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 ...
Jonathan Turley is probably not the most popular man right now with supporters of same-sex marriage.
Sure he is
The same sex crowd are lovin it..
Each group scratches the back of the other...
The atheist homosexuals and the Mormon polygamists..
Together they gang up on monogamous marriage Christians...
Here’s a concept... let’s get the government out of the marriage business altogether!
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
And what do you think will be the outcome in that "Brave New World"?
Of course, polygamy is next on the agenda. That is why Romney, the Mormon, was for gay marriage, to put his foot in the door for polygamy! We have at least two Mormons running for president. Romney and Huntsman. They are heavily supported by the Mormon church and members. Read Walter Martin’s “Kingdom of the Cults” to better understand Mormonism, which is very similar to Islam.
Probably like it is in the countries that don’t have such intrusive government—it works well.
The churches made a pact with the devil in opening the door for government to control sacraments.
And what countries would that be?
I should clarify. I mean where it’s possible to have one without the other. For example, in Germany, you can have a church wedding without a civil marriage.
It would, of course, be far better if government were out of the business altogether.
So why is that so great for Germany?
It’s great for the people of Germany.
I don’t think they’ll think it’s great in a few generations when the Muzzies will outbreed them and they become a minority in their own country.
dfwgator: And what do you think will be the outcome in that “Brave New World”?
I've written the same thing as Gondring, so I'll answer, but briefly.
If the government gets out of the marriage business, a lot of laws that apply to people who are married will have to be eliminated or revised. Marriage will become a private matter in that if anyone wants to get “married” they can do so according to whatever custom/tradition/condition they choose, and no one else has to recognize said marriage if they choose not to. There will be no government sanction to the marriage itself.
That may be more effort than people want to go to.
Contrariwise, an effort to get the government out of the marriage business would drive discussion/evaluation to justify why the government should be in the marriage business to start with. I expect such justification would not make happy those who want something other than one male/one female marriage, at least if done honestly. And doing it honestly is the rub.
It would be a somewhat dangerous path to take, but less so than the one we are on now.
The US government is supposed to be supportive of a system which upholds social contracts which never trample on Human Rights and treat everyone as equal and use logic and reason with Natural Law Theory (which presupposes a Creator and a standard of right and wrong) to determine “Just Law”.
The fundamental purpose of a government based on Natural Law Theory such as the US is to ensure the best way to protect the fundamental duty and teleological design of human beings in a way in which they are able to best flourish and pursue a “happy” life. The biological connections of human beings is proven to be the most basic unit of all human societies by all anthropological studies (minus the fraud of Margaret Meade).
It was understood by the Founders—their philosophy which was adopted and built into the Constitution—that of Natural Law Theory—the understanding that we have Natural Rights also means that all human beings have duties—and human beings most important duty is to raise and care for their biological offspring which is why we have private property rights. Because of that we have devised a system of laws that enhance Natural Law. Just Law is that—Right Reason according to Nature.
What we have here is a deliberate destruction of Rule of Law—devolving into Rule of Man—where laws are arbitrarily made up based on “urges” and “needs” no matter how demeaning or dysfunctional which can never be “Just Law”.
Standards and rights (Supra Positive Law) is derived from God and it is His standards that have been used since the Founding of our country which are trying to be switched to man made up rules that actually defy human nature.
Which means that the most logical way and equal way to set up society which guarantees the Natural Right of children — to be raised by biological parents (proven as best and safest and happiest method by studies of Piaget, Erikson, Freud) — is the Marriage of a woman and man who do their God-given duty of raising their biological offspring so that they have a chance of growing into loving, responsible adults.
Dalrymple, the psychiatrist in England, documents the destruction of children when the biological parents never marry. If the kids do survive to adulthood, they are drug addicts, gang members and/or on well fare or in prison or mental hospitals. Suicide rates soar.
Nuclear families are a necessity for economic stability, if we denormalize families, that will only lead to a further expansion of the welfare state.
In any case the goal is to try and avoid the plural wives and their kids from swelling the already swollen welfare rolls. Polygamy can only work among a farming or pastoral people. It will not work in an urban environment.
It is precisely this sort of breezy, relativist idealism that has allowed the redefinition of the word "marriage" to even be considered in the first place.
Do you not see that?
“Kody Brown poses with his wives Janelle, Christine, Meri, and Robyn”
Take out the garbage, Take out the garbage, Take out the garbage, Take out the garbage..
You never take me anywhere, You never take me anywhere, You never take me anywhere, You never take me anywhere...
She’s my mother and she will stay this weekend, She’s my mother and she will stay this weekend, She’s my mother and she will stay this weekend, She’s my mother and she will stay this weekend...
You get the idea
1. Can you substantiate the assertion that “Nuclear families are a necessity for economic stability”?
2. What is there in that position that precludes same sex or polygamous marriage?
“Do you not see that?”
For the sake of argument if nothing else: No.
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.
They’ll get zot on sight or hanged in Ft Smith at Judge Parker’s convenience.
Thank you, sir.
“It never sways squishy softheads.”
Yet, apparently, you keep using it. That speaks more to the hardness of your head than the softness of other heads.
“Has it swayed you?”
You offered nothing that would sway me or any other thinking person.
It was not a plan, merely a thought expressed publically. In my lifetime American morals have completely collapsed. It is not that we did not have immoral behavior; but it was not extensively embraced as a “good thing.” I do not see anyone having effective powers of resistance. So it may be best to adapt to the rot and try to control the acting out.
Experience both here and in Britain shows that the incidence of unmarried motherhood is reduced when the benefits are reduced. Even welfare-class people are not totally irrational. They can follow the money just like smarter and better-educated folks. What takes pure moral fiber is NOT following the money, but choosing to do right even when it costs more.
Have you considered investing in a helmet?
I don't believe it's “exactly right” that it would necessarily “only lead to a further expansion of the welfare state”. They'd just have to develop different laws and rationale for those laws, in order to accomplish the same goals without expansion.
“Kris & Gondring, if you “get govt out of the marriage license biz,” then you've got to simultaneously shut down the entire welfare system.”
1. I don't see why.
2. Do you think that's a bad thing? A lot of Conservatives think Government should be less involved in that kind of thing anyhow, that charity should be private.
“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.”
1. There used to be such a thing as a “Bastardy Bond” by which the father had to ensure that the support of those born out of wedlock did not fall to the government. I don't recall exactly how that worked though.
2. The government is already involved in being the “back-up” safety valve system for broken families, including families in which the father or fathers never really took part. Some say the government facilitates broken families and doesn't recognize or heed the vested interest of which you write.
3. I do not advocate an “anything goes” society. Similar to what I wrote above, they'd have to develop different laws to accomplish the same goals regarding children, property rights, responsibilities, and accountability of those involved (to include deadbeat parents).
All my lib friends told me I was paranoid when I told them this would happen. I’m going to make them all buy me dinner, and bring presents when my wife and I marry our cat, Jesus.
“in Germany, you can have a church wedding without a civil marriage.”
I believe you’ve got that backwards. In Germany you must get the civil marriage BEFORE the church wedding.
Fight to win. Then win.
Then take no prisoners, exile the survivors, notch their earlobes, and get their passports.
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.