 |
Evergreen International is the most complete resource for Latter-day Saints on same-sex attraction. |
 |
| home | learn about same-sex attraction | courses | internet support | conferences/workshops | articles | newsletters | languages | bookstore | about us | ||
Same-Gender Attraction
Question:
What is the position of the Church on same-gender attraction and same-gender marriage?
The continuing public debate over same-gender marriage has prompted many questions from the news media, the general public and Church members in relation to the position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on the marriage issue specifically and on homosexuality in general.
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: At the outset, can you explain why this whole issue of homosexuality and same-gender marriage is important to the Church?
ELDER OAKS: This is
much bigger than just a question of whether or not society should be
more tolerant of the homosexual lifestyle. Over past years we have seen
unrelenting pressure from advocates of that lifestyle to accept as
normal what is not normal, and to characterize those who disagree as
narrow-minded, bigoted and unreasonable. Such advocates are quick to
demand freedom of speech and thought for themselves, but equally quick
to criticize those with a different view and, if possible, to silence
them by applying labels like “homophobic.” In at least one country where
homosexual activists have won major concessions, we have even seen a
church pastor threatened with prison for preaching from the pulpit that
homosexual behavior is sinful. Given these trends, The Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints must take a stand on doctrine and principle.
This is more than a social issue — ultimately it may be a test of our
most basic religious freedoms to teach what we know our Father in Heaven
wants us to teach.
PUBLIC AFFAIRS:
Let’s say my 17-year-old son comes to talk to me and, after a great deal
of difficulty trying to get it out, tells me that he believes that he’s
attracted to men — that he has no interest and never has had any
interest in girls. He believes he’s probably gay. He says that he’s
tried to suppress these feelings. He’s remained celibate, but he
realizes that his feelings are going to be devastating to the family
because we’ve always talked about his Church mission, about his temple
marriage and all those kinds of things. He just feels he can’t live what
he thinks is a lie any longer, and so he comes in this very upset and
depressed manner. What do I tell him as a parent?
ELDER OAKS: You’re
my son. You will always be my son, and I’ll always be there to help you.
The distinction
between feelings or inclinations on the one hand, and behavior on the
other hand, is very clear. It’s no sin to have inclinations that if
yielded to would produce behavior that would be a transgression. The sin
is in yielding to temptation. Temptation is not unique. Even the Savior
was tempted.
The New Testament
affirms that God has given us commandments that are difficult to keep.
It is in 1 Corinthians chapter 10, verse 13: “There hath no temptation
taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will
not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the
temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.”
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.
Everyone has some
challenges they have to struggle with. You’ve described a particular
kind of challenge that is very vexing. It is common in our society and
it has also become politicized. But it’s only one of a host of
challenges men and women have to struggle with, and I just encourage you
to seek the help of the Savior to resist temptation and to refrain from
behavior that would cause you to have to repent or to have your Church
membership called into question.
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: If
somebody has a very powerful heterosexual drive, there is the
opportunity for marriage. If a young man thinks he’s gay, what we’re
really saying to him is that there is simply no other way to go but to
be celibate for the rest of his life if he doesn’t feel any attraction
to women?
ELDER OAKS: That is
exactly the same thing we say to the many members who don’t have the
opportunity to marry. We expect celibacy of any person that is not
married.
ELDER WICKMAN: We
live in a society which is so saturated with sexuality that it perhaps
is more troublesome now, because of that fact, for a person to look
beyond their gender orientation to other aspects of who they are. I
think I would say to your son or anyone that was so afflicted to strive
to expand your horizons beyond simply gender orientation. Find
fulfillment in the many other facets of your character and your
personality and your nature that extend beyond that. There’s no denial
that one’s gender orientation is certainly a core characteristic of any
person, but it’s not the only one.
What’s more, merely
having inclinations does not disqualify one for any aspect of Church
participation or membership, except possibly marriage as has already
been talked about. But even that, in the fullness of life as we
understand it through the doctrines of the restored gospel, eventually
can become possible.
In this life, such
things as service in the Church, including missionary service, all of
this is available to anyone who is true to covenants and commandments.
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: So
you are saying that homosexual feelings are controllable?
ELDER OAKS: Yes,
homosexual feelings are controllable. Perhaps there is an inclination or
susceptibility to such feelings that is a reality for some and not a
reality for others. But out of such susceptibilities come feelings, and
feelings are controllable. If we cater to the feelings, they increase
the power of the temptation. If we yield to the temptation, we have
committed sinful behavior. That pattern is the same for a person that
covets someone else’s property and has a strong temptation to steal.
It’s the same for a person that develops a taste for alcohol. It’s the
same for a person that is born with a ‘short fuse,’ as we would say of a
susceptibility to anger. If they let that susceptibility remain
uncontrolled, it becomes a feeling of anger, and a feeling of anger can
yield to behavior that is sinful and illegal.
We’re not talking
about a unique challenge here. We’re talking about a common condition of
mortality. We don’t understand exactly the ‘why,’ or the extent to which
there are inclinations or susceptibilities and so on. But what we do
know is that feelings can be controlled and behavior can be controlled.
The line of sin is between the feelings and the behavior. The line of
prudence is between the susceptibility and the feelings. We need to lay
hold on the feelings and try to control them to keep us from getting
into a circumstance that leads to sinful behavior.
ELDER WICKMAN: One
of the great sophistries of our age, I think, is that merely because one
has an inclination to do something, that therefore acting in accordance
with that inclination is inevitable. That’s contrary to our very nature
as the Lord has revealed to us. We do have the power to control our
behavior.
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: If
we were to look back at someone who had a ‘short fuse,’ and we were to
look at their parents who might have had a short fuse, some might
identify a genetic influence in that.
ELDER OAKS: No, we
do not accept the fact that conditions that prevent people from
attaining their eternal destiny were born into them without any ability
to control. That is contrary to the Plan of Salvation, and it is
contrary to the justice and mercy of God. It’s contrary to the whole
teaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which expresses the truth that
by or through the power and mercy of Jesus Christ we will have the
strength to do all things. That includes resisting temptation. That
includes dealing with things that we’re born with, including
disfigurements, or mental or physical incapacities. None of these stand
in the way of our attaining our eternal destiny. The same may be said of
a susceptibility or inclination to one behavior or another which if
yielded to would prevent us from achieving our eternal destiny.
PUBLIC AFFAIRS:
You’re saying the Church doesn’t necessarily have a position on ‘nurture
or nature’ ….
ELDER OAKS: That’s
where our doctrine comes into play. The Church does not have a position
on the causes of any of these susceptibilities or inclinations,
including those related to same-gender attraction. Those are scientific
questions — whether nature or nurture — those are things the Church
doesn’t have a position on.
ELDER WICKMAN:
Whether it is nature or nurture really begs the important question, and
a preoccupation with nature or nurture can, it seems to me, lead someone
astray from the principles that Elder Oaks has been describing here. Why
somebody has a same-gender attraction… who can say? But what matters is
the fact that we know we can control how we behave, and it is behavior
which is important.
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: Is
therapy of any kind a legitimate course of action if we’re talking about
controlling behavior? If a young man says, “Look, I really want these
feelings to go away… I would do anything for these feelings to go away,”
is it legitimate to look at clinical therapy of some sort that would
address those issues?
ELDER WICKMAN: Well,
it may be appropriate for that person to seek therapy. Certainly the
Church doesn’t counsel against that kind of therapy. But from the
standpoint of a parent counseling a person, or a Church leader
counseling a person, or a person looking at his or her same-gender
attraction from the standpoint of ‘What can I do about it here that’s in
keeping with gospel teachings?’ the clinical side of it is not what
matters most. What matters most is recognition that ‘I have my own will.
I have my own agency. I have the power within myself to control what I
do.’
Now, that’s not to
say it’s not appropriate for somebody with that affliction to seek
appropriate clinical help to examine whether in his or her case there’s
something that can be done about it. This is an issue that those in
psychiatry, in the psychology professions have debated. Case studies I
believe have shown that in some cases there has been progress made in
helping someone to change that orientation; in other cases not. From the
Church’s standpoint, from our standpoint of concern for people, that’s
not where we place our principal focus. It’s on these other matters.
ELDER OAKS: Amen to
that. Let me just add one more thought. The Church rarely takes a
position on which treatment techniques are appropriate, for medical
doctors or for psychiatrists or psychologists and so on.
The second point is
that there are abusive practices that have been used in connection with
various mental attitudes or feelings. Over-medication in respect to
depression is an example that comes to mind. The aversive therapies that
have been used in connection with same-sex attraction have contained
some serious abuses that have been recognized over time within the
professions. While we have no position about what the medical doctors do
(except in very, very rare cases — abortion would be such an example),
we are conscious that there are abuses and we don’t accept
responsibility for those abuses. Even though they are addressed at
helping people we would like to see helped, we can’t endorse every kind
of technique that’s been used.
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: Is
heterosexual marriage ever an option for those with homosexual feelings?
ELDER OAKS: We are
sometimes asked about whether marriage is a remedy for these feelings
that we have been talking about. President Hinckley, faced with the fact
that apparently some had believed it to be a remedy, and perhaps that
some Church leaders had even counseled marriage as the remedy for these
feelings, made this statement: “Marriage should not be viewed as a
therapeutic step to solve problems such as homosexual inclinations or
practices.” To me that means that we are not going to stand still to put
at risk daughters of God who would enter into such marriages under false
pretenses or under a cloud unknown to them. Persons who have this kind
of challenge that they cannot control could not enter marriage in good
faith.
On the other hand,
persons who have cleansed themselves of any transgression and who have
shown their ability to deal with these feelings or inclinations and put
them in the background, and feel a great attraction for a daughter of
God and therefore desire to enter marriage and have children and enjoy
the blessings of eternity — that’s a situation when marriage would be
appropriate.
President Hinckley
said that marriage is not a therapeutic step to solve problems.
ELDER WICKMAN: One
question that might be asked by somebody who is struggling with
same-gender attraction is, “Is this something I’m stuck with forever?
What bearing does this have on eternal life? If I can somehow make it
through this life, when I appear on the other side, what will I be
like?”
Gratefully, the
answer is that same-gender attraction did not exist in the pre-earth
life and neither will it exist in the next life. It is a circumstance
that for whatever reason or reasons seems to apply right now in
mortality, in this nano-second of our eternal existence.
The good news for
somebody who is struggling with same-gender attraction is this: 1) It is
that ‘I’m not stuck with it forever.’ It’s just now. Admittedly, for
each one of us, it’s hard to look beyond the ‘now’ sometimes. But
nonetheless, if you see mortality as now, it’s only during this season.
2) If I can keep myself worthy here, if I can be true to gospel
commandments, if I can keep covenants that I have made, the blessings of
exaltation and eternal life that Heavenly Father holds out to all of His
children apply to me. Every blessing — including eternal marriage — is
and will be mine in due course.
ELDER OAKS: Let me
just add a thought to that. There is no fullness of joy in the next life
without a family unit, including a husband, a wife, and posterity.
Further, men are that they might have joy. In the eternal perspective,
same-gender activity will only bring sorrow and grief and the loss of
eternal opportunities.
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: A
little earlier, Elder Oaks, you talked about the same standard of
morality for heterosexuals and homosexuals. How would you address
someone who said to you, ‘I understand it’s the same standard, but
aren’t we asking a little more of someone who has same-gender
attraction?’ Obviously there are heterosexual people who won’t get
married, but would you accept that they at least have hope that
‘tomorrow I could meet the person of my dreams.’ There’s always the hope
that that could happen at any point in their life. Someone with
same-gender attraction wouldn’t necessarily have that same hope.
ELDER OAKS: There
are differences, of course, but the contrast is not unique. There are
people with physical disabilities that prevent them from having any hope
— in some cases any actual hope and in other cases any practical hope —
of marriage. The circumstance of being currently unable to marry, while
tragic, is not unique.
It is sometimes said
that God could not discriminate against individuals in this
circumstance. But life is full of physical infirmities that some might
see as discriminations — total paralysis or serious mental impairment
being two that are relevant to marriage. If we believe in God and
believe in His mercy and His justice, it won’t do to say that these are
discriminations because God wouldn’t discriminate. We are in no
condition to judge what discrimination is. We rest on our faith in God
and our utmost assurance of His mercy and His love for all of His
children.
ELDER WICKMAN:
There’s really no question that there is an anguish associated with the
inability to marry in this life. We feel for someone that has that
anguish. I feel for somebody that has that anguish. But it’s not limited
to someone who has same-gender attraction.
We live in a very
self-absorbed age. I guess it’s naturally human to think about my own
problems as somehow greater than someone else’s. I think when any one of
us begins to think that way, it might be well be to look beyond
ourselves. Who am I to say that I am more handicapped, or suffering
more, than someone else?
I happen to have a
handicapped daughter. She’s a beautiful girl. She’ll be 27 next week.
Her name is Courtney. Courtney will never marry in this life, yet she
looks wistfully upon those who do. She will stand at the window of my
office which overlooks the
PUBLIC AFFAIRS:
Elder Wickman, when you referred earlier to missionary service, you held
that out as a possibility for someone who felt same-gender attraction
but didn’t act on it. President Hinckley has said that if people are
faithful, they can essentially go forward as anyone else in the Church
and have full fellowship. What does that really mean? Does it mean
missionary service? Does it mean that someone can go to the temple, at
least for those sacraments that don’t involve marriage? Does it really
mean that someone with same-gender attraction so long as they’re
faithful, has every opportunity to participate, to be called to service,
to do all those kinds of things that anyone else can?
ELDER WICKMAN: I
think the short answer to that is yes! I’d look to Elder Oaks to
elaborate on that.
ELDER OAKS:
President Hinckley has helped us on that subject with a clear statement
that answers all questions of that nature. He said, “We love them
(referring to people who have same-sex attractions) as sons and
daughters of God. They may have certain inclinations which are powerful
and which may be difficult to control. If they do not act upon these
inclinations, then they can go forward as do all other members of the
Church.”
To me that means
that a person with these inclinations, where they’re kept under control,
or, if yielded to are appropriately repented of, is eligible to do
anything in the Church that can be done by any member of the Church who
is single. Occasionally, there’s an office, like the office of bishop,
where a person must be married. But that’s rather the exception in the
Church. Every teaching position, every missionary position can be held
by single people. We welcome to that kind of service people who are
struggling with any kind of temptation when the struggle is a good
struggle and they are living so as to be appropriate teachers, or
missionaries, or whatever the calling may be.
ELDER WICKMAN: Isn’t
it really the significance of the Atonement in a person’s life? Doesn’t
the Atonement really begin to mean something to a person when he or she
is trying to face down the challenges of living, whether they be
temptations or limitations? The willingness to turn to the Savior, the
opportunity of going to sacrament service on a Sunday, and really
participating in the ordinance of the sacrament… listening to the
prayers, partaking of those sacred emblems. Those are opportunities that
really help us to come within the ambit of the Savior’s Atonement.
Viewed that way, then any opportunity to serve in the Church is a
blessing. As has been mentioned, there is a relatively tiny handful of
callings within the Church that require marriage.
ELDER OAKS: There is
another point to add here, and this comes from a recent statement of the
First Presidency, which is a wonderful description of our attitude in
this matter: “We of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
reach out with understanding and respect for individuals who are
attracted to those of the same gender. We realize there may be great
loneliness in their lives, but there must also be recognition of what is
right before the Lord.”
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: What
would you say to those members in society, members of the Church, who
may look at same-gender attraction as different than other temptations,
than any other struggle that people face? First of all, do you think
it’s a fair assessment that some people have that feeling? What would
you say to them?
ELDER OAKS: I think
it is an accurate statement to say that some people consider feelings of
same-gender attraction to be the defining fact of their existence. There
are also people who consider the defining fact of their existence that
they are from
We have the agency
to choose which characteristics will define us; those choices are not
thrust upon us.
The ultimate
defining fact for all of us is that we are children of Heavenly Parents,
born on this earth for a purpose, and born with a divine destiny.
Whenever any of those other notions, whatever they may be, gets in the
way of that ultimate defining fact, then it is destructive and it leads
us down the wrong path.
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: Both
of you have mentioned the issue of compassion and this feeling about
needing to be compassionate. Let’s fast-forward the scenario that we
used earlier, and assume it’s a couple of years later. My conversations
with my son, all our efforts to love our son and keep him in the Church
have failed to address what he sees as the central issue — that he can’t
help his feelings. He’s now told us that he’s moving out of the home. He
plans to live with a gay friend. He’s adamant about it. What should be
the proper response of a Latter-day Saint parent in that situation?
ELDER OAKS: It seems
to me that a Latter-day Saint parent has a responsibility in love and
gentleness to affirm the teaching of the Lord through His prophets that
the course of action he is about to embark upon is sinful. While
affirming our continued love for him, and affirming that the family
continues to have its arms open to him, I think it would be well to
review with him something like the following, which is a statement of
the First Presidency in 1991: “The Lord’s law of moral conduct is
abstinence outside of lawful marriage and fidelity within marriage.
Sexual relations are proper only between husband and wife, appropriately
expressed within the bonds of marriage. Any other sexual conduct,
including fornication, adultery, and homosexual and lesbian behavior is
sinful. Those who persist in such practices or influence others to do so
are subject to Church discipline.”
My first
responsibility as a father is to make sure that he understands that, and
then to say to him, “My son, if you choose to deliberately engage in
this kind of behavior, you’re still my son. The Atonement of Jesus
Christ is powerful enough to reach out and cleanse you if you are
repentant and give up your sinful behavior, but I urge you not to embark
on that path because repentance is not easy. You’re embarking on a
course of action that will weaken you in your ability to repent. It will
cloud your perceptions of what is important in life. Finally, it may
drag you down so far that you can’t come back. Don’t go that way. But if
you choose to go that way, we will always try to help you and get you
back on the path of growth.
ELDER WICKMAN: One
way to read the Book of Mormon is as a book of encounters between
fathers and sons. Some of those encounters were very positive and
reinforcing on the part of the father of a son. Some were occasions
where a father had to tell his son or his sons that the path that they
were following was incorrect before the Lord. With all, it needs to be
done in the spirit of love and welcoming that, as Elder Oaks mentioned,
‘You’re always my son.’ There’s an old maxim which is really true for
every parent and that is, ‘You haven’t failed until you quit trying.’ I
think that means both in terms of taking appropriate opportunities to
teach one’s children the right way, but at all times making sure they
know that over all things you’ll love them.
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: At
what point does showing that love cross the line into inadvertently
endorsing behavior? If the son says, ‘Well, if you love me, can I bring
my partner to our home to visit? Can we come for holidays?’ How do you
balance that against, for example, concern for other children in the
home?’
ELDER OAKS: That’s a
decision that needs to be made individually by the person responsible,
calling upon the Lord for inspiration. I can imagine that in most
circumstances the parents would say, ‘Please don’t do that. Don’t put us
into that position.’ Surely if there are children in the home who would
be influenced by this example, the answer would likely be that. There
would also be other factors that would make that the likely answer.
I can also imagine
some circumstances in which it might be possible to say, ‘Yes, come, but
don’t expect to stay overnight. Don’t expect to be a lengthy house
guest. Don’t expect us to take you out and introduce you to our friends,
or to deal with you in a public situation that would imply our approval
of your “partnership.”
There are so many
different circumstances, it’s impossible to give one answer that fits
all.
ELDER WICKMAN: It’s
hard to imagine a more difficult circumstance for a parent to face than
that one. It is a case by case determination. The only thing that I
would add to what Elder Oaks has just said is that I think it’s
important as a parent to avoid a potential trap arising out of one’s
anguish over this situation.
I refer to a shift
from defending the Lord’s way to defending the errant child’s lifestyle,
both with him and with others. It really is true the Lord’s way is to
love the sinner while condemning the sin. That is to say we continue to
open our homes and our hearts and our arms to our children, but that
need not be with approval of their lifestyle. Neither does it mean we
need to be constantly telling them that their lifestyle is
inappropriate. An even bigger error is now to become defensive of the
child, because that neither helps the child nor helps the parent. That
course of action, which experience teaches, is almost certainly to lead
both away from the Lord’s way.
ELDER OAKS: The
First Presidency made a wonderful statement on this subject in a letter
in 1991. Speaking of individuals and families that were struggling with
this kind of problem, they said, “We encourage Church leaders and
members to reach out with love and understanding to those struggling
with these issues.” Surely if we are counseled as a body of Church
membership to reach out with love and understanding to those ‘struggling
with these issues,’ that obligation rests with particular intensity on
parents who have children struggling with these issues… even children
who are engaged in sinful behavior associated with these issues.
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: Is
rejection of a child to some degree the natural reaction of some parents
whenever their children fall short of expectations? Is it sometimes
easier to ‘close the window’ on an issue than deal with it?
ELDER OAKS: We
surely encourage parents not to blame themselves and we encourage Church
members not to blame parents in this circumstance. We should remember
that none of us is perfect and none of us has children whose behavior is
entirely in accord with exactly what we would have them do in all
circumstances.
We feel great
compassion for parents whose love and protective instincts for their
challenged children have moved them to some positions that are adversary
to the Church. I hope the Lord will be merciful to parents whose love
for their children has caused them to get into such traps.
PUBLIC AFFAIRS:
Let’s fast-forward again. My son has now stopped coming to church
altogether. There seems no prospect of him returning. Now he tells me
he’s planning on going to
ELDER WICKMAN: For
openers, marriage is neither a matter of politics, nor is it a matter of
social policy. Marriage is defined by the Lord Himself. It’s the one
institution that is ceremoniously performed by priesthood authority in
the temple [and] transcends this world. It is of such profound
importance… such a core doctrine of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, of the
very purpose of the creation of this earth. One hardly can get past the
first page of Genesis without seeing that very clearly. It is not an
institution to be tampered with by mankind, and certainly not to be
tampered with by those who are doing so simply for their own purposes.
There is no such thing in the Lord’s eyes as something called
same-gender marriage. Homosexual behavior is and will always remain
before the Lord an abominable sin. Calling it something else by virtue
of some political definition does not change that reality.
ELDER OAKS: Another
way to say that same thing is that the Parliament in
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: On
some gay web sites there are those who argue that homosexual behavior is
not specifically prohibited in the Bible, particularly in the New
Testament. Some argue that Jesus Christ’s compassion and love for
humanity embraces this kind of relationship. What is the Church’s
teaching about that?
ELDER WICKMAN: For
one thing, those who assert that need to read their Bible more
carefully. But beyond that, it is comparing apples and oranges to refer
to the love that the Savior expressed for all mankind, for every person,
for every man and woman and child, with the doctrine related to
marriage.
In fact, the Savior
did make a declaration about marriage, albeit in a somewhat different
context. Jesus said that “For this cause shall a man leave his father
and mother and cleave unto his wife and they twain shall be one flesh.
What God has joined together let no man put asunder.”
We usually think of
that expression in the context of two people, a man and a woman, being
married and the inappropriateness of someone trying to separate them. I
think it may have a broader meaning in a doctrinal sense. Marriage of a
man and a woman is clear in Biblical teaching in the Old Testament as
well as in the New [Testament] teaching. Anyone who seeks to put that
notion asunder is likewise running counter to what Jesus Himself said.
It’s important to keep in mind the difference between Jesus’ love and
His definition of doctrine, and the definition of doctrine that has come
from apostles and prophets of the Lord Jesus Christ, both anciently and
in modern times.
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: What
of those who might say, “Okay. Latter-day Saints are entitled to believe
whatever they like. If you don’t believe in same-gender marriages, then
it’s fine for you. But why try to regulate the behavior of other people
who have nothing to do with your faith, especially when some nations in
ELDER WICKMAN: We’re
not trying to regulate people, but this notion that ‘what happens in
your house doesn’t affect what happens in my house’ on the subject of
the institution of marriage may be the ultimate sophistry of those
advocating same-gender marriage.
Some people promote
the idea that there can be two marriages, co-existing side by side, one
heterosexual and one homosexual, without any adverse consequences. The
hard reality is that, as an institution, marriage like all other
institutions can only have one definition without changing the very
character of the institution. Hence there can be no coexistence of two
marriages. Either there is marriage as it is now defined and as defined
by the Lord, or there is what could thus be described as genderless
marriage. The latter is abhorrent to God, who, as we’ve been discussing,
Himself described what marriage is — between a man and a woman.
A redefinition of
that institution, therefore, redefines it for everyone — not just those
who are seeking to have a so-called same gender marriage. It also
ignores the definition that the Lord Himself has given.
ELDER OAKS: There’s
another point that can be made on this. Let’s not forget that for
thousands of years the institution of marriage has been between a man
and a woman. Until quite recently, in a limited number of countries,
there has been no such thing as a marriage between persons of the same
gender. Suddenly we are faced with the claim that thousands of years of
human experience should be set aside because we should not discriminate
in relation to the institution of marriage. When that claim is made, the
burden of proving that this step will not undo the wisdom and stability
of millennia of experience lies on those who would make the change. Yet
the question is asked and the matter is put forward as if those who
believe in marriage between a man and a woman have the burden of proving
that it should not be extended to some other set of conditions.
PUBLIC AFFAIRS:
There are those who would say that that might have applied better in the
1950s or earlier than in the 21st century. If you look at several
nations in
ELDER OAKS: That
argument impresses me as something akin to the fact that if we agree
that the patient is sick and getting sicker, we should therefore approve
a coup de grace. The coup de grace which ends the patient’s life
altogether is quite equivalent to the drastic modification in the
institution of marriage that would be brought on by same-gender
marriage.
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: You
talked about the harm that could come on society by redefining marriage.
What would you say to those people who declare: “I know gay people who
are in long-term committed relationships. They’re great people. They
love each other. What harm is it going to do my marriage as a
heterosexual to allow them that same ‘rite?’
ELDER WICKMAN: Let
me say again what I said a moment ago. I believe that that argument is
true sophistry, because marriage is a unified institution. Marriage
means a committed, legally sanctioned relationship between a man and a
woman. That’s what it means. That’s what it means in the revelations.
That’s what it means in the secular law. You cannot have that marriage
coexisting institutionally with something else called same-gender
marriage. It simply is a definitional impossibility. At such point as
you now, as an institution, begin to recognize a legally-sanctioned
relationship, a committed relationship between two people of the same
gender, you have now redefined the institution to being one of
genderless marriage.
As we’ve mentioned
in answer to other questions, [genderless marriage] is contrary to God’s
law, to revealed Word. Scripture, ancient and modern, could not be
clearer on the definition that the Lord and His agents have given to
marriage down through the dispensations.
But it has a
profound effect in a very secular way on everybody else. What happens in
somebody’s house down the street does in very deed have an effect on
what happens in my house and how it’s treated. To suggest that in the
face of these millennia of history and the revelations of God and the
whole human pattern they have the right to redefine the whole
institution for everyone is presumptuous in the extreme and terribly
wrong-headed.
ELDER OAKS: Another
point to be made about this is made in a question. If a couple who are
cohabiting, happy, and committed to one another want to have their
relationship called a marriage, why do they want that? Considering what
they say they have, why do they want to add to it the legal status of
marriage that has been honored and experienced for thousands of years?
What is it that is desired by those who advocate same-gender marriage?
If that could be articulated on some basis other than discrimination,
which is not a very good argument, it would be easier to answer the
question that you have asked, and I think it would reveal the soundness
of what we’ve already heard.
There are certain
indicia of marriage — certain legal and social consequences and certain
legitimacy — which if given to some relationship other than marriage
between a man and a woman tend to degrade if not destroy the institution
that’s been honored over so many thousands of years.
In addition, if
people want to legalize a particular relationship, we need to be careful
if that kind of relationship has been disapproved for millennia.
Suddenly there’s a call to legalize it so they can feel better about
themselves. That argument proves a little too much. Suppose a person is
making a living in some illegal behavior, but feels uneasy about it. (He
may be a professional thief or he may be selling a service that is
illegal, or whatever it may be.) Do we go out and legalize his behavior
because he’s being discriminated against in his occupational choices or
because he doesn’t feel well about what he’s doing and he wants a ‘feel
good’ example, or he wants his behavior legitimized in the eyes of
society or his family? I think the answer is that we do not legalize
behavior for those reasons unless they are very persuasive reasons
brought forward to make a change in the current situation.
PUBLIC AFFAIRS:
Would you extend the same argument against same-gender marriage to civil
unions or some kind of benefits short of marriage?
ELDER WICKMAN: One
way to think of marriage is as a bundle of rights associated with what
it means for two people to be married. What the First Presidency has
done is express its support of marriage and for that bundle of rights
belonging to a man and a woman. The First Presidency hasn’t expressed
itself concerning any specific right. It really doesn’t matter what you
call it. If you have some legally sanctioned relationship with the
bundle of legal rights traditionally belonging to marriage and governing
authority has slapped a label on it, whether it is civil union or
domestic partnership or whatever label it’s given, it is nonetheless
tantamount to marriage. That is something to which our doctrine simply
requires us to speak out and say, “That is not right. That’s not
appropriate.”
As far as something
less than that — as far as relationships that give to some pairs in our
society some right but not all of those associated with marriage — as to
that, as far as I know, the First Presidency hasn’t expressed itself.
There are numbers of different types of partnerships or pairings that
may exist in society that aren’t same-gender sexual relationships that
provide for some right that we have no objection to. All that said…
there may be on occasion some specific rights that we would be concerned
about being granted to those in a same-gender relationship. Adoption is
one that comes to mind, simply because that is a right which has been
historically, doctrinally associated so closely with marriage and
family. I cite the example of adoption simply because it has to do with
the bearing and the rearing of children. Our teachings, even as
expressed most recently in a very complete doctrinal sense in the Family
Proclamation by living apostles and prophets, is that children deserve
to be reared in a home with a father and a mother.
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: On
the issue of a Constitutional amendment prohibiting same-gender
marriage, there are some Latter-day Saints who are opposed to
same-gender marriage, but who are not in favor of addressing this
through a Constitutional amendment. Why did the Church feel that it had
to step in that direction?
ELDER OAKS: Law has
at least two roles: one is to define and regulate the limits of
acceptable behavior. The other is to teach principles for individuals to
make individual choices. The law declares unacceptable some things that
are simply not enforceable, and there’s no prosecutor who tries to
enforce them. We refer to that as the teaching function of the law. The
time has come in our society when I see great wisdom and purpose in a
United States Constitutional amendment declaring that marriage is
between a man and a woman. There is nothing in that proposed amendment
that requires a criminal prosecution or that directs the attorneys
general to go out and round people up, but it declares a principle and
it also creates a defensive barrier against those who would alter that
traditional definition of marriage.
There are people who
oppose a federal Constitutional amendment because they think that the
law of family should be made by the states. I can see a legitimate
argument there. I think it’s mistaken, however, because the federal
government, through the decisions of life-tenured federal judges, has
already taken over that area. This Constitutional amendment is a
defensive measure against those who would ignore the will of the states
appropriately expressed and require, as a matter of federal law, the
recognition of same-gender marriages — or the invalidation of state laws
that require that marriage be between a man and a woman. In summary, the
First Presidency has come out for an amendment (which may or may not be
adopted) in support of the teaching function of the law. Such an
amendment would be a very important expression of public policy, which
would feed into or should feed into the decisions of judges across the
length and breadth of the land.
ELDER WICKMAN: Let
me just add to that, if I may. It’s not the Church that has made the
issue of marriage a matter of federal law. Those who are vigorously
advocating for something called same-gender marriage have essentially
put that potato on the fork. They’re the ones who have created a
situation whereby the law of the land, one way or the other, is going to
address this issue of marriage. This is not a situation where the Church
has elected to take the matter into the legal arena or into the
political arena. It’s already there.
The fact of the
matter is that the best way to assure that a definition of marriage as
it now stands continues is to put it into the foundational legal
document of the
Decisions even for
members of the Church as to what they do with respect to this issue must
of course rest with each one in their capacity as citizens.
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: The
emphasis that has been placed in this conversation on traditional
marriage between a man and a woman has been consistent throughout. Do
you see any irony in the fact that the Church is so publicly outspoken
on this issue, when in the minds of so many people in the
ELDER OAKS: I see
irony in that if one views it without the belief that we affirm in
divine revelation. The 19th century Mormons, including some of my
ancestors, were not eager to practice plural marriage. They followed the
example of Brigham Young, who expressed his profound negative feelings
when he first had this principle revealed to him. The Mormons of the
19th century who practiced plural marriage, male and female, did so
because they felt it was a duty put upon them by God.
When that duty was
lifted, they were directed to conform to the law of the land, which
forbad polygamy and which had been held constitutional. When they were
told to refrain from plural marriage, there were probably some who were
unhappy, but I think the majority were greatly relieved and glad to get
back into the mainstream of western civilization, which had been
marriage between a man and a woman. In short, if you start with the
assumption of continuing revelation, on which this Church is founded,
then you can understand that there is no irony in this. But if you don’t
start with that assumption, you see a profound irony.
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: What
about various types of support groups for those with same-gender
affliction?
ELDER WICKMAN: I
think we neither encourage nor discourage them, but much would depend on
the nature of those groups. We certainly discourage people getting
involved with any group or organization that foster living a homosexual
lifestyle.
Ultimately, the
wisest course for anybody who’s afflicted with same-gender attraction is
to strive to extend one’s horizon beyond just one’s sexual orientation,
one’s gender orientation, and to try to see the whole person. If I’m one
that’s afflicted with same-gender attraction, I should strive to see
myself in a much broader context… seeing myself as a child of God with
whatever my talents may be, whether intellect, or music, or athletics,
or somebody that has a compassion to help people, to see myself in a
larger setting and thus to see my life in that setting.
The more a person
can look beyond gender orientation, the happier and more fulfilling life
is likely to be. The worst possible thing for any of us — no matter what
our temptations, no matter what our mortal inclinations may be — is to
become fixated with them, to dwell on them. When we do that, not only do
we deny the other things that comprise us, but experience teaches that
there will be an increased likelihood that eventually we will simply
succumb to the inclination.
ELDER OAKS: The
principle that Elder Wickman has talked about, in a nutshell, is that if
you are trying to live with and maintain ascendancy over same-gender
attractions, the best way to do that is to have groups that define their
members in terms other than same-gender attractions.
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: If
you had to describe this enormously complex question in a couple of
basic principles, what would that be?
ELDER OAKS: God
loves all of His children. He has provided a plan for His children to
enjoy the choicest blessings that He has to offer in eternity. Those
choicest blessings are associated with marriage between a man and a
woman by appropriate priesthood authority to bring together a family
unit for creation and happiness in this life and in the life to come.
We urge persons with
same-gender attractions to control those and to refrain from acting upon
them, which is a sin, just as we urge persons with heterosexual
attractions to refrain from acting upon them until they have the
opportunity for a marriage recognized by God as well as by the law of
the land. That is the way to happiness and eternal life. God has given
us no commandment that He will not give us the strength and power to
observe. That is the Plan of Salvation for His children, and it is our
duty to proclaim that plan, to teach its truth, and to praise God for
the mission of His Son Jesus Christ. It is Christ’s atonement that makes
it possible for us to be forgiven of our sins and His resurrection that
gives us the assurance of immortality and the life to come. It is that
life to come that orients our views in mortality and reinforces our
determination to live the laws of God so that we can qualify for His
blessings in immortality.
PUBLIC AFFAIRS:
Thank you.
_____________________________________
Additional Resources
First Presidency letter to Church
leaders, 1994
A Proclamation to the World;
General Relief Society Mtg., Sept. 23, 1995
Oaks, Dallin H., “Same Gender
Attraction,” Ensign, Oct. 1995, p. 6
Hinckley, President Gordon B.,
What is your Church’s attitude toward homosexuality?, in response to
question from Larry King on Larry King Live, Ensign, Nov. 1998, p. 70
First Presidency Statement -
Marriage, 7 July 2004
"LDS Church Supports Gay-marriage
Bans" Deseret Morning News, 8 July 2004
First Presidency Statement -
Same-Gender Marriage, 19 Oct 2004
Other link: (content does not
necessarily reflect Church opinion) Richard John Neuhaus, First Things