Freedom for Me but Not for Thee: Marriage and Mormons in California

By Boston, Rob | The Humanist, January-February 2009 | Go to article overview

Freedom for Me but Not for Thee: Marriage and Mormons in California


Boston, Rob, The Humanist


THE NOVEMBER election results weren't exactly what the religious right was hoping for. Barack Obama, a man this group regards as a far-left extremist (and possibly a closet Muslim) won in an electoral landslide. Several of the movement's allies lost their seats in the House of Representatives and Senate.

The otherwise gloomy night did offer a few bright spots for Christian conservatives: California, Arizona, and Florida approved state constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage. In addition, Arkansas voters approved a ban on foster parenting and adoptions by unmarried partners, a move aimed mainly at same-sex couples.

The California result was something of a surprise. Polls taken prior to the election showed the same-sex marriage ban trailing. Analysts say a last-minute advertising blitz may have made the difference--along with an infusion of $20 million donated by members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Church officials summoned the faithful to get involved in the California battle in June. "Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and the formation of families is central to the Creator's plan for His children" church leaders asserted.

Individual Mormons answered the call and donated time and money to the effort. Add to this a grassroots organizing effort aimed at churches conducted by religious right groups and the Catholic hierarchy and you see the result: a rollback of civil rights for gays and lesbians in California.

Gay-rights advocates are understandably upset. From their perspective, a church based in Utah meddled in California politics, resulting in a loss of rights for a certain segment of the population.

Some are calling for the Internal Revenue Service to investigate the LDS church and possibly pull its tax exemption. While I understand the frustration many feel, this effort isn't likely to bear fruit. IRS rules ban nonprofit houses of worship from endorsing or opposing individual candidates in elections. Issue advocacy is generally protected.

A better avenue is to ask our courts some hard questions: Should a religious group have the right to engineer a scheme that takes away some people's rights? Does a church have the right to use the democratic process to write its pet theological notions into law?

Leaders of religious right groups crow that their efforts in blocking same-sex marriage are a triumph of democracy. Opponents might see it as democracy run amock. Democracy is a great thing, but it must exist within the framework of a set of rights that exist beyond the reach of the majority.

This is the purpose of our Constitution's Bill of Rights. The idea is that some freedoms are so essential that they are put beyond the majority's grasp. Our ability to exercise them depends on no vote, and no misguided vote can snatch them away.

In the Jim Crow South, the majority was more than happy to ban interracial marriage. Many states had laws banning the practice, and some ministers argued that these marriages were an offense to the Bible. Had the matter been put to a popular vote, it would have passed easily.

The Supreme Court struck down such laws in its Loving v. Virginia ruling of 1967. But if the majority supported such laws, shouldn't they be allowed to have them? Isn't that democracy in action?

Few Americans today would accept that argument. Yet if you ask leaders of the religious right to explain the difference between state bans on interracial marriage and bans on same-sex marriage, they hem and haw and eventually fall back on claims that the latter is "unnatural" or "unbiblical"

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

The problem is, that's exactly what many people thought when Mildred and Richard Loving were found guilty of violating Virginia's ban on interracial marriage. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • A full archive of books and articles related to this one
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Freedom for Me but Not for Thee: Marriage and Mormons in California
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

    Already a member? Log in now.