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

Skip to comments.

Federal Judge To Wisconsin: You Know 'Traditional' Marriage Was Polygamy, Right?
Huffington post ^ | 6/6/14 | Ryan J. Reilly

Posted on 06/07/2014 11:07:44 AM PDT by Oliviaforever

WASHINGTON -- The federal judge who struck down Wisconsin's gay marriage ban thinks state officials have a thing or two to learn about the history of marriage as a social institution.

In defending their same-sex marriage ban, state officials claimed that "virtually all cultures through time" have recognized marriage "as the union of an opposite-sex couple."
But as U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb wrote in her 88-page ruling on Friday, that's simply not true.

"As an initial matter, defendants and amici have overstated their argument. Throughout history, the most 'traditional' form of marriage has not been between one man and one woman, but between one man and multiple women, which presumably is not a tradition that defendants and amici would like to continue," Crabb wrote in her opinion.

(Excerpt) Read more at huffingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; US: Wisconsin
KEYWORDS: homosexualagenda; loon; marriage
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-61 next last
Now the Anti Traditional Marriage judges are just making things up to justify their unjustifiable rulings.
1 posted on 06/07/2014 11:07:44 AM PDT by Oliviaforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Oliviaforever

Huffington Post = Maoist rag


2 posted on 06/07/2014 11:08:54 AM PDT by Gay State Conservative (Rat Party Policy:Lie,Deny,Refuse To Comply)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative

Yes. but it does not change the fact that the federal judge in Wisconsin completely a fabricated construct which is entirely false in order to force a ruling on Wisconsin Christians.


3 posted on 06/07/2014 11:13:25 AM PDT by Oliviaforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Oliviaforever
Throughout history, the most 'traditional' form of marriage has not been between one man and one woman, but between one man and multiple women...

A lying whore...a terrorist in black robes.

4 posted on 06/07/2014 11:14:36 AM PDT by Gay State Conservative (Rat Party Policy:Lie,Deny,Refuse To Comply)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oliviaforever

Wisconsin has the Crabbs!


5 posted on 06/07/2014 11:16:00 AM PDT by Dr. Bogus Pachysandra ( Ya can't pick up a turd by the clean end!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oliviaforever

This sort of craziness just won’t stop.


6 posted on 06/07/2014 11:17:43 AM PDT by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oliviaforever

I don’t know, King Solomon had a thousand wives, King David had quite a few. And it caused them much grief; it obviously was not what God had intended from the start but it did happen, nonetheless.


7 posted on 06/07/2014 11:17:52 AM PDT by liege (America 180)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oliviaforever
This person U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb is probably the whacky-est judge they could possibly find:

Wikipedia says this:

Notable rulings[edit]

On April 15, 2010, Crabb ruled in a suit that the Freedom From Religion Foundation filed in 2008 against the Bush administration that the National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional.[1][2][3] This ruling was unanimously dismissed by a federal appellate court in April 2011 due to lack of standing.[4][5]

On November 22, 2013 Crabb ruled in another suit the exemption of a housing allowance from the income of clergy was unconstitutional

... and now this!

8 posted on 06/07/2014 11:19:05 AM PDT by Ken522
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oliviaforever
excellent...

Michael Savage debates a caller on the gay marriage ban being overturned
9 posted on 06/07/2014 11:19:28 AM PDT by SpaceBar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oliviaforever

British North America matrimony was primarily arranged in the higher classes and “for love” among the lower classes. In both cases this was one man-one woman union which then was carried over after 1783. The Judge simply lives in “shadows” when justifying her “rule”. Sign of (Perverted) Times.


10 posted on 06/07/2014 11:19:35 AM PDT by rollo tomasi (Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oliviaforever

I think its pretty clear that Joseph and Jesus had only Mary.


11 posted on 06/07/2014 11:20:20 AM PDT by sgtyork (Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oliviaforever

The judge is a Mormon ???


12 posted on 06/07/2014 11:20:25 AM PDT by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oliviaforever

Of course the homofascists won’t admit that the fundamental requirement of marriage, male and female, is present in polygamous marriage, which in fact does have a historical basis. Meanwhile they try to convince the gullible that something as absurd as gay “marriage” is just about love and civil rights.


13 posted on 06/07/2014 11:20:54 AM PDT by allblues (God is neither a Republican nor a Democrat but Satan is definitely a Democrat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: liege

King Solomon had a thousand wives,
____________________________________

No King Solomon had a 300 wives and 700 concubines...


14 posted on 06/07/2014 11:22:02 AM PDT by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Oliviaforever
"As an initial matter, defendants and amici have overstated their argument. Throughout history, the most 'traditional' form of marriage has not been between one man and one woman, but between one man and multiple women, which presumably is not a tradition that defendants and amici would like to continue," Crabb wrote in her opinion.

Yes, and so what!

Nothing in that argument goes in anyway to the oxymoron of calling something marriage, where the necessary act of consummation (i.e., a procreative coupling between man & woman) is impossible. The Judge might also look at the Matriarchal societies in West Africa where one woman could marry multiple men. That is also totally irrelevant to the present argument, which seeks to justify a self-cotradictory absurdity.

What is very clear in this matter, is that this has nothing to do with "fairness," "tolerance" or "respect" for anyone. It is a compulsion driven war on the consequences of the division of the higher forms of life into two sexes, where each sex is essential to the other sex's completion. No Court & no Legislative body can alter that reality; and pretending to do so, can only lead to wholesale disrespect for our legal system, which as a lawyer, I must deplore.

William Flax

15 posted on 06/07/2014 11:25:47 AM PDT by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oliviaforever

We used to laugh when we joked about liberalism being a mental disease but of course now we know it’s not a joke. On top of wanting total government control these leftists believe all this garbage from gay marriage, global warming, amnesty, etc.... Can’t these idiots see their ideas don’t and will never work? Any reasonable person would step back and assess the damage and change their mode of thinking. Not these people. Instead of backing down they’ve doubled down on their leftist nonsense knowing they can get away with it because of a friendly media, a dumbed down population, and a hapless opposition party. We’re so screwed as a nation.


16 posted on 06/07/2014 11:28:44 AM PDT by dowcaet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oliviaforever

Isn’t THE ISSUE what “traditional marriage has been in the US back since oh say 100 years before the revolution. AND NOT all the way back to cave men and muzzies for thousands of years!


17 posted on 06/07/2014 11:36:19 AM PDT by Cen-Tejas (it's the debt bomb stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oliviaforever

She just opened the door to allowing polygamous marriages in America with that stupid opinion of hers.


18 posted on 06/07/2014 11:38:51 AM PDT by dowcaet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oliviaforever
Throughout history, the most 'traditional' form of marriage has not been between one man and one woman, but between one man and multiple women, which presumably is not a tradition that defendants and amici would like to continue," Crabb wrote in her opinion.

Her honor is of course correct here. With the exception of Christian history she is correct.
19 posted on 06/07/2014 11:38:58 AM PDT by wonkowasright (Wonko from outside the asylum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oliviaforever

Screw it. Let them all get married. “What difference does it make?” Worry about your own life. Who’s to say that maybe it’s not actually a higher form of love. Don’t know, don’t care. IF anyone can’t see the agenda here it’s the break up of the fundamental family. Maybe that’s God’s will, maybe it’s not, but it’s going to happen and there’s nothing we can do about it except to live our own lives. When a man like OBama is re-elected in this country it tells you the times they are a changing....

Let’s deal with the outcomes. I am certain that the life in places where Marijuana and Same SEx marriage is legal will be affected in a very negative way. I choose not to smoke, and I choose not to be gay.


20 posted on 06/07/2014 11:42:56 AM PDT by nikos1121
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oliviaforever

Not for the average person. Polygyny was an option for elite men in many civilizations, but it was decidedly only open to a small minority. In any case, polygamy hasn’t been legal in the Western world for a very long time.


21 posted on 06/07/2014 11:43:04 AM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: x

I heard that polygamy was the result of a relative overabundance of women over men due to warfare which greatly thinned out the men. I don’t know if that is true, but it sounds reasonable.


22 posted on 06/07/2014 11:53:28 AM PDT by SpaceBar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan
"As an initial matter, defendants and amici have overstated their argument. Throughout history, the most 'traditional' form of marriage has not been between one man and one woman, but between one man and multiple women, which presumably is not a tradition that defendants and amici would like to continue," Crabb wrote in her opinion.

Well, no.

For fairly obvious demographic reasons the norm was always one-man, one-woman, even in societies where polygamy was accepted.

Formal polygamy, as opposed to concubinage and mistresses, was also very rare even way back in European history The Romans, for instance, were monogamous. Formally and legally, that is.

23 posted on 06/07/2014 11:56:59 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Oliviaforever
Headline should read:

75-Year-Old Federal Judge Strikes Down Wisconsin Ban On Same-Sex Couples’ Marriages

Judgette Crabb, who is an appointee of failed American president Jimmah Carter, is at an age where dementia and Alzheimer's are quite common. Has any sort of mental defect played a part in this odd ruling, some critics wonder?

The airline industry retires 75-year-old former airline pilots who were great in their time, many years before they reach that particular age milestone.

Why do we have 70, 75, 80, and 85-year-old federal judges blithely flying the fully loaded plane of the American justice system?

24 posted on 06/07/2014 12:05:47 PM PDT by kiryandil (turning Americans into felons, one obnoxious drunk at a time (Zero Tolerance!!!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SpaceBar
I heard that polygamy was the result of a relative overabundance of women over men due to warfare which greatly thinned out the men. I don’t know if that is true, but it sounds reasonable.

In small, warrior tribal societies that may very well be true. I don't know how well it applies to more developed civilizations.

In general, in the ancient world kings could have more than one wife. It was a way of solidifying alliances. Nobles could imitate the royal practice, especially if their first wife couldn't provide an heir, but commoners tended to be monogamous.

I did find this on Wikipedia, though:

"On February 14, 1650, the parliament at Nürnberg decreed that, because so many men were killed during the Thirty Years’ War, the churches for the following ten years could not admit any man under the age of 60 into a monastery. Priests and ministers not bound by any monastery were allowed to marry. Lastly, the decree stated that every man was allowed to marry up to ten women. The men were admonished to behave honorably, provide for their wives properly, and prevent animosity among them."

Don't know if it's true or not or if any guys took them up on it.

Lately the BBC has been saying that politicians in Afghanistan and Iraq (where polygamy is legal) want to see more of it because of war losses.

25 posted on 06/07/2014 12:09:11 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: SpaceBar
I heard that polygamy was the result of a relative overabundance of women over men due to warfare which greatly thinned out the men. I don’t know if that is true, but it sounds reasonable.

A society in which that many men (enough to justify widespread polygyny) had died due to warfare would be on its last legs. Usually, they would be the losers of the war (hence no need to practice polygyny since the victors would be leading them all away to slavery).

Polygyny was never practiced by more than a tiny percentage of any society - by the "1%" of non-Western societies.

Regards,

26 posted on 06/07/2014 12:13:36 PM PDT by alexander_busek (Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
You are letting yourself be "played."

Polygamy is not the issue here. Arguing against a hypothetical non-sequitur, which ignores the most essential element of marriage--the whole reason for marriage (polygamous or monogamous, patriarchal or matriarchal) has to do with the sanctity of the procreational process. Sure, polygamy is a special case; but it hardly justifies the mockery of pretending that "same-sex" marriage--in any functional sense--is even possible.

One reason Conservatives often lose verbal fire-fights with less intelligent faux "liberals," is that they feel a need to address all sorts of side issues, and "red herrings," while the adversaries hone in on the specific pitch of the moment.

Go for the jugular in a verbal fire-fight! You lose the force of your argument when you get drawn into having to recite a litany of what you believe on all side issues. The Judge, here, has not addressed Polygamy, except as a very, very bad analogy, intended as a red herring, to cause just the loss of immediate focus, I am describing.

27 posted on 06/07/2014 12:20:25 PM PDT by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Oliviaforever

I can make things up just like federal judges. How about this: the 2nd Amendment exists to remove federal judges from office. It is a right of the people to remove judges from office when they go against the will of the people.


28 posted on 06/07/2014 12:29:12 PM PDT by ConservativeInPA (We need to fundamentally transform RATs lives for their lies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oliviaforever

Rich to federal judge: Your Honor...shhhhh. You were supposed to keep that to yourself until you actually had one of those cases before you. Silly girl.

We are clear, though, the rest of us, that that’s one of the next laws to fall, right?


29 posted on 06/07/2014 12:31:24 PM PDT by RichInOC (Palin 2016: The Perfect Storm.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oliviaforever

This woman is insane!


30 posted on 06/07/2014 12:42:13 PM PDT by ForYourChildren (Christian Education [ RomanRoadsMedia.com - a classical Christian approach to homeschool])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oliviaforever

What a nutcase.


31 posted on 06/07/2014 12:44:38 PM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan

Oh, I agree.

However, when someone brings up a non-sequitur, it is imo useful to demonstrate how and why it is a non-sequitur. Which it is in this case because polygamy is NOT the “traditional form of marriage” in the cultures and societies ancestral to ours, going back thousands of years.


32 posted on 06/07/2014 12:49:12 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Cen-Tejas

“Isn’t THE ISSUE what “traditional marriage has been in the US back since oh say 100 years before the revolution. AND NOT all the way back to cave men and muzzies for thousands of years!”

AGREED!


33 posted on 06/07/2014 12:51:42 PM PDT by kitkat (STORM HEAVEN WITH PRAYERS FOR OUR COUNTRY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Oliviaforever
Throughout history, the most 'traditional' form of marriage has not been between one man and one woman, but between one man and multiple women...

She's just mad because all of the top local harems threw her resume in the trash. :)

34 posted on 06/07/2014 12:51:52 PM PDT by Mr. Jeeves ([CTRL-GALT-DELETE])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wonkowasright
With the exception of Christian history she is correct.

Not really.

The Romans and Greeks, for example, were largely if not perhaps exclusively monogamous.

35 posted on 06/07/2014 12:55:26 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: SpaceBar

It is also a result of the “bride price” system where men essentially “buy” their women from the bride’s family. Which, of course, brings us back to that part about polygamy being for the elite males. Non-elite males are limited one or no wife.

In the “dowry” system, where the bride’s family has to pay the groom, a some families end up sending their daughter to the nunnery.


36 posted on 06/07/2014 12:57:58 PM PDT by Little Ray (How did I end up in this hand-basket, and why is it getting so hot?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: x

It is rumored that the Catholic Church informally approved of polygyny in Paraguay after the Paraguayan War. Somewhere close to 90% of Paraguayan adult males died in that war, which was roughly contemporaneous with our WBTS.


37 posted on 06/07/2014 12:59:47 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Oliviaforever

perhaps the answer if for governors to follow the example of president smidgen and ignore the law? tell these judges to pound sand and ignore their rulings that they find ridiculous.


38 posted on 06/07/2014 1:02:44 PM PDT by lonster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oliviaforever; All
The pro-gay activist judge in question is wrongly ignoring the following concerning traditional marriage. When the Supreme Court decided Reynolds v. United States in 1878, Reynolds not a state power issue since Utah was a US Territory at the time, the Court essentially applied what was originally British common law to help decide the case. Common law recognizes only one man, one woman marriage. (Note that common law is a constitutional term evidenced by the 7th Amendment.)

The misguided Wyoming judge is also wrongly ignoring that the Founding States had made the 10th Amendment to clarify that the Constitution's silence about things like marriage means that such issues are automatically state power issues for the most part. With the exception of the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the Constitution's Section 7 of Article IV, Section 2 of DOMA an example of that clause, the feds basically have no constitutional authority to regulate marriage. So marriage policy for a given state is ultimately up to the legal majority voters of that state.

In fact, since the states have never amended the Constitution to make gay agenda issues like gay marriage a constitutionally protected right, the states are free to make laws which discriminate against things like gay marriage imo, as long as such laws don't also unreasonably abridge constitutionally enumerated rights.

39 posted on 06/07/2014 1:07:59 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oliviaforever

It took progressives 40 years to stack the judiciary with fellow traitors to the constitution. It may take longer to unwind the damage.


40 posted on 06/07/2014 1:08:21 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer (The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee Nana

Just to nitpick here ... you have that backwards.

700 wives
300 concubines


41 posted on 06/07/2014 1:21:20 PM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Oliviaforever

It’s a fake argument to distract from the actual legal issues she was supposed to be ruling on and skew the discussion off into another tangent - typical of liberals, whose arguments cannot be defended intellectually. Instead of ruling based on legal theory, language, and reality, she just decided she’d make the ruling she personally felt like making - like writing her own novel or an essay in liberal academia.

And even if this nonsense were true, that is still marriage between a man and a woman - the women were each individually married to the man, they were not married to each other. And this statute specifically “bans” that as well - one man, one woman. So if this violates the “right” of gays to “marry”, why doesn’t it also violate the “right” of a polygamist to marry as many wives as he wishes? Why not group marriages? She ends up contradicting her own argument by indicating the parties “don’t want” those other kinds of “marriages” to take place as though that somehow is reason why they would want marriage twisted and redefined in other ways and therefore same-sex “marriages” must therefore exist? How the heck does that make any sense?


42 posted on 06/07/2014 1:56:28 PM PDT by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oliviaforever

Barbara Crabb should have her citizenship revoked. The likes of her should be air-dropped to the the Taliban.


43 posted on 06/07/2014 1:58:37 PM PDT by ohioman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oliviaforever

I wonder how mqny or those polygamous marriages were same sex marriages...


44 posted on 06/07/2014 2:09:50 PM PDT by NCLaw441
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NCLaw441
I wonder how mqny or those polygamous marriages were same sex marriages...

None. Despite intensive search by activists, I'm not aware that they've found evidence of unambiguous same sex marriage at any time or place before the last couple of decades, at the most.

45 posted on 06/07/2014 2:21:08 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: wonkowasright
Her honor is of course correct here.

Well no.

The default has always been one man and one woman at a time with everything else being an exception to the rule.

Even in societies where polygamy was allowed there were major rules about the circumstances that the multiple marriages were legitimate.

Kings and rulers were allowed more often then most because marriages were to seal alliances. But even in that there was usually a "great" or "first" wife who was the "real" wife with all others being given the status of legal concubines.

46 posted on 06/07/2014 2:21:16 PM PDT by Harmless Teddy Bear (Proud Infidel, Gun Nut, Religious Fanatic and Freedom Fiend)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Oliviaforever

Well, District Judge Barbara Crabb, that would have been back when your job would have been reading the entrails of slaughtered animals.


47 posted on 06/07/2014 2:41:47 PM PDT by Bigg Red (31 May 2014: Obamugabe officially declares the USA a vanquished subject of the Global Caliphate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wonkowasright

I’m not sure if the Judge is historically correct but she is correct on the point that it should have no bearing on the law.


48 posted on 06/07/2014 2:49:51 PM PDT by Honcho
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Oliviaforever
The judge cites somebody else for the proposition ...
Stephanie Coontz, Marriage, a History 10 (2005) ("Polygyny, whereby a man can have multiple wives, is the marriage form found in more places and at more times than any other.")
That tidbit isn't in Study Guide for "Marriage, a History", but link offered here in case you want more substance as to Ms. Coontz's inclinations.
49 posted on 06/07/2014 3:02:25 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oliviaforever

It was Mark Steyn who pointed out that worldwide, polygamy has a much bigger constituency than “gay marriage”.


50 posted on 06/07/2014 3:46:17 PM PDT by Salman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-61 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