The Most Significant Electoral Defeat for Mormons (it’s not Romney)

It’s not Mitt Romney’s loss. His candidacy was enough to add a crescendo to the “Mormon moment” of the last few years, a moment Otterson rightly says is not so much a moment but part of a long arc of increasing recognition and acceptance. A Romney presidency would of course have been an incredible milestone, but a milestone on a marathon that neither began nor will end with Romney.

No, in the long view, I think there is another election result from last night that will have more pervasive and significant impact on Mormonism going forward. Yesterday, voters in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington voted in favor of marriage equality.

Prior to yesterday, the anti-gay-marriage side had a long and essentially flawless record at the ballot box. Marriage equality’s only victories came through the courts, and a few friendly legislatures. In dozens of initiative votes, even (and most famously) in left-coast-liberal California, gay marriage was a loser any time voters had a direct say. National Organization for Marriage was pitching a perfect game.

Last night that tide turned in spectacular fashion: not a would-be perfect game spoiled by a single hit, but a grand slam clean sweep by gay rights advocates in 4 out of 4 races.

Let me be clear: the church was totally absent from the campaigns in all cases. In fact, we likely hurt and disappointed many erstwhile allies in the process. So you’ll notice I’m not calling a defeat of Mormons. But it is certainly a defeat for Mormons, or, at least, a certain kind of Mormonism that seems to have reached its peak with our Prop 8 involvement.

As the country enters what looks like it will be a permanent and dramatic realignment on this issue, how will the church approach the issue or adapt over time? What does this mean for us?


  1. Change we can believe in.

  2. When you paint yourself into a corner your options are limited. All you can do is destroy what you’ve done and start over, or wait for the paint to dry. Good luck.

  3. That issue is over, Mormons who are opposed to same-sex marriage have lost and will only be on the wrong side of history at this point. It’s time to recognize it and move on.

  4. The church won’t change anything, just look at The Family Proclamation. They stated their stance years ago. You may consider it the wrong side of history, but I promise you we are on the right side of the Lord!

  5. My husband had a really hard day today in Seattle with a lot (A LOT!) of people gloating over Obama’s win, gay marriage passing, legalization of marijuana, governor win, senator win, house district win, the list goes on. Somehow, charter schools passage wasn’t enough to cheer him. He came home wanting to move.

  6. My guess is that the church will keep keep its head down on the political side of things without giving any on the doctrinal side: We’ll still hear in conference about how the adversary is attacking the family as never before, gay marriage will be increasingly accepted in mainstream society, and the bloggernacle will keep debating the same old points over and over. In short, everybody wins!

  7. I think that someone will pull out a bunch of quotes about the right of consenting adults to choose what kinds of relationships and marriages they choose, as the reason the the LDS church supports protections for non-traditional marriages. (Polygamy apologists left plenty of good historical material useful for that.)

    At the same time, there will be a push for states to have complete control over their marriage laws. The church will also make a very bright line about the differences between a civil marriage and a temple sealing, potentially leading to civil marriages preceding sealing, as happens in many parts of the world already.

    How same sex marriage gets thrown in, as those changes happen, and how the church includes or excludes gays, will largely depend on who the GAs are and who is prophet when the inevitable happens. (A couple of deaths before becoming prophet could potentially make that a smoother transition, but who is in what position will certainly impact how quickly and easily some of those transitions are for members and the church as a whole.)

    I hope that no matter the exact road, that love will be the guide for all members of the church, as the road is negotiated.

  8. The church doesn’t have to change anything, but politically same-sex marriage will be a loser in all but the most conservative states in this country. Mormons who expect to have political parties to have national success with a “Traditional-Marriage” platform will see defeat after defeat. This country, especially young voters, have moved on from this issue. It doesn’t matter what we believe. It matters what the 60 million Americans who just elected our president believe.

  9. The most significant defeat for the church is when its members gloat over its defeats.

  10. My own opinion is that homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is a wonderful gift from God, not to be despised but to be cherished. I am one of a number of gay people returning to activity in the church, open and confident in our relationship with the Savior.

    In these last times, God has clarified hearts with regard to slavery, women’s place in society, race issues, and now homosexuality. This is a wonderful moment when the hearts of gay folks are being turned to the gospel and straight allies within the church have been moved to march for marriage equality and otherwise support the cause of inclusion and love.

    It may be that continuing revelation will set aside things we think we know in favor of a greater truth. It is not my place to say either way. But I know what I feel when I pray, and I wait and hope for greater light and knowledge.

  11. I’ve seen “gloat” here twice for behavior that the winning side would no doubt consider “celebrating.”

    Being happy about an outcome you earnestly hoped for isn’t gloating, unless it involves malicious satisfaction in the suffering of others, which I haven’t seen here. Word meanings matter.

  12. In twenty years people will think of us exactly like they did in 1977. Will people still be saying we are on the right side of the Lord?

  13. Jack, I don’t think the church was running in the election. Romney ran as a Republican that avoided his Mormon faith, except to try to beef up his “compassionate” credentials, by having members bear their “testimonies” about their experiences with him as a Bishop or Stake President.

    Having people, no matter what their religion, excited to see that their political beliefs were confirmed in a national election, is always going to bring excitement, (which you can interpret as gloating if you want) and speculation about the future. I can understand that those who worked hard and expected to win, are disappointed and aren’t quite ready to move on. Especially for those who thought that there would be a Mormon Miracle on election night, and connected their faith in the gospel to a faith in a leader who is Mormon, that the sting is even worse. There may be some who want to rub salt in the wounds of those “on the losing side,” but I think for those who never saw Romney as having a chance to win, the moving on to the future started as soon as the race was called.

    I don’t see a loss for the LDS church at all. Millions of people know that the church exists, and most have at least heard a fairly thorough argument as to why it isn’t a cult. The surge in missionaries will find people with lots of questions for those missionaries to answer. All over the world, there are discussions that include the word Mormon, for the first time. I go into a lot more detail about my thoughts about post-election possibilities here.

    I hope that as the hurt feelings calm down that there won’t be too many people who are bitter about the changes to the country’s and the church’s demographics.

  14. I think it would be wise for the church to separate temple sealing from marriage. Let marriage take place civilly outside the temple by the laws of the country and then afterward a temple sealing if the couple desires. This the model for many lds marriages outside the US follow. De-conflating marriage with temple sealing would have the added benefit of allowing all friends and family to attend and celebrate a wedding whilst emphasizing a sealing as its own independent, important ordnance.

  15. JennyP1969 says:

    It won’t take 20 years.

    I’ve had a fair amount of gay friends in my life. One of my college roommates begged me to plead to my Mormon God to “fix” her–she so wanted to be straight and not gay. She commented over 40 years ago, when very few had emerged from the closet:
    “Everyone condemns us as immoral. Yet society offers
    no acceptable way to be moral — there is no acceptance
    of being how you were made and no marriage for couples
    deeply in love.”
    As the decades have passed, I’ve learned to really “hear” gays’ hopes, pains, sorrows, loneliness, bullying, exclusion, dreams, longings, and slowly emerging confidence and self-worth. Knowing gay people, working with them, teaching them, worshipping with them, walking side-by-side…well….it changes you for the good forever. Amen.

    Some have called them, “Them,” in self-righteous whispered tones, and many more have thought it. Im ashamed that I was once one such. They consider these to be the most least among us. I believe the Savior has been very clear about how He views the things we say and do (and think) unto them…the least of these. And I wish, just once, that our church would lead the way in social and moral change, like Jesus did, rather than being the last to use the light we’ve been given.

  16. Safe guess: The Church will stick to Conference talks about the subject for the foreseeable future.

    Less safe guess: The Church will issue something about this in the Newsroom, and aside from a small media flurry, that will be that.

    Completely unfounded guess: T minus 10 years to first openly-gay general authority.

  17. I don’t expect the church to change its position on same-sex marriage any time in the near future or in my lifetime. (Granted, I don’t expect to live that long.) If they could hold out until 1978 on giving blacks the priesthood, they can certainly wait a very long time to address the issue of eternal homosexual unions. Perhaps even forever. I do expect same-sex marriage to be sanctioned in all 50 states within the next decade, and with the civil definition of marriage being so drastically different from the church’s, I imagine the church will make a sharper distinction between civil marriage and the sealing ordinance, and probably they will eventually separate the two ceremonies (which, ideally, they would be doing already, but that’s another issue).

  18. Jack–Mitt Romney is not the Church. Nor is he the same as President Monson or a living prophet.
    I believe the General Authorities of our Church when they say moral values are found in both political parties so
    they don’t tell us which party to always align with. If either party was immoral, as with Prop. 8, we would be
    informed by them as to the choice God decrees. Some LDS people fasted and prayed that Romney would win.
    They said it would be omen if he won. If the Lord needs or wants someone somewhere, it happens.
    This didn’t and He knows why. It didn’t throw Him a curve ball and doom His plans. Maybe he heard the prayers of people who lost their homes and savings due to health care bills that no one but Mitt Romney and the other 1% could pay. Maybe He expected Romney to use his 200 million dollars to create some jobs but he never did.
    Or maybe He wants to shield and protect Romney from being tainted and spotted by the world because he’s so innocent and pure. Only He knows. Just accept it.

  19. Dan Weston says:

    It is said that someone once asked Carl Sagan if he was worried about the future of the Earth because of human-caused global warming, he supposedly replied: “Of course not. The Earth will be just fine…it is the future of human beings that I am worried about.”

    Gays have long since moved on with SSM since Prop 8. The primary concern of LDS leadership now has to be to ensure the cohesion of the membership and preventing and deterring intramural (and especially geographic and intergenerational) strains from occurring. Recognizing this reality is not a sign of failure, but rather the beginning of wisdom. I think it likely that pastoral concerns will dominate over doctrinal ones in picking future battles.

  20. #14 TK has captured what I think is the best solution.

  21. Why take a nuanced stance, striking a compromise between accepting civil marriages and sealings? It would be a compromise due to political pressure and popular opinion, not a principled stand based on religion. Why not just get ahead of the curve and allow gay couples to be sealed?

    That would raise a few more questions: Do married gay men have two priesthood holders in the home, and married lesbian women have none? So let’s avoid those problems by getting ahead of the curve on gender issues, too, and ordain women to the priesthood.

    We should probably try to anticipate the next trend as well and get a head start on that, since it would help us look prophetic, not just reactive. And I think the direction of that trend is none other than acceptance of polygamy. If it’s a biological fact that some men are attracted to men, not women, it’s certainly a biological fact that some men are attracted to multiple women. And some men are attracted to multiple men. And some women are attracted to multiple men, or women, or both. Let’s stop placing artificial limits on who can love whom. Proponents of marriage equality say, “People should be allowed to marry whomever they want.” But they usually don’t mean it. Let’s be the first to actually embrace that idea. Given our history with polygamy, we’re in a unique position to do so.

    Let’s base the only restrictions on who can marry on common sense, not on outdated moral ideas–or ideas that will soon become outdated. For instance, it makes sense to prohibit a brother and a sister from marrying each other, because there’s a legitimate interest in preventing inbreeding. But there’s no such problem if gay siblings want to marry. So the former should be prohibited and the latter allowed. But wait, you say. This could get ridiculous. There’s no limit to how large a polygamous gay family could be! Of course there is. The number of spouses would be limited to the number of people who can actually share an intimate family life together. Three LGBT men and two LGBT women is reasonable. A hundred is not. There’d be no bright line; just case-by-case consideration of the dictates of common sense.

    Now all that’s left is to convince the less-enlightened membership that this came via revelation or at least some minimal level of nebulous inspiration, rather than from a desire to be popular and trendy.

  22. #21 – Your comment reminds me of a conversation I had with my sister about how ignoring the spirit of the Word of Wisdom could lead to ignoring other, more important doctrinal prohibitions. She ended her harangue with this gem “When you can blithely justify drinking caffeinated beverages, it’s not very long before you can justify things like abortion.”

  23. Personally, I have been fascinated to watch the Church NOT take a stand anywhere but one single state. Not in any country or state that voted on the issue before CA, and in none since. I wonder why. I really wonder about the CA saints who did what they thought was right (by participating or not) and got judged and reamed by their neighbors or saints that disagreed with them. Even here on the other side of the country, I know people who got REALLY wrapped up in prop.8–who feel that their testimony was formed or destroyed with prop. 8. People who really true felt the Church needed to make that stand must be very disheartened to see them blithely ignore the other races.

  24. Meldrum the Less says:

    How can we Mormons yammer on about unconventional marriages such as those between the same sex and not even mention POLYGAMY? Is this not straining at knats and swallowing camels?

    Plural marriage is still with us. Estimates of 30,000 involved in it in the western US. Still have the DC 132 unedited. Still allow it in the next life. They still recruit primarily and often successfully from us. Not going away.

    From the perspective of Wilford Woodruff in 1889, there is every reason now to push for legalization of plural marriage. And our fundy cousins who cling to their wives and united orders should be given their rights out of a sense of fairness? Do you think anyone living in 1890 could have guessed that it would only be difficult, not impossible to continue practicing it and only for about a century or perhaps less, not forever?

    Don’t tell my wife about these comments. ;)

  25. All_Blacks says:

    OP “As the country enters what looks like it will be a permanent and dramatic realignment on this issue”

    Your country is slowly entering what loods like a Sodom and Gomorra nation ……..with all of its consequences.. (or maybe its a part gog and magog with the US as gog??)

    @24 “How can we Mormons yammer on about unconventional marriages such as those between the same sex and not even mention POLYGAMY?”

    Part of the US problem. Notice that polygamist marriages are STILL outlawed, because mormons did that, but the barbaric and evil pratice of homosexual copulation is now ‘legalized’ in several states…..At least ploygamy, when practiced between consenting adults, produces children who bless this world. Gay sex doesn’t.

  26. All_Blacks says:

    @23 “Personally, I have been fascinated to watch the Church NOT take a stand anywhere but one single state. Not in any country or state that voted on the issue before CA, and in none since. I wonder why.”

    The problem in CA, as I saw it, was that I think 3 judges overturned the collective will of the people. That’s what I saw as the main point of that letter the first presidency mailed out and their main concern. Plus there was also the need to get a message across to mormons that the church does not allow gay sex nor gay marriages nor wants judges to create laws as they do in common law nations like GB, Canada etc. With CA they seemed to reach both goals.

  27. Snyderman says:

    Travis (21), couple questions:

    1) Do you think the revelation on blacks and the Priesthood came because of revelation or because of a “desire to be popular and trendy?” Because I see the argument going either way.

    2) Differentiating between civil marriages and temple sealings is already done in other countries. Thus, the Church seems to have already morally condoned approaching the problem that way. Why is this approach kowtowing here but not in other places? Or if it is kowtowing in other countries as well, why is it not a “principled stance based on religion?”

  28. As to the question: “how will the church approach the issue or adapt over time?”,The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the restored Church of Jesus Christ, which means its leaders have the authority and obligation to lead it according to revelation, as the Lord shall see fit to give from time to time to His servants. That means that the Church will follow the course set by the President and the Apostles, which is to say, the course set by His own voice. We can speculate until kingdom come about the issue of same-sex marriage, but such speculation amounts to a simple pass time. The path to actually follow is the one set by the living oracles. They will make that path clear.

    As to the question: “What does this mean for us?”, supposing the “this” is the growing socio-political acceptance of same-sex marriages, it means we continue to do what we have always done. We strive to live the restored Gospel, making and keeping covenants, and heeding to the direction set by the Lord’s anointed servants. All we need to know is that He will show us the way. We are commanded, indeed, to be still and know that He is God. In the end, everything works out for the greater good of God’s children.

    To me all things relating to the Gospel are that simple. The Church is true. The Lord guides it through His chosen servants. If we follow them and keep our covenants through righteous living, everything will work out.

  29. #15: “And I wish, just once, that our church would lead the way in social and moral change, like Jesus did, rather than being the last to use the light we’ve been given.”

    Amen & amen.

  30. I see this as an opportunity for myself to live what I usually read about, like the civil rights movement and the priesthood ban. I can only keep my eyes and ears wide open as to how the Church will align itself with this new reality.

    Because I know there will be many within the Church telling pretty stories that will hardly reflect what really happened: “We always knew it was wrong to discriminate them, but we were only being obedient, therefore we were right to do so. We have never been homophobic. The real homophobic ones were a few rogue members but was never a generalized sentiment in the church. The things said were never doctrines, they were folk, and were never really sanctioned by the Church so there needs be no apology. BLAH BLAH BLAH ETC ETC ETC.”

    I will do my part to keep things as true to what really happened as possible, because I know there will be people trying their darnest to re-write history once again.

  31. The Church can change its operational policies, cultural and political views, application of rules, etc, anytime it wants to. What isn’t doctrine isn’t and sometimes we mistake thought/belief/ideas/opinions with doctrine. We can only pray for continued light…gosh that sounds corny, but it’s the growing up of a kingdom.

  32. @#27 Snyderman:
    1) I think that the 1978 policy change was precipitated by popular opinion, as was the ban in the first place. The growing unpopularity of racial discrimination prompted church leaders to reconsider, and once they were ready to accept racial equality and went to the Lord about it, He confirmed the decision. The big difference here is that in 1978, the Church was reversing a policy that was not given by any recorded revelation, was not canonized in scripture (although various scriptures were cited to defend it), and had been seen all along as temporary. To accept gay marriage, the Church would have to repudiate the Proclamation, de-canonize or disingenuously explain away ancient and modern scripture, and retool fundamental doctrines.
    2) In countries that do not civilly recognize temple sealings, the sealing is performed after the civil authority has recognized the marriage. Extrapolating from this fact to an argument that the Church should accept gay marriages so long as they aren’t sealed in the temple is a quantum leap without justification. The Church operates temples in Argentina, Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands, Spain, South Africa, and Sweden, all of which require LDS couples to be civilly married outside the temple before the sealing. And all of those countries civilly recognize gay marriage. Yet in none of those countries does the Church condone homosexual relationships.
    Irrespective of what the secular laws may be, the Church differentiates between civil marriage and temple marriage. A civilly married heterosexual couple does not violate the law of chastity, even though they aren’t sealed. So the Church recognizes that there is an important status to heterosexual marriage, even if it’s a marriage performed by purely secular authority. That’s not kowtowing; that’s our doctrine. Nor is it kowtowing to comply with the law where the law refuses to recognize temple sealings as civil marriages. That’s how we comply with our commandments, which require us to be “legally and lawfully wedded.”

  33. Travis, you should edit your list of countries. I don’t claim to know about all the others, but Canada definitely does not require couples to be married civilly before they are sealed in the temple.

  34. I think this whole debate comes down to one central issue: Is this church guided by revelation in a specific and concrete way? Is Jesus Christ really the one calling the shots, at least on the most important matters? Or are these doctrinal positions primarily the result of the opinions of the individuals who currently happen to form the leadership of the Church? When they say they receive “revelation,” do they mean that they pray about it and feel either generally warm and fuzzy or reticent and uneasy, the same way that I’m sure leaders and laypersons of all religions seek guidance? Or are the heavens more open than that; the revelation more explicit? Is there anything special about the kind of revelation our church receives?

  35. “…had been seen all along as temporary.” There is quite a bit of room for debate on this. I think you have oversimplified it.

  36. @#33 Romni: Sorry about that. I was under the impression that the United States was the only country that recognized temple sealings as civilly efficacious.

  37. Travis, you can substitute Canada for Mexico. We have legally recognized same sex marriages in Mexico City and for legal purposes, a religious ceremony will not be recognized as a legal marriage by government/legal entities.

  38. Travis (32):

    1) What about the revelation given to Peter to preach the Gospel to and baptize the Gentiles? Wasn’t that a policy backed by revelation that was reversed?

    2) I may have misunderstood you. I thought you were saying that instituting a policy in the U.S. wherein civil marriages are separate from (and probably prior to) temple sealings in and of itself was wrong. Is that what you were saying? Or did I misunderstand? Are you only saying it’s wrong to condone same-sex marriages?

  39. rameumptom says:

    I read Matthew 23 as Jesus’ attack on the social justice of his day. They were doing many things that seemed good on the outside, but spiritually decayed the souls of men. I’ve seen modern social justice regulate the poor until traditional families are hard to find. The poor, which used to be among the most spiritual, are now seeking solutions and “salvation” from government, rather than from Christ. While some may claim that any kind of relationship outside of traditional marriage is liberating and socially just, there is a part of me that can see Jesus calling any change that reduces His program, such as eternal families, into something else, as unholy and damnable.

  40. @#38 Snyderman:
    1) I’m not sure if the antecedent of “that” in your second sentence was the initial prohibition on preaching to Gentiles or the subsequent revelation commanding it. At any rate, I think it’s clear that God introduced the higher law at the time of Christ, and gave a revelation explicitly commanding that the gospel be preached to the Gentiles. If that’s the precedent that we’ll rely upon in order to justify doing a 180 and going from condemning to condoning homosexual relations, then I think the precedent requires a clear revelation from God.
    2) I think I was misreading #14 and #17. They seem to be arguing that the Church should divorce secular and the ecclesiastical aspects of a temple marriage. (There are good reasons to oppose that idea, but I won’t get into it right here.) I thought they were advocating a position in which the Church says to its gay members, “Well, okay, I guess you can cohabitate and get married; just not in the temple.” And I was arguing that such a position would be satisfying to no one, a compromise of our moral teachings, and would inevitably lead to further erosions.

  41. Cynthia, that is an excellent point. I think the church should embrace the marriage equality act, but only if we can have polygamy back. It’s only fair. (/not serious)

    Hmmm. Are sister wives considered sealed to each other? That could be used as a precedent.

  42. “how will the church approach the issue or adapt over time?”

    In a word, slowly.

    While several factors are accelerating the rate of change when it comes to social issues like gay marriage (e.g., increasing education levels, increased urbanization, increased overall mobility, increased flow of information from that series of tubes, etc.), the church’s decision-making structure means that change will come only after consensus has been reached among 15 conservative, elderly, white men. As a result, I predict that the gap between the church’s position and the position of society more generally on the gay marriage issue will be significantly wider than the gap that existed on the question of blacks and the priesthood in 1978 before any meaningful change comes. I don’t expect to see this in my lifetime, and (unlike madhousewife) I plan and sticking around awhile.

    And just for fun, a bonus prediction: a gay man will bless the sacrament before a woman will.

  43. “And just for fun, a bonus prediction: a gay man will bless the sacrament before a woman will.”

    LOL! You mean an “openly” gay man? Because I am almost sure gay men have been blessing sacrament since the times of Joseph Smith.

  44. @ rameumptom (39):

    “I read Matthew 23 as Jesus’ attack on the social justice of his day. They were doing many things that seemed good on the outside, but spiritually decayed the souls of men. I’ve seen modern social justice regulate the poor until traditional families are hard to find.”

    Hyperbole much?

  45. #17 madhousewife …”I do expect same-sex marriage to be sanctioned in all 50 states within the next decade…” Wow! The only possible way I can see that happening is a US Supreme Court ruling. There are probably 6 or 7 justices against that type of ruling now.
    Many of the recent ballot initiatives changed state constitutions to specifically prohibit same-sex marriage, they will not all lightly be overturned like happened in California. In many states, judges are up for retention elections every few years. Any vote to overturn a popular ballot initiative will get them enough press to get thrown out.
    The church teachings are likely set on this barring a major revelation for the reasons Travis has stated.

  46. el oso: On the contrary, there are four justices who would love nothing more than to find gay marriage constitutional, a fifth justice who has written a number of decisions favorable to gay rights, and now cover for gay marriage in the form of lower court decisions and democratic referenda. I don’t see how the Court can rule against gay marriage with any intellectual integrity, especially after Lawrence v. Texas.

  47. Are there 5 justices who will uphold any constitutional challenge to a new same-sex marriage law in one of the states? Yes, all 9 will probably do so. Are there 5 who will overturn all state laws and amendments to make it a US constitutional right to have same-sex marriage? No way. There are probably only 2 or 3 on the court right now who would consider it.

  48. I think openly gay man passing the sacrament is also been there, done that. We have Mitch Mayne as a ward Executive Secretary. If he hasn’t passed the sacrament it’s only because that task is usually sort of “beneath” someone in his position. Plenty of singles wards have openly gay, celibate members. I imagine they pass the sacrament in many cases.

  49. Really interesting to see who in the BCC community is NOT posting on this issue. Looking for the big guns here. Not finding many. Hmmmmm………

  50. (did pd just call me a little gun?)

  51. I have no idea if I am a little gun or tiny gun, but this is my response to the general response to the election.

  52. Speaking as a Millenial, there’s no good justification for disallowing SSM to be recognized by the government. My generation and the next generation have pretty much accepted that two consenting adults can marry and receive some legal benefits. The tide has already swung, and there’s no use fighting over the definition of the the word “marriage”. It’s just a word.

    What would be prudent would be to de-conflate civil marriage and temple sealing, which never were the same thing anyway. Only a simple step is required: end the policy (where it applies) that a couple must wait a year after marriage outside the temple to be sealed in the temple.

  53. rameumptom says:

    Nate W #46 asked, “Hyperbole much?”

    Only when it suits my needs or I can get a rise out of people…. My point is, a half solution is not the same thing as Christ’s solution, whether offered by Democrats, Republicans or others. And some “solutions” are more damning than others, especially in the long term.

  54. Ha, should have been more precise. Yeah, I’m sure lots of gay men have blessing the sacrament, even (like Mitch) with the knowledge of their bishops. I mean a married (and not celibate married either) gay man. Again, I don’t see this type of acceptance coming in the church anytime soon, but I do think we’ll see that before we see a woman blessing the sacrament.

  55. Cynthia L. (#50), I said “not finding many”, not “not finding any.” You a .44, girl! (pardon my gangsta vernacular)

  56. I think Mormons should start supporting some legislative changes that would remove the word “marriage” from Civil Law altogether. Let the Churches dispense “marriage” for whomever they like, but don’t try and make the whole country reject something which for most people is not a big deal.

    I’m a Mormon who finds no problem with gay marriage nowadays. I’ve been “educated”. :D

  57. All this talk of guns and marriage reminds me of my post Protecting Marriage with Firearms. (I’m a pretty good shot.)

%d bloggers like this: