Contact
Subscribe
Jul 2006 Issue
by Danielle Ellis
The Facts from Church Statements and Comments from Prominent Latter-day Saints on the Marriage Protection Amendment
24 April 2006 — The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issues a statement. It “agrees with many other religious bodies and leaders 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.”
“As stated in The Family: A Proclamation to the World, “We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.”
This letter from the First Presidency of the Church over every American LDS pulpit on May 28, 2006. In part, it stated:
“We, as the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, have repeatedly set forth our position that the marriage of a man and a woman is the only acceptable marriage relationship.
“In 1995 we issued a Proclamation to the World on this matter, and have repeatedly reaffirmed that position….”
5 June 2006 — WASHINGTON — Elder Russell M. Nelson, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, joined other religious leaders in Washington, D.C., to speak in support of a constitutional amendment protecting marriage.
At an Alliance for Marriage press conference at the U.S. Capitol building, he said:
“While those of us here today represent a broad spectrum of religious diversity, we are firmly united in our declaration that marriage of a man and a woman is ordained of God. The sanctity of marriage and family constitutes the spiritual undergirding of lasting and successful societies.
“Together we share a duty to preserve marriage and family as established by God. The time has now come when a constitutional amendment is needed in this country to protect our divine inheritance. Such action does not reduce our regard for individuals who choose to live by other standards. But it confirms our conviction that marriage is the foundry for social order, the fountain of virtue and the foundation for eternal exaltation….”
5 June 2006 — Elder Nelson also signed a letter from a broad spectrum of American ecclesiastical leaders in support of the Marriage Protection Amendment. The Religious Coalition for Marriage emphasized:
“We have united to affirm, in one voice, the following:
“For millennia our societies have recognized the union of a man and a woman in the bond of marriage. Cross-culturally virtually every known human society understands marriage as a union of male and female. As such marriage is a universal, natural, covenantal union of a man and a woman intended for personal love, support and fulfillment, and the bearing and rearing of children. Sanctioned by and ordained of God, marriage both precedes and sustains civil society.
“Marriage is particularly important for the rearing of children as they flourish best under the long term care and nurture of their father and mother. For this and other reasons, when marriage is entered into and gotten out of lightly, when it is no longer the boundary of sexual activity, or when it is allowed to be radically redefined, a host of personal and civic ills can be expected to follow. Such a point has always been stressed by the world’s great monotheistic religious traditions and is, today, increasingly confirmed by impeccable social science research.
“Long concerned with rates of divorce, out-of-wedlock births, and absentee fathers, we have recently watched with extreme alarm the growing trend of some courts to make marriage something it is not: an elastic concept able to accommodate almost any individual preference. This does not so much modify or even weaken marriage as abolish it. The danger this betokens for family life and a general condition of social justice and ordered liberty is hard to overestimate….”
5 June 2006 — The following letter was delivered from Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney to all United States Senators in advance of the vote on the Marriage Protection Amendment. The letter is quoted in its entirety.
Dear Senator,
Next week, you will vote on a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution protecting the institution of marriage. As Governor of the state most directly affected by this amendment, I hope my perspectives will encourage you to vote “yes.”
Americans are tolerant, generous, and kind people. We all oppose bigotry and disparagement, and we all wish to avoid hurtful disregard of the feelings of others. But the debate over same-sex marriage is not a debate over tolerance. It is a debate about the purpose of the institution of marriage.
Attaching the word marriage to the association of same-sex individuals mistakenly presumes that marriage is principally a matter of adult benefits and adult rights. In fact, marriage is principally about the nurturing and development of children. And the successful development of children is critical to the preservation and success of our nation.
Our society, like all known civilizations in recorded history, has favored the union of a man and a woman with the special designation and benefits of marriage. In this respect, it has elevated the relationship of a legally bound man and woman over other relationships. This recognizes that the ideal setting for nurturing and developing children is a home where there is a mother and a father.
In order to protect the institution of marriage, we must prevent it from being redefined by judges like those here in Massachusetts who think that marriage is an “evolving paradigm,” and that the traditional definition is “rooted in persistent prejudices” and amounts to “invidious discrimination.”
Although the full impact of same-sex marriage may not be measured for decades or generations, we are beginning to see the effects of the new legal logic in Massachusetts just two years into our state’s social experiment. For instance, our birth certificate is being challenged: same-sex couples want the terms “Mother” and “Father” replaced with “Parent A” and “Parent B.”
In our schools, children are being instructed that there is no difference between same-sex marriage and traditional marriage. Recently, parents of a second grader in one public school complained when they were not notified that their son’s teacher would read a fairy tale about same-sex marriage to the class. In the story, a prince chooses to marry another prince, instead of a princess. The parents asked for the opportunity to opt their child out of hearing such stories. In response, the school superintendent insisted on “teaching children about the world they live in, and in Massachusetts same sex marriage is legal.” Once a society establishes that it is legally indifferent between traditional marriage and same-sex marriage, how can one preserve any practice which favors the union of a man and a woman?
Some argue that our principles of federalism and local control require us to leave the issue of same sex marriage to the states—which means, as a practical matter, to state courts. Such an argument denies the realities of modern life and would create a chaotic patchwork of inconsistent laws throughout the country. Marriage is not just an activity or practice which is confined to the border of any one state. It is a status that is carried from state to state. Because of this, and because Americans conduct their financial and legal lives in a united country bound by interstate institutions, a national definition of marriage is necessary.
Your vote on this amendment should not be guided by a concern for adult rights. This matter goes to the development and well-being of children. I hope that you will make your vote heard on their behalf.
Best regards,
Mitt Romney
Posted on the National Review Online, www.nationalreview.com, on June 4, 2006.
5 June 2006 — The following is excepted from Harry Reid’s speech on the floor of the U.S. Senate prior to the MPA vote. Reid, the Senate’s highest ranking Democrat and Nevada’s senior senator, as well as a member of the LDS Church, explained his vote against the MPA.
“In spite of the many serious problems we have just discussed- what is the United States Senate going to debate this week:
“A new energy policy- NO
“Will we debate the raging war in Iraq- NO
“Will we address our staggering national debt- NO
“Will we address…global warming- NO
“Will we address the aging of America- NO
“Will we address America’s education dilemma- NO
“Will we address rising crime statistics- NO
“Will we debate our country’s trade imbalance- NO
“Will we debate Stem Cell Research- NO
“But what we will spend most of the week on is a constitutional amendment that will fail by a large margin. A constitutional amendment on Same Sex Marriage…
“I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman…. In Nevada the constitution was amended to prevent same sex marriage. Congress and President Clinton passed a law that gave the states the guarantee that their individual laws regarding marriage would be respected…
“So why are we being directed by the President and this Republican majority to debate an Amendment to the Constitution…?
“Will it next be to constitutionally dictate the cause of divorce, or military service or even what America’s religion must be?”
“So for me it is clear the reason for this debate is to divide our society, to pit one against another. This is another one of the President’s efforts to frighten, to distort, to distract, and to confuse America. It is this administration’s way of avoiding the tough, the real problems that Americans are confronted with each and every day…[repeat of the above list…]”
“I will vote no on the motion to proceed, as it is not meant to bring America together. Rather, it is an effort to cover and conceal the issues necessary to make America more competitive, caring, considerate and stronger.”
7 June 2006 — The Marriage Protection Amendment was stopped in its efforts to get to an up-or-down vote. The final tally was 49-48. The Amendment needed 60 votes to move forward.
Editor’s note: Senator Reid sent a letter specifically to Desert Saints Magazine on this issue. It is posted on the Editor’s News Blog at www.DesertSaintsMagazine.com.
