Posted on 04/12/2008 5:53:29 PM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
the law professors at GW are nuts....one of them came on DC television during 9/11 and said it was all our own fault because we’re the largest gun dealer around the world....another African-American law professor there said inner city drug dealers shouldn’t be convicted because selling dope in the ‘hood is a crime of “empowerment”...those so called “teachers” love to get on TV and run their mouth talking crap.
“Paint your wagon” style marrage....
Is that a reference to a movie?
Ya, in 1969 it hit the big screen
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064782/
Clint the Squint and Lee Marvin - pretty good flick.
One woman, two husbands - 1880s style.
No more like "Seven Brides for One Brother"
Does the Book of Mormon explicitly permit polygamy?
Remember polygamy was practiced and condoned by many cultures of the past, while sodomy was not that popular. Thus if the least popular sexual practice is condoned in the US, then Americans have a weaker ground to oppose polygamy. INMHO polygamy may be the only way blue collar Americans can maintain their standard of living given competition from globalism and job outsourcing. If a man has a personal income of $60,000 with ovetime and six wives who each make $ 35,000 annually, we are talking about serious income. Think of the exemptions if each wife has two kids, and each one can take turns taking one day of the work week to watch the kids while the other wives work. They can easily afford a MacMansion and have plenty of living space for themselves and children.
Before Roe V Wade, there was a case in 1965 that MAY have been the precursor to all this, Griswold v CT. It was about the banning of contraceptives.
No, I don’t recall that the Book of Mormon recommends polygamy. The polygamy among the Mormons was sanctioned by a “revelation” announced by Joseph Smith, “the American Mohammed” (as one historical account calls him). I forgot how many wives he had, but it was a fair number.
There is nothing in the US Constitution which says or implies that the states cannot regulate marriage any way they wish. It can’t be slavery, but otherwise it is up to the states.
My own opinion is that a society (such as ours) ought to be able to lay down some simple, obvious rules, or chaos will reign. One of our mores is monogamous marriage, and it is quite enough to manage.
If someone wants polygamy, he or she should move to some other country — far, far away — where this is permitted. And the destination is going to be a Muslim country, so good luck if you think that it’s going to be fun!
Nah. FLDS just marry their mother in laws. Or their stepdaughters. Or sisters in law. Then they all become wives.
That doesn’t sound like much fun at all. Who wants another woman (or 6) in her kitchen? Or bedroom?
Plus, $270,000 sounds like a lot until you divide it among 19 people. If there are more than 2 kids per mother, it divides even further. There’s a reason why Colorado Creek inhabitants get a lot of welfare money.
I keep remembering the essay “I want a wife” written by a female grad student living with her husband.
A lot of “unemployed” women could act as an economic help by taking care of kids/ cooking/laundry / household maintenance that is currently outsourced / hired out.
A single mother making minimum wage with one kid upgraded to stay at home wife with hers and one more - and two other adults adding to the household - could be a step up. For some.
I can see the social benefits. I’d also kill my husband if he suddenly brought a “sister wife” home for me to meet.
Anything that helps damage traditonal marriage between one man and one woman, is at the top of the liberal support list.
Even racial stuff is below that.
I haven’t decided if they consider abortion more important than family destruction or less important.
This election has shown that racial politics is higher than feminism on the list. Feminism has been moving down. Animals and environment over people has been moving up. :)
Certainly not by me.
The logic that a marriage benefits from having at least one man and one woman for procreation is inescapable. If gay marriages are tolerated, adding one member of the opposite sex makes possible procreation within the marriage.
One might question whether a child benefits from having "two Mommies", but is there really a question that a child who has two Mommies would benefit from also have a Daddy? Is there something about the second Mommy that precludes needing a Daddy? I don't see how.
And once we have two Mommies and a Daddy, why not add a second Daddy? Or two or three. And some more Mommies.
We could save a lot of hassle just by having a giant marriage ceremony in which every inhabitant of San Francisco can become married to every other inhabitant. Then they will all be one big happy family.
There are no laws against consenting adults shacking up. There are no laws against a man farthering children with as many consenting women as he sees fit, or a woman carring as many men's children as strikes her fancy.
If two people have a religious ceremony, and they consider themselves married in the eyes of God, that is a religious matter that is none of the state's concern. Gay weddings and "commitment ceremonies" go on every day in every state of the union, and there is no legal basis to ban them without seriously infringing the 1st amendment protection of free exercise of religion.
It becomes a legal issue when the state is asked to recognize the marriage. A religious marriage that carries no force of law is simply not a state concern -- just like a Bar Mitzvah is a rite of passage into manhood for Jews, but it does not confer the rights or privileges of adulthood in the eyes of the law.
In all of these polygamist cults I've heard of, there are certainly legal grounds to go after the leaders -- "marriages" to underaged girls, threats or coercion that make a mockery of "consenting adults," child neglect, abandonment and endangerment, and often welfare and other forms of fraud. All fair game. But to prosecute two people for simply feeling and saying that they are married is, indeed, a thorny constitutional issue. I can't see any constitutional justification for it.
You clearly don't know the same sisters I know.
“When I said gay marriage opened the door to polygamy, I was laughed at.”
The purpose of marriage to make people responsible for the care of children. That’s why in every culture in history that has managed to survive for a while, marriage has been assumed to be between members of the opposite sex. Many if not most of these have permitted a man to have several wives.
This makes the notion of gay marriage silly if not a contradiction in terms. The legalization of gay marriage is being pushed by far leftists for the same reason that they discourage traditional marriage. They loathe western civilization and want it to die off. But by what logic did “gay marriage open the door to polygamy”?
Now I’m haven’t practiced polygamy,(except maybe in my fantasies), but I’m all for higher birth rates in the western world. So why not legalize polygamy ?
placemarker
Does THIS give you a clue?
DAMNED TO HEAVEN - Warren Jeffs - POLYGAMY
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.