My letter of support for the amendment

[MikeWaters]

Dear Senator Cornyn,

I personally do not favor the amendment to the Constitution that would define marriage as being between “a man and a woman.” My great-great-grandmother immigrated from Sweden as a young girl, and crossed the plains with her family as part of the Mormon migration west in the 19th century. She eventually married and settled in the Arizona desert. Her husband took ill, and before he died, he asked his good friend to marry his wife and care for her, despite the fact that his friend was already married. This he did. My great-great-grandmother bore him children, one of whom was my great-grandfather.

So I am, in part, the product of a non-traditional marriage. The sort of marriage that many men were imprisoned for. I don’t feel like my ancestors were immoral or wrong. They were following the dictates of their conscience.

Though Mormons who are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints no longer practice polygamy, there are certain religious sects who continue the practice. How can I in good conscience deny these people the ability to marry as they see fit, when I would not deny my own ancestors? I would be a hypocrite.

And so I do not favor this amendment.

It may come as some surprise that I now urge you to vote in favor of this amendment. I do so because I have been asked by the President of my church to advocate for its passage, though the irony of such a request, given the history of our church, is not lost upon me. By making this request, I discharge my responsibilities as a member of my faith.

But I do not tender up my conscience, which remains firmly opposed to this amendment.

Sincerely,

Mike Waters

[Colly Wolly]

Moroni 7:8.

[MikeWaters]

if the church ever asked me to give up belief in the freedom of religion, I would probably have to leave.

i do not believe the church has asked me to do that. but we all likely have a line where we are bounded by our personal conscience.

I could not murder my son either. Or cut off someone's head as he lay passed out drunk. This may meant that I am not celestial material, but hey, we all make our choices.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Dear Senator Cornyn,

I personally do not favor the amendment to the Constitution that would define marriage as being between “a man and a woman.” My great-great-grandmother immigrated from Sweden as a young girl, and crossed the plains with her family as part of the Mormon migration west in the 19th century. She eventually married and settled in the Arizona desert. Her husband took ill, and before he died, he asked his good friend to marry his wife and care for her, despite the fact that his friend was already married. This he did. My great-great-grandmother bore him children, one of whom was my great-grandfather.

So I am, in part, the product of a non-traditional marriage. The sort of marriage that many men were imprisoned for. I don’t feel like my ancestors were immoral or wrong. They were following the dictates of their conscience.

Though Mormons who are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints no longer practice polygamy, there are certain religious sects who continue the practice. How can I in good conscience deny these people the ability to marry as they see fit, when I would not deny my own ancestors? I would be a hypocrite.

And so I do not favor this amendment.

It may come as some surprise that I now urge you to vote in favor of this amendment. I do so because I have been asked by the President of my church to advocate for its passage, though the irony of such a request, given the history of our church, is not lost upon me. By making this request, I discharge my responsibilities as a member of my faith.

But I do not tender up my conscience, which remains firmly opposed to this amendment.

Sincerely,

Mike Waters

Did you chant "Allah Akbar" as you martyred yourself or something else?

[creekster]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Dear Senator Cornyn,

I personally do not favor the amendment to the Constitution that would define marriage as being between “a man and a woman.” My great-great-grandmother immigrated from Sweden as a young girl, and crossed the plains with her family as part of the Mormon migration west in the 19th century. She eventually married and settled in the Arizona desert. Her husband took ill, and before he died, he asked his good friend to marry his wife and care for her, despite the fact that his friend was already married. This he did. My great-great-grandmother bore him children, one of whom was my great-grandfather.

So I am, in part, the product of a non-traditional marriage. The sort of marriage that many men were imprisoned for. I don’t feel like my ancestors were immoral or wrong. They were following the dictates of their conscience.

Though Mormons who are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints no longer practice polygamy, there are certain religious sects who continue the practice. How can I in good conscience deny these people the ability to marry as they see fit, when I would not deny my own ancestors? I would be a hypocrite.

And so I do not favor this amendment.

It may come as some surprise that I now urge you to vote in favor of this amendment. I do so because I have been asked by the President of my church to advocate for its passage, though the irony of such a request, given the history of our church, is not lost upon me. By making this request, I discharge my responsibilities as a member of my faith.

But I do not tender up my conscience, which remains firmly opposed to this amendment.

Sincerely,

Mike Waters

To be quite honest, I find that rather childish. (Unless this is simply a rhetorical exercise to make a point in this forum; to send it would be, IMO, childish.)

[Parrot Head]

creek, are you sending a letter? My first thought when it was announced was just the futility of writing the honorable Senators Boxer and Feinstein on this issue. But that speaks more about my cynical nature than anything else.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Parrot Head

creek, are you sending a letter? My first thought when it was announced was just the futility of writing the honorable Senators Boxer and Feinstein on this issue. But that speaks more about my cynical nature than anything else.

I had the same thoughts, but I decided to send them an e-mail anyway just to let them know we are out there. It won't help on this vote with CA's senators, but I am not sure that this is necessarily about this vote alone; it amy also be a chnace to show how many people care about the topic, which then might lead to moderation in other areas, so I decided an e-mail was a good thing.

Btw, my e-mail to the two senators from CA will be spell checked and typed carefully, so I iwll sound much less Grapevinian than usual.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

Did you chant "Allah Akbar" as you martyred yourself or something else?

lol!

[MikeWaters]

I know that most Mormons do not see any irony in the First Presidency's position. There is zero struggle. Only celebration and 100% agreement.

I envy you all.

In the olden days, someone like myself would have been able to sit down with Brother Joseph and discussed this. But not anymore. That's a shame I think.

Instead of sending my letter to my senators, I may send it to the First Presidency. Reword it a bit. Perhaps then I will get an answer.

[creekster]

I'm not sure what you expect, Mike, or what you think you are entitled to as a member fo the church. Sitting down with brother Joseph might help, i suppose, but I suspect that he wouold tell you that his wordis no basis for a testimony of the correctness of any action. I suspect he would tell you,as he told others, to pray about it and get your own revelation.

This isn't about gays as much as it is about families. The societal assault on families is not easily stopped or even staunched. I think the prophet sees the possible future much better than I, and so i iwll follow him. Should you choose not to follow him on this, so be it, but it would certainly be spiteful to send the sort of letter you proposed above, although from your last post I assume you don't really intend to do so.

I know this sounds self-righteous and pious which I do not intend, as I am far, far from a pious person. I just choose to make my decisions on this sort of thing on the basis of my testimony as opposed to my sense of intellectual propriety or factors such as irony given past positions. Struggle? yes, but the result is ultimately easy.