Constitutional Ammendment for Parental Rights...

[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.

[jnjnelson]

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[jnjnelson]

Joel, I would suggest reading the "Proper role of Government" authored by Ezra T. Benson. ...

Thank you for the advice. I've read it. Can you be more specific about how that applies to the current topic?

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.

Great point. However, the government does not require a license for any individual to marry - the government requires a license for any marriage to be legally recognized. There is an important difference there.

Do I have the authority to require my neighbor's marriage to meet certain conditions in order for me to recognize it as a valid marriage? I submit I do have that authority, and therefore the government has that authority. There is no force, no deception - freedom is maintained.

In other words, if you can't beat them, joint them.

Wow. No, you completely missed the point. You are still calling the government "them" when it should really be "us."

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.

My definition of government is very simple: We the people are the government. Anyone who feels differently is not part of the government and therefore not part of the solution. In order for the government of any society to function completely within its proper role, every member of the society must be part of the government. I have chosen to be part of the government. If I hadn't made that decision, I would have no authority to dictate how the government should function.

Name a few inalienable rights. I need to see your definition in action.

Sure: I'll name the same the founding fathers named in the Declaration of Independance: Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. The right to choose to be married is part of the right to Liberty. The right to choose the path that would lead to marriage is part of the right to the pursuit of Happiness.

Looks like you're saying you have to get a license to get married. How would that not be permission?

I don't have to get a license to be married, I only need a license for my marriage to be legally recognized. In obtaining a marriage license, I am not obtaining permission from the government to be married, I am obtaining documentation that my marriage is to be legally recognized.

Marriage existed between the apostasy and the restoration, right?

Right. And every single marriage performed between the apostasy and the restoration has, or will have, the potential to become and eternal marriage.

[shadow]

Do I have the authority to require my neighbor's marriage to meet certain conditions in order for me to recognize it as a valid marriage? I submit I do have that authority, and therefore the government has that authority. There is no force, no deception - freedom is maintained.

I think we have a little disconnect here. The legality of a marriage is determined by the government. What authority does the government have in determining if it recognizes my spouse and I as married? Why should it matter? I'd suggest it was usurped. That is not the role of government. In any case, it's absolutely different than if you as my neighbor recognize it as a marriage. The consequences are different, extremely different. It does not matter to me if you recognize my marriage. There are no negative consequences for me. You have no authority to punish me. I can still get married in the Temple without a license from Joel. If you have no authority to restrain or limit my freedoms (privileges for those of you who are socialists), then does the government? Yes! Should they? No!

[jbalm]

Wow. No, you completely missed the point. You are still calling the government "them" when it should really be "us."

In your opinion, how many times must the will of the people be ignored by the euphemistically named "public servants" before it is appropriate to refer the the government as "them?"

Are you of the opinion that everything the government does has the tacit approval of all of us since "we" elected "them?"

If "we" are truly the government, then "we" should be able to act with governmental authority, right?

[jbalm]

Sure: I'll name the same the founding fathers named in the Declaration of Independance: Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

Are you sure we don't only have the right to choose to pursue happiness?

[Proud 2b Peculiar]

Common-law marriage in the United States was affirmed by the United States Supreme Court in Meister v. Moore (96 U.S. 76 (1877)), which ruled that Michigan had not abolished common law marriage merely by producing a statute establishing rules for the solemnization of marriages. Common-law marriage can still be contracted in 11 states and the District of Columbia, can no longer be contracted in 26 states, and was never permitted in 13 states. The requirements for a common-law marriage to be validly contracted differ from state to state. Nevertheless, all states — including those that have abolished the contract of common-law marriage within their boundaries — recognize common-law marriages lawfully contracted in those jurisdictions that still permit it.

[Proud 2b Peculiar]

So if you have to provide a marriage certificate for your driver's license, I guess you never change your name if you are a woman in a common law marriage.

I wish I could have know this, I would have looked into doing it, not sure how the temple in those areas would do that though.....

[jnjnelson]

In your opinion, how many times must the will of the people be ignored by the euphemistically named "public servants" before it is appropriate to refer the the government as "them?"

If we follow the principles of the Constitution, We the People should never consider the government as "them". We should always view the government as "We the People."

Are you of the opinion that everything the government does has the tacit approval of all of us since "we" elected "them?"

Absolutely not.

If "we" are truly the government, then "we" should be able to act with governmental authority, right?

Any just and right action performed by government officials would be equally just and right if it is performed by individual citizens. (There also must be order in all things, which is why there are government officials who have been delegated authority by the people.) Likewise, as shadow has pointed out, if it is wrong for an individual to perform a certain action, it is equally wrong for the government to perform the same action.

Are you sure we don't only have the right to choose to pursue happiness?

The right to choose to pursue Happiness would fall under the right to Liberty. This intellectual exercise is interesting.

If you have no authority to restrain or limit my freedoms (privileges for those of you who are socialists), then does the government? Yes! Should they? No!

Let's consider the following: Do I have the authority to limit the freedom of my neighbor if my neighbor attempts to use their freedom to initiate force against me? Just as I have the authority, and the right, to defend myself from force that is initiated by my neighbor, the government could have that same authority. This is the proper role of government - to combine resources in order to restrain and limit the freedom to initiate force and deception.

We could also discuss and compare freedoms and privileges. What is a freedom and what is a privilege? What is the difference between the two? Let's clearly define our terms, so as to avoid being labeled socialists.

[jbalm]

Well Joel,

It looks like we agree on a lot more than I originally figured. We are just speaking somewhat different languages.

I'll put some thought into your last questions and respond when I have a little more time.

Cheers

[shadow]

Let's clearly define our terms, so as to avoid being labeled socialists.

I didn't mean to call you a socialist per se, just those that believe rights are privileges that are granted by the government, or even we the people. Marriage is an eternal principle. Government has no business being involved in the marriage business.

Do I have the authority to limit the freedom of my neighbor if my neighbor attempts to use their freedom to initiate force against me? Just as I have the authority, and the right, to defend myself from force that is initiated by my neighbor, the government could have that same authority. This is the proper role of government - to combine resources in order to restrain and limit the freedom to initiate force and deception.

I'm not sure how that relates to a marriage license. Can you explain?

[jnjnelson]

Do I have the authority to limit the freedom of my neighbor if my neighbor attempts to use their freedom to initiate force against me? Just as I have the authority, and the right, to defend myself from force that is initiated by my neighbor, the government could have that same authority. This is the proper role of government - to combine resources in order to restrain and limit the freedom to initiate force and deception.

I'm not sure how that relates to a marriage license. Can you explain?

I'll do my best.
My comment relates to marriage in the same way your comment relates to marriage. Let me be more specific ... The comment you quoted from me relates to marriage to the same degree as this comment from you:

If you have no authority to restrain or limit my freedoms (privileges for those of you who are socialists), then does the government? Yes! Should they? No!

The concept of restraining and limiting freedom is equally applicable to marriage in both comments, as far as I can see.

[shadow]

Joel, so are you saying it's none of the governments business to require a license to marry?

[jnjnelson]

Joel, so are you saying it's none of the governments business to require a license to marry?

No, I'm not. I am also not saying that it is the government's business to require a license to marry. I feel strongly that the answer to that question depends largely on the following three things: (1) the nature of the license, (2) the intent of those wishing to be married, and (3) the understood definition of government.

Does a requirement for a marriage license restrict one's freedom to marry? I assert that such a requirement does not restrict anyone's freedom to marry. The requirement for a marriage license only restricts the couple's freedom to have their marriage legally and lawfully recognized by the government as a marriage. As I have stated before, I believe this is a necessary restriction of freedom, because my neighbor does not have the right to use their freedom to force me to recognize their marriage as a legal and lawful union. There is no law that I am aware of that punishes a couple for entering into a marriage without a license - the only punishment is that the marriage is not legally recognized as a valid marriage. If you know of such a law, you are welcome to enlighten me and I might change my opinion.

If a couple only wants to marry, and has no desire to have their marriage legally recognized as valid, they don't need a license. In my opinion, this is not a valid marriage, because one of the requirements for a valid marriage is that is a legal and lawful union. I am not forcing anyone to share my opinion. The government is not forcing anyone to share my opinion. Anyone is free to feel differently, enter into a marriage contract under their own definition, and call themselves married.

You and I seem to have a different understanding of what exactly is government. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) We seem to agree about the proper role of government, but not the nature of government. If the government truly is "We the People," then there is no separation between the government and the people, the two groups are one and the same. However, if the government is some separate entity from the people, then there is tyranny. I acknowledge no tyrannical government. If an individual government bureaucrat chooses to act tyrannically, I refuse to accept their leadership and I refuse to be governed by them. When I obtained a marriage license, I did so voluntarily and with a full knowledge of my actions. There was no tyranny. Can you provide an example where this was not the case?

[Proud 2b Peculiar]

Blacks law dictionary describe a license as this: "The permission by competent authority to do an act which without such permission, would be illegal."

A legally recognized 'marriage' gives each of you legal rights to the other's finances, property, power of attorney for health care, and such.

[shadow]

I like and agree with the words of Will Durant. "When liberty becomes licensed, dictatorship is near." It is wrong to have to get permission from my neighbors in order to have a marriage validated. The marriage covenant does not include my neighbors, so why should I need their permission? And yes, a license is synonymous with permission.

[jnjnelson]

The marriage covenant does not include my neighbors, so why should I need their permission?

You don't need your neighbor's permission to be married, you only need your neighbor's permission for your marriage to be considered valid. This permission for validity is accomplished through marriage licenses.

It is this same argument that can be used against legalizing homosexual, underage, or human-beast marriages. My neighbor has no accountability to me as to the nature of their marriage, but I also have no responsibility to validate or recognize their marriage without having met certain criteria.

[shadow]

you only need your neighbor's permission for your marriage to be considered valid. This permission for validity is accomplished through marriage licenses.

I wonder where Adam and Eve got their marriage license from? Somewhere in Missouri I suppose. But until someone can show me their license, it wasn't a valid marriage.

[jnjnelson]

... it wasn't a valid marriage.

You are apparently attempting to discount opposing opinions through sarcasm. If not, then you and I have a different opinion about the validity of their marriage.

A flaw in the logic of this statement is that Adam and Eve did not have any mortal neighbors in the Garden of Eden.

Nonetheless, let's pursue this line of thinking. Who was the government in the Garden of Eden, from which Adam and Eve may have received a marriage license (a marriage license being governmental permission to be legally married)? If Adam and Eve is to be considered the government and the only occupants of the Garden of Eden, then they provided their own governmental validation of their own marriage (nothing is more effective government than unanimity). If God is to be considered the governmental authority figure, He married them and thereby provided the governmental validation. Either way, the logic of the principle still applies, and the marriage is valid.

[shadow]

It was sarcasm, but the truth none the less.

I think it stands that you and I have differing views on the proper role of government. To that we can probably agree on.

[jnjnelson]

I think it stands that you and I have differing views on the proper role of government. To that we can probably agree on.

Agreed.

[jjlopez]

OK. This post was about parental rights to begin with. I have to say that with or without a marriage license the state does Not have control over our children except to protect them from crimes committed by anyone parent or not. To say that a marriage license somehow gives them the right to dictate to us about our children is ridiculous on a number of levels. First of all, that would mean that children born out of wedlock and those of common law marriages would somehow have special protected stats. We all know the government better then to think that these children would be simply excluded from the pool of those ruled over.

Most importantly, our rights as parents do not come from the government. They are not a privilege magnamonously bestowed upon us from the state, but a God given right. This is why I oppose this amendment being brought up. I don't feel that the government or any of us have any right to vote on whether parents are the ultimate authorities in the lives of their children. We are. Barring any crime that we commit that harms the welfare of our children; we have the jurisdiction and the rights already. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that without the governments say so we are powerless in raising our own children.

If this issue were to come to a vote it would be absolutely essential for us to Win. We would start this country racing faster then ever downhill if we were to propose an amendment like this and then lose. This is another reason not to bring this to a vote.
Julie