In Defense Of Traditional Marriage
On May 26, 2006 The First Presidency and The Quorum of The Tweleve Aposltes released the following letter to Church leaders in the United States:
One version of the amendment states:
Letter from First Presidency of the Church to Church Leaders in the United StatesAs the letter notes, the Church has long supported the traditional definition of marriage, and has recently come out in support of a Constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage. I have sent the following letter to California Senators Feinstein and Boxer:
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.
Dear Senator Feinstein/Boxer:If you live in California you may send a similar letter, or a copy and paste of the above if you like to Senator Feinstein here, and Senator Boxer here. If you live outside California you may research the email sites for your respective senators here.
On June 6, 2006, The United States Senate will vote on an amendment to the Federal Constitution designed to protect the traditional institution of marriage. I believe that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God. I further believe that children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Finally, I believe that the marriage of a man and a woman is the only acceptable marriage relationship.
I urge to you vote in support of an amendment to the Federal Constitution that protects the traditional institution of marriage: a marriage between a man and a woman.
I vote in all elections. I will take your vote on this critical issue into consideration when you next run for election.
Sincerely,
Guy W. Murray
One version of the amendment states:
109th CONGRESSThe most recent verison states:
1st Session
S. J. RES. 1
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
January 24, 2005
Mr. ALLARD (for himself, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. LOTT, Mr. ENZI, Mr. DEMINT, Mr. SANTORUM, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. VITTER, Mr. THUNE, Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. FRIST, Mr. TALENT, Mr. BURR, Mrs. HUTCHISON, Mr. KYL, Mrs. DOLE, Mr. MARTINEZ, Mr. ISAKSON, Mr. MCCONNELL, Mr. HATCH, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. STEVENS, and Mr. COBURN) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage.
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.'.
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage. (Reported in Senate)There are several LDS Blogs where the debate is already raging about how uninformed and backward the First Presidency and Quorum of the Tweleve Apostles are for offering the Saints this wisdom and counsel. Since, I'm not nearly as intellectually gifted and bright as are they who mock and scorn this counsel from our living prophets seers, and revalators, I will do what small part I can, and just write the letter.
SJ 1 IS
Calendar No. 435
109th CONGRESS
2d Session
S. J. RES. 1
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
January 24, 2005
Mr. ALLARD (for himself, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. LOTT, Mr. ENZI, Mr. DEMINT, Mr. SANTORUM, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. VITTER, Mr. THUNE, Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. FRIST, Mr. TALENT, Mr. BURR, Mrs. HUTCHISON, Mr. KYL, Mrs. DOLE, Mr. MARTINEZ, Mr. ISAKSON, Mr. MCCONNELL, Mr. HATCH, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. STEVENS, Mr. COBURN, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr. SHELBY, Mr. ALLEN, Mr. BROWNBACK, and Mr. DEWINE) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
May 18, 2006
Reported by Mr. SPECTER, without amendment
JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage.
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.'.
Calendar No. 435
109th CONGRESS
2d Session
S. J. RES. 1
JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage.
May 18, 2006
Reported without amendment
posted by Guy Murray at 9:23 AM
4 Comments:
Good for you Guy. I also am in support of this.
Thanks Eric.
Interesting analysis. I respect your opinions as a fellow member of the church. I, however, don't support the amendment and will be "expressing" myself to my Senators accordingly. D&C 134:4 warns us against using our religious beliefs to try and influence others in secular matters.
Anonymous: As I've indicated before, my custom and practice is not to engage anonymous commenters; however, because I am pretty certain who you are, and because I have a great deal of respect for you, I make an exception.
First: I don't believe D & C 134:4 says exactly what you claimed:
"We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul."
The "Brethren's" call here is not forcing anyone to adopt any belief, nor is it infringing on the rights and liberties of others. If anything the converse is true. The "gay" movement is a movement intent on re-defining marriage for everyone, and attempts to bringing its lifestyle within the mainstream of American values and its belief system.
Any person, LDS, or not is absolutely free to choose to disagree with the unanimous, and long standing (of several years) counsel of 15 Prophets, Seers, and Revelators. That choice, however, has a consequence. I liked Frank McIntyre's analysis and argument over at BCC's thread here.
I think his analysis and argument is spot on. These pronouncements over the years by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve carry great weight. They do not, however, infringe on anyone's right to believe otherwise.
Thanks for stopping by and commenting.
Post a Comment
<< Home