Same-sex: LDS stand

First Presidency expands position against gay nuptials

Published: Thursday, Oct. 21, 2004 9:22 a.m. MDT
 |  E-MAIL | PRINT | FONT + - 
The LDS Church's First Presidency issued a statement Tuesday saying the church "favors measures that define marriage as the union of a man and a woman and that do not confer legal status on any other sexual relationship."

The statement by the governing body of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints comes two weeks before Utah voters will decide whether to amend the state's constitution to define marriage as the "legal union between a man and a woman" and to prevent any other domestic union from being "recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect."

The latest pronouncement expands on a previous statement in which the First Presidency said the church supported a constitutional amendment to preserve traditional marriage but did not include a reference to other sexual relationships. That statement came in July, shortly before the U.S. Senate failed to vote on a proposed federal amendment to ban gay marriage.

LDS Church spokesman Michael Otterson declined to "elaborate at this time" on Tuesday's statement. Utah is among 11 states where voters will soon decide whether to constitutionally define marriage.

Story continues below

While the latest statement did not specifically endorse Amendment 3, some observers said the statement is akin to approval of the marriage measure that will be on Utah's Nov. 2 ballot. Others said the church stopped short because the second part of Amendment 3's potential impact would reach beyond sexual relationships.

The statement acknowledged "understanding and respect for individuals who are attracted to those of the same gender" but said "the powers of procreation are to be exercised only between a man and a woman lawfully wedded as husband and wife."

The statement said any sexual relationships outside of marriage "undermine the divinely created institution of the family."

"I think it's probably about as strong as it gets," said Quin Monson, assistant political science professor at Brigham Young University. "In terms of an endorsement, this is pretty clear."

Monte Stewart, co-chairman of Utahns for a Better Tomorrow, one of four campaigns supporting the amendment, said, "I believe that Amendment 3 is in full harmony with the church's stated position.

"In terms of the last half of the sentence, the church's statement is particularly important because we have been trying to educate voters that Amendment 3 prescribes only those arrangements legally defined by their sexual nature."

But Scott McCoy, campaign manager for the Don't Amend Alliance against the amendment, said, "Amendment 3 goes beyond the church's endorsement."

He said the church's statement appeared to oppose recognizing relationships such as civil unions in Vermont or domestic partnerships in California. But McCoy contends the amendment would go beyond that, possibly preventing the recognition of any legal documents between unmarried couples — such as wills or powers of attorney.

Comments

You can be the first to comment on this story.

Related content
previousnext

Latest comments

I love Millsap, and the Jazz will find a way to move Boozer and match for...

i think its childish to assume that somebody would actually want to get...

Millsap and Boozer need to stay in Utah. Millsap is Boozers backup while he...

Childish and immature? Its always easier being ignorant and presuming things...

can you use words like testimony and church leadership to critisize a...

Bro P really helped me through a tough time in my life when I had him in...

These are only allegations at present, but I hope when he goes to trial, the...

My thoughts are with the Pratt family right now. Michael I hope you are...

It is interesting that everyone who seems to be a member comments on how nice...

You presume, simply because they were gay, that they were trying to "stir...

Advertisements