Homosexual Marriage and World Poverty

My friends, a common refrain we hear from critics of the Church's position on gay marriage is that the money being spent on this endeavor could be used in so many other worthwhile pursuits such as poverty, literacy education, and elsewhere (to be sure, the Church already is actively involved in these things). Of all the criticisms of the Church's position, it is this one to which I am most sensitive. It churns my stomach to hear of the funds spent on most political campaigns. It's not surprising then to hear that I might cringe at the sound of millions being poured into sound bytes and banners...most of which, in my experience, use misinformation and distortion to promote even a worthwhile message. Yet I support the Church's fundamental decision.

But how? Cognitive dissonance? Provinciality? On the monetary issue, those who do accept the Bible as in any way indicative of good morality (and I recognize that not all do...gosh, even I am not comfortable with the conquest of Canaan) might recognize the story where the women washes Jesus' feet with spikenard...a luxurious ointment that could have brought a year's worth of wages. Jesus reprimanded Judas for not recognizing the symbolic significance at work.

Therefore...as I see it, there are two reasons:

1) Organizational agency
2) Societal trends

Alas, what I am about to say might smack of the dreaded "fear tactics" so loathed by those on both sides of the aisle. However, when the state begins to approve of a policy that a special interest group fundamentally opposes, it is not unreasonable to suppose (as has happened in other cases) that the government will, as a matter of political necessity, stop associating with that special interest group in matters related to the point of disagreement. In other words, it would not be unreasonable to suppose that, as has happened previously in Mormon history, that the government would impose penalties on the Church for refusing to fall in line with the government support for same-sex marriage. The worst case scenario plausible could be that LDS bishops could no longer conduct marriages. In more a dramatic (and far less likely) situation, the government might even cease to recognize LDS marriages as legally binding. It's an extreme situation, I recognize. Given the past relationship between the Boy Scouts and various institutions, however, I am somewhat skeptical that the Church could retain its autonomy in matters marital.

2)
As far as the superiority of homes with a father and a mother to homes where only a single parent is present, the research is solid. Proponents of homosexual marriage maintain that a homosexual couple can effectively replicate the male/female roles. This, however, is based on a tremendous assumption that gender, as opposed to biologically sexual makeup, is a construct that can be pieced together at one's will. One can become an effective mother in behavior if not in biology (see Michel Foucault's History of Sexuality work for some of the philosophical underpinnings of the homosexual agenda's argument). The other response is that so many children need homes and don't have them; why don't we let them at least have a loving homosexual couple?

True, a "homosexual couple" can adopt right now, but only one of them can act as guardian. The other is no different from a boyfriend/girlfriend. Marriage adds leverage to whomever is trying to adopt; by granting marital status to homosexuals, we would therefore be putting them on the same level as another competent heterosexual couple in terms of gender. However, two gay men would have more earning power than a heterosexual couple would. Suddenly, all other things being equal, a homosexual couple could win custody of a child based on their ability to financially provide.

This is a difficult issue for me, for I do not want to be the blindly-driven ideologue who refuses to consider the needs of children. I am not among those who suggest that children will be more likely to become homosexual...evidence suggests that they are not at all more likely. However, to say that we won't be sending a message to the children would be incorrect. One very significant message would be that men/women are expendable as genders. According to this line of thinking, neither women nor men have significant contributions to make that can't be made by their counterpart. So while it might solve an immediate problem of providing food and shelter for children, it would come at a societal price of engineering a new model of gendered parenting?

Are we willing to pay it?