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

Skip to comments.

Beck, Marriage and The State of The Union
Townhall,com ^ | December 8, 2012 | Ken Blackwell

Posted on 12/08/2012 5:28:00 AM PST by Kaslin

My buddy, Glenn Beck, has made a great contribution to the TEA party movement and to a renewal of popular interest in our Founding Fathers and their ideals. For all that he deserves praise.

But, I believe, he is making a serious error in abandoning the civil right of marriage. The Republican Party was founded in opposition to two historic wrongs. The party’s first platform in 1856 denounced “slavery and polygamy—the twin relics of barbarism.” Slavery was finally put down with a terrible toll—630,000 Americans dead in the Civil War. The new movie, Lincoln, tells the dramatic story of the Thirteenth Amendment to abolish slavery.

Polygamy was successfully fought with laws. Throughout the latter third of the nineteenth century, Republican presidents and Republican Congresses fought against this relic of barbarism. President Rutherford B. Hayes called upon Congress to make it a law for the western territories: an American must take an oath he is not a polygamist before he could vote for statehood, before he could even serve on a jury! That’s a pretty strong stance for marriage.

Faced with this unyielding opposition, the Mormon Church wisely reconsidered its position on polygamy. Mormons desperately wanted to be included in the American Union. They were willing to give up a sincerely held tenet of their new religion in order to gain acceptance.

This turnabout led to one of the funniest episodes in congressional history. When Church Elder Reed Smoot was elected by Utah to serve in the U.S. Senate, he was vigorously opposed. Critics said that even though Smoot was not a polygamist himself, he had strongly supported polygamy as one of the Mormon Council of Twelve. Idaho Sen. William E. Borah, a fellow Republican and also a Mormon with only one wife, rose to argue for seating Smoot. “I would rather serve in this august body with a polygamist who doesn’t polyg than with a monogamist who doesn’t monog.” Smoot was seated. Washington scuttlebutt had it that T.R.’s daughter, Alice Roosevelt Longworth, was only with difficulty dissuaded from naming her newborn daughter Deborah (from Borah).

The LDS Church has since become a mainstay of support for traditional marriage. BYU Family Science Ph.D.s have provided some of the best scholarship supporting the tradition family. They clearly understand the difficulties that arise for the dignity and standing of women—and especially the hardships for children—that stem from plural marriage.

Glenn should have been at the Newseum four years ago. There, before an overflow crowd, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley said: “I know opponents of gay marriage say it will lead to polygamy. Well, I’m for that.”

Turley’s shocking comments were wildly cheered by the room full of journalists, liberal congressional aides, and federal law clerks. True to his word, Prof. Turley has gone to court trying to overturn bans on polygamy.

Glenn told an interviewer: “The question is not whether gay people should be married or not, the question is why is the government involved in our marriage.”

Okay, it’s a civil question that deserves a civil answer: Children need and children have a right to the married love of a mother and father. Every reputable social science study shows that children do best when they have a loving, married mother and father in the home. They have better outcomes for health, education, and welfare. Children of married parents are less likely to commit crimes, far less likely to be victims of violence and sexual abuse, far less likely to fail in school, far less likely to drop out, use drugs, get pregnant out of wedlock.

If we care about children and the future of this nation, we cannot casually dismiss the institution of marriage.

Secretary Tim Geithner certainly understands the fiscal impact of out-of-wedlock births. Liberal that he is, Geithner said we cannot cut Medicaid spending—the main driver of deficits—because forty percent of all children born today are eligible for Medicaid. He means the 41% born out of wedlock.

Married parents want to care for their own children. They usually do not want the Nanny State. Single parents and cohabiting parents are often forced to rely on government assistance.

If you want Socialism, abolish marriage. If you want “Julia” to be the future of America, vote against the civil institution of marriage. Julia, of course, was the Obama campaign team’s fictional single woman target voter. Julia goes from Head Start to college, parenthood, to retirement in a seamless web of dependency on government. She decides to have a child at age 29. No man in her life is even hinted at—no husband, no father, no brother, not even a male friend or business partner. Except one. The One: Mr. Federal Government.

It's hard to understand why anyone would want to end traditional marriage. It’s the HOV lane to the Welfare State. Why any conservative, libertarian, or Republican would want to advance this process is a mystery.

Hollywood star Mae West was certainly no model for married life. WWII sailors called their buoyant life jackets their Mae Wests. But Mae West was onto something when she said: “Marriage is a great institution. I’m just not ready for an institution.”

I invite Glenn to spend just one hour with the Family Research Council’s Marriage and Religion Research Institute’s (MARRI) scholars. They are his type of intellectuals, and I think he would be moved by their body of work

Traditional marriage is a great institution. And it’s never been in greater danger.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS: beck; faithandfamily; gaymarriage; glennbeck; homosexualagenda; marriage; polygamy; turley
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-74 next last

1 posted on 12/08/2012 5:28:09 AM PST by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Glenn has looked at the numbers and is going along to get along.

There is no such thing as gay marriage. They may make it legal but it is only a farce.Treat it as such.

NEVER accept it.


2 posted on 12/08/2012 5:41:06 AM PST by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Great Read!

Traditional marriage is one of the few area’s that government should be involved in.

3 posted on 12/08/2012 5:45:05 AM PST by Coldwater Creek (He who dwells in the shelter of the Most High will rest in the shadows of the Almighty Psalm 91:)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

God gave us a promise in 11 Corinthians 7:14. We casually say, “GOD Bless America”...only to just live our lives casually without being true to His Word.

Unless Christians wake up and turn to God through Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior, turn from our wicked ways we will continue to live without God healing our land. It starts with individuals and goes up to God not the other way around.

Sad thing is we have got a Supreme Court and lower courts that are redefining the law of the land AND going against laws that a majority have voted to uphold all the while a warring minority decide to disavow.


4 posted on 12/08/2012 5:46:03 AM PST by YouGoTexasGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Venturer

a farce

Indeed.
It’s just laughable!


5 posted on 12/08/2012 5:47:19 AM PST by FES0844
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: YouGoTexasGirl
The problem is way too many apathetic Christians. I was not a great fan of Jerry Falwell, but we sure could use him now.
6 posted on 12/08/2012 5:53:05 AM PST by Coldwater Creek (He who dwells in the shelter of the Most High will rest in the shadows of the Almighty Psalm 91:)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Children need and children have a right to the married love of a mother and father.

Where is this in the Constitution?

Where is "marriage" in the Constitution?

7 posted on 12/08/2012 5:54:54 AM PST by DTogo (High time to bring back the Sons of Liberty !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: YouGoTexasGirl
AND going against laws that a majority have voted to uphold

Four states had gay marriage measures on their ballots last month.

Three voted to allow it. The fourth voted against prohibiting it.

8 posted on 12/08/2012 5:58:39 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Coldwater Creek

Exactly


9 posted on 12/08/2012 6:01:33 AM PST by Kaslin ( One Big Ass Mistake America (Make that Two))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: YouGoTexasGirl

Very well said


10 posted on 12/08/2012 6:03:11 AM PST by Kaslin ( One Big Ass Mistake America (Make that Two))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DTogo
Where is "marriage" in the Constitution?

Heck, I'm still trying to figure out where liberals found sodomy in the Constitution.

11 posted on 12/08/2012 6:08:32 AM PST by deoetdoctrinae (Gun free zones are playgrounds for felons.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: DTogo

Are you saying just because it is not in the Constitution children do not need and do not have the right to the love of a married father and father? It sure looks that way


12 posted on 12/08/2012 6:08:44 AM PST by Kaslin ( One Big Ass Mistake America (Make that Two))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Nobody is making the essential legal argument...

Reynolds v. United States (1878) defined marriage as one man and one woman.


13 posted on 12/08/2012 6:12:04 AM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood ("Arjuna, why have you have dropped your bow???")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I’m most ignorant about Mormonism. I’m not sure I’ve ever even known a Mormon.

Can someone point me to the place in the Bible where having multiple wives is sanctioned? (I’m not a Biblical scholar, either.......)


14 posted on 12/08/2012 6:12:16 AM PST by basil (Second Amendment Sisters.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: basil
Can someone point me to the place in the Bible where having multiple wives is sanctioned?

Try the entire OT. History of Abraham and Jacob, etc.

15 posted on 12/08/2012 6:14:15 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: deoetdoctrinae
Heck, I'm still trying to figure out where liberals found sodomy in the Constitution.

There are a lot of things Liberals want to imply are in the Constitution or covered under some completely unrelated Right or clause. Conservatives should not engage in the same re-interpretation game.

Marriage is not mentioned, defined, or specified as a Right in the Constitution. The Government should stay out of it and not provide special benefits, services, or tax rates to Citizens/residents based on their state of singlehood, co-habitation, or wedlock.

16 posted on 12/08/2012 6:23:16 AM PST by DTogo (High time to bring back the Sons of Liberty !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: DTogo

The government got into the marriage business in the 1920’s. It’s really none of their business, just another way to raise more money and regulate the people. Before this it was generally through a church.

Oh ya, it was originally to stop mixed race marriages, from Wikipedia- In the 1920s, they were used by 38 states to prohibit whites from marrying blacks, mulattos, Japanese, Chinese, Indians, Mongolians, Malays or Filipinos without a state approved license.

Gotta love progressivism.


17 posted on 12/08/2012 6:28:01 AM PST by foundedonpurpose (It's time for a fundamental restoration, of our country's principles!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Are you saying just because it is not in the Constitution children do not need and do not have the right to the love of a married father and father?

Marriage is not the Government's business to encourage or enforce.

And no, children don't have a legal or human "right" to the love of a married mother/father or any other numerical multiple thereof. If so, children could sue their biological parents who never marry, divorce, or re-marry as a violation of their "right."

The Government is failing miserably to uphold and defend the actual Rights we do have. Let's not imply rights as part of a fictional "social contract" for Govt to waste scarce time and resources on.

18 posted on 12/08/2012 6:38:10 AM PST by DTogo (High time to bring back the Sons of Liberty !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
Can someone point me to the place in the Bible where having multiple wives is sanctioned?

Try the entire OT. History of Abraham and Jacob, etc.


NOWHERE in the Old Testament did God sanction multiple wives. Men did it in their own disobedience.
19 posted on 12/08/2012 6:41:25 AM PST by time4good
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Venturer

“There is no such thing as gay marriage.” — Exactly. It is, as you say, a farce. Like someone saying “I’m a horse,” and expecting others to affirm such silliness.


20 posted on 12/08/2012 6:41:35 AM PST by Theo (May Christ be exalted above all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Coldwater Creek

My argument is this.

Marriage between one law is part of the English common law.

Along with Habeaus Corpus and trial by jury. It is just as much a cornerstone of the English Common law, as the other two. You can’t take a leg off a three-legged stool and have it stand. Nor can you take away marriage and keep the other two.


21 posted on 12/08/2012 6:45:21 AM PST by JCBreckenridge (Texas is a state of mind. - John Steinbeck :))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

Sorry, but WRONG. Polygamy was never “sanctioned” in the Old Or New Testament. If you got that it was PLEASE reconsider. The Patriachs “indulged” in it but even a casual glance by a believer shows that the ills we face TODAY or a result of their (mis)deeds.


22 posted on 12/08/2012 6:46:55 AM PST by wastoute (Government cannot redistribute wealth. Government can only redistribute poverty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: time4good

More accurately, in the early part of the OT polygamy was just taken for granted.

While the Law may not have sanctioned it, I am also unaware of anywhere it was prohibited. In fact, it has sections whereby it is regulated.

Many of God’s favorite people were polygamists: Abraham, Jacob, Judah, David, Solomon, etc. He did not cut them off from his favor for this.

As I said above, it was just taken for granted as a part of life. Not encouraged, but also not prohibited, and not an inkling given that it was sinful.


23 posted on 12/08/2012 6:48:39 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

“funniest episode” ???

Smoot lied like a dog under oath at the hearings about Mormonism and about what he believed and practiced...

and then there was the Mormon polygamist Brigham Henry Roberts who was elected as a Demoocrat in 1898 to Congress from Utah but never managed to get seated...

petitions with SEVEN MILLION signatures were sent to Washington from angry Christians around the country...

They didnt want an immoral polygamist from being able to pass laws for the rest of the nation..

Funnny how the author didnt mention BH Roberts...


24 posted on 12/08/2012 6:50:01 AM PST by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Venturer

Treat it as a farce at your own peril.

The whole point of State recognition of marriage is to FORCE the State to reccognize our union of marriage and to KEEP THEM OUT OF IT!

It grants automatic child custody, inheritance, power-of-attorny recognition that makes it possible for the 99+% of normal people out there to live there lives and raise their families WITHOUT the continual intrusion of the State.

Drop State recognition of marriage, and you will have to PROVE that your children are yours. In fact, it won’t matter if you can prove it, because children will have to be raised according to State guidlines, once gay adoption has made it necessary - and we ALL have to participate in order to be FAIR, don’t we?

This issue needs to be confronted by Conservatives in a way that combats the spin. State recognition of traditional marriage is what keeps it TRADITIONAL - i.e. Private, religious (at our choice) and outside of Government’s hands.

If Sodomites, or any other fringe social groups want to try to create their own social institutions which they think have merit and force the State to recognize them, let them go for it. It will not, however, be marriage, and should not interfer in the freedoms from State intrusion which married people have already established for themselves.


25 posted on 12/08/2012 6:50:15 AM PST by Empire_of_Liberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

I meant of course mother and father. I hope that this is clear


26 posted on 12/08/2012 6:57:14 AM PST by Kaslin ( One Big Ass Mistake America (Make that Two))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

In fact, the Bible doesn’t specifically prohibit polygamy in the New Testament either.


27 posted on 12/08/2012 7:08:30 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin; DTogo; Cincinatus' Wife

When Ken says “children have a right to ... “, I maintain he is talking about what is moral under Judeo-Christian values. It can also be argued from a common-sense, observational standpoint that societies that do not properly parent their own young bring down the worst results upon themselves. But although I see some elements of that observation in Ken’s article, I believe in that sentence he is speaking morally, not constitutionally or legally. No other interpretation makes sense of his statement there.

Our Founders deliberately left many moral underpinnings unstated in our Constitution. But if you doubt they understood the essentiality of Judeo-Christian principles, you wouldn’t be able to put two-and-two together to get four if your life depended on it. It is clear from history that they perfectly well understood it. They were setting up a governmental system that would - they hoped and prayed - avert despotism and unbridled use and abuse of centralized power, while adding a Bill of (individual) Rights.

But they understood that only a moral and religious people would be capable of maintaining that system, and a decent and workable society. And a foreigner, de Toqueville, stated upon observation, “America is great because America is good. If America ceases to be good, it will cease to be great”.

What happens to children in society is absolutely critical. I say the bedrock of THAT is morality. And that is what Ken is arguing. He is arguing that Beck, who bases many of his conclusions on a moral basis, errs and is inconsistent when he drops morality when it comes to this society’s view of marriage and children.

Personally I think Ken’s point is a no-brainer. We are reaping the bitter harvest now of leaving the Judeo-Christian moral system. It will also cause us to lose our freedoms. The people who are too dumbed-down and too self-absorbed to see or care what the Left is doing to this nation are primarily people who disavow this moral undperpinning.

Libertarians stand off to the side and take a more abstracted position on these matters. The rest of us are living the nightmare of a people who are ceding their American birthright to a big-daddy government and who think “the rich” can and should pay for THEM and want that “big daddy government” to get even bigger and more powerful in order to EFFECT that. This same force has destroyed the traditional family and family values. They act simultaneously and have become almost one and the same.

Except of course, for Libertarianism which abstracts itself out and goes “nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah” at us from off to the side...


28 posted on 12/08/2012 7:15:17 AM PST by txrangerette ("hold to the truth...speak without fear". (Glenn Beck))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: foundedonpurpose

Interesting. Would you happen to have a link to your sources? Thanks.


29 posted on 12/08/2012 7:18:04 AM PST by DTogo (High time to bring back the Sons of Liberty !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

When one endorses or ignores poor behavior you get much more of it.


30 posted on 12/08/2012 7:29:22 AM PST by vicar7 ("Polls are for strippers and cross-country skiers" Sarah Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan; Cincinatus' Wife

Is their a NT verse that says “thou shalt not engage in polygamy?” or the equivilant?

No.

But can you read and comprehend what the NT does say when it references marriage? If you can, then you cannot in good faith state that one man, one woman marriage is untaught in the NT. It clearly is taught because when reference is made to God’s institution of marriage throughout the NT the context is that of a husband-wife, husband-wife, husband wife.

NOT husband-wives, husband-wives, husband-wives.

THere are many, but to me the most telling teaching in regard to the NT view of marriage is the teaching that Christ and his Church have the same spiritual relationship to one another that a husband and wife physically have to one another. The Church is represented spiritually as the Bride of Christ. Christ is represented as the Church’s husband. Christ is true to his bride, so much so that he gave up his own life on the Cross to save his church. And the church is to be faithful to her husband, Christ, or else it will become like an unfaithful wife is to her husband.

There are many other references all of which depict a husband and a wife, not a husband and wives.

Anyone who cannot learn from the context of biblical writings but believes you must have a verse that states in exact human wording what the prohibition is, does not understand the most simple concept relative to finding what the bible teaches on a subject.


31 posted on 12/08/2012 7:30:06 AM PST by txrangerette ("hold to the truth...speak without fear". (Glenn Beck))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette
Agreed. A people with no moral compass will elect leaders/representatives who also lack the same, and together they shall wander.

The bottom line is still that the US Govt cannot nor should it legislate "morality" nor be involved in the personal behavior (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) of its citizens, which includes marriage or the absence thereof. IMHO.

32 posted on 12/08/2012 7:37:54 AM PST by DTogo (High time to bring back the Sons of Liberty !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
This is a classic libertarian position, like legalizing pot and other recreational drugs. It's a nutty, absolutist thinking and quite common among libertarians--no government regulation and interference, completely ignoring the thousands of years of tradition that might be there for a really good reason.

And this is why I am a conservative.

33 posted on 12/08/2012 7:39:21 AM PST by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
"While the Law may not have sanctioned it, I am also unaware of anywhere it was prohibited. In fact, it has sections whereby it is regulated.

Many of God’s favorite people were polygamists: Abraham, Jacob, Judah, David, Solomon, etc. He did not cut them off from his favor for this."

All we need to do is look at God's original design for marriage, which was one woman for one man. In Genesis, He said He would make a helpmeet--singular---for Adam. Not a couple or a few of them.

The Bible says that God hates divorce, yet sinful human beings disobeyed His intentions there, as well. So He provided guidelines to be used in the event of divorce, knowing that man would continue to distort His will for marriage.

Deuteronomy 17:17 specifically forbids Israel's kings to take multiple wives. Also, polygamy is addressed in Malachi 2.

As for the men you call God's favorite people, they were all sinners, like the rest of us, and some of their sins were described in the Bible. David was an adulterer and a murderer, but neither was sanctioned by God. His grace and love is given in spite of our sins.

34 posted on 12/08/2012 7:39:57 AM PST by CatherineofAragon (Support Christian white males---the architects of the jewel known as Western Civilization)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette

I do not believe that Bible (NT) allows a Christian to commit polygamy.

My response was strictly to those who claim that since the OT does not specifically endorse polygamy, it thereby prohibits it.

It seems perfectly clear to me that polygamy in at least the earlier part of OT was just an accepted part of life. In the NT it is equally clear that it is not accepted, although slavery still is.


35 posted on 12/08/2012 7:47:03 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
I don't think this is the religion section, a place I avoid on FR. So I can tell you frankly that your understanding of the Bible is shallow, self-serving and all wet.

Divorce, as an institution, Jesus told us frankly that God tolerated it because "your hearts were hard." It was certainly not his plan, and marrying after divorcing a wife make adulterers of all concern.

If you are an adulterer after divorcing a wife and marrying another, you are clearly an adulterer if you marry more than one at the same time. Deacons were supposed to be a man who had only one wife, so clearly monogamy was a value. It just was not a value men could respect when they wanted to abandon the first wife and find one younger.

You shouldn't take as a moral example David, Abraham, etc because while they were loved and found favor, were all capable of the same sin we are all capable of and their examples of failure make up most of the stories in the OT. Sarah's promotion of Hagar was in disobedience to prophesy of angels--and we're still paying the price with Ishmael's descendants who are as numerous as the grains of sand in the desert.

36 posted on 12/08/2012 7:47:45 AM PST by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: CatherineofAragon
David was an adulterer and a murderer, but neither was sanctioned by God.

Actually, the Bathsheba/Uriah incident supports my position.

Nathan goes to David with a story about a rich man who chooses not to use one of his many own sheep for dinner, but instead takes the pet lamb of a poor man and cooks it up.

There is not a hint here that the rich man is doing wrong because he has many sheep, only that it is wrong for him to take away that of the poor man.

IOW, David's polygamy is accepted as perfectly normal and unexceptional, while his adultery (and resulting murder) is condemned.

I have no problem with the claim that God's original intent was one man/one woman. I have a beef only with those who therefore claim that the OT didn't allow for polygamy, when it obviously did. These were just facts of life in the Middle East of the time, and were accepted as such by the Bible writers.

37 posted on 12/08/2012 7:57:11 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette

Genesis 2:24

“Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.”


38 posted on 12/08/2012 7:59:50 AM PST by PieterCasparzen (We have to fix things ourselves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan; time4good
Perhaps your not reading ALL of scripture?

1 Timothy 3:2, 12 "A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach. . . . Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well."

God ordained one man and one woman in the beginning.

Genesis 2: 20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. 21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Did you notice it didn’t say “wives”?

Polygamy started with the offspring of the first murderer. Those that were rebellious to God.

Genesis. 4: 16 And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. 17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch. 18 And unto Enoch was born Irad: and Irad begat Mehujael: and Mehujael begat Methusael: and Methusael begat Lamech. 19 And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.

God forbid kings to multiply wives. Deut. 17:14 When thou art come unto the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me; 15 Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother. 16 But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the Lord hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way. 17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.

Most men of God even in the Old Testament had only one wife. This is true for Adam (Gen. 2-4), Noah (Gen. 6:18), Isaac (Gen. 25:20-23), Joseph (Gen. 41:45), Moses (Exodus. 2:21), Boaz (Ruth. 4), Job (Job 1), Isaiah (Isa. 8:3), and Hosea (Hosea 3:1-3).

That should give you a good start on what God wanted and sanctioned. The ones who had multiple wives were living contrary to God's wishes and commands and it caused them problems.

39 posted on 12/08/2012 8:00:09 AM PST by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle

the thousands of years of tradition that might be there for a really good reason.

And this is why I am a conservative.

####

Me, too.

Bird’s nests and eggs are protected by modern conservationists so that the species will not become extinct. But human children are regarded by modern leftists as not needing the same kind of protection. The reason that the union of a man and a woman has been protected in law is so that the future generations of the human race will grow into civilized human beings.

Rinse and repeat, generation after generation, or sink into the alternative - where the entire country comes to replicate what has happened in many of our inner cities - where Big Daddy Government has become the support of the children there - and too many of these children to not grow into productive citizens.


40 posted on 12/08/2012 8:33:52 AM PST by maica
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: DTogo
Where is "marriage" in the Constitution?

The Constitution was not written to take the place of moral law, but to supplement it. In those days before both birth control and welfare, marriage was an economic as well as a social bedrock for the care of children. Now the economic part has been eroded by the government, and as a result, our society is sick and suffering.

As the Founders observed, our Constitution was written for a moral people. Once morality lodged in the individual through his or her own personal effort goes away, pffffft. It's all over but the shooting.

41 posted on 12/08/2012 8:40:29 AM PST by Albion Wilde (Government can’t redistribute talent, willpower, or intelligence, except through dictatorship.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: deoetdoctrinae

right next to government mandatory health care.


42 posted on 12/08/2012 8:40:29 AM PST by fish hawk (no tyrant can remain in power without the consent and cooperation of his victims.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: YouGoTexasGirl

You are correct. “Going over the fiscal” cliff will not be a collapse. When we can no longer borrow money, i.e., when the chickens come home to roost, that will be a collapse. If America does not repent and believe we are doomed.


43 posted on 12/08/2012 8:44:30 AM PST by rcofdayton (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: All

In the Old Testament, polygamy was always related to the influence of the world, the influence of apostasy. Even though God made provision within the Mosaic Law for taking care of multiple wives, that was in order to make sure that the second, third, fourth wives were taken care of and not just abandoned and abused. It wasn’t an approval or a prescription for polygamy.


44 posted on 12/08/2012 8:48:16 AM PST by onthelookout777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
In fact, the Bible doesn’t specifically prohibit polygamy in the New Testament either.

The Old Testament:

May your fountain be blessed, and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth. --Proverbs 5:18

Has not [the LORD] made them one? In flesh and spirit they are his. And why one? Because he was seeking godly offspring. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith with the wife of your youth. -- Malachi 2:15

In the New Testament, one-man-one-woman marriage is distinctly Christian. Paul made marriage to one woman a necessity for role models in a church:

A deacon must be faithful to his wife and must manage his children and his household well. --Timothy 3:12

45 posted on 12/08/2012 8:53:12 AM PST by Albion Wilde (Government can’t redistribute talent, willpower, or intelligence, except through dictatorship.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Albion Wilde

Nobody is making the essential legal argument...

Reynolds v. United States (1878) defined marriage as one man and one woman.


46 posted on 12/08/2012 8:56:02 AM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood ("Arjuna, why have you have dropped your bow???")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

Nobody is making the essential legal argument...

Reynolds v. United States (1878) defined marriage as one man and one woman.


47 posted on 12/08/2012 8:57:33 AM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood ("Arjuna, why have you have dropped your bow???")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan; Coldwater Creek; Kaslin; YouGoTexasGirl; DTogo; time4good; wastoute; txrangerette; ..
Jesus Christ is the Creator of the Universe (John 1:1 -5)

"...the same yesterday, today, and forever...." (Heb. 13:8)

New Testament v. Old Testament or Christian v. pre-Christian era is a false distinction.

He created Adam. How many wives did He create from that rib in Adam's side?

Speaking of Himself: "And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh' ? So they are no longer two, but one."" (Matt 19: 4-6)

Does the Creator of the Universe say united to his "wife" or "wives"?

God's patience with man's disobedience should not be interpreted by you as His endorsement of sin, or what defines what is His perfect will for man as He created him, designed him, and established the marriage relationship for him.

FReegards!


48 posted on 12/08/2012 8:57:52 AM PST by Agamemnon (Darwinism is the glue that holds liberalism together)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Agamemnon

Religion does not matter in court...

Reynolds v. United States in 1878 defined marriage as one man and one woman.


49 posted on 12/08/2012 9:05:56 AM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood ("Arjuna, why have you have dropped your bow???")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: basil

It is never sanctioned but you will find against Gods plan, men in the OT had multiple wives and let me tell you it caused them pain and headache.


50 posted on 12/08/2012 9:06:32 AM PST by ThisLittleLightofMine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-74 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