Gary Lawrence is part of the problem, not the solution.

But what do you suppose he’s up to now (after being handsomely paid for completing his Prop 8 assignment)?

Promoting his latest book, of course.

How Americans View Mormonism (Seven Steps To Improve Our Image)

He’s kidding, right?

So much for the “Mormonism” that meant celebrating the joys of a close-knit family and community.

The rank-and-file gets thrown under the bus while PR types play CYA with their six-digit rewards and media connections.

All the credit and none of the blame.

My Mormon parents were respected in Baptist country for who they were, not for who they aspired/trained/longed to be.

Gary: This is me asking you to show a little more respect.

!

Divorce, specifically no-fault divorce, which, no one, I have noticed, had mentioned modifying, has already produced the reduction of marriage down to affection and consent.

Then I guess my question is, if you don’t think that legally enforceable gender roles were necessarily an important part of whether marriage does ideological work, then why would allowing same sex marriage into the institution constrain that ideological work? If marriage can enforce gender roles without juridical power, then isn’t the ideological force durable enough to remain after same-sex marriage is part of the institution? Alternatively, couldn’t it be that it is child rearing within a legally recognized union which does the ideological work and not the formalized institution? As a third question, why does obligation to each other and children need to be gendered?

I missed this comment earlier. Frankly, I have never understood the notion that the Church is frightened that polygamy will be declared legal and they will be in some sort of a quandary. The Church already operates in several countries in Africa where polygamy is legal, and it seems to be holding the line on monogamy pretty clearly. I just don’t see polygamy as being an issue for the Church in these legal debates.

But that is exactly what is being done with survivor benefits with social security and marriage and dependents related to the marriage.

That was a great example to pick in trying to illustrate an area where marriage was irrelevant because it has such a large impact (at least for some people — talk to my mom and dad when hospice visits weekly to see my dad if survivor benefits matter to her).

I actually am not sure how important law is in terms of maintaining the public meaning of an institution. For example, I think that image of marriage as being primarily about consent and romance, to the extent that one wants to ascribe a 19th century cause, is more likely the progeny of sentimental fiction than the decline of coventure. (Which by the way, was always only a common law doctrine. It did not exist, for example, in Louisiana or the territories annexed from Mexico.)

Nate:

By stripping out gender, the institution becomes mainly about romantic love and consent, and it loses some of its ability to perform other important ideological work.

Has marriage been about anything other than love and consent since the abrogation of coverture laws? If marriage does any sort of ideological heavy lifting when it comes to gender roles, isn’t that some sort of vestigial baggage from the bad old days of coverture? And if it is, is that ideological function doomed to disappear eventually without the legal system to keep it in place?