Legislating morality

[Luther073082]

This may not exactly be about what you think its about, so please read it through.

Anyways I was doing some research for Indiana drinking laws as they pertain to minors. And I found out I was right in that its technically illegal in my state to serve communion to people under the age of 21. A practice which happens all the time in many churchs.

But while I was researching that I came accross this bit of legislated morality and tell me what you think of it. (From a legal point of view. I think the morality of it is obvious, but do you think it makes for good law?)

I'm actually personally a bit surprised at this law. Its not something I would have ever expected to find.

"Support" means food, clothing, shelter, or medical care.

(a) A person who knowingly or intentionally fails to provide support to his spouse, when the spouse needs support, commits nonsupport of a spouse, a Class D felony.
(b) It is a defense that the accused person was unable to provide support.

Indiana Code 35-46-1

a) A person who commits a Class D felony shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of between six (6) months and three (3) years, with the advisory sentence being one and one-half (1 1/2) years. In addition, the person may be fined not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000).

(FYI its a little more complex then this as the courts can knock a Class D felony down to a Class A Misdemenor with the exception of certain crimes so long as there are no prior convictions. I didn't want to go through all of that so I basically gave you the cliff's notes version to show you what could happen.)

Indiana Code 35-50-2

(a) A person who knowingly or intentionally fails to provide support to his parent, when the parent is unable to support himself, commits nonsupport of a parent, a Class A misdemeanor.
(b) It is a defense that the accused person had not been supported by the parent during the time he was a dependent child under eighteen (18) years of age, unless the parent was unable to provide support.
(c) It is a defense that the accused person was unable to provide support.

Indiana Code 35-46-1
(Link same as non-support of spouse link)

A person who commits a Class A misdemeanor shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of not more than one (1) year; in addition, he may be fined not more than five thousand dollars ($5,000).

Indiana Code 35-50-3

Well the bible says that not supporting family members makes you worse then an unbeliever. Apparently in Indiana it also makes you a criminal.

 

[Mrs. Luther073082]

Sweet. Bring me nom noms or you're going to prison, spouse!

 

[Stravinsk]

Well the bible says that not supporting family members makes you worse then an unbeliever. Apparently in Indiana it also makes you a criminal.

But what does "support" mean? I read the following article in a newspaper here...and it left me thinking..."ewww....what a parasite...squeeze it and pus comes out":

Mum ties hit estranged husband with bill for son's $60-a-week McDonald's habit | News.com.au

 

[timothyZ]

Using the law to push morals on the micro level is dangerous in my opinion. To a certain extent all laws impose a certain level of morality, but overreaching by telling you to support your family or parents, seems a bit excessive to me.

 

[stormdancer0]

I'm not sure I want to live in a country where this NEEDS to be legislated. Our parents support us for at least 18 years, for the most part. I know there are bad parents, but most parents do the best they can.

It is so sad that many of our elderly are alone, lonely, and ignored by self-centered, ungrateful children. People who are perfectly capable of caring for their older parents are shoving them into nursing facilities for the same reason people have abortions - it's inconvenient. We have a moral OBLIGATION to care for our aged parents. I don't see how you can turn your back on your parents and still call yourself a follower of Christ.

Of course, I know there are situations where nursing homes are necessary. My parents cared for my grandfather for many years, until he became too difficult to stay there. He became angry and refused to bathe for weeks at a time. He was verbally abusive and threatening. Until that point, they did their best to care for him. When he was placed in a nursing facility, they visited him at least once a week, usually two or three times. He was included in holiday celebrations, as well.

No, it wasn't easy. But it was what was right. I think the fact that someone felt the need to legislate that is a sad commentary on American Christians. Yet another example of how the church has fallen down on the job. We need to teach our moral obligations from the pulpit, and be sure we are all well-educated as to what God expects from both us and our children and parents. We have obligations to both.

 

[Qyöt27]

I'd be interested in just when these points were put into the legal code.



The communion thing has my interest piqued though - is that simply a consequence of alcohol legislation or does it really say 'communion'? Because either way, I'd think that would count as a violation of the First Amendment, seeing as how it's well-known that wine is used for that (at least in most churches).

 

[FaithPrevails]

But what does "support" mean?

I'd be interested in just when these points were put into the legal code.

According to the links that Luther provided, this was enacted in 1976.

Support was defined in the OP - according to the legislature:

"Support" means food, clothing, shelter, or medical care

However, if you read the portion about the felony for failure to provide support, there is a stipulation there that makes all the difference, IMO.

Nonsupport of a spouse
Sec. 6. (a) A person who knowingly or intentionally fails to provide support to his spouse, when the spouse needs support, commits nonsupport of a spouse, a Class D felony.

The bolded part would indicate to me that they are addressing a dependent spouse. ie. unemployed spouse or a SAHM, disabled spouse, etc.

Witholding these basic items of need would be abuse, IMO.

 

[Leetposter]

States have these rights.. Until the train people and commnit developers have their way we are still mobile..

 

[Luther073082]

The communion thing has my interest piqued though - is that simply a consequence of alcohol legislation or does it really say 'communion'? Because either way, I'd think that would count as a violation of the First Amendment, seeing as how it's well-known that wine is used for that (at least in most churches).

No it just says you can't give an alcoholic beverage to anyone under the age of 21. No exceptions given for the parents or for religious purposes.

Therefore, technically speaking it is illegal for anyone under 21 to be given communion and the pastor could be charged with a class B misdemenor.

(a) It is a Class B misdemeanor for a person to recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally sell, barter, exchange, provide, or furnish an alcoholic beverage to a minor.
(b) However, the offense described in subsection (a) is:
(1) a Class A misdemeanor if the person has a prior unrelated conviction under this section; and
(2) a Class D felony if the consumption, ingestion, or use of the alcoholic beverage is the proximate cause of the serious bodily injury or death of any person.
(c) This section shall not be construed to impose civil liability upon any postsecondary educational institution, including public and private universities and colleges, business schools, vocational schools, and schools for continuing education, or its agents for injury to any person or property sustained in consequence of a violation of this section unless such institution or its agent sells, barters, exchanges, provides, or furnishes an alcoholic beverage to a minor.

There is no exception for religious purposes and no exception for parents or guardians providing alcohol to their children.

Indiana Code 7.1-5-7

and

A person who commits a Class B misdemeanor shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of not more than one hundred eighty (180) days; in addition, he may be fined not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000).

Indiana Code 35-50-3

Now realistically speaking I've never heard of the cops busting into a church and arresting a pastor or a priest for giving communion. And if they did I would guarentee the governor would have full pardon's issued for them in less then a day.

I also sort of wonder if said situation did come up if it would not violate the constitutional protection on freedom of religion? Especially for Lutherans, Roman Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox, taking away communion takes away a very central aspect of our faith for anyone under 21. A faith that pre-existed the state of Indiana by thousands of years.

But of course none of that matters because I'm not sure you can sue on the grounds of unconstitutionality unless the law is actually enforced on you like that. And its obviously not being enforced like that at all. And besides who's going to spend the money running this through the courts over the theoretically implications of a law irrespective of how its practically being applied.

 

[Luther073082]

The bolded part would indicate to me that they are addressing a dependent spouse. ie. unemployed spouse or a SAHM, disabled spouse, etc.

Witholding these basic items of need would be abuse, IMO.

Morally speaking I would agree with you entirely.

However prior to this I was under the impression that someone, if the house where in their name just kick their spouse out and leave them in the cold.

But what is more interesting to me is that its also a crime not to support your parents!

Again morally speaking I would agree, if your parents can't do anything to support themselves and you are able to support them, then morally you support them. And I don't think there is much question about that.

But it surprises me that it was codified into law.

Of course this begs the question. . . what defines "unable to support oneself" It doesn't seem to define the answer very well.

No, it wasn't easy. But it was what was right. I think the fact that someone felt the need to legislate that is a sad commentary on American Christians. Yet another example of how the church has fallen down on the job. We need to teach our moral obligations from the pulpit, and be sure we are all well-educated as to what God expects from both us and our children and parents. We have obligations to both.

I wouldn't necessarily blame the Christians though. State law is for everyone who exists in the state of Indiana. So this applies to non-Christians as well as Christians.

I'm just sort of curious as to what drove the state legislature to codify this into law.

I sort of wonder if it wasn't an add on to a much larger bill. That way anyone who opposed that larger bill could be politically branded as "defending people who leave their spouses and/or parents to starve to death."


Politicians can be jerks like that, on both sides. A bill will come accross to spend 100 million dollars on some congressman's pet project but in the bill they throw in $600 to buy two soldiers bullet proof vests. . . and then anyone who votes against it "voted against giving our troops bullet proof vests."

 

[FaithPrevails]

However prior to this I was under the impression that someone, if the house where in their name just kick their spouse out and leave them in the cold.

Nope, you sure can't. A lot of people don't know it is against the law, though, so they do it and their spouse goes b/c they don't realize their legal rights.

But what is more interesting to me is that its also a crime not to support your parents!

Again morally speaking I would agree, if your parents can't do anything to support themselves and you are able to support them, then morally you support them. And I don't think there is much question about that.

My cousin dealt with this and eventually signed his father over as a ward of the state b/c he didn't have enough money to support him (he was unemployed and his father had little disability $$ coming in). I think I would have found a way - but that was the least of my cousin's problems in life. He's a mess.

Of course this begs the question. . . what defines "unable to support oneself" It doesn't seem to define the answer very well.

I think they use the legal definition of a dependent.