is faced with an issue: What happens if your relief society president or young men’s president starts cultivating marijuana and selling it?

The answer? Nothing. (I know this from personal knowledge of individuals in this situation.) The individuals are doing nothing illegal; they are upholding the “laws of the land.” They can be engaging in behavior that would have previously labeled them as drug dealers, and still be temple worthy.

What, then, about a same-sex couple who gets married according to the laws of the land? The Church’s instructions yesterday don’t say “we don’t recognize same-sex marriages.” Had the Church done so (and, understand, they may still do so in the future), then the priesthood leaders’ options would have been more limited—members entering into same-sex marriages would, in all liklihood, have been disciplined according to Church guidelines.

However, the statement wasn’t that clear-cut. While, no doubt, some who enter into same-sex marriage will be disciplined because “sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are … married,” others in other areas will not be disciplined because they “should not be treated disrespectfully.” (I am not saying that someone cannot be respectfully disciplined; they can. Not all—not even all leaders—will see it that way, though.) All discipline happens at the discretion, interpretation, and inspiration of local leaders, unless given direct and pointed guidelines from the general Church leadership. There is still a huge gray area here, even with the instructions issued yesterday.

Those instructions makes it clear that those who enter into same-sex marriages are still allowed at Church. And it is beyond question that they are not breaking the law of the land. Perhaps, as with the marijuana growers, they can still hold callings. (Even callings teaching youth? Who knows?) If they previously had a temple recommend, can they still retain that temple recommend?

Understand that I’m not saying the marijuana cultivation example is completely analogous with the legalization of same-sex marriage. Someone who grows ingredients for alcoholic beverages can get a temple recommend while those who partake of alcoholic beverages may not. Those who grow marijuana (or, presumably, opium or other items used to create mind-altering substances) in places it is legal can still get a temple recommend while those who partake of them may not.

So, it is possible that a distinction could arise, somehow, that those who enter into same-sex marriages may still be welcome at Church, but may not be able to fully participate in some ways. It is too soon to tell if this will be the way that things develop, but it wouldn’t surprise me.

Indeed, there are many unanswered questions during this time of traversing rough waters. One would be wise to pray for those responsible for such decisions.


9 thoughts on “Traversing Rough Waters

  1. Kimberly

    Its interesting you should write about these things because I have been having the exact same thoughts and questions but having trouble putting them in words. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this.

  2. Terri

    About artificial insemination, it’s already in the Handbook 2: Administering the Church, 21.4.3 Artificial Insemination The Church strongly discourages artificial insemination

    But, when I went to the sight, I couldn’t pull it up, so they may be updating it online.

  3. Pingback: Practical life in the Church and the redefinition of marriage

  4. Cynthia L.

    Interesting and thoughtful post.

    I’m curious, though. You write about this like it is some new or future circumstance–how will bishops handle a gay couple wanting to bless a baby, etc. But Massachusetts is home to a large LDS population, and same-sex marriage has been legal there for about a decade. California is home to 2 million Mormons, and same-sex marriage is legal there. Presumably, if things like this are going to be issues, they would have already come up in those states? It seems like these scenarios haven’t been arising, or at least, I haven’t heard about them.

    I imagine what is really happening, and that is (I think) heartbreaking, is that gay people and their families have just decided they have no interest in coming to our church. They don’t want their babies blessed by us. And that’s why it hasn’t been an issue, even in jurisdictions where it hypothetically could have been. I think that’s sad for them (not having these crucial ordinances), obviously), but also for us (fewer members).

    You are absolutely right that I don’t envy those responsible for making these decisions, and they need our prayers.

  5. Lew Craig

    Were I to be called as a bishop again, I would have a VERY hard time issuing a calling or temple recommend to someone who grew and sold pot. I would tend, as dictated by the spirit, to be much more tolerant of one who had entered into a same sex marriage. Just my opinion.

    1. Ryan

      Hi Craig (or is it Lew?):

      Will you shed a little more light on your comment? I’d like to understand your rational. I’m going to have to infer what your rational it, but I have trouble understanding your comment about people who enter into same-sex marriages. The core issue, in my opinion, is the clear LDS teaching/requirement that people live the law of chastity. Breaking the law of chastity, in any form, is one of the most serious of God’s laws one can break. Obviously there are different levels of sin in breaking the law of chastity, but certainly of the highest would be sexual intercourse among adults who are either not married legally and lawfully or, whether married legally or not, in a homosexual relationship. Having homosexual intercourse is, at least in terms of gravity of sin, not much different than having heterosexual intercourse outside of marriage in the church. Giving a calling to a man and/or woman living together (and having sexual relations) outside of wedlock would most certainly disqualify either one from having a calling in the LDS church. While I believe same-sex attraction is much more complicated because it (normally) deals with (in my opinion) the true nature of one’s sexual attraction, it is still, nonetheless, breaking a serious commandment. I have tremendous sympathy and full respect for people with same-sex attraction. But even something that complex and difficult doesn’t change the basic nature of a divine commandment. I’d love to understand where you are coming from on this, especially considering you appear to imply you have been a bishop in the past.


  6. Marty Wyatt

    Allen, you raise some mind-bending issues.

    For fun (?) let me propose these thoughts.

    Right now the church handbooks and Preach My Gospel specify that a man and woman cohabiting must either marry or separate prior to baptism (similarly to get/keep a temple recommend).

    However, there is no prohibition (yet) of two men living together or two women living together, gay or straight, prior to baptism or getting/keeping a temple recommend.

    The policy on male/female cohabiting seems to imply sexual relations are occurring and therefore prohibited, whether or not sexual relations actually occur. But male/male or female/female cohabiting bears no such implication – only that those with same gender attraction must not act (sexually) on those impulses.

    What about two men living together that are not sexually involved? This is not prohibited.
    What about two women living together that are not sexually involved? This is not prohibited.
    What about a man and woman living together that are not sexually involved? This is prohibited.

    My thinking is that the handbooks will need to catch up to this scenario soon either to make any kind of cohabiting acceptable so long as there is no sexual activity of any kind or prohibit all types of cohabitation altogether. Because clearly gay/lesbian sexual urges are as strong as heterosexual urges.

    This all really mucks things up because missionaries live together, whether two elders or two sisters so church policy will probably need to allow any and all cohabitation.

    On a similar note, when same-sex marriage becomes the law of the land and all 50 states have embraced it and perhaps heads toward constitutional amendment and ratification, somewhere along the line how will the church balance its 12th article of faith that “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law” with its opposition to same-sex marriage?

    Certainly rough waters ahead and plenty to keep your head spinning.

  7. Marty Wyatt

    Any insight to how the local church leaders deal with legalized same-sex marriage issues in those states where it’s law? It’s a relatively new thing to Utah and has hit home turf.

    It is heartbreaking that members leave for ANY reason, not just for a perceived wrong. Until all the scenarios regarding this issue are explored and the church’s legal committees write, revise and publish those policies, I would think there is no choice but to exclude the couple and the child’s blessing (nevermind that a baby blessing is neither required nor a saving ordinance anyway).

Comments are closed.