Separation of Church and State, Gay Rights, and other musings

This last week has been a crazy one. Trying to get last minute January tax items done for clients, working on rounding up 1099 information (socials and addresses so my clients can send out this tax form) and then taking care of sick babies. I also had something going on every night, someone to visit teach almost every day, fun activities to participate in, and then at the end of the week my mom came in to town and wanted to play, so I apologize for the long absence.

So much has happened this last week, but the biggest thing that I have been thinking a lot about is the LDS Church press conference held this last week. When I heard they had called one, I thought for sure they would be announcing that they were doing away with temple marriages. By that, I mean, that it has been a rumor for well over a year now that the church will be adopting similar marriage protocols to what they already have in Europe. Basically, you get a civil marriage, and then the next day you go and get sealed in the temple. Makes perfect sense to me, and seems like a fairly good way to resolve the issue of gay marriage and gay rights and how they would possibly infringe on the LDS faith. Instead, the press conference was something quite different, although a tad related I suppose. 

In all honesty, I am quite uncertain about how I feel about this release. First, I feel it is somewhat redundant, as the LDS Church has said many times that they support basic liberties and freedoms for all. It seems obvious that all people should be entitled to housing, jobs, etc. I also feel it is redundant and unnecessary to ask for religious freedom to be protected. It is part of our countries First Amendment rights, and anyone who is worried about those being overridden need only look to the recent Hobby Lobby court rulings to realize that those rights are very much intact. I do not foresee at any point in the near future where religion and state cannot still abide in their separate spheres, and I personally think they should stay that way, which is the major reasons for my confusion about how I feel. Whenever the LDS Church makes any form of political standing, be it major like with Proposition 8, or minor, like I feel Wednesday's events were, I get a bit uncomfortable. 

I feel that overall, the LDS Church does a fantastic job keeping church and state separate. The leaders do their best to encourage citizenship and voting among the members, but I personally have felt undertones of pressure to think and act a certain way that I am not always comfortable with, morally or spiritually. I have heard lots of dissenting views on what the agenda or lack thereof of this press conference was. I am going to list a few that I have heard, and would love to hear how any of you felt about the news. I will start with my own views, what I can decipher now anyway, and then delve into some different ones than my own:

MY VIEW

I feel that the Church is trying to make progress here, however, it still feels a bit unrealistic and hypocritical to me to ask for and deny rights at the same time. Someone made the point that if you interjected any other sub-group name (black, jewish, mormon, etc.) as a substitute for LGBT that the country would be up in arms over the statements. I re-read the press conference manuscript doing this very thing and felt there was a valid point. It seemed to me to echo of a 1950's version of America, where blacks were no longer slaves but very much still second class citizens. Many people feel that the LGBT movement is our days civil rights movement, and I very much have to agree there. I understand many will disagree with me, perhaps opting for the opinion that the sanctity of marriage is our days civil rights movement or fight, and that those who fight for traditional marriage are being oppressed. However, my opinion on this has always been that the fight for traditional marriage died long ago. That may be a post for another day, but the gist of my feelings on this is that the divorce rate is absurd, that single mothers far outnumber married mothers in our country, and that straight individuals were the first to desecrate the sanctity of marriage. We took it for granted. If it was so sacred, we should have fought that battle the last five decades, but we didn't. Today, marriage seems to have an entirely different meaning, but like I said, perhaps a topic for another day. The truth is, Gay Marriage is being legalized in every state, the court precedence has been set, and as much as people may hate to admit it, it is here to stay. I feel that the LDS Church would have used their time much better on Wednesday to make the announcement I had anticipated they would, that there were no longer going to be Temple Marriages, but Temple Sealings. It provides the perfect loop hole for the church to not discriminate against any kind of marriage. As far as civil marriages go, I understand what the church is trying to do in providing a barrier for bishops who may be uncomfortable in performing a gay marriage. You want to know my honest opinion on this? Most of the bishops I have had the pleasure of meeting are kind and compassionate people. I think almost any of them would happily perform a civil marriage for any couple, regardless of their sexual orientation. And for those who would not be? Well, I think that would resolve itself. Honestly, think about it. People want their wedding day to be special, and filled with love. Would they choose someone to officiate the most special and momentous day of their marriage who was uncomfortable with their lifestyle? NO! Heavens no! I can think of a few of my friends who had civil marriages, and they carefully selected their officiator, even interviewing 5 different people for the job before settling on the person who seemed to be the right fit, the person who would set the right tone for the day. So overall, I was confused by the conference, although you will see below in "The Outcome" section that I think the church was trying to help, but it didn't seem to carry the weight they hoped it would, at least not in Idaho. I would love to hear some of your opinions on what you thought the leaders were trying to achieve with this unusual conference, and also your thoughts on the announcement itself.

THE LOVERS

These are comments I have heard from many faithful members of the LDS faith and how they perceived the conference. There was obviously, as I titled this section, a great deal of love, excitement and consent. Many felt the church was extremely gracious in providing more direction on their opinions of current events, and that great love and compassion to those in the LGBT community. The conference was extremely fair for both parties, acknowledging that everyone deserves their freedoms, and that a balance needs to be struck between the rights of the gay community and the religious community. Many felt the church was strong and courageous for making these statements, because, as you will see from "The Haters" section below, many people still find the churches stance on the issue outdated, but the main thing I saw from "The Lovers" of the press release all seemed to echo that the church continues to be the leader in the fight for traditional and God sanctioned marriage, and that there is a way to show love and compassion to all, without yielding to the misguided ways of the world.

THE HATERS

There was also a lot of outrage after the press release. This group is a much larger group, including most major media outlets. The headlines from The New York Times, USA Today, CNN, The Huffington Post, Salt Lake Tribune, etc. all reeked with sarcasm and spite. For me, a journalism major, I sometimes have a hard time with journalism that obviously contains opinion rather than simply reporting from a place of unbiased observance. I understand how hard that can be, since we all come with our own perceptions that make us unbiased regardless of how hard we try, but these headlines really lacked effort to conceal the authors opinions of the press release. The major thread of these articles was that this move is still outdated, and that the church is oppressive. Some of the outlets went so far as to use the word "bigot" in their articles, which seemed really over the line to me. Something else that I saw struck a note with many of "the haters" was this quote from Elder Oaks: 'I know that the history of the church is not to seek apologies or to give them,' Oaks said in an interview. 'We sometimes look back on issues and say, 'Maybe that was counterproductive for what we wish to achieve,' but we look forward and not backward.' The church doesn't 'seek apologies,' he said, 'and we don't give them.' I found many people creating memes around this theme of apologies. One cartoon created showed a man in a temple recommend interview saying "he looks back, not forward, and does not apologize for his sins." I found this statement created some struggle within me as well, as I feel that the churches essays on Blacks and the Priesthood pretty much explained the entire issue away by apologizing and saying that it was never doctrine, simply the misguided practices of men. So I had a hard time hearing that the church doesn't apologize, when I feel it clearly has a precedence for doing so. Also, I do feel that it is a hard place to argue from when Gay Marriage is legal. I think of our articles of faith and being subjects and law abiding citizens. At what point do we obey the law, since it is the law. There seem to be many Catch-22 situations for me within Mormonism. Overall, I felt that both the lovers and the haters had valid points, and rational arguments. Hence even more reason for the dissonance I have experienced within myself the last few days. 

THE OUTCOME

So, what was the point? What do you think? I think that it is interesting that on Friday the Idaho legislature, which includes several LDS members, had one of these very bills placed before them (a bill providing the kind of rights the church is advocating) and it was voted down. So, perhaps there is more reason for it than even I could have anticipated prior to the announcement. Perhaps our church leaders know more about the political environment in our conservative states than we do, and I do believe that. Perhaps they saw that these kinds of bills in vastly conservative states are struggling to pass without the help and advocacy of the judiciary branch of the government (Gay Marriage would never have been legalized without court rulings in many states across the country). So perhaps the LDS church is more progressive than I give it credit for sometimes. It makes me glad to know that they are trying their best to show support and back a bill. It also makes me kind of glad to know that people are still voting the way they feel they need to, even if it is counterproductive to what I think should happen.

So, what do you think? Was the Church just trying to back some bills they saw would fail without some assistance? Is it even the place of religion to intervene on matters like these? At what point are we crossing the line between separation of Church and State? Do you think that separation of these two entities is even possible?