Harry Reid, Prop 8, and Being A Good Mormon

Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader and active Mormon, recently told a gay rights group that he did not support the Church's Prop 8 campaign. He said he believes that it was a waste of resources and a detriment to the Church's missionary program.

Reid's statement once again gave Mormon conservative activists the opportunity to question how one can be both a Mormon and a liberal. From a Salt Lake Tribune article comes this quote from Holly Richardson, who has a blog called Holly on the Hill, who said: "I just don't get how his politics translate to somebody who has LDS beliefs. He's an embarrassment to me as a Mormon." This quote is merely representative of the types of comments out there. It is truly astonishing that this type of thought still exists.

First, how can people not understand that holding a personal belief and not supporting that belief's codification into civil law are completely compatible? I believe in God. I do not believe that we should enact laws requiring everyone to believe in God. That is an individual choice and other people's beliefs do not effect me and my beliefs. Some Mormon conservatives do not seem capable of making this distinction.

Second, a Mormon Democrat does not have to personally espouse every majority Democratic issue. I have said it so many times it is getting boring and cliche. I do not have to be pro-choice to be a liberal Democrat. The next person does not have to be pro-torture to be a conservative Republican. There is room for debate and disagreement in any group, particularly political groups. Do not just blindly accept a political party's stances and likewise do not just blindly believe that members of the other party are monolithic. That is naive and foolish. All liberals do not want to abort babies and all conservatives do not want to torture and kill all criminals.

Third, we have also pointed out before that Pres. Faust was a Democrat and worked in the Kennedy administration. Elder Marlin Jensen of the Seventy, Church Historian and Recorder, is a Democrat. Pres. Hinckley explicitly stated that a good member of the Church can be a good Democrat. The Church as explicitly encouraged political plurality. And so on. There is nothing inherent about Mormonism and conservatism that make them a match. There was a time when Mormons consistently voted for more liberals political candidates. It ebbs and flows.

So Sen. Reid is the Democratic Majority Leader and Mormon? So Harry Reid thinks that Prop 8 was a mistake? So what? We live in a complicated world, people, and there is plenty of room in the Church to have debates like this. It doesn't mean that we can start deciding who is a good member of the Church based on party affiliation.*

*I fully realize that I recently questioned Glenn Beck's Mormonism, but that was not for his politics, it was for the hateful and vindictive things he has said about political opponents and minorities, and inciting hatred in others. Different things.

A New Effort to Reconcile the Church and Gays

There is a new effort gaining some notoriety on the interwebs to soften the church's stance on gays and reconcile the two groups. The website is called ldsapology.org. People are asked to read and sign their name to a petition which will be delivered to church leaders on November 4, the anniversary of the Prop 8 vote.

As always, I went to the comment section of the story by the Salt Lake Tribune to get an idea of what people are thinking, as there is really no better representative group of the general population than the comment section of an online paper (picking up the sarcasm?).

The gist of the comments from members of the church opposed to this effort is that the prophet has spoken through revelation, the doctrine of families and sexuality is set and eternal, and no amount of public protest can change that fact. The gist of the comments who support the site is who are Mormons to decide morality for everyone else and deny rights to citizens born homosexual? As is often the case, both sides are partly right and both sides are partly wrong.

The petition and website are inaccurate in several ways, and the reactions to them are also inaccurate. The petition reads, in part:

This means scrupulously acknowledging such practices as “reorientation”-- reparative, revulsion, and shock-therapies; such teachings as homosexuality being an evil perversion, a condition that is chosen and changeable and one that can be overcome through fasting, prayer, sacrifice and heterosexual marriage; and using scriptures that are taken out of context, mistranslated or that are highly selective to condemn homosexuality.

As far as I can tell, the church did away with most of this years ago and now, even before Prop 8, emphasizes that it is not safe or effective to try to change the person. The current teaching, as far as I understand it, is that if a person is gay they can still be temple worthy by simply living the law of chastity. I say simply, but, of course, it must be agonizingly difficult. This is why Elder Marvin Jensen of the Seventy and Church Historian has said on several occasions that the church weeps with those good members going through this supremely difficult trial.

I am not aware of the church using scriptures "taken out of context, mistranslated or that are highly selective to condemn homosexuality." There are scriptures in the Bible that condemn homosexuality and take a very harsh view of it, but I don't believe I've seen the church cite these scriptures, as is the practice of many born-agains, to bolster its argument. Instead, the church relies on modern revelation, specifically The Family: A Proclamation to the World.

So far, I think we're good. This is where the common ground can be found. I do not think it would be a repudiation of our teachings on morality and the family to recognize that homosexuality is not a choice, that gays should be afforded basic rights, and even that gays should be allowed to be married under our civil laws. As a church we do not oppose many marriages that would run contrary to our views of it, such as shotgun Vegas weddings, for instance. We can stand by our belief that marriage is sacred and that eternal life is available only to those who are sealed in the temple under priesthood authority while at the same time allowing civil marriages that fall outside of our beliefs. The two are not mutually exclusive. This may not be ideal, but we live in a big, complex world and we can't control every variable or person or practice that runs contrary to our beliefs.

Where the problem comes is where the church is asked to repudiate "such teachings as homosexuality being an evil perversion." "Evil perversion" seems harsh, lets just call it sin. No matter the semantics, though, this will not change. First, it is not the homosexuality that is a sin, but homosexual actions, which is not a small difference. In any case, changing the church's teachings here would be reversing a prophetic pronouncement and one of the most basic doctrinal tenets of the church: the sanctity of the heterosexual marriage.

Not only is it theologically untenable, it is not necessary. As I stated above, there is no reason why we can't hold on dearly to our beliefs but still allow gay marriage amendments and votes to go forward without our opposition. Allowing gays to marry will not cheapen my marriage, or any other temple marriage that has ever been performed, nor will it negate or lessen the prophetic and doctrinal truth that we espouse. We can still use our influence through our missionary program and our examples and discussions with our neighbors, but going the political route is more harmful than beneficial. The church won't, and shouldn't, reverse its teachings about marriage, but it can, and should, take a different approach in public statements and treatment of non-Mormon gays. These are very different things that should not be confused and completely intertwined.

Finally, the site makes a big deal about suicide rates among gays, especially young gays. This is, of course, tragic and we should be doing everything we can to avoid this substantial problem. But to lay the blame at the feet of the church is wrong. I will admit that there has been some pretty harsh rhetoric coming out of the members of the church, and I can only guess how painful and disorienting that must be for young people who are struggling to understand their sexuality and trying to reconcile the fact that they are otherwise good kids who feel like they are being demonized for feelings they can't control. Bottle all of this up internally with no outlet, and you have a recipe for disaster.

But the church has always stressed love and sympathy and tolerance of the person. Many members can't separate the condemnation of the sin and the person, and I admit that it is very hard. When church teaches that homosexuality is a sin, but that the person is to be loved and respected, many members use this as a basis for over-the-top rhetoric against the sin and the person. The fault is not with the church, but with the individual that misinterprets. The church, I believe, can and should stress this point more clearly and often for those that don't understand.

It looks to me like this is a good faith effort to bring the two sides together, but there is a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between doctrine and public policy. For the church and its faithful members, requiring that it reverse its prophetic pronouncement and no longer consider homosexual acts sins is a non-starter. But members of the church can begin separate the politics from the doctrine and reach out with more understanding and tolerance.

Prop 8 Revisited

My brother is currently working on his PhD at Harvard and has seen his fair share of politics there this past year. He has a gay friend in his creative writing class who began e-mailing him a couple months ago about his feelings concerning Prop 8 and the LDS church. My brother sent our family his correspondence with this friend and I wanted to share (hope that's okay, Justin.) He is much more eloquent in his writing than I am and said so many things I've thought but didn't know exactly the right way to word it. Here are the latest e-mails from my brother's friend, and then my brother's response. (It's a little long but worth the read.)

Hi Justin,

Hope you had a splendid Thanksgiving. You have a right to choose your belief but this is the problem with our self-absorbed society. That for too long we make choices or vote based on what is best for our selves, our immediate family, or our Church. For example, I've heard endless Republicans voting in 2000 and 2004 for Bush solely for tax-break reasons and didn't really worry much about the other issues. This is quite the shame and the reason we are in the dire predicament we are today. I think model citizens must vote on what is best for the greater good, the betterment of society. Even you yourself admit, that gays are oppressed, by suggesting when gay marriage becomes universal that somehow you will be. First, let me assure you that as a married, hetero, white male you will always be accepted in society. I admire people like the famous Steven Young and his wife who are supporting our cause because they realize that "separate but equal" must not stand. For too long gays have lived on the fringes of society, even closeted, gay Republican politicians have been getting caught in public parks, bathroom stalls, and canvassing the internet for their longings. Many teens are driven out of their homes, physically and mentally abused, and end up homeless, addicted, and in many cases contract HIV. This is not the life that most gays want to live but being marginalizes has its consequences. GLBT's deserve to be part of mainstream America and part of humanity's social fabric. We make the world colorful with our creative designs, serve disproportionately yet discreetly in the military, and comprise some of the most caring teachers and care-takers. The time for suffering in silence is over. We demand the right to be happy and enjoy the fruits of unconditional love. We want to get married, have the right to adopt or bear children, and buy vacation homes in suburban enclaves, next door to our hetero counterparts, if we choose to. I know this idea might be hard for a devout person like you to chew on. But I have a problem with Mormons telling gays to be celibate in this life with the promise of quenching their thirsts in paradise. This false promise is like Al Qaeda promising its terrorists recruits to target Christendom with the promise of 70 virgins in paradise. I am sorry to compare your religion to rogue Muslim extremists but the reality is that a truly liberal democracy will separate itself from the vestiges of religion.

I think you are right that the tide is changing. PROGRESSIVES are increasingly become a powerful force and the good news is we accept and allow for ALL to be part of holistic and mosaic society. Progressive will never exclude anybody, not even Mormons. But for the sake of my book, I think its better the controversy ensues so I can sell more copies . . . just kidding. :)

Warm cordial regards,

XXXXX

Hello again, XXXX. I apologize for not writing any sooner, but I've had a lot going on with Christmas shopping and homework for classes.

If I may, I’d like to address the points of your email. I hope that as I do though you will understand that I am trying to do so in the least contentious way possible (I respect you as a friend and, though we disagree on this issue, I see it as no reason why we should have hard feelings with one another).

Regarding your comment that our country should not vote based on “what is best for our selves, our immediate family, or our church”... I think that’s a question of splitting hairs and I disagree. I think that each individual should vote how their conscience dictates to them and should not be swayed by popular opinion, Hollywood , cult leaders, superstition, or other silly things. However, I think a person should DEFINITELY vote to protect their family (especially their immediate family). I think the family is the basic building block of society (which is cliché but true nonetheless) and I feel very strongly about voting to protect my family. And if society tells me that I’m intolerant or a bigot because I want to protect my family, then it is they who are being intolerant of my own views and values--hence my aforementioned fear of being discriminated against. And it’s already coming true. Because Mormons don’t support gay marriage it has now conveniently become “pc” to attack us for other things that make us different (I’ve seen the news media and I’m not blind to what people in the Harvard community are whispering). That’s unfair though. It’s a tyranny on tolerance, and tolerance has to go both ways. You can call me “self-absorbed” if you want, but that is simply discriminating against me for my views.

As for republicans voting for Bush solely because of tax-break reasons: if that’s true, then they are all idiots. I believe and hope that the majority of people who voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004 did so because they thought he would best fulfill the office of president and not for personal/financial gain. Still, I realize that is the stereotype of the Republican Party and, I am the first to admit, in every stereotype there is a little bit of truth. So I agree that it is “quite the shame” and do not associate myself with anyone who would do that.

As for the question of whether gays are being oppressed, I can only say that I myself do not oppress anyone nor do I support people that do. That being said, the people who voted for Proposition 8 in California did not deny gays of any “rights.” Proposition 8 only sought to keep the definition of marriage between a man and a woman and only denied homosexuals the use of that definition. However, gays who cohabitate in California are still able to enjoy the same “rights” that are given by the US Government and California and enjoyed by married couples. They can have a civil union, but they are not “married.” And, for you, I suppose that becomes me forcing my beliefs on other people. For me, however, it is an issue of protecting my own rights as a heterosexual married man. You may not understand that though, so let me explain...

If Proposition 8 had failed, then gays would have been able to use the definition of marriage to support their lifestyle. That means that homosexuals could approach ministers, priests, and clergymen of any denomination and ask that they be married. The clergyman in question, who does not believe in homosexuality, refuses to marry the homosexual couple. The homosexual couple, in turn, feels that they are being “discriminated against” because the clergyman refuses to accept their definition of morality as his own. They approach the government for redress. The government, who has in this situation defined marriage as between any two persons of legal consenting age (man and woman, man and man, woman and woman, etc.) agrees that the homosexual couple has been discriminated against and prosecutes the clergyman, forcing him to comply with the law and marry the homosexual couple. This is an infringement of the clergyman’s rights (freedom of religion), but the government doesn’t see it that way. The constitution has been changed to incorporate gay marriage and thus the clergyman must abide by the state’s ruling. The clergyman refuses. The government, in turn, denies his church its tax-exempt status and strips him of his right to marry anyone (if he’s not willing to marry homosexuals, then they’ll take away his license to marry heterosexuals). The clergyman has now been completely stripped of his legitimacy and his rights as an American citizen. In the good ol’ U.S. of A, he has been denied the right to freedom of religion. He has been labeled as intolerant and so others have become intolerant of him.

Now, that may seem like an extreme situation...but it’s not. In fact, here is an example of something similar that happened in Massachusetts (http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/06/25/they_cared_for_the_children/). If gays are unhappy with the definition of civil unions and demand to have the definition of marriage placed on that union, that’s just one step away from discriminating against me and my church for not upholding that definition. And, while I support your ability to choose your lifestyle and sexual orientation and I feel you should have the same financial rights as proscribed by civil unions and domestic partnerships, I only see the same-sex marriage question as ending badly for me and those that can’t personally support homosexuality as being moral. Thus my earlier point: you may now feel you are being discriminated against--that you are a “second-class citizen”--but I no longer see this as an issue of civil rights. I see it as a slippery slope that leads to my rights of freedom of religion being discriminated against. People are trying to redefine my definition of marriage.

Now, if Steven Young chooses to support gay-marriage, that’s his prerogative (although, from what I understand, it’s only his wife that has come out on that side of the fence). He is welcome to do so though and I wish him the best. But I don’t listen to what the media says (or football stars). I make up my own mind about things.

Regarding closeted gay republicans...that’s up to the gay republican. If he feels that homosexuality is immoral, then I understand his feelings of oppression (for, aside from feeling oppressed by his community, he must also feel he is oppressing himself), and my heart goes out to him (or her). If he feels that homosexuality is not immoral though, then he should not feel oppressed. That’s the thing. I’m not going to discriminate against you or our gay republican friend because I disagree with your or his lifestyle (that’s hypocritical, discriminatory, and frankly distasteful). But I’m allowed to believe it’s immoral. And that shouldn’t really bother you because I also believe that having sex before marriage is immoral (and gambling, and alcohol, and pornography), but even though none of my non-Mormon friends believe that, they are still my very good friends (whom I love and respect) and I don’t think ill of them for doing those things (why should I if they don’t hold my views?).

As for the “many teens [that] are driven out of their homes, physically and mentally abused, and end up homeless, addicted, and in many cases contract HIV,” I sincerely wish that weren’t the case. I abhor human suffering and would not shun or abuse anyone because they were homosexual. So frankly, the comparison is a little insulting...because it assumes that by not supporting homosexuality I am somehow a factor in that equation. On the contrary, homosexuals in our church and in my family are accepted with open arms. And, while I will never tell that person that I think what they are doing is moral, I will tell them that I love them and won’t ever treat them any differently because of that lifestyle choice.

Now, the following quote I especially disagree with because it makes too many false assumptions:

“GLBT's deserve to be part of mainstream America and part of humanity's social fabric. We make the world colorful with our creative designs, serve disproportionately yet discreetly in the military, and comprise some of the most caring teachers and care-takers. The time for suffering in silence is over. We demand the right to be happy and enjoy the fruits of unconditional love. We want to get married, have the right to adopt or bear children, and buy vacation homes in suburban enclaves, next door to our hetero counterparts, if we choose to.”

To assume that gays are the sole source of the creative arts in the world is very offensive. Some gays are colorful and creative and others aren’t. That’s perpetuating a stereotype which, as I said before, is obviously based in some truth, but is nevertheless a stereotype and, as a generality, is false. I don’t know how many gays serve in the military...but neither do you, so to assume that they serve disproportionately is to assume too much. Either way, I respect and appreciate the sacrifice that all our servicemen make (be they gay or straight) and value all their sacrifices equally. As for being caring teachers and care-takers, I never said you weren’t...but so are many straight people...so what exactly are you accusing me of? Not recognizing the talents and skills of people merely because they are homosexual? That’s bigotry because you are assuming something hateful which I don’t in fact do. And as for vacation homes in suburban enclaves, you are more than welcome to be my neighbor. I have no problem with it nor do I see any reason why there should be. BUT, if my children ask me why our neighbors are two men living together, I will teach them about homosexuality and I will teach them that it is wrong (because I am practicing my freedom of religion). I will also teach my children that our homosexual neighbors are our friends and, even though they don’t believe as we do, they believe that what they are doing is ok and we should not treat them any differently than we treat our other friends. Likewise, I would teach my children and family to serve and support our homosexual neighbors. And I don’t think there is anything wrong with that, nor should I be discriminated against for doing so.

As for the right of the homosexual to adopt or bear children...that’s a whole separate can of worms that I don’t have the time to get into right now. Besides, we both know our opinions diverge on the matter and neither of us will likely convince the other of his opinion, so we probably shouldn’t bother addressing it. HOWEVER, if you’re curious why I believe the way I do and, rather than argue with me, you wish to hear the reasons for my beliefs, then I’m happy to tell them to you. But I doubt that’s the case (most people prefer arguing about politics over being understood by their friends). Still, if you’d ever like to have a candid discussion about what our mutual beliefs are (outside of our recent emails), I’d be happy to talk to you. I’d also be curious to hear more about your own views (on homosexuality but also on religion).

“I have a problem with Mormons telling gays to be celibate in this life with the promise of quenching their thirsts in paradise”: I’m not sure what you mean by ‘quenching their thirsts in paradise’ but I assume you mean that the desire will be taken away from them in the after life. And that’s actually not the case. We teach that the same desires, appetites, and passions one has in this life are carried over into the next...which is why it’s so important to learn to control them here (while we have a body and ample opportunities to learn self-control), rather than in the spirit world or when we are resurrected and it is too late to change. Which just goes to show that you are still assuming a lot things about me and my faith.

“This false promise is like Al Qaeda promising its terrorists recruits to target Christendom with the promise of 70 virgins in paradise. I am sorry to compare your religion to rogue Muslim extremists...”

Yes, I admit, that’s a bit of a low blow. But I believe the comparison you are trying to make is that I actually believe and practice what my religion teaches me (like, in your example, the Muslim terrorists). But the difference is that I am not forcing my religion on people by blowing up mosques and churches and killing people. I am not forcing my religion on people period. I am asserting my right to vote (as were my Mormon brothers and sisters in California ) and they did not force any religious principle on homosexuals. It could instead be argued that homosexuals were forcing their beliefs on a religious institution (marriage). But again, that’s something we probably won’t agree on and so I won’t bother belaboring the point. Suffice it to say, I am not offended by the remark (because I choose to associate myself with the positive connotation that I actually believe and defend my religion)...but I’m not blind to the fact that the comparison is meant to be insulting.

“...but the reality is that a truly liberal democracy will separate itself from the vestiges of religion.”

Yes, a truly liberal democracy will separate itself from the vestiges of religion. I don’t argue that. I’m conservative though so, frankly, I see that as a bad thing. Religion should never interfere with government, true, but the government should also never oppress those that have faith in a religion or allow those that hold no religion to persecute those that do. And recently I feel like Mormons are being persecuted because of their religious beliefs (which it seems other people want to label as “intolerance”). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q28UwAyzUkE

One final thing though...

I’m willing to admit that Mormons played a critical role in getting Proposition 8 passed in California ...but Mormons make up less than 2% of California ’s population. So clearly other people were the reason it passed. In fact, all of the Bishops of the Catholic Church supported the measure (as did Evangelicals and other Christian groups). Even more interesting, the largest group of people that voted for Proposition 8 was African-Americans (who turned out in droves to vote for Obama). So, really, it was the African-American vote that caused Proposition 8 to pass...so, if people are going to accuse my church of being intolerant, why aren’t they saying the same thing of African-Americans? Actually...I just checked, and it looks like they are: http://volokh.com/posts/1226094712.shtml

I’m not trying to argue with you or convince you of my beliefs, but lately I’ve been getting a lot of guff from people for exercising my own beliefs (even though I really had nothing to do with Proposition 8 and am just a faithful member of my church). Frankly, I think everyone else is being hypocritical by saying I’m intolerant. They are welcome to say it and are welcome to believe it (I support freedom of speech as well as freedom of religion), but when people get upset with me for standing up for my own beliefs...well, it’s easy to get upset. So fine, let’s disagree with each other (that’s what democracy is all about after all), but let’s not persecute people for upholding their beliefs. Just let people vote and don’t give them guff for doing what they feel is right.

Anyway, that’s my response (for what it’s worth). I remind you though that you are still my friend and I regard you as such (I don’t feel that you’ve ever discriminated against me or that you dislike me because I’m Mormon), so I hope you will take all that I said with a grain of salt and not take any of it as a personal attack. Similarly, I hope you will still consider me your friend (in spite of our differences of opinion) and I look forward to talking with you more in the future (perhaps on topics more amenable to our mutual interests, like creative writing). I also would be happy to continue our current conversation (in email or in person), provided that we both respect each other’s views (which I am actually very confident you would do because you’ve always been a very gracious gentleman in class and it is one of the reasons why I consider you my friend).

Best,

Justin

Boy O Boy

I've busy and distracted and haven't had a chance to respond to Jake's rant on Operation, oh I mean, Proposition 8.

My initial reaction to the news of the LDS church's direct involvement in the political process reminded me of a quote I heard in the late 90's. This statement was released by the Shell Petroleum company after being (justifiably) accused of participation in Nigeria's civil conflict with the Ogani people:

"Some campaigning groups say we should intervene in the political process in Nigeria. But even if we could, we must never do so. Politics is the business of governments and politicians. The world where companies use their economic influence to prop up or bring down governments would be a frightening and bleak one indeed."

My main issue with the LDS church's support of Prop 8 is in the method, not in the motive. I adamantly proclaim the sanctity of marriage, and agree that on a religious level this union is only between a man and a women. I also agree that the LDS church retains the right to comment on ethical and moral issues - "churches and religious organizations are well within their constitutional rights to speak out and be engaged in the many moral and ethical problems facing society."

I beleive that marriage is a religious action, and should not be governed by the state in any way. I feel the church would be better served to break away from defintions approved or disapproved by government, and instead guide membership as to the symbolism and eternal commitment that is marriage.

My issue is with this statment read to congregations in California. In particular is the admonition that members donate"of your means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman."

This is where I feel the LDS church made a mis-step. I agree with their statement of belief, an encouragment to prayerfully consider the issue, and an appeal for tolerance and love, but I disagree with the call for donations. Using economic influence (directly or vicariously through it's members) to force "moral" changes in society, is a frightening prospect.

The problem is that if we give one church, or organization, the right to request monetary and literal action from it's members, then we are doomed to give all large groups, be it companies or churches, the protection to swing the club of economic influence. Pray that you always stand on the side far away from the blow, lest the giant is the self contradicting "Shell" and you are the "Oganis".

Prop 8 and Tax Exemption

Here is the church's response to the Prop 8 hullabaloo:

Since Proposition 8 was placed on the ballot in June of this year, the citizens of California have considered the arguments for and against same-sex marriage. After extensive debate between those of different persuasions, voters have chosen to amend the California State Constitution to state that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

Voters in Arizona and Florida took the same course and amended their constitutions to establish that marriage will continue to be between a man and a woman.

Such an emotionally charged issue concerning the most personal and cherished aspects of life — family, identity, intimacy and equality — stirs fervent and deep feelings.

Most likely, the election results for these constitutional amendments will not mean an end to the debate over same-sex marriage in this country.

We hope that now and in the future all parties involved in this issue will be well informed and act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility toward those with a different position. No one on any side of the question should be vilified, intimidated, harassed or subject to erroneous information.

It is important to understand that this issue for the Church has always been about the sacred and divine institution of marriage — a union between a man and a woman.

Allegations of bigotry or persecution made against the Church were and are simply wrong. The Church's opposition to same-sex marriage neither constitutes nor condones any kind of hostility toward gays and lesbians. Even more, the Church does not object to rights for same-sex couples regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches.

Some, however, have mistakenly asserted that churches should not ever be involved in politics when moral issues are involved. In fact, churches and religious organizations are well within their constitutional rights to speak out and be engaged in the many moral and ethical problems facing society. While the Church does not endorse candidates or platforms, it does reserve the right to speak out on important issues.

Before it accepted the invitation to join broad-based coalitions for the amendments, the Church knew that some of its members would choose not to support its position. Voting choices by Latter-day Saints, like all other people, are influenced by their own unique experiences and circumstances. As we move forward from the election, Church members need to be understanding and accepting of each other and work together for a better society.

Even though the democratic process can be demanding and difficult, Latter-day Saints are profoundly grateful for and respect the ideals of a true democracy.

The Church expresses deep appreciation for the hard work and dedication of the many Latter-day Saints and others who supported the coalitions in efforts regarding these amendments.

One issue that the protesters don't understand is the tax exempt status of churches (otherwise know as 501(c)3 organizations). There are two areas of lobbying of concern: political activities and legislative activities. According to the IRS, as to political activities, "501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office." The church has never, directly or indirectly, participated in such activities. In fact, over the years the church has consistently encouraged members to be politically diverse. Here is a good link with information on that issue.

As to legislative activities, the line is a little more fuzzy. The IRS defines that line by stating that "no organization may qualify for section 501(c)(3) status if a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation (commonly known as lobbying). A 501(c)(3) organization may engage in some lobbying, but too much lobbying activity risks loss of tax-exempt status." The IRS considers hours put in by paid workers and volunteers and expenditures devoted to the action. So the church may influence legislation so long as such activities do not constitute a substantial part of its activities. Unfortunately for the protesters, the LDS Church is big and has a lot of money, so it would take an enormous effort to cross the line in the so-called "substantial part test."

According to this list, the church itself donated $4,943 to support Prop 8. The church does not release financial information, but it is believed to have billions of dollars in assets. Members individually donated millions more. But this is just a drop in the bucket compared to the available assets. And the few thousand volunteers that got involved were just a small percentage of members in California, the United States, and throughout the world. There is no good argument that the church devoted a substantial part of its resources to Prop 8, especially given the hundreds of millions of dollars donated every year to issues such as poverty, disease, and natural disaster relief.

So, while I may disagree with how the church's went about its support for Prop 8, the protesters calling for a loss of the church's tax exempt status are either ill-informed or voluntarily deluding themselves.

Proposition 8

The Church has been receiving an inordinate amount of vitriol and hate because of Proposition 8, and against my better judgment I have decided to make a comment or two about it.

First off, I disagreed with how the Church got involved but agree with the Church's stance on homosexuality. And, as I understand it, this is the Church's stance: Marriage is between a man and a woman; we support basic rights for same sex couples such as hospital visits and insurance benefits under some sort of civil union rubric; same sex attraction can be biological and this is not a sin nor do we try to change the person; acting on a same sex attraction is a sin.

Many, many liberals will disagree with this stance. They call it bigoted, hateful and intolerant. They call the Church hypocritical for supporting a proposition that limits a marriage to one man and one woman with our past of polygamy.

As to the last argument, here is my rebuttal. The Church has never supported same sex marriage, it has always been between man and woman. In the past that included polygamy, but several factors coincided to end that practice, with the end coming by revelation from a prophet. So polygamy is off the table now because of what we consider God's will. That leaves only marriage defined as between one man and one woman. It is not a repudiation of our past practices a beliefs in any way. It is entirely consistent with our belief system from the beginning.

As to whether support of Proposition 8 is bigoted, intolerant or hateful, I believe it is not. The Church has made progress in supporting gays and reaching out to some gay advocacy groups. It is completely respectful of those that live a gay life but will not support what it believes is a fundamental change in the institution of marriage to include a group that has never been so included and goes against the very core of our beliefs in the primacy of the family. Also, focusing on the same sex marriage issue while ignoring the way Church leaders reach out to and support individual gay members is disingenuous.

I don't happen to agree with the way the Church went about supported Proposition 8, not from a doctrinal standpoint but from a social standpoint. I think the best way to spread our beliefs is not through such heavy-handed tactics, but through love, example and missionary work. I'm not sure the benefit of winning that vote is worth the hate and vitriol the Church is receiving because of the way it supported Proposition 8. That in no way means we should apologize or be ashamed of our support for the nuclear family, but it means we choose the most effective way of conveying our message.

Of course, the Church has received a disproportionate amount of blame and hate for Proposition 8's passage. Members of the Church equal 3% of California's population, and many members of the Church likely voted against it, so not even that full 3% were involved. Furthermore, 29 other similar votes have occurred in other states and the opposition is now 0-30. It is true that members (not the Church itself) poured in millions of dollars, but the opposition had millions of its own and in the end what really counts are the votes.

Now, in Utah there is a gay advocacy group that is proposing bills to the Utah legislature which track some of the Church's stances on the matter and, without having read them yet, I do hope the Church will consider supporting them to mend some of the divisions. Whether we like it or not, the Church is as much a social structure as a religious one, and we do have to be part of our communities. It is on us as individual members to represent the best that the Church is and try to explain our positions on these matters. We can't play the same game as the protesters in California, Utah, New York, and everywhere else. We must be respectful, tolerant, even supportive, without compromising our beliefs.