Excluding **** marriages?

LegacyUser

JD Uy said: **** marriages are not allowed to be listed? You have a wonderful resource online, and it is kind of stunning that your site has not accepted LEGAL marriages between committed **** couples. I love your historical family services, but it's time you got real, with the real world. My husband is not a woman; I'm not a female. We're married. I have cousins, friends and co-workers who also have **** spouses. By forcing an opposite-sex spouse to be listed, when that is not true, you would be requiring us to abandon your services or lie. I was telling a lot of people about the great work that Mormons are doing for families, but this is really unacceptable that you are treating legal **** marriages as something other than equal of inclusion and recognition. Will you be reconsidering an update, please?

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: Have a look at the replies by Ron Tanner lower down in the thread https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...

LegacyUser

JD Uy said: I must have seen an earlier post from an Admin, then -- and it pretty much said that **** marriages weren't considered legitimate according to the religion.... I'm glad they are reportedly considering a change. I know what it's like to have to update legacy software. I really do enjoy the FamilySearch site and am appreciative of all I've learned so far. It was disappointing to run into a needless exclusion on a key feature like that. I do hope the Admins find time and ability to adjust the system. TY in advance.

LegacyUser

Don M Thomas said: I am just another patron to this FamilySearch "Family Tree" site.

Adjusting the system for this genealogical site might be in the works, but be assured that the doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints will not change, in that Jesus Christ payed for our sins if we would repent. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has, and always will believe, that marriage is between a man and a woman.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Ron, in his response, is repeating what has been said before. That the system will eventually accommodate the real-life situation. This has been the stance for at least the past couple of years when the issue has been raised.

LegacyUser

Robert Wren said: The FamilySearch tree contains ONLY deceased persons, in records the public can see.

With the recent adoption/authorization/approval of this type of marriage, I would assume that VERY few individual marriages could be entered at this time.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: Conversely, if you are one of those people, or closely connected, it will, inevitably, loom larger in your mind. We all of us see the requirements on FS through the filter of our own life.

LegacyUser

Chris Chapman said: while I hold no ill will toward anybody who chooses to enter into a **** marriage, I do find it unfortunate that Familysearch would adapt it's standards to fit the description of marriage that the world says is acceptable. This does not conform to the standards that the Lord has outlined for His church and the world. This will make it even more difficult to explain gospel standards to my children as now they will be able to log on to a church sponsored website, and potentially see that it is an option to be married to a member of the ****. Ron Tanner/Steve Rockwood, I sincerely implore you to rethink this decision, and stop trying to get more users by conforming to worldly standards.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: I'm sorry, but I do not have a problem when a legally recognized union between two people is recognized as a valid family relationship. I also do not have a problem seeing children illegitimately born to a couple who have not and did not have the intention of getting married. This latter situation exists and has existed from the very beginning.

LegacyUser

Chris Chapman said: You might not have a problem with it, and that is fine. My family, most of my associates, and many lds church members will. I do not think this is a good idea. I think you would find that most people that hold really deep beliefs about the lds church would agree this is a bad idea. Including millennials. President Nelson said this week in his press conference, mans ways are not God’s ways. Alcohol and e-cigarettes are common in many households and completely legal in most places, you still wont find a vending machine with beer and e-cigarette flavors in it at temple square. Familysearch, look at your ctr rings and do not conform to the world. Even the very elect shall be deceived, please don’t be among them.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."

FamilySearch is following that article of faith.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: As I have said elsewhere, there is a distinction to be drawn between the members only part of Family Search with its ordinances, and the outward facing Family Search Family Tree. I don't ask, and can't ask what happens in the realm of ordinances. But if the Church desires the help of the rest of the world to record its ancestors, it needs to recognise what happens in the real world.

LegacyUser

David Newton said: Chris Chapman please check your dogma at the door. I happen to agree with you about the correct definition of the word marriage. I also very much agree that the non-public-facing parts of the site, namely the sealings etc should remain as they are. Those bits are LDS-only and should be defined by LDS rules. However the public-facing bits of the site must reflect temporal legal reality.

It is now legal in many jurisdictions for a person to have two fathers or two mothers as parents. It is also legal for someone to change their gender. These are family relationships that the Familysearch family tree must be able to reflect accurately. They are going to be programming nightmares to deal with from a data validation point of view but the nettle must be grasped.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: Very much agree with you, David.

The question of parentage is another minefield. I'm sorely tempted to try to avoid the issue by confining those terms to biological parentage and details at birth. But genealogists have long since recognised adoption - as has society in general - so I have no justification in taking the easy way out. Society is out there and if we claim to pay tribute to our ancestors, we need to recognise their families with all their idiosyncrasies.

LegacyUser

JD Uy said: THANK YOU FAMILY SEARCH for sticking with your stated intention and allowing the recognition of legalized **** marriages (even though you state clearly that LDS' specific definition of marriage is not currently inclusive of **** couples).

I appreciate the huge effort, time and openness on your behalf as far as your software and database operations are concerned. I don't doubt there were some emotional issues involved, but this really is a marvelous development now.

It makes a great difference to me and my family, and correctly depicts our friends and family members as being worthy, cherished members of our families, on record where it belongs. It's a wonderful addition to your many features, and we couldn't be more thankful for all the work you do and the services your organization provide for the sake of human history, heredity and lives that deserve to be documented and remembered!