« A rose by any other name... | Main | Random stuff again... »
'Lawful' marriage...
Continuing the 'hot' gay marriage topic from last week...
Over the weekend, I pondered the term 'legally and lawfully married'--used in a number of places, specifically the LDS Law of Chastity ("No sexual relations except between people who are...")
What's the difference between 'legally' and 'lawfully'? I'm not a lawyer, but they seem to be synonyms, and perusing law documents online, the two words appear to be used interchangably (but never together...)
The LDS context appears to be the only place, in fact, where 'legally' and 'lawfully' are used together--implying an inherent difference between them from a Church perspective. Offhand, I'd say 'legally' refers to 'legitimate according to the laws of the land', and 'lawfully' means 'legitimate according to the laws of God'
There been some debate that 'lawfully' married (in an LDS context) means married in the temple. That has some merit, but since (to my knowledge) non-temple marriages aren't considered to be in violation of the Law of Chastity (which uses 'lawfully married') you would have to assume that non-temple marriages are still 'lawful' in God's eyes. (Not hard to defend, since temple marriages didn't exist throughout most of Biblical times, plus non-temple marriages can still fulfill God's plan, as discussed in my essay here)
Back to the gay rights issue--the biggest hope of gay couples (particularly those who are still Church members) is that they have a Church-sponsored 'outlet' for sexual expression (like straight couples have)without coming under law of chastity condemnation. Ideally, gays would be able to be chaste before marriage and faithful after marriage and be considered as righteous and obedient as regular couples--in fact, many hope to have gay temple sealings someday as well. Is this a realistic hope, though? Gay marriage may at some time become 'legal', but 'lawful', though? (obviously, lots of things that are legal are still against God's commandments...)
Marriage exists because it is a part of the plan of salvation. Even before the sealing power was given to man, marriages were a part of God's plan because they formed the basic family unit that would be together in the eternities. The hope that gay marriages will be accepted in the Church depends on gay marriage having a part in God's plan of salvation--that gay couples have the exact same potential from an eternal perspective that man-woman couples do. Frankly, I don't see any evidence that that is the case...
The Proclamation on Families says the family unit is clearly a man and woman--that a family with a mother AND a father is inherently better both secularly and eternally than a family without one or the other. I don't see any way the Church will have gay sealings because the resulting family units lack inherent procreative ability, and are missing one of the key parental roles in any family. Even the Church's secular acknowledgment of gay marriages outside of the temple would require that gay unions provide some tangible benefit to human society in regards to eternal progression. I don't see how this is the case, either--which means, essentially, that those who are waiting for a policy change from God or the Church are going to be waiting for a long time...
July 12, 2004 in Current Affairs | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/915611
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 'Lawful' marriage...:
Comments
Boyd K Packer, in his talk "For Time and All Eternity" (Oct 1993 Conference) presented the following parable. I think it bears on the current discussion about SSM, and the purpose of marriage.
Once a man received as his inheritance two keys. The first key, he was told, would open a vault which he must protect at all cost. The second key was to a safe within the vault which contained a priceless treasure. He was to open this safe and freely use the precious things which were stored therein. He was warned that many would seek to rob him of his inheritance. He was promised that if he used the treasure worthily, it would be replenished and never be diminished, not in all eternity. He would be tested. If he used it to benefit others, his own blessings and joy would increase.
The man went alone to the vault. His first key opened the door. He tried to unlock the treasure with the other key, but he could not, for there were two locks on the safe. His key alone would not open it. No matter how he tried, he could not open it. He was puzzled. He had been given the keys. He knew the treasure was rightfully his. He had obeyed instructions, but he could not open the safe.
In due time, there came a woman into the vault. She, too, held a key. It was noticeably different from the key he held. Her key fit the other lock. It humbled him to learn that he could not obtain his rightful inheritance without her.
They made a covenant that together they would open the treasure and, as instructed, he would watch over the vault and protect it; she would watch over the treasure. She was not concerned that, as guardian of the vault, he held two keys, for his full purpose was to see that she was safe as she watched over that which was most precious to them both. Together they opened the safe and partook of their inheritance. They rejoiced for, as promised, it replenished itself.
With great joy they found that they could pass the treasure on to their children; each could receive a full measure, undiminished to the last generation.
Perhaps some few of their posterity would not find a companion who possessed the complementary key, or one worthy and willing to keep the covenants relating to the treasure. Nevertheless, if they kept the commandments, they would not be denied even the smallest blessing.
Because some tempted them to misuse their treasure, they were careful to teach their children about keys and covenants.
There came, in due time, among their posterity some few who were deceived or jealous or selfish because one was given two keys and another only one. “Why,” the selfish ones reasoned, “cannot the treasure be mine alone to use as I desire?”
Some tried to reshape the key they had been given to resemble the other key. Perhaps, they thought, it would then fit both locks. And so it was that the safe was closed to them. Their reshaped keys were useless, and their inheritance was lost.
Those who received the treasure with gratitude and obeyed the laws concerning it knew joy without bounds through time and all eternity.
Posted by: Pat Eyler | Jul 12, 2004 4:46:21 PM
"Marriage exists because it is a part of the plan of salvation."
In the church? Yes. Absolutely? No. Marriage exists in many cultures where religion plays absolutely no part in it. Marriage exists simply because people want to express a commitment of their love to each other.
Posted by: Kim Siever | Jul 13, 2004 9:16:54 AM
"Marriage exists simply because people want to express a commitment of their love to each other."
Sorry, but that's wrong; if anything, it's an expression of the "fairty-tale fallacy," which ends the story when marriage begins. The institution of marriage has always historically been a social structure for establishing continuity in posterity. It's for the raising of children and the fostering of a multi-generational family, not as an expression solely between two people.
Unrelated note to the Baron: I believe it was Heber J. Grant who modified the wording of the Law of Chastity as used in the temple to specifically be "legally and lawfully" -- previous to that, the Law of Chastity as understood in the temple covenants referred specifically to temple marriage; civil ones didn't count. In other words, one could not be an endowed member civilly married.
Posted by: Nathan | Jul 13, 2004 10:03:14 AM
"The institution of marriage has always historically been a social structure for establishing continuity in posterity."
Historically, yes. However, presently there are MANY married couples who not only are childless, but a significant portion of them decided from the get-go to remain childless. Marriage is not absolutely about posterity any more than it is absolutely about the plan of salvation.
Posted by: Kim Siever | Jul 13, 2004 10:59:16 AM
Kim--But marriage from an eternal perspective is about posterity--even couples who are unable to have children in this life will be able to have posterity in the eternities. From a secular standpoint, yes, child-bearing has been 'divorced' from marriage but that's more of a reflection of the direction society has ventured in through the years than an inherent change in its purpose.
Nathan--It sounds like there's really two laws of Chastity (although they're essentially the same)--the temple covenant and the general commandment for mankind. From a temple covenant perspective I can see why you'd expect a couple who were endowed to also be sealed--but outside the temple, I haven't heard any interpretation that says that a couple with only a civil marriage is equivalent to having sex outside of marriage entirely for chastity purposes, leading me to believe that civil marriage are still 'lawful' (interpreted as in obedience to God's commandments without regard to temple sealings...)
Posted by: The Baron | Jul 13, 2004 12:56:41 PM
"marriage from an eternal perspective is about posterity"
I'm not saying otherwise.
"From a secular standpoint, yes, child-bearing has been 'divorced' from marriage"
Right.
"that's more of a reflection of the direction society has ventured in through the years than an inherent change in its purpose."
Honestly, I don't see a difference. Unless of course you meant to say "inherent change in God's purpose" or "inherent change in its eternal purpose".
My argument is not that God's reason for instituting marriage is not for procreation. Nor am I arguing that the plan of salvation does not have marriage as one of its components. What I am arguing is that one cannot say absolutely that marriage is these things.
I have no problems with the qualified statements that "marriage from an eternal perspective is about posterity" or that "marriage has...historically been a social structure for establishing continuity in posterity". I do have a problem with an absolute, umbrella statement like "marriage exists because it is a part of the plan of salvation." Particularly since many people are married each day who are completely ignorant of the plan of salvation and who in many of those instances are completely devoid of God.
Posted by: Kim Siever | Jul 14, 2004 8:45:51 AM
Kim --
"However, presently there are MANY married couples who not only are childless, but a significant portion of them decided from the get-go to remain childless."
Yes, thank you, I know that already. What I was countering was your statement that "Marriage exists simply because people want to express a commitment of their love to each other." While many instances of marriage today exist for that purpose, marriage as an institution does not exist (i.e., has not been historically present up to the present day) for that reason.
Baron --
I'm agreeing with you. I'm just saying that the "legal" part was a specific revision to the understanding (or expected practice) of the Law of Chastity from a temple perspective. (I don't actually know what the previous wording was.)
Posted by: Nathan | Jul 14, 2004 11:13:14 AM
