Skip to comments.LDS to push marriage amendment
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."
The following letter has been sent by the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to church leaders in the United States:
We are informed that the United States Senate will on June 6, 2006, vote on an amendment to the federal Constitution designed to protect the traditional institution of marriage.
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.
In 1995 we issued a Proclamation to the World on this matter, and have repeatedly reaffirmed that position.
In that proclamation we said: "We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society."
We urge our members to express themselves on this urgent matter to their elected representatives in the Senate.
I saw LDS and thought LSD. I need COFFEE now.
constitutional amendment that would limit lawful marriages to those between a man and a woman. woman=WOMEN
Every state should have the right to decide for themselves. Article IV of the Constitution combined with the DOMA ensures that my state does not have to recognize non-traditional marriages from other states.
The way every state should have the right to set abortion laws for themselves? Like that?
Precisely. Which is why I want Roe repealed.
Oh, oh!! The Mormons wouldn't like that!
Works for me.
"the church is trying to tie G-d's hands on the matter. It doesn't matter what He wants. Sad, really..."
Not so. For the LDS faithful, God has made a proclamation on polygamy. Thus the church no longer condones or endorses polygamy in any form. Those that do are ex-communicated and are not allowed fellowship with the church any longer.
As for them trying to secretly bring it back, what nonsence.
>>I doubt that is their intention. If anything, it is the opposite.
>>The LAST thing the church wants, is for polygamy to become legal.
>>That is a can of worms they don't want to open, no matter what.
Yeah, we fought all the way to the Supreme Court for it, so we dont want it legalized now. Your leaps in logic astound me. (Why am I hearing echoes of Everything thats up should be down, and everything thats down )
>>In essence, for LDS faithful, the church is trying to tie G-d's hands on the matter.
>>It doesn't matter what He wants. Sad, really...
So, in your mind, God wants same sex marriage? I thought he was very vocal in the Old, and New Testaments about that. Sounds like hes being consistent and that the LDS are just in step with him. (On this one issue at least, you should agree)
BTW, I am a Mormon (LDS), if that matters to you.
Backing an amendment defining marriage, is in effect tying G-d's hands should He decide it is time to restore the practice of Celestial plural marriage.
Talk about hubris and a total disregard for agency....
What part of honoring and obeying the laws of the land is stumping you? Its part of our beliefs as outlined by Joseph Smith.
The proclamation by the church was stating that we would abide by the Law, not declaring it just. (http://scriptures.lds.org/od/1 )
Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise.
And no this does not mean we are trying to Bring it back.
Do some homework before you post slander about a religion /Rant
"So, in your mind, God wants same sex marriage?"
No, but He wants AGENCY. Whatever happened to "teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves"?
Also see post #16....
>>And which select individual did God make this 'proclamation' to?
Can you prove he didnt? (Crickets ) I thought so.
>>I'm sure God didn't say beans on the matter; the head cult leaders just didn't
>>want the feds busting up their organization .
And you have knowledge of this how?
>>didn't Joseph Smith 'marry' some pre-teens like mohammed?
No, not just like Mohammad, what a slanderous, smarmy tactic. Were you unable to find a way to bring in Hitler and Pol Pot in your character assassination by association?
Did you learn to do that at DU, or does it come naturally?
>>No, but He wants AGENCY. Whatever happened to "teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves"?
Laws passed = no choice in your mind? So no one can break a law? Well all those killed by illegal guns in DC must be feeling better.
Teach correct principles and they will also enact laws to protect themselves, by passing laws.
Passing a law that supports righteousness is a GOOD thing. Murder for example is illegal. Is that robbing you of your agency to commit murder?
Church groups may and should take a stand on such an important issue.
Do you contend that if government is prohibited from recognizing gay marriage people will be denied their free agency?
According to the same logic, if government, through the expedient of activist judges, forces everyone in society to accord gay marriage the same status as traditional marriage why would that not be a denial of free agency?
The answer is, the gay marriage amendment has no impact on free agency.
Unfortunately, my wife is requiring I stop Freeping right now, and I will be on the road over the long week end. I am not sure what my access will be. I will get on and check when I can; Ill be back on Tues at the latest. Catch up on anything then
SCOTUS can KO your DOMA PDQ.
They're itching to get it done.
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?
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.
Gold plates, secret languages, special glasses, holy underwear, and a 'history' that goes completely against any and all archeological evidence; yeah keep on believing and, most importantly, keep sending money.
And yes, both mohammed and Joseph Smith had a thing for underage children. It's historical fact...but that means very little to the LDS.
We are now and will always be staunch defenders of the God sent institution of marriage. You don't want our help? Tough. This is something we believe in and neither you nor the Godless bigots who are pushing same sex marriage will stop us from exercising our constitutional and moral rights. You want to vent your views on the church? Go start another thread and "educate" us as to what a bunch of poo-poo heads those darned Mormons are. Otherwise, get a life.
Utter hypocrisy. When the LDS Church was reviled for its unpopular practice of polygamy, it correctly asserted the right of its members to practice their beliefs regardless of majority disapproval. Now the Church wants to rally a majority to outlaw family arrangements that IT disapproves of.
No God I believe in will ever have his hands tied by man. Never, not ever. Better come up with something a bit more logical.
Pray tell what is your thought process on what the "church" wants or doesn't want. If ever there was a clueless statement by someone professing to know, this is one of them.
I doubt seriously if the overall plans for this world, will in any way be altered, thwarted, or even mildly adjusted by anything governments do or don't do, however it is the duty of mankind, to at least petition governments for what one feels or knows to be best for mankind.
I seriously doubt this USSC would be so inclined. But if so, it would not happen this year or even the next. If it does, then I would first look to what the SC found wrong with DOMA and work to cure that. If nothing could cure it, then I would support a constitutional amendment.
Yes, I read 16. God can and will do whatever he pleases, Period.
Making a law does not equal removal of agency any more than god giving the Ten Commandments removes Agency. Agency is the right to choose, not the right to choose consequences. You can choose to jump off the cliff, or not, but if you jump, you cannot choose not to get hurt, that will be a natural consequence of the physics behind length of fall, and the surface at the bottom of the cliff.
Strawman all you want, these are good analogies, and I got more, the world is replete with examples of God given agency not being obstructed by a man made, man enforced Laws.
Note that I am not supporting it. But how could polygamy possibly be considered illegal? If several women want to live as the wives of one man, or even vice-versa, how is that illegal, with or without benefit of clergy?
The state might be properly concerned with the support of the children resulting from the arrangement, but hasn't the arrangement itself already been established as a right?
I live in Utah. I am Catholic. And I will back what you say about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints' attitude towards marriage, as opposed to other groups that split off.
If people want to know what a church believes, they need to read the documents and articles that members of that church write, rather than what outsiders write about them.
If you want to get an impression of how Mormons see themselves, and you don't want to read religious works, I suggest a good place to start isreading Orson Scott Card's the Lost Boys - a novel (sort of a horror story) about an LDS family written by an LDS believer.
Your response proves my previous point exactly. Thank you.
That's not feasible. The courts will impose one definition of marriage on the entire nation.
In addition to the infamous Massachusetts ruling, the groundwork is already laid by even the Supreme Court to impose radical marriages on the people, contrary to state laws.
Court Decisions Secure "Polygamy Rights" Date: Jul 01, 2003 Word Count: 600 words Cross-Reference: Lawrence v. Texas (2003), Romer v. Evans (1996), US Supreme CourtA federal marriage amendment would secure the definition of marriage in line with the traditional understanding of the institution.
With Lawrence v. Texas and Romer v. Evans, the U.S. Supreme Court has provided two powerful precedents for securing the next civil rights battle, "polygamy rights."
With the U.S. Supreme Court's decision last month overturning anti-sodomy laws, the Court has consequently provided two powerful precedents for securing the next civil rights battle, "polygamy rights."
Romer v. Evans, in 1996, established that laws cannot "impermissably target" a class of individuals. This recent Lawrence v. Texas decision establishes a "right to privacy" for freely-consenting adults. These two precedents, together, make anti-polygamy laws unconstitutional.
Such analysis comes out of U.S. Justice Antonin Scalia's specific dissents in both decisions.
Pompous blowhard comes to mind.
Have you anything positive and of benefit to your fellow man to say or do you just spout what someone has told you they know about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints? Done any reading or study with the opposite view in mind? Until you do, you are going to sound particularly one sided.
>>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
>>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, Well 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 wont 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 wasnt.
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
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.
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)
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.
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.