LDS Professor Speaks Out Against Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment

Jul 01, 2008 by Jeff Robinson

(KCPW News) Westminster College professor Jeffrey Nielsen lost his previous teaching job at BYU for criticizing the LDS Church over its opposition to gay marriage, but he's not letting that deter him from speaking out again. After church leaders urged California Mormons last weekend to support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, Nielsen wrote his own open letter to them, encouraging them not to support the amendment.

"I've come to appreciate and respect a lot of gay and lesbian members of the Church, and non-members, and I felt that they and their families are probably still suffering and being negatively affected by this, and so I felt an obligation just out of a sense of justice and friendship to write a letter of support for them," said Nielsen.

Nielsen, who is Mormon but not gay himself, says marriage equality would strengthen the institution of marriage.

The professor says that while religious leaders have every right to speak out on moral issues, they can't use purely religious principles to mandate what public policy should be.

"We can't just say, this is our religious faith, so it should become civil law, but we have to appeal to broader, general moral principles, and I just have to ask myself, what is the moral principle you could appeal to that would discriminate another person, against a gay or lesbian, against a woman, or against a person of color? I don't think there is one," he said.

Nielsen teaches philosophy at Westminster College and UVU. He also founded the Democracy House Project. You can hear a conversation with him and read the letter online on the Public Square page.

1. Bruce Barnes said:

It's great that you give publicity to one person, thereby amplifying a small minority opinion. Apparently because he is a college professor his opinion is more enlightened than most. Will you give equal time to publish the opinion of a common sense, salt of the earth high school teacher? Please let me know where you have published it; I know you believe in fair and equal representation.

Bruce BarnesQueen Creek, Arizona

2. Nathan Kennard said:

Neilsen is right. If the LDS church wants to support a particular position, it should appeal to broader general principals than simply to assert that a political decision should be made consistent with their faith.

3. DJ said:

To say that our public policy cannot or should not be connected to faith is historically unfounded. Many of our public laws and policies stem from Judeo-Christian beliefs, such as laws against killing, stealing, marriage et cetera. Marriage has long been a connection between church and state, and as such the voice of religion will have place in its role in society as well as the state. I see no illegal breech of authority as churches seek to define marriage as it has been theirs as well as the states for centuries.

4. Tom Nedreberg said:

I'm a high school teacher and am also a straight LDS member and feel Prof. Nielson is correct. How can a church that believes that "Free Agency" which was the focus of a "War in Heaven" before the creation of the world, work to support a law to force people to heaven. If they truely believed that Faith was the first principle of the Gospel, they wouldn't worry about Gay Marriage other then with their own members. But sadly, I don't think religion works that way, they want to convert the world and can't tolerate differences.

5. Ryan Stones said:

Nathan Kennard is wrong. The LDS church has not joined this debate on the simple assertion that this political decision should be made just because it is consistent with their faith.

That's a silly straw man argument.

6. Michael Liebmann said:

Ryan Stones is wrong. The LDS church is joining in this to continue its bigotry against people who are different. If the government were smart, the LDS church would lost its tax-free status.

The church did the same thing with Proposition 22 several years back. Same issue, same action.

7. Ryan Stones said:

Nielson is also wrong.

If he doesn't think that there is a moral principle that can justify maintaining the special deference society gives to "traditional" marriage as the core of the nuclear family, then obviously he hasn't researched the opposing viewpoint very well.

And for the record: "We can't just say, this is our religious faith, so it should become civil law."The LDS church doesn't argue that. Yep, another straw man.

8. elaygee said:

Who cares what the Old White Men who run the business known as JCALDS think? Let them go back to forcing their own adherents into wearing silly undergarments and packing away canned food. At least that adds to the general economic health of the community.

9. Ryan Stones said:

Seems like the trolls from the SL Trib site don't have enough red meat over there to keep them busy . . .

I'm new here to this site and I was hoping the debate here would be more above board than just the name-calling from other sites, so here's my attempt to meet that standard:

You can't just say this is discrimination to not let gay people marry (because it IS discrimination, no mistake about that), discrimination is wrong, ergo: let them marry.

That argument doesn't work because not every act of discrimination is wrong. Our society discriminates all the time in ways that are viewed to be both socially and legally acceptable. You're only 16? Sorry, only the class of people that are 18 and older get to vote. You're a man and want the janitor's position cleaning the women's locker room? Sorry, we're going to go with the female applicant. You want to be president of Notre Dame University? Sorry, we're going to go with a Catholic for that position. You want to be an astronaut? Sorry, we're only taking applicants from the class of people that have advanced college degrees. You want to work in this country? Sorry, we prefer citizens or those with valid work visas (though there's probably plenty of other places that will hire you I hear). You want to learn how to fly a plane? Sorry, our flight school only accepts applicants that haven't been trained in Afghani jihad camps.

In each one of those cases, despite the fact that there's outright discrimination going on, there's good reason to do it. The real debate here is whether the reasons in this case--and they do exist (I'll say again, this time more respectfully, Nielson is wrong on that)--are good enough to justify the discrimination or are they not.

You're not a bigot just because you think that they are.

10. Kim said:

Nice try, Ryan Stones. You say there are good reasons to discriminate in all those situations. And, you say there are good enough reasons to justify discriminating against those of the same sex who wish to marry.

What you DIDN'T do, was name any or name even one of those reasons. That is the problem. There are no reasons you can provide that don't make you come across as a bigot.

If there are, by all means please enlighten us.

11. kurt said:

Its a shame that the church has stereotyped itself to being only involved with issues important to the far right like gay marriage, Teri Schaivo, and abortion. I guess it would be to much to ask that they come out for tougher drunk driving penalties and a smoke free society from the pulpit.

12. The Simple Truth said:

UNDISPUTED FACTS:

Marriage between a man and a woman predates government. Government did not create it. But rather than merely allowing it to exist, government chose to support it. Why?

Government did not involve itself with marriage to formally bless either love, sexual gratification, or even commitment generally. It got involved because it saw its absolute dependence upon one very specific institution and no other: One man and one woman married to each other.

The reason government provided special incentives to this marriage was to strengthen that which healthy society cannot live without. This marriage gets unique treatment because it is unique.

To give every other human configuration an identical package would destroy every incentive to enter any of them. This is a matter of deductive logic based on the meaning of the word “incentive.”

Equality means treating those similarly situated the same. Gay couples ARE NOT similarly situated with heterosexual couples.

Having two gay people caring for each other is similar to a mother and daughter caring for each other. And yes, society appreciates that. But gay couples, wonderful mother/daughter relations, and several other configurations, should only receive the package of marriage incentives if they are similarly situated with the one-man/one-woman institution. They are not and never can be.

Society has no need of homosexual couples to successfully and healthily perpetuate itself, while society absolutely requires heterosexual couples. Government, then, reasonably creates better incentives for those institutions it absolutely needs than for those it doesn’t.

To grant similar marriage benefits on ANY other institution would not expand equality, it would DESTROY it. Government has neither reason nor right to create incentives for gay marriage’s existence.

Those who say marriage (recognized by government) is about love or sexual gratification, or even commitment generally, outside of one man and one woman, operate entirely outside the bounds of both history and reason.

Now to address earlier statements:

To Tom: “How can a church that believes [in] ‘Free Agency’...work to support a law to force people to heaven.” Laws against gay marriage have nothing to do with heaven. They have to do with securing policies conducive to successful earthly society.

To Michael: “The LDS church is joining in this to continue its bigotry against people who are different.” My only advice to you is to learn what credibility means. Right now, you have none.

Now a point for everyone: All political opinions must be allowed in American debate in order to be American debate. Note the simple truth that “religion in politics” is nothing more than the political opinion of those who are religious. This fact means that a law made with no other basis than religious opinion, if adopted by the people, is as legitimate as any other. Other justifications are useful but are not needed.

And without comment, I remind all of these wise words from John Adams (June 21, 1776), “Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure Virtue….”

13. Jeffrey Wood said:

Simply garbage, not simple truth.

I find your information lacking supporting proof and research to make a supporting argument. You’ve certainly displayed your argument but lack any equivocal evidence which further disqualifies your statement as persona bias. It’s fair to say that I may have some personal bias too, but I’m willing to investigate both sides of the fence.

Often times, I think our inability to support equality is a covert way for many to create punitive measures to those GLBT families. The lack of legal structure leaves these families vulnerable to an assortment of issues that normally protects our heterosexual counterparts. When a perfectly functional family unit is not protected in the face of health and monetary tragedy we all lose.

I am not qualified to make arguments on the appropriateness of GLBT marriage, but what I do know is…”There is evidence that same sex unions have occurred since the beginning of recorded history in Egypt, China, Greece, Rome and Japan. [11] Famous lovers include the Egyptian couple Khnumhotep and Niankhkhnum and the Greek couple Harmodius and Aristogiton. The first recorded use of the word "marriage" for same-sex couples occurs during the Roman Empire. A number of marriages are recorded to have taken place during this period. [12] The rise of Christianity changed attitudes to same-sex unions and led to the persecution of gays. In the year 342, the Christian emperors Constantius and Constans declared same-sex marriage to be illegal.[13] In the year 390, the Christian emperors Valentinian II, Theodosius I and Arcadius declared homosexual sex to be illegal and those who were guilty of it were condemned to be publicly burned alive. [14]:…”

It’s also fair to suggest that our records, historical transcripts, and other such records have a personal bias in the eyes of the writer. I seem to recall a story when Christ sat down with the sinners for dinner. This story perpetuates his ability to nourish and support their lives, even when they aren’t following his teachings; after all we all sin. A true Christian would support a good life for a GLBT family or partnership and allow GOD to take care of judgment. Keeping in mind that supporting a committed emotional relationship is not endorsing sex, but rather the many experiences, struggles, and beauties a relationship can offer.

So “The Simple Truth” I hope you feel vigilant in knowing you would not sit down with the sinners for dinner; like Christ has. I want you to note, your covert punitive measures in promoting the destruction of a GLBT family unit are highly Christian of you and very loving. Having seen what scenarios can play out because of this, I have a good understanding as to why GLBT couples need something. I won’t drive into the legal details of what can arise, I’ll let you be diligent in researching these issues yourself; as if that would ever happen.

14. Ben said:

This is oddly the most discussion I've ever seen in a KCPW comment thread (other than those left on the front page a long time related to the station).

While I think there is some discourse happening, I'm just going to add a little two cent cheer to my alma mater "Go Westminster!" and thanks to KCPW for giving a voice to the minorities in this area.

15. Bryan said:

What The Simple Truth gets right is that the law requires persons similarly situated be treated equally. What he fails to do, though, is spell out how same sex couples are not similarly situated, because he never defines what special attributes heterosexual couples possess upon which government or society so crucially depends.

Presumably he is talking about the ability to procreate, to create more citizens who perpetuate the state. But the heterosexual marriage is not as unique as he claims. Humans quite frequently procreate outside the institution of marriage, so a state does not need to endorse marriage to provide incentives for procreation. Also, if the state were so interested in procreation, then why not require married couples to have offspring as a condition of reaping the benefits the government provides? And what about couples who adopt or never have/ are incapable of having children? Are they not to be considered married and therefore denied the benefits?

The simple truth is that Simple Truth can't actually point to any essential difference between same sex and hetero couples that may justify a government treating the two classes differently. Whether or not a traditional religion condones marriage doesn't matter, nor does the fact that mariage predates government. Government is in the marriage business across and beyond all religions, and shouldn't discriminate because of the values of any group, religious or otherwise.

And if a religious opinion does inspire a law that gets accepted by a majority, that doesn't make it acceptable. The purpose of the judiciary branch is to make sure that the tenets of the Constitution are upheld and not undone by majority rule. That's not the courts being activist, it's the safeguard the Founding Fathers intended.

16. Shash ligai nahalin said:

Great are the words of Isaiah except when we differ with him.

Both Jewish and Christian traditions state that the Prophet Isaiah was killed by being sawed in half * by people who were offended by his words of warning. Isaiah, one of the most political of the prophets, seemed to stick his nose into everything. He paid for his audacity. Now comes, Dr. Neilsen (and a few others) who want it two ways. They want prophets when they like what they say and don’t want them as prophets when they don’t like what they say. Thus, they saw the prophet in two like Isaiah. Great are the words of Isaiah except when we differ with him.

*Hebrews 11:37 (King James Version) They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented;

17. Greg said:

I do not have the answer to this question. I feel people should be free and I know gays have been treted poorly, but what about those of us who find it very offensive. Let me give you and example. I worked for a company that forced us to go to gay tolerance training. It was a large corporation. Most people agree that pornagraphy should be allowed, but that people should not be forced to watch it or accept it. The problem with legalizing something is it forces those of us who work for some companies to accept it. Think about everybody's freedom and not just your own. I want freedom for everybody but sometimes that is difficult.

18. Marco said:

While teaching primary class last Sunday, I was taken away for an impromptu meeting with the stake president. The meeting was concerning the one man and one woman amendment that's on the ballot this November here in Ariz. While the leaders said the church wouldn't take a "political position" on the issue, its "stance" was that marriage is a sacrosanct and only between a man and a woman. They then said church members needed to immediately form organized group to help people get out and vote, even those who were, or just had turned, 18 years old.

The president seemed to guard his language, as though he didn't want to come out and say, "go vote such and such way" except that he said just about everything but. Yet, it amazes me what the church will support, defying the laws of the land. I'm talking about its tax exemption.

It goes without saying that our stake president wants us to form groups of people to vote en mass for political purposes, by doing so, the church essentially violates the tax code. They really didn't come out and say, go vote this way, but they may as well have. They argued that it's more important to get this stopped; it is the moral responsibility of the members.

Up to twenty five percent of the taxes are lifted off the backs of religions and placed on the already burdened taxpayer, and yet they have no respect for its unique situation, so it defies the limits placed on the church. If it wants to get political, the church should first give up its tax advantage over the rest of us.

I feel sad to see such moral equivocating. I also felt like a hypocrite teaching my primary class our lesson for that week. Can you guess what it was? That's right, obeying the laws of the land.