'We have always had that view. Courts should not alter that definition,
especially when the people of California have spoken so clearly on the subject.'
- LDS Church statement regarding court ruling But gay marriage was
allowed in California... BEFORE, Prop 8. So, to claim
now that we should 'not' change something... after the initial
change... is a Double. Standard. Marriage has changed
many, many times over. As, Utah was the last state to deny polygamy,
until 1890. Loving vs. Virginia. Supreme court ruling (not popular
vote) that allowed interacial marriage, in 1967. Massachusetts.
2004. The first stae to allow gay marriage. Back to Utah, Amendment
3. A change to the state constitution TOO 'one man and one woman' FROM.... 'two people.' Also, in 2004. So, to review,
marriage has changed many, many times over. Just, in the last 120
years. It will change again, and again... until ALL
American citizens can have the legal protections of marriage. i.e.
We recognize that this decision represents a continuation of what has been a
vigorous public debate over the rights of the people to define and protect the
fundamental institution of marriage." - article I have no issue
with this. I also encourage people who have differing views to talk
about this with respect and civility. Why I support marriage for
same-sex couples is: Harold Scull & Clay Greene. Sonoma county,
California. When Harold became ill, both he and Clay were put in
sepearate nursing homes. All their posessions were sold, without their
consent. And Harold died. Alone. Think this is the only
example? **'Kept From a Dying Partners Bedside' - By TARA
PARKER-POPE - NY Times - 05/18/09 And yet, even with Living Will,
Medical Directive, Power of attorney and emergency contact information... Janice Langbehn was kept from the bedside of her dying partner, Lisa
Pond. They were together for 18 years.
" California voters have twice determined in a general election that
marriage should be recognized as only between a man and a woman. We have always
had that view. "I am a faithful member of the Church. But how
can this statement NOT invite criticism and derision. Mormons have ALWAYS had
the view that marriage should only be recognized between one man and one woman?
We most certainly haven't always had that view, and our eternal perspective
still allows for sealings between a living widower, his deceased wife, as well
as that same man and his current, living wife.I'm not making a
statement here about the Prop. 8 ruling. I'm simply saying that, in its response
to the ruling, why can't the Church avoid such blatant invitations for our own
"non-traditional" marriage history to be scrutinized?
MormonDem--"But how can this statement NOT invite criticism and derision.
Mormons have ALWAYS had the view that marriage should only be recognized between
one man and one woman?"Perhaps the statement came out of a
heart like mine--that while recognizing there was plural marriage at one time in
the Church, maybe the crafters of the statement hope (as I do) that that
'requirement' of the restoration of "all things" has been met, and
that we will never have to see it practiced again. (I realize many
members make the choice to be sealed to more than one wife, while one is dead,
(something I could never do--I'm with Elder Scott)--but here's hoping we
will never have to be tried to the very last degree in that way again, with
multiple living wives. I have no trouble admitting that it is an issue
that my heart only feels what Jacob spoke of in the Book of Mormon.)
Does anyone fail to see the irony of the Mormons, the people who invented
alternative marriage, taking issue with this ruling?