RB Scott wrote:
Some of us regard marriage as a religious blessing, a religious covenant. Some us, therefore, think the government has no business getting itself involved in a religious matter -- like determining what constitutes a "marriage."

If marriage is only a "religious blessing, a religious covenant," why has the Church invested so heavily in the argument over same-sex marriage? What is the Church's reasoning? I assume you may have some insight into this because of your special contacts in the hierarchy.


Two final thoughts: I would imagine it's not lost on you that the proposed Constitutional Amendment defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

It is true that many of those talking about a federal marriage amendment are talking about one man and one woman, but to the best of my knowledge the wording of the amendment has not yet been settled. It may be that it will be worded "a man and a woman" which could leave the door open to plural marriage.


I trust it's also not lost on you that, should the amendment pass, it will, in essence, confirm the illegality of the marriages of several of my ancestors. It will render people like me descendants of illegitimate relationships, the offspring of bastard children.

I don't see how a law passed in the 21st century could have any effect on your 19th century ancestors. Laws aren't retroactive.


Where will the Church be should, at some point down the road, the Lord order that polygamy be reinstituted? I realize this is unlikely...but there is a darned important principle in play here, one that too many of us are ignoring.

I personally believe that plural marriage will be reinstituted. But I don't think that possibility should be used to surrender in the fight to define marriage as only between a man and a woman. Perhaps we will lose the fight. Perhaps the fight will cause the dissolution of the Union, and Zion will arise as a sovereign nation in the west with its own laws. Whatever happens there is a clear right and wrong in the current debate. And we ought to choose the right regardless of what may become necessary in some yet unforeseen future. Laws that are passed can be repealed. Even amendments can be repealed as circumstances change.


John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
=============================================
The traditional family is under heavy attack. I do not know
that things were worse in the times of Sodom and Gomorrah.
-- President Gordon B. Hinckley, 2004.
=============================================
All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR


//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html      ///
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
--^----------------------------------------------------------------
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html
--^----------------------------------------------------------------




Reply via email to