
This Thread is about The Church And The Federal Marriage Amendment and not BYU.
The Marriage amendment is a worthy cause for church members to be involved in.
For me the move to allow Homosexual marriages is not a matter of giving people rights. It is only about changing the definition of Marriage as it has been since the Beginning. Marriage by definition is the union between a man and a woman.
QUOTE |
An amendment to the Constitution defining marriage should be so far down the list of moral / spiritual issues that it shouldn't even be a consideration. |
QUOTE |
These changes in family structure have caused a great deal, perhaps all, of the increases in child poverty between the early 1970s and the 1990s (Lerman 1996; Sawhill 1999 |
Rather off topic, but...
This includes all marriages, both temple and non-temple marriages. Los Angeles Times, 8 April 2000
There are many members of the Church who do not marry in the Temple or who are of mixed marriages (one spouse in not a member). Individual who marry in the Temple are in fact doing well. |
What is the current stage or status of this Amendment anyway?
Dbackers is it going to say marriage is between man and woman or male and female? Reason I ask is because the issue of plural marriage is one that polygamist are interested in with the law definition? Does it also say marriage is monogamous?
I kind of of stayed away from the Plural Marriage thing, as I believe it is not something that should be included as a legal union in the United States.
But in my view we need to make the law say one man and one women (no provisions for alternate marriages) and not even consider Plural Marriage as an option. It would only hurt the Church in the long run.
QUOTE |
What is the current stage or status of this Amendment anyway? |
Don't most in the US believe that marriage should be decided by State and not Federal Government? If so, I think that would be confusing... yes I am married in this State, but not in the next one.
The other point. It is better to have a law I feel, even controlling plural marriage... why... because if a man wants to live with three women the government cannot stop it, nor do the women have much claim or protection. However, with the law they may have a say and name for which they can abide. Also, people often forget that the Muslims live this law openly without remorse and yet no one makes a hub bub about it. Muslims are allowed to marry up to four women. Just consider how many Muslim men there are in the US.
QUOTE |
Don't most in the US believe that marriage should be decided by State and not Federal Government? |
QUOTE |
Article. IV. - The States Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof. |
What about my other point... the idea of living with three women and married to them, what is the difference? Do not be afraid to Discuss Plural Marriage, no one here is saying that this is something that must be, but I am personally amazed of people's general objection to it as though it were gay marriage. You may wish to have a full read of th sticky Thread: 'In that day...'.
JB mentioned Muslims but are they legally married to these women in the US? We are speaking strictly in terms of legality in the eyes of the law and not in the eyes of religion.