The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ conference this time around has added another soundbite to contribute to the further gap between the LDS church and progressive socio-political trends. On the topic of same-sex marriage, Elder Dallin H. Oaks stated that church viewpoints do not “condone such behaviors or [find] justification in the laws that permit them.”
In this manner, the church finds itself walking the fine line of religious expression and social discrimination. The situation is unique in that many religious representatives express opposition to same-sex marriage yet support legal protection of same-sex couples, such as hospital visitation. This viewpoint can be supported as long as legal marriage and religious marriage are held disjoint.
The government cannot deny marital rights to a couple based on sexual orientation. The legal system must allow all couples their rights regardless of race, creed or socioeconomic status. Civil unions are not a viable alternative to same-sex marriages. In this way the government will never be able to distinguish couples by sexual orientation, nor should it be able to.
However, if a church must condemn gay marriage, a disjoint of marriage is required. Marriage itself has long suffered from a one-size-fits-all dynamic when it is ridiculous to expect every couple to conform to the same set of rules. There are about two million marriages a year in the United States, and to hold each and every one to the standard of the others is to set most up for failure.
The LDS church has a right to condemn gay marriage, but it should not be fighting for a breach on the legal rights of homosexual couples. The church needs to accept that its idea of marriage and legal marriage can never be held synonymous.
Marriage is a concept. This specific concept is bogged down by centuries of tradition and has developed countless variations on its meaning, standards and execution. This variation has created a mess of the modern marriage debate as proponents attempt to argue a concept which is consistent in only a few key areas.
Couples need the law to protect their rights, and they all deserve equal protection. The fact that this protection is called marriage is coincidental, yet the practice will be continued because of its tradition. Unfortunately the law is not immune to human sentiment, and marriage will remain unchanged in its legal definition for the foreseeable future. As long as it encompasses all citizens equally, the definition is acceptable.
Thus the decision rests with those of religious faith. The legal definition of marriage will never completely match a religious definition without threatening the freedom of religious expression. Legal marriage and religious marriage are separate, and it is up to the individual to make the distinction. This degree of separation is the only way tolerance and belief can exist simultaneously. The alternative is the continued push of both sides until one of them gives in a big way.