And Maine makes it 5 ....

[_cinepro]

But if God instructed the Brethren to fight against the legalization of gay marriage (as many TBM's believe), wouldn't that apply to all states trying to recognize gay marriage? I had no idea God was so selective in His political battles ....

It's possible the "instruction" to fight Gay Marriage was also accompanied by the inspiration to only do it in states where it would make a difference. We don't know how detailed God gets with such things.

[_harmony]

Yeah, the last days couldn't have been when slavery existed throughout the world, when Hitler, Stalin, or Pol Pot slaughtered millions of people, or when wars covered the globe. Nope, the "real" last days are when people who love each other want to get married.

Let us not forget the late great Ghengis Khan in your list of ruthless conquerers intent on taking over the world. People tend to forget him, poor guy.

[_Brackite]

... states that have legalized gay marriage, according to CNN. Three other states -- Massachusetts, Connecticut and Iowa -- already allow same-sex marriages, and Vermont has passed a law legalizing gay marriage that takes effect in September.

Has the LDS Church fought this development in any of these states -- or is the "revelation" received by Brethren to get involved in politics and fight gay marriage (i.e., Prop. 8 in CA) only apply to certain states?
...

Congratulations!

Hello There Bishop Bob

Well, You also sure don't seem to believe in the traditional definition and view of Marriage also, which is One Man and One Woman. You believe that Plural Marriage (Polygamy) is an eternal Principal. Here is what You Stated:

Plural marriage is an eternal principle. It is founded on the notion that there will be far fewer men who will accept the atoning sacrifice than women.

( viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8991&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=210 )


Here is now what Proposition 102 from Arizona States:

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

Between one man and one woman

ARTICLE XXX. MARRIAGE

1. Marriage

Section 1. Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state.

(Arizona Const. Art. XXX, Section 1) (Proposition 102)

I Personally believe in the traditional definition and view of Marriage, which is One Man and One Woman.



Hello Rollo Tomasi,

I have a question for You. Do you believe that the U.S. Supreme Court should overturn the Constitutional Ammendments within the 28 or so States (Such as the State of Arizona) that traditionally define Marriage in their State Constitution as between One Man and One Woman? If so, why?

[_rcrocket]

[quote="Brackite"]
Hello There Bishop Bob

Well, You also sure don't seem to believe in the traditional definition and view of Marriage also, which is One Man and One Woman. You believe that Plural Marriage (Polygamy) is an eternal Principal. Here is what You Stated:

[quote]


Why do you call me "Bishop?"

I don't believe that polygamy is right or optimal, so you'll have to let that dog bark elsewhere.

[_Brackite]

Why do you call me "Bishop?"

I don't believe that polygamy is right or optimal, so you'll have to let that dog bark elsewhere.

Hey "Bishop" Bob,

You are the one who stated that "Plural marriage is an eternal principle". Is Plural Marriage (Polygyny) really an eternal Priniciple or not? Are there going to really be far fewer Men within the Celestial Kingdom then Women? If so, Why are there about 100 Females born for about every 105 Males?

Now, Here is The Following important information, From About.com:

How many boys are born for every 100 girls?

There are 105 boy babies born for ever[y] 100 girl babies worldwide but scientists haven't determined why this sex ratio is so.

( http://geography.about.com/library/faq/ ... eratio.htm )


Shouldn't Marriage within the Celestial Kingdom just be defined as One Man and One Woman? Shouldn't Monogamous Marriages (NOT Plural Marriage) just be included within the Celestial Kingdom? Shouldn't it only include Monogamy (NOT Polygamy) within the Celestial Kingdom (Kingdom of Heavem)?
I think so.

[_rcrocket]

Hey "Bishop" Bob,

Like I say, this dog will have to bark elsewhere.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

The CA Supreme Court may soon restore marriage equality in this state by striking down prop 8. I didn't used to think so but with all the momentum, it seems more likely than it used to.

News reports of the oral agrument before the CA Supreme Court made it sound as if the court appeared unlikely to overrule Prop. 8.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

But if God instructed the Brethren to fight against the legalization of gay marriage (as many TBM's believe), wouldn't that apply to all states trying to recognize gay marriage? I had no idea God was so selective in His political battles ....

It's possible the "instruction" to fight Gay Marriage was also accompanied by the inspiration to only do it in states where it would make a difference. We don't know how detailed God gets with such things.

Well, so much for 'standing for something' ....

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Do you believe that the U.S. Supreme Court should overturn the Constitutional Ammendments within the 28 or so States (Such as the State of Arizona) [/b]that traditionally define Marriage in their State Constitution as between One Man and One Woman?

I think so, yes.

If so, why?

The equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution, made applicable to the states through the 14th Amendment.

[_why me]

The CA Supreme Court may soon restore marriage equality in this state by striking down prop 8. I didn't used to think so but with all the momentum, it seems more likely than it used to.

News reports of the oral agrument before the CA Supreme Court made it sound as if the court appeared unlikely to overrule Prop. 8.

Lets hope so. If the people voted, let their voice be heard.