Same-sex: LDS stand

First Presidency expands position against gay nuptials

Published: Thursday, Oct. 21 2004 9:22 a.m. MDT

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.

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.

"Even in light of the church's new statement, fair-minded and reasonable Utahns can believe in that goal," McCoy said. "Let's make the Legislature actually give us an amendment that preserves traditional marriage and doesn't hurt people or cost taxpayer money."

In an unexpected move last summer, GOP Attorney General Mark Shurtleff and his opponents, Democrat Greg Skordas and Libertarian Andrew McCollough, issued a joint statement opposing Amendment 3, expressing concerns that the proposed amendment could affect more than same-sex couples.

In reacting to the church's latest statement, Paul Murphy, spokesman for the Attorney General's Office, said Shurtleff has "already expressed his constitutional and legal concerns about the second part of Amendment 3."

"He supports an amendment that would legally define a marriage between a man and a woman, which is consistent with the statement by the LDS Church."

Get The Deseret News Everywhere

Subscribe

Mobile

RSS