Skip to comments.News roundup: Judge: Most traditional marriage was polygamy
Posted on 06/14/2014 5:05:51 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Federal judge: Most traditional marriage has been polygamy. Records: Swallow aide tried to cover up deals with Johnson. Huntsman Sr. interested in buying The Tribune.
Happy Monday. A federal judge struck down Wisconsin's gay marriage ban, saying that state officials need to learn a few things about the history of marriage, i.e. that plural marriage is actually more traditional over time. "As an initial matter, defendants and amici have overstated their argument," wrote Judge Barbara Crabb. "Throughout history, the most 'traditional' form of marriage has not been between one man and one woman, but between one man and multiple women, which presumably is not a tradition that defendants and amici would like to continue."
Topping the news: New records show an aide to John Swallow trying to cover-up the backhand deals with Jeremy Johnson. [Trib]
-> Jon Huntsman Sr. said he might be interested in purchasing The Salt Lake Tribune in the future because he believes the valley needs at least two newspapers but that the Justice Department has put a hold on any negotiations. [Trib] [DNews] [Fox13](continued)
(Excerpt) Read more at sltrib.com ...
Wait til Adam tells Eve that one.
They’ll have a good laugh at the judge’s expense.
Is this the same Jon Huntsman Sr. who has a son (JR.) that ran for president. The same Huntsmans who are distantly related to Mitt, but cannot stand him? That Jon Huntsman Sr.?
If so, I can accept that he, as a Mormon, would believe this to be true. Even though the religion officially disowned polygamy now, it has not been so very long that this was their natural status of righteous living.
I fail to see how that statement bolsters her 'rationale' for redefining marriage anyway.
I was wondering how an airhead like this judge got on the federal bench, then I checked to see the prez that nominated her-—Carter, the second worst prez in history.
What bosh. When even a few men can afford multiple wives, the ordinary man gets one, and a lot get none.
(See the “modern” Islamic world.)
I wonder if it is actually true. I know polygamy was existed in ancient times, but always assumed that like homosexuality it was something limited to the upper class. I cannot imagine that the average subsistence farmer in Europe/Asia feudal society or hunter gatherers in Africa/America’s could afford the luxury of a second wife. Even in the Muslim world, far as I know it was strictly something rich people do. I guess a society where man are routinely butchered in combat could be pressured to adopt this.
The judge seems to think that women naturally outnumber men 4 to 1, across history and geography.
Wow, some atrocious spelling in that one...
In the absence of massive warfare, which results in a preponderance of women, or sex-selection abortion/infanticide (common these days), which results in more men, nature tends to balance the sexes, numerically.
If one man has two wives (absent warfare), one man has none. If one man has thirty wives, twenty-nine have none. In the bad old pre-sanitation days, women died in childbirth a lot, too. That cut the supply even more.
Judge is going to burn in hell
Good point. And something happens to those unpaired young men. They’re going to do something with that sex drive.
Also, in my opinion men don’t share real well. (Nor do women, actually.)
And what’s it mean going through life believing that you’re special to no one.
Exactly...My Dad came from a large family, 4 brothers and 6 sisters.
When I was growing up we’d have family get-togethers a couple times a year. With all the uncles, aunts, cousins, second cousins there were a LOT of people but there was only one granddad and grandmom.
I couldn’t even begin to imagine it any other way.
Anthropology - yes, take it with a grain of salt - shows that women in polygamous societies form their key relationships with their husbands and their sons ... the males they can be sure are connected and have an investment in them.
Men, on the other hand, are isolated. Even brothers and sons are competitors, not part of a cohesive family unit. The Old Testament is so instructive here, if one looks at the people in detail and charts their relationships. Polygamy simply does not work at a societal level, no matter how “good it is to be the King.”
Sorry, Frank was pawing at me and Sally wants to get online with her friends.
I meant, women’s key relationships are with their full BROTHERS, same mother, and their sons. Track the sons of Jacob through Genesis into Judges sometime, if you haven’t.
The world is full of unmarried women looking for a mate, especially in developing countries:
Odd that she should choose polygamy as the definition of “marriage” when it was the Supreme Court decision in Reynolds v U.S. that said the government could define and regulate marriage and they then defined marriage as between one man and one woman. So NOW they’re going to say that definition doesn’t apply anymore? Guess that means polygamy will be back in.
“that plural marriage is actually more traditional over time.”
Ah-huh. Assuming that is the case, how many of those traditional-over-time societies allowed for plural -same sex- marriages?
think more of the biggest strongest warrior taking any woman he wants, and you will see how polygamy was probably the norm for most of history.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.