DiscussMormonism.com

For your consideration:

Church Issues Statement on Appeals Court Prop 8 Ruling | MormonNewsroom.org

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.

That just strikes me as an odd thing to say. It's very ldsfaqs-esque.

brade wrote:

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.

That just strikes me as an odd thing to say. It's very ldsfaqs-esque.

Yes it is odd. They keep mentioning "traditional marriage." What tradition are they talking about? Because traditional Mormon marriage is very different than what they are pushing with Prop 8.

DarkHelmet wrote: They keep mentioning "traditional marriage." What tradition are they talking about?

The tradition of monogamy while polgamy is on hold, until such a time that our Authorities say The Principal must resume.

moksha wrote:

DarkHelmet wrote: They keep mentioning "traditional marriage." What tradition are they talking about?

The tradition of monogamy while polgamy is on hold, until such a time that our Authorities say The Principal must resume.

So is marriage between a woman and several men going to be okay?

DarkHelmet wrote:[

Yes it is odd. They keep mentioning "traditional marriage." What tradition are they talking about? Because traditional Mormon marriage is very different than what they are pushing with Prop 8.

Maybe the tradition of women as property? That tradition is enshrined in scripture (see: D&C 132).

Millions of voters in California sent a message that traditional marriage is crucial to society. They expressed their desire, through the democratic process, to keep traditional marriage as the bedrock of society, as it has been for generations.

How many generations has it been since 1904?

Runtu wrote:

Millions of voters in California sent a message that traditional marriage is crucial to society. They expressed their desire, through the democratic process, to keep traditional marriage as the bedrock of society, as it has been for generations.

How many generations has it been since 1904?

If you are Eldred G Smith, just a little more than one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eldred_G._Smith

Thanks for the lulz. I didn't realize until now that mormonnewsroom.org was a satire website. I should visit more often.

brade wrote:

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.

That just strikes me as an odd thing to say. It's very ldsfaqs-esque.

Agreed. Note the very careful use of the phrase "a man and a woman" -- the phrase "one man and one woman" is NOT used (although many laws have used this language). I think the Church uses the former due to polygamy, and they think that somehow the phrase "a man and a woman" can be manipulated or rationalized to still allow for polygamy. Very creepy.

Here is another quote from the statement:

Courts should not alter that definition, especially when the people of California have spoken so clearly on the subject.

Millions of voters in California sent a message that traditional marriage is crucial to society. They expressed their desire, through the democratic process, to keep traditional marriage as the bedrock of society, as it has been for generations.

I'm amazed that, what with so many attorneys among the Brethren these days, not one seems to have any understanding of constitutional law. People can vote all they want, but "unconstitutional" means the vote (even if unanimous!) doesn't count under our 'inspired' system of constitutional law. Why are the GA's so damn dense on this?!?!

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.

The people did define it by putting the constitution in place and establishing a judiciary to interpret it. If enough citizens want to encapsulate bigotry in the constitution, then all they need do is pass an amendment to the U.S. Constitution (which I think will never happen). But that's how you change it, you elderly dudes in your Salt Lake ivory tower.