Constitutional Ammendment for Parental Rights...

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
citizensoldier
captain of 10
Posts: 31
Location: Republic of Texas

Re: Constitutional Ammendment for Parental Rights...

Post by citizensoldier »

Legislatures cannot take away a common law right without constitutional authority giving such power nor without due process of law. Freedom of association is a fundamental right secured under the 1st and 14th amendments. No state can force men and women to enter into a contract with the state for anything nor can a state deprive a man or woman their right to contract privately. The Supreme Court has stated "the decision to marry is a fundamental right under Zablocki v Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 98 S. Ct. 673, 54 L.Ed.2d 618 (1978), and Loving v Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 87 S. Ct. 1817, 18 L.Ed.2d 1010 (1967)..." Turner v Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987)

The very quote you provide by the Court clearly shows the difference between "A statute may declare that no marriages shall be valid unless they are solemnized in a prescribed manner, but such an enactment is a very different thing from a law requiring all marriages to be entered into in the presence of a magistrate or a clergyman or that it be preceded by a license, or publication of banns, or be attested by witnesses. Such formal provisions may be construed as merely directory, instead of being treated as destructive of a common law right to form the marriage relation by words of present assent. And such, we think, has been the rule generally adopted in construing statutes regulating marriage."

As the court said, such statutes must be construed as directory because the legislatures are without authority to destroy the common law right to form the marriage relation. The decision has never been overturned. It is a well settled principle the plain meaning of a statute cannot render an absurd result. Based on your allegations of your state's 1957 statute, you allege the legislators' were magically empowered to destroy the common law right to marriage without due process. Doing so renders the Supreme Court decision and its principles that the decision relies upon irrelevant simply by a legislative trick of wording. Your allegation is merely snakeoil salesmanship and renders an absurd result.

I do not dispute a state has the power to not recognize a common law marriage in regards to the statutory privileges provided by the state (courts have to recognize it when dealing with fundamental rights); however, that is an entirely different matter than alleging a common law marriage is not valid or somehow unlawful because a state does not recognize it for purposes of privileges provide by the state.

Now what is the point of this - the LDS church, by allegedly requiring a marriage license, undermines the free agency of men and women seeking to enter into a Temple marriage by requiring said men and women to obtain a marriage license allowing the state a party into the marriage. The state is without such authority and so is the church. Of course, I am left wondering how the church can claim it holds free agency as the principle gift from God; yet, seeks to undermine it.
Last edited by citizensoldier on May 19th, 2008, 5:37 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Proud 2b Peculiar
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5560
Location: American Fork, Utah

Re: Constitutional Ammendment for Parental Rights...

Post by Proud 2b Peculiar »

natasha wrote:From the Church site lds.org regarding marriage licenses:

http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnex ... &hideNav=1

WOW laws of the land can really complicate things!


(like that is a shocker) You would think they don't want people to get married and have more children for them to tax and regulate.

(Yes I am in a bad mood)

User avatar
jbalm
The Third Comforter
Posts: 5348

Re: Constitutional Ammendment for Parental Rights...

Post by jbalm »

Now what is the point of this - the LDS church, by allegedly requiring a marriage license, undermines the free agency of men and women seeking to enter into a Temple marriage by requiring said men and women to obtain a marriage license allowing the state a party into the marriage. The state is without such authority and so is the church. Of course, I am left wondering how the church can claim it holds free agency as the principle gift from God; yet, seeks to undermine it.
You've inspired me. I'm going to go saddle up my favorite curelom and head straight to Salt Lake City. It shouldn't take long. I have one of the flying cureloms.

When I get there I'm going to march right up to President Monson, throw my wadded up marriage license right at him, and proclaim:

"Behold, burden us no longer with the paperwork of the devil. Hear me, thou prophet of not many months. I was once like you, having been vexed and deceived by common sense and the advice of those who know more than I.

But it came to pass that a guy on the internet, a wise man (or woman, I'm not sure) called citizensoldier has shown me that only a slothful servant wouldst hide his ignorance under a bushel. And yea, I will do so no longer, lest I be cursed with the learning of others. For behold, we must not disregard the words of the Lord which saith 'If any of you lack knowledge, just wing it.'

And it came to pass that the guy on the internet, citizensoldier, yea the same citizensoldier who commands all the mighty forces of Wikipedia and Google with his fingertips, has shown me the error of your ways. For he has taught me that if you read only selected portions of texts that ye may interpret them as ye see fit. Also, thou shalt be blessed with more time to watch TV.

For blessed are those who don't know much but think that they do, for they, through sheer numbers resulting from indiscriminate breeding, shall inherit the earth.

Now, President Monson, ye pitiful slave of knowledge, I command ye to grant me a temple recommend lest ye be smitten by something. I don't know exactly what will smite thee, for behold, I have only read the parts of the scriptures that are pleasing unto me, and I must have skipped the part that tells what exactly it is that smites people. Nonetheless, thou will be smitten unless you do things my way--probably.

For behold, the Lord has created us free. And nobody is truly free unless they are doing things my way. All things not done my way are of Satan."

I'll let you know how it turns out.

User avatar
shadow
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10542
Location: St. George

Re: Constitutional Ammendment for Parental Rights...

Post by shadow »

Actually, I think requiring a permission slip from the state to get married (to keep the commandments) is contrary to what I fought for in the pre-existence. That being said, the people have spoken (or haven't spoken??) and this is the mess we're in.

natasha
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2184

Re: Constitutional Ammendment for Parental Rights...

Post by natasha »

Well, guys...let me just tell ya....some of the best and most accurate information for genealogical research that I have gotten is from marriage licenses...because with the license, most people filled out a form or gave other information that was recorded...and I am not just talking about modern licenses. Research done in Nova Scotia...because of marriage licenses and the marriage slip that went with it...I was able to ascertain names of parents of the couple getting married as well as where those parents lived. So, from this evil document I was able to be a "savior on mount zion".

User avatar
shadow
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10542
Location: St. George

Re: Constitutional Ammendment for Parental Rights...

Post by shadow »

Do you think it's an evil document or are you being sarcastic?

What is the purpose of getting a marriage license? Is it to become a partner with the state? Is it so the state can generate revenue? Is it just for record purposes? If you are a free person, why the need to get the permission slip? (this is to everyone, not just Natasha.)

natasha
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2184

Re: Constitutional Ammendment for Parental Rights...

Post by natasha »

I was just being sarcastic, Shadow......just trying to indicate that from this terrible practice of licensing...much important genealogical evidence is gleaned. Interestingly, though...as I have examined some of the information on these "marriage slips", etc., it almost appears "inspirational" the information asked for!

User avatar
shadow
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10542
Location: St. George

Re: Constitutional Ammendment for Parental Rights...

Post by shadow »

Many Jewish names have been retrieved as a direct result of the Holocaust. The ends don't always justify the means. But we can take information from bad events and use it to the benefit of those involved.

citizensoldier
captain of 10
Posts: 31
Location: Republic of Texas

Re: Constitutional Ammendment for Parental Rights...

Post by citizensoldier »

I think everyone can agree that all evils have some perceived benefits - if they didn't, what would the attraction be for someone to commit evil? Theft and robbery appear to have great benefit to those who can get away with it - something for nothing. A policeman conducting an unlawful search believes it makes his job easier and it helps the greater good. What does God say about doing evil?

A marriage license makes the state a superior party into the marriage contract. The only fruits of marriage are children. So, the state has superior authority over the children than the parents. Is this in harmony with God's law?

Proud 2b Peculiar
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5560
Location: American Fork, Utah

Re: Constitutional Ammendment for Parental Rights...

Post by Proud 2b Peculiar »

I think that it is great that my ancestors kept marriage records, and had a certificate given to them for their marriage, however paying to marry and having there be state requirements that have to be met bothers me.

With the laws of certain states I was reading, it is very clear that they used fear and paranoia to get people to agree to go through all of that to get married.

natasha
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2184

Re: Constitutional Ammendment for Parental Rights...

Post by natasha »

One of the most important reasons for keeping marriage records, and I know they differ from early Town Records, is for proving heirship. Some of you may recall that early in New England, people had to post a Bond or Banns a few weeks in advance to make sure that there was no reason a couple should not get married...there was a fee for that...thus records. It, of course, evolved as our population grew. Marriage records were kept very early on because of the necessity for proving heirship.

User avatar
jbalm
The Third Comforter
Posts: 5348

Re: Constitutional Ammendment for Parental Rights...

Post by jbalm »

Marriage is a right.

A state recognized marriage isn't. It is an incentive that states offer in order to promote behavior beneficial to society (at least that's the way it was originally).

In order for a state to confer it's benefits upon those entering into it's recognized version of marriage, some record keeping must be done. The minimal fees charged for a marriage license usually just cover the cost of the paperwork. (By the way, were any of you aware that church patriarchs used to charge a fee for patriarchal blessings? The fee was used to pay the person who transcribed the blessing.)

Frankly, it doesn't matter to me if someone opts to get a marriage license or not. If a couple is committed to each other, and hold themselves out as being married, and regard themselves as married, I will respect that.

The state, on the other hand, while not penalizing anyone for opting not to get the marriage license, isn't going to confer any benefits upon anyone for an unrecognized marriage.

As far as the church is concerned, the leadership has always gone out of its way to obey the laws of the land. Sometimes to an extent that seems unnecessary. But my guess is that the church leaders want the gov. to make no mistake that the church is a law abiding organization. Marriage licenses are a minor inconvenience. Compared to the income tax laws, which the church also tells us to comply with, it is nothing.

If I had my way, the church wouldn't require marriage licenses. Then again, if I had my way, the church would defy a bunch of laws that I think suck. Then the LDS church would probably go the way of the FLDS church, chased from state to state and eventually dismantled.

So much for building up the Kingdom of God.

User avatar
jnjnelson
captain of 100
Posts: 688
Location: Kearns, UT

Re: Constitutional Ammendment for Parental Rights...

Post by jnjnelson »

jbalm wrote:Then again, if I had my way, the church would defy a bunch of laws that I think suck.
Doctrine and Covenants section 134 is worth reviewing when forming opinions about what the church leaders should or should not do in reference to matters of government.
jbalm wrote:Marriage is a right.
What makes marriage a right? It seems to me that marriage could be an application of the right to pursue happiness, but I don't see marriage as an unalienable right that God has granted to everyone. Marriage, as far as I can determine, is a privilege granted by God to a select few who make marriage commitments, not a right granted by God to everyone. This is especially true as it pertains to eternal marriage. God has put many conditions and requirements on those desiring eternal marriage. Is it wrong for a government to do the same to civil marriage?
jbalm wrote:So much for building up the Kingdom of God.
Building up the kingdom of God is done through following rules and laws defined by God. The freedom to follow those rules and laws is necessary, but the freedom to disobey the rules and laws of God is equally necessary. However, receiving the blessings of following the laws of God does not follow from disobeying the laws. The same applies to the laws of the land. If you want the benefits provided under the law of the land, obey the law of the land.

The requirement of marriage licenses does not limit freedom in any way that I can see. I don't agree that marriage licenses are the same as permission from the government to be married. A marriage license is an agreement. If you don't want to make that agreement, don't get married.
citizensoldier wrote:A marriage license makes the state a superior party into the marriage contract.
In what way is the state a superior party in the marriage contract? When I entered into a marriage contract, was I making the contract with the state, or with my spouse, or both?

As far as the temple sealing ordinance is concerned, I am making a contract, or covenant, with both my spouse and with God. Is God the "superior party" in that agreement? If so, why?

User avatar
shadow
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10542
Location: St. George

Re: Constitutional Ammendment for Parental Rights...

Post by shadow »

jnjnelson wrote: Marriage, as far as I can determine, is a privilege granted by God
Did you say granted by God or granted by the state? If by God, then why the license from the state? And just an FYI, marriage is a commandment. Is my ability to keep the commandments a right or a privilege? I think it's a right.
jnjnelson wrote: I don't agree that marriage licenses are the same as permission from the government to be married.
Then how is it different? A license from the state is nothing more than a permission slip.
jnjnelson wrote:In what way is the state a superior party in the marriage contract? When I entered into a marriage contract, was I making the contract with the state, or with my spouse, or both?
I don't think the state is a superior party, but they are a party. They force themselves to be a party to your marriage by requiring the license. They're the ones that granted you permission to marry. You filled out and signed their forms did you not? You couldn't have married without those forms and the accompanied fee.

I might be OK with the government recording my marriage and issuing a certificate, but requiring a license is against freedom. When my wife and I decided to have a baby, we didn't get permission from the state (a license), but that child was issued a certificate after the fact that he/she was born. But maybe the government needs to step in and require a license to have kids, that way they can limit how many are born. (trust me, many are looking for the government to do just that, maybe you'd go along with that too??) It's not the role of government to meddle in the personal affairs of man so long as rights aren't being infringed upon.

citizensoldier
captain of 10
Posts: 31
Location: Republic of Texas

Re: Constitutional Ammendment for Parental Rights...

Post by citizensoldier »

After thinking about the marriage license issue and the LDS church's documentation concerning such license, I decided to look at the issue from a different perspective. I asked myself, how can the church mandate a couple must have a marriage license before entering into a temple marriage without violating our free agency. The only answer I come to that is in harmony with free agency is the church, similar to the states as mentioned in the court case I cited above, has certain rules that are merely directory. I think it cannot be disputed the church already recognizes common law marriages in states that do. It seems to me, if a person is required to have one, then they need to show evidence of attaining it, while those that do not require one obviously don't.
My wife and I do not have a temple marriage (she is not a member); however, should the time come, I will simply present the matter to the church officials and go all the way up if needed to get an answer one way or the other.

User avatar
jbalm
The Third Comforter
Posts: 5348

Re: Constitutional Ammendment for Parental Rights...

Post by jbalm »

Doctrine and Covenants section 134 is worth reviewing when forming opinions about what the church leaders should or should not do in reference to matters of government.
I'm familiar with it. And yet, due to my oft rebellious tendencies, I would probably still have the church defy laws I don't like if I was in charge. Just one of the many reasons everyone should be glad that better men than I run the church.
What makes marriage a right?
In the context of this thread, marriage is a right in that men and women are entitled to marry with or without involvement of the state. A "natural law" perspective, I guess.
It seems to me that marriage could be an application of the right to pursue happiness...
You could look at it that way, I suppose. I tend to favor shadow's perspective, however, when he stated "marriage is a commandment. Is my ability to keep the commandments a right or a privilege? I think it's a right."
...but I don't see marriage as an unalienable right that God has granted to everyone.
To whom hasn't God given that right?
Marriage, as far as I can determine, is a privilege granted by God to a select few who make marriage commitments, not a right granted by God to everyone.


I guess I'll just disagree with you here. I believe we have the right. If we do it correctly, we are blessed. If not, we aren't.

Are you giving the same definition to "marriage" and "eternal marriage?" If so, maybe that is the source of the disagreement.
This is especially true as it pertains to eternal marriage. God has put many conditions and requirements on those desiring eternal marriage.


I agree with you here.
Is it wrong for a government to do the same to civil marriage?
I don't think so. But I will qualify that. I think people are free to enter into common law type marriages without government involvement. The government doesn't have to recognize such a marriage. But I don't believe the government should be able to forbid it (and I'm not aware of any place in the U.S. where they do).
Building up the kingdom of God is done through following rules and laws defined by God.
I agree. I'm wondering, however, if you misunderstood my intention when I said "o much for building up the Kingdom of God." I was merely pointing out that if the church made a habit of kicking against the pricks (no pun intended), then the LDS church would end up spending all of its time and energy in those endeavors, like the FLDS are doing now, and the duty of building up the Kingdom would be neglected.
I don't agree that marriage licenses are the same as permission from the government to be married. A marriage license is an agreement. If you don't want to make that agreement, don't get married.


To me, it looks like you contradict yourself here.

User avatar
jnjnelson
captain of 100
Posts: 688
Location: Kearns, UT

Re: Constitutional Ammendment for Parental Rights...

Post by jnjnelson »

shadow wrote:Is my ability to keep the commandments a right or a privilege? I think it's a right.
Then, I suppose, you may be using a different definition of the word right than I am. I understand that an unalienable right is something I can never lose, I can only lose the ability to exercise it or apply it. I can lose the ability to keep the commandments through my unrighteous actions, but I cannot lose the right to choose to keep the commandments. Abilities are not rights. Responsibilities are not rights. An unalienable right, as I understand the phrase, is something to which I have just claim and I cannot lose my just claim to it through any actions of my own or any other person. Therefore, I have a right and responsibility to keep the commandments, but my ability to keep the commandments is not a right - it is an ability.
shadow wrote:
jnjnelson wrote:I don't agree that marriage licenses are the same as permission from the government to be married.
Then how is it different?
The difference is in the direction of stewardship. The government does not have stewardship over my marriage, but I do have stewardship over the government. If we, as a people, do not fill that stewardship and limit the government, then we have failed in preserving our own freedom.

A marriage license is as much a permission slip as a temple recommend is a permission slip. Without either, I cannot make certain commitments. For each, I must meet certain criteria before making the associated commitments. If a temple recommend is treated like a permission slip, I could see a marriage license treated like a permission slip.
shadow wrote:... maybe you'd go along with that too??
That depends on exactly what you mean by "go along with". If you mean I would obey the law if it was in effect, then yes I would do so. Would I support creating such a law? Or would I have supported the creation of marriage licenses? No on both counts. The laws surrounding marriage licenses should be, at least, modified; however, that fact doesn't change my, or any other person's, responsibility to obey the law.

User avatar
shadow
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10542
Location: St. George

Re: Constitutional Ammendment for Parental Rights...

Post by shadow »

jnjnelson wrote: The government does not have stewardship over my marriage, but I do have stewardship over the government.
Oh, but it does have a stewardship over your marriage (thus the license) and the product (your kids) of your marriage!!
You have as much stewardship over the government as the FLDS members in Texas do. NONE. You think you do, but you don't.

Proud 2b Peculiar
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5560
Location: American Fork, Utah

Re: Constitutional Ammendment for Parental Rights...

Post by Proud 2b Peculiar »

God has put many conditions and requirements on those desiring eternal marriage. Is it wrong for a government to do the same to civil marriage?
I would have to say YES, because government is not God. In many religions, marriage is a sacrament that is very sacred and is between the couple and God. Government has no business being involved in that union. They do not own us, therefore they cannot grant us the freedom to marry, we naturally have that right. And yes, that is our ability to pursue our own happiness. They do not have any claim to the production of marriage, but they will beg to differ, as they claim the right to our children.

Preventing marriage due to disabilities etc, also seems to be tyrannical to me, or to encourage birth control or sterilization because you are 'poor' or have some other issue that society happens to not like at the time.

Marriage is a religious 'rite'. When government started messing with it, it was the beginning of the attack on the family.
The requirement of marriage licenses does not limit freedom in any way that I can see.
Can you still marry without one? Are we free to marry anywhere in the US without one? Is that freedom?

As far as the temple sealing ordinance is concerned, I am making a contract, or covenant, with both my spouse and with God. Is God the "superior party" in that agreement? If so, why?
This almost is exactly as the sealer described it to me in the temple. It is through God that we will create children and it is with his help that we will raise them. (at least it should be, we cannot do it ourselves we need his help) It is a three-way partnership. He showed me a triangle he made with his fingers and said, for true success in a marriage, we must make all decisions with these three together.

Proud 2b Peculiar
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5560
Location: American Fork, Utah

Re: Constitutional Ammendment for Parental Rights...

Post by Proud 2b Peculiar »

In relation to D&C 134

5 We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly; and that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience.

So, if our government is not protecting our rights, then we are not bound to sustain them in their wickedness.

We also can state that marriage is part of religion, and that the government is violating the ability to live a religion without their meddling in it.

The only way to fight it right now is to stand for truth and get involved. And when the voice has no meaning and redress is not possible for all of the abuses of government, then we turn to the Lord and ask for his deliverance from such a government, while still doing all that we can.

Proud 2b Peculiar
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5560
Location: American Fork, Utah

Re: Constitutional Ammendment for Parental Rights...

Post by Proud 2b Peculiar »

"Within Christianity, "rite" often refers to what is also called a sacrament or to the ceremonies associated with the sacraments"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_ ... f_marriage

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacrament

"In Western Christian belief practice, a sacrament is a rite, instituted by Christ, that mediates grace, constituting a sacred mystery. The Eastern Orthodox Church, however, views the sacraments, what it typically calls the Holy Mysteries, not so much as dispensers of grace, but instead as a means for communing with God, an entering into and participation in heavenly things while nevertheless still on earth in this life,"

We do not need government to assist us in our commune with God and to participate in heavenly things, like the creation of an eternal family.

I hope that clarifies my position better.

User avatar
jnjnelson
captain of 100
Posts: 688
Location: Kearns, UT

Re: Constitutional Ammendment for Parental Rights...

Post by jnjnelson »

shadow wrote:You have as much stewardship over the government as the FLDS members in Texas do. NONE. You think you do, but you don't.
If I choose to think I have no stewardship over the government, I lose all stewardship over the government. If I choose to become part of the government, i.e. "We the People", and recognize that everything the government does is done only as a collective action of a group in which I am a member, then I have stewardship over the government.

The more I speak as if the government is an entity in which I am not included, the more the government has power over me. The more I speak as if I am a part of the government, the more stewardship I have over the government. This idea that the government is "they" and each individual citizen is not included in the government is possibly the most destructive idea to freedom that exists. Go ahead and perpetuate that idea if you feel inclined, but please know that in doing so, you are helping to slowly destroy freedom.

As far as the FLDS situation is concerned, I don't think of that situation as the government vs. the FLDS. I think of the situation as individual members of a church vs. individual socialistic, corrupt bureaucrats. If "We the People" do not protect the freedoms of every individual member of the FLDS church in that situation (and, by extension, every American), we have failed in our stewardship.

The same could be said of parental rights and the right to choose to be married. If we lose the ability to exercise our unalienable rights, we do so because we have not been diligent enough in protecting our own freedom. If I place any blame on the government, I need to also remember that I am a part of that government, and therefore have stewardship over it.
LoveChrist wrote:Can you still marry without one? Are we free to marry anywhere in the US without one? Is that freedom?
I thought we had already determined that common law marriages are accomplished without a license. Even common law marriages have certain requirements in order for the marriage to be legally recognized. I still see no unjust inhibitions on freedom. Laws are needed in government to protect rights, but the only function of laws is to limit freedom.
jbalm wrote:To whom hasn't God given that right?
First of all, that question assumes that marriage is a right. It isn't. The right to choose marriage is a right. Marriage itself is not a right. Rights are unalienable, meaning everyone has them all the time from the beginning of their life to the moment they die. It is not a right to be married, or God would have no problems with underage marriages, homosexual marriages, or even abusive marriage relationships. It is, however, a right to choose to be married, or to choose the actions that would lead to marriage. Every individual has the right to choose those actions that would lead to marriage. Though every individual has that right (the right to choose marriage as God defines marriage), there will be many who, during their time on this earth, will not have the ability to be married. They might lose that ability through their own actions, through the actions of others, or simply as a result of the adversity inherent in enduring life on earth.
jbalm wrote:Are you giving the same definition to "marriage" and "eternal marriage?" If so, maybe that is the source of the disagreement.
Marriage and Eternal Marriage are only the same in potential. What are the differences between the two, as you understand them?
jbalm wrote:
jnjnelson wrote:I don't agree that marriage licenses are the same as permission from the government to be married. A marriage license is an agreement. If you don't want to make that agreement, don't get married.
To me, it looks like you contradict yourself here.
Could you elaborate? I see no contradiction.

User avatar
shadow
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10542
Location: St. George

Re: Constitutional Ammendment for Parental Rights...

Post by shadow »

Joel, I would suggest reading the "Proper role of Government" authored by Ezra T. Benson. It is possible for the beast (government) to become larger than the individual. I would submit that that has happened in the USA. It's a secret combination that has gotten above of us. The BOM has warned and foretold of it. It's here. You can suggest that there is a difference between a bureaucrat and the government but there isn't. They are the same.

A proper government will not have any more authority than an individual. So please explain why it is OK for the government to require a license to marry. I have no authority to require my neighbor to come to me for a license to marry, so the government has no authority to require it either. When that happens(ed) the government has been lost from the people.

User avatar
jbalm
The Third Comforter
Posts: 5348

Re: Constitutional Ammendment for Parental Rights...

Post by jbalm »

If I choose to think I have no stewardship over the government, I lose all stewardship over the government. If I choose to become part of the government, i.e. "We the People", and recognize that everything the government does is done only as a collective action of a group in which I am a member, then I have stewardship over the government.

The more I speak as if the government is an entity in which I am not included, the more the government has power over me. The more I speak as if I am a part of the government, the more stewardship I have over the government. This idea that the government is "they" and each individual citizen is not included in the government is possibly the most destructive idea to freedom that exists. Go ahead and perpetuate that idea if you feel inclined, but please know that in doing so, you are helping to slowly destroy freedom.
In other words, if you can't beat them, joint them.
As far as the FLDS situation is concerned, I don't think of that situation as the government vs. the FLDS. I think of the situation as individual members of a church vs. individual socialistic, corrupt bureaucrats.
At some point you're going to have to commit to a definition of government. Right now it looks like your trying to separate the fly feces from the pepper.

User avatar
jbalm
The Third Comforter
Posts: 5348

Re: Constitutional Ammendment for Parental Rights...

Post by jbalm »

First of all, that question assumes that marriage is a right. It isn't. The right to choose marriage is a right.
Now that's just silly. All rights are going to have some sort of choice involved. Otherwise, they become obligations.
Rights are unalienable, meaning everyone has them all the time from the beginning of their life to the moment they die.
Name a few inalienable rights. I need to see your definition in action.
I don't agree that marriage licenses are the same as permission from the government to be married. A marriage license is an agreement. If you don't want to make that agreement, don't get married.
To me, it looks like you contradict yourself here.
Could you elaborate? I see no contradiction.
I one sentence you say that licenses aren't the same as permission. Two sentences later, you say if you don't want to get a license, don't get married. Looks like you're saying you have to get a license to get married. How would that not be permission?
Marriage and Eternal Marriage are only the same in potential. What are the differences between the two, as you understand them?
The nature of one is earthly, the other divine. Marriage existed between the apostasy and the restoration, right?

Post Reply