Text of Marriage amendment

[creekster]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

You are starting to sound a bit like Bill Clinton! It depends on what your definition of "a" is.

According to dictionary.com:

"A"- Used before nouns and noun phrases that denote a single but unspecified person or thing: a region; a person.

Key words being "a single."

Even if this is true, nothing in the proposed language prohibits a series of simultaneous marriages as long as each one is between a man and a woman.

For the record, however, I don't think that the First PResidency is likely to be relying on this sort of lawyer-ish interpretational technique to take the position that it has. Instead, I think it is more likely that they are urging support for broader reasons.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by creekster

Even if this is true, nothing in the proposed language prohibits a series of simultaneous marriages as long as each one is between a man and a woman.

For the record, however, I don't think that the First PResidency is likely to be relying on this sort of lawyer-ish interpretational technique to take the position that it has. Instead, I think it is more likely that they are urging support for broader reasons.

It would if they remained married to another person before the second marriage occurred. Marriage is defined in the amendment as being between a man and a woman. At the point a second man or woman is introduced into the union, it ceases to be legally recognizable as a marriage under this amendment.

This does pose an interesting question for the courts: would it be unconstitutional for an LDS person to remarry in the temple for time and all eternity since, according to the belief of the person trying to remarry, he would already be currently married to someone else. I doubt very much the law would hinge on the subjective belief of the person being married, but it is always a possibility.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

It would if they remained married to another person before the second marriage occurred. Marriage is defined in the amendment as being between a man and a woman. At the point a second man or woman is introduced into the union, it ceases to be legally recognizable as a marriage under this amendment.

This does pose an interesting question for the courts: would it be unconstitutional for an LDS person to remarry in the temple for time and all eternity since, according to the belief of the person trying to remarry, he would already be currently married to someone else. I doubt very much the law would hinge on the subjective belief of the person being married, but it is always a possibility.

That is exactly the point: what in the proposed langugae prohibits simultaneous marriage relationships? To put it another way, using your framework, why would the second marriage represetn bringing someone into the first union as opposed to being a separate and stand alone marriage?

You may be right, of course, although there is some iurony in ther fact that you are arguing the language isn't ambiguous, given some of your earlier claims about the danger of such an amendment. Either wya, as I said, I am reasonably sure this is not the basis for the church's approach.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by creekster

That is exactly the point: what in the proposed langugae prohibits simultaneous marriage relationships? To put it another way, using your framework, why would the second marriage represetn bringing someone into the first union as opposed to being a separate and stand alone marriage?

You may be right, of course, although there is some iurony in ther fact that you are arguing the language isn't ambiguous, given some of your earlier claims about the danger of such an amendment. Either wya, as I said, I am reasonably sure this is not the basis for the church's approach.

I think I just explained that very question. As for what I said earlier, my statement was that either: 1) this amendment is not ambiguous and it is dangerous (my opinion) or 2) it is ambiguous (others' opinion, you included I think) and could lead to dangerous application by the courts.

Anyway, my position is very well-known on this topic, so I will get out of this debate and let the rest of you hammer away at it for a while.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

I don't think you are being honest in your approach here. Do you truly find substantial ambiguity in the language of the amendment? If so, does it concern you to have such a significant ambiguity built into an amendment to the Constitution? Are you excited about what the courts might do with your perceived ambiguity?

Given the context of the word "a," I find it exceptionally difficult to think that this is ambiguous at all.

Not being honest was not including the ENTIRE definition for 'a' in your original post ... Yes, I find the wording sufficiently ambiguous and I am not the only posters who thinks so … furthermore you will never be able to craft a document that sufficiently eliminates ambiguity, such that a future situation will not permit lawyers to use the amendment to his or her advantage.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

I think I just explained that very question. As for what I said earlier, my statement was that either: 1) this amendment is not ambiguous and it is dangerous (my opinion) or 2) it is ambiguous (others' opinion, you included I think) and could lead to dangerous application by the courts.

Anyway, my position is very well-known on this topic, so I will get out of this debate and let the rest of you hammer away at it for a while.

Yes if the Church supports something you're against it. We'll note that so that we can anticipate your response.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

I think I just explained that very question. As for what I said earlier, my statement was that either: 1) this amendment is not ambiguous and it is dangerous (my opinion) or 2) it is ambiguous (others' opinion, you included I think) and could lead to dangerous application by the courts.

First, let me say I realize I am risking starting another exchange between us that devolves into you claimng I don't or refuse to understand your point and me claiming I get it but you are refusing to answer. Never being accused of being too wise, however, let me have a go at tryingf to be constructive.

Secoind, You did not EXPLAIN the question, you merely asserted that bringing "a second man or woman . . . into the union" makes the relationship run afoul of the proposed amendment's language. WHy? THe amendmnent says a marriage is between a man and a woman, but it says nothing about how many marriages one man can enter simultaneously. Just as one person can be a member of multiple business patnerships simultaneously, why can't a man (or a woman) be in mulitple marriages simultaneously, under this proposed amnedment, as long as they are all between a man and a woman? IOW, the second wife or husband would not be "introduced" into the existing union. Instead, the second wife or husband would be part of a new and unique union. Nothing in the amendment says it must be an exclusive relationship. What about the amewndment says you can't have more than one marriage simultaneously?

If you once again think I am simply missing your clear explanation, I will leave it at that; I certainly have been known to miss things before.

[UtahDan]

I just wanted to respond to hoya and fusnik on the issue of whether the church's current position and past paractice are, when viewed together, ironic or not and then I am going to walk away from this debate for now.

The following statements are intended to demonstrate by analogy why I believe there is no irony and why I do not believe any explanation for what is percieved as an inconsistency by some is required:

Joseph Smith drank alcohol. It is ironic that he later revealed the word of wisdom and we are owed an explanation for this incosistency.

Nephi cut Laban's head off. Yet later when Laman and Lemuel seek to kill Lehi and Nephi, Nephi just listens as the voice of the Lord rebukes them. This is ironic that it is okay to murder sometimes but not other times and this inconsistency should be explained.

The church at one time told all membersof the church to come to the Salt Lake valley, yet now they encourage college students to go to school locally and build up the institue where they live. This is ironic and the incosistency should be explained.

At one time the members of the church lived the law of consecration but during the 20th century, the church derided "communal" and socialist forms of government as antithetical to free agency. This is ironic and requires explanation.

The children of Israel were commanded to live the law of Moses which included animal sacrifice. Christ told his disciples that they should no longer do this. This is ironic and requires explanation.


There are only two possible explanations for all of this:

1. The leaders of the church, whatever dispensation you are taking about, make things up as they go along and then offer post hoc rationalizations for their behavior (or don't or can't explain it at all).

2. God gives us instruction and guidance for our day that is often inconsistent with guidance and instruction He has given a thousand years ago, one hundred years ago, or yesterday.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I struggle to understand how one can find irony (and apparently with some relish) in the current position of the church and believe number 2 (above) to be true. If you don't believe 2 then we really are going to continue to talk past one another. Anyone who wants the last word on this may have it.

[fusnik11]

Joseph Smith example not applicable as the Word of Wisdom initially wasn't instituted for complete constraint.....

Here is why it is ironic...

The church still practices polygamy. A man is still allowed to join himself in polygamous sealings. Couple the current doctrine, and policy with the past and you find the irony of a church throwing it's weight behind an amendment that calls for traditional marriage to be between 'a' woman and 'a' man.....

If the church truly had disavowed itself from polygamy, like it has alcohol, like it has the thought of coming to Zion, as it has the law of consecration, naturally no irony would exist, but since it has not, and continues to allow for polygamous sealings, it's wholly ironic....

[JohnnyLingo]

If the church truly had disavowed itself from polygamy, like it has alcohol, like it has the thought of coming to Zion, as it has the law of consecration, naturally no irony would exist, but since it has not, and continues to allow for polygamous sealings, it's wholly ironic....

As President Packer likes to say,

Therefore, what?

Are you just pointing out irony for the sake of pointing it out?