Marriage Laws: Government’s Unrelenting Attack on Religious Institutions

Governments have utilized marriage as a means to regulate religions for centuries. For instance, in England, it was long mandated that marriages be conducted by an Anglican priest, asserting government influence over personal religious beliefs. The Marriage Act of 1753 further tightened this control by prohibiting “secret marriages” and requiring couples to obtain licenses, essentially government approval, to wed.

Government Takeover In The United States Focused On Stopping One Religion

Government control of religion through marriage has a long history, spanning centuries or even millennia, but Utah stands out as a prime example in the United States.

On January 16, 1879, the Salt Lake Tribune editorialized,

“The Supreme Court… Has now reaffirmed what the… congress assembled in 1862 declared to be their highest view of the marital relations, namely, that marriage is the union of one man with one woman, and that every departure from this straight path of private rectitude and public good is criminal and should be treated as criminal.”

Ironic compared to their editorial of March 28 2014,

“Equality made marriage stronger…  The institution (marriage) is strengthened by extending marriage rights.”

The Tribunes’ perspectives may appear conflicting, but they are fundamentally aligned. They have consistently advocated for government oversight of the collective “church.” In the 1800s, this meant regulating religion through the institution of marriage between one man and one woman. Today, government control over religion requires a redefinition of marriage.

Mormons Fought to Keep Government Out of Marriage

 Orvando Hollister of the New York Tribune questioned President John Taylor,

“Is it not true that marriage is the basis of society, that out of it spring the social relations, obligations and duties with which governments must necessarily concern themselves? And is it not therefore within the legitimate scope of the power of every government to determine whether marriage shall be… Under its dominion?”

With John Taylor responding,

“I do not look upon it that way. Now if our marital relations are not religion, what is? …I do not believe that the Supreme Court of the United States nor the Congress of the United States has any right to interfere.” -History of Utah, John Taylor Papers, 2:32-33

The concept of marriage is strictly tied to religion, and the government lacks any valid claim to control it.

Submission to the State

The concept of “marriage equality” has primarily benefited those in power, particularly when enforced by the government. In the 1800s, the debate centered around whether the Church or the government would yield. At that time, a federal authority even suggested that the Church’s influence in these matters should be eliminated.

Today, under the guise of “equality,” the government is attempting to suppress religious freedom, using marriage as a focal point once more.

In December 2013, a federal court, claiming authority over marriage, imposed its will on individuals, forcing them to comply with state regulations that conflicted with their religious beliefs. Those in power seldom relinquish control, and in matters of religion, the prevailing authority clings tightly to its influence.

With the implementation of the Edmunds-Tucker Act, all marriages were mandated to be registered with the government, a responsibility that was once managed by religious institutions. Now, in the push to separate marriage from religion entirely, individuals are not only being compelled to refrain from following their religious convictions but are also being forced to act against them.

They Actually Admit it

Officials seeking to impose laws on the religious institution of marriage admit that their true aim is to take charge of religion:

“The purpose of the bill was to wrest from the hands of the priesthood the political power which it had so long wrongfully usurped and shamefully abused.” (Utah state representative Robert Newton Baskin, Reminiscences of early Utah, 1914, page 184)

REALITY: It’s a Government Attack on Religion, NOT a Religious Attack on Others

A leader in a prominent Utah denomination, Lance Wickman, explained,

“Let me just add to that, if I may. It’s not the Church that has made the issue of marriage a matter of federal law. Those who are vigorously advocating for something called same-gender marriage have essentially put that potato on the fork. They’re the ones who have created a situation whereby the law of the land, one way or the other, is going to address this issue of marriage. This is not a situation where the Church has elected to take the matter into the legal arena or into the political arena. It’s already there.”

Then, on the 26th of June, 2015, the US Supreme Court mandated that every state in the nation MUST issue licenses to a new group of people (sodomites) while still forcing the states not to issue government permission to other groups, namely those engaged in Plural Marriages.

Following the ruling, Dallin H. Oaks, one of the leading figures in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, commented,

“All government officers should exercise their civil authority according to the principles and within the limits of civil government. A county clerk’s recent invoking of religious reasons to justify refusal by her office and staff to issue marriage licenses to same-gender couples violates this principle… neither the government nor its citizens should tolerate veto of a law (either its text or its operation) by officials not formally authorized to do so.” (“The Boundary Between Church and State” Second Annual Sacramento Court/Clergy Conference, Sacramento, California October 20, 2015)

It is interesting to contrast the above with John Taylor’s remarks on one’s duty regarding illegal acts of the government,

“Then do you profess to ignore the laws of the land? No; not unless they are unconstitutional, then I would do it all the time.” (Journal of Discourses 11:343)

The necessary tax status of church organizations throughout the country puts them at risk of revocation of their tax exempt status, which would affect religious institutions in two ways:

1. A new financial burden in paying the government taxes on revenue generated by tithing and other free will offerings.
2. Tithing and other offerings would cease to be tax-deductible, which might cause major donors to rethink where donations will go and consider something more financially advantageous.

Some are concerned it would hamper the ability of religious institutions to care for the poor and needy, shifting the burden again to taxpayers, again giving the government more power over the lives of the people.

This worry has also led to the belief that religious institutions might be compelled to submit to and follow government regulations. For institutions that believe in complying with God’s laws first, and that are at odds with ever-changing manmade restrictions, this poses a serious conflict to religious freedom.

Religious schools would be affected as well. They are compelled by fear, force and fraud to comply with IRS code, which states:

“Private schools must keep records that show that they have complied with requirements relating to… non-discrimination [a term which could be extended to include sexual orientation].”

In Friday’s ruling, Justice Kennedy assured the public that,

“the First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons.”

This statement falls flat when compared with a similar conflicting assurance given to the people of Utah in 1882,

“What [do I] care as to the belief of those who regard Joe Smith as a prophet?  Those who believe so are entitled to their belief.  Their right to that belief, [I] would defend, if necessary, but obedience to law is required, and the exercise of temporal power by ecclesiastical authority, in the least degree, will no longer be tolerated.”  (Governor Eli H. Murray, “The Crisis in Utah”, North American review, April 1882 pg. 346)

Individuals and institutions would do well to ignore and nullify such moves by government, and refuse government permission slips to enter into religious covenants. What’s next? Government permission to get baptized?

Learn more about the Founders solution of nullification with the resources in the link below.

Help support ad free content with a one time donation or becoming a member today.

Thank you to our sponsors
https://connollyandsonsconcrete.com/
https://www.dentistry4health.org
http://www.highercallingfirearms.com
http://www.americanappliancehvac.com
https://insurewithcompass.com/sbarlow.html