Mormons and gay marriage

According to Mormon doctrine, homosexual is not a noun but rather an adjective to be applied to eith

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints officially announced this week its support for an amendment to California's constitution that would effectively ban gay marriage in one of the nation's most liberal states.

In a letter to be read out in Mormon churches all across California, LDS leaders urged members to “do all you can ... by donating of your means and time to assure that marriage is legally defined as being between a man and a woman”.

Although the church's actions really shouldn't come as a shock to anyone — Mormons have, after all, made no secret of their stance against same-sex marriage — the LDS Church's latest round of sabre-rattling has done little to clarify its somewhat complicated stance on homosexuality in general.

The LDS Church isn't anti-gay, per se. According to Mormon doctrine, homosexual is not a noun used to label a person, but rather an adjective to be applied to either actions or feelings. Therefore there are no homosexuals, only people with homosexual inclinations. Act on said inclinations, however, and you'll likely have some explaining to do.

It breaks down like this: openly homosexual Mormons are able, even encouraged, to participate fully in church ordinances provided they, like the rest of the unmarried population, abstain from sexual activity. In that sense, they are my brothers and sisters in both faith and a lifetime of sexual frustration. Dungeons and Dragons party at my house!

There is, however, that which will always separate openly gay Mormons from the hopelessly single like me: marriage. While traditional marriage is pushed on straight LDS churchgoers like new cell phone plans or free trial offers, the Mormon Church's stance on same-sex unions leaves their homosexual counterparts with little hope of hearing wedding bells in their futures.

Furthermore, if any member were to engage in homosexual activity, he or she would run the risk of facing disciplinary action from the church. The member in question would always be welcome in the congregation, but would likely have some privileges curtailed. It's hardly an ideal situation for homosexual Mormons, but at least no one is trying to stone them Leviticus-style anymore, right?

My views on same-sex marriage are a little more complicated. Because coming out (no pun intended) in open defiance of Mormon doctrine would doubtlessly lead to my arrest and subsequent reprogramming a la George's Orwell's 1984, I'll sidestep the theological minefield by saying I just don't see same-sex marriage as a religious issue.

Granted, the Bible is abundantly clear in its denunciation of hot, man-on-man action, but I still don't think any organisation — secular, religious or otherwise — ought to have a say in anything as intimate as a relationship between consenting adults.

While some Mormons back in Salt Lake will argue otherwise after reading this piece, I believe that your right to swing your fist ends precisely where my nose begins. In other words, we ought to be able to do as we please provided our actions don't detract from others' quality of life. If I, like some ill-informed right-wingers, believed same-sex marriage would unavoidably lead to hundreds of gays and lesbians having a Roman orgy on my kitchen floor, I might rethink my stance on the subject.

Even if homosexual activity is an express train to hell, who are we to stop others from boarding? I believe we will all be judged according to our own screw-ups, not those of our neighbours. Besides, I suspect a lot of us straight folk will one day find that we have seat reservations in precisely the same car.

Getty
Show Hide image

The New Times: Brexit, globalisation, the crisis in Labour and the future of the left

With essays by David Miliband, Paul Mason, John Harris, Lisa Nandy, Vince Cable and more.

Once again the “new times” are associated with the ascendancy of the right. The financial crash of 2007-2008 – and the Great Recession and sovereign debt crises that were a consequence of it – were meant to have marked the end of an era of runaway “turbocapitalism”. It never came close to happening. The crash was a crisis of capitalism but not the crisis of capitalism. As Lenin observed, there is “no such thing as an absolutely hopeless situation” for capitalism, and so we discovered again. Instead, the greatest burden of the period of fiscal retrenchment that followed the crash was carried by the poorest in society, those most directly affected by austerity, and this in turn has contributed to a deepening distrust of elites and a wider crisis of governance.

Where are we now and in which direction are we heading?

Some of the contributors to this special issue believe that we have reached the end of the “neoliberal” era. I am more sceptical. In any event, the end of neoliberalism, however you define it, will not lead to a social-democratic revival: it looks as if, in many Western countries, we are entering an age in which centre-left parties cannot form ruling majorities, having leaked support to nationalists, populists and more radical alternatives.

Certainly the British Labour Party, riven by a war between its parliamentary representatives and much of its membership, is in a critical condition. At the same time, Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership has inspired a remarkable re-engagement with left-wing politics, even as his party slumps in the polls. His own views may seem frozen in time, but hundreds of thousands of people, many of them young graduates, have responded to his anti-austerity rhetoric, his candour and his shambolic, unspun style.

The EU referendum, in which as much as one-third of Labour supporters voted for Brexit, exposed another chasm in Labour – this time between educated metropolitan liberals and the more socially conservative white working class on whose loyalty the party has long depended. This no longer looks like a viable election-winning coalition, especially after the collapse of Labour in Scotland and the concomitant rise of nationalism in England.

In Marxism Today’s “New Times” issue of October 1988, Stuart Hall wrote: “The left seems not just displaced by Thatcherism, but disabled, flattened, becalmed by the very prospect of change; afraid of rooting itself in ‘the new’ and unable to make the leap of imagination required to engage the future.” Something similar could be said of the left today as it confronts Brexit, the disunities within the United Kingdom, and, in Theresa May, a prime minister who has indicated that she might be prepared to break with the orthodoxies of the past three decades.

The Labour leadership contest between Corbyn and Owen Smith was largely an exercise in nostalgia, both candidates seeking to revive policies that defined an era of mass production and working-class solidarity when Labour was strong. On matters such as immigration, digital disruption, the new gig economy or the power of networks, they had little to say. They proposed a politics of opposition – against austerity, against grammar schools. But what were they for? Neither man seemed capable of embracing the “leading edge of change” or of making the imaginative leap necessary to engage the future.

So is there a politics of the left that will allow us to ride with the currents of these turbulent “new times” and thus shape rather than be flattened by them? Over the next 34 pages 18 writers, offering many perspectives, attempt to answer this and related questions as they analyse the forces shaping a world in which power is shifting to the East, wars rage unchecked in the Middle East, refugees drown en masse in the Mediterranean, technology is outstripping our capacity to understand it, and globalisation begins to fragment.

— Jason Cowley, Editor 

Tom Kibasi on what the left fails to see

Philip Collins on why it's time for Labour to end its crisis

John Harris on why Labour is losing its heartland

Lisa Nandy on how Labour has been halted and hollowed out

David Runciman on networks and the digital revolution

John Gray on why the right, not the left, has grasped the new times

Mariana Mazzucato on why it's time for progressives to rethink capitalism

Robert Ford on why the left must reckon with the anger of those left behind

Ros Wynne-Jones on the people who need a Labour government most

Gary Gerstle on Corbyn, Sanders and the populist surge

Nick Pearce on why the left is haunted by the ghosts of the 1930s

Paul Mason on why the left must be ready to cause a commotion

Neal Lawson on what the new, 21st-century left needs now

Charles Leadbeater explains why we are all existentialists now

John Bew mourns the lost left

Marc Stears on why democracy is a long, hard, slow business

Vince Cable on how a financial crisis empowered the right

David Miliband on why the left needs to move forward, not back

This article first appeared in the 22 September 2016 issue of the New Statesman, The New Times