Connubial Irony
by Jonathan Quince
Tuesday, March 22, 2005 11:27:37
On this day (March 22) in 1882, the United States Federal Congress passed the Edmunds Act, a vicious offensive in the decades-long political war against polygamy. The issue of polygamy itself, of course, was only a tool leveraged to quell the nascent power of the Mormon church (a.k.a. the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter-Day Saints). But from the time the Republicans of 1856 raised the matter to public consciousness (and poisoned the well) by proclaiming slavery and polygamy the “twin relics of barbarism”, polygamy itself was a practice attracting fierce fights and profuse politicking.
The Mormon leadership capitulated; and to most Americans, this power struggle, which had lasted for the better part of the nineteenth century, because nary more than a footnote in history.
Yet today, there is an issue of controversy quite similar in principle: That of gay marriage.
Now, firstly I must say, I am against gay marriage. Not because I am against gays: On the contrary! Rather, I am against marriage. The legal extension of marriage would only further perpetuate a corrupt institution that ought to be either removed from the law-books entirely, or so substantively reworked that it no longer qualifies for any current definition of the word “marriage”. By the laws of Sopef, an adherent thereto may only marry in today’s society for certain pragmatic advantages, only without speaking traditional vows, and only with modification by way of a very unusual and rather draconian prenuptial contract.
Again, however, the issue at hand is one of principle. And upon that principle, how can the LDS church be anything but the strongest proponent of homosexual matrimony?
The Mormon high command did capitulate and forswear polygamy in 1892; as such, modern Mormonism-at-large technically has no present connection to marriage practices that contradict ambient social standards. But how can they forget the grave circumstances that lead to that surrender? Mormons were persecuted and imprisoned; Mormon families were forcibly separated, husbands and wives and children scattered by brutal tactics; Mormon property and wealth were freely expropriated by the Federal government; Mormons were disenfranchised from voting, jury service, or offices of public trust; and the Mormon Church as an institution was torn to its core and very nearly destroyed! And for what? For the social majority’s contempt of their marriage beliefs.
Proponents of freedom must always support for others the very freedoms they so value for themselves. Elsewise, they are hypocrites. Historically, the Mormon Church did put forth a strong fight for persons with certain beliefs and lifestyles to marry as they chose; besides all the suffering their followers absorbed over the issue, several cases they pressed all the way to the United States Supreme Court speak as such. If Mormon memory is so short as to forget all of this, then they may oppose gay marriage with some vague pretense to integrity; but if they are principled as they proclaim, they must support gay marriage not as a rite gaining their moral endorsement, but as a right they defend for principles of justice, liberty, and equality before the law.
Some famous French philosopher once had his biographer speak, “I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to my death your right to say it.” Likewise, let the Mormons say, “I may disagree with your marital choices, but I will defend to my death your right to marry as you please.” Only then may Mormons marry as they choose and all others do the same, every one to be finally adjudged only before the hand of God.
Sadly, such evidence as I have seen speaks contrariwise about their recent actions. If any good and devout Mormon would speak forth to set me straight, I would deeply appreciate such a brave stand for truth. In lack of such, Mormon opposition to gay marriage shall be written into history as an ironic farce; future scholars may thereby muse over the frailty of most humans’ beliefs.