Brandon Sanderson Follow-up
Brandon Sanderson posted an update yesterday to his blog post on Dumbledore and homosexuality, talking about how his views have evolved since then. Given the still-ongoing discussion from my post on Monday, it seems only fair to direct people to that update.
“I now believe that the best way to approach this is to push for ALL
state unions to be civil unions. I believe we should establish what the
state grants a union—whether it be straight or gay—and apply those
rights universally to all.”
I’ve been e-mailing Sanderson a bit on this. I still don’t agree with him on everything (big shock, I know), but I think I’ve got a better idea where he’s coming from re: religion and homosexuality.
One of my realizations is that I feel like I’m having two distinct arguments. One is the legal aspect. I don’t know if what he proposes re: the separation of civil unions from religious marriage would work. I’m a very strong believer in separation of church and state, and from that perspective, I’m all for dividing up the legal and faith-based aspects of marriage/partnership.
I’m mistrustful, though. Organized religion in general doesn’t have the best track record when it comes to keeping out of government. Which brings me to the religious aspect. Sanderson says:
“I cannot be deaf to the pleas of gay couples who want important things, such as hospital visitation rights, shared insurance, and custody rights. At the same time, I accept and sustain the leaders of the LDS church. I believe that a prophet of God has said that widespread legislation to approve gay marriage will bring pain and suffering to all involved. I trust those whom I have accepted as my spiritual leaders.”
I strongly disagree with the idea of a God who condemns or approves of love and marriage based only on the sex or gender of the parties involved. I appreciate that Sanderson is trying to listen, and that his views have evolved. But the belief that homosexuality is sinful is not one I can accept, and it’s not something I’m willing to negotiate or compromise on.
(Counting down to, “That means you’re just as close-minded as you say others are!” comments in 3 … 2 … 1 …)
I trust that Sanderson as an individual would never deliberately hurt or harm someone for their sexual preference. But despite what Christ and other religious leaders taught, humanity in general has an ugly history of throwing far too many stones at the sinners.
I would encourage those discussing Sanderson’s views check out his full update instead of just the snippets I quote here. He’s working to find an answer that will both respect the teachings of his church and also provide equal rights and protections to same-sex couples.
I appreciate that struggle, but I don’t know if such an answer exists.
Anson
August 31, 2011 @ 9:57 am
Being a member of the same religion as Brandon Sanderson, I fully support his statement. Not only that, I deal with SSA (which stands for same-sex attraction). This means that I am attracted to other men, but I have decided to follow the teachings of my religion. I have not lied to myself about who I am. I fully accept that I face this and in spite of it, I’ve been able to overcome a lot of things concerning SSA (or being gay if you’d prefer).
As a teenager I thought I would never get married. I thought I was destined to lead a gay life. Something in me, however, decided that it wasn’t right. It wasn’t my religious leaders, it was me. Yes, I support my religious leaders and I agree with what they have asked. But I found that belief from me.
And in the end, I’m currently married raising 2 children and looking at having a third and I couldn’t be happier. Some would argue “you’re bisexual then.” That pisses me off more than anything. No, I’m not. I had absolutely no attraction to women growing up. Somehow, I met the right woman who I feel understands me and what it is I deal with.
I’m not trying to convince you that you’re wrong. I’m just speaking up for myself and what I believe and who I am.
fidelio
August 31, 2011 @ 10:40 am
With regard to the concept of making all marriages “civil unions”–this is a practice followed in some European countries–you have a civil ceremony, performed by the designated local official, and then, if you wish, you may follow up with a religious ceremony as well. However, without the civil procedure, you may be married in the eyes of your church, but you aren’t in the opinion of the legal authorities. No civil ceremony, no legal marriage/partnership. The religious ceremony is entirely optional, and many people skip it. This is different from the standard American procedure, but we can see that it works in places like France and Germany, and there’s no reason why it can’t work in the US, if some states would like to try it.
My best answer to people who have overwhelming religious objections to same-sex marriage is this: I do not ask that your faith perform such marriages. I do ask that you accept that not everyone is, or wants to be, a member of your faith, and expecting people who aren’t members of your faith to limit their lives in accordance with your beliefs needs a better plug than “The leaders of my faith say it’s wrong”.
Jim C. Hines
August 31, 2011 @ 10:52 am
Hi Anson,
Thanks for sharing your experiences.
This is a personal question, so feel free to not answer, but when you say you don’t identify as bisexual — and I believe you have the right to identify however you choose — how would you describe yourself now?
I’m genuinely happy that you found a life that you enjoy, one which sounds like it fulfills you.
For myself though, from what I’ve seen, the path you describe isn’t one that’s worked for most people, and I don’t believe it’s one people should be forced or pressured to follow.
Jim C. Hines
August 31, 2011 @ 10:53 am
Heh. I can already imagine someone taking arms against “Those socialist European-style marriages!”
Steve Buchheit
August 31, 2011 @ 11:44 am
This proceeds from the false assumption that marriage is a matter of church. It isn’t. It’s a matter of state. Let the churches do what they wish in regards to marriage (they already do, BTW), but it’s the state that controls the rights and privileges that come from marriage (especially, and this what the state is really concerned with, inheritor’s rights).
There is a confusion in modern America that marriage is a religious institution. When the church was the local organizing structure of the government, the franchise was given to them to officiate marriages. While religions have developed rituals surrounding marriage, it has always been a state function (we just forget that for most of human history, church and state were the same thing). If you wish proof of this, it is the state who says who can and who cannot be married, not the church (although they have their own internal rules). If the church blesses a marriage and the state objects, the marriage is null. If the state blesses/approves the marriage, the couple is still married (it’s just not “recognized” in the church). Also, religious leaders must register with the state to be approved to officiate marriages (at the very least, that’s how it’s done here in Ohio). Clerks of court, magistrates, ship’s captains, etc, by their office are approved to officiate the marriage.
What we should do is decouple the marriage from the ceremony (as is more historically accurate). That is, file the paperwork and you’re married. Say your vows in a separate ceremony/ritual. The second part is not necessary (although it may be to be “married in the eyes of the Church”, YMMV).
The whole, “get the government out of marriage” is a red-herring meant to continue to discriminate. “Get the church out of marriage” is more historically, and legally, accurate.
Anson
August 31, 2011 @ 11:46 am
I describe myself as straight. I will state I still face this struggle.
I actually know a lot of people within my religion who are the same way as me. It’s actually worked for more people than the media and other people would like society to believe.
Personally, it’s a choice, not a force. A few semi-philosophical thoughts:
Jack Sparrow in Pirates in the Caribbean asks a good question of Will Turner in the “Can and Can’t You” scene. I feel like God asks that of us “Can you (or WIll you) obey?”
Second, I have always loved the phrase “Whatever’s popular isn’t always right. Whatever’s right isn’t always popular.” I feel like it’s a truism.
And third, I’m not saying that people should be forced or pressured into something just because it’s what somebody else said. Everyone has to find out their path. If we die and there is a God and everything I’ve followed and believed has been correct, then I’m awesome. If I die and I’ve believed in a bunch of B.S., then I’ve died happy because I still am pleased with the life I’m leading.
Just my thoughts.
Stephen A. Watkins
August 31, 2011 @ 2:05 pm
I might suggest that when you say “I strongly disagree with the idea of a God who condemns or approves of love and marriage based only on the sex or gender of the parties involved. I appreciate that Sanderson is trying to listen, and that his views have evolved. But the belief that homosexuality is sinful is not one I can accept, and it’s not something I’m willing to negotiate or compromise on.” what you are in fact doing is (a) not being equally intollerant but rather (b) expressing a religious belief and/or opinion. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that – having a religious opinion or belief is a fine thing – but that’s sort of the thrust of Sanderson’s argument. Some people believe one way some people believe another. That’s the whole idea of the 1st Amendment. So, this isn’t meant to criticize your position (which I mostly agree with) but to look at it from a slightly different direction.
Myself… Long ago I was opposed to gay marriage. Then I came around as I learned more about the issue. That was several years ago. Now I’m fully in support of gay marriage. I currently belong to a church that does not believe in gay marriage. But I reconcile it thusly: church policy makes for poor public policy, and the best public policy is to ensure that all the same rights, priveleges, etc. are granted to gay couples as are to straight. I haven’t quite figured this all out for myself, yet, so if I err, I’ve decided to err on the side of supporting more freedom, more equality, and more love.
But I don’t think it’s a good idea to force religions to change their doctrines or dogmas or practices, except where those dogmas or practices are harmful to others and to society. (Human sacrifice, for instance, is a clear case where a religious practice ought not to be tolerated by society – maybe that’s a straw man as I’m not aware of any religions that seek to practice something like this, but I wanted to demonstrate the point with something that was fairly non-controversial, meaning I think everyone could agree that we do not accept this is a legitimate religious practice today.) It could be argued that practices excluding gays from religious inclusion and ceremonies is harmful to society, but there’s always been a sort of freedom of association component to freedom of religion.
Ideally, though, I like the idea of a total separation of civil union and marriage, similar to how Sanderson proposes. Unlike Sanderson, I’m not enimical to the word “marriage” being a part of the civil terminology. For example, the terms could be thus: “Civil Marriage” and “Religious Marriage”. Other, similar terms could be used.
What did bother me a little about Sanderson’s argument regarding semantics, however, was that the religion to which Sanderson belongs already has a separate bit of terminology to describe the religious sacrement of marriage as something separate and distinct from the “worldly” union of “marriage”, to whit: “Seal, Sealed, Sealing”. While church leaders of this faith might officiate at typical, civil ceremonies, in the eyes of this faith the true religious union is not a civil marriage, but a religious sealing.
Finally, there’s also the matter of trying to extend religious restrictions and beliefs to the level of public policy, which I generally think is wrong: for that way lies the madness of theocracy. For example (not to pick on Sanderson’s religion: see below), Sanderson’s faith restricts its members from drinking coffee, tea, and alcohol. Banning those substances as a matter of law would be the height of foolishness (and in fact we have an object lesson of what happens when you do in the form of the Prohibition era).
Full disclosure: I am at present a member of the same religious group to which Sanderson adheres, although I am honestly struggling mightily with my own faith. That’s not something I want to go into here, though, as I consider my epxression of my faith a private matter… But if I’m going to raise these points, it’s only fair that I expose myself to the same criticism as others of this faith are exposed. To do otherwise would be cowardly.
Jim C. Hines
August 31, 2011 @ 2:28 pm
Stephen,
In some ways, I’d agree with you that my sense of God as accepting of love regardless of gender is a religious position, similar in that respect to where Sanderson’s coming from. Which is rather ironic, I know…
This is where the crux is, for me. Or at least one crux:
“But I don’t think it’s a good idea to force religions to change their doctrines or dogmas or practices, except where those dogmas or practices are harmful to others and to society … It could be argued that practices excluding gays from religious inclusion and ceremonies is harmful to society, but there’s always been a sort of freedom of association component to freedom of religion.”
And I think that’s the argument and position I’m coming from. Not that the exclusion from religious ceremonies is harmful, necessarily, but teaching that homosexuality is sinful leads to harm. That’s where I get into my point about humanity being so bad at not casting stones…
I appreciate you weighing in about your experiences and your struggle.
Stephen A. Watkins
August 31, 2011 @ 2:39 pm
Thanks.
This is one of several topical issues that informs my personal struggle.
(To be clear, I don’t struggle with “same gender attraction” – I’m quite happily attracted to the opposite sex and always have been – I struggle with issues of institutionalized bigotry, and how that bigotry is expressed within my faith community, both historically and in the present.)
Janci
August 31, 2011 @ 4:22 pm
I really appreciate your perspective when you say that, “But despite what Christ and other religious leaders taught, humanity in general has an ugly history of throwing far too many stones at the sinners.” It is painfully true that historically, Christians have failed miserably at being Christlike, and that instead of inspiring followers to love and care for others, dogma often leads to the opposite: to pain, to harm, and to bigotry.
I think that Mormons are actually coming from a similar place. There’s a sad history (though it was long ago) of the persecution of Mormons. (Those probably aren’t the best sources for the history, but they’re the ones I can find quickly.) Because this history is commonly taught in the church, Mormon culture harbors a fear that when the dominant culture decides it doesn’t like us anymore, these sorts of things will happen again.
Locally, I’ve observed this fear of future persecution and personal danger influencing politics. A few years ago, there was a state measure that went to the Utah senate which would ensure equal rights for homosexuals in the workplace, prevent housing discrimination, and I believe also ensure inheritance rights. I supported this measure. It’s the first issue I ever wrote my congressmen about. And in return, I received emails from those representatives telling me that I was wrong, essentially arguing that if we gave “those people” an inch, they’d take a mile and pretty soon we wouldn’t have the right to our own religious beliefs anymore. I was appalled at the slippery slope. I was horrified that we were denying needed rights to fine citizens of our state based on a fear that harm would come to us personally. I felt that as Christians, the right thing to do was to turn the other cheek and take the risk that it would bring us harm in the future. (I really don’t believe that it would bring us harm, but my point is that even if I did, I still feel passing the measure was the right thing to do.)
The measure failed, of course. I believe it failed because people are so afraid that other people’s beliefs will hurt them that they lash out against those who are not actually posing a threat.
That’s why, while I understand the fear that allowing others beliefs that are contradictory to yours will bring on more harm, I also feel that this fear is destructive to the argument. When those beliefs actually turn into actions that harm others, they should be condemned. But where those beliefs are tempered by kindness, and as you yourself admit, “I trust that Sanderson as an individual would never deliberately hurt or harm someone for their sexual preference,” then that belief is not the problem. Actions are. Real, present threats are. But the fear of potential threats, however precedented, just prevents compromise and healing.
Janci
August 31, 2011 @ 4:22 pm
Yikes. I knew I was going to screw up that HTML. Should have just posted the link. Sorry.
Janci
August 31, 2011 @ 4:24 pm
Also, can’t figure out how to edit the comment. That second paragraph was supposed to read like this:
I think that Mormons are actually coming from a similar place. There’s a sad history (though it was long ago) of the persecution of Mormons. (Those probably aren’t the best sources for the history, but they’re the ones I can find quickly.) Because this history is commonly taught in the church, Mormon culture harbors a fear that when the dominant culture decides it doesn’t like us anymore, these sorts of things will happen again.
Jim C. Hines
August 31, 2011 @ 4:38 pm
Fixed now.
Jim C. Hines
August 31, 2011 @ 9:07 pm
Janci – now that I have a few more minutes to actually read and think, I wanted to say thanks for your comment here. It’s much appreciated. One of the things I think has been potentially helpful for people reading here is watching members of the LDS church post different experiences and opinions on this. I.e., reminding those of us less familiar with the church that every group is made up of individuals, as opposed to being a single monolithic body of identical opinions.
I have a few thoughts as I’m reading your comments about how the fear of beliefs leading to harm is in fact harmful. One is simply that this is an interesting argument/perspective, and I appreciate you bringing it up.
I also find myself thinking about a question that’s been asked in the context of opposing homosexuality — if someone believes that something is evil, then aren’t they morally obligated to work against it? That scares me, because we see examples of people working against homosexuality every day, and it’s ugly.
After rereading your comment several times, I’m coming back to where you talk about the fear of future persecution. I understand fear, and I agree with you that we shouldn’t let the fear of what might happen stop us from doing what we believe is right.
The difference I’m seeing is that homosexuals aren’t talking about the fear of future persecution; this is persecution that’s happening right now, every day, and that often has its roots in the religious conviction that homosexuality is wrong and sinful and evil.
One last comment – while I disagree strongly with Brandon’s belief in this matter, I don’t believe I’m in a position to dictate what people are allowed to believe. Whether or not I can accept that belief doesn’t, in my opinion, mean he’s not allowed to believe it.
Best,
Jim
Kathryn (UnravThreads)
September 1, 2011 @ 5:29 am
See, this is the kind of stuff that makes me question whether I want to support an author or not.
I flat-out refuse to support Orson Scott Card because he supports and aids organisations who wish to restrict the rights of LGB(T) peopple. I find that utterly reprehensible and if I buy his books, in my mind I’m validating his opinions, I’m helping him discriminate and perhaps even persecute, and I find that hard to swallow. I cringe every time I see someone buying one of his books, because I just think of the damage he’s trying to cause.
Sanderson comes across to me as an intelligent man, but I’m not sure I can support him even though he’s coming around on his views. As one of the snippets you chose states, he’s still subservient to the leaders of his church (The same one OSC is part of, too) and if they say “jump!”, he’ll likely ask “how high?”. It’s not so much that I have a problem with Sanderson himself, but more with how a man with such potential and talent, as well as such a love for the community, can waste himself like this.
The Bible is a relic of times gone past, where cultural views were different. The Greeks and Romans of ancient times were somewhat accepting of homosexuality, so perhaps the Bible was a tool of propaganda that implied they were evil (And, after all, the Romans were originally the enemies of Christianity) for having same-sex relations. It’s like certain Americans today and their hatred for socialism/communism. They fear and vilify that which they don’t like or understand.
I think people are allowed to believe what they like, but to close themselves to certain views or to ways of life is so… sad. There’s a poster above in the comments who is living a life that I believe he shouldn’t be. That is something I feel is so wrong. In this day and age of freedoms and acceptance, having to feel like you’re wrong for something natural is upsetting.
If I’m honest, I think I’ll not be buying any more Sanderson. As pleasant a chap as he is, I think that his beliefs and thoughts could be potentially damaging, especially considering the community he’s in. What’s to say that in his soul-searching that he comes across something that changes his mind again? A lecture by Orson Scott Card, perhaps? It certainly isn’t out of the realms of possibility. If he’s not willing to stand up and say “I’m sorry, *leader term here*, but I think that’s wrong because…” then who will?
I hope he continues to find a solution, though, for his sake alone.
Jim C. Hines
September 1, 2011 @ 10:02 am
I struggle with this for myself, trying to decide whether and where to draw the line between art and its creator. There are certain individuals where I flat-out refuse to do anything that might put money in their pockets. There are others where I’m not sure, and I know a lot of people have very different views on that line.
I’m curious — what would you need to see from Sanderson in order for you to feel comfortable buying his books?
Kathryn (UnravThreads)
September 1, 2011 @ 10:59 am
I don’t know what I’d need to see, Jim. Part of me hopes that he realises that his ‘superiors’ aren’t all-knowing, but he still doesn’t stand for gay marriage and that irks me a little. I can understand why he doesn’t accept nor believe in it, but I still feel like he’s denying two people the right to be together in a way they see fit. What Steve and Fred (To make up two people) do in their own lives is none of his business, and if they’re both Christians who do good unto others and all that, then why should they not be allowed to be joined under God?
I dread to think what his other views are, and perhaps that’s why I’m reluctant to support him anymore. If he thinks that about marriage, what does he think about other big issues of the day? Better safe than sorry, I guess.
Personally, I’m rather apathetic to the idea of marriage as it is. I attended a Church of England (I think) wedding earlier this year, and I listened to what the reverend/vicar/I forget was saying, and it’s simply terrifying. I wouldn’t deny anyone the right to have a marriage, though.
As for the line you mentioned, I think that’s fairly simple. If an author stands for something you find wrong, don’t support them. There are too many books to read, and too little time to read them all. Why waste time and money supporting and reading authors whose views you dislike? For every author you dislike, there’s going to be two, three, maybe even ten or twenty who deserve your support. You, as an example, raise awareness about rape, diabetes and autism, and through your Princess books about LGB issues with Talia (<3). Mark Charan Newton, an increasingly popular English author, uses his blog to spread the word about problems with our government, green issues and sometimes LGBT ones. I think you both deserve support for that, which is why I buy your books.
Deirdre Saoirse Moen
September 1, 2011 @ 8:26 pm
Yet, I see Sanderson lobbying in his own way for legal civil rights for gays including an identical civil union that straight people would get, and as an influential and outspoken Mormon, maybe that’ll have more positive effects on the rank-and-file Mormons than you might think. It is, in many ways, a great stretch for someone from such a socially and religiously conservative background, and I respect that.
I completely get not wanting money to flow to the powers that be that help enact policies you despise, though. For example, I will not pay to see movies from Scientologist actors, because I know full well how control-laden it is about money, among other things. I have also heard some brutal stories about mistreatment over the years. (Read the first chapter of Marc Headley’s book Blown for Good for a sample.) That doesn’t mean I won’t watch a movie when it’s on broadcast TV or on a flight or over at a friend’s house, though. Scientology’s also anti-homosexual (see Paul Haggis’s story about same here: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/02/14/110214fa_fact_wright), but that’s a drop in the bucket compared to the systematic abuse at the Int base (some of which is anti-gay, like this story: http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2010/02/02/45-days-in-the-hole-final-purges-part-4/ — the DM mentioned, David Miscavige, is the current head of the Church of Scientology).
liz
September 1, 2011 @ 9:06 pm
I broke every rule of the internet and not only read the comments but am now going to write one myself. What comes first to mind is: wow, this is just amazing.
I follow both your’s and Sanderson’s blogs quite closely and I’m excited to see how such intelligent and level headed people resolve this disagreement between them.
I’ve heard that my generation is supposed to be better, more accepting. Maybe we are, or maybe its just a bunch of balogna. I hope that its not simply the viewpoint of a naive half-grown girl, but what I take from all of the controversy on this issue is that Something is Changing. I can feel it.
Jim C. Hines
September 1, 2011 @ 9:13 pm
Hi Liz,
Heh … I’m afraid much of the direct discussion between Brandon and myself is happening via e-mail, and I wouldn’t feel right posting that correspondence here. I don’t know that we’re going to find agreement … in fact, I’d be surprised if that happened. But while we’re both holding pretty strong to our core beliefs, it has been helpful to me to get a better understanding of where he’s coming from.
I do think that you’re right, and that from a societal standpoint, we’re seeing a change. I can tell you that looking around now and comparing it to twenty years ago when I was in high school, there has been some very clear and real progress. My gut sense is that this is going to continue, and in another generation or two people will be looking back and trying to understand what the big deal was. At least, that’s my hope…
Rose Fox
September 2, 2011 @ 1:18 am
“I believe that a prophet of God has said that widespread legislation to approve gay marriage will bring pain and suffering to all involved.”
Er… it already is pretty widespread, and spreading, and I haven’t seen any pain or suffering yet.
“Religiously, I have heard no opposition to the idea of gay couples gaining the rights they demand—the argument is over the term ‘marriage.'”
I gather from this that he thinks there would be no religious opposition if gender-neutral marriage-equivalent civil unions gained any kind of traction. I think that’s pretty naive, because it still leads to the looming specter of queer people having state-sanctioned sex, raising kids, and otherwise behaving like they’re normal, healthy adults, all of which are in opposition to many religious teachings.
Kathryn (UnravThreads)
September 2, 2011 @ 4:05 am
The irony is I have a bit of a crush on the girl who played Donna in That ’70s Show, and I believe she’s a Scientologist.
We have civil unions in the UK which affords a gay couple *most* of the same rights as a married, straight couple, but to me that’s not good enough. I think same-sex couples should be allowed to join themselves before God, Allah or whomever if they so wish, and I also think they should legally have the same rights.
If he influences some other Mormons to open their minds a bit, I can agree with that somewhat, but what good will it do? They’ll just move on to deny rights to another minority group and so forth.
Deirdre Saoirse Moen
September 2, 2011 @ 4:14 am
Laura Prepon is a Scientologist, yes. That said, most Scientology celebrities are deliberately kept in the dark about what’s really happening inside.
They’ll just move on to deny rights to another minority group and so forth.
I believe this form of othering is only destructive.
Jim C. Hines
September 2, 2011 @ 8:55 am
Deirdre – sorry, Friday morning brain fart. Can you clarify what form of othering you mean here?
Jim C. Hines
September 2, 2011 @ 9:09 am
Again, not knowing Brandon’s mind, but from the perspective of someone who believes it, I suspect “widespread” is a vague enough term that one could hold on to that belief for a very long time, especially if one limits oneself to a U.S.-centric view vs. a worldwide one.
My other fear as I’m thinking about this is that he could be right — that it *could* bring pain and suffering, but that the pain and suffering will continue to be inflicted by those who believe same-sex marriage is sinful and wrong…
Deirdre Saoirse Moen
September 2, 2011 @ 6:18 pm
The idea that some religion, once the current issue du jour is over, is going to necessarily find another group to deny rights to — is not a conscionable view in my universe. Really, it’s bigotry, I was just being overly polite. I don’t like it from the left any more than I like it from the right.
I’ve read the bible, there’s a lot of stuff we’d find hateful and bigoted in there, but we don’t expect the vast majority of Christians to behave in ways that were perfectly normal at the time it was written. The examples here would be cases in point.
So, no, I don’t expect “they” (meaning Mormons) will go off about the next group.
Jim C. Hines
September 2, 2011 @ 7:55 pm
Ah. Got it, thanks!
Kathryn (UnravThreads)
September 3, 2011 @ 11:59 am
I’m sorry you feel my comment was bigoted, Deirdre, but I believe it’s an honest point to make. If one group is out of bounds, what’s to stop another group becoming the focus of their ire? If Group X finally accepts homosexuals, why would they not go “Well, the transgender folk, then! They’re…” and so forth?
Society, whether religious or otherwise, will always find a minority to subjugate and attempt to destroy.
KatG
September 5, 2011 @ 10:16 pm
I’m married. I was married by a judge in a civil ceremony. Marriage is a legal and financial contract of partnership between two people. For all of history, the majority of marriages, even among the ruling classes, were not conducted by religious officiates. I have nothing against Sanderson personally, but his argument is essentially that his church invented marriage — they did not — and owns the word — they do not. This is about political power, not religious, the ability to control the laws that run nations well outside of one’s church. If you control the laws, you can manipulate those laws, and keep those people you don’t like or approve of from equal opportunity, access to resources, political power and their civil rights, punishing them at will while enriching your own plate and control. Many of the Mormon leaders are open Christian Dominionists who want to replace the current laws of the U.S. Constitution with Christian Biblical law. Many of them not only want to prevent gays from equal marriage, but want to prevent gays from various professions, such as teachers and the military, from taking political office, and even resurrect laws that would send them to prison. So Sanderson’s suggestion that we throw out the U.S. Constitution and I give up the name of my marriage because his church says so while they cherry-pick their Bible — no, thanks. That’s the slippery slope that is the real worry and it’s been in place far too long.
Every civil rights power struggle in this country, and often elsewhere, has been the same. The opposition paints the group seeking equal treatment under the law as vile monsters, unnatural and incapable of handling the rights they are seeking. Then they drop back to saying the minority is misguided, unreasonably upset and really don’t need the rights they are seeking. Then they say the minority can have some rights but not the main rights they are seeking. Then they say the minority can have most of their rights, but they don’t want people who think that way to be around their children and have a political voice in government. And then when they’ve lost, after years of suffering and violent attacks on the minority group, they say that the minority got what they wanted and shouldn’t complain further as there is no more discrimination and what there used to be wasn’t that bad either. So Sanderson is at the they can have some rights, but not the main rights stage, plus suggesting that I, a secular person, give up some of my legal rights, so it’s a two-fer. I’m sure he doesn’t see it that way, but that’s what’s going on. He is not evolving his views. He’s simply retreating and retrenching, although I’m sure he sincerely puzzles over it. The fear these groups express that gay marriage will make society intolerant of their position (because they want to control that society,) and force them to change their church (it will not,) is upset over losing political power over the law.
Sanderson has no right over my marriage. He has no right over gay marriages. And nobody is doing anything to his church. But he and people like him are causing pain, devastation and death with their continual attacks, political, social and otherwise, on gays. When he decides to stop doing that, I will consider his views to have evolved.
Stephen A. Watkins
September 6, 2011 @ 8:41 am
While I respect your position, to be fair, the term “Dominionist” is not strictly appropriate to describe Mormon beliefs, leaders, or theology.
Dominionists, as a theopolitical group, seek to replace the US Constitution with their personal interpretation of “Biblical” law. Mormons, on the other hand, hold it as an article of faith that the Constitution was a divinely inspired document – and in fact believe that Mormons will be called upon at some future point to defend the Constitution when it is under attack.
Granted, many Mormon have a very different idea of what the Constitution says than what it actually says… but as a technical matter they don’t seek to “replace” it as Dominionists do. Where they do have some similarities is that Mormons do believe that Constitutional Law is ultimately subservient to Divine Law.
Anyway… Dominionism is a subset of a certain type of hyper-right-wing Evangelical christinaity, which has a large overlap with the subset of the Christian community that abhors and detests the existence of Mormons, and argue that Mormons aren’t Christians. As much as some Mormons like to pretend that they’re just another breed of Evangelical… they’re not and many Evangelicals put a lot of effort into reminding Mormons that they’re not bosom buddies.
All that said, as my comment further upthread points out, I’m of the position that religious convictions should be totally separate and segregated from civil law, so I’m personally in support of the general position you stake – not that my support means much of anything, but I thought it was worth pointing out that other than this specific technical point I don’t disagree with you.
KatG
September 6, 2011 @ 3:15 pm
Since I didn’t say that Mormon beliefs and theology were Dominionist, you aren’t disagreeing with me on a technical point. Nor did I say that all Mormon leaders were Dominionist. What I said was that many Mormon leaders (and perhaps I should have clarified with far right) are expressing Dominionist views, mainly Seven Mountains dominionism, and in particular concerning gay civil rights in the campaign for Prop 8 in California in which the Mormon church leadership teamed up, albeit uneasily, with evangelical dominionists, including the Koch brothers. I’m aware that main dominionists think the Mormons are false Christians, even when they are working with them, and Jehovah’s Witnesses, and some of them feel that way about the Catholics as well. Nor do I think all Mormons are a cohesive body who all share the same beliefs. My point was that this is a political power battle, not just for gay civil rights but about secular law and secular government institutions. Sanderson is not listening, he’s just changing what he thinks he should be able to dictate by secular law, widening it to include other marriages as well as gay ones. And I realize that he probably doesn’t see it that way, but then he’s in a position not to, as Jim pointed out in a previous post.
Stephen A. Watkins
September 6, 2011 @ 4:39 pm
I’m still not convinced there are actual-and-true Dominionists in the Mormon leadership. Which leaders, specifically, do you believe to be Dominionists? And do you mean “Leaders in the Church” or “People in Important or Leadership positions who happen to be Mormon”? (The latter, for instance, might include Glenn Beck, who is at best only nominally Mormon.) I know some Mormon leaders have been given to conspiracy theories… and that’s sad enough, but I haven’t seen any evidence of Dominionist theology being preached by Mormon leaders.
KatG
September 6, 2011 @ 9:54 pm
They seemed to be for Prop 8, from the media coverage I read. But you know what: “The latter, for instance, might include Glenn Beck, who is at best only nominally Mormon” — I’m not going to decide who is and is not a real Mormon, even Glen Beck, who considers himself a real Mormon. Nor with Sanderson or anyone else. I’ve no right to do that. So I’ll walk back the Dominionist point, I withdraw it. My main point remains, this is a political battle and it effects more than just gays’ civil rights. So I don’t find Sanderson’s new position, where he’s suggesting churches get put in charge of defining my marriage as well, to be a particular improvement on his previous one.
Deirdre Saoirse Moen
September 6, 2011 @ 10:02 pm
You are aware there was a million-dollar Mormon donor to DEFEAT Prop 8, aren’t you?
Now, I will grant you that many Mormons, including ones I know, were very pro-8 and the bulk of contributions from Mormons were to pass prop 8, not to defeat it. But not all Mormons are pro-8, and there are some important Mormon allies.
Because Sanderson believes in civil rights for gays that are equal to those for straights, I’m willing to count him as an ally even though he and I disagree on points that are important to both of us.
Stephen A. Watkins
September 7, 2011 @ 10:25 am
Oh, I don’t disagree that the large majority of Mormons were in favor of Prop-8.
That’s a position I personally disagree with today – but quite frankly back when Prop-8 was actually up for vote (back in 2008) I was in a somewhat different place than I am today, and was a lot more wishy-washy on my stand. Not that it mattered terribly much – I don’t live in California and I didn’t give directly to any pro- or con- initiatives. But had I lived in California, I probably would’ve voted what I more recently have come to believe to be the wrong way. Now I just fervently hope that the courts set it aright.
But with regard to the Mormon stance on the subject… although I don’t think Sanderson’s point stands up to any actual objective scrutiny, it does illustrate the mindset that many Mormons take on the subject. And even if it’s not a terribly likely portrayal of future reality (i.e. of the Mormon Church, institutionally, being forced to consecrate same-sex marriages that violate some of their core doctrines), it’s not a fear that is entirely without precedent. I recall reading about the debate, I believe it was in Vermont, over a Gay Marriage bill (admittedly this was after Prop-8 in California) in which the bill was to include language reaffirming religious freedom… one gay lawmaker was aggressively opposed to the religious freedom language and was outspoken about his belief that religious officials could be forced to solemnize gay marriages. This struck me at the time as a bit of an extreme position to take in the face of such a monumental achievement in his state, and a pretty unconstitutional one at that.
I think some Mormons have trouble discerning the difference between “supporting gay marriage and equal rights for gays” and “forcing the church to solemnize gay marriages”. And so they take the opposite extreme position. I do think Brandon is trying to stake a position that is significantly less extreme.
As I stated above, my own position is somewhat different, in that I do believe that members of a religion have a right to their own doctrines and beliefs, and should not be forced to act, in a religious capacity, contrary to those doctrines. That boundary stops when they enter a civil capacity. Thus, for instance, a Justice of the Peace who happened to be Mormon ought to have no right to “concientiously object” to marrying same-sex couples in a civil marriage, because he or she is not acting in a religious capacity, and the civil act has no bearing on the religious dispensation. In that way, I understand Sanderson’s attempt to parse a difference between the civil dispensation and the religious dispensation. I just think his attempt to make it a semantic battle misses the point: that civil and religious dispensations are already necessarily separate under the constitutional law of our country (and neither has a monopoly on language).
KatG
September 7, 2011 @ 6:30 pm
I think it’s kind of interesting that when I talk about some Mormons and some Mormon leaders and state that I do not see all Mormons as one body believing one thing, that it is still assumed that I’m talking about all Mormons, Mormon leaders, Mormon theology and asserting that they all believe one thing. It’s part of why these issues are tricky to talk about.
Deidre Saoirse Moen: “Because Sanderson believes in civil rights for gays that are equal to those for straights, I’m willing to count him as an ally even though he and I disagree on points that are important to both of us.”
He doesn’t believe in civil rights for gays, and certainly not those that are equal to straights. He is now suggesting that maybe gays might be allowed what he chooses to give them but only in a separate capacity that would certainly not be equal in the society and would come after my marriage as well. That’s not being an ally; it’s trying out a different attack approach. I’m not saying that Sanderson isn’t thinking seriously about the issue or is indifferent to the suffering of gays that he and those who share his views are inflicting on them, but his position is not one of equality. The suggestion that maybe gays would be happy with less (and those secular straights too,) and that they could be off in their own separate ghetto of rights is a standard fallback position by civil rights opponents. Sanderson’s position, civil unions or no, is unconstitutional, anti-civil rights, anti-equality, organized and institutionalized discrimination, and a political power grab. It asserts rights over the law that he doesn’t actually have as an American, ie that marriage is a religious matter, not a secular right, in American society. Sanderson is not an extremist who wants to throw gays in jail, but he has not particularly changed his original position on the issue.
Stephen A. Watkins: “I just think his attempt to make it a semantic battle misses the point: that civil and religious dispensations are already necessarily separate under the constitutional law of our country (and neither has a monopoly on language).”
Yes, exactly.
Janci
September 13, 2011 @ 4:28 pm
Jim,
I just now checked back for your response on my comment. I fully agree with you that homosexuals are facing current persecution, and so for them, the problem is much more immediate, which makes their reactions against that persecution understandable and even necessary. I still think that we could all do well to make sure we’re reacting to actual, current threats, and not future, feared threats. (What I’m trying to say is that I think homosexuals do both, and Christians at this time are really only doing the latter.)
I understand what you’re saying about how beliefs can be seen as a moral obligation to work against evil. I know many people who feel that way about the issue. I have a different perspective. As a member of the LDS church, I don’t drink coffee, because I believe that God has cautioned against it. However, I don’t really care if other people drink it. I think people should be governed by their own beliefs and not the beliefs of others. To me (and I understand that many Mormons would disagree with me, and only speak for myself here), the issue of homosexuality is much the same. I have one set of beliefs, and live my life in one way. Others choose differently, and that’s all right with me. This is part of why I advocate rights for homosexuals, because I think all people should be treated with respect under the law, regardless of their beliefs or orientation. I wouldn’t condemn a person for being gay or feel I need to work against homosexuality any more than I feel I need to campaign against coffee. I think the need to work against a sin is separate from the belief that the sin exists, even if it often comes together in many people.
I fully understand that this is not the attitude of many other Mormons/Christians/people. However, I just wanted to share that I think this kind of “live and let believe” attitude is possible, and may even be quite common among quieter, less offensive members of various groups. The belief is not the problem. The desire to inflict the consequences of those beliefs on others, is.
Deirdre Saoirse Moen
September 13, 2011 @ 9:43 pm
Janci, thanks for your post.
I’ve been wondering: how is what your view is — or Sanderson’s — fundamentally different from my own?
I’m Wiccan, and the rede (our creed) is: An it harm none, do what you will. There’s variations on that, of course, and there’s also the fundamental belief that what you do, good or ill, comes back three-fold (which is less widely believed). There’s also awareness that in many situations, some harm is going to result, so try to do the least harm.
I’ve heard about people in some pretty wild consensual relationships involving BDSM such that I can’t wrap my head around it not being harm, consensual or no. Obviously, they have their reasons for their practices, and I don’t judge them for their choices, but I can’t help but feel that it’s somehow not entirely right.
I’d fight for such partners to have the right to carry on their relationships because I think that’s right — even if I am not so sure about the harm in some of the practices.
I’ve seen people judging Sanderson harshly, and I keep asking myself: how are my views so different?