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."
Besides identifying yourself as a first class religious idiot.
You have any more revelations for us.
You are correct. My mistake. I've got a book of Mormon circa 1880's I need to find. So many changes as compared to the present one but, thats another thread.
Marriage between a man and a woman and a woman and a woman and a......
The interesting thing is, if the liberal justices of the SCOTUS force everybody to acknowledge gay marriage they are quite unlikely to ever grant the same deference to incestuous marriage or child marriage. They are very selective as to which abominable practices they will force the rest of us to recognize.
How many "wives" do you have?
I'm only aware of Massachusetts, Vermont and Hawaii. Hawaii amended its constitution and that ended the fray. Vermont and Connecticut permit legal unions but not marriage. And each of these states has within it the ability to handle its own constitution, as Massachusetts is currently doing through the amendment process.
The DOMA is intended to interpret Article IV, not to interfere in intrastate issues.
The federal Congress should concentrate on what it is being paid to do, and let the states handle those issues that rightfully belong there.
So you are doing everything you can to make sure that legal abortion remains the law of the land, correct?
You must support the sickness, hence your confused posts.
So, where does the Mormon Senators, Harry Reid and Orrin Hatch stand on this? Are they gonna support this amendment as all good Mormons should do?????
Wow, two misstatements rolled up in a single sentence.
First, there is nothing in the paragraph you cited that would indicate that God changed his mind about anything. The action of the LDS Church was entirely consistent with our Twelfth Article of Faith: "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.
When the Supreme Court ruled against plural marriage, it left the Church with a choice: Keep God's commandment regarding plural marriage or keep God's commandment to obey, honor, and sustain the law. It was not possible to do both.
So the President of the Church asked God what was to be done. The answer was to discontinue the practice of plural marriage.
Which brings me to the second of your misstatements, that a man dictated Church policy. It was not so: the President of the Church acted according to revelation. God dictated Church policy.
Kill the insults post haste. I was off topic with that post and have already apologized for it. Another thread would perhaps be a better place to discuss this. And yes, I have plenty of revelations from many wannabe Gods of the Mormon church.
Reid? My guess is that politics will trump common sense in his case.
Wht is Gods commandment as pertaining to plural marriage?
P.S. You might consider actual rather than perceived social injustice issues in your reasoning when attempting to evoke platitudes to support a flawed position.
The only recent example that readily comes to mind of others imposing their particular value system on everyone else would reside within the domain of the Lawrence decision wherein anal sex was imposed upon everyone else.
It is the activist judges and judicial rulings that impose on everyone else -it is objectively self-evident that everyone else (the people) can not ever impose anything on themselves -not possible to consider that which is chosen to be that which is imposed UNLESS of course you comprise the minority position being imposed upon...
;-)
If you don't believe it, it doesn't effect your spiritual health. Why pick a fight over something you don't believe?
Unless you suspect and fear it might be true.
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. I will work to ensure that only traditional marriage is recognized in my state, and believe that, for now, DOMA will protect my state from having to recognize non-traditional marriages from other states. But perhaps if any fundamentalist here want to weigh in and state categorically that they do not wish to interfere with the powers of any state in this regard, but only ensure that DOMA is not overturned, then I will cautiously withdraw that broad brush.
You must support the sickness, hence your confused posts.
Why don't you try a different tact. Actually respond to my post instead of throwing out stupid statements that have no relevance to the topic.
See Section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants and Chapter 2 of the Book of Jacob in the Book of Mormon.
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.