Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) argued in April that if the Supreme Court legalized gay sex, that similar rights for polygamists would follow.
Tom Green, a Mormon polygamist serving a sentence for bigamy in Utah, has argued his conviction should be overturned based on the Lawrence vs. Texas decision.
posted on 12/30/2003 12:13:32 PM PST
Slippery slope bump..
posted on 12/30/2003 12:14:42 PM PST
("Vivit Post Funera Virtus")
Tom Green, a
Frankly, my pets are costing me a bundle in vet bills for various aging related health problems. I wonder if a marriage of convenience to get them covered under my health insurance as a partner would work?
After all, I love them...isn't that the criteria under Massachusetts law?
posted on 12/30/2003 12:18:49 PM PST
(Al Dean and Howard Gore, separated at birth.)
I completely agree that recent pro-Homosexual court decisions make polygamy almost unavoidable. And that raises interesting issues of taxation (my 7 wives and I are filing jointly. I have 22 dependants.) And it will greatly accelerate the coming bankruptcy of Social Security.
The slide has begun, and the thing that will reverse that slide has not yet appeared on the political scene.
posted on 12/30/2003 12:21:36 PM PST
(France delenda est)
What the heck does broad political support have to do with anything? After all if this is about the Constitution, it says what it says whether the cause is unpopular or not. The American People as a whole are clamoring for Gay Marriage, so why not polygamy?
posted on 12/30/2003 12:23:38 PM PST
(Pray for Rush)
What man, in his right mind, would want MORE than one wife??!!
BTW...Keep your eyes on Rick Santorum the next four years...I believe he is going places, much to my delight.
posted on 12/30/2003 12:52:25 PM PST
(The pendulum is swinging and the Rats are in the pit!)
This nation would be so much better off with a government and court system full of Rick Santorums.
This may give a whole new meaning to the phrase, "a boy and his dog..."
Why not pets? Why not menages a trois? Why not me and my rutabaga? This is a slippery slope indeed...
The big one is going to come when Muslims start demanding the right to marry four wives, according to their religion.
posted on 12/30/2003 1:26:38 PM PST
Tom Green, a Mormon polygamist serving a sentence for bigamy in Utah
Tom Green is not "Mormon." He is not a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - he is not Mormon. How many times does this have to be repeated before the people who write this stuff get it right? Polygamists are excommunicated and therefore are not Mormon. He can call himself Mormon, but that does not make it so. He can call himself the Queen of England, but still he is not.
posted on 12/30/2003 1:52:11 PM PST
(Have you committed a random act of thoughtcrime today?)
"Christian polygamy, Henkel says, is a relatively new movement, based strictly upon the Old and New Testament. He describes it as a benevolent form of polygamy, in which a husband might take two wives to help support them financially."
What a great idea, now that there are more women in the management work force than men, I can get more than one wife to support me in a better manner. And having 3 or 4 wives, wow, I could live in relatively luxury.
posted on 12/30/2003 1:56:51 PM PST
"Its basically a libertarian argument unless there is harm or some tangible drawback to a given activity, then the government has no justifiable means of regulating it, Gordon said."
Wait a minute. Isn't marriage -itself- government regulation?
I would argue, using the exact same libertarian argument, that unless there is a tangible BENEFIT to government regulation, government shouldn't get involved. There is a tangible benefit to society for government providing a support structure for heterosexual marriage - the clear and documented benefit to their biological children. Biological children are not an issue in homosexual marriage, and they can and do adopt without it.
Therefore, using that same libertarian argument, government should NOT regulate homosexual marriage (by creating it) because there is no reason for government to get involved in it. If a gay couple wants to go to a gay church and call themselves married, fine, but setting up laws and structure to support it isn't supportable with a libertarian limited-government argument.
posted on 12/30/2003 2:58:32 PM PST
Tom Green wants to get a gang of women pregnant by him, and put them all on welfare, and raise his own little gang.
posted on 12/30/2003 3:00:37 PM PST
To: hattend; rmlew; nutmeg; firebrand; Clemenza; PARodrig
I suppose it might as well be time to recognize the validity of Muslim marriages as well. Under Muslim law a Muslim may marry up to four wives provided he can care for them all.
Isn't multiculturalism grand? I can't wait until they argue that we should allow the practice of cannibalism on religious and lifestyle liberty grounds.
posted on 12/30/2003 3:05:23 PM PST
I have enough trouble with the wife I got, I sure as hell dont want another one.
posted on 12/30/2003 3:06:47 PM PST
Hey I said this way back on another thread.
If a "marriage" doesn't necessarily have to be between a man and a woman, then logically, it doesn't have to be limited to just two either. Either the word has a definition or it doesn't. I said this was coming.
posted on 12/30/2003 3:22:44 PM PST
by Clinging Bitterly
(President Bush sends his regards.)
O.K., people, please explain to me exactly what is wrong with polygamy? And no snide jokes about two menstuating women and all that...
If all involved are consenting adults , and hetrosexual, and are in it for love and children, what is wrong with this?
How will this bring about the decline of civilization? In the past it was accepted and, well, here we are, cities and nations and airplanes and all...
Admittedly, it would be difficult sometimes, but what is fundamentally wrong with this practice? I do not see it.
Nowhere in the Bible is it enjoined. And what about Moses.. he wrote "suppose a man has two wives..." in Kings, implicitly granting his approval, and Moses was the MAN.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson