Posted on 05/27/2006 8:00:47 AM PDT by Utah Girl
Voice your support for a federal marriage amendment, the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints urges in a letter to be read in LDS sacrament meetings Sunday.
The letter, sent to priesthood leaders in the United States, calls on Latter-day Saints to contact their senators to support a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment that would limit lawful marriages to those between a man and a woman.
To further spell out its opposition to same-sex marriages, the amendment states that: "Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."
A Senate vote on the resolution is expected the week of June 5. A previous vote failed in the Senate but passed the House. Any future amendment would require approval by two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of the states.
The LDS Church posted its letter to priesthood leaders on its Web site, but its communications office declined to comment further.
"We, as the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, have repeatedly set forth our position that the marriage of a man and a woman is the only acceptable marriage relationship," the letter reads.
"Disappointing," says openly gay state Sen. Scott McCoy about the letter. "It's no surprise as to what the church's position is on same-sex marriage and the amendment," says McCoy, D-Salt Lake. "But I find it disappointing that the church is being drawn into what is nothing more than election year grandstanding on the part of the Republican Party. It's an attempt to distract voters from the total mismanagement of the country they've been responsible for in the past two years."
News of the letter was received with a "Great!" at the conservative, Colorado-based Focus on the Family. "The timing is wonderful," says Peter Brandt, senior director of public policy. Focus on the Family has sent out its own letter to 135,000 U.S. pastors, offering them pre-printed postcards in support of the amendment. "We've distributed a million or so postcards," Brandt says. The group has also launched phone campaigns in 14 states where Senate members voted against the amendment the last time. Utah is not on the list.
Religious groups are also lining up for and against the proposed amendment.
A coalition calling itself Clergy for Fairness is campaigning against it. Among its members are leaders of Reform Judaism, the Episcopal Church, the United Methodist Church and the United Church of Christ.
Last month the LDS Church officially signed on to another letter, written on behalf of the Religious Coalition for Marriage, that called for a national marriage amendment. Elder Russell M. Nelson, a member of the church's Quorum of the Twelve, signed the letter along with 49 other religious leaders from around the country.
In 2004, two-thirds of Utah voters passed a state version of the marriage amendment, which changed the Utah Constitution to specifically ban gay marriages. Four months earlier, the First Presidency of the LDS Church issued a brief statement saying that the church "favors a constitutional amendment preserving marriage as the lawful union of a man and a woman."
"Kill the insults post haste"...
"wannabe Gods of the Mormon church"...
Pot
Kettle
Black
The constitutional party is very interesting BUT at this time politically impotent -a vote for best versus a vote for good necessarily translates to a vote for bad e.g a democrat win.
>> Hmm, the consensus of power rules? -- In a constitutional republic? -- You sure? <<
Yes -the form of government and or representation simply determines the method of developing or building political consensus (power) e.g. in the case of the Presidential Election , consensus is derived from a majority of Electoral votes...
>> Jeffersonian/Madisonian republicans are " political losers"? -- Read the essay. <<
I simply peeled off the moral aspects of the "agrarian" ideology to fit my treatise -the losers are at this time moral liberal positions and as such those uncompromisingly tied at the waist to them e.g. dummies...
Whatever happened to "teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves"?
That is not a correct principal and that was guidance for the LDS, not the world!
Pleaes get it straight!
No pun intented!:)
The constitutional party is very interesting BUT at this time politically impotent
I'm not a CP party member.
-a vote for best versus a vote for good necessarily translates to a vote for bad e.g a democrat win.
The end justifies the method? Where have I heard that before?
Hmm, the 'consensus of power' rules? -- In a constitutional republic? -- You sure?
Yes -the form of government and or representation simply determines the method of developing or building political consensus (power)
Majority rule trumps restraints on power?
e.g. in the case of the Presidential Election , consensus is derived from a majority of Electoral votes...
Yeh sure, we've had a "consensus" since the last election.. Dream on.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jeffersonian/Madisonian republicans are " political losers"? -- Read the essay.
I simply peeled off the moral aspects of the "agrarian" ideology to fit my treatise -the losers are at this time moral liberal positions and as such those uncompromisingly tied at the waist to them e.g. dummies...
Here is the authors comment on the "agrarian ideology" you "peeled off".
"-- On one side of the divide were the agrarian republicans like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.
They gave us the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, with their foundation stones of equal creation, personal freedom, and the inalienable rights of every citizen. Theirs was a republic of innate virtue, where crime and vice were nothing more than aberrations.
An individual's misbehavior was only of concern to the State when other citizens had been harmed by it.
On the other side of the divide were the puritanical republicans like the autocratic clergyman, Cotton Mather.
These men believed all citizens to be innate sinners, irresistibly driven to dastardly deeds unless rigidly restrained by the State.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is what you claim is a losers position for 'them DUmmies'? -- Get a grip.
It seems like the Lord has changed his mind several times in the OT there was plural Marriage and than there wasn't
Humm!
Libertarians are politically impotent -that is the reality premising both your last posting and my lack of concern...
are you for same sex marriage?
What does this have to do with same sex marriage that is another topic or is it the LDS your bone with?
Would let same sex marriage over you ax with the LDS!
are you familiar with the Journal of Discourses section 132? "
So!
The topic for the short attention span is Same sex marriage!
So I am to take it when the Lord ready to receive his joint heirs you will decline!:)
Oh I'll just bet you do, and a raft of proof to go along with it. You will excuse me if I don't appreciate or believe any of it.
I don't know what Gods you are talking about, because there is as the scriptures state, but one God.
We are in agreement but,
Joseph Smith said "where I have preached on the subject of diety, it has [been on] the Duality of Gods." (Teachings of the Prophet, Joseph Smith p 370) Mc Conkie said "there is an infinite number of holy personages, drawn from worlds without number, who have passed on to exaltation and are thus Gods." (Mormon Doctrine, McConkie pp 576-577)
Wrong. This is their belief.
Are you saying that God would want same sex marriages? Maybe I misunderstood you, since you were a bit vague, but that is the message I got from your post.
You are correct. And as I stated in an earlier post, my apologies. It was not my intention to hijack the thread.
Would let same sex marriage over you ax with the LDS!
Is this a question or a statement? I don't understand what your trying to say.
Joint heirs? God and man are not equals.
I believe Cymbaline was referring to the tone of your post and not the content. Use of a slang term like "wannabe Gods" is in that case pejorative and insulting.
Ignore my question, as I should have read more of the thread before asking it. I am still not sure where you are coming from, but oh well.
So I am to take it when the Lord ready to receive his joint heirs you will decline!:) ~ Joint heirs? God and man are not equals.
***
That is not what the scriptures say!
Roman 8
16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.
My intention was not to insult anyone. If I did, I apologize. What would you call it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.