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 ...
Just to nitpick here ... you have that backwards.
700 wives
300 concubines
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.
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.
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”.
Unbelievable.
Too bad Cardinal Kasper and Pope Francis don’t agree with you.
But, it is actually not as convincing an argument as she claims.
The form of “polygamy” that was most often practiced was singular. A man married a woman. That man married another woman, and then another woman. EACH marriage was between ONE man and ONE woman. There is little evidence of an actual marriage entered into between one man and multiple women.
What is clear is that almost no society ever applied whatever their “marriage” tradition was for the union of two people of the same sex. Marriage was intended, in both monogamous and serial polygamist forms, as the union of a man and women who could then procreate to propagate the species.
Society has no real interest in encouraging any other relationship than those which perpetuate humanity. Even if you have no care what people do with their own lives, there is no rational basis for government to take ANY interest in a relationship that has no possible benefit for humanity’s survival.
This is why we don’t mind at all if a brother and sister decide to live together, or two sisters, or even unrelated men and women, and we don’t particularly even care what they are doing, we simply don’t encourage such arrangements because they don’t give us a new generation of humans to continue our survival.
I actually don’t care if two men, or two women, or multiple men and multiple women, decide they want to commit themselves to each other. I don’t even care what sexual deviancy they wish to engage in, although I reserve the right to call it sin, and I definitely want the right to not actively promote them.
All I want is for government resources to be applied to things that actually help society, which in the case of marriage is relationships that can produce children, so that those children are raised by their biological parents, and learn how to properly relate to the opposite sex so they too can have solid relationships that produce children.
I want humanity to continue. I don’t understand gays and lesbians — why do they insist they need government’s blessing to love each other? I know I could care less if the government “approves” of my beliefs, or my love.
“All I want is for government resources to be applied to things that actually help society...”
In the case of the state promoting strong marriages, that conflicts with the growth of the state.
“I don’t understand gays and lesbians — why do they insist they need government’s blessing to love each other? I know I could care less if the government “approves” of my beliefs, or my love.”
It’s not about the state blessing. It’s about using the power of the state to punish those who they know will never agree with whatever impossibility the state is calling marriage at the time.
Freegards
What makes this so outrageous is that she cites "throughout history." True, other societies, traditionally, have practiced multiple females married to one male. Others, traditionally, have practiced kidnapping women, enslaving them, raping them, and trading them like property.
It was NOT a question that defendants would like to continue polygamy, because our nation from its inception, did NOT support polygamy, but instead opted for one man and woman in marriage. Thus, the defendants could not want something to continue that was NEVER STARTED! And so, in this way, this judge then justifies same sex marriage because of what was traditional in OTHER SOCIETIES!
"Crabb pointed out that tradition was used as an argument to keep women from voting."
I'll just say a little about this. After getting the right to vote, women tended to consistently vote Democrat, which has led to today's society of; killing the unborn, runaway illegal immigration, runaway welfare and food stamps, same sex marriage, destruction of a great educational system, and a President who relishes letting terrorists go who plan to kill the people who voted for that President, and in the near future, a society due for many many more horrors.
So you’re saying that Mary was married to both Joseph and her illegitimate son Jesus?!!!
Thanks for your thoughtful and profound contribution.
I am saying that of all the times and all the social arrangements into which God could have enacted his plan for salvation He chose one man and one woman to form the Holy Family. This was surely a model that followed Natural Law but provided us an specific example for the ages.
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.