Does the Proclamation on the Family prohibit marriage equality?
With the Proclamation on the mind, here’s musings from the free e-book Gay LDS Crossroads by Evan Smith, a former bishop and stake presidency counselor whose son is gay. With the mind of a lawyer, he examines scriptures and church teachings to look for a more hopeful path forward. This is from Chapter 5:
Does the Proclamation on the Family prohibit marriage equality?
Even though the scriptures don’t actually prohibit marriage equality, many people view the Church’s document “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” as an impenetrable roadblock to doctrinal change. Issued in 1995, it is widely treated as doctrine in the church (even though it has not been canonized into the scriptures) and is generally thought to explicitly condemn gay marriage.
However, under a close reading, the closest the document comes to prohibiting gay sexual behavior is this: “[T]he sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.” Since two people of the same sex cannot procreate, this statement actually only condemns straight sexual activity outside marriage, not gay sexual activity at all.
+ Side note: This suggests to me that a pressing concern for God might be the frequency of single moms abandoned by deadbeat dads, and the strain that causes to individuals and society. It also suggests to me that marriage between two same-gender partners, which seems to harm no one, is not something God is worried about.
Clearer language about procreation is found on the church’s website under the topic “birth control” (another area where church doctrine has changed dramatically over the years):
“Sexual relations within marriage are not only for the purpose of procreation, but also a means of expressing love and strengthening emotional and spiritual ties between husband and wife.”
Here church leaders acknowledge that sexual relations can have the purpose of both procreation and expressing love. Unless the church reverses its modern allowance for birth control or forbids infertile straight married couples from having sex, it will always be the case that the church considers non-procreative sex within marriage to be a good thing. Is it possible then that God guided church leaders to use language in the family proclamation that referenced procreation specifically rather than sexual relations in general? Maybe so that, when God finally deems us ready to understand how gay marriage fits into the gospel picture, future church leaders can more easily clarify that the family proclamation doesn’t actually prohibit gay sex within marriage?
+ Side note: The church’s General Handbook released in February 2020 explicitly condemns gay sexual behavior by using the clear terminology of “sexual relations” rather than “powers of procreation” (see Section 38.6.15).
Elsewhere in the family proclamation, other concepts are presented to support that heterosexual marriage and parenthood are essential to God’s plan for His children. But, just like our scriptures, nowhere does it say that gay marriage can’t be something “extra” or also “essential” for different reasons. To me, it’s like saying trees are essential for a forest - but that doesn’t mean other plants and animals can’t be important or essential parts of it also, to provide variety and make the whole forest healthier and more beautiful, right? Diversity is a wonderful thing and helps people learn to love more open-mindedly. Perhaps God wants us to have diversity in married couples both here and in heaven, so we can learn to better appreciate one another and all of His creations equally. Could God have inspired the wording of the proclamation to still be flexible for a future, more open-minded interpretation?
+ Side note: Some people have postulated that the family proclamation was written for primarily legal reasons to help the church engage in multiple litigations against gay marriage (because, based on just our scriptures alone, it may not have been clear to the courts that opposition to gay marriage was a core doctrine – so having sufficient legal standing to petition the courts could have been lacking). It is interesting to see the timeline of events around when the family proclamation was issued and the church’s involvement as an amicus curiae party in an early court case in Hawaii dealing with legalizing gay marriage. If it is true that the initial impetus of the document was mostly to fortify a legal argument, could it make sense that, knowing church leaders were going to use their agency to write the proclamation no matter what (given existing attitudes and biases), God inspired the wording of the proclamation to still be adaptable for the future?
This might also explain why this document on the family took the form of a proclamation instead of a new revelation in the canonized book, the Doctrine & Covenants. Could God have been guiding the process to help keep the door open for change to happen more easily when the time is right? As mentioned above, gay folks are written out of the family proclamation. Perhaps the current iteration of the family proclamation may come to be known as “The Heterosexual Family: A Proclamation to the World.” Then, when we are ready to receive it, God might reveal something like “The Human Family: A Proclamation to the World,” inclusive of our LGBTQ siblings.
Side note: Evidence that the family proclamation should not be considered a formal new “revelation” from God is found in the words used by President Gordon B. Hinckley when he first presented the proclamation to the church: “[T]he First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles now issue a proclamation to the Church and to the world as a declaration and reaffirmation of standards, doctrines, and practices relative to the family which the prophets, seers, and revelators of this church have repeatedly stated throughout its history.” (Gordon B. Hinckley, Prophet, 1995)
We can also see that it is inappropriate to call the family proclamation a “revelation” because President Boyd K.Packer’s use of that term to describe the proclamation in a general Conference talk was corrected:
“In his original talk, Packer said the church’s 1995 statement, ‘The Family: A Proclamation to the World,’ ‘qualifies according to scriptural definition as a revelation.’ That descriptive phrase has now been omitted, leaving the proclamation simply described as “a guide that members of the church would do well to read and to follow.”
In the meantime, we should all refrain from using the family proclamation to negatively judge any LGBTQ church member who chooses to date or marry someone of their same gender, or who transitions genders. The proclamation helps us remember to refrain from judging by saying, after discussing gender roles of husband and wife: “other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation.” That simple and direct statement can be a precedent for exceptions to other statements made throughout the proclamation. So we should not use the family proclamation to condemn anyone for their chosen family or gender.
But I think it is appropriate to use the family proclamation to chastise parents who put their LGBTQ kids into conversion therapy programs to try to change their sexual orientation or gender identity or who exclude them in any way from their personal lives. The proclamation says “parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love” and warns that “individuals who…abuse…offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God.” Parents should try to eradicate homophobia and transphobia from their hearts. We should remind parents who subject their LGBTQ children to abusive therapy programs or who reject them in any way, that they are in danger of harsh divine judgment under the proclamation’s warnings.
Photograph © 2004, Darren Webb, churchofjesuschristtemples.org Gallery-45