Skip to comments.A Ruling for Polygamy -- and Freedom
Posted on 01/05/2014 1:53:12 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
In modern America, sex is increasingly where it should be: outside the reach of government. Anti-sodomy statutes have been tossed by the Supreme Court. Contraception is widely accessible. Anyone with a computer can gorge on pornography without fear of prosecution.
Same-sex marriage has been legalized in 18 states and the District of Columbia. Now another step has been taken to expel police and legislators from the bedrooms of consenting adults: a federal court decision striking down a key element of Utah's ban on polygamy.
Last month, District Judge Clark Waddoups ruled that the law infringes not only on constitutionally protected sexual privacy but on the free exercise of religion. Utah, he concluded, doesn't have to issue multiple marriage licenses to Kody Brown and his consorts, who appear in the reality TV show "Sister Wives." But it can't dictate their living arrangements.
The group belongs to a renegade Mormon sect that regards polygamy as sanctioned by God. Brown is legally married to one of the women and "spiritually married" to the other three. Together, at last count, they have 17 children.
If a man and a woman want to live together and call themselves partners, buddies, teammates, friends with benefits or Bonnie and Clyde, the government will leave them alone. Ditto if a guy can entice several fertile females to shack up with him and spawn a noisy horde of offspring.
But in Utah, it matters what the man calls the women living with him. If he refers to them as wives, he can go to prison. The law covers not only formal polygamous marriage but any relationships in which a married person "purports to marry another person or cohabits with another person." That was the provision ruled unconstitutional....
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
How consenting adults choose to order their private lives is none of the States business. None whatsoever.
It was a trade off. The Federal government blackmailed the Utah territory in blatant violation of the First Amenedment.
Back when they only did that every blue moon. Now it’s pretty much on a daily basis, no?
Those that think this is all good do not understand the foundations of civilizations.
The most basic building block of any civilization is the family which for thousands of year has been one man and one woman, having and raising children.
What happens once a man no longer knows if a child is his or not? We really don’t have wonder, the experimenter that began in this nation with the Great Society has done a good job of creating generations without fathers.
All these changes with what makes a family does nothing but weakens our society.
There is a huge difference between the fit enjoyment of Liberty — and being a libertine.
Now the Mormons can could out of the closet and live their so called “first principle” out in the open...
In the Bible we can count 15 examples of polygamy from the time of Lamech to 931 A.D. 13 of these men had enough power that no one could call into question their practice, they were unaccountable or no one dared approach them. Lamech Genesis 4:19; Abraham Genesis 16; Esau Genesis 26:34; 28:9; Jacob Genesis 29:30; Ashur 1 Chronicles 4:5; Gideon Judges 8:30; Elkanah 1 Samuel 1:2; David 1 Samuel 25:39-44; 2 Samuel 3:2-5; 5:13; 1 Chronicles 14:3; Solomon 1 Kings 11:1-8; Rehoboam 2 Chronicles 11:18-23; Abijah 2 Chronicles 13:21; Jehoram 2 Chronicles 21:14; Joash 2 Chronicles 24:3; Ahab 2 Kings 10; Jehoiachin 2 Kings 24:15; Belshazzar Daniel 5:2; 1 Chronicles 2:8; Hosea in Hosea 3:1,2. Polygamy is mentioned in the Mosaic law and made inclusive on the basis of legislation, and continued to be practiced all down through the period of Jewish history to the Captivity, after which there is no instance of it on record (Gen.29:15-30, Jacob and his wives.)
No, the ruling does not allow polygamy or bigamy, it only keeps the state from prosecuting someone for mere cohabitation, like the other 49 states.
Free societies are free because they have a right to order their societies as they see fit, not according to the wishes of a tyrant.
It doesn’t mean anybody can do anything. If a murder cult claims religious freedom to kill anyone they feel like, are we bound to respect that?
Monogamy and marriage are social institutions arrived at because they create stable societies that are durable. All the other “-amys” - bigamy, polygamy, whatever - have been tried and lead to ugly, dysfunctional societies.
Conservatism supposedly recognizes this. And only fools tread where disaster has gone before.
The Mormons were going to end up being slaughtered by angry armies of men deprived of their wives and families when Mormon missionaries showed up in their towns 150 years ago. That’s why they had to stay on the move. Young could run around with his 56 wives but he had damn well better trained them to shoot, because there that many men and more who could shoot and would to get at a guy who tried to take us back to barbarian tribalism with the Big Man having all the women.
Polygamy is barbarian. Try it again and civil strife will be the result.
Please explain how the Bible discusses polygamy in 931 A.D.
Just what has changed in the nature of mankind, in the last 5,000 years, to make you think that?
Heck, a third of Hammurabi’s Code is devoted to matters of relationships.
Glad you asked!!
Read the following and see if YOU can find where the Mormon god told them to STOP polygamy.
To Whom It May Concern:
Press dispatches having been sent for political purposes, from Salt Lake City, which have been widely published, to the effect that the Utah Commission, in their recent report to the Secretary of the Interior, allege that plural marriages are still being solemnized and that forty or more such marriages have been contracted in Utah since last June or during the past year, also that in public discourses the leaders of the Church have taught, encouraged and urged the continuance of the practice of polygamy
I, therefore, as President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, do hereby, in the most solemn manner, declare that these charges are false. We are not teaching polygamy or plural marriage, nor permitting any person to enter into its practice, and I deny that either forty or any other number of plural marriages have during that period been solemnized in our Temples or in any other place in the Territory.
One case has been reported, in which the parties allege that the marriage was performed in the Endowment House, in Salt Lake City, in the Spring of 1889, but I have not been able to learn who performed the ceremony; whatever was done in this matter was without my knowledge. In consequence of this alleged occurrence the Endowment House was, by my instructions, taken down without delay.
Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise.
There is nothing in my teachings to the Church or in those of my associates, during the time specified, which can be reasonably construed to inculcate or encourage polygamy; and when any Elder of the Church has used language which appeared to convey any such teaching, he has been promptly reproved. And I now publicly declare that my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land.
President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
President Lorenzo Snow offered the following:
I move that, recognizing Wilford Woodruff as the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and the only man on the earth at the present time who holds the keys of the sealing ordinances, we consider him fully authorized by virtue of his position to issue the Manifesto which has been read in our hearing, and which is dated September 24th, 1890, and that as a Church in General Conference assembled, we accept his declaration concerning plural marriages as authoritative and binding.
The vote to sustain the foregoing motion was unanimous.
Salt Lake City, Utah, October 6, 1890.
35. Others were tortured and refused to be released, so that they might gain a better resurrection.
36. Some faced jeers and flogging, while still others were chained and put in prison.
37. They were stoned ; they were sawed in two; they were put to death by the sword. They went about in sheepskins and goatskins, destitute, persecuted and mistreated--
38. the world was not worthy of them. They wandered in deserts and mountains, and in caves and holes in the ground.
~ Wilford Woodruff, 4th LDS President
"Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned;
and I will go still further and say, take this revelation, or any other revelation that the Lord has given,
and deny it in your feelings, and I promise that you will be damned.
Brigham Young - JoD 3:266 (July 14, 1855)
It must be rough; being a MORMON, and trying to hold all the differing positions in their heads that their chosen religion has taken, and then trying to make sense of it all...
Then the Rich Uncle pays for it's maintenance...
AnOTHER little bastard??
The world has accepted polygamy more then sodomy. If the US makes sodomy legal then it has no grounds to say no to polygamy. If Americans are smart men should have more then one wife. Think of the combined incomes and exemptions. Our tax laws are not geared for polygamy. Do the math. If a man has one wife and two kids making 250 000 annually vs a man who has five wives and ten kids making 500 000 annually. I think the guy with five wives and ten kids make out tax wise. Another point is if man and wife both work can barely afford two kids, will a man and five wives working do better? I think financially yes. Big gov will not be able to collect much taxes from a man with five wives and ten kids (fifteen exemptions plus self) compared to a man with one wife and two kids (three exemptions plus self). There is only one catch to this arrangement - old Chinese saying, two women under roof can mean trouble.
This isn’t about privacy, it is about marriage law.
Yours is one of those new, stylish, lefty trends, when was America free of marriage law?
“You have not converted a man because you have silenced him”
- John Morley
What does Hammurabi's Code say about We the People?
Do you think the federal government should have been forced to recognize polygamy as legal marriage?
Does that also mean that married couples could no longer file a joint return. What about the rule protecting a spouse from testifying against the other in court? Do the courts have any say about custody and visitation in divorce cases? Is state sanctioned divorce even possible? How does division of property get adjudicated? If we are just cohabitating, then how can there be any common property?
Before people had to get government marriage licenses, that's when. You see, they went to this thing called a Church. And that's where they were married, and that's where their marriage record was kept.
Then this new, stylish lefty trend showed up, where people had to register their vows before God with the government, and request permission for that government to review their relationship with God, and grant it or deny it.
Which brings up the question - have you received proper government approval for your relationship with God? Can you produce your religion license, or are you just one of those wild-eyed, unlicensed quacks?
civil marriage has been around a couple thousand years or more and has been the foundation of civilization
now some morons want to get rid of the foundation of civilization
I don’t care if these people live together, the state should never recognize this arrangement as a “marriage”
Without civilization there can be no ‘we the people’.There have never been any civilizations without government enforcement of ‘personal relationships’.
And Man hasn’t changed. Not in recorded history.
But maybe something happened recently, if so I’d like to know what it is.
The problem with those of the Libertarian bent, the ones who are trying to surrender the fight to defend marriage and the natural family for us, is that they utterly fail to recognize a number of critically important things:
1) The fundamental nature of the marriage bond and its character as the basis for all human civilization, governance and economy.
2) The moral depravity that homosexuality, and polygamy, represent.
3) The fact that if you give government over to moral depravity you will have destroyed the possibility of republican, constitutional self-government.
Our first President:
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim tribute to patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. . . . reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles.
Our second President:
We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our constitution as a whale goes through a net.
Our third President:
No government can continue good but under the control of the people; and . . . . their minds are to be informed by education what is right and what wrong; to be encouraged in habits of virtue and to be deterred from those of vice . . . . These are the inculcations necessary to render the people a sure basis for the structure and order of government.
Our fourth President:
The aim of every political Constitution, is or ought to be first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust.
My point is that recognition of marriage is no business of the State at all. You are conflating government with civilization and society. That's what liberals do. Government is not civilization, and it's not society. It's government - and in America, at least, it's supposed to be severely limited. Starting with religion.
But two same-sex people can get married? Because there are now 19 states (and counting) that say they can.
Those states are wrong, of course.
Abolishing marriage is the goal of the perverts
It is also the goal of libertopians
They are one and the same group
They are enemies of civilization
Libertarians and socialists are both enemies of civilization.
They are both my enemies.
My point is that while wrong, polygamy has an historical basis, same sex marriage has NEVER been done legally in the history of mankind, to my knowledge. If the worse of the two is now legal in almost half of the states, how in the world can society ban the other?
The first federal law regarding legal marriage was passed by the Continental Congress in 1780, it was added to in 1794 and 1798, were they wrong to not include whatever any religion or cult, or church wanted to call “marriage”?
Should they have been forced to recognize polygamy, should any American state or court have been recognizing gay marriage and polygamy because some churches or religions approved of it?
It is the same with marrying kids and the libertopians are going to be on that like white on rice next.
“But maybe something happened recently, if so Id like to know what it is.”
The state’s definition of marriage has changed in 18 states so far, with 6 or so in the last year, to accept ‘gay marriage.’ The demonstrable inclination of the state to use its powers punish those who don’t buy into the state’s most current impossible definition of marriage.
Seems to me that’s a pretty big change. No one would have believed you 20 years ago if you would have told them that, anyhow.
Do you think two wrongs make a right?
Add to your list the first platform of the Republican Party, 1856, condemning “those twin relics of barbarism — polygamy and slavery.”
Yes, as a mater of fact, something did happen recently. About 230 years ago, a country was founded on exactly the opposite principles that you just cited. You see, the Founder of this country based it on the single idea that We the People came first - before civilization. And that We the People have God-given rights that exist before civilization. And that by acknowledging these God-given, pre-existing rights, civilization can then be created out of them, by forming a severely limited government that comes after these rights, and is subject to these rights, and is limited by these rights. And that then, and only then, can what results be properly called the civilization God wants us all to live in.
And you're right - man hasn't changed. But for the first time in thousands of years, a country has arisen that actually acknowledges what man really is - a being created by God, with inherent, pre-existing, God-given rights. And that is new, astonishing, and just the change you are looking for, because it means that all of previous human history, all those previous cultures that called themselves civilized, were wrong. And not only wrong, but dead wrong - absolutely backwards.
Welcome to America. You might want to read up a little bit more on what it's about before you comment on a website called "Free Republic."
Ah yes mr. Young...and lead us not into Temptation
How consenting adults choose to order their private lives is none of the States business. None whatsoever.
That's way too much individual freedom for millions of people.
Sometimes old sayings don’t apply to every situation. This is one of them. How can the Supreme Court say “sure we’ll allow this unconventional marriage over here but not this one over there”? Unless homosexual marriage is miraculously abolished in the next few months polygamy will be legal by 2018. You heard it here first.
“...conflating government with civilization and society”
That government is one of the offices used is beside the point that Civilization has always ‘enforced’ marriage.
So what makes you feel that is no longer neccessary?
The complaint is REALLY the FACT that we folks who do NOT get into these entangling ‘relationships’ are being FORCED to pay for the awful results they produce!
Nineteen, actually. Plus the District of Columbia.
That’s just childish.
The Founders discussed past governments and societies and understood them and the nature of civilization well.
It is a lesson in both governance and Man to read their words.
Of course their help in this matter is limited as they left such matters to the states.
::sigh:: Another little belligerent discovers The Big Lie.
230 years of people fighting and dying to protect this distinction say you're wrong. The actual words of the Founders say you're wrong. The Constitution itself says you're wrong. Common sense says you're wrong. And - you know you're wrong.
You just think shamelessly lying is clever.
It's not. It's just shameless lying.
Yeah, that ‘change’ I’ve seen. Not in Man but in what he ‘believes’: in what he is taught and told.
And it IS amazing.
LOL! Good night.
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.