James Wallman
Analysis of “The Divine Institution of Marriage”- Published
by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
May 14, 2012
The article initially link views
with that of “ProtectMarraige.com” which bases its views off of The Witherspoon
Institute. Protect Marriage.com was
founded specifically to promote proposition 8. Their justification is set down in
two scholarly articles, the first, from the Witherspoon Institude is very
similar in language to the LDS document being analyised. The second is a
Harvard Publication that goes into its legal ramifications, the two documents
both argue against Same-Sex marriage or as Stewart would say “genderless
marriage” though their reasons differ,
the Witherspoon institute lays down a number of social benifits which it says
only apply to traditional marriage, while Stewart disagrees with that part and
delves into the more legal aspects of marriage as it relates to religion. (As a
warning, Stewarts writing is dull, long and highly legalistic) “Marriage
protects children, men and women, and the common good. While this has relatively little bearing on
the LDS church’s justification for its views, it does raise questions over the
views of “ProtectMarriage.com”.
The LDS
church’s opposition is based, according to the article, on the consequences of
same-sex marriage. (disagreeing with Stewart’s assessment). They note that they do not disagree with
other basic rights regarding marriage couples (hospitalization, medical care,
fair housing, etc) but note strongly that these cannot and should not infringe
on “the integrity of the family or the constitutional right of churches” While this is more progressive than other
religious institutions, it begs the questions, why does the technicality of
having a gendered marriage only (as opposed to genderless) matter? If all basic rights are already in place,
what is the LDS church’s primary opposition?
LDS
church committed to “undeviating standards of sexual morality”. Can’t be the
real reason, these are religious laws and do not relate to constitutional laws. They do affirm that hostility should not
result from these standards, and yet these standards do result in hostility
towards LGTB youth. (Utah is 12
th highest in the nation for teen
suicides, its estimated that a large number die from bullying. Have seen the
news in a couple places but can’t find the right link for it. Take this
information however you will.) Regardless, by condemning a person for being
sinful and immoral one is acting with a level of hostility towards that person.
(I would like to note that LDS policy seems to have changed slightly in this
regard since when this piece was published (2008), as more of the upper echelon
has addressed this issue)
With
that being said, the church then outlines their primary reasons of opposition
which seems to come down to: “Marriage was created how god wanted it”,
“genderless marriage would ruin society”, “tolerance should not extend to right
to marry” and “possible restrictions on religious freedoms”.
The
first reason, the religious one contains tricky elements for any religious
member to work out. Namely, faith often asks people to do things that reason
might tell them otherwise. That’s fair, the purpose of this article is not to
bash religion, but to critique the implications of “The Divine Institution of
Marriage” With that being said however,
religion is not our best judge in a number of political matters due to the fact
that religions diverge on how they view the world. Western culture, which has
been largely dominated by the Catholic church and its later protestant reform
have identified marriage as being between a biological male and a biological
female. By claiming that all cultures view marriage the same way, the LDS
church is guilty of oversimplification, other cultures however have disagreed,
the Musuo of China have a “walking marriage”, one in which children are raised
by their mother and uncles. The father has very little role in raising his
biological children, but much more of a role raising his sisters children. This
came through a heavily merchant based society in which men would often leave
for months at a time on caravans. The concept of marriage is meaningless to
them, a man would proposition a women to spend the night, and its up to her
whether she accepts or rejects his offer. I would like to point out that this
is the norm for them and is in no way considered sinful or immoral. Even in the Philippines, where marriage
between a man and woman is more of a norm, the concept of “family” is different
than in the west, as the culture defines family to be
a wife, husband, uncles, aunts and children all under the guidance of the elder
grandparents. Marriage is defined by culture.
Even the western concept of “traditional gender roles” came about after
the industrial age, by defining marriage as an institute that has stretch
unbroken from 6000 B.C.E. the LDS church is oversimplifying an already complex
situation. Overall the section is a very
large appeal to authority (in this case god, or those who claim to speak
through him,) that includes both appeals to faith, (which by nature avoid logic
and exhort us to do certain actions for no reason.) and the already stated
appeal to past authority “throughout the ages governments of all types have recognized and affirmed marriage
as an essential institution,” “…married
couples in almost every culture” etc.
Just because everyone else does it does not make it a good reason for us
to continue doing so. The section also
contains a number of “sacred cows” i.e. referencing ideas that we hold dear in
order to influence our behavior. “Traditional marriage” “Family values” “Plan
of Salvation” Even the words at the very beginning of the section “marriage is
sacred” allude to this fallacy. Maybe
these things are right, maybe their wrong, its not my place to judge. In the context of this article however, they
are irrelevant.
To
their credit, they address the issue of single parent housing and comment that
they do an admirable job raising their children to contribute to society, they
do comment however, that a large number of studies (which they do not link to)
have commented that a husband and wife duo provide the best environment for
raising kids. They reference David Popenoe, and use him as an appeal to
authority, due to his experience in marriage and sociology, however, Popenoe
has been a controversial figure in the past, with his opponents including both
feminists and his own peers, who have commented that he is “suffering from a
nostalgia for a past that never was”
Their other reference, David Blankenhorn is
also controversial as well. (Though as a note, controversial does not
necessarily mean wrong-but in this area I would argue that it means a lack of
consensus among experts.)
Their
next argument is that genderless marriage would ruin society, commenting
specifically that “ traditional marriage and family have come increasingly
under assault” This alludes to the
sacred cow mentioned previously as well as the bad scary things that are
happening to it. The paragraph contains
examples of “deck stacking” as well as use of statistics without context.
(There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. Made popular by Mark Twain).
Overall, it seems as though there is a strong confusing over cause and effects,
mostly by inferring that two simultaneous occurrences necessarily share the
same cause-and-effect relationship. In
addition to this, the author also sets up a straw man of his opponents saying
that “society dismisses [gender differences] as trivial, irrelevant, or
transient, thus underminging God’s purpose” (As noted early, gender and
marriage are inherently a social construct, gender norms are not shared across
the world.)
Finally
in this section they say “there is a very strong agreement across America on
what marriage is”. This is another propaganda use of the “Argumentum ad
populum” the appeal to the many. If
anything, the level of controversy that surrounds this issue indicates there is
no “strong agreement”. Additional
propaganda techniques such as appeals to sincerity and appeals to guilt are
included. (Such as members must get involved, potential for great impact on the
family”) Just because their using propaganda techniques doesn’t make it wrong,
it just means there are underlying elements that are not being addressed.
The
next section “Tolerance, Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Freedoms” uses more of
the fallacies listed earlier. To save time, and because I’m already on page
three, I’m trying to refrain from doing a full analysis and just address
serious fallacies/propaganda techniques/incorrect interferences logical
inferences. I make no claim to be an
expert on matters of sociology and religion, I’m just using the same level of
analysis that I would use to address political arguments. (Also I’m kinda
board)
On
section with which I take particular offense against is “Legalizing same-sex
marriage will affect a wide spectrum of government activities and policies.”
Most of which the LDS church has already stated as supporting, “Once a state
government declares that same-sex unions are a civil right, those governments
almost certainly will enforce a wide variety of other policies intended to ensure
that there are no discrimination against same-sex couples. This may well place”
church and state on a collision course”
This
statement seems to be getting down to the real reasons for opposition to gay
marriage, a change in government policy towards religion. It also seems highly
similar to religious opposition to Civil Rights, such as statements by an
apostle at the time like: “I am not against a Civil Rights Bill if it conforms
to the views of the Prophet Joseph Smith according to the references also stated
above…I fully agree that the Negro is entitled to considerations, also stated
above, but not full social benfits nor inter-marriage privileges with the
Whites, nor should the Whites be forced to accept them into restricted White
areas.”
Apostle
Mark E. Petersen: “I think I have read enough to give you an idea of what the
Negro is after. He is not just seeking the opportunity of sitting down in a
café where white people eat. He isn’t just trying to ride on the same streetcar
with white people. It isn’t that he just desires to go to the same theater as
the white people. From this, and other interviews I have read, it appears that
the Negro seeks absorption with the white race. He will not be satisfied unti
he achives it by intermarriage. This is his objective and we must face it. We
must not allow our feelings to carry us away, nor must we feel so sorry for
Negroes that we will open our arms and embrace them with everything we have.
Remember the little statement that we used to say about sin, ‘first we pity,
then endure, then embrace’”
An
exact comparison? No. However the similarities are striking especially in
regards to the fact that being African-American is not a choice, its how the
individual was born, a similarity that is often shared with alternate genders.
(Such as LGBT) I am aware that am using
a transfer technique to convey my level of disgust in both those who would
limit the rights of an ethnicity, and those who would limit the rights of a
gender, still, I feel that these examples are valid.
In
their final section, they hedge their bets by saying that while we may not see
the consequences immediately; we must look at what the problems would be
overtime. While this statement is valid for all analysis of any issue, their
example: Europe, is less so. Though
Iceland did have to declare bankruptcy, it could hardly be linked to gay
marriage (unless they wish to argue about its gay head of state and the danger
of “gay economics”) and Norway could hardly be said to be in “societal
decline”. Denmark, one of the first countries to allow gay marriage has half
the number of divorces per capita than the United States. (Which is
incidentally #1 in the world for divorce).
Overall,
this article is a hodgepodge of sacred cows, appeals to authority, faith and a
couple of propaganda uses. There may be ways to address opposition to gay
marriage, but it is not this way. Monte Neil Stewart, referenced in
Protectmarraige.com does a much better job at addressing the realities of the
day, and at very least has a more compelling legal argument than this one does
.
You
mentioned that I was anti-religious. Generally I do not feel that I come down
on this side of the fence, I do acknowledge that I am not religious and that
some of my biases my swing in this direction. Our views will obviously diverge
on a number of different places. I feel like religion’s place in society is
very much the same as cultures place in society, I welcome it as part of what I
grew up and for how it shapes societal norms, but like with culture, if there
is a harmful practice I will speak out against it. Culture can be changed. Indeed, culture IS
changed every year. Religion, though it would prefer not to admit it, must do
the same thing in order to survive. (And indeed, religion has already DONE
this.) As to your opposition towards
anthropology, I do not understand it as well. If an author is academic and has
researched their topic, why is studying humankind and its past and differences
any worse than studying psychology or law?
Anyway, this
is already too damn long and I’m not sure how to get this to you. I’m thinking
about just posting it on a blog and calling it good.
James Wallman
Philip
A. Cowan “The Sky Is
Falling, but Popenoe's Analysis Won't Help Us Do Anything About It” Journal of
Marriage and Family Vol. 55, No. 3
(Aug., 1993), pp. 548-553
