At 06:58 PM 5/27/2005, ETM wrote: >Well I could suggest that my niece give the kids >back to the foundling home that got rid of them, >but I think that's a bit harsh. However, she >isn't married, probably doesn't intend to marry, >didn't personally have these illegitimate >children, and the inability to remove that UNKNOWN >husband tag is an annoyance. Elaine, FWIW, I have a daughter in a similar situation -- two adopted children but no marriage. While I agree that UNKNOWN for the father is irritating, I just ran a check and found "UNKNOWN" doesn't show up on paper reports. Although it doesn't solve the basic problem, that's a small consolation for me. Beth

Hi there, OK, I think it is time to speak up on the subject. The PAF data format has been around for quite some time and at that time the decision was made to model a marriage record as being between a husband and a wife. While this may not suit the current state of the world in which it is legal in some countries and/or states to have a same gender marriage, it was a valid modeling decision at the time of the creation of the initial PAF data structure. Whether or not the LDS Church is going to change the program to allow same gender marriage is totally up to their discretion. It does not serve any purpose to comment on any theological reasons why the LDS Church would or would not do so. I like to read about what people are doing with the product because I really like the product itself. I am aware that it has some shortcomings and I am currently in the process of addressing those in a product that I have under development. But in the meanwhile please let us move the content of this mailing list back to its charter, discussing the PAF5 product and what we can do with it. Kind regards, Manfred Riem mriem@manorrock.org http://www.manorrock.org/ > -----Original Message----- > From: Beth Perry Johnston [mailto:bpjohnston@charter.net] > Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 8:39 PM > To: PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [PAF-5] Acknowledging gay marriages in PAF--LDS content > > At 06:58 PM 5/27/2005, ETM wrote: > >Well I could suggest that my niece give the kids back to the > foundling > >home that got rid of them, but I think that's a bit harsh. However, > >she isn't married, probably doesn't intend to marry, didn't > personally > >have these illegitimate children, and the inability to remove that > >UNKNOWN husband tag is an annoyance. > > Elaine, > > FWIW, I have a daughter in a similar situation -- two adopted > children but no marriage. While I agree that UNKNOWN for the > father is irritating, I just ran a check and found "UNKNOWN" > doesn't show up on paper reports. > Although it doesn't solve the basic problem, that's a small > consolation for me. > > Beth > > > > ==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== > PAF-5-USERS Mailing List Archives > http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/PAF-5-USERS/ > >