Just and Holy Principles

Utah Governor Jon Huntsman, Jr. (R) recently reaffirmed his support of civil unions. We know that the Church has opposed same-sex marriage, but what is its position on civil unions? There has been some confusion regarding this matter, which I hope to clear up here.

The Deseret News reported that Elder Clayton, Church spokesman during the Prop. 8 battle, said that “in general, the church ‘does not oppose civil unions or domestic partnerships,’ that involve benefits like health insurance and property rights.” However, when questioned about the Common Ground Initiative, an effort to promote civil unions and other benefits for homosexuals, the Church did not take a public position. Instead, it said “we have tried to clearly define the principles regarding the importance of marriage and its attending issues.” So, let’s take a look at the Church’s most official statements regarding marriage.

“The Family: A Proclamation to the World” emphasizes that sexual relations, marriage, and parenting should be between only man and woman, husband and wife, but does not mention civil unions. It does say, “We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.” Would civil unions “maintain and strengthen the family” — as the Brethren have defined it — “as the fundamental unit of society”? Let’s look at another statement.

In the Church Newsroom, there is an official statement on same-gender attraction. It’s an interview with Elder Oaks and Elder Wickman (member of the Seventy). In response to the question, “Would you extend the same argument against same-gender marriage to civil unions or some kind of benefits short of marriage?”, Elder Wickman replied:

One way to think of marriage is as a bundle of rights associated with what it means for two people to be married. What the First Presidency has done is express its support of marriage and for that bundle of rights belonging to a man and a woman. The First Presidency hasn’t expressed itself concerning any specific right. It really doesn’t matter what you call it. If you have some legally sanctioned relationship with the bundle of legal rights traditionally belonging to marriage and governing authority has slapped a label on it, whether it is civil union or domestic partnership or whatever label it’s given, it is nonetheless tantamount to marriage. That is something to which our doctrine simply requires us to speak out and say, “That is not right. That’s not appropriate.” (emphasis added)

Another publication, The Divine Institution of Marriage, does not mention civil unions specifically. It does outline some of the possible negative effects if “government declares that same-sex unions are a civil right” or allows “single-sex unions” or “non-traditional unions,” but it doesn’t distinguish specifically between civil unions and marriage.

To summarize, based on official public statements, the Church seems to oppose any type of civil union that bestows “the bundle of legal rights traditionally belonging to marriage” on same-gender couples, which likely includes most any type of “civil union” or “domestic partnership.” As for particular rights within that bundle, the Church stated during the Prop 8 debate that it “does not object to rights for same-sex couples regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches.” To me, this statement means that the Church could support, or at least not object to, legal measures that grant certain rights to same-sex couples, depending on the specific language, context, and possible effects of such measures.

In the interview cited above, Elder Wickman also said:

As far as relationships that give to some pairs in our society some right but not all of those associated with marriage — as to that, as far as I know, the First Presidency hasn’t expressed itself. There are numbers of different types of partnerships or pairings that may exist in society that aren’t same-gender sexual relationships that provide for some right that we have no objection to. All that said… there may be on occasion some specific rights that we would be concerned about being granted to those in a same-gender relationship. Adoption is one that comes to mind, simply because that is a right which has been historically, doctrinally associated so closely with marriage and family. I cite the example of adoption simply because it has to do with the bearing and the rearing of children. Our teachings, even as expressed most recently in a very complete doctrinal sense in the Family Proclamation by living apostles and prophets, is that children deserve to be reared in a home with a father and a mother.

In my opinion, the only benefits that meet these requirements and “do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches” are those that do not reference “sexual orientation,” or anything like unto it, in any way. In other words, any rights granted to people in a non-marriage relationship should apply equally to all people without regard to gender, so that same-gender partnerships are not given special consideration over opposite-gender partnerships. Measures that meet the criteria described here may be worthy of consideration, provided that they are also necessary and practical.

What do you think?