#63689 - Church activism and gay marriage

[Katya]

http://theboard.byu.edu/questions/63689/

Because the Church loves California Mormons better than New York ones.

Or because New York didn't put the issue to a popular vote.

Counterpoint: Maine had a gay marriage referendum the year after Prop 8 and I don't remember hearing anything about it in church. (At most, we may have had a "remember to vote"-type statement read over the pulpit, but it certainly didn't compare to the level of involvement in California.)

So we're back to the theory of the Church loving California Mormons best.

[wired]

I have plenty of speculation on the matter.

I think there's a few reasons. One, California has a higher concentration and population of Mormons than Maine or the other states that have faced referendum votes. That makes it easier to mobilize quickly. Two, California was seen as a critical ground in the the gay marriage movement. The theory, I think on both sides, is that California is a huge state and a visible leader in the social movement. If we "win" here, it sets a statement that others are likely to follow. Hence, a bigger outpouring. Three, the very realist side of me also thinks that a the Church recognized that Prop 8 didn't go over the way they particularly wanted. While the Church is very concerned with making moral statements, it is also concerned with its perception by the public. While we gained credibility with other Christian organizations, we lost a lot of credibility with secular groups and made a lot of liberal members of the Church feel marginalized. I think the Church is unlikely to ever mobilize on a social issue again like they did with Prop 8 - the cost just isn't worth the benefit.

For the record, I think the Church is likely to endorse legislation like New York's in the next 3-5 years. The New York legislation has a pretty good carve out for religious entities to allay fears of encroachment on churches' moral autonomy.

[Katya]

Three, the very realist side of me also thinks that a the Church recognized that Prop 8 didn't go over the way they particularly wanted. While the Church is very concerned with making moral statements, it is also concerned with its perception by the public. While we gained credibility with other Christian organizations, we lost a lot of credibility with secular groups and made a lot of liberal members of the Church feel marginalized. I think the Church is unlikely to ever mobilize on a social issue again like they did with Prop 8 - the cost just isn't worth the benefit.

I actually think this is the biggest reason, although I agree that nos. 1 and 2 could also be factors.

[Marduk]

The church hasn't been silent in either of those places; it is just as active as it is/was in California. The difference here isn't level of activity; the difference is personal and media attention to that level of activity. Katya, most wards in California never had anything read over the pulpit about Prop 8. That was discretionary at the stake level.

[Katya]

The church hasn't been silent in either of those places; it is just as active as it is/was in California.

Mmm, prove it.

[Marduk]

What exactly did the church do with regards to Prop 8? It donated money to NATIONAL coalitions which are in support of traditional marriage (i.e., ones that engaged in specific actions with regards to the California measure, but not exclusive to) and it joined national groups which chose California specifically. In these coalitions, the church was asked to do some specific things with regards to Prop 8, which it complied with as part of these groups.

The LDS church has issued several statements both federally and at state levels when these issues have come to ballot; naturally, it has been more vocal when there is more of an opportunity to be efficacious. But that stands to reason, and doesn't mean the church will be silent. Perhaps that should be taken as a clarification to my statement. But the church's position isn't a secret.

Remember that California already had a law passed in 2000, it was overturned, and that was the reason for Prop 8 in the first place. This indicated that there was likely popular support for this Proposition. In other areas, where popular support for these sorts of bans was much lower, the Protect Marriage Coalition, again, a national organization, focused less support and activism. But this was not the LDS church's decision.

[wired]

I agree that the Church hasn't been silent in those areas. (Just as they weren't silent in Argentina when it was facing gay marriage legislation.) But the amount of time and money dedicated to Prop 8 specifically is what sets it apart. The Church's involvement in national coalitions is precipitated by Prop 8 itself. Members were specifically requested to donate time and efforts to the Prop 8 campaign. I am not against the Church's involvement there, but it was definitely different than it was in other areas. Having family who lives in California, I am relatively sure it was a quantitatively and qualitatively different approach then has occurred elsewhere.

[Katya]

The LDS church has issued several statements both federally and at state levels when these issues have come to ballot; naturally, it has been more vocal when there is more of an opportunity to be efficacious. But that stands to reason, and doesn't mean the church will be silent. Perhaps that should be taken as a clarification to my statement. But the church's position isn't a secret.

I'm not saying that the Church's position is a secret and it may very well be that both the actions in California and the (apparent) lack of action in Maine were part of the same overarching plan. (California certainly holds much higher political sway than Maine does, for reasons listed above.) I am saying that the if no wards in Maine had a specific message read over the pulpit and no stakes were given a fundraising quota (and I don't recall hearing of any), then that contributed to a very different climate on the ground.

Remember that California already had a law passed in 2000, it was overturned, and that was the reason for Prop 8 in the first place. This indicated that there was likely popular support for this Proposition.

Maine had also passed a law, earlier in the year, which was the reason for Question 1.

[Marduk]

I'm unaware, could you clarify? What is/was the legal status of said law?

[Katya]

I'm unaware, could you clarify? What is/was the legal status of said law?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maine_Question_1,_2009

[Marduk]

So that's not quite the same situation. In one, you have a ban on same sex marriage being overturned by a court, in the other, you have an allowance of gay marriage being overturned by voter referendum. In the first, it is possible (even probable) that the result does not have popular support, and the latter, it is clear the result is by popular support. Different solutions would hence be appropriate, even by the same overarching ideology.

[Arcaiden]

The church hasn't been silent in either of those places; it is just as active as it is/was in California. The difference here isn't level of activity; the difference is personal and media attention to that level of activity. Katya, most wards in California never had anything read over the pulpit about Prop 8. That was discretionary at the stake level.

The original letter read over the pulpit asking members to give of their "time and means" was never voluntary. It was to be read in every sacrament meeting in California on that Sunday. It's true that after that there was some discretion allowed to local leaders after that, but the area presidency was directly involved overseeing the effort. For example, every singles ward in southern California was asked to come up with people to fill 8 different "assignments" - we were specifically told not to call them "callings". These were things like a canvasing coordinator, a get out of the vote coordinator, a calling party coordinator, an interfaith coordinator etc. Each position had something to do with the prop 8 effort, and every singles ward was asked to come up with 8 of them, and to report specifics back to the area authority overseeing. Normal wards didn't have as many callings, they just asked people like the relief society president to work on making sure everyone was registered to vote, and have them sponsor activities.

While I'm sure local church units in New York talked about the issue of their own accord, I don't think we've seen anything like the paid advertising, satellite broadcasts, and other large efforts coming from Salt Lake City.

[Katya]

Remember that California already had a law passed in 2000, it was overturned, and that was the reason for Prop 8 in the first place. This indicated that there was likely popular support for this Proposition.

If I understand you, here you're saying that there was likely popular support for Prop 8.

So that's not quite the same situation. In one, you have a ban on same sex marriage being overturned by a court, in the other, you have an allowance of gay marriage being overturned by voter referendum. In the first, it is possible (even probable) that the result does not have popular support, and the latter, it is clear the result is by popular support. Different solutions would hence be appropriate, even by the same overarching ideology.

If I understand you, here you're saying that there was likely popular support for Question 1.

Is that correct?

[Marduk]

Katya, no, you're incorrect. What I'm saying is something done by judicial fiat is less likely to have popular support than something proposed by state legislature, which is commensurately less likely to have popular suppor than a voter referendum. It is all about strategic management of resources; idealism with a pragmatic approach.

Arcaiden, I could be wrong about that letter; I simply seem to recall many bishops voluntarily not reading it and not being brought to task by their stake presidents. But this is simply my anecdotal recollection, which despite my vast intelligence, is still susceptible to fallibility .

[Craig Jessop]

The Church pulled a California in AZ, but it was at the same time as Prop 8.

I think the Church isn't getting involved because of the backlash from the first time and the attention we're getting right now. CNN and Time and other big outlets are running major stories on Mormonism -- not just the token reference to the Huntsman/Romney religion thing -- so another high profile campaign would look very, very bad considering the interest in the Church right now. And members know where the Church stands, so if they felt like it would be in their best interests or if the Brethren wanted them to fight they would do it anyway.

[Yarjka]

I think it has to do more with population of active LDS members. The church made a substantial push for similar campaigns against gay marriage in Hawaii, Arizona, and Utah, for example. I just don't think the church sees much point in pushing its members to fight a losing battle in Maine or New York. In California, there was a good chance of winning. There are church members in The Netherlands, but it would take a lot of effort to mount a national campaign there, and it would have very little chance of it making much of a difference. The church has to pick its battles (and its been picking them pretty well).

[Tao]

I'm pretty much with Marduk on this one. Depending on what area and what ward in Cali you were in, you were likely to see significantly different responses. Of course there were those who took the church's endorsement as a mandate for madness, but there were others who largely ignored the issue beyond the perfunctory reading.

While I have no way of knowing if the church's actions in Maine were comparable to California I think the church demographics play a much bigger role than many would realize at first blush; what wouldn't light a candle in Maine could start a brushfire in Cali.

[Katya]

While I have no way of knowing if the church's actions in Maine were comparable to California I think the church demographics play a much bigger role than many would realize at first blush; what wouldn't light a candle in Maine could start a brushfire in Cali.

Please elaborate.