Just one quibble. “Marriage” as an institution didn’t begin with the Christian church 2000 years ago. It is quite an old institution throughout numerous cultures and nations. It may not necessarily be called marriage (or its equals in various languages), but its main point—the union of man and woman to create a family—is a very old institution.

Just what we need to perpetuate the corporate image of the Church. I can’t really see this as a good thing. I had to cringe when the church tried to trademark Moroni in the battle with that coffee house a while back.

Given that the church was rebuffed in its efforts to trademark the term “Mormon”, I’d suggest they leave well enough alone and leave trademarks and branding to the business world. Otherwise, where does it stop?

Husband: “Honey, tell the boys to get their nice shoes on, it’s time for Churchâ„¢. Oh, and doesn’t little Billy have a talk to give in Primaryâ„¢ today? Here’s the printouts you wanted from the Teachings of the Presidentsâ„¢ book for your Relief Societyâ„¢ lesson today. Oh that reminds me! I signed us up to bring fruit-filled Jelloâ„¢ and funeral potatoesâ„¢ for the next potluck. And Tuesday night I am helping the Elders Quorumâ„¢ move some new guy into his apartment, then we’re going to hang out at the High Priestâ„¢ group leader’s BBQ.”

Wife: {sigh} {to self: “He’s so dreamy, and he follows our Prophetâ„¢ Thomas S. Monsonâ„¢ so loyally. I am so glad I married him in the Templeâ„¢.”} “Oh shoot, that reminds me. I better stop on the way home from work tomorrow to buy some new Garmentsâ„¢ and pick up a set of Scripturesâ„¢ for Timmy’s Baptismâ„¢ this week. And aren’t you helping to give a Blessingâ„¢ to the Jones’s new baby? Oh, and then we have to plan Family Home Eveningâ„¢! I am so thankful to Heavenly Fatherâ„¢ for my lovely Eternal Companionâ„¢ and our children who were Born in the Covenentâ„¢!”

I agree with this concept- the Church is never going to win a battle for the definition of marriage using amicus briefs and proclamation-wielding activist members. We can only define what marriage means for us, and invite others to join in marriage as we define it.

#2 Dan,

You’re absolutely right, but it is basically impossible to use that to support an assertion of one definition of marriage- man and woman. It is possible anecdotally, but that necessarily excludes “alternative” marriages, which a democratic government probably has no business doing. It would constitute a withholding of rights to certain people- arbitrary and capricious. Although I can see a wise judge referring to the precedent of centuries of man-woman marriages. Personally, I feel that setting a precedent now is sad and shallow.

I think Jeff has pointed out the only real way of separating the values represented by the marriage of our choice, if we must. I a way, I feel it demeans what marriage means, but in a way, I think that it also helps with defining marriage for the “consumer”- attaching a luster, if you will.

In Russia, there’s “registering” marriage, and there’s a Church marriage. Everyone registers marriage as a duty to government, and some choose to have a Church marriage as a sort of supplement. Then the conversation goes like this: “How were you married?” “At ZAGS (the registration office)” or “In the Church.” or nowadays “We have a temple in Helsinki- we were SEALED there.” “Sealing? What’s that?” “Well, let me tell you…”

So, perhaps let the government call marriage what it will and perhaps we ought to coin a word such as SEALING to identify what we do. The negative, of course, is that this could be seen as pompous or reduced to a marketing ploy.

So, perhaps let the government call marriage what it will and perhaps we ought to coin a word such as SEALING to identify what we do. The negative, of course, is that this could be seen as pompous or reduced to a marketing ploy.

(a) Haven’t we effectively done that already?
(b) Since when has been seen as pompous ever stopped the Church, either informally or formally?

Nick,

That’s a very poor reading of the BoM. At times, preaching the gospel had the effect of converting, at other times it got you burned. Always it depended on the “hearts” of those who hey were attempting to teach, and the effects of events on those hearts.

“If the LDS church has something so great to offer in its theology, they should be able to simply teach their message, and thereby prompt wide-scale “conversions” of those they now deem “vile sinners.””

That’s just obtuse.

~

nada@15 -

I’m commenting less on the idea of actual trademarking, which I think has been adequately satirized earlier in the comments, and more the idea that the church “needs” to go coin a phrase. We’ve done that for generations, in fact. We started using the phrase “temple marriage” after the Smoot hearings (and started avoiding “celestial marriage”). We’ve used the term “sealing” quite a bit in the Church in the last couple of generations, as a way to distinguish from “marriage”.

We’ve coined phrases. We’ve used different terms to describe LDS marriage from worldly marriage (even to the point of demonizing non-temple marriage to the youth).

How is simply slapping a trademark — or coming up with a new slogan — any different than what we’ve done? The Church doesn’t need a new solution, and I don’t think it benefits from trying to recruit other Churches to it. If anything, it needs to reemphasize the eternal and priesthood aspects of it, which are guaranteed to kill off participation of other entities.

#13:
Let’s say the Church cedes the debate and decides it doesn’t care about gay marriage. Would it thus change the Church’s stance? No. The Church would simply redefine its policy as a proper marriage being heterosexuality and monogamy. There would NOT be an opening for gay marriage in the Church.

Exactly. The legal recognition of civil same-sex marriage has no bearing whatsoever on the rights, freedoms, or beliefs of members of the LDS church.

So why shouldn’t the Church continue to fight a moral battle against what it considers illegitimate marriage?

queuno, I’ve read this twice, and I don’t see how this last sentence follows from the rest of your paragraph. In fact, I think it completely contradicts the rest of your paragraph.

Why doesn’t the pro-gay marriage community simply take the same approach — teach its message in the public arena and convince the populace to convince their legislatures to adopt a pro-gay marriage stance? Maybe because teaching a pro-gay marriage and simply relying on the populace hasn’t succeeded?

Most pro-marriage-equality groups are quite active in educating the public, and it is succeeding, albeit slowly. Gallup has been asking since 1981 or 1982, in an annual survey of what is considered “moral” and “acceptable” behavior in America, with regard to homosexual relations. In almost every year since the poll began, the numbers have increased one to three percentage points to reflect increasing acceptance of homosexuality. In the most recent (May 2008) annual poll, for the first time, respondents were equally split on the question of whether homosexual relations were “morally acceptable.” 48% said yes, and 48% said no. When asked whether homosexuality should be “an acceptable alternative lifestyle, 57% said yes, and only 40% said no. 89% of Americans believe homosexuals should have equal rights in terms of job opportunities. On the issue of marriage equality, 40% of Americans are in favor, and 56% are opposed, but again, this balance is trending toward marriage equality, rather than away from it.

#14:
That’s just obtuse.

Not really, Thomas. If what LDS-ism has to offer is every bit as wonderful as advertised, it should be far, far larger in terms of adherents. Blaming the devil and demonizing anyone who doesn’t embrace your faith may be comforting somehow to believers, but the fact remains. Thirteen million members, even if all were active and believing, is a mere drop in the bucket when compared to world population, or even population of majority-christian nations.

Dan,

I agree.

Nick,

It really is obtuse. If I understand, you’re saying if LDS-ism is so great, why aren’t there more members? That’s just overly simplistic. Religion is far more than teachings being great, or good feelings. If there were no costs, you might be able to reduce the argument to such terms, but there are reasons people aren’t LDS, and I’d wager that a minority of them have to do with being disappointed at the doctrine.

I think that you’re arguing for allowing homosexuality in the Church to boost “adherents” as if that is a standard the LDS Church goes by. However, that is a huge departure from the goal of the LDS faith.

The author of this post writes, “As a gay person, you are already able to form a lifetime partnership with your same-sex partner with all the benefits of marriage. What you couldn’t do, but will be able to do in 30 days, is call that partnership marriage. ”
This is false. To begin with, of course one could call the partnership a marriage. What one couldn’t do is have one’s marriage recognized as such by California law. Second, and far more importantly, many of the rights, responsibilities, and benefits of being afforded the label “marriage” under the law are Federal rights, responsibilities and so on. This is true, for instance, with regard to the tax code. And before someone says it: it is simply false that the only time qualifying as married in the legal sense makes a significant difference tax-wise is in single-income households. I know, first hand, at least two other kinds of scenarios in which it makes a significant difference for dual-income households. First, medical expenses. Several years ago, my partner required a series of operations and while we are lucky enough to have very good health insurance, nevertheless, in the end we had more than $60K in medical bills to pay. For various reasons, my partner could only pay about $20K of this herself at the time and I could come up with the rest (well, by withdrawing money from retirement & operating largely with credit cards, but…). If we had been married, we could have filed jointly and written off ALL the medical expenses, and at least received a very substantial tax refund we could have used to pay off some of those medical bills sitting on my credit cards. But because we are not legally recognized as related in any fashion, no dice. We are extremely lucky to still both be employed, to have had the credit to pay for these expenses in the first place, and so on. Nevertheless, we have done the calculations and it will take us literally twice as long to pay off the credit cards as it would have if we would have been able to write off all of those enormous medical expenses. Second: buying a home, withdrawal of retirement funds. The situation was the reverse a few years prior to that when we bought our first, very modest, home. To come up with the down payment, my spouse withdrew monies from a GRA. With an IRA, monies withdrawn are not taxed so long as they are used for primary home purchase. Not so with something like a GRA. GRA money withdrawn before age 57 are taxed, once–and here’s the key caveat– the amount reaches x level. BUT if one files jointly as married, then one can withdraw 2x before it becomes taxable.
There are many, many other such examples. The point is that while nothing the CA Supreme court could have done would have given my partner(legally)/spouse(religiously) and I access to the Federal rights and responsibilities in question, it is false to say that “domestic partnerships” in CA have now or ever could have all the rights and responsibilities of a legally recognized marriage. Furthermore, in the event that one day–and I believe it will happen, no matter how much money the LDS pours into trying to make it otherwise– we are treated equally under Federal law as well (i.e. DOMA is dismantled), the California court ruling will have the extremely important practical consequence for the gay men and lesbians living in California of giving them access to the full panoply of rights and responsibilities of marriage as a legal institution.

Bennion, you are a genius. But are you a comic genius or a marketing genius? Only time will tell.

I agree with the idea that as a church we should be able to have a term that means “a man married to a woman” marriage (e.g. “covenant marriage”) without trying to define, as a church, what is constitutional or unfairly discriminatory.

“If what LDS-ism has to offer is every bit as wonderful as advertised, it should be far, far larger in terms of adherents.”

Or Nick, it could just be that people, in general, suck…

That was Calvin’s view anyway…