Boy Scouts Of America Compromise?

[CASteinman]

It is becoming apparent to me that this issue is going to tear BSA apart until they drop their non-inclusive policy.

I don't think so. But sometimes I get the feeling that gay rights activists would like to see any and all organizations, no matter how good and uplifting, torn apart unless they bow to the perfect moral validity of gay sexuals relations.

It seems like no one is happy with the current proposed policy.

I am. The BSA board seems to be. We shall see how many people turn out to be "no one".

Edited April 25, 2013 by CASteinman

[wenglund]

But as long as the government has gotten into the business of recognizing marriages, I think it is inconsistent with D&C 134 (and the 11th Article of Faith) to choose which belief systems get their marriages recognized, and which don't.

This ignores the reason the government got into the marriage regulation business (Hint: the reasons don't apply to homosexual relationships, and so there isn't a rational reason for the government to involve itself in homosexual relations, let alone legally mangle the definition of marriage). But, as you said, this is off-topic. So, I will leave it at that.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Maybe that's not their goal. Who knows?

That's not their goal, but they are their methods.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rockpond]

This ignores the reason the government got into the marriage regulation business (Hint: the reasons don't apply to homosexual relationships, and so there isn't a rational reason for the government to involve itself in homosexual relations, let alone legally mangle the definition of marriage). But, as you said, this is off-topic. So, I will leave it at that.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You've made that claim before but I don't recall you backing it up with any documented evidence. If you can reference the documentation that proves why the government began issuing marriage licenses then I'd challenge you to open a new thread and post that evidence.

[wenglund]

You've made that claim before but I don't recall you backing it up with any documented evidence. If you can reference the documentation that proves why the government began issuing marriage licenses then I'd challenge you to open a new thread and post that evidence.

No need to open a new thread. I have repeatedly documented my claims on numerous threads, including responses specific to you (see, for example, HERE--particularly posts 713 and 719). You have simply closed your eyes to it because it undermines your position. That is your problem, not mine.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 25, 2013 by wenglund

[rockpond]

No need to open a new thread. I have repeatedly documented my claims on numerous threads, including responses specific to you (see, for example, HERE--particularly posts 713 and 719). You have simply closed your eyes to it because it undermines your position. That is your problem, not mine.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yep, I remember that conversation. You cited a NY State court opinion and then you quoted Augustus. Neither of which establishes why the U.S. Government began licensing marriages.

[CASteinman]

You've made that claim before but I don't recall you backing it up with any documented evidence. If you can reference the documentation that proves why the government began issuing marriage licenses then I'd challenge you to open a new thread and post that evidence.

Governments began issuing marriage licenses as a shortcut way of getting people married. Previously, there would be a Marriage Banns that would be read in Churches and announced to the community in other ways several weeks to a couple of months before the Marriage. This Banns was used to determine if the marriage met with the legal and socially acceptable standards of marriage for that community. During the period of the Banns people could announce to the Church or other authorities reasons why the people should NOT be be married. These reasons could be variable by community but tended to be focused on things like: "He is a criminal" "He has a low moral character". "She is not a virgin". "He is already married to this other person". "She was kidnapped and stolen from her home", "He is betrothed to me", etc. These claims would be investigated and if found to be true the marriage would be denied or at least delayed. But Government was not involved: It was a Church matter though recognized by the Government for legal purposes.

The Government got into the act to standardize the processes as well as to collect fees. With the Government, the Banns was no longer required. Instead the couple would swear that they were who they claimed to be and were worthy to marry. With this swearing, the couple would also put up a marriage bond -- money in the form of payment PLUS additional security to assure that their oath was valid. This might require a rich uncle or someone to put up the security for the bond. (This was obviously a time when marriage was viewed with greater respect than it is now). Upon the delivery of this Bond the Government would issue a license allowing the couple to marry. The couple would be married, usually by the Church and the license return would be sent to the Government showing that the marriage had been completed, at which time it was recorded on the Books of the County Clerk.

The original Banns requirement of checking with the community still took place but now at the wedding where it was asked, "If anyone knows of a reason that this marriage should not take place, let him speak now or forever hold his peace".

Edited April 25, 2013 by CASteinman

[wenglund]

Yep, I remember that conversation. You cited a NY State court opinion and then you quoted Augustus. Neither of which establishes why the U.S. Government began licensing marriages.

Do you also remember how unwarrantably resistant you were to accepting the valid documentation even after I connected the dots for you?

If not, let me refresh your memory. During the Roman Empire is when secular governments first got into the business of regulating marriage. The reasons for them doing so was spelled out in the linked article, and it was even as I had said--whether you wish to believe it or not. Subsequent secular governments, including the U.S., followed suite, presumably for the same reasons, The N.J case, which borrowed heavily (as I noted) from various other state and federal court rulings, confirms this. If you are still yet incapable of connecting the obvious documentary dots, it is again not my problem, but yours. You are free to cover your eyes and ears so as to retain the fragile hold onto the tissuey remains of your misguided position, but to the reasonably minded, I have satisfactorily substantiated my claim.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rockpond]

Do you also remember how unwarrantably resistant you were to accepting the valid documentation even after I connected the dots for you?

If not, let me refresh your memory. During the Roman Empire is when secular governments first got into the business of regulating marriage. The reasons for them doing so was spelled out in the linked article, and it was even as I had said--whether you wish to believe it or not. Subsequent secular governments, including the U.S., followed suite, presumably for the same reasons, The N.J case, which borrowed heavily (as I noted) from various other state and federal court rulings, confirms this. If you are still yet incapable of connecting the obvious documentary dots, it is again not my problem, but yours. You are free to cover your eyes and ears so as to retain the fragile hold onto the tissuey remains of your misguided position, but to the reasonably minded, I have satisfactorily substantiated my claim.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I tried reading the Roman Empire article but the link is broken. Doesn't matter though, it still doesn't establish why the U.S. Government got into the marriage licensing business. Nor does Augustus. Court opinions also do not establish historical fact. They are opinions. I'm not covering my eyes & ears, I'm asking questions.

CASteinman, on the other hand, has provide the type of explanation I was looking for. Thanks.

[Stone holm]

I tried reading the Roman Empire article but the link is broken. Doesn't matter though, it still doesn't establish why the U.S. Government got into the marriage licensing business. Nor does Augustus. Court opinions also do not establish historical fact. They are opinions. I'm not covering my eyes & ears, I'm asking questions.

CASteinman, on the other hand, has provide the type of explanation I was looking for. Thanks.

The U.S. Government hasn't directly got into the marriage licensing business, that has pretty much always been the province of the States (except I suppose in the Territories). They have meddled directly with marriage to my knowledge once with the anti-poligamy laws and then with DOMA. One of the conservative justices may overthrow DOMA on a States Rights rationale saying that Congress had no business getting that involved in marriage law. If he does, then the DOMA case may wind up being decided in a plurality opinion that does not provide binding precedent for gay marriage, but nevertheless throws DOMA out the window. But BSA is a private organization, one of a very few chartered by the U.S. Government. So it can choose to discriminate if it so chooses. But as with any choice there come consequences, namely certain funding sources and other resources may dry up. I think you are unlikely to see the U.S. Government intervening again to protect BSA's access to public school campuses. There used to be a lot of schools which sponsored units, that has pretty much stopped here and in most of the midwest -- continuing to discriminate is going to make it difficult to ever reverse that and the United Way in some regions has already quit funding Council Camps which the Councils frequently had a huge portion of their budget supported by the United Way.

[CASteinman]

the United Way in some regions has already quit funding Council Camps which the Councils frequently had a huge portion of their budget supported by the United Way.

I no longer support the United Way for that very reason. Even in those areas where United Way still supports the scouts. I return their forms with my signature and a statement of why I do not donate to them any longer. It used to be nearly $1000 per year.

Edited April 25, 2013 by CASteinman

[USU78]

Some additional thoughts on State involvement in marriages:

The US Constitution contains a Common Law clause, and is based in very large part on underlying assumptions of the validity of Common Law and its efficacy, both prior to, during, and following adoption of the Constitution. It was the case that marriages were enforced as civil contracts at least as early as Henry VIII: 32 Hen. VIII. c. 38, though the entitlement to marry and the legal impediments thereto were based upon and referred to canon law. I suggest a review of 1 Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765), at chapter XV, Husband and Wife, at pp 421-428.

In line of descent, the following statutes also apply to the Common Law at the time of the Revolution: 2 & 3 Edw. VI. c. 23 (repealing and recodifying the law) 4 & 5 Ph. & M. c. 8, 15 Geo. II c. 30, and 26 Geo. II. c. 33. Blackstone also references several other treatises in this chapter.

Bottom line? One's ignorance of the Common Law and its adoption by the new Republic (indeed, they hardly needed to mention that it was being adopted -- it was obvious to everybody) does not excuse the tendentious ignoring of marriage laws.

Here is a sample:

The first of these legal disabilities is a prior marriage, or having another husband or wife living; in which case, besides the penalties consequent upon it as a felony, the second marriage is to all intents and purposes void: polygamy being condemned both by the law of the new testament, and the policy of all prudent states, especially in these northern climates. And Justinian, even in the climate of modern Turkey, is express, that "duas uxores eodem tempore habere non licet."

"Duas uxores," = 2 wives. There is no possibility of multiple husbands or males having male spouses or females having female spouses: the worst possible thing that even could occur to the Common Law in the XVIIIth Century is polygyny. The other would have been a horror beyond imagining.

Edited April 25, 2013 by USU78

[wenglund]

I tried reading the Roman Empire article but the link is broken. Doesn't matter though, it still doesn't establish why the U.S. Government got into the marriage licensing business. Nor does Augustus. Court opinions also do not establish historical fact. They are opinions. I'm not covering my eyes & ears, I'm asking questions.

Yeah right! LOL

CASteinman, on the other hand, has provide the type of explanation I was looking for. Thanks.

I am pleased that someone was able to reach you.

Thanks, -Wade Engund-

[rockpond]

The U.S. Government hasn't directly got into the marriage licensing business, that has pretty much always been the province of the States (except I suppose in the Territories). They have meddled directly with marriage to my knowledge once with the anti-poligamy laws and then with DOMA. One of the conservative justices may overthrow DOMA on a States Rights rationale saying that Congress had no business getting that involved in marriage law. If he does, then the DOMA case may wind up being decided in a plurality opinion that does not provide binding precedent for gay marriage, but nevertheless throws DOMA out the window. But BSA is a private organization, one of a very few chartered by the U.S. Government. So it can choose to discriminate if it so chooses. But as with any choice there come consequences, namely certain funding sources and other resources may dry up. I think you are unlikely to see the U.S. Government intervening again to protect BSA's access to public school campuses. There used to be a lot of schools which sponsored units, that has pretty much stopped here and in most of the midwest -- continuing to discriminate is going to make it difficult to ever reverse that and the United Way in some regions has already quit funding Council Camps which the Councils frequently had a huge portion of their budget supported by the United Way.

Yeah, this is the problem with the gay marriage tangent that some of us entered into on this thread. I can't recall how it started but I'd like to clarify that I do not believe that the gov't can nor should intervene in the BSA membership policy issue. I 100% support the BSA's right to define its own membership policy and to determine who it lets in and under what criteria.

[rockpond]

Yeah right! LOL

I am pleased that someone was able to reach you.

Thanks, -Wade Engund-

You can LOL all you want but I really am open to understanding the history of how our government got into marriage licensing. I've struggled to find online sources.

I think that CASteinman's info was great. If there was a source with more information, that would be even better. But I'm trying not to hijack the thread.

[CASteinman]

I think that CASteinman's info was great. If there was a source with more information, that would be even better.

My source is just my experience of having done a TON of genealogy. As was my assignment for this earth life.

[rockpond]

My source is just my experience of having done a TON of genealogy. As was my assignment for this earth life.

Cool. Thanks for sharing. (And for doing genealogy! We all benefit from that.)

[CASteinman]

Cool. Thanks for sharing. (And for doing genealogy! We all benefit from that.)

I do genealogy all the time for other people as well -- hours of it. If I could, I would single handedly unite all the families under Adam. If God would preserve my life and give me the means, I would do it day and night for thousands of years until it was all done.

[wenglund]

You can LOL all you want but I really am open to understanding the history of how our government got into marriage licensing. I've struggled to find online sources.

I think that CASteinman's info was great. If there was a source with more information, that would be even better. But I'm trying not to hijack the thread.

Okay, I will take you at your word. And, I agree with you about the dearth of helpful on-line material. Here, though, is a History of Marriage in Western Civilization that may be of some use, though it doesn't appear to be well documented, and it only touches briefly on governmental regulations and the reasons therefore.

This also may be of some help: When did the US begin making laws about marriage?. Of particular interest may be mention of the British Common Law (generally adopted by the U.S. at its inception), and the Marriage Act of 1753, which had the full title of "An Act for the Better Preventing of Clandestine Marriage," and gets into some of what CAStienman mentioned earlier in the thread, though, here again, it doesn't get explicitly into all the detailed as to why the government entered the marital fray.

Part of the problem with locating the desired information is that while we may have on-line access to some of the laws that were written early in our nations history, we don't have access to the congressional hearings where the intent behind the laws would have been made more evident, particularly in the arguments put forward for the laws, if not outright, So, we are left to extrapolate and draw inferences from the laws themselves.

Now, if you don't accept what I have suggested as the reasons for the U.S. governments (or the respective states) regulating marriage, then what reasons do you believe they did?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rockpond]

Now, if you don't accept what I have suggested as the reasons for the U.S. governments (or the respective states) regulating marriage, then what reasons do you believe they did?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Well, among what I have read (including some, but not all of what you linked above) it seems that marriage licenses were issued for the purpose of preventing Caucasians from entering into interracial marriages, incest, and bigamy/polygamy, There is also some indication that they were put in place to deal with property rights.

[CASteinman]

Well, among what I have read (including some, but not all of what you linked above) it seems that marriage licenses were issued for the purpose of preventing Caucasians from entering into interracial marriages

That's baloney. They were put into place to take the place of a Banns. Which were originally to determine that the couple met all the appropriate social and legal conditions to get married.

Its not to "prevent Caucasians from entering into interracial marriages" which in Southern Europe especially would occur from time to time, despite there being licenses. And even in the US -- which I am sure you are thinking of -- it was not to prevent Caucasians from entering into interracial marriages but to make sure the laws were followed.

It may happen that in some places those laws existed, but the licenses did not exist for that reason in particular.

Edited April 26, 2013 by CASteinman

[Stone holm]

I no longer support the United Way for that very reason. Even in those areas where United Way still supports the scouts. I return their forms with my signature and a statement of why I do not donate to them any longer. It used to be nearly $1000 per year.

Actually, I never supported the United Way as I did not others making my gift decisions. Nevertheless, many Councils were heavily dependent on the United Way to keep their camps open and many camps out in this area and my guess elsewhere have folded because of the loss of funding. One thing I was amazed at while defending Scouting on other Mormon blogs is the amount of antipathy and downright hostility that many sisters with sons display towards Scouting and its affiliation with the Church. It was truly amazing to me that so many want to jettison it in favor of something akin to what the YW have. I and my deceased wife and my current wife both felt the opposite that the Church needed to upgrade the YW's program until it was more comparable to what the boys had. But, I suspect we may be in a minority because so many have developed a loathing for Scouts. I simply do not understand it as a father of three Eagles and a Life. I dearly loved the Scouting experiences I had with my sons.

[rockpond]

That's baloney.

You're right. You convinced me.

So what do you think were the reasons that U.S. federal and state governments started licensing marriages?

[CASteinman]

Actually, I never supported the United Way as I did not others making my gift decisions. Nevertheless, many Councils were heavily dependent on the United Way to keep their camps open and many camps out in this area and my guess elsewhere have folded because of the loss of funding.

Maybe. I don't know of any camps folding but maybe they did. I give my money to the Scouts directly now.

One thing I was amazed at while defending Scouting on other Mormon blogs is the amount of antipathy and downright hostility that many sisters with sons display towards Scouting and its affiliation with the Church.

Well, the internet can collect the disaffected in various corners like mites on a dogs ear. Its good at that.

I and my deceased wife and my current wife both felt the opposite that the Church needed to upgrade the YW's program until it was more comparable to what the boys had.

There was a time when I would have agreed with you. But I think the young women actually like the program that they have. I'm good with that.

But, I suspect we may be in a minority because so many have developed a loathing for Scouts. I simply do not understand it as a father of three Eagles and a Life. I dearly loved the Scouting experiences I had with my sons.

Can't figure out what that would be about. Why loathe something so good? What is in the hearts of these people?

[CASteinman]

You're right. You convinced me.

So what do you think were the reasons that U.S. federal and state governments started licensing marriages?

Sorry.. I got interrupted. Take a look again.