The only requirement for civil ceremonies should be age of both parties, private interview by a family court advocate to determine if there is any undue pressure to get married including family pressures because of an out of wedlock pregnancy, familial relationship as determined by genetic testing covered by the government, and the ability to pay for the licenses. The genetic testing will prevent people that are too closely related from marrying.
Government needs to get out of regulating who people can form "marriages" with but by that same token so should Churches. We need two distinctions of marriages Civil and Religious. Some countries require civil unions before religious ceremonies if those religious ceremonies are closed as LDS Temple Ceremonies are. Use that model and require a civil marriage before any religious one and allow religions to perform their ceremonies only for those they chose to acknowledge.
If California had drafted a church Opt-out clause allowing churches to not rent to people whose actions inside that facility would go against the tenets of the religion itself they would have met with less resistance. The LDS Church is not going to rent its facilities to gays and lesbians and neither are many of the more orthodox churches. that is their religious right in this country. California refused to draft an opt out clause for religion and the Churches fought back.
If a church rents their building for weddings at all then they have to be willing to rent to anyone regardless. That is tolerated for most religions renting to other religions. However, the legalizing of Gay marriages then required churches to allow their facilities to be rented for the marriages which they believe are morally wrong.
People do not get the fact that there is a problem with California State laws that would have required the churches (ALL CHURCHES) to allow their property to be used to hold Gay and lesbian Weddings even if that was against their religious beliefs so long as they rented their buildings to anyone for a wedding. California already has a law on the books that requires people to not discriminate in the rental of building space for similar typrs of events based on race, religion, gender or whatever.
it makes no sense to ban it. People have the same problems in monogamous marriage as what we hear in polygamous marriage.
why not decriminilize it or make it legal. After all, the 2003 texas supreme court ruling says what is done in the bedroom isn't the governments business. And if it's decriminalized then abuses or laws broken would be easier to go after
I'd normally agree, but on the compounds of Utah where so much of the polygamist lifestyle is enforced by rape, molestation, and deprivation of women (and men) is common, many of the people that the plural marriage principle is inflicted upon just want out. There are people that choose this lifestyle for themselves, and I wouldn't disagree so long as no one is getting hurt, but that's not really the case as it's discussed in the video here.
Power to the polygamists !! =)
scottweise18 6 months ago
The only requirement for civil ceremonies should be age of both parties, private interview by a family court advocate to determine if there is any undue pressure to get married including family pressures because of an out of wedlock pregnancy, familial relationship as determined by genetic testing covered by the government, and the ability to pay for the licenses. The genetic testing will prevent people that are too closely related from marrying.
Spydyee2 7 months ago
Government needs to get out of regulating who people can form "marriages" with but by that same token so should Churches. We need two distinctions of marriages Civil and Religious. Some countries require civil unions before religious ceremonies if those religious ceremonies are closed as LDS Temple Ceremonies are. Use that model and require a civil marriage before any religious one and allow religions to perform their ceremonies only for those they chose to acknowledge.
Spydyee2 7 months ago
If California had drafted a church Opt-out clause allowing churches to not rent to people whose actions inside that facility would go against the tenets of the religion itself they would have met with less resistance. The LDS Church is not going to rent its facilities to gays and lesbians and neither are many of the more orthodox churches. that is their religious right in this country. California refused to draft an opt out clause for religion and the Churches fought back.
Spydyee2 7 months ago
If a church rents their building for weddings at all then they have to be willing to rent to anyone regardless. That is tolerated for most religions renting to other religions. However, the legalizing of Gay marriages then required churches to allow their facilities to be rented for the marriages which they believe are morally wrong.
Spydyee2 7 months ago
People do not get the fact that there is a problem with California State laws that would have required the churches (ALL CHURCHES) to allow their property to be used to hold Gay and lesbian Weddings even if that was against their religious beliefs so long as they rented their buildings to anyone for a wedding. California already has a law on the books that requires people to not discriminate in the rental of building space for similar typrs of events based on race, religion, gender or whatever.
Spydyee2 7 months ago
Ban it! Many are against because they don´t have courage to admit they apreciatte this way of life.
Hengo07 2 years ago
it makes no sense to ban it. People have the same problems in monogamous marriage as what we hear in polygamous marriage.
why not decriminilize it or make it legal. After all, the 2003 texas supreme court ruling says what is done in the bedroom isn't the governments business. And if it's decriminalized then abuses or laws broken would be easier to go after
u235sentinel 2 years ago
Let people live the way they want to.
UmmMaryum 3 years ago
I'd normally agree, but on the compounds of Utah where so much of the polygamist lifestyle is enforced by rape, molestation, and deprivation of women (and men) is common, many of the people that the plural marriage principle is inflicted upon just want out. There are people that choose this lifestyle for themselves, and I wouldn't disagree so long as no one is getting hurt, but that's not really the case as it's discussed in the video here.
Jadicegirl 2 years ago
@UmmMaryum That includes gays and if they want to get married the LDS should not spend 20 million dollars to take the rights away.
JPRamon68 1 year ago
Ban it completely
kimmieg56 3 years ago
Definitely decriminalize it!
wogsland 3 years ago