Marriage is a Civil Right.

With Iowa's recent ruling the unconstitutionality of banning same-sex marriage and the upcoming elections in California and I assume elsewhere, I want to begin my arguments in support of gay marriage...again.

In this post, I will attempt to allow various definitions and whatnot to make the case for me (with some commentary of course). This is part one of a few posts I expect to write in order to make the case that same-sex marriage is indeed constitutional and the banning thereof a violation of one's civil rights, as well as another instance of the Church's misguided efforts. Readers will notice I offer backup links so they can look at the context and verify my sources themselves and that I also offer many different sources' definitions as to erase all question.

All arguments for and against my own are more than welcome. I understand some have made up their minds without intention of changing it as have I. The purpose of debates between two strongly opposing parties is to help those who haven't made up their mind or who are open to changing theirs to consider each side. While hardly a lawyer, I hope to make my case.

* * *

“civil right (right or rights belonging to a person by reason of citizenship including especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th amendments and subsequent acts of Congress including the right to legal and social and economic equality) (WordNet Search, Princeton University)

“A civil right is an enforceable right or privilege, which if interfered with by another gives rise to an action for injury. Examples of civil rights are freedom of speech, press, and assembly; the right to vote; freedom from involuntary servitude; and the right to equality in public places. Discrimination occurs when the civil rights of an individual are denied or interfered with because of their membership in a particular group or class. Statutes have been raised enacted to prevent discrimination based on a person’s race, sex, religion, age, previous condition of servitude, physical limitation, national origin, and in some instances sexual preference.” – Cornell University, Legal Information Institute, Civil Rights.

Wikipedia offers a few definitions of Civil Rights:
1) "Civil and political rights are a class of rights ensuring things such as the protection of peoples' physical integrity; procedural fairness in law; protection from discrimination based on gender, religion, race, etc; individual freedom of belief, speech, association, and the press; and political participation."

(Remember: gender and race weren’t always part of this list. They had to be fought for, which means some believed both women and black people had no claim on certain rights, such as to own property, to be free, to vote, etc. Do we disagree with this today?)

2) "Legal rights are rights that are bestowed by nations on those within their jurisdiction; they are sometimes also called civil rights in common law jurisdictions. Contrast with natural rights or human rights, which many scholars claim that individuals have by nature of being born.

3) "Civil rights, in civil law jurisdictions, are rights or powers which can be exercised under civil law, which includes things such as the ability to contract. In civil law jurisdictions, lawsuits between private parties for things such as breach of contract or a tort are usually expressed in terms of infringement of a civil right." (emphasis added).

(Remember, marriage is a contract)

Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment of The U.S. Constitution:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The Fourteenth Amendment has been used to argue for many rights, including marriage rights such as in interracial marriage. We must remember, for a time the definition of "marriage" either directly or indirectly included "between two members of the same race." Interracial marriage went against the generally accepted notion of what was not only moral but natural and God ordained. If this wasn't so, there would be no need for various court cases including California's 1948 case Perez v. Sharp and the U.S. Supreme Court's 1967 case Loving v. Virginia. Both of which concluded that marriage is a right.

And finally:

Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

(Isn’t marriage part of pursuit of happiness for those who pursue it?)


Not all rights we recognize and enjoy today have always existed. We've had to fight against racism and sexism to assert the equality our Constitution rightly demands. It is not in our interest to judge others who wish to pursue their own happiness, a happiness most recognize as selfless and beneficial to both those involved and those not involved. It's God's job to judge. According to many, there are heterosexual marriages of which God will not recognize, but we allow it because we believe straight sex to be "moral" - but only in the bonds of marriage.

And this, everyone, is what kills me.

First we tell everyone sex outside marriage is unacceptable to God and provokes his wrath. We essentially give everyone this choice: be celibate outside of marriage or go to hell. We tell everyone if they’re gay they can’t marry one of their same sex - but they can marry someone of the opposite sex (so very respectful to the poor straight partner, whether or not he/she is aware).

If anyone has ever been compelled to pretend to be something they're not for fear of invoking the wrath of those with authority over them (parents, teachers, a church), they will understand the horrendousness of such a suggestion to be straight when one is gay.

So now that we've ensured gay people cannot marry one another, if they have sex, they’ve not just the sin of homosexual sex on their hands but fornication as well. We’ve dug that grave deeper for them, taking their freedom of agency from them, first by telling them they cannot marry and then by saying because they're not married they can't have sex.

(By the way, nobody has ever said any Church would be forced by law to sanction such unions. If need be, I can dig up the specific wording of both the May 15, 2008 California ruling and the most recent Iowa ruling.)

Before we demand lifelong celibacy out of anyone, I suggest we consider what it would be like for us - and this doesn't just include marriage but dating, too and anything which we believe God would consider sinful or lustful outside marriage. And we've quite a list of "no-no's" which even the most faithful have difficulty following. Because we don't want to be alone, and even God has said it is not good for man to be alone.

So why marriage?

Marriage provides stability (for children). Marriage provides security (for children). Marriage forces us to act like adults and commit. It does not point a gun to anyone's head to force anyone to accept it, God especially. Not everyone who marries is religious anyway.

The fact is we all have our own beliefs and we all teach our children those beliefs despite the world who may or may not fight against them. But this is no theocracy. I cannot say that enough, and that is why so many like me reject with zeal and with even patriotism that no religion's beliefs should even try to impede on non-member's lives. And that is what this is all about.

Many straight couples/individuals today engage in behavior which I would consider detrimental to the family unit, yet we don't fight against them because it is their right to do so and my right to avoid them and their behavior. That makes the "it's moral" argument incomplete. If we're so concerned, we ought to legislate against all couples who, in our eyes, morally threaten the sanctity of marriage/the family regardless of sexual orientation.

Fear of marriage is unfounded. Fear of having any religion led by men dictate our laws and what constitutes a right is totally founded (I don't care if he's the Prophet, he's still a man).

The Church was wrong about blacks and interracial marriage and expressed racist statements in official settings which lend to the impression of divine authority and blessing. Later they argued their beliefs were merely due to the times and culture of which they grew up and belonged in, and further that they were working with limited knowledge. Fair enough - but they can be and I believe are wrong regarding gay marriage today in much the same fashion.

Better Safe Than Sorry

I’ve noticed lately many in the bloggernacle referencing the Word of Wisdom when it states “adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints, who are or can be called saints” (D&C 89:3) This has been attributed to many issues which are brought up when there is no other answer. Why take off my earrings? Well, maybe because the weakest of the saints need to learn how to be obedient. If they follow the little things they will be more apt to follow the bigger things. In essence many are saying we must follow every Pharisaical guideline because it's the safest way to ensure we don't do something wrong.

Apparently we cannot be trusted. Better safe than sorry.

Here's the thing: I may be a child of God, but I'm not a child. I'm not someone to be coddled or mistrusted as a human with uncontrollable urges, one who needs to be placed in a padded room to be kept safe from all evil at all costs. We would never do this to our own children. We allow them to learn for themselves. I'll teach them my ways and they'll give or take and I am to accept that because they are individual people. I am to trust in my ability to teach them and in their ability to discern and govern themselves when they become of age.

When it comes to Church, though, we are far too often saved from ourselves, spared the horrors of sin. The problem is that a person loses all ability to trust in themselves and in essence, their agency. Let the Church tell me what to do because I don't know if I should.

No? That’s not how it goes? I might have an Apostle publicly shame me for refusing to remove an earring, but the Church won't tell me what to do? I am not able to choose for myself when it's drink a cup of coffee or be "worthy" for the temple - for most, that's an easy decision. It shouldn't have to be a decision, though. I don't see how the crime fits the punishment anymore.

Just as we allow others, I want to be allowed to worship when, where, and how I may. I want to be able, even encouraged, to doubt and question and debate. If we are not to criticize our leaders, I would hope they would refrain from criticizing me for the very same reasons. If our leaders are fallible, then I shouldn't be encouraged to revere them as if they were because they're not, even when they're behind the pulpit.

Are we not to criticize Elder Mark E. Petersen for his abhorrently racist comments? We reject them now, but what of then? President Kimball for his ridiculous claim that masturbation leads to homosexuality? How about a good bishop who tells a tearful sister that leaving her abusive husband will only result in her being responsible for every bad thing that should befall her children?

Or are we supposed to remain quiet and faithfully bow our heads and say yes? Many do. Better safe than sorry.

Elder Ballard argues that "Discussions focused on questioning, debating, and doubting gospel principles do little to build the kingdom of God" and continues to say that to do so is to show shame in the gospel. Again, and I know there's an overarching theme here through many of my entries, but we should not be so damned concerned with the Church as we should be with the individual! Not every question is rooted in a dark desire to disrupt the Kingdom. I'd say most if not all aren't.

It takes an unbelievable amount of courage to question. Un-be-lievable, and yet we are so quick to shut a person down before they even start because to do so is seen as aggressive. So what does one do when they find the courage to question and discover the insufficient answers? I feel this shouldn't be about "The" church or any church, but about our individual selves and our personal relationship with God. Guidance is fine. Teach me the principles and allow me to govern myself, but for heaven's sake let me govern myself!

We're famous for saying we have agency, but where is the choice? Heaven or hell. The Church or hell-bound Apostasy. A social network or spiritual and emotional exile. You pick. Stay in the ship or jump overboard and drown as Brigham Young alluded. It is tantamount to an ultimatum. I'll theorize most who jump decide their own brand of agnosticism is the only realistic and comfortable alternative and go on to lead successful and happy lives.

While a person may not fit in a congregation or feel at home in a religion, they do fit in with God somewhere, somehow. I trust in that more than I trust in those who may mean well but can't see beyond their fear enough to actually have faith in God and allow me the same. The problem with our church as I see it is that we're not given this. It's all or nothing. Some try to find or forge a middle road but I don't see how it can be done. The road is too narrow for a middle road. It's all or nothing. Black or white. Others have tried to argue otherwise, but I just cannot see it. We preach His way or the highway.

Before you joined this Church you stood on neutral ground. When the gospel was preached good and evil were set before you. You could choose either or neither. There were two opposite masters inviting you to serve them. When you joined this Church you enlisted to serve God. When you did that you left the neutral ground, and you never can get back on to it. Should you forsake the Master you enlisted to serve it will be by the instigation of the evil one, and you will follow his dictation and be his servant.

- Joseph Smith

The Church wrongly places dissent on the same stage as contention and betrayal when contention is bred when dissent is silenced or casually dismissed with quick and easy answers to complicated questions and concerns. Every question one asks of their leader too often comes with an answer rooted in just a sliver of truth. This is enough to make a person second-guess themselves. That's the hook, and if we don't know any better, we're loathe to stay in the ship because we're told we can't swim, that nobody can in the worldly waters infested with ideals ready to eat us alive. Stay in where it's safe, where we'll be saved. Better safe than sorry.

I can't buy that. Not anymore.

Wickedness Never Was Happiness

Do not suppose, because it has been spoken concerning restoration, that ye shall be restored from sin to happiness. Behold, I say unto you, wickedness never was happiness.

-Alma 41:10

Most every time I've felt unhappy I've heard someone quote this scripture. If that didn’t happen, you can bet I’ve remembered past lessons I've had in church – the crux of each were: unhappy people are unhappy because they’re doing something they shouldn’t.It’s lovely, really.

Why don't I buy that? How many of us do? And how much does it suck when we're being "good" and are still unhappy? I’ve had so many of those moments, moments where I was about as Molly as you could get and still had down days. I had family that disapproved of my new religion, school, that sort of thing. My heart was totally in the church, and yet someone always brought up that damn scripture as if shaking a finger if I was having a bad day. The insinuation, if not downright accusation always was, "Well then you must have something to repent of, hmm?"

I wasn't perfect by all means then and I'm certainly not now, but if I'm doing all I can shouldn't there be room enough for a different reason for my having a hard time? Is it really that easy?There's so much guilt. I don't think people pass it on with any malice (maybe there are a few self-righteous morons who do). President Hinckley always said we're doing good but we could be doing better. I liked that, but some took it to an extreme and others felt they could never be good enough, either by their own merits or due to uninvited commentary.

Read the whole verse in its context. It's saying we cannot live a carnal, unlawful life and expect later to live in eternal glory with Heavenly Father. That's the teaching. I think that's all Alma was saying.Happiness requires a certain amount of heart and authenticity with self and others. Unhappiness has all sorts of roots. For some, unhappiness stems from a chemical imbalance in the brain. For some it's a matter of outside, uncontrollable influences that directly affect their lives. For some it's a matter of God refining us. For some it could be due to unwise and downright horrible choices, perhaps in trying to avoid life instead of confront it and deal with it. Sometimes it's because they're living a lie and haven't been able to deal with it. They don't know if they should or can talk with anyone.

True happiness comes from following God, sure. I would add that true happiness comes when we're brutally honest with ourselves and our surroundings and come to terms with it all with God's blessing. We can pretend and ignore all the unpleasantness and call ourselves happy. We'll look happy to others. We can do all the "right" things and still not be happy. It is possible, but it’s not fun. We’re not to be Stepford children of God, but just children of God.

The Gospel is full of good guidelines to help us attain the kind of lasting happiness we all need. It is true doing bad things won't bring us happiness, but in our very small and well-defined box of what is "good" we tend to miss that perhaps other people are happy even if they aren't reading their scriptures every day. Are they missing out on something? Sure, though I imagine it depends on one’s motives in reading the scriptures: out of dutiful, dreary obligation or out of a real desire to learn?

I've endured too many Sundays that were anything but restful even to my spirit. I've had good and spiritual Sundays as well, but definitely enough soul-biting days as to bring me complete frustration. Some may say I was perhaps not being too lenient but too strict. That would be a fair argument; there was a time I feared riding the line in case I inadvertently fell over on the wrong side one day. But I wasn’t happy.

There has to be a wicked-free medium. I’m always searching as I’ve found an ultra-strict lifestyle often leads to unhappiness – at least for me. I’ve found as long as I do everything with prayer I’ll be fine. The guilt still gets to me on bad days, though, that perhaps I'm not being righteous enough and if I'd just get back in line and suck it up all will be well. After all, there were those in more difficult circumstances than I and they did it, right? Sing with me now:

Pioneer children sang as they walked and walked and walked…

But were they happy? I don't know. I can't say. I do think it’s dangerous to assume they were – that anyone is – and then tell those who are struggling that they should not only do what they’re asked, but do it with a smile because, after all, the pioneers suffered even more or because the Relief Society president has much more of a burden on her shoulders.

The problem is the impression that we're either righteous or wicked. It really adds to much anxiety, insecurity, and overzealousness. We all know that bad things happen to good people and good things happen to bad people. Our happiness is not always a measure of our righteousness, and it’s dangerous to teach that it is.

Posted also at Feminist Mormon Housewives.