Prohibition then, marriage ammendment now?

[doug_larsen]

I have been making the association between this proposed Constitutional ammendment defining marriage and Prohibition, which the church came out strongly in favor of at the time. When the members of the church overwhelmingly, later, sided on overturning Prohibition, then-president Heber J. Grant (iirc) expressed great sadness and disappointment over the members choosing the "wrong" way. But if you think about it, Grant et al were siding with the position of Satan, who wants to control everything in his own image. As I recently heard the quip: "It wasn't God who wanted to destroy Babylon, it was Lucifer." The simple concept that CHOICE is the key issue seems to be utterly forgotten, in the zealous efforts of do-gooders to "protect" society (our religious environment).

And so here we go again: this time around it is whether or not individuals get to commit to the person of their choice, with full recognition under the law. That fundamental right is to be swept away because THIS issue is too important to grant complete agency, which the do-gooders all agree is obviously being abused to make the wrong choice, so this threat must be avoided by making Federal law against it.

If we lived in "Zion", these people would be cast out. But Zion is the pure in heart. And, afaict, that seems to have been those majority members who voted against Prohibition before, and will vote against the Constitutional ammendment on defining marriage in the near future.

[helemon]

I have been making the association between this proposed Constitutional ammendment defining marriage and Prohibition.

On Jon Stewart, Rob Corddry was talking about how the fight against gay marriage is a good thing for gays because being gay was becoming too mainstream. The marriage ban gives it the edgyness it needs to remain appealing. I think they were also comparing the marriage ban to prohibition and how ban will make people want to be gay even more because of the marriage ban. Stewart had Bob Bennett on there and Stewart nailed him on the gay marriage issue. Bennetts only defense was that if you let gays marry then what's to prevent permiting polygamists from marrying or other combinations of people.

[elder_nomo]

I have been making the association between this proposed Constitutional ammendment defining marriage and Prohibition, which the church came out strongly in favor of at the time. When the members of the church overwhelmingly, later, sided on overturning Prohibition, then-president Heber J. Grant (iirc) expressed great sadness and disappointment over the members choosing the "wrong" way.

Thanks for this, Doug. I didn't know the church had taken a position on Prohibition. (It's especially surprising given how they don't get involved in political matters :rolleyes: )

On Jon Stewart, Rob Corddry was talking about how the fight against gay marriage is a good thing for gays because being gay was becoming too mainstream. The marriage ban gives it the edgyness it needs to remain appealing. I think they were also comparing the marriage ban to prohibition and how ban will make people want to be gay even more because of the marriage ban.
Too funny! I wish I had seen it.
Stewart had Bob Bennett on there and Stewart nailed him on the gay marriage issue. Bennetts only defense was that if you let gays marry then what's to prevent permiting polygamists from marrying or other combinations of people.
This argument is so nonsensical to me. If you want to prevent polygamy, why the hell would you raise a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage? Why not a constitutional amendment banning..... polygamy?

[helemon]

This argument is so nonsensical to me. If you want to prevent polygamy, why the hell would you raise a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage? Why not a constitutional amendment banning..... polygamy?

Oops, I meant Bill Bennett, the book of virtues guy who has a gambling problem.:duh

Yeah, it is possible to draw a line wherever we want, but personally I don't care about polygamy either. The line should be that they are of legal age and are consenting adults. Now as for insurance benefits and other benefits enjoyed by spouses I'll leave that up to the corporations. I don't think a company should be required to pay for the healthcare of all 5 of a polygamists wives. Although, the polygamists are already scamming the taxpayers out of millions through welfare fraud.