Skip to comments.Polygamists Celebrate Supreme Courtís Marriage Ruling: "Nuclear family not the majority anymore"
Posted on 06/30/2013 7:59:28 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The Supreme Courts rulings in favor of same-sex marriage Wednesday were greeted with excitement by polygamists across the country, who viewed the gay rights victory as a crucial step toward the countrys inevitable acceptance of plural marriage.
Anne Wilde, a vocal advocate for polygamist rights who practiced the lifestyle herself until her husband died in 2003, praised the courts decision as a sign that societys stringent attachment to traditional family values is evolving.
I was very glad The nuclear family, with a dad and a mom and two or three kids, is not the majority anymore, said Wilde. Now its grandparents taking care of kids, single parents, gay parents. I think people are more and more understanding that as consenting adults, we should be able to raise a family however we choose.
Were very happy with it, said Joe Darger, a Utah-based polygamist who has three wives. I think [the court] has taken a step in correcting some inequality, and thats certainly something thats going to trickle down and impact us.
Noting that the court found the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional because the law denied marriage rights to a specific class of people, Darger said, Our very existence has been classified as criminal and I think the government needs to now recognize that we have a right to live free as much as anyone else.
Gay rights advocates have long sought to distance themselves from polygamists in order to undermine social conservatives slippery-slope argument, as articulated on Twitter Wednesday by talk radio host Bryan Fischer: The DOMA ruling has now made the normalization of polygamy, pedophilia, incest and bestiality inevitable. Matter of time.
But polygamists in the United States, where bigamy is a crime, have taken cues from the marriage equality movement, and the few public champions of the lifestyle have deliberately positioned themselves as libertarian-minded gay rights advocates as well. Following gay rights activists lead, polygamist families like the Browns, with their TLC reality show Sister Wives, and the Dargers, who came out with a book last year have come forward to convince the American public that their lifestyle can be wholesome and normal.
The key difference in their missions, Wilde said, is that gays want legal marriage and polygamists dont they just want their lifestyle to be decriminalized.
If you legalize plural marriage, that means the government is going to control certain aspects of it, Wilde reasoned. They might say, you have to make so much money, you cant have any more than four like it says in the Koran.
Still, she said the courts decision would only help polygamists cause.
Im not a fortune-teller, but it seems like if more people are accepting of gay marriage, it would follow that polygamist marriage wouldnt be criticized quite so much.
But some polygamists were trying to temper their enthusiasm Wednesday.
I do see this as a positive step toward recognizing the civil rights of the plural culture to make their lifestyle choices without being branded as criminals, said Marlyne Hammon, a practicing polygamist. We are still in the trenches facing the reality of stubborn, unjust laws, so we are cautious about breaking out the champagne just yet.
I can’t wait to hear the homosexualists explain why polygamy is not OK.
The sheep appear nervous.
Boy, this slope seems to be on the slippery side.
They will explain why it is okay...
I don’t think so. They will see it as empowering heterosexual males.
The slope is more like a cliff.
Any word from NAMBLA yet?
I guess narcissists and multiple-personality-disorder people can marry themselves, too.
It will allow them to have multiple spouses, too...
They will be lining up for it...
Got that on a news story today “they were not born that way”, “it’s not the same”.
You mean multiple sex partners? They have that anyway.
It’s not the same. The big deal is having it legalized. To shove it in the mainstream society’s face. To make the mainstream society support it as a legitimate marriage with benefits.
“It is everlasting wrath. It would be dreadful to suffer this fierceness and wrath of Almighty God one moment; but you must suffer it to all eternity. There will be no end to this exquisite horrible misery. When you look forward, you shall see a long for ever, a boundless duration before you, which will swallow up your thoughts, and amaze your soul; and you will absolutely despair of ever having any deliverance, any end, any mitigation, any rest at all. You will know certainly that you must wear out long ages, millions of millions of ages, in wrestling and conflicting with this almighty merciless vengeance; and then when you have so done, when so many ages have actually been spent by you in this manner, you will know that all is but a point to what remains. So that your punishment will indeed be infinite. Oh, who can express what the state of a soul in such circumstances is! All that we can possibly say about it, gives but a very feeble, faint representation of it; it is inexpressible and inconceivable: For ‘who knows the power of God’s anger?’” - Jonathan Edwards
Didn’t take long, did it?
they are the majority, the majority just got bitch-slapped by an imperial judiciary of five liberal judges.
Never does take long for the vultures to descend upon a rotting corpse... What is happening to our country?!
Well, let's see: The Utah Mormons said in 1830 (in Book of Mormon)...
...that polygamy was an "abomination"
...Then, the following year, when Joseph Smith's schemes started in on bedding a 16 yo housekeeper...polygamy secretly "evolved" to being an "in" thing...
...Then, Smith began greatly accruing multiple wives in the early 1840s...
...and getting some of his fellow leaders to do the same...
...and then polygamy "evolved" within Mormondom so that between the 1850s and 1880s, Lds leaders were expected to have multiple wives -- touting that it was a condition of the highest degree of afterlife glory...
...and then the "brakes" began to be applied to Mormon polygamy in 1890 -- de-evolving...
...and by the early 1900s, few such unions were being secretly solemnized by Lds leaders anymore...
By 1945, the last MAINSTREAM Lds polygamous "prophet" had passed on...
And polygamy for the mainstream Mormons had been fully relegated to (a) the afterlife; and (b) When the Mormon Jesus returns.
And so...just because groups like the mainstream and non-mainstream Mormons have attacked in ALL THREE last centuries (21st, 20th, 19th) the institution of monogamy, that we have to let the marriage evolutionists dictate to everybody else what marriage is?
Here is the libertarian position on all this gay marriage, homosexual military, homosexual immigration, adoption, polygamy stuff.
It is why you are hearing more and more GOP rinos going libertarian.
1.3 Personal Relationships (libertarian)
Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the governments treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.
Polygamy would be bad and in many ways much worse than homosexual marriages.
Polygamy would turn our country from a Constitutional Republic to a Patriarchal Oligarchy of sorts complete with aristocrats and peasants.
> I cant wait to hear the homosexualists explain why polygamy is not OK.
Or why two brothers can’t “marry,” or a mother and daughter, etc. Pass the popcorn.
Brevity is the soul of wit -- William Shakespeare.
Sorry, can't get through the first sentence of your quote.
The quote is too esoteric for this forum. Perhaps apt for say a advanced theology class.
Here's an example of a great quote that captures everything, including the readers attention.
"God knows everything" -- Psalms 139.
This is true and correct and the way it should be ... but you have to add to it first.
Society is entitled to it's own agenda. Government has no business enforcing tolerances for the intolerable or vice-versa.
If you support that agenda, you have to be about as left as someone can get.
You are also throwing out America and turning it into something that again, only a lefty could love.
Yo Ho Ho!!! And the goldfish are next!
So you think the Government should enforce social standards on society?
Cause I think they shouldn’t — and that ain’t liberal.
So re-read what I wrote and make sure you understand what people are saying before replying.
What’s the Reformed Egyptian translation of “Tribal Fragmentation”?
"According to my opinion, and the opinions of many defectors of my caliber, only about 15% of time, money, and manpower is spent on espionage as such. The other 85% is a slow process which we call either ideological subversion, active measures, or psychological warfare. What it basically means is: to change the perception of reality of every American that despite of the abundance of information no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interest of defending themselves, their families, their community, and their country.It's a great brainwashing process which goes very slow and is divided into four basic stages.The first stage being "demoralization".It takes from 15 to 20 years to demoralize a nation. Why that many years? Because this is the minimum number of years required to educate one generation of students in the country of your enemy exposed to the ideology of [their] enemy. In other words, Marxism-Leninism ideology is being pumped into the soft heads of at least 3 generation of American students without being challenged or counterbalanced by the basic values of Americanism; American patriotism. "--KGB Defector Yuri Bezmenov--Soviet Subversion of the Free Press (Ideological subversion, Destabilization, CRISIS - and the KGB)
Your post speaks for itself, supporting that radical homosexual agenda, is as lefty as it gets.
Homosexuality “should have no impact on the governments treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws.”
So what - we're not going to have children, and they're the only ones hurt by incest. If I could legally marry my father, perhaps I could avoid some inheritance taxes. Who are liberals to question who I love in a committed relationship? Who knows me better than my father, and will take better care of me?
This isn't the slippery slop - it's a cliff.
Very good. We need more preaches like Jonathan Edwards today.
The ultimate goal of the homosexualist/polygamnist/incestuous /zoophilia/etc. crowd is the complete obliteration of the natural/traditional and replace it with the government-
The ultimate goal of the homosexualist/polygamnist/incestuous /zoophilia/etc. crowd is the complete obliteration of the natural/traditional family and replace it with the government-
THE BOOK OF JACOB
THE BROTHER OF NEPHICHAPTER 224 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.
26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.
27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;
28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.
30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.
31 For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands.
32 And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts.
Or even HERE:
1 Timothy 3:2-3
2. Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
3. not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.1 Timothy 3:12
A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well.Titus 1:6
An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient.
DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS
OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTSSECTION 1325157, Emma Smith is counseled (commanded) to be faithful and true; 5866, Laws governing the plurality of wives are set forth.51 Verily, I say unto you: A commandment I give unto mine handmaid, Emma Smith, your wife, whom I have given unto you, that she stay herself and partake not of that which I commanded you to offer unto her; for I did it, saith the Lord, to aprove you all, as I did Abraham, and that I might require an offering at your hand, by covenant and sacrifice.52 And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, areceive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph, and who are virtuous and pure before me; and those who are not pure, and have said they were pure, shall be destroyed, saith the Lord God.53 For I am the Lord thy God, and ye shall obey my voice; and I give unto my servant Joseph that he shall be made ruler over many things; for he hath been afaithful over a few things, and from henceforth I will strengthen him.55 But if she will not abide this commandment, then shall my servant Joseph do all things for her, even as he hath said; and I will bless him and multiply him and give unto him an ahundredfold in this world, of fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, houses and lands, wives and children, and crowns of beternal lives in the eternal worlds.
Let me make it clear to you. See what box I checked below.
[ ] — It’s the government’s job to regulate ordinary sexual matters between consenting adults. It’s the government business and I trust our elected politicians implicitly and forfeit my rights to them.
[x] — It’s *NOT* the government’s job to regulate ordinary sexual matters between consenting adults. <—— period
Now what box are you going to check. The Fascist ultra-liberal box of #1, or the Conservative libertarian box of #2?
On the contrary, Edwards is always welcome reading, and in this case spot-on. Jonathan Edwards lived long before the era of the vacouus sound-bite and the shrunken attention span. We should not encourage either of those things: they are tools of the enemy.
Concur on MOST, the (L) party is pretty damn close to 100% in my book. I will point the one part that SHOULD matter...the children.
Genetics being the only factor that SHOULD matter, as it’s the only way to bring a child into being....How does one gel with in-vitro/etc.?
There can be no doubt that the nuclear family is the greatest institution to bring up a child. It is not perfect, nothing is. Means mother/father.
But how to make that jive? Can’t force them to stay together, but they ARE their responsibility to raise, educate, etc.
Don’t have the answers, and those, to me are sticking points (but not deal breakers against the (L) party).
I hope that makes you feel better about it...
I check the box against homosexuals in the military, homosexual marriage benefits in the military, homosexual marriage and adoption, and not taking it into consideration in custody cases.
So in your lefty world, one embraces the left’s homosexual agenda, or else they are “fascists”, fascinating.
I want to marry my dogs and claim them as deductions. Just marriage! No sex!
Like I said, you’re a fascist of the liberal kind. Just like Mayor Bloomberg. You want the government to legislate sexual preferences and dictate our moral values. You’re just unhappy because the current government chose to legislate the side that you’re not on.
You wouldn’t be required to marry a b*tch, just any old dog will now work under Obama’s way.
Anyone promoting homosexual marriage and homosexualizing the military and adoption and immigration has no moral values.
You have no morals then because you agree in the principles that the government is using to do exactly that.
I’m not sure what your ramblings are about, other than to know that even though you just won gays in the military, gay marriage accepted by the federal government and the military, and in immigration, you still are ranting at Christians and conservatives for even daring to try to prevent this change in federal law.
So, are people who oppose same-sex marriage fascists?
It might be fun to start collecting how many times I get called “facist” for opposing gay marriage.
Here is another. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3037789/posts?page=40#40
Wow. It is hard to believe that so many FReepers are social libs. Why bother coming here?
Yup. She just made herself impervious from attack by the leftards by waving around the koranimal's guide to better killing.