Tuesday, April 25, 2006

LDS Church Officially Supports Constitutional Amendment To Define Marriage As Only Between One Man And One Woman


On April 25th 2006, the Salt Lake Tribune has reported that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has joined a national religious coalition to push an amendment to the U.S. Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Click here to view the story.

Synopsis: Elder Russell M. Nelson (pictured above left), an Apostle serving on the church's Quorum of the Twelve, joined 50 prominent Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox and Jewish leaders in signing a petition urging passage of such an amendment. Among the others were several Catholic cardinals (both liberal and conservative), and representatives of the Southern Baptist Convention, the conservative Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod (LCMS), and several Episcopal bishops. The LDS Church issued a statement acknowledging involvement but offered no further comment. Elder Nelson declined to be interviewed.

"We are convinced that this is the only measure that will adequately protect marriage from those who would circumvent the legislative process and force a redefinition of it on the whole of our society," reads the petition released to the public on Monday.

The organization in question is identified as the Religious Coalition for Marriage, organized by Matt Daniels, the founder of the Alliance for Marriage. The Alliance website has a copy of the petition which you can sign to urge Congress to enact this Amendment. Click here to access and sign petition.

Here is the text of the proposed amendment:

109th CONGRESS 1st Session

S. J. RES. 1 JOINT RESOLUTION

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:

`Article--
`SECTION 1. This article may be cited as the `Marriage Protection Amendment'.

`SECTION 2. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. 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.'.

Proponents claim an amendment would immediately shut down all legal challenges to the existing legal definitions of marriage. However, opponents like Valerie Larabee of the Gay and Lesbian Community Center of Utah and openly-gay State Senator Scott McCoy criticized this new effort to amend the Constitution. Larabee is concerned that it might be the first time the Constitution would be used to take away rights rather than confer them. McCoy doesn't believe this effort will succeed and suggests we address higher priorities.

The petition drive was originally organized in part by Robert P. George of Princeton, a Catholic scholar with close ties to evangelical Protestant groups. Aides to three Republican senators - Bill Frist (R-Tennessee), Rick Santorum (R-Pennsylvania), and Sam Brownback (R-Kansas) were also involved, organizers said.

Analysis: The more mature way to handle this problem would be to allow a 10th Amendment solution - let each state have its own marriage laws. But we bump up against the "full faith and credit" clause, requiring states to recognize the contracts of other states. So a Constitutional Amendment is the best way to handle it. See my previous post of February 27th, 2006, entitled "The Fiscal Aspect of Gay Marriage", for more arguments against it.

6 comments:

  1. AntiSemite Sam4/26/2006 7:43 PM

    It is nice to see a Church finally stand up and say that marrage is for a man and a woman. In the Old Testiment is says in Leviticus that a man that lays with another man as he would a woman is an abomination...... Unfortunately we cannot stone people anymore, which is what the Bible says to do in cases of homosexuality. Most Churches are too busy trying to be POLITICALLY CORRECT rather than doing what the Bible says, which is to speak out against what is morally wrong. I want to THANK The CHURCH OF LATTER DAY SAINTS. You are an inspiration and I hope other branches of Christianity will finally stand up.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for the support, Sam. You'll note that neither the LDS nor the Southern Baptist Convention are part of the World Council of Churches, which push this so-called "liberation" theology" in which they liberate people from everything except sin.

    One Baptist church up here has been standing up for morality since I've been up here. Jerry Prevo and his Anchorage Baptist Temple have spoken out constantly against homosexuality. And unlike John Hagee, he doesn't constantly lead trips to Israel. Jesus founded Christianity, not "Judeo-Christianity."

    ReplyDelete
  3. AntiSemite Sam4/27/2006 9:35 PM

    I am Identity Christian. The IC views tend to be "extreme" where general Judeo Christian "values" are watered down and turned into lies... Jesus said that He did not come to change one Word of Yah's Laws but that He came to fulfill prophesy. The only change is that our forgiveness comes from Grace and not a sacrafice as was done in Biblical times. The Apostle Paul said in his many letters (Most of the New Testiment) that we need to speak out against such behaviors like homosexuality. Yet many teachers/priests/ect will not say a word. I have no doubt that my many transgressions will be forgiven. I wonder if thiers will be as the are leading the flock astray.?...

    Are there any good Baptist Churches on the Peninsula?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm not aware of any that have the singular reputation for being Bible-oriented that ABT has - you might want to check the Southern Baptist Convention's website, or take a shot through the local phone book down there.

    I'm also not aware of any Identity congregations up here. You would think that since God created separate races, that He did so for a reason. It's disturbing the way Hollywood is going out of their way to promote interracial relationships.

    ReplyDelete
  5. AntiSemite Sam4/28/2006 8:50 PM

    You should try to get a book called the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.... It will tell you the why.

    In every Anglo Saxon Country the expulsion, and even extermination, of the modern day "Jew" has happened at least once. They tend to do things that make people dislike them. So they view Whites as Goyim and the most serious enemy they have. In the movie Brave Heart the King of England said it best.... When he granted the Right of Premenocture (Ithink that is how it is spelled) he said that the "problem with Scotland is that it is full of Scots..." so he grants the Right to English Lords to have sex with any common woman on her wedding night.. This is done to breed them out. It is a form of genocide. What is worse is that the Jews cry about the "Holocaust" yet they promote race mixing as thier socially acceptable form of GENOCIDE. I don't hate Blacks, Mexicans, ect... They all have thier own cultures and they are welcome to them. I dislike Jews cause they stir the pot through the TELL LIE VISION (TV) and are promoting the distruction of my culture. Yah created all of us and we need to value what He gave us. Even in Leviticus is is a Law for the Isrealites not to take wives outside your own.... It is sad to watch to many sheep lose what was the Greatest Gift He gave us other than Life.

    ReplyDelete
  6. AntiSemite Sam4/28/2006 8:53 PM

    One last thing about TV.... When a White commits a crime against a person of Color the Zionist media plays it all the time... What about when a person of color breaks into a little old White Ladies House and rapes and robs her? Why do we not hear about that?

    ReplyDelete