Skip to comments.A Gay-Wedding Crasher [Homosexual Rights=Rights of Polygamists!]
Posted on 07/31/2011 2:47:45 PM PDT by SteelfishEdited on 07/31/2011 5:23:27 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
EDITORIAL A Gay-Wedding Crasher A law professor attempts to use a homosexual rights ruling to defend a polygamous family in Utah.
In this file photo, (pic in URL) Kody Brown poses with his wives Janelle, Christine, Meri, and Robyn for TLC's reality TV show, "Sister Wives." The Browns' attorney, Jonathan Turley, filed a lawsuit challenging the Utah bigamy law that makes their lifestyle illegal.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
I think it makes much more sense simply to eliminate government welfare payments for everyone, and it's just as possible as passing and enforcing a bunch of specific requirements for the case of legally-recognized polygamy.
Heres a concept... lets get the government out of the marriage business altogether!
- - - - - -
A n00b on another thread is advocating the exact same thing. What is it with these people? How do they think this would do anything but cause more trouble.
FWIW, I have said for years that gay marriage is the first step to legalized polygamy. In graduate school, one of my professors was a ‘gay polygamist’ and he admitted it almost 10 years ago that after gay marriage was legalized they would fight for polygamy.
Another great site (or two) on Mormon history and teachings:
I loved Dr. Martin, but he only scratched the surface, the deeper you go the darker it gets.
This is the essence of the homosexualist agenda: there are no moral absolutes. In fact, to them, there are no absolutes at all.
And as I stated earlier, it is just this sort of squishy, soft-headed idealism that allows relativists to steal the word "marriage" and redefine it.
Relativism is the cancer of the modern age.
Absolutely there should be no welfare payments at all. However, you will never eliminate welfare payments now. Too late! Experience shows once started a state cannot stop i.e.tThe Romans were still on the dole as Alaric was beating down the city gates. Welfare will only expand. I expect the government to provide “Free” tickets to various sporting events at anytime now.
Wow! What planet are you from?
You haven't heard of the most rampant polygamy area of this country? Hildale UT @ tip of AZ border -- & just to the south of that border, Colorado City, AZ? And you somehow (mistakingly) thinks this leads to getting kids off the welfare rolls? You have got to be kidding, right?
In 2001, the Los Angeles Times reported that welfare fraud is widespread in both Hildale and Colorado City. As many as half of plural wives are on government assistance. The fraud arises from the women's claims that they do not know the whereabouts of the children's fathers. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hildale,_Utah
Oh, and guess what? Hildale-Colorado City are pretty rural -- as in quite isolated rural.
Even where Homosexual activity was either accepted or condoned Homosexual marriages where never allowed.
This is the logical consequence of the allowance of homosexual unions condoned by the State. It is inevitable that Marriage will now be ANY union of ANY set of adults that desire the political and economic benefits of the union. With today's welfare state and the increase in middle East and Muslim immigration it will soon be commonplace for a man to have three or four woman with dozens of children all benefiting from food stamps, welfare payments, and government housing subsidies.
I suppose it would be true that no one would have to recognize someone else’s meaning of the word “marriage” unless, perhaps, they wanted to marry that someone else.
But if government was out of the marriage business, why would that matter?
As it stands now, do you have to recognize the meaning of the word “marriage” as it is used in New York and some other places?
“...it is just this sort of squishy, soft-headed idealism that allows relativists to steal the word “marriage” and redefine it.”
Does that kind of argument ever sway anyone to your point of view?
Kris & Gondring, if you "get govt out of the marriage license biz," then you've got to simultaneously shut down the entire welfare system.
Since the govt is involved in being the "back-up" safety valve system for broken families, it has a vested interested in overseeing the front-end "commitments" & covenants & Points of accountability not be denormalized into an "anything goes" society.
If you get the govt out of the marriage biz, that includes divorce courts, holding spouses/parents (deadbeat dads) accountable, and just let them all fend for themselves re: what they can get from private aid.
No, Romney was NOT for gay marriage.
Sounds like a law enforcement problem rather than a refutation of my argument. What are these people doing to support themselves in those “areas” I’ll bet they are not growing crops-other than drugs.)
Given that stipulation, why do you imagine you could put in place a unique set of rules applying only to legally-recognized polygamous families? Even on the snowball's chance you passed it, even at a county level, a judge would throw it out before you could pat yourself on the back.
We already have religiously-recognized polygamous "households" on welfare, so there's no percentage for them in wanting a legal marriage, if that would threaten the income.
Does that kind of argument ever sway anyone to your point of view?
It never sways squishy softheads.
Has it swayed you?
Sorry. It was not "the norm." It wasn't in the Middle East, India or China; it tended to be practiced by rulers who simply did so 'cause they could. Yes, it existed more in pockets of Africa, but studies show that polygamy actually reduces the number of children per mom; and any generational implementation of polygamy would have only contributed to the eventual weakening of #s & eligible marriage partners in a given culture, with it eventually leading to tribesmen marrying closer & closer family members.
It passed on his watch; he didn't do more to oppose it.
Romney's great-grandfather, Miles Park Romney, was a polygamist. (So, of course, it's not in heritage 'Mormon blood' to defend monogamy)
(& Huntsman favors "civil unions")
Let’s ask the boss.
Jim, what is your opinion on those who have, the past two days shown up on the polygamy threads either in favor of polygamy or of abolishing legal marriage altogether (KrisKrinkle; Gondring; fromthesidelines; possibly others)?
Does FR have an official stand on this topic?
You are kidding, right?
I still think your plan is no more likely, and far less helpful to the country (and to families and children) than simply eliminating the welfare. If men knew they’d have to support their children, if women knew there were no freebies for producing a baby without being married, people would be more responsible.
How do I know? Because that’s the way it was before we removed those incentives.