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."
Neither the federal government nor any state government is in the business of bestowing priesthood powers (unless it's to the high priesthood of the church of Darwin).
So, you are misplacing your concern. The sole question you should be asking yourself, if you believe in plural marriage, is whether the person performing it has the priesthood power to do it. If he does, he has it whether the state acknowledges the efficacy of the marriage or not.
The LDS Church maintains that no man has the present authority to perform plural marriage among the living. If they're right, they're right regardless of what the government says. If they're wrong, they're wrong regardless of what the government says.
The government in your argument is a classic red herring. You can argue it until you're blue in the face and it doesn't answer the question, certainly not the way you think it does.
People like you are precisely why an amendment in needed.
gidget7:
The reality is, "religious fundamentalists" as you call them, are not the ones trying to impose their value system on everyone else. That statement is pure projection from the left!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
MACV:
Not at all. If a constitutional amendment passes that does not force states to recognize non-traditional marriages from other states, fine. But what the fundies want is one that says simply: "A marriage can only be between one man and one woman".
That's my belief too, but unlike some here, I do not wish to superimpose my beliefs on folks in other states.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
THE GREAT DIVIDE [puritan v agrarian republicans]
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1638794/posts
How so? Please explain.
you are wrong as a matter of law.
the 1996 Doma has already fallen thanks to mass.
This is 100% a federal issue since immigration is a federal issue and the homosexual marriages of other countries can be used for spousal visas without a federal constitutional amendment.
the ONLY way to keep this institution protected against left wing revsionism is with a constititutional amendment.
Your analysis is flawed because ANY federal judge can dow WHATEVER they want as past rulings have been demonstrated. Don't forget one states supreme court has already ruled their state amendment was "unconstitutional".
I don't.
If you don't believe it, it doesn't effect your spiritual health. Why pick a fight over something you don't believe?
I am not picking a fight (You sure as he** aren't going to win over Mormon converts with your attitude). Besides, I don't consider it "picking a fight". Again, I must digress.
Unless you suspect and fear it might be true.
This statement is Non sequitur.
Stop the misrepresentation.
The 1996 DOMA is NOT working. Otherwise the Mass court would not have ruled the way it did.
You have a plethora of federal law suits which are precisly challenging (successfully) the mere law.
the 1996 is NOT working.
Picking a fight over something you don't believe in doesn't speak well of your Christian faith.
Anything in the Bible?
Don't forget Mitt Romney. He seems to have a decidedly non-LDS point of view in such matters.
How do you win people over to your faith? Or does your God say when met with resistance about the word of Mormonism, turn your back and walk away? I have a family history of Mormonism from the mid 1800's to about ten years ago and NONE of them were that weak. At any rate, I'll make you happy and cease and desist from any further comment on this particular thread. Have a safe holiday weekend. SS
DOMA was not intended to interfere with individual states, merely to protect others from having to recognize same sex marriages pursuant to Article IV.
This is 100% a federal issue since immigration is a federal issue and the homosexual marriages of other countries can be used for spousal visas without a federal constitutional amendment.
Not so. It is spelled out in Section 7 of DOMA.
Your analysis is flawed because ANY federal judge can dow WHATEVER they want as past rulings have been demonstrated. Don't forget one states supreme court has already ruled their state amendment was "unconstitutional".
Actually more than one has spoken, and each state has responded in kind. A recent Georgia law was struck down as unconstitutional, and in fact it was. But the good people of Georgia can easily rectify the issue. Massachusetts is handling it with a constitutional convention. Hawaii did the same. Vermont and Connecticut have same sex unions. I'm not interested in what other states do. I only want my state protected. If a judge strikes a law down, especially here in the South, no appeals court is going to agree with it, and even if it did, the current makeup of the USSC will likely ensure that DOMA prevails. There is a world of difference between a state court and a federal court. I am only concerned with a federal court.
OK, I'm game. Please point out the part of DOMA that the Massachusetts state supreme court struck down.
You have a plethora of federal law suits which are precisly challenging (successfully) the mere law.
Attacking DOMA? Please link. As I have indicated, I'm quite sure some attacks will take place, but I have no reason to suspect they will ultimately succeed. You may have information to the contrary pertaining to the success you reflect in them. Please share. Thanks.
Too simplistic a treatment and in my opinion a treatment subjectively skewed in presentation in this case to favor the agrarian extreme... (I assume you to be a libertarian?)
Anyway, I much rather prefer to look at pieces of the whole rather than to take a whole cloth approach and as such prefer simplistic labels such as moral conservatism, fiscal conservatism etcetera... Since the issue is rightly one of morals and as such rightly a "moral divide" then we in essence discuss the extremes of moral conservatism and moral liberalism and all that lies between the two...
As to "Republicanism" -the general ideology that premises the political party is that of "Republic". As to the party and morality, the republican big tent is comprised of various Republican factions (Bith liberal & conservative) who contribute based upon numbers some measure of political relevancy to the party. In politics it is consensus that is power and as such relevance -NOT ideology... So, setting aside the impotent platitudes reserved for political losers -the "agrarians" if as is implied they be morally liberal at this time hold the short straw...
As an aside for any interested, here are some links to what I have found to be a good method by which to measure and appraise just where you morally "fit" politically whether you may specifically realize it or not...
The Moral Matrix - Political Systems
The Moral Matrix - Recent US Presidents
They are similar in that they both concede a leftist compromise position on issues already settled and on issues that have no legitimate compromise position. They are in essence the same as well in that they both advance leftist agenda and delusional dreams...
We don't wish to take powers away from any state, the purpose of amendment is just that. So the states (citizens in them), are the ones with the power, NOT activist judges.
Then there is absolutely no need for the amendment. The citizens of every state have it in their power to amend their constitutions to protect marriage. That is exactly what the citizens of Massachusetts are going to do this Summer. The federal government has no business stepping into state affairs, including state judiciaries.
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.