4/25/2006

amendment

Yesterday I send the following email message out to several friends and family members:
----------
Perhaps you've heard that the LDS Church has officially taken the position "that an amendment to the Constitution of the United States is necessary to protect and preserve the institution of marriage between a man and a woman."

The following links show the church's press release on this topic and Elder Nelson's signature added to the Religious Coalition for Marriage.

Join me in a campaign to show that there are Mormons who DO NOT support this constitutional amendment. Please put this bumper sticker on your car and park in a highly visible space in your ward parking lot each Sunday.

If you can, please buy more than one of these stickers and hand them out to your LDS friends. Also, please forward this email to all who might be interested and feel free to spread the word via blogs, email lists, etc.
--------
Someone replied:
--------
I'm sure that there are LDS that don't sustain the Apostles, but I'm not one of them. I have to admit that I don't understand why you would have sent this...or why you would even propagate it to anyone at all.
-------
My reply:
-------
1) I sent this out because I believe I don't believe such an amendment to the U.S. Constitution is necessary to preserve marriage.
2) I think it is important for LDS to know that it is possible for members to disagree on political issues and still be faithful church members. As it says in the press release on this issue:
"Because national campaigns on moral, social or political issues often become divisive, the Church urges those who participate in public debate — including its own members — to be respectful of each other. While disagreements on matters of principle may be deeply held, an atmosphere of civility and mutual respect is most conducive to the strength of a democratic society."
I see nothing in their statement that says all church members must support this amendment. Rather, I see latitude for a spectrum of opinions.
-------

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Strange... I never saw your reply in my inbox... must have been filtered straight to my trash folder.

I'm happy to continue this discussion privately, as I tried to originally.

ACG said...

Just happened upon your blog...

Love it!

Its on my bookmarks now-- keep up the good work!

Cheers,

Anna

jana said...

YB: Sorry that I identified your message on my blog. Please notice that I've changed the wording of the post to make it more anonymous. I didn't mean to offend or upset you.

Gray said...

As a Unitarian living in a state with a Mormon governor, where a number of my friends are legally married to members of the same sex, the ironies and complexities of moral, political, and religous life are always on my mind.

The argot of those who oppose marriage for gay and lesbian couples has always puzzled me. It does not seem calculated to change minds. Will fence-sitters really come to believe that gay marriage somehow threatens their own heterosexual marriages? It really seeems wildly irrelevant as a "threat" to my marriage to my lovely wife or marriage in general. The real message behind the public message might be something like, "Ew, sick. Don't them do that."

As I see it, the law in Massachustts serves to protect the interest of children, their loving parents, and our communities. What could do more to protect the institution of marriage?

Perhaps the intent is to foster solidarity betweeen critics of gay marriage. It also may function as a mantle of virtuous color worn to cloak the prejudice and fear that seem to underly this legislative movement. In any case, I find the movement to amend the Constitution remarkably misguided and- if it is respectful to say it- mean-spirited.

Thanks for your campaign.

-Gray