The act of two individuals coupling for purposes of economic,
sexual or social benefit has a long past that predates written history. The common thread of these, if indeed there
could be said to be a common thread, seems to be that of a social contract: a guarantee between two parties made with the
knowledge of the rest of the community. Having said this, there are of course a
dozen cultures who don’t fit into this mould- the Masou of China, Biblical Judaism,
historical Kerala, India… well, you get the idea. Indeed, it would probably be
simpler to just let the subject end here and catalog the various ways the
different groups of people do it differently, unfortunately however, this
cannot be the case. Of all of these
cultures, only one purports to keep its ceremonies hidden from society at
large: Mormons.
This
act of performing hidden vows from the rest of society is not new of course. While
Mormons are not the first to conceive of such acts, they are however, the only
ones that expect the rest of society to recognize their secret ceremonies. This tolerance on behalf of society is admirable
of course, but tolerance, taken too far can go from becoming a virtue to a vice[i].
Mormon couples could be making any
number of vows inside their hidden conclaves and doing any number of things abhorrent
to traditional western society. Society
has done an admirable job of enforcing good, wholesome values. It has been the
champions of monogamy, of preventing children from marrying adults and from
preventing interracial marriage. (Until like…forty years ago. Way to give up
your traditional values society)
In
order to continue this necessary task I put my support behind Proposition 8.5[ii],
which states: “The only marriages that shall be legally binding are those that
take place in a place accessible to the public at large”. I would of course
stress the fact that this proposition is not aimed at any of the branches of
Mormonism. The author wishes to state that he loves all of them, and that
Mormons are great people. It should be noted that this proposition is in no way
invalid because it has the support of secular individuals, the legislation is
judged by its purpose, not lawmaker motivations.
It
should be noted that this bill does not prevent Mormon couples from sharing
sexual intimacy or from performing their version of marriage vows[iii].
It simply means that those vows will not be recognized by the state in any
legal sense. If desired, they can simply seek an actual marriage overseen by
someone with the proper authority in a place accessible to the public at large.
Two drastically
opposed conceptions drive headfirst into this issue, the first is that of
society: nobly attempting to provide for the safety and well being of all. On
the other hand there is that of the LDS community, a secretive, shadow
organization with hidden political agendas. The issue before the court is
whether this organization should be allowed to impose its version of marriage on
the rest of society.
In tackling
this issue, the author wishes to address those of his opponents who
have called him an “atheist bigot” or a “mormophobe”. This mischaracterizations
hides the real issues, those of us who campaign for marriage visibility do not
do so out of a fear of Mormons or deep seated social issues, in fact, we love Mormons.
All of them. We support them in every way[iv]. This proposition is simply an attempt to
define marriage as it has traditionally been, namely that of a social contract.
How can it be a social contract if society is forbidden from knowing what
contract has been made?
Conclusion
Society can have only one model of marriage,[v]
and it should be obvious to all involved that only one that is visible to
society as a whole can be recognized by society itself. With no malice, no ill-will and little
semblance of seriousness, the author concludes that we should all adopt his
proposal because he’s just a smart guy like that and has everyone’s best interests
at heart.
[i]
Packer, Boyd “These Things I Know” http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/04/these-things-i-know?%20cid=%20GC000002&lang=eng,
accessed April 13, 2013
[ii] In
no way shamelessly lifted from an amicus brief filed by the LDS church “http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_preview/briefs-v2/12-144_pet_amcu_nae-etal.authcheckdam.pdf”
accessed April 13, 2013
[iii]
Even though we consider it totally “icky” and wish they’d just be regular
people like the rest of us
[iv] Except
of course in the legally culpable way
[v]
Wallman, James “Because I said so”
Publish 2013, accessed “recently”
