MikeWaters |
09-29-2006 08:34 PM |
"Bundle of Rights" argument
Quote:
ELDER WICKMAN: One way to think of marriage is as a bundle of rights associated with what it means for two people to be married. What the First Presidency has done is express its support of marriage and for that bundle of rights belonging to a man and a woman. The First Presidency hasn’t expressed itself concerning any specific right. It really doesn’t matter what you call it. If you have some legally sanctioned relationship with the bundle of legal rights traditionally belonging to marriage and governing authority has slapped a label on it, whether it is civil union or domestic partnership or whatever label it’s given, it is nonetheless tantamount to marriage. That is something to which our doctrine simply requires us to speak out and say, “That is not right. That’s not appropriate.”
|
Interesting. Church clearly opposed to civil unions.
What is not clear is if they also oppose a la carte "rights" for homosexuals. Contracts, visitations, inheritance, etc.
I'm not sure I understand the logic of opposing the "bundled" rights, but not opposing a la carte.
But if you do oppose a la carte, in my mind, that is lunacy and complete abrogration of liberty.
That's the problem with talking so much about this. You dig yourself a hole that doesn't make sense.
For example, in the piece, they conflate eternal marriage with secular marriage. Is the definition of marriage what God says, or what the state says? It sure isn't clear in that article, because they endorse both.
http://www.lds.org/newsroom/issues/a...-4-202,00.html
|