Proposition 8 is back in the news in California. You can read all about the original Prop 8 here, but the TLDR version is Prop 8 changed the State Constitution to prohibit same sex marriage. While it was overturned on appeal, it is still in our State constitution. After the elimination of Roe v. Wade (abortion), opponents of Prop 8 are concerned the US Supreme Court in the future could change same sex marriage and the State of California could restrict (per its constitution) same sex marriage.
(for those not from California, or even the USA, you can read about California propositions here)
So two state representatives want to put on the ballot next year a proposition that would remove the language that Prop 8 put in. There is already opposition to the removal from the California Family Council, one of the groups the Mormon Church partnered with to get Prop 8 originally passed. Their rhetoric sounds familiar:
Marriage is a sacred bond. It was created by God and we do believe that marriage is between a man and a woman,”
“We also think it’s very important for religious liberty that people of faith be able to continue to practice their deeply-held religious beliefs.
Jonathan Keller, California Family Council
He sounds like he is channeling his inner Dallin Oaks! Speaking of which, what will the Church do this time around? Did the Church learn their lesson from the original Prop 8, where they won the battle but lost the war? Could Oaks grab the reins and go all in again, pushing members to not remove the language from the State constitution? Even if the Church did remain silent with no official pronouncements from Salt Lake, what would be the local members take on this? They still remember all the arguments for passing the original Prop 8. Would they regurgitate those again in Sunday School, or over the pulpit in a Sacrament Meeting talk? Should the Church come out with an official statement that says in effect: “we don’t have a dog in this fight”, thus tamping down the local homophobia?
Your thoughts?
Wheat & Tares 
good questions; thanks for keeping us apprised. One hint – one grabs the reins of a horse to steer it . . . (silly variations in English spelling)
Since Prop 8 there have been plenty of opportunities to engage and church has not. done so. I happen to know a little about the internal post Prop 8 discussions. I highly doubt the Church will engage in that culture war again.
I fail to see how allowing same sex marriage would prevent people of faith from entering into a marriage of their choice. No one is banning same sex marriages. Nothing about this comes from love and inclusion, just hate and fear.
Utah added the heterosexual requirement for marriage to its constitution too. I don’t know what Utah might do if Obergefell (the decision that legalized gay marriage) is overturned. There’s a lot more societal support for gay marriage now. Everyone has seen that gay marriage doesn’t threaten straight marriage. But the fearmongering going on is kind of a wild card.
The Church supported the federal legislation that protects same-sex marriage. That legislation carved out some protection for religious beliefs. I’m going to guess that the Church won’t fight this fight again. They’ll just rely on those religious belief protections and keep (mostly) quiet.
My thought is that restricting marriage to straight couples is a violation of the Constitution because it is an establishment of religion. The First Amendment says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” That quote from Jonathan Keller is very open about wanting hetero marriage because of the religious belief. A decade ago, Christians were speaking mostly in secular arguments about what’s best for children, and marriage is only about procreating, and so forth. Now that Christians have so much political power, they’re dropping the secular language and acknowledging that this is all about their religious beliefs.
The tension between “no establishment of religion” and “no prohibition on the free exercise of religion” has always been a tricky spot. My thought is that the government needs to offer all the secular benefits of religion to same-sex couples. Restricting those benefits because Christians believe marriage was instituted by God between straight couples who want to procreate “establishes” Christianity.
Raymond Winn: Thanks, I fix my typo, although I did spell rain correct!
Dave: I agree, there Church will remain silent. But what about the pesky MAGA member sitting next to me in Elders Quorum?
I would think the church learned a lesson from their involvement in prop 8. If the church were to add a new chapter to church history manuals about their involvement in prop 8 that chapter would be called “Exodus – The Membership Hemorrhage”.
The double (or even triple) standard the church has regarding marriage is mind blowing. In the 1800s the church was outraged that the government would interfere with the church’s marriage ideas — “Marriage is between one man and as many women as he wants, even as young as 13, and love has nothing to do with it”. And now today the church wants the government to interfere in other’s marriage ideas — “No people of the same sex can marry, and love has nothing to do with it.”
The triple standard is that the church wants the government to not force any church to perform same-sex marriages, but the church also want the government to prevent any church from performing same-sex marriages.
But I guess the defense for all of this is we are “the only true church”.
Dave: you are right that the Church has done little to oppose gay marriage recently and I’ll take you at your word that internal discussions indicate that this pattern will continue. Having said that, this pattern could change when RMN passes on and DHO takes over. I base this on very recent statements by DHO, not distant ones. I’m trying to figure out whether the Church will lay low on this issue indefinitely or whether DHO is ready to be unleashed. Maybe we should ask his 2nd wife.
What about all the members who were implored to donate extra money for proposition 8, above tithing requirements. 10k for each “wealthy family”
Cognitive dissonance anyone?
For those correcting Bishop Bill’s spelling–look, I don’t know if he has dyslexia or what, but he has problems spelling. Focus on the content of his posts. Pointing out his spelling mistakes just makes you look like the petty English teacher we all had back in junior high.
Heteros should be more concerned w/ the astounding divorce rate among, uh, heteros, and leave the gay cats alone – tho I do look forward to renewed LDS arguments that allowing SSM somehow “de-sanctifies” all marriages. Who? What?
P,
Are there studies comparing divorce rates between hetero- and homo- unions?
I doubt the Q15 would ever issue a statement formally “tamping down local homophobia”. That would be antithetical to Dallin’s most fervent supporters (e.g., the old, white, orthodox and large $ donors).
The pending transition to a DHO administration is frightening on many levels. I envision a regime where moderate voices (Uchtdorf, et. al.) are ostracized even further and the institutional church takes a sharp turn to the right (assuming that is possible). I also would not discount a return to overt anti-SSM policies.
Of course DHO and his minions would package such moves as being direct revelations preparatory to the final tribulations. Anything to strike fear and consolidate power.
Interesting Q, ph, but good data seems scarce.. My metric for all things gay is David Sedaris. He’s been w/ Hugh 30 yrs.
“The fraternal birth order effect (FBOE) is the finding that older brothers increase the probability of homosexuality in later-born males,” Royal Society of Biological Sciences
Published:18 March 2020https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2019.2907.
That theory is well-established and points to an unusual number of homosexual males in large families, particularly with lots of male children , due primarily to an antibody shift in the womb that produces a different brain In last-born males – IOW LOTS of big LDS families. Undoubtedly some of the Brethren have read the research and understand that this phenomenon is a side effect of encouraging large families. Thus, this statement in the Oak/Wickman interview of some years ago is completely off the mark: “I think it’s important for you to understand that homosexuality, which you’ve spoken of, is not a noun that describes a condition. It’s an adjective that describes feelings or behavior. I encourage you, as you struggle with these challenges, not to think of yourself as a ‘something’ or ‘another,’ except that you’re a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and you’re my son, and that you’re struggling with challenges.’”
Well actually it is a noun.
Too many gay suicides In Mormondom. Let’s hope the learning continues & the Brethren’ seek knowledge & wisdom outside the echo chamber.
Bishop Bill – We always have had pesky MAGA types. Previously it was the JBS. Unlike in the 60’s 70’s there are no members of the 12 that are right wingers. Not one.
Josh H. – I have no idea if DOH would take a hard tight turn. I doubt it. Few people know his private courage at BYU in opposing ETB and preventing the hiring of JBS disciples. People assumed EBT would be the same JBS acolyte when he became Pres. He never was. My experience tells me that he won’t drag the Church into the culture wars.
But who knows.
It’s “reins ” not rains..Just sayin’
FWIW, I doubt that an in-depth comparison of hetero- vs SS divorce rates would be meaningful to this discussion. My experience is strictly anecdotal, but it seems to me that many SS hookups fall apart, not because they are not more meaningful or sincere than a comparable hetero- hookup, but simply because the available sea of potential partners is so limited by comparison to the rest of society. If one has access to 100 potential partners, there is a good chance that one of those 100 is a real compatible fit, and will become a truly committed lifetime partner. But if one only has access to perhaps 5 partners and has to make a selection, the probability of a true compatibile relationship decreases. That appears [to me, at least] a possible reason for lower marriage-success rates among SSM partners, if such a disparity does exist.
They should issue a statement saying that they have no position or involvement on the new proposition and apologize for taking a stand on the original prop 8. They need to stay out of politics or lose their tax exempt status.
The church received a black eye for funding much of the CA 2000 Prop. 22 campaign, eight years before Prop 8 was on the ballot. The reputational cost to the church was substantial when it was reported it heavily financed Prop 22 directly. According to filings, the Mormon church contributed an outsized amount of money compared to the Catholic church (like 10x more) despite having no where near the number of LDS members in California compared to the Catholic church. Critics labeled the Mormon church as being activist and crossing the line a church shouldn’t, particularly since the church wasn’t a California organization. Prop 22 passed but was then overturned by the courts.
Having learned its lesson after the backlash from financing Prop 22, the church in 2008 took a different track. It’s important for members to understand the church asking members to make cash contributions directly to the campaign instead of the church donating directly to Prop 8 was a strategic decision made by the church to keep it in the clear. Asking members to make cash contributions was tactically designed to obfuscate the origin of Mormon dollars going to fund the Prop 8 campaign. Instead of donating directly to Prop 8, the church asked its members to contribute generously in money and in time by campaigning door-to-door and phone call by phone call to advocate for the passage of Prop 8. (We would learn after the passage of Prop 8 that many members were targeted for retaliation when it was discovered they contributed to Prop 8. Some Mormon owned businesses were boycotted and nearly put out of business, including the famous Hollywood restaurant, El Coyote.) We also know that Prop 8 ripped apart wards and stakes. The social cost was also extraordinary. Despite the California area president explicitly telling members they were free to choose not to support the Prop 8 campaign, the social and cultural pressure by local leaders and peers was extreme. (I have good friends in the Bay Area who started wearing rainbow pins on their church clothes and were confronted by their stake president. According to them, the stake president said while he didn’t have a problem with their not supporting Prop 8, he didn’t want to see them signaling direct opposition to Prop 8. They did not head his request and continued to wear the pins–other ward members joined them. We all know that Prop 22 and Prop 8 passed but where then overturned by the courts. (I’ll also add that the documentary “The Case Against 8” is outstanding. It covers the court challenge after Prop 8 passed. I highly recommend it.)
In retrospect, Prop 22 and Prop 8 were Pyrrhic victories and the church knows this. While the church won at the ballot box, courts nullified both outcomes, and it was clear the reputational cost to the church was unacceptably high. And Prop 8 would prove to be costly to individual members (some of whom contributed their entire savings!) who were fired from their jobs for supporting Prop 8, at worst, or socially ostracized by many of their non-member groups, at best. Personally, I’m shocked the church found it acceptable to use individual members as human shields.
The court outcomes lead me to believe this is why DHO says he wants to see legislative solutions to protect “religious freedom,” i.e. freedom from having to accommodate gay marriage as a church institution. The church seems to have pivoted away from referendums and more towards legislative lobbying tactics to keep a fence constructed around its existential fear of gay marriage (as unreasonable as I think that is on the part of the church). And a benefit of a legislative approach is that the church can spend as much money as it wants to on lobbying efforts and that political spend doesn’t have to be disclosed. I don’t think we’ll ever see the church engage in another Prop 8, but I’ll bet my bottom dollar the church is spending more money by orders of magnitude today on lobbyists in an effort to influence legislative outcomes and quite possibly to shape conservative judicial appointments.
How do we know the church still doesn’t support things like Proposition 8 in countries where the fight for such rights are even more insecure than the United States?
I think the only thing the church has learned is not to so blatantly support discriminatory causes within liberal and social democratic countries where much if not most of the internal/external criticism is coming from.
Does anyone really believe the church isn’t trying to cement its hetero patriarchal vision in nations where ‘traditional family values’, heterosexuality and cisgender identity remain uncritically appraised?
Furthermore, the church still quietly lobbies on behalf of its own particularist vision of religious freedom even in countries where they’ve lost the narrative.
It still funds groups working to oppose ‘progressive’ (I’m still unsure about this word) policies. The fewer transparency laws regarding lobbying, finance, and nonprofits- the easier it is to cover their tracks.
I know I talk about Canada a lot but the phenomenon of the church’s activities here being ignored by most is not unique. Were we necessarily paying attention to the church’s efforts in countries where these issues were recently debated and a decision in terms of legislation or rulings was made?
It gets even trickier in language ’spheres’ or information networks where there are few vocal supporters of 2slgbtq+ rights and/or few members willing and able to track the church’s engagement on the matter in such spheres.
What’s the church doing on the matter in Hungary I wonder? Turkey? Poland? Japan?
If the church can cement its priorities beyond places like Australia, United States, Canada, or the EU, it may be enough to stem or overturn its ‘losses’.
Even here in my Canadian city, anti-drag protests have returned as radicalized groups gain momentum and support from similar recalcitrant movements elsewhere.
Scary world.
I don’t get what the church is afraid of, unless, it is afraid of making it a more comfortable place for people who are trans/bi etc. to go on with their lives.
Churches in the U.S. need not fear they will ever be required to perform same- sex marriages. (The Church has long discriminated against women and that ain’t changing). They discriminated against black people long after the civil rights act passed.
Canadian Dude,
Please continue to contribute your comments about the church in Canada. They’re very interesting and you’re right that we do need to pay more attention to the global impact of the church.
To answer your questions about the church’s lobbying efforts in more conservative countries, click on Elisa’s username to pull up her list of posts. Some of her earliest posts were about the church’s support of the World Congress of Families, which is an international organization that lobbies against gay rights. I would link it, but I’m on mobile and I’m not sure how to do that. Elisa’s analysis was excellent and backed up from a lot of sources. Yes, the church is working internationally to center the heterosexual nuclear family at the expense of gay rights.
I don’t see why marriage rights have to be a zero-sum game, but the church is still in that mindset.
Here’s a link to Elisa’s post on the church’s ties to the WCF. It really is a fantastically informative and seriously concerning series:
https://wheatandtares.org/2022/03/04/part-2-the-real-gay-agenda-homophobia-russian-fascism-and-the-lds-church-in-eastern-europe/