Take note of the update near the bottom.
Yesterday, Brigham Young University’s student paper The Daily Universe featured a letter to the editor that argued that the legal case for Proposition 8 is “indefensible.” Its author, BYU student Cary Crall*, also asked Mormons to admit that their only opposition to gay marriage is religious. The letter attracted enormous attention and praise from both the Mormon and ex-Mormon online communities. People were most impressed that BYU—in a refreshing display of academic freedom—published it.
But shortly after the letter was posted to the Universe‘s website, it was quietly pulled**. This is disappointing, but not terribly surprising; the letter nearly didn’t get published at all. Crall told me in a Facebook message that he submitted the letter to the Universe a few weeks ago, but it was rejected by the summer editor who felt it was inappropriate for a “newspaper funded by the LDS Church.” It wasn’t until after some edits and the approval of a new editor that it was published, albeit briefly.
Thankfully, Crall was kind enough to email me the original copy of his letter with permission to reproduce it here. (The bracketed sentences did not appear in the Universe.)
Viewpoint: Defending Proposition 8 — It’s time to admit the reasons
By CARY CRALL
Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the recent United States District Court case that overturned Proposition 8, highlighted a disturbing inconsistency in the pro-Prop 8 camp.
The arguments put forth so aggressively by the Protect Marriage coalition and by LDS church leaders at all levels of church organization during the campaign were noticeably absent from the proceedings of the trial. This discrepancy between the arguments in favor of Proposition 8 presented to voters and the arguments presented in court shows that at some point, proponents of Prop 8 stopped believing in their purported rational and non-religious arguments for the amendment.
Claims that defeat of Prop 8 would force religious organizations to recognize homosexual marriages and perform such marriages in their privately owned facilities, including LDS temples, were never mentioned in court. Similarly, the defense was unable to find a single expert witness willing to testify that state-recognized homosexual marriage would lead to forcing religious adoption agencies to allow homosexual parents to adopt children or that children would be required to learn about homosexual marriage in school.
Four of the proponents’ six expert witnesses who may have been planning on testifying to these points withdrew as witnesses on the first day of the trial. Why did they go and why did no one step up to replace them? Perhaps it is because they knew that their arguments would suffer much the same fate as those of David Blankenhorn and Kenneth Miller, the two expert witnesses who did agree to testify.
Judge Vaughn Walker, who heard the case, spent 11 pages of his 138-page decision meticulously tearing down every argument advanced by Blankenhorn before concluding that his testimony was “unreliable and entitled to essentially no weight.” Miller suffered similar censure after it was shown that he was unfamiliar with even basic sources on the subject in which he sought to testify as an expert.
The court was left with lopsided, persuasive testimony leading to the conclusion that Proposition 8 was not in the interest of the state and was discriminatory against gays and lesbians. Walker’s decision is a must-read for anyone who is yet to be convinced of this opinion. The question remains that if proponents of Prop 8 were both unwilling and unable to support even one rational argument in favor of the amendment in court, why did they seek to present their arguments as rational during the campaign?
It is time for LDS supporters of Prop 8 to be honest about their reasons for supporting the amendment. It’s not about adoption rights, or the first amendment, or tradition. These arguments were not found worthy of the standards for finding facts set up by our judicial system. The real reason is that a man who most of us believe is a prophet of God told us to support the amendment. [This is a privately held religious belief that we are using to support legislation that takes away a right from a minority group. If our government were to enact legislation based solely on such beliefs, it would set a dangerous precedent, possibly even more so than allowing a homosexual to marry the person he or she loves.] We must be honest about our motivation, and consider what it means to the delicate balance between our relationship with God and with His children here on earth. Maybe then we will stop thoughtlessly spouting arguments that are offensive to gays and lesbians and indefensible to those not of our faith.
It was very brave of Crall to write this. In the unfortunate (and I hope unlikely) case that BYU takes disciplinary action against him, let’s give him our support.
Update: The Daily Universe recently released this statement about their decision to pull Cary’s letter:
The Daily Universe made an independent decision to remove the student viewpoint titled “Defending Proposition 8” after being alerted by various readers that the content of the editorial was offensive. The publication of this viewpoint was not intended to offend, but after further review we recognized that it contained offensive content.
This is consistent with policy that The Daily Universe has, on rare occasions, exercised in the past.
So with this statement, we have a clear case of censorship. The Universe removed the piece because they deemed it to be offensive, and not—as was suggested in the comments—because it was “an example of bad journalism.”
To be sure, the Universe has every right to exercise editorial control over its content. I just think the decision robbed BYU and its students of an opportunity to openly discuss an important issue. The Universe instead thinks the length of women’s skirts is a more pressing matter.
*Cary Crall is a BYU senior from Temecula, California, studying neuroscience and mathematics. He plans to attend medical school, which shouldn’t be hard for someone who scored a 44 out of 45 on the MCAT.
**Here is the cached copy of the letter on The Daily Universe‘s website. You will also find it in the pdf version of the paper on page 3.
Katie, your statements are factually incorrect. You have just enough facts and jargon to sound like you know what you are talking about, but you don’t.
* The LDS Church itself was not party to the trial. TRUE.
* Some gay and lesbian citizens sued the State (naming Schwartzenegger and Atty Gen Brown as a matter of formality). TRUE. However, the defense was *not* put on by the State of California. Your statements to the contrary, such as this are utterly and objectively false:
* Proponents of Prop 8 were granted standing in the district court, and they acted as the defenders of Prop 8 against the lawsuit by the gay and lesbian couples.
* (This is largely unrelated to the discussion about Crall’s letter, but regarding the future of the standing issue: Proponents of Prop 8 may not have standing to APPEAL the district court’s decision. Appellate law is different in its handling of standing. So, proponents of Prop 8 may need Schwartzenegger and/or Brown to handle the appeal, though both of them have so far declined to do so. But this DOES NOT apply to the case Judge Walker just decided, which was argued by proponents of Prop 8, using their money and their lawyers, NOT the State of CA/Gov/AttyGen.)
If Katie or anyone else doesn’t believe me that the proponents of Prop 8 argued the case, and not the State of CA, they can read the scanned copy of Judge Walker’s opinion themselves. Here is the link: http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/2010/08/04/Perry%20Trial%20Decision.pdf
Note that on the first page it lists the Plaintiffs (KRISTIN M PERRY, SANDRA B STIER,
PAUL T KATAMI and JEFFREY J ZARRILLO), the Defendants (ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, in his official capacity as Governor of California; EDMUND G BROWN JR, in his official capacity as Attorney General of California, and some other CA State officials). BUT the Defendant-Intervenors (the people who actually argued the case defending it) are listed as follows: DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, GAIL J KNIGHT, MARTIN F GUTIERREZ, HAKSHING WILLIAM TAM, MARK A JANSSON and PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM –
YES ON 8, A PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA RENEWAL, as official proponents of Proposition 8.
Notice that ProtectMarriage.com is listed in that list. That is where the LDS Church asked us to send all our donations. The church was intimately connected with ProtectMarriage.com at all times. The others listed as Defendant-Intervenors are also proponents of Prop 8. This is who argued the case. The church and/or ProtectMarriage could have brought any arguments into trial that it wanted.
For the record, I am active LDS living in California.
But, sorry, Katie is dead wrong on all her facts, and I can’t abide that. I hope she at least has the class to post some kind of retraction after she realizes how 100% wrong she is about who defended Prop 8 at trial.
My husband and I cannot have any more children. I guess we should get divorced now since our marriage is meaningless if we aren’t procreating…..
John- the guy who posted Reasons 1-6 plagiarized his entire text from the National Review without acknowledgment. I guess plagiarism is OK at second-rate schools like BYU, but is it OK on this site?
There is a flaw in his cousin’s behavior/faith. Mormon doctrine does not teach blind faith. It says to ponder in your heart and ask the lord if it is right/true. If members are following the “prophet” blindly, then they are going against their own church doctrine. They are now pawns of said leader. So his cousin is a good little soldier who follows orders without question, but he is not a true Mormon. I seriously doubt that the majority of people like him pondered it at all, they are in the habit of simply following the leader.
This is exactly what I wanted to say. “Blind faith” is a stupid phrase coined by people who are even more stupid. Thanks, Lynn.
When Nephi was “commanded” to murder Laban to cover up his crime of stealing the plates, he used the same defense that the Lafferty’s did when they murdered Brenda and Erica: “God made me do it.”
I suppose that’s the core argument used by those who had a special feeling about supporting the Prop 8 campaign: “I prayed about it and god told me to support my prophet and so I did.”
Katie’s comments remind me of a very good defense lawyer picking apart the prosecutor’s case on technicalities to make her client (the LDS church) look innocent. Crall wrote his opinion and backed it up with credible evidence. Kudos to him for having the courage to do so. I hope it goes well for him.
Check out this site for some compelling paragraph by paragraph counter arguments against the LDS church’s official stance on Prop 8 and same sex marriage. http://packham.n4m.org/gaymarriage.htm using their own official statement.
Lynn – when the Mormon GAs stand up in conferences, firesides, etc. and tell people “when the prophet speaks the thinking has been done”. Or how about this by Dallin Oaks from the July 2005 Ensign, pg 30:
“Obedience is a fundamental law of the gospel. It is not only the
demonstration of our faith but also the foundation of our faith. But the
philosophical standard of the world holds that unquestioning obedience
equals blind obedience, and blind obedience is mindless obedience.
This is simply not true. Unquestioning obedience to the Lord
indicates that a person has developed faith and trust in Him to the
point where he or she considers all inspired instruction —
whether it be recorded scripture or the words of modern prophets
— to be worthy of obedience.”
And from further down in the article: “Let us believe all things. Let us have unquestioning faith in all of the doctrines and truths of the restored gospel.”
One from Russell Ballard:
“I know a 17-year-old who, just prior
to the prophet’s talk, had pierced her
ears a second time. She came home
from the fireside, took off the second
set of earrings, and simply said to her
parents, “If President Hinckley says
we should only wear one set of
earrings, that’s good enough for
me.””
“Wearing two pair of earrings may
or may not have eternal consequences for this young woman, but
her willingness to obey the prophet will. And if she will obey him
now, on something relatively simple, how much easier it will be to
follow him when greater issues are at stake.”
- Apostle M. Russell Ballard, “His Word Ye Shall Receive,” Ensign, May
2001, 65
I have a PDF with more like this here: http://www.intjmom.com/docs/religion/LDS_loyalty.pdf
It surely sounds like these current GAs are advocating blind faith there, doesn’t it? A bit hard to interpret it as anything else unless one sits and twists things around in their heads, IMO.
I would love to hear where you got the “when the prophet speaks the thinking has been done” bit from. That sounds like more of an opinion, but I guess what this website’s for, right?
No, it’s not opinion. The “thinking has been done” bit is from a 1945 Ward Teacher’s Message in the church’s magazine Improvement Era.
There are quotes from Mormon leaders encouraging Mormons to be inquisitive and thoughtful, and there are other quotes from leaders that instead encourage unquestioning obedience. So it’s really a wash. But from my experience, I know more Mormons who heed the latter counsel (unquestioning obedience) than the former.
@Robbie:
“When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan–it is God’s Plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give directions, it should mark the end of controversy, God works in no other way. To think otherwise, without immediate repentance, may cost one his faith, may destroy his testimony, and leave him a stranger to the kingdom of God.”
Ward Teachers Message, Deseret News, Church Section p. 5, May 26, 1945
Also included in the Improvement Era, June 1945
Also:
“When the Prophet speaks the debate is over”.
N. Eldon Tanner, August Ensign 1979
Pingback: Logic Eats Babies: Letter to BYU's Daily Universe | BYU 411
@ Sarpentia
… well, except for the fact that Katie’s comments indicate that she (as a “very good defense lawyer,” as you put it) doesn’t appear to have any knowledge of the basic procedural rules that she appears to pick apart for the benefit of her client. I’m all for zealously advocating a position for a client (as a lawyer), but one can’t be substantively wrong on points of law and maintain credibility with even the most incompetent of judges (or juries . . . hopefully). What’s more, not only does she not understand the basic procedural rules in play (which might be excusable since I’m assuming she is a non-lawyer), but she lacks the reading comprehension to determine who was advancing what arguments in the trial. Either she didn’t even read the opinion, or she is so blinded by her desire to vindicate her church’s absurd pro-Prop 8 arguments that she has lost all ability to read anything objectively.
Pingback: Truth Wins Out - Brigham Young University Censors Student Letter About Prop 8
Pingback: Are religiously-affiliated universities bad? - Southern Maryland Community Forums
Cary, if you’re reading this… I think I’m a little bit in love with you.
Here is a PDF link to the original:
http://newnewsnet.byu.edu/pdf/du20100907.pdf
Go to page 3.
Pingback: BYU Censors Letter Addressing Proposition 8 | GayLGBT.com
Pingback: Various unrelated thoughts « Donk's Blog
In response to Me’s reasons.
1. No, marriage is not defined as a union between a man and a woman. Evidence? We can have this conversation at all. The definition of marriage has to include more than just the genders involved. And, in order for this conversation to be possible, it has to be possible to switch to same-sex marriages and have the concept be comprehensible.
2. If this were a valid reason, it would also be a valid reason for requiring fertility testing before marriages are allowed. Or otherwise having the state revoke official recognition of couples who are either incapable or unwilling to have children.
3. Is just an appeal to tradition with some explanation. That marriage might once have had that purpose is no indication that we must stick to that purpose.
4. It’s not for a symbolic statement. It’s so the legal rights of heterosexual married couples are also granted to homosexual married couples. The right to visit your spouse in a hospital, the right to be next of kin, etc.
5. Your own definition also excludes people who qualify in every way except for the romantic/sexual relationship, father and daughter, brother and sister, male and female friend who aren’t interested in each other romanticaly, etc.
6. Marriage, in the US, is about the desires of the adults. We don’t legally require people who concieve to marry the people with whom they concieve. We don’t refuse divorices to married couples where children have already resulted. Marriage is entirely the choice of the two getting married as to what they want.
Absolute statements like “… how 100% wrong she is …” are often falsifiable. A safer position might be to present the statement as an opinion such as “It seems to me …” or “I am unaware of information substantiating _____”.
Pingback: BYU pulls letter to the editor regarding Prop 8 - LDS Mormon Forums
I attended BYU as a non-member (evangelical Christian), and married a Mormon while I was there. During my senior year, a reporter from The Daily Universe contacted us wanting to run a story about our interfaith marriage. She interviewed us and asked us a lot of questions about how we make it work. She gave us the date that the story would run.
On the morning that the story was supposed to run, it didn’t show up in the paper. I called the reporter to ask what had happened, and she was in tears. She said that the editors had decided at the last minute not to run the story because it would be seen as endorsing marriage outside of the temple. I pointed out that The Daily Universe had recently run a story about interracial marriages, and surely our story couldn’t be more controversial than that. She said, “I know, and we’re still getting flack for that article.”
PBS Religion & Ethics Newsweekly just did a spot on our marriage a few weeks ago, so this reporter’s instincts in thinking we had an interesting story worth telling were right on.
Point of all this being, I’m honest-to-gods surprised that The Daily Universe decided to allow this editorial at all, and not surprised in the slightest that it was censored—although, I think censoring it after the fact was a terrible move and only called more attention to it than it would have gotten otherwise. GG, BYU.
Pingback: ELEMENT Blog | Do You Do Gay Denver? Hump day roundup