Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Polygamists Take Their Cases to the Courts
Concerned Women for America ^ | 4/19/2004 | Jeremy Sewall

Posted on 04/23/2004 7:21:16 AM PDT by scripter

They argue that U.S. Supreme Court’s Lawrence ruling has paved the way.

The drive for homosexual "rights" is evolving into a larger effort to “expand” marriage to include polygamy in the civil law.

Polygamists are citing the U.S. Supreme Court's Lawrence v. Texas

(2003) ruling to challenge marriage laws. In Utah, the ban on polygamy came under attack as civil rights attorney Brian Barnard brought a federal lawsuit, Bronson v. Swensen, No. 02:04-CV-0021, on January 12, 2004, against the state based in part on the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Lawrence.

Two other attorneys have also referenced Lawrence in defending polygamists. The Arizona Daily Star cited convicted bigamist and child rapist Thomas Green, whose lawyer, John Bucher, argued in Utah v. Green that Green’s convictions should be thrown out in light of Lawrence.

"It's no surprise that attorneys for polygamists try to expand Lawrence to bolster their claims," said Jan LaRue, chief counsel for Concerned Women for America (CWA). "Decriminalizing private sex acts between adults, however, is a monumental leap from deconstructing marriage, which has public ramifications. The Lawrence opinion makes clear that the ruling 'does not mean that other laws distinguishing between heterosexuals and homosexuals would similarly fail under rational basis review ... such as ... preserving the traditional institution of marriage.'"

Bucher told CWA in an interview that his argument is “bigger than [Lawrence],” and that he including reasoning from it as an afterthought. However, in citing his use of the case, he said, “in Lawrence you have a right between adults to engage in sodomy in your own home,” but there were “interesting dicta in it about the rights of people in general.” He stated that because it “mentions the 14th Amendment, and because of the interesting language, it appears to leave room for the argument that polygamy may be a protected practice.”

At the same time, because of a history of cases in the 1970s and 1980s citing “compelling state interest” as sufficient reason to limit some rights, Bucher said, his argument was a “stretch because lots of cases talk about the sanctity of marriage, and there is a compelling state interest in marriage.”

In Bronson v. Swensen, Barnard thinks he has a better chance of challenging the bigamy law because his case is free of allegations of rape and sexual misconduct. Barnard filed a complaint in the United States District Court, District of Utah, Central Division, against Salt Lake County clerks for refusing to grant a marriage license to G. Lee Cook, an adult male, and J. Bronson, an adult female, because Cook was already married to D. Cook. D. Cook had given her consent to the plural marriage.

In his complaint, Barnard lists three problems with the state law:

First, the state has “improperly limited and restricted plaintiffs’ right and ability to fulfill and practice a major tenet of their religion,” thus violating the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Second, based on the First and other amendments, the state “has improperly limited and restricted plaintiffs’ right to intimate expression and association.”

Third, the state “violated the right to privacy of the plaintiffs with regard to private, intimate matters as protected by the First, Fourteenth and other Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. No. 02-102, (2003); 2003 U.S. LEXIS 5013.”

In an affidavit filed with the complaint, plaintiff J. Bronson affirmed that she believes the law violates her free exercise of religion:

“I was born into a family that were members of, and practiced the tenets of, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. After a great deal of reading, discussion, study and prayer, I determined that the practice of plural marriage was and is a major tenet of the restored church."

To back her statement, Bronson attached a doctrinal statement on polygamy, which quoted Brigham Young as saying, “The only men who become Gods, even the sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.”

Some scholars think Barnard’s case has merit.

“It’s not a case people can sniff at,” Richard G. Wilkins, law professor at Brigham Young University, told The Washington Post. “If you can’t require monogamy, how in the world can you deny the claims of the polygamists, particularly when it’s buttressed by the claim of religion?”

However, the Arizona Daily Star reports that Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff said the lawsuit goes “way beyond the privacy interest the Supreme Court ruled on.” Shurtleff added, “Anytime you involve marriage, family, children – fundamental units of society – the state does have a compelling interest in what that is.”

Recently polygamists have said they would be content to gain decriminalization instead of full legalization. Salt Lake City attorney Rodney Parker asked the Salt Lake Tribune why polygamists “don't…have the right to organize their families without being charged with a crime?" According to the Tribune,

Barnard acknowledges that legalizing polygamy would "hit the legal system hard," and that his clients would be happy with decriminalization. That way, he said, "spiritual wives" would have full knowledge that they had no rights to benefits and inheritances. As Barnard’s case gains more attention, the practice of polygamy is coming under closer scrutiny. The Christian Science Monitor reports that there are an estimated 100,000 polygamists in America.

Authorities are investigating a sect of fundamentalist Mormons in Colorado City, Arizona, with concerns over forced marriages of underage girls. Three 16-year-old girls are known to have run away from the enclave, according to the Monitor.

In addition, a member of the Kingston clan in Utah recently was sentenced to one year in prison for taking a 15-year-old cousin (who was also his aunt) as his wife.

Jeremy Sewall is a Patrick Henry College government major who is working on the marriage issue at Concerned Women for America.


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: cwa; homosexualagenda; lawrencevtexas; marriage; polygamy; prisoners
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 next last
Those who said this wouldn't happen, both freepers and non-freepers, were apparently wrong. While polygamy isn't yet legal, the push for it apparently now has more merit.

Searched

1 posted on 04/23/2004 7:21:17 AM PDT by scripter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah; EdReform
Related to Lawrence v. Texas, ping
2 posted on 04/23/2004 7:22:13 AM PDT by scripter (Thousands have left the homosexual lifestyle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scripter
People who want to marry their sister/brother/dog are next in line...
3 posted on 04/23/2004 7:23:42 AM PDT by 2banana (They want to die for Islam and we want to kill them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scripter
Of course Santorum was vilified for saying that Lawrence would bring on exactly what it has brought on -- court imposed gay marriage, and soon, court-imposed polygamy and polyandry.
4 posted on 04/23/2004 7:24:29 AM PDT by Unam Sanctam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scripter
Perhaps the sword could be used to cut both ways. IF the courts would uphold traditional marrage (heterosexual) as a compelling state interest, then that decision could be applied AGAINST homosexual 'marrage' on the same basis.
5 posted on 04/23/2004 7:26:21 AM PDT by Godzilla (Native of Tropical Montana)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2banana
As I see it, allowing homosexual marriage opens it up so brothers can marry brothers, sisters marry sisters, fathers marry sons and mothers marry daughters. Since no offspring can result, why not?
6 posted on 04/23/2004 7:26:47 AM PDT by scripter (Thousands have left the homosexual lifestyle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Godzilla
Now you're talking. I think that's a great idea.
7 posted on 04/23/2004 7:27:57 AM PDT by scripter (Thousands have left the homosexual lifestyle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: 2banana
All I can tell you is that my dog, Ole Shep, has been acting kind of sulky and abused lately...I'm gonna have to do something.
8 posted on 04/23/2004 7:32:01 AM PDT by sailor4321
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Unam Sanctam
Thanks for the reminder. I was looking for his original comments but a search returns too many hits. If you have a link... may as well document as much as we can here.
9 posted on 04/23/2004 7:34:29 AM PDT by scripter (Thousands have left the homosexual lifestyle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: scripter
This will get really interesting when a Muslim challenges laws against polygamy.
10 posted on 04/23/2004 7:37:20 AM PDT by nomorelurker (wetraginhell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sailor4321
Actually, I read an article that said that since Sweden has legalized gay marraige, they have been having a lot of problems with animals being sexually abused. It is one of the most common abuses of dogs there.

Is that sick or what?
11 posted on 04/23/2004 7:39:56 AM PDT by I still care
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: scripter
A great idea, yes. But it is an awful big IF given the liberality of todays judicial system.
12 posted on 04/23/2004 7:43:35 AM PDT by Godzilla (Native of Tropical Montana)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: scripter
Those who said this wouldn't happen, both freepers and non-freepers, were apparently wrong. While polygamy isn't yet legal, the push for it apparently now has more merit.

When I've heard the claim that gay marriage wouldn't lead to legalization of polygamy, all I could think of was that polygamy has a far greater claim. I believe it was the norm in much of the ancient world, and is still observed in at least some Muslim countries. No society has ever had gay marriage.

I saw a little thing in the paper (I thought it was today's paper, but I can't find it) about some people pushing for "group marriage," i.e., not polygamy or polyandry, but sort of open-ended, for people who are married but want to branch out without being considered unfaithful. A woman quoted in the piece (just a short one; not much more than a paragraph) said she herself has two "OSOPs" (other significant other persons) besides her husband.

13 posted on 04/23/2004 7:44:11 AM PDT by maryz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scripter
The penultimate statement about bigamy was made by none other than Oscar Wilde.
14 posted on 04/23/2004 7:47:46 AM PDT by George Smiley (Is the RKBA still a right if you have to get the government's permission before you can exercise it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scripter
The monogamy movement in recent history is a cousin to communism. The real reason behind it is that rich and powerful guys married many wives, and left the poor weak guys with no women. The egalitarian movement was started to allow for equality. Since men/women ratio is essentially 50/50, if a one man marries 100 wives like the King of Saudi Arabia, or 1000 wives like King Solomon, that takes away from the pool of available women.

Polygamy has been around for thousands of years in all kinds of cultures, and it can be a solution to the current divorce crises. I submit for discussion: When women get too focused on children, and neglect their sexual duty towards their husbands (having headaches!), then husbands can bring in a competition a new wife. The old wife, and her children will stay in the family, and the new women will provide sexual void for the guy. I know all that crap about the women libs, which are going to scream "how about women having more husbands"! I think if a girl is in need of sex as frequently as a guy, and her husband does not want to provide it, SHE CAN HAVE AS MANY HUSBANDS AS SHE WANTS! The reality is very few girls on this planet have such a high drive.

15 posted on 04/23/2004 7:48:50 AM PDT by philosofy123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scripter
Santorum told the AP reporter, “If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything.”

Quoted on:

http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=886

16 posted on 04/23/2004 7:49:14 AM PDT by Unam Sanctam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: All
Does this mean that I will be able to marry, Herbert, my pet turtle? Actually, he's a lawn ornament, but I have had him for so many years, he seems real..... and I think he feels the same about me.

Will I be able to get reparations from my first 2 wives??? Will I be required to actually dig them back up again?

If we will be allowed to marry the dead too, I want to be the first to tie the knot with Elvis....!!!

Wow..my ceramic turtle, my ex-wives and Elvis....I feel so liberated and free....oh happy, happy day!!!
17 posted on 04/23/2004 7:51:35 AM PDT by Gator113
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: philosofy123
"The monogamy movement in recent history is a cousin to communism. The real reason behind it is that rich and powerful guys married many wives, and left the poor weak guys with no women.

Huh? Communism sought do elimiate marriage in favor of civil unions. BTW monogamy has also been around for thousands of years, therefore your polyagamy arguement is not a solution to the present divorce crisis. What is the solution is the strengthening of marriage throught the strenghtening of the moral fabric of todays society that has been torn down over the past several decades of free sex, abortion, condoms, welfare and no fault divorce. Polyagamy would only add fuel to the lawyers - imagine the child support lawsuits that could spring up as well as the other legal issues. No, the answer lies with the man and woman coming into the marriage committed it that divorce is not an option, and society supporting and encouraging them.

18 posted on 04/23/2004 8:04:01 AM PDT by Godzilla (Nuke the whales, save the medfly)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: scripter
Get ready for the storm...
19 posted on 04/23/2004 8:12:59 AM PDT by jcb8199
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nomorelurker
This will get really interesting when a Muslim challenges laws against polygamy.

Indeed. Yet some (even here) refuse to acknowledge the fallout.

20 posted on 04/23/2004 8:14:04 AM PDT by scripter (Thousands have left the homosexual lifestyle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: maryz
Group marriage... what a way to confuse children. Keeping marriage between one man and one woman is the best environment for kids. I know this steps on many toes, but divorce just sucks for children. Today it's a way of life and is nearly expected, and that grieves my heart.
21 posted on 04/23/2004 8:19:02 AM PDT by scripter (Thousands have left the homosexual lifestyle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Unam Sanctam
Quoted on:
Senator Rick Santorum Under Attack From Radical Homosexuals
Thank you.
22 posted on 04/23/2004 8:22:26 AM PDT by scripter (Thousands have left the homosexual lifestyle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Gator113
The Dead, Children, and Animals cannot give consent... so no. Don't be an idiot. These points have all been gone over here before and done to death. The sides are polarized and there seems to be no resolution in sight.

I'd err on the side of freedom. As long as my neighbors living arrangements are no drain on my pocketbook, why should I care? The only drain there possibly COULD be would be our increasing reliance on socialized government programs and interference in free markets like health care.

you Ms. Grundy types never friggin' learn.

23 posted on 04/23/2004 8:26:31 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: scripter
Dr James Dobson from Focus on the Family has been saying this would happen for a couple of years now. Downward Spiral.
24 posted on 04/23/2004 8:27:03 AM PDT by Delbert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scripter
How do shotgun weddings fit into the new, improved version of our marriage laws?
25 posted on 04/23/2004 8:31:30 AM PDT by meenie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: meenie
Fine by me as long as the Bride is a nice Browning over/under.
26 posted on 04/23/2004 8:32:59 AM PDT by nomorelurker (wetraginhell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: nomorelurker
Fine by me as long as the Bride is a nice Browning over/under.

I'm going to inherit two of those someday... The over/under, not the bride...

27 posted on 04/23/2004 8:35:14 AM PDT by scripter (Thousands have left the homosexual lifestyle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: scripter
Hey consenting adults who can argue with that

Makes more sense than homosexual marriages
28 posted on 04/23/2004 8:41:28 AM PDT by uncbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: uncbob
Makes more sense than homosexual marriages

I agree as it's more of a variant of traditional marriage than the perversion of same-sex-marriage, yet polygamy or group marriage isn't as healthy for children as traditional marriage.

29 posted on 04/23/2004 8:47:45 AM PDT by scripter (Thousands have left the homosexual lifestyle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: scripter
There is a much stronger case for polygamy IMHO. There are several religions that either do, or have, endorse and encourage it. As such, one could easily argue it is at least as reasonable as allowing the use of Peyote in tribal religious ceremonies, which is already a protected practice.
30 posted on 04/23/2004 8:50:35 AM PDT by sharktrager (The greatest strength of our Republic is that the people get the government they deserve.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
"I'd err on the side of freedom."

Freedom? Forcing a handout because you don't otherwise qualify is not freedom. How about giving veterans' benefits to people who've never served? or seniors' benefits to the middle aged? or welfare benefits to the wealthy? Would you not think it "discriminatory and exclusive" to omit the "unqualified"?

As any qualification for a specific benefit must be based upon preset absolutes - marriage must also be defined with absolutes for couples to enjoy those benefits. Those not qualifying must remain unmarried.

Or should we move the standard so those qualify instead of requiring those to meet standards? If we do the former, where do we leave the qualifying line?

Is that freedom's definition? the ability to move the standards of qualification?

31 posted on 04/23/2004 8:53:22 AM PDT by azhenfud ("He who is always looking up seldom finds others' lost change...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: scripter
Don't get me wrong here, but who on earth would want more than one wife?
32 posted on 04/23/2004 9:03:06 AM PDT by PackerBoy (Just my opinion ....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scripter
Well, Justice Scalia predicted these things would follow, but was dismissed as a paranoid kook.
33 posted on 04/23/2004 9:04:48 AM PDT by Paulie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PackerBoy
Don't get me wrong here, but who on earth would want more than one wife?

While I'm sure many understand your point, there are some who would want more than one wife, or women who want more than one husband. This country is just falling apart under the pretext of freedom. Some guidelines are a good thing.

34 posted on 04/23/2004 9:12:09 AM PDT by scripter (Thousands have left the homosexual lifestyle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: scripter
Santorum bump.
35 posted on 04/23/2004 9:13:54 AM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: azhenfud
Handouts? There shouldn't BE any handouts. Period. The government is not your friggin' Mother.

The definition of "freedom":
Main Entry: free·dom
Pronunciation: 'frE-d&m
Function: noun
1 : the quality or state of being free: as
a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action
b : liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another :

In the case of polygamy, why should anyone else be concerned about my wife and I and our sleeping arrangments? Without the socialized government "benefits" you seem to approve of, there can BE no logical argument made for prohibiting freedom of action between consenting adults. At least, no logical argument without resorting to religion.

Now who's religious standard do you want to follow? Isn't that between you are your God/s? The Norse/Celtic tribes used to have the standard that a man could have as many women as he could protect and feed. Judeo/Christian tennets seem to vary between sects. Certain Arabic religions allow for harems.

As I said... err on the side of freedom. If the socialized benefits being paid out to those you don't approve of chafes... then let's do the smart thing and get government out of that business shall we?

36 posted on 04/23/2004 9:28:02 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: philosofy123
"The monogamy movement in recent history is a cousin to communism."

Right. Tell that to Henry VIII. Monogamy and it's cousin serial monogamy has been the norm in Western (and Christian) societies for thousands of years.
37 posted on 04/23/2004 9:38:40 AM PDT by NathanR (California Si! Aztlan NO!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Well Pal, I don't know who Ms Grundy is and you best refrain from calling me an idiot.

Now, you say that you would error on the side of freedom..........is that with all things or just sexual perversion that provides the odor and contact with human feces. Oh never mind dear smart one.... the answer is obvious!
38 posted on 04/23/2004 9:44:42 AM PDT by Gator113
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: scripter
FWIW - this is what we all predicted!
39 posted on 04/23/2004 9:49:23 AM PDT by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scripter
Once the door has been opened for one kind of 'other' it cannot legally be closed to any other kind of 'other'. There would be no grounds for it.
40 posted on 04/23/2004 9:49:28 AM PDT by Lizavetta (Savage is right - extreme liberalism is a mental disorder.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: *Homosexual Agenda; EdReform; scripter; GrandMoM; backhoe; Yehuda; Clint N. Suhks; saradippity; ...
Homosexual Agenda Ping + Rick Santorum was right Alert.

Those who scorned Santorum's words are proven wrong, wrong, wrong. And if anyone thinks that this is the end of sexual weirdness jumping on the Lawrence bandwagon, you are also wrong.

Actually, polygamy has more going for it than homosexual "marriage", at least there's a historical and scriptural precedent. Although still, I think the co-wives weren't too happy about it. Considering today's no-fault divorce, non-marital sex and broken homes, adding legalized polygamy to the mix will only hasten the complete breakdown of society.

Let me know if anyone wants on/off this pinglist.

(If polygamists just stayed "in the closet" and quit "marrying" 15 year old cousins who are also their aunts, people would probably leave them alone!)
41 posted on 04/23/2004 9:51:23 AM PDT by little jeremiah (...men of intemperate minds can not be free. Their passions forge their fetters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gator113
Do try to keep up. The topic is polygamy, not gay marriage. Marriage itself is a RELIGIOUS institution and therefore should remain in the realm of your individual religious beliefs. Secular government should STAY secular. Think of the Taliban coming coming to power in the US and you should be able to see why that is a good idea.

Don't confuse lack of religion in government, for the perverted excising of all religion from public life. That has got to stop as well.

Ms. Grundy was a Robert Heinlein character who thought she was so morally superior to her neighbors that she felt she was perfectly justified peaking in windows to make sure everyone in her neighborhood was living a moral life by her paranoid delusional fanatic standards.

If you have problems with people who engage in certain behaviors that you find distasteful or immoral, but that do not directly infringe on your Right to action, then do not have any dealings with them. Ostracize them. Ignore them. Kick them out of your establishments or fire them if they are in your employ. As a business owner, you should have the Right no matter what the San Francisco crowd have perverted "PRIVATE business" to mean. Voluntary association still has its advocates among the Free Marketeers club.

However, if they aren't hurting you, do not get the government to step in and play Nanny. Do not get the police to go put a gun to their heads because they are doing things you find "icky" or because they have too many spouses. To do so makes you no better than any other socialist dictatorship.

If you stop making stupid assumptions based off of your preconceived self-righteous notions, you will have left the realm of "idiocy". Or are you moral enough to start casting first stones? I know I'm not.

Boring. Year after year. Same old arguments. Same old narrow minded crap. Pretty much why I haven't bothered with too many of these threads lately. Later kids... play nice.

42 posted on 04/23/2004 10:37:13 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Lizavetta
Once the door has been opened for one kind of 'other' it cannot legally be closed to any other kind of 'other'. There would be no grounds for it.

Which is why the argument was put forward to not have government sanctioned marriage to begin with. Keep religion and government seperate. Not excised as I noted above, nor incorperated like the Taliban. Marriage is between those involved and their God/s.

Congregations who disapprove of their pastors/peachers violating scripture to allow gay marriage should be taking that up with their churchs. Have them removed, join a different church, or take whatever action your specific religion allows.

Once again, having the government put a gun to someones head, on issues other than genuine crime, is not a really good way to maintain a healthy society. Much worse in fact than any negative impact allowing certain religions to to perform such ceremonies would be. Especially in light of history that proves time and again that once the government gets used to the power of putting guns to peoples heads for issues like this, they eventually start pulling the triggers as well.

Oh well.... back to work. :-)

43 posted on 04/23/2004 10:46:24 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: NathanR
The egaliterian idiology is essentially a communism ideology.
44 posted on 04/23/2004 11:26:35 AM PDT by philosofy123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Godzilla
Moral fabric my a$$! If you don't get a piece because your wife knows that she have you by the balls, and you are going to lose 50% of your wealth if you argued; then what are you going to do. Get a piece on the outside or divorce her a$$! the only fair thing to this spoiled sexless bitch, and your children is to introduce competition. Bring in a new blood.
45 posted on 04/23/2004 11:33:21 AM PDT by philosofy123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: scripter
If government's purpose is to secure domestic tranquility, how can that possibly be achieved allowing men to have more than one wife at a time? < grin >

OTOH, think of all the "societies" that "allow" polygamy and their status in world affairs. Comparatively speaking, is that what we REALLY want of America?
46 posted on 04/23/2004 12:23:46 PM PDT by azhenfud ("He who is always looking up seldom finds others' lost change...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: philosofy123
What does egalitarianism have to do with monogamy. Monogamy is much older. Polygamy has been at least frowned on for centuries. Excepting Mormons and their sub-sects, name one Western polygamist (That is someone who has plural wives and/or concubines.) Just so you don't throw King David back at me either. By Western I mean the western part of the Roman Empire and it's successors, including us. Don't call multiple mistresses 'concubines' either, because they aren't.
47 posted on 04/23/2004 12:46:05 PM PDT by NathanR (California Si! Aztlan NO!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: NathanR
Polygamy is practiced in Moslem nations today, Mormans, and other backward cultures. It used to be practiced by the Hebrews, and most old cultures a few thousand years ago. My point is; the reason monagomy became the trend for change in most cultures is the drive for equality. Do the math, there are 50% men/women ratio on this planet, so if rich guys like King Solomon would have thousand wifes, then 999 guys will go without wives, simply do it with the sheep? heh! Egaliterian, religions, or women rights; whatever was the cause of that change from polygamy to monogomy, may it is time to rethink of changing back.
48 posted on 04/23/2004 1:05:49 PM PDT by philosofy123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: philosofy123
My bad. I forgot that before 1500 there were many Moslem's in Spain, which is in the West.

However, you still haven't made the argument that monogamy and communism are linked. My argument is, that monogamy and Christianity are linked. Christians take mistresses and practice serial monogamy, they don't take concubines and practice polygamy. (except, at one time, Mormons.)
49 posted on 04/23/2004 1:22:22 PM PDT by NathanR (California Si! Aztlan NO!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: scripter
Exactly. Why should heterophobes get to have all the fun?
50 posted on 04/23/2004 1:24:33 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson