Alabama Senate passes bill to get the state out of the marriage business

If more Mormons understood free agency and D&C 98:7, would Utah follow Alabama’s example and get entirely out of the marriage business?

Isn’t marriage an inalienable right that existed before governments were formed? Yes, so why then was marriage governance ever transferred to government?

Mormon Church Will Not Allow Children of Same-Sex Marriages to Be Baptized

by Robert John Stevens, November 8, 2015

This article is in reference to Church Provides Context on Handbook Changes Affecting Same-Sex Marriages

Without preparation, few gifted religious men or women could utter such ingenious words on a sensitive topic:

So it’s a matter of being clear; it’s a matter of understanding right and wrong; it’s a matter of a firm policy that doesn’t allow for question or doubt. We think it’s possible and mandatory, incumbent upon us as disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ, to yield no ground in the matter of love and sympathy and help and brotherhood and serving in doing all we can for anybody; at the same time maintaining the standards He maintained. That was the Savior’s pattern. He always was firm in what was right and wrong. He never excused or winked at sin. He never redefined it. He never changed His mind. It was what it was and is what it is and that’s where we are, but His compassion, of course, was unexcelled and His desire and willingness and proactive efforts to minister, to heal, to bless, to lift and to bring people toward the path that leads to happiness never ceased. That’s where we are. We’re not going to stop that. We’re not going to yield on our efforts to help people find what brings happiness, but we know sin does not. And so we’re going to stand firm there because we don’t want to mislead people. There’s no kindness in misdirecting people and leading them into any misunderstanding about what is true, what is right, what is wrong, what leads to Christ and what leads away from Christ.

On the other hand, LDS Founders Joseph and Hyrum Smith were polygamists. So were the next six presidents of the Church following Joseph Smith, namely Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow, Joseph F. Smith and Heber J. Grant. These six men all defended polygamy rigorously so how can Elder Christofferson justly make this statement? If polygamy was practiced for six consecutive prophets but wrong today, and tomorrow Jesus re-institutes polygamy, won’t these and other words condemning polygamy become contradictory?

Well again, this is a parallel with polygamy. Anyone coming out of a polygamous setting who wants to serve a mission, it has to be clear that they understand that is wrong and is sin and cannot be followed. They disavow the practice of plural marriage. And that would be the same case here. They would disavow, or assent I guess would be a better way to say it, to the doctrines and practices of the Church with regards to same-sex marriage. So they would be saying, as you said, not disavowing their parents, but disavowing the practice.

Rand Paul: Government Should Get Out of the Marriage Business Altogether

The Constitution is silent on the question of marriage because marriage has always been a local issue. Our founding fathers went to the local courthouse to be married, not to Washington, D.C.

Do consenting adults have a right to contract with other consenting adults? Supporters of the Supreme Court’s decision argue yes but they argue no when it comes to economic liberties, like contracts regarding wages.

It seems some rights are more equal than others.

The Constitution was written by wise men who were raised up by God for that very purpose. There is a reason ours was the first where rights came from our creator and therefore could not be taken away by government. Government was instituted to protect them.

We have gotten away from that idea. Too far away. We must turn back. To protect our rights we must understand who granted them and who can help us restore them.

Elder Neal A. Maxwell: A More Determined Discipleship

1978 prophetic insights for our day in the fight for good:

…the secular church will do what it can to reduce the influence of those who still worry over standards such as those in the Ten Commandments.

Our founding fathers did not wish to have a state church established nor to have a particular religion favored by government. They wanted religion to be free to make its own way. But neither did they intend to have irreligion made into a favored state church.

If the challenge of the secular church becomes very real, let us, as in all other relationships, be principled but pleasant. Let us be perceptive without being pompous. Let us have integrity and not write checks with our tongues which our conduct cannot cash.

There will also be times, happily, when a minor defeat seems probable, but others will step forward, having been rallied to rightness by what we do. We will know the joy, on occasion, of having awakened a slumbering majority of the decent people of all races and creeds which was, till then, unconscious of itself.

Gay Marriage Still Doesn’t Exist, No Matter What the Supreme Court Says

Our society’s ills are because good men and women refused to get involvement in government.

It would be similar to not feeling duty-bound to serving missions to preach Christianity, and the only people left on the religious landscape are mafia and corrupt preachers.

This what I can’t stand about progressivism (well, one of the many things). It doesn’t even have the guts or intelligence to come up with new ideas. It just takes bits of the old idea, removes the parts that seem challenging and inconvenient, and then randomly asserts that everyone should accept their weird, dismembered version of things.

Societies across the globe and throughout history, until about 12 minutes ago, have attested to the power of the male-female bond and appreciated the fact that the survival and propagation of civilization depends entirely on it. No other relationship bears the weight of that responsibility. So, in light of this, most societies have afforded this bond a certain respect, both out of necessity and sound philosophy, and this bond was given a name: marriage.

Marriage is the context in which families are formed and maintained. That’s why it’s important. That’s why it’s different. To “open up” the definition of marriage to include relationships that do not share these essential components, is to actively undermine the importance of the family, and to obliterate any reason for the institution to exist.

People have long complained that the government should get out of marriage, but it was never in marriage until it decided to dismantle and reshape it.