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."
>>You're right. I can't prove gog didn't make some sort of personal revelation to another
>>individual, just like you can't prove God came before me in the image of Captain
>>Crunch to instruct me to spread the word that the LDS church is nothing more than a
>>sham.
>>Why do you believe God came before them and not me?
Snicker, Um, Credibility, The Spirit, Reason, Intellect? Take your pick, they all agree on this point easily.
Captain crunch, LOL
>>Secondly, that 'church' was started by a repeated felon and child molester, who
>>escaped the gallows by the skin of his teeth, only to defraud his fellow man of
>>their mind and money.
Ok, We’ll play this game again, got a credible source (Had a poster on another thread link to his own blog without attribution, bad forum manners you know)
“Fellon”, got convictions? Or just trumped up charges?
“Child Molester” Since polygamy was legal, and 16 year olds were routinely getting married then, was he supposedly “Doing” pre teens, again credible source? (You won’t find any)
“escaped the gallows” Like George Washington and all the patriots who signed the declaration of independence? (Having people after you is not necessarily a bad thing, and it makes good movies later :-)
“only to defraud…” If you believe something, are you lying? ( http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=defraud ) Fraud (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fraud ) So you are stating that Joseph Smith was a liar and a Cheat. Again, where is your proof (proving what a dead person believed or did not believe is difficult as you have only that persons’ recorded actions to work with, you cannot put them on the stand.) Joseph Smith Died at the hands of a mob who were upset with his beliefs. If Joseph Smith had been willing to denounce his beliefs in the face of the mob, he would have lived. Thus he is a martyr, a man who died for his faith. He sounds like a believer to me, good luck proving he wasn’t.
If you are now going to say he was misled, or some such, then the whole defraud thing is a slander, and I await your apology.
Congress has however laid out ground rules to non traditional marriage by DOMA. Marriage is not a "right" per se contained anywhere in the Constitution. That is a clear distinction from "privacy" which is pervasive thoughout the Constitution.
So until I see something indicating the USSC will throw out DOMA, I'm not in favor of a constitutional amendment.
LDS to push marriage amendment
Good!
But what about letting the States decide?
To take the position of letting the States decide is to ignore political reality in addition to taking a defeatist attitude and conceding to debate something already in hand and decided -something in which debate only possibly benefits the politically irrelevant opposition in the matter.
To accept the premise that this issue has yet to be decided and is best decided by the states is to ignore reality -to do such, one must ignore tradition, conventional wisdom, common law and enacted law regarding marriage... I would not only suggest but objectively declare that the states have already decided -the states decided a long time ago! The states are not the problem and as such not the solution. The problem is leftist activist judges!
The Amendment will not make law anew it will simply kick delusion to the curb once and for all as to this issue. I say lets get it done and over with asap -kick the dead dog of homosexual marriage to the curb sooner than later...
Wow, a God who changes his mind and, allows man to dictate church policy based on the law (mans).
Re #4. You're funny. Really.
Exactamundo!
Hillary too pleads for the moral relative platitude of states rights and wishes to let the states decide that which has already been decided: Free Republic: Hillary's little helpers (Radical Homosexual Activists)
LOL
In Reynolds vs. the U.S., the Supreme Court upheld the majority's right to establish community standards in these areas. Once you throw out that decision, you impose polygamy (and all other forms of marriage) on society, against the codified will of the people.
I suppose next you'll be arguing in favor of the right of streakers to roam the streets. After all, we have no business interfering with their personal choice of dress--or lack thereof--right?
The LDS does have some historical unique moral clout on this... it helps expose hypocrisies of left/gay agenda
You don't have to read much between the lines there. She knows it's only a matter of time before the courts impose gay marriage on the nation, when no amendment stands in their way.
Sadly, folks like John McCain and Rudy Giuliani are also against a federal marriage amendment.
>>Wow, a God who changes his mind and, allows man to dictate church policy
>>based on the law (mans).
The articles of Faith (http://scriptures.lds.org/a_of_f/1 ) Pre date the outlawing of polygamy. We are commanded to obey the law of the land. We did not change anything, true the law of the land changed. (Render unto Caesar what is Caesars…) Jesus has always preached living with the current government, his kingdom is not of this world.
You sound like a modern Pharisee (IMHO)
Are you referring to the 1878 case? Why would you throw out that decision. I find it fully consistent with the 11th Circuit decision I referenced. The distinction is that the DOMA was designed to interpret Article IV, not to impose anything on states. I simply see no reason at this time to support an amendment that may never be needed. Nor do I want to see one that could interfere with those decisions rightfully belonging to a state.
I suppose next you'll be arguing in favor of the right of streakers to roam the streets. After all, we have no business interfering with their personal choice of dress--or lack thereof--right?
So if your first argument won't fly you create an absurd straw man? What part of privacy do you not understand?
But let's get real here. This is not about ensuring that a state must recognize another state's non traditional marriage. It is an attempt by religious fundamentalists to try and impose their particular value system on everyone else. They know that DOMA is working, but they have another agenda.
Allrighty.
The Mormon church drew alot of heat because the children of Cain (Blacks) could not hold the priesthood. Due to this heat, the prophet received a devine revelation saying it was ok for them to hold the priesthood. Just another flip-flop.
As far as polygamy is concerned, are you familiar with the Journal of Discourses section 132?
Your tact leaves alot to be desired. If you plan on being a God one day, you need to work on that.
ROTFLMAO!!!!!
What is and has been observed by ALL through the ages via tradition, conventional wisdom, common law, and enacted law is now the domain of extremists? You by default imply homosexual marriage has legitimacy and in essence expose your illegitimate position on the matter...
You better put your "states rights" facade back in place quickly otherwise the hole you dig will get mighty deep right quickly...
Exactly right!
As in: Article VII. Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people; and not for the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men: Therefore the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity and happiness require it.
Society as a whole has the final say, "not for the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men"
"As far as polygamy is concerned, are you familiar with the Journal of Discourses section 132? "
Slight correction: It is Doctrine and Covenants 132, not the JODs. Though, there is a lot of good reading in the latter.
However, I must digress as this is most certainly not related to the topic. My apologies for that.
I agree with the Mormon church as far as one woman and one man but, for the most part, thats where the agreement stops.
They believe marriage is between a man and a woman... and a woman... and a woman...
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.