Is there room for compromise for gay marriage in Utah?

Full disclosure: I have several good friends who self-identify as being gay.  I consider these guys brothers and feel like our friendship is good enough that we can have frank talks about our views on this subject without offending each other.  Unfortunately, it seems that the world at large does not have this same benefit and that is what I am hoping to help change with this post.

Same-sex marriage is a controversial subject and in the world at large there seems to be a lot of shouting and contention and not very much listening and understanding of opposing points of view.

Recently, a federal judge overturned Utah's 66% voter approved state amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman.  From what I have seen of the initial reaction, the loudest voices are pretty polarized on the subject :  Either it's 100% the right call or it's 100% the wrong call.

I believe that it's a lot more complicated than this.  And I believe that if both opposing sides took more time to listen and understand, we'd be a lot better off.

Part of the reason we are in this mess in the first place is that marriage (for many of us) is defined by both religion and government.  This presents an inherent conflict which some of us (including myself) have been oblivious to because traditionally the government definition has represented a mostly compatible subset of the religious definition.  However, if one's religious definition of marriage is not compatible with the government's definition, this creates a problem, the very problem that so-called "gay activists" are trying to solve.  If for example, one's personal "religious" definition of marriage is that marriage is a commitment between two loving consenting adults (regardless of gender), then the traditional government definition of marriage may feel like an oppressive institution because it _excludes_ (or even _discriminates_) by forcing an individual to choose between living their life how they choose (aka "practicing their religion *") or getting government benefits that they are supporting by being a tax payer.

* When I say religion, I realize that the reader might say "Hey, I don't have a religion, this is just my personal non-religious opinion."  Or the reader might say "Hey, I don't have a religion, this is how I was born."  Please bear with me on this; for the purpose of this article I am going to assume that all personal definitions of marriage are religious because by my logic, any definition of marriage that contradicts my religious definition of marriage MUST logically also be an alternative religious definition.  I hope that makes sense.

As one of my gay friends pointed out to me, there are legitimate problems with the government system where someone who self-identifies as gay and wants to live a "gay lifestyle" can't decide where their social security money goes to should they die, can't get hospital visitation rights, can't file joint taxes, and can't get family health insurance coverage for their partner.  As he explained this to me, I nodded in agreement with him.  For example, I think that if I am paying into some kind of long term fund (like social security, life insurance, whatever) that I absolutely should be able to decide whom my beneficiary is.

It is for this reason that I think it is legitimate that the current government system of "marriage" can and should be tweaked to accommodate our brothers and sisters who have their agency and want to use their agency to find happiness in the best way they see fit.

How this tweaking takes place, however, is quite unclear and I think requires a lot more dialog in the public square than the loud finger pointing that we have going on right now.

A common theme I hear and read is that the concept of changing the government's definition of marriage can't possibly affect anyone negatively, so anyone who is against it is just being a religious bigot and hating/discriminating against gay people.

I feel sad and misunderstood when I hear/read things like this.

In fact, changing the government definition of marriage presents some fairly major problems for me personally (and I am sure for many others).  I will try to illustrate.

To me, marriage is a deeply personal and religious concept.  It is an institution created by God and has virtually nothing to do with taxes, governments, hospital visitations rights, insurance, or inheritance; it is all about very serious covenants with God and spouse, putting God's will before one's own will, and thereby denying oneself of one's physical appetites in order to increase one's spiritual power and growth.

- If the government defines marriage as something that is somewhat compatible with my own definition, I can live with this.  This is how it's traditionally been.
- If government defines marriage as something that contradicts my own definition, this creates _confusion_ because now if people are talking about marriage, are they talking about the government definition or the religious definition?  It's confusing.  Not a deal breaker, but confusing.
- However, if I am forced to prioritize the government's definition of marriage over my personal religious definition of marriage or get sued/intimidated/boycotted, then this becomes a major violation of my freedom of speech and freedom of religious rights.

You may say "But Matt, you would never be forced to prioritize government's definition of marriage over your own personal definition!"  Sadly, we've already seen this happen:

Religious liberty and gay marriage collide as New Mexico photographer loses case
Chick-fil-A same-sex marriage controversy
Sweet Cakes By Melissa, Oregon Bakery That Denied Gay Couple A Wedding Cake, Closes Shop

Let's look at the Chick-fil-A CEO's comments:
"I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage'. I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about."

The reaction that he received to this remark is particularly alarming to me because to me, what he is saying is pretty similar to what L. Tom Perry said in General Conference:
"For man to substitute his own rules for the laws of God [..] is the height of presumption and the depth of sin." ( see citation )
It seems perfectly reasonable to me that a person should be able to say that God's rules trump mankind's rules and that for man to substitute his rules in place of God's rules is arrogant.  So what exactly did the Chick-fil-A guy say that warranted such a swift condemnation from some?  I really am baffled here and I think it's troubling to say the least.

This is what scares me.  It seems like the whole gay marriage movement isn't just about fixing broken government policies, but for some, it's about silencing anyone who says "same sex marriage is contrary to God's plan for His children."  Shouldn't making thoughtful and frank statements like this be the absolute right of all rights guaranteed by the constitution?

Here's another reason I am concerned:

It's pretty common to hear buzz words like "marriage equality" or the concept that a same sex marriage is equivalent to a traditional marriage, a concept that the courts seem to be latching onto.

This may seem harmless at first.  After all, "who am I to judge" right?

What I don't think many people realize (and I certainly don't hear this talked about) is that if I proclaim that same sex marriage is equal to traditional marriage, I am in effect placing myself in opposition to God.  It's a pretty easy logical path to reach this conclusion:

1 - God has revealed through prophets that His ultimate plan for His children is that husband and wife be not only married on earth, but sealed for time and all eternity in holy temples so that their family relationships can live beyond the grave and into the next life.  He shows us how serious He is about this by promising that only those who actually enter into this marriage covenant _and_ endure to the end will obtain His highest and choicest blessings.
2 - Logically, this means that this "temple marriage" must be of greater value (in God's eyes) than any other committed relationship on earth, including a secular marriage (heterosexual or homosexual), a non-married heterosexual couple living together, and a polyamorous couple.
3 - Therefore, for a person such as myself who holds these believes to solemnly proclaim that same sex marriage is "equal" to temple marriage (for example) would be equivalent to me saying "God is wrong" or "God is a liar" or "God discriminates against gays".

At any rate, there is no good end game for me to be compelled (through courts, laws, boycotts or other forms of intimidation) to say that same sex marriage is equal to the my definition of marriage because it makes me a complete hypocrite before God.  This is not the kind of position I want to be in!

Another troubling obstacle to the whole "equality" argument is a scientific one (at least, I think it's scientific hehehe):

Children who are raised by their biological parents have a significant advantage over children in other circumstances.  And before you think I am being discriminatory, I am actually citing a scientific study.  Check out Dallin H. Oaks talk about protecting children, the most vulnerable group in our society.  Check his source in the footnotes, he cites a scientific study.  For this reason, it may (MAY!) be appropriate for government to "discriminate" for the sake of children by having some kind of policy in place that incentivizes biological parents to raise their own children.  I would hope that courts take the needs of children into higher consideration in the future before making their decisions.  Thus far, it has seemed to me that children are the after thought.

------------------------------

I think we can come up with a compromise here!!!

By identifying each side's needs and goals, I think there is common ground we can find.

One idea of mine would be to strip the government of its power to define what marriage is and instead have the government rename what it calls "marriage" to something else, like "legal partnership".  I personally don't think I would have a problem saying that I am "legally partnered" to my wife instead of "legally married."  From what one gay friend tells me, this would go a long way to giving the gay activist camp what it wants and it would also would solve my dilemma of putting myself at odds with God.  It is unfortunate that our society has splintered like this but based on where we are now, this seems like a Not Horrible Solution.

If anyone has any other ideas (aside from the "I demand unconditional surrender and won't even attempt to put myself in the other side's shoes") feel free to leave a comment.

Opposing view points are welcome as long as you are respectful, calm and thoughtful!