What will Mormons do with Gay Marriage 20 years from now?

[Fiyero]

Is there a perception that in 1844, the church was doctrinally near-perfect, and since then it has slowly spiraled downward? No more consecration; no more plurality; women receive greater roles; blacks receive equality; gays slowly receiving greater acceptance.

Or is it just the opposite? Joseph declared the revelations, but what did man do with them? It's not as though the days of Nauvoo were pleasing to the eye of God. Or do we assume Brigham and Wilford pulled the elect to the west and steadied that ship, making 19th century Salt Lake the glass ceiling in terms of doing what's right?

[UtahDan]

I think 20 to 30 years from now the church will still be teaching that homosexuality is wrong. They will remove themselves from any political aspect of the fight. The view from the outside will still be that Mormons are weird. I doubt the LDS church will be the only church still preaching against homosexuality.

I should have saved my breath. This is a much more concise version of what I am trying to say. Maybe my thought processes are prolix after all.

[SeattleUte]

Oh. People see it as offensive? Well in that case, you are probably right. The church will back down on this in the end. How did the adultery and fornication laws come off the books? Is there perhaps a difference between thinking something is wrong and thinking that the law should proscribe it or not support it?

I have said a hundred times before, this is a lost cause in terms of what the law will do. But this will, at the end of the day, be no more uncomfortable than telling people that they are "living in sin" when they are shacked up but not married. And most people won't ever say that. Maybe others can correct me if I am wrong, perhaps they do face a lot of uneasiness with their coworkers and neighbors who live with their significant other, knowing the church teaches it it wrong to do so. I know that I can scarcely look the women in my office in the face knowing that we opposed the ERA. The church will maintain that gay marriage is contrary to God's law, teach its members not to do it and some members will be judgmental about it and others won't.

This just isn't nearly the box for the church that you want it to be. You'll see.

Fair enough. But the LDS Church will not be able to say "we oppose this and it should be stigmatized and condemned by society, not given legal emprimitur and subsidy" the same way it says that about adultery. Let's say gay marriage is somewhere between race and adultery in terms of complexity and susceptiblity to generate controversy. Accepting what you say is true, I think more and more it's moving along the continuum toward being percieved as a civil rights issue rather than a matter of personal faith and conscience, outside Mormondom.

[SeattleUte]

I doubt the LDS church will be the only church still preaching against homosexuality.

The LDS CHurch, Islam and Southern Baptists, 20 years form now. Catholic universities already recognize and subsidize gay student groups and have long done so.

[UtahDan]

Fair enough. But the LDS Church will not be able to say "we oppose this and it should be stigmatized and condemned by society, not given legal emprimitur and subsidy" the same way it says that about adultery. Let's say gay marriage is somewhere between race and adultery in terms of complexity and susceptiblity to generate controversy. Accepting what you say is true, I think more and more it's moving along the continuum toward being percieved as a civil rights issue rather than a matter of personal faith and conscience, outside Mormondom.

Let's assume you are right. People militantly see abortion as a civil rights issue. The church has a mushy position on that, but lots of other Christians faiths are much tougher on that issue. The reason that is such a good analogy is that when people have that civil right, as they do abortion and as they surely will to have a same sex marriage in many states (maybe all eventually), it is mostly an academic issue for them. At a minimum it slides further down the controversy scale. I'm not saying that discomfort over this will not increase at all, particularly in some places, on this as time goes by. It probably will.

[pellegrino]

The LDS CHurch, Islam and Southern Baptists, 20 years form now. Catholic universities already recognize and subsidize gay student groups and have long done so.

Recognizing gay student groups is not the same as recognizing same sex marriage. I doubt Rome will ever perform same sex marriages for members of their faith. It's more likely that they'd put aside their celibacy requirements for clerics.

[LA Ute]

Will there be a major social division in the church? Where a more willful younger generation decides to embrace gay people while the older generation grinds its teeth?

There's a huge assumption here that the "younger generation's" views will remain static (and, to a lesser extent, the older generation's). It may be a sound assumption, but it is an assumption. Such ossification has not happened with abortion, at least outside the Church. I can't think of a similar precedent in Mormonism. But public discussion (and aging, or maturity, if you will) has historically been known to change one's views. Like UtahDan, I certainly think the trend is in the direction of accepting same-sex marriage, but I'm not ready to see it as inevitable.

[Indy Coug]

In a different thread some of you are talking about the sea change taking place in this country regarding gay marriage. Few of us probably doubt that within the next ten years gay marriage will be the law of the land, and in twenty years our current majority view will seem utterly anachronistic.

Given those likelihoods, what do you think will be the long-term game plan for the church regarding gay marriage and the complete social acceptance of openly gay men and women?

The fight will then shift to pressuring the church to give full recognition and rights (i.e. priesthood, temple ordinances, etc.) to those that are actively gay.

[LA Ute]

The fight will then shift to pressuring the church to give full recognition and rights (i.e. priesthood, temple ordinances, etc.) to those that are actively gay.

To extend that thought: In 25-30 years, when the child of a same-sex couple joins the Church and wants to have temple work done for his/her parents, will there be pressure to make the doctrinal changes necessary to accommodate that desire? I always hesitate to use the word "never" in such matters, but it is very hard to see the Church moving on that question. ("Unimaginable" comes to mind.)

[Hazzard]

Interesting discussion of an almost worn-out topic. Props to UtahDan for taking care of today's version of the marginalization of SU. SU -- when are you coming back into the fold??!! We need you more as a friend than as a foil. Just admit it: you love UtahDan's reasonableness and get that old familiar burning in the bosom when you read his words. "Whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants ..."

I will agree with you on one thing, SU: the gay lobby has done a great job at making it a civil rights issue. When the debate is couched in those terms, over time it becomes nearly impossible for the country to say no. How can we ultimately say no to a minority that relentlessly claims that its civil rights are being violated?

[SeattleUte]

There's a huge assumption here that the "younger generation's" views will remain static (and, to a lesser extent, the older generation's). It may be a sound assumption, but it is an assumption. Such ossification has not happened with abortion, at least outside the Church. I can't think of a similar precedent in Mormonism. But public discussion (and aging, or maturity, if you will) has historically been known to change one's views. Like UtahDan, I certainly think the trend is in the direction of accepting same-sex marriage, but I'm not ready to see it as inevitable.

I think it's not just an assumption, but an expection based on fairly recent trends. For example, while Boomers see/saw themselves as leading a revoultion of sorts in civil rights, I see a marked difference in attitudes between Boomers and their Gen X children toward women and gays. I straddle somewhat the two generations (I'm very tail end Boomer and married to an Xer). One of the best things I can say in this regard about Boomers I deal with all the time in a variety of contexts is to commend them for raising such enlightened, open minded, and egalitarian children. I think Xers are far more progressive than their parents. Boomers struggle with the new reality of powerful women and mainstreaming of gays, but these are not troubling trends to their children (I'm generalizing, yes, and referring generally to urban white collar or business executive types). We see some of that reflected even here.

On the other hand, a much longer view of history suggests we're in a golden age of civil rights presently (relative to the past), and all democracies inexorably ultimately deteriorate to intolerance and authoritarianism. America very much remains an experiement.

[myboynoah]

I think it's not just an assumption, but an expection based on fairly recent trends. For example, while Boomers see/saw themselves as leading a revoultion of sorts in civil rights, I see a marked difference in attitudes between Boomers and their Gen X children toward women and gays. I straddle somewhat the two generations (I'm very tail end Boomer and married to an Xer). One of the best things I can say in this regard about Boomers I deal with all the time in a variety of contexts is to commend them for raising such enlightened, open minded, and egalitarian children. I think Xers are far more progressive than their parents. Boomers struggle with the new reality of powerful women and mainstreaming of gays, but these are not troubling trends to their children (I'm generalizing, yes, and referring generally to urban white collar or business executive types). We see some of that reflected even here.

On the other hand, a much longer view of history suggests we're in a golden age of civil rights presently (relative to the past), and all democracies inexorably ultimately deteriorate to intolerance and authoritarianism. America very much remains an experiement.

And to what end do you and Robin expect this to go? I have no doubt that someday in the near future gays and lesbians will be able to join in lawfully recognized marriages in most, if not all, states of the union. This will probably bring other changes in civil rights laws, at which point your civil rights issue will evaporate.

But what of Mormons, boomers and gen xers? Can they not accept such protection for gays and lesbians under the law, while at the same time seeing the lifestyle as sinful and counter to God's plan? Don't most Mormons today, as UD has pointed out, make that same calculus in their day-to-day lives when it comes to drinking, smoking, et al?

My father lives in a small northern-Utah farming town; very small. As one would expect, most citizens are LDS and the influence of The Church culture is seen in most everything that goes on there. It's primarily older people now as the kids move on once they get out of school A few years ago, two women moved in and bought a house. My dad writes and publishes the local newsletter, featuring stories about kids in sports, mission calls, welcoming new move-ins, etc. When I read about these two ladies having moved in, I asked my dad the obvious question. He confirmed their being a couple and said little more. The women participate fully in community events, serve on town committees, and as best I can tell, have been made to feel very welcome. My father recently commented on one of the women expressing regret at the passing of my mother, which meant a lot to him.

I think Mormonation will manage.

[LA Ute]

I think Mormonation will manage.

Clearly you are not getting the message here. SU will explain to you that we are only a couple of decades away from being on the ash heap of history. Sean Penn, a wise and respected social commentator, backs Seattle on this.

[SeattleUte]

Clearly you are not getting the message here. SU will explain to you that we are only a couple of decades away from being on the ash heap of history. Sean Penn, a wise and respected social commentator, backs Seattle on this.

So does 100,000 yaers of human history. You may be a little short on your two decades though.

[SeattleUte]

I think Mormonation will manage.

Here is possibly the most profound irony about Mormon nation. The masses are not asses, actually, but generally (I'm genralizing here; so do what you will with this statement) more tolerant and wise than the very elderly tribal elders they virtually deify.