>-----Original Message-----
>From: John W. Redelfs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 3:59 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: RE: [ZION] Gay marriage is wrong
>
>
>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.<

I don't have any special insights in this regard.  I'm as
confused as the next guy.  My hunch is the Church sees DOMA
passage as one way to get the "polygamy" prospect off the table,
once and for all.  I underscore: it's only a hunch.



>>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.<

Possibly. I doubt it because one of the fears being trumpted by
DOMA proponents was "if we allow gay marriage, the next thing
we'll have is polygamy. " I think I read this from Brother
Wilkins.  This left me scratching my head.

>>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.<

We've always maintained that polygamy was legal, a religious
issue. Others argued that it as an abomination. Passing the
law -- especially with support from the Mormon Church -- seems to
be an acknowledged that our former enemies were right, after all.
Expediency makes for strange bedfellows, it seems.


>
>>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.<<

Interesting. I'm sure I don't need to point out the ironies in
your statement.

Ron

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
///  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