Skip to comments.Federal Judge To Wisconsin: You Know 'Traditional' Marriage Was Polygamy, Right?
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 ...
Huffington Post = Maoist rag
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.
A lying whore...a terrorist in black robes.
Wisconsin has the Crabbs!
This sort of craziness just won’t stop.
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.
Wikipedia says this:
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. This ruling was unanimously dismissed by a federal appellate court in April 2011 due to lack of standing.
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!
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.
I think its pretty clear that Joseph and Jesus had only Mary.
The judge is a Mormon ???
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.
King Solomon had a thousand wives,
No King Solomon had a 300 wives and 700 concubines...
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.
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.
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!
She just opened the door to allowing polygamous marriages in America with that stupid opinion of hers.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
This woman is insane!
What a nutcase.
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.
“Isnt 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!”
She's just mad because all of the top local harems threw her resume in the trash. :)
The Romans and Greeks, for example, were largely if not perhaps exclusively monogamous.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It took progressives 40 years to stack the judiciary with fellow traitors to the constitution. It may take longer to unwind the damage.
Just to nitpick here ... you have that backwards.
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?
Barbara Crabb should have her citizenship revoked. The likes of her should be air-dropped to the the Taliban.
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.
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.
Well, District Judge Barbara Crabb, that would have been back when your job would have been reading the entrails of slaughtered animals.
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.
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.
It was Mark Steyn who pointed out that worldwide, polygamy has a much bigger constituency than “gay marriage”.