LDS Freedom Forum

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8655 ... ional.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sad day for the state, and even more tragic for a state where there are so many members of the Church...

Could be a result of the Church's involvement in the whole CA Prop. 8 thing. Probably made fighting the SSM battle in UT a priority for some.

Marriage is a sacrament of faith. Governments should issue contracts and stay out of marriage.

Eventually, it all gets down to semantics.

Nothing says that people of faith can't come up with their own ceremonies that are exclusively available only to the faithful...might even happen already (cough...temple...cough).

Don't get me wrong. I'm not advocating for SSM. Frankly, I don't have strong feelings either way. But I do agree that government does not need to be involved in marriage.

I am not up on this subject, but I think government is the only power that can enforce the responsibilities of marriage, including alimony and child support.

lundbaek wrote:I am not up on this subject, but I think government is the only power that can enforce the responsibilities of marriage, including alimony and child support.

Alimony and child support shouldn't exist. The government should properly criminalize divorce. Infidelity, abuse, and neglect are all punishable crimes that, when properly applied resolve any legitimate need for divorce.

The need for government to hand out marriage licenses all started way back when government thought it would be a good idea to start putting its nose in the business of religious affairs.

-No alimony
-No child support
-No tax breaks/exemptions (no Federal Reserve and IRS)


Marriage is a religious institution. Therefore, governments cannot start passing laws in favor or against it. Let individual religions decide who they want marrying.

I would actually be in favor of government doing the legal stuff and the churches doing the ceremonial stuff, without interference from either party.

InfoWarrior82 wrote:The need for government to hand out marriage licenses all started way back when government thought it would be a good idea to start putting its nose in the business of religious affairs.

-No alimony
-No child support
-No tax breaks/exemptions (no Federal Reserve and IRS)


Marriage is a religious institution. Therefore, governments cannot start passing laws in favor or against it. Let individual religions decide who they want marrying.

But the government's #1 responsibility is to protect people from the abuse of others, even from their spouse's abuse or neglect, whether verbal, emotional, financial, sexual, or physical, etc. Church's can't really do that very well. So the government has to be able to protect people from their abusive, adulterous or abandoning spouse. That also means forcing men to continue to completely financially support their wife and children if they abused or abandoned her, for the church doesn't have the power to force him to do that. Thus the need for governments to require alimony and child support, among other things, to help repair what he's done and protect the wife and children from any further abuse, neglect or abandonment from him.

Lilli wrote:

InfoWarrior82 wrote:The need for government to hand out marriage licenses all started way back when government thought it would be a good idea to start putting its nose in the business of religious affairs.

-No alimony
-No child support
-No tax breaks/exemptions (no Federal Reserve and IRS)


Marriage is a religious institution. Therefore, governments cannot start passing laws in favor or against it. Let individual religions decide who they want marrying.

But the government's #1 responsibility is to protect people from the abuse of others, even from their spouse's abuse or neglect, whether verbal, emotional, financial, sexual, or physical, etc. Church's can't really do that very well. So the government has to be able to protect people from their abusive, adulterous or abandoning spouse. That also means forcing men to continue to completely financially support their wife and children if they abused or abandoned her, for the church doesn't have the power to force him to do that. Thus the need for governments to require alimony and child support, among other things, to help repair what he's done and protect the wife and children from any further abuse, neglect or abandonment from him.

It's against any legal authority the church possesses to legally prosecute an individual (i.e. arrest, incarcerate, punish). Yes, I do feel that government laws on parenting are important, because honestly unless you are an abusive spouse, you don't have a whole lot to fear otherwise, with a few exceptions. If you want to say that the church can't do the job of raising awareness, well, apparently, there's a replete history of the state not figuring out that kids are being abused, or not saying much of a kid's crimes. There are plenty of notorious crack slipping incidents that have happened practically right in front of inspectors' faces. The state is comprised of human beings, so it's possible.

Although I will note that child custody, shared insurance, and much more aren't neccessarily exclusive to marriage anymore, and yes, even unmarried cohabiting couples go into settlement hearings during breakups, even though the breakup isn't technically a divorce. The breakup is largely treated as one.

However, what I believe infowarrior is mentioning on tax breaks is important, because it leaves room for differentiating between types of relationships. I entered legal agreement with my parents for my medical care for no better reason than the fact that I was single and underemployed for a while, I also signed in to make the decisions regarding my own parents end-of-life, health insurance, etc. I feel that given a lot of the circumstances of my time, my relation as a struggling single man with his parents merits some kind of tax break, but then again, it would be better to do without such a complexity on the basis of my relationship. Income level often is a better factor.

InfoWarrior82 wrote:The need for government to hand out marriage licenses all started way back when government thought it would be a good idea to start putting its nose in the business of religious affairs.

-No alimony
-No child support
-No tax breaks/exemptions (no Federal Reserve and IRS)


Marriage is a religious institution. Therefore, governments cannot start passing laws in favor or against it. Let individual religions decide who they want marrying.

Well by that reasoning, wouldn't that eliminate any need for the church to change it's marriage/sealing policy, if people can just go to some alternative church? I think I came across that as a good justification for the church keeping it's policy. If someone really wants to have plural marriage, there's nothing to really stop them governmentwise from setting up their own religion or sect that works according to their beliefs.