Text of Marriage amendment

[All-American]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

What do you mean "perceived irony?"

You don't find it at all ironic that the person promoting an amendment which defines marriage as being between one man and one woman just got married for the second time for all eternity?

Neither do I.

And watch your step, please.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by creekster

WHat in the proposed language says one man and one woman? It says it is between a man and a woman, but does not say it must be exclusive.

Interesting point. I expect it to be ironed out before the final draft is up for a vote.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by creekster

WHat in the proposed language says one man and one woman? It says it is between a man and a woman, but does not say it must be exclusive.

Uhmmm dito!

I interpret the intent of the words 'a' man and 'a' woman not as a declaration of quantities but rather as a distinction.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

No I don't. Why do you?

I have to think you are just being intentionally difficult.

According to LDS theology, we are married for time and all eternity. All eternity encompasses the present, does it not? If so, then many Mormons, such as Elder Nelson, are effectively practicing polygamists.

The amendment proposed would ban polygamy. Ironic.

For the record, I am not trying to be offensive here. I have said nothing about Elder Nelson that isn't factually correct. I respect him and I most certainly do not question his desire to remarry. I am pleased he has found someone else to be with. My only point in bringing this up is to highlight what I perceive to be an inconsistency in actions and statements.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by tooblue

Uhmmm dito!

I interpret the intent of the words 'a' man and 'a' woman not as a declaration of quantities but rather as a distinction.

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."

[Robin]

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."

Like the 1st presidency letter, I think the language is intentionally vague. We have to imagine how the amendment would be interpreted in the increasingly conservative court system. I think it would give polygamy the boot... except for maybe in the ninth circuit.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Robin

Like the 1st presidency letter, I think the language is intentionally vague. We have to imagine how the amendment would be interpreted in the increasingly conservative court system. I think it would give polygamy the boot... except for maybe in the ninth circuit.

I don't find it to be vague, but I couldn't support it if I did either. Vague amendments can be deadly amendments.

[tooblue]

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."

But in this instance it is specified as being A man and A woman;

Also from dictionary dot com (are you sure you are not Bill Clinton?):

Used before a proper name to denote a type or a member of a class: the wisdom of a [man].
Used before a mass noun to indicate a single type or example: a dry wine.

in other words a dry wine, not ONE dry wine ... there is a difference in intent

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

According to LDS theology, we are married for time and all eternity. All eternity encompasses the present, does it not? If so, then many Mormons, such as Elder Nelson, are effectively practicing polygamists.

The amendment proposed would ban polygamy. Ironic.

I wrote my senator....

I told him that he needed to study his religious history before he throws his hat behind an amendment that potentially makes sealings unconstitutional. I find it highly ironic the church with it's current and past theology would support something that defines marriage between 'a' woman and 'a' man....

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by tooblue

But in this instance it is specified as being A man and A woman;

Also from dictionary dot com (are you sure you are not Bill Clinton?):

Used before a proper name to denote a type or a member of a class: the wisdom of a [man].
Used before a mass noun to indicate a single type or example: a dry wine.

in other words a dry wine, not ONE dry wine ... there is a difference in intent

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.