An Answer To Marriage

[jskains]

One proposal to the marriage issue (including SSM) is to remove the world "marriage" from the government completely. That all government contracts between bound partners be called civil unions (to handle divorce, rights, etc.) That the term "marriage" could be given back to the Churches to recognize whatever form they see fit.

The basics is that a clergy could perform a marriage and the law would allow that to trigger a parallel "civil union" contract with the government.

The theory is it would allow a church to disagree with gay marriage, yet not be pushed by government enforcement of gay marriage. This while the gay community could participate in civil unions and call it whatever they want.

Baptisms, another very important religious rite is not tracked by the government, so as the theory goes, marriage doesn't need to be anyways. *shrug*

Do you think this is a positive direction and what impact would this have on the Church itself? Do you think the Church and its members would support it?

JMS

[bluebell]

I feel it's the best compromise and the most fair.

I could care less what two people call their relationship, I just don't want to be forced by the government to call a relationship a marriage when i don't believe it is one. To me, the best answer is to stop letting the government define when a relationship is a marriage or isn't. Then i can call it what i want, and someone else can call it what they want and the government doesn't have to sanction either of our opinions on the subject.

[LeSellers]

This has been my position for decades. Government has never entered into any arena without making the situation far worse.

Homosexuals don't want "marriage", they want the government bennies that go alone with it: automatic inheritance, near-automatic mutual representation, tax breaks (although these are more illusory than real), and so on. Remove these benefits, and the demand for same-sex "marriage" will dissipate.

And, as I have said, all of the most important of these are available for any couple using standard, legal documents: contracts, trusts, powers of attorney, etc. Only the supposed tax breaks are controlled by the state, and they are largely imaginary in any case.

Lehi

[Jaybear]

Seems to me to be an impractical solutions, in search of a problem.

Impractical because marriages are the province of the state. Are you suggesting a 50 state solution, that not one state to date has found worth pursing?

Would be much easier for Churches who have a problem with gay marriage to give a special name to their marriages ... ie celestial marriages.

[thesometimesaint]

Lehi:

Tell me that the next time you want to use money, vote, get on the Internet, Interstate Highway system, want to enforce a contract, or a host of other everyday activities that we all engage in.

As far as marriage goes Civil Unions offers the best compromise. In Great Britian everyone has a Civil Union first then if they want they can have a church wedding. It help keeps the church out of the State, and the State out of the church in couples personal lives.

[LeSellers]

Lehi:Tell me that the next time you want to use money, vote, get on the Internet, Interstate Highway system, want to enforce a contract, or a host of other everyday activities that we all engage in.

Okeh, at your invitation, I shall. Government does nothing well, and absolutely nothing as well as a private organization could, were government to get out of the way.

People used money long before there were bank notes, and bank notes create inflation, which is a serious problem caused by government. You do recall the phrase "not worth a continental", right? It is an example, here in USmerica, of government's using money it created to destroy (economically) those who saved and financed the Revolution by depleting the value of the bonds the state issued. We see the same thing in Zimbabwe where, in 1990, a loaf of bread cost $Z2, but today (if there is any bread, not a given), it costs $Z100,000,000,000,000. Argentina and the Czech Republic have also wiped out their savers in the past couple of decades, as did the Weimar Republic of Germany in the '20s (which resulted in the chaos that brought Hitler to power, as you recall).

Do you remember why the British monetary unit is called the "Pound"? It used to be a literal pound of silver ("sterling"). 'Tsnot any more. It's been inflated to the point where it has only about ¹/₁₇ of its original worth.

Rome debased its currency. It was harder because they had to literally "debase" it. The coins become less gold or silver and more copper and nickel. I can't recall a single government throughout history that did not erode its people's purchasing power by undermining the currency.

We have electo-dollars now, an invention of the private sector. Try online purchases with government money: it would not work.

Voting only gets more government, no matter who wins, so voting isn't all that good a thing, if there were no government.

The internet may have started out as a government (ARPAnet) project, but communications networks developed independently of the state, and we would have had the 'net (or a better version, which has happened since then anyway) without it.

Enforcement of contracts is a legitimate governmental activity, but binding arbitration has been around since Moses organized the Children of Israel, without a formal government.

The was no road through Sinai back then, either, but somehow Israel got to Canaan just the same. Brigham Young made a road to Salt Lake City and it worked out very well with no government involvement at all, except to push them out of Illinois in the first place. If there is a legitimate need, someone will figure out a way to accomplish the goal, whether government gets in or not, and if not, the solution will be better and more effective.

Government makes everything more costly and less efficient. The only reason for a state is to protect one's rights from intrusions by others, but it has become the greatest intruder by far.

Thanks for the invitation. Always glad to rebut your position on this matter.

Lehi

Edited December 9, 2011 by LeSellers

[Saints Alive]

What implications would this have on polygamy? Churches could, in theory "marry" as many people to one spouse as they pleased since it is no longer a government union. Conversely a person should be able to enter into a contract with as many partners as he/she pleases (like in business partnerships) this alone would keep your solution from becoming reality. Unless we (as a nation) become dramatically more liberal.

[LeSellers]

What implications would this have on polygamy? Churches could, in theory "marry" as many people to one spouse as they pleased since it is no longer a government union. Conversely a person should be able to enter into a contract with as many partners as he/she pleases (like in business partnerships) this alone would keep your solution from becoming reality. Unless we (as a nation) become dramatically more liberal.

As long as all adult parties agree to the conditions of the contract, why should the state get involved at all? It's simply none of their business. The presumption of stupidity that precludes a man from contracting with many women as wives is just arrogance: "we know better what's good for you than you do". It treats the women (and the men, too) as though they were children, ignorant and stupid, nothing more.

Lehi

[bluebell]

What implications would this have on polygamy? Churches could, in theory "marry" as many people to one spouse as they pleased since it is no longer a government union. Conversely a person should be able to enter into a contract with as many partners as he/she pleases (like in business partnerships) this alone would keep your solution from becoming reality. Unless we (as a nation) become dramatically more liberal.

It has no implication at all for polygamy or partnerships because only those that the government views as legal would actually be legal. All others would be the equivolent of two people being married by their dog-they could call it whatever they wanted, the government's not going to recognize it.

[Saints Alive]

While I don’t necessarily disagree with your assessment, my point is that society at large will not accept that at this point in time. Society will not allow someone to do something they disagree with or thing is fundamentally wrong if they can prevent it. That is why slavery lasted for so long, that is Jim Crow laws were around for so long, and that is why polygamy was outlawed. Until society changes to the point where there is an outcry and enough people to support change, we will maintain the status quo.

[CV75]

Do you think this is a positive direction and what impact would this have on the Church itself? Do you think the Church and its members would support it?

The American people base the definition of marriage on the prevailing moral attitudes and give their government power to enact and enforce attendant legal benefits through their system of representation. The country’s driving morality, politics and economics intersect to meet the universal needs of both the heterosexual majority and the homosexual minority by perpetuating a society/nation that has a history of success with this formula.

Until homosexual relationships are in line with the prevailing moral attitudes, marriage remains solely heterosexual with attendant legal benefits affirming the status quo. While these benefits are not as conveniently arranged for homosexual couples and families, they may enjoy them as they may be constructed through other means. The nuisance and inequities involved in doing so are no less serious than the protected nuisance and inequities the minority imposes against a majority that is trying to raise families in a climate of heterosexual values.

I think advancements in civil rights will eradicate the tangible inequities in holding desired material benefits while preserving society more effectively than civil unions would. I think there are far more fundamental practicalities that factor into the formulation of a society’s morals than romantic and emotional matters (which I think are best addressed by individuals and their support network than by their government).

I think civil unions would be detrimental to the Church because it represents an erosion of the marriage value which is so fundamental to strong families and society. For the same reason, I cannot see the Church or its members supporting it.

[frankenstein]

I think civil unions would be detrimental to the Church because it represents an erosion of the marriage value which is so fundamental to strong families and society. For the same reason, I cannot see the Church or its members supporting it.

I have wondered on the Church support for ss couple rights apart from marriage i.e. insurance, housing, employment and such as a positive step; but at the same time I wonder if support for such 'rights' indicate tactic approval of the relationship seeking those 'rights'. I know that some conservative group in Utah did not support the LDS Church position on SLC sexual orientation law. in terms of hurting the Church, I could only see people leaving and number decreasing without there being an equal influx of membership.

The answer to the quandary of course is:

No, the Church does not approve of sexual relationships outside the bonds of one man one woman non-plural marriage.

[LeSellers]

The answer to the quandary of course is:

No, the Church does not approve of sexual relationships outside the bonds of one man one woman non-plural marriage.

I'm not 100% convinced this is true. I know of no statement condemning a Muslim, for instance, marriage consisting of a man and his three (more or less) wives and their reproductive acts.

Lehi

[thesometimesaint]

Lehi:

Governments have been printing/coining money for a very long time now, and inflation is nothing new. "Shaving" gold/silver coins goes back at least to the ancient Greeks. The Continental Dollars were so worthless that they became a joke. The bar/saloon owners got rich undervalueing the gold dust the 49ers used to pay for the rot gut they drank.

It's fine with me if you want to live in the 20th Centurt BCE. Be my guest.

The Internet started out as a way for 5 universities to talk to one another , a federal govenment funded research project of DARPA.

BTW the Interstate highways is 90% funded by the Feds, and was proposed by Eisenhower as a way to speed the deployment military forces around the US.

It was/is the banksters in collision with the private ratings agencies that destroyed the economy, and expected and recieved a government bailout instead of government issued orange jump suits.

A return to the gold/silver standard will do nothing to help solve the world wide problems of recession/depression. In fact because Russia has much more gold than the US it could easily flood the market and further destablize any economy built on them. You do remember when the Hunt brothers tried to corner the silver market?

Try printing your own money, and passing it off as a "Greenback". Last I heard it was called the crime of counterfeiting and punishable by 20 years in federal prison. Further electronic money is regulated by the Feds(a quasi-independent creation of the US government). They control the value of the dollar. They do this by printing/coining of money and controlling the interest rates banks pay for that money. Right now the rates are near 0%.

Binding arbitration has been a spectacular failure as the businesses have captured the process, and still don't have the abide by any decision. But the consumer/plantif does.

Do you really want to compare a bunch of Hebrews caming out in the desert for 40 years to the modern industrial state of the US today?

Rome functioned because of it roads, and ruled the world for a thousand years. Lets see if we can even come close to that.

The wagon trains and trails didn't work out OK even for Brigham Young. It was the Transcontinental railway built by the Lincoln government that made the Salt Lake Temple possible, and it still took 40 years to complete.

To believe that a nation of over 300 million would somehow function without government is delusionary at best.

My son served a mission in Zimbabwe. There really isn't much you can tell me about that corrupt government headed by Mugabe.

Let's test that idea. Social Security has an overhead rate of less than 2% and most years less than 1%. Private overhead is generally 30%. Newt Gingrichs' business partner pocketed 90%, and some private firms take at 100% of "overhead". BTW We put 12 American men on the moon and successfully returned them on the lowest bidder. All on unproven technology.

Always happy to disabuse you of your hillarious antigovernment ideas.

[CV75]

I have wondered on the Church support for ss couple rights apart from marriage i.e. insurance, housing, employment and such as a positive step; but at the same time I wonder if support for such 'rights' indicate tactic approval of the relationship seeking those 'rights'. I know that some conservative group in Utah did not support the LDS Church position on SLC sexual orientation law. in terms of hurting the Church, I could only see people leaving and number decreasing without there being an equal influx of membership.

The answer to the quandary of course is:

No, the Church does not approve of sexual relationships outside the bonds of one man one woman non-plural marriage.

I see neither civil union nor marriage as necessary components of civil rights because they do not protect the freedom to participate in civil and political life (they are only a reflection or an outcome of that mass participation). I do not think the Church pursues the defense of marriage or prevention of same-sex marriage as a civil rights issue, but as a societal issue.

In the USA, all citizens (regardless of marital status) are protected in their right to responsibly participate in the definition of the country’s morals, politics and economy. I believe the Church supports this process in any nation that permits it. As a result of this kind of protected participation, governmental jurisdictions may protect marriage between a man and woman or permit civil unions, domestic partnerships, and the like.

I think the Church will continue to influence people to exercise their civil rights to keep marriage the foundation of society. Its level of involvement in the political debate seems to vary according to leadership’s situational assessments. Obviously in states and countries where society values civil unions, it will continue to assert its teachings on sexual morality and temple marriage, as you pointed out.

[CV75]

As long as all adult parties agree to the conditions of the contract, why should the state get involved at all?

I think inasmuch as the government reflects the will of the people, its involvement is appropriate. No government will reflect the will of God in this world, so we (as a society) muddle along as best we can, and as inspired as we can, and ideally participate in making our governments work according to the dictates of our best conscience, which, in the USA, includes the great benefit of its inspired Constitution. I would say this is why the Book of Mormon promise about prospering in the land applies in the USA, why Mosiah 29:26-27 can be applied anywhere God has a people, and why D&C 98:9 applies everywhere whether they know it or not.

[CV75]

I'm not 100% convinced this is true. I know of no statement condemning a Muslim, for instance, marriage consisting of a man and his three (more or less) wives and their reproductive acts.

I agree with this, but I imagine that, if they were to convert to Mormonism, this would need to be repented of. I'd be interested to hear of any experiences one may have had with this.

[Stargazer]

Lehi:

...

Try printing your own money, and passing it off as a "Greenback". Last I heard it was called the crime of counterfeiting and punishable by 20 years in federal prison. Further electronic money is regulated by the Feds(a quasi-independent creation of the US government). They control the value of the dollar. They do this by printing/coining of money and controlling the interest rates banks pay for that money. Right now the rates are near 0%.

I thought I disabuse you of this notion that you can't print your own money.

While it is true that if you try to print duplicates of legal tender you will be guilty of counterfeiting, it is not illegal to print your own money, per se.

Communities print their own currency to keep cash flowing

By Marisol Bello, USA TODAY

In Detroit, three downtown businesses have created a local currency, or scrip, to keep dollars earned locally in the community.

A small but growing number of cash-strapped communities are printing their own money.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2009-04-05-scrip_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip

[Calm]

I agree with this, but I imagine that, if they were to convert to Mormonism, this would need to be repented of. I'd be interested to hear of any experiences one may have had with this.

I believe the instruction at this time is not to convert or rather be baptized, but to stay with their families due to the harm divorce would cause the family. So it is not something viewed as needed to be repented of in and of itself....unless one has chosen to covenant not to do so at this time as LDS have done.

Unfortunately I can not find a reference at this time.

Edited December 8, 2011 by calmoriah

[Calm]

I thought I disabuse you of this notion that you can't print your own money.

My husband prints up something they call entrebucks that are used by the kids attending the camp to purchase items at an auction held at the end of the week. The kids earn the money by participation, right answers and quality of work.

So far no one from the Treasury Dept has shown up.

[Saints Alive]

I thought I disabuse you of this notion that you can't print your own money.

While it is true that if you try to print duplicates of legal tender you will be guilty of counterfeiting, it is not illegal to print your own money, per se.

http://www.usatoday....nterstitialskip

The Coal Mining companies used to pay their workers with tokens that could only be used at the company store. Some of those tokens can still be found in collectable stores, hard to find though.

[blackstrap]

Didn't Joseph Smith try the "print your own money" thing? Or am I mis-remembering?

[Saints Alive]

Not him personally, But it is reasonable to assume the Kirkland safety society did. It was very common for banks at that time to print notes.

[LeSellers]

I think inasmuch as the government reflects the will of the people, its involvement is appropriate.

Any government that forbids polygyny may be doing the will of some of the people, but certainly not that of those involved, and it is these who have the only legitimate interest in the question.

Lehi

[thesometimesaint]

Lehi:

Agreed.