I have been watching with some interest the arguments for and against California’s Proposition 8 sent to my company’s LDS email list by employees of the company who are also members of the LDS church.
Proposition 8 is a proposed amendment to the California constitution that would define marriage as being between one man and one woman. It follows Proposition 22, which was a law that passed by a vote of more than 61 percent of Californians (38 percent against) in 2000. That law also defined marriage as between a man and a woman. Last year four California Supreme Court judges voted to overturn that law, and marriage among same-sex couples has been sanctioned in that state ever since. The purpose of Proposition 8 is to make marriage a constitutional issue that judges can’t overturn. Many say the California judges were legislating from the bench, which betrays their charge of interpreting the constitution, not making law.
The LDS church is supporting the passage of Proposition 8, clearly because it believes same-sex marriages are immoral and degrade society. It has donated money to promote the proposition. It has encouraged its members to donate, and it has asked its members in California to campaign their neighbors and engage in other activities to support the proposition.
I saw an anti-Proposition 8 advertisement on TV a couple days ago with two more-or-less LDS missionary-like young men tearing up the marriage certificate of a woman. Then they left sneering and wondering what other rights they could tear up. This attack on the LDS church’s support of Proposition 8 said nothing about whether the proposition itself was good or bad for society.
I saw a group of LDS mothers of gay children in Salt Lake City protesting against the LDS church last weekend because of its support of Proposition 8. They believe their children are being singled out or excluded because the church opposes their being legally married. They said nothing about the benefits to society of their children marrying same-sex partners.
The arguments I’ve seen against the church and the proposition, and the arguments against the arguments, have been quite heated. To simplify, it seems the arguments boil down to whether the church has the right to promote or oppose secular law. Some say the church has every right to ban gay marriages in its temples but not to support banning such civil marriages. They say the church shouldn’t be pushing its morals on society.
That seems to be the big question, doesn’t it? Can a church or an individual impose its or his or her morals on society? The answer is generally, no. Morals cannot be imposed. Many say morals should be restricted to inside churches and homes. They say society should be free to do what it wants. Churches and individuals shouldn’t be telling other people what is moral. After all, society is just a collection of individuals, and each individual has the right to make his or her own moral judgments. Society should not dictate the morals of the individual until the actions of the individual interfere with the rights of another individual in that society.
In other words, if two same-sex people want to marry, how can a person who believes this arrangement is immoral, dictate that they cannot marry?
This argument works well when discussing actions between individuals. But what about actions that, over time, affect society as a whole? Clearly society has a right to pass laws that restrict people from physically assaulting other people or stealing their possessions or defrauding them out of savings. But moral issues? Immoral activities by one or two individuals don’t usually impose on any other individual’s rights or freedoms. If a person wants to view pornography on a website that features only consenting adults, how does that impose on any uninvolved individual? If two same-sex people want to engage in traditionally heterosexual activities, how does that affect other individuals? They don’t, directly or immediately.
The issue is that immoral (wrongful) acts, when they become pervasive in a society, become a part of that society. They affect the society as a whole. What happened to the Roman Empire? What happened to Easter Island? If one person in a society cuts down a tree, there is little effect on other individuals or the society as a whole. But what happens when cutting down trees becomes pervasive in the society? Soon the palm-covered Easter Island will turn into a barren island. At this point, individual moral or immoral acts affect each individual in that society. Is it bad that sitcoms on TV have become racier over the past several years? Don’t the TV producers have a right to show what they want? And don’t people have a right to watch what they want in their homes, where no one else is affected? A three-year study by the RAND research organization indicates that racy TV leads to more sexual activity among youths and higher incidences of teen pregnancies. Does this affect society?
Because arguing morals in a democratic society that values the rights of individuals is difficult, consequences of moral actions are often argued in terms of monetary costs to society. For example, it could be argued that teen pregnancies cost society in dollars needed to care for the children of young single mothers, so teen pregnancies are not acceptable to that society. And since TV shows lead to higher incidences of teen pregnancies, society may have a right to restrict racy shows. But this argument misses the point and cannot be applied to all moral issues. What about other moral issues that cannot be defined in dollar costs? Such as same-sex marriages. How can we measure the cost or benefit to society of such moral issues?
I’m sure there are arguments that could be presented to illustrate both benefits and costs. But in the end, society itself has to decide whether an action will decay the society or build it up. Because society is made up of individuals, they are the ones who have to decide. Individuals have an obligation to their society to promote what they consider morals—what is right and what is wrong for that society. Less than this would be abdicating responsibility to those who believe a moralless society, where nothing is right or wrong, is best for all.
Neighbors have to convince neighbors. Then society as a whole, through voting, legislation, or other means, has to decide which morals it will accept. In the end, every issue is a moral issue, because every issue will promote the society or degrade the society. For every issue there is a right direction and a wrong direction, depending on its effect on the society as a whole.
It is difficult to say who has the right to impose morals on another person, but it is clear that society has an obligation to impose morals on itself. And it is the individuals in that society who will decide which morals to impose.
No one should criticize another individual or organization for promoting what it believes to be societal morals. It is only through the efforts of individuals in the society that the society as a whole will adopt its own morals. And the individuals should then respect the morals the society chooses.
