Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Polygamists see open door for acceptance ^ | Friday, July 4, 2003 | Ron Strom

Posted on 07/04/2003 12:12:36 AM PDT by JohnHuang2

"Polygamy is the next civil-rights battle."

That's the new battle cry of proponents of "Christian polygamy" who say their lifestyle is one step closer to being accepted after the Supreme Court's controversial decision last week invalidating state sodomy laws.

A website set up for media to get information about the pro-polygamy movement enthusiastically hails the Lawrence v. Texas decision, quoting from the majority opinion that Americans now have "... the full right to engage in private conduct without government intervention."

As WorldNetDaily reported, critics of the decision believe the court has usurped the role of lawmakers, establishing a far-reaching precedent that threatens any law based on moral choices, including incest and polygamy.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia includes examples of non-traditional marriages in his dissenting opinion, saying laws against the practice are now open to review.

Scalia talks of "state laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality and obscenity," saying "every single one of these laws is called into question by [the Lawrence] decision."

Said the polygamy website: "Obviously, this [decision] means enormous ramifications for the civil rights of adult, freely-consenting, marriage-committed polygamists."

The site links to a much more extensive site called, a page dedicated to promoting "Christian polygamy."

It's introductory page states, "As preached here at this ministry, Christian polygamy is only about life-long-committed (hence, NONpromiscuous), consensual, NONabusive, loving Christian marriage. The only educational matter here is that this is about men ever-growing in other-centered, ministerial, giving, selfless love in marriage to more than one woman (as Christ so selflessly and givingly loves the Churches)."

The organizers say their aim is not to legalize polygamy, but merely to decriminalize it. They don't believe government has any role whatsoever in regulating marriage.

A link to presents what its creators claim are reasons that "polygamy really is biblical."

Another site on "Christian polygamy" (which appears to have been created by those who established states:

"Only a few short years ago, the mere suggestion of putting the words 'Christian' and 'polygamy' beside each other as one term would have been laughed at. It would have been called a 'contradiction in terms' and an 'oxymoron.'

"But no one is laughing anymore.

"After much patient prayer, love, and work by committed Christ-centered, Spirit-led, Scripture-believing evangelical conservative Christians, from all kinds of different denominational backgrounds, the Truth is being believed and spread to others! Christian polygamy has become a reality and is now being taken very seriously in a number of spheres of influence."

The Rev. Jerry Falwell, WorldNetDaily columnist and nationally known Christian minister, spoke strongly against the practice of having multiple wives, telling WND: "Christian polygamy is an oxymoron." Falwell condemned the Lawrence ruling, saying it opened the door to "bestiality, pedophilia, even drug use" in the privacy of one's home., based in Old Orchard Beach, Maine, was founded by Mark Henkel in 1994.

"You are speaking to a diehard constitutional conservative," Henkel told WorldNetDaily, saying his support for the Lawrence v. Texas decision and polygamy is in line with the framers of the Constitution.

"My fellow conservatives are making a terrible mistake" by condemning the ruling, he said. "They are reacting like knee-jerk liberals."

Henkel compared marriage to Social Security, citing some conservatives' desire to privatize the government retirement program.

"Why not privatize marriage?" he asked rhetorically. "Why is big government a part of marriage?"

Henkel says marriage in the Bible is never linked to government and that today, the feds should not be able to dictate to Americans: "You're only allowed one wife."

Christians who believe the state should regulate marriage, he says, "are trusting in the false god of socialist government."

Referring to the sodomy case, Henkel told WND: "Lawrence v. Texas has kicked open a whole new door for us."

He says the ruling effectively voided every anti-polygamy law on the books, assuring that "whatever consenting adults choose to do" is permissible.'s strategy, says Henkel, is to persuade "conservative, Bible-believing Christians" of the appropriateness and superiority of polygamy. When they are won over, Henkel says the liberal "tolerance-oriented" people will then come into line.

While Henkel uses the polygamy of biblical patriarchs as part of his defense of the practice, Falwell says those Old Testament men were sinning by taking multiple wives.

"The Bible very clearly condemns Christian polygamy," he said. "[The Old Testament patriarchs] all did it in defiance of the Word of God. … God's plan was Adam and Eve – not Adam and Steve, and not Adam and several Eves."

Henkel's movement is clear to point out that its philosophy is not based on historic Mormon polygamy: "Christian polygamy is not Mormon polygamy. The two have two distinctly separate foundational reasons and two distinctly separate histories. They draw no basis from each other."

TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: activistcourt; activistsupremecourt; ageofconsentlaws; bigamy; druglaws; homosexualagenda; incestlaws; lawrencevtexas; marriage; marriagelaws; multiplespouse; polygamy; privacylaws; prostitutionlaws; samesexmarriage; sexlaws; sodomylaws
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-163 next last
Friday, July 4, 2003

Quote of the Day by Cicero

1 posted on 07/04/2003 12:12:36 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
The bizarre activist "logic" of the Supreme Court makes a strong case for the polygamists.

And liberals (who will do anything in their evil power to destroy America) will support the polygamists in the strangest political marraige in our history.

2 posted on 07/04/2003 12:16:31 AM PDT by friendly ((Badges?, we don gots to show no stinkin' badges!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: friendly
Can beastiality, sibling marriage and pedophilic partnerships be far behind?!
3 posted on 07/04/2003 12:27:20 AM PDT by cartoonistx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: friendly
Can beastiality, sibling marriage and pedophilic partnerships be far behind?!
4 posted on 07/04/2003 12:29:09 AM PDT by cartoonistx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: tutstar
5 posted on 07/04/2003 12:36:53 AM PDT by Nightshift
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #6 Removed by Moderator

To: Zipadeedooda
It means come see this, etc.
7 posted on 07/04/2003 3:00:15 AM PDT by yonif
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
While the mind reels at the idea that a woman of our times would accept being merely one of a number of wives to one man, consider this:

Looks to me as if the man is the crazy one for entertaining this arrangement. More, there is absolutely no way in which it gets worse -- for anyone -- if this one man / many women arrangement is permitted to marry!

There are surely other things that are more worth our time and attention.

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason:

8 posted on 07/04/2003 3:47:44 AM PDT by fporretto (This tagline is programming you in ways that will not be apparent for years. Forget! Forget!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
How does this SCOTUS ruling effect the Mormons in Utah?

A guy got sent to jail last year (I think it was) because of polygamy laws in Utah. The guy wasn't hurting anyone, and the only mistake the guy made was marrying the women instead of shacking up with them.

I think one of the conditions of statehood for Utah was that they had to drop their religious support for polygamy, which had nothing to do with Constitutional law.

On the other hand can a feminist professional, in a high-rise condo in New York, legally practice polyandry?
9 posted on 07/04/2003 4:41:31 AM PDT by Noachian (Legislation without Representation has no place in a free Republic)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fporretto
I've never understood the anti-poligamy laws. If a man a herd of women are crazy enough to all marry let them have at it. This is a question of seperation of church and state. It is not the governments business.The guy who got thrown in prison last year for polgamy was the sacrifical cow. If he had keep his mouth shut nothing would have happened.I see nothing immoral about it. I'm not Mormon.
10 posted on 07/04/2003 4:56:18 AM PDT by novacation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
"Polygamy is the next civil-rights battle."

Take a ticket and get in line.

11 posted on 07/04/2003 6:07:06 AM PDT by randog (Everything works great 'til the current flows.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Noachian
Are you referring to the Kingston family in Utah?

If so , that "patriarch" had taken to wife and consumated marriage with a neice of his when she was about 14. The "marriage" had been contracted by her father, the groom's brother.

To me, this sounds like Islam.

Many of the polygamous marriages, particularly if they involve the Kingstons, ( a HUGE family in Utah! ) are simply welfare scams. The wives and kids are all on the dole while "Daddy" lives high and drives a fancy car.

NOT a good deal or right by my lights.


12 posted on 07/04/2003 7:08:47 AM PDT by tiamat ("Just a Bronze-Age Gal, Trapped in a Techno World!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: CARepubGal; drstevej; RnMomof7; Elsie; Jean Chauvin; P-Marlowe; Calvinist_Dark_Lord
Polygamy ping
13 posted on 07/04/2003 7:10:47 AM PDT by Wrigley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything."

Sen. Rick Santorum
14 posted on 07/04/2003 7:22:56 AM PDT by TheDon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fporretto
The family law bar (what an Orwellian Newspeak name, since it profits from the destruction of families) will be salivating at the prospect of legalized polygamy.

Pre-nuptial agreements, co-habitation agreements, divorces, child custody suits, estates, trusts, succession--all of these and more will be even bigger money-makers for lawyers than ever because of the exponential increase of complexities that polygamy brings to marriage.
15 posted on 07/04/2003 8:25:05 AM PDT by Loyalist (Keeper of the Schismatic Orc Ping List. Freepmail me if you want on or off it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: cartoonistx
It is extremely obvious that legalizing pedophilia is next on the Gay Mafia's legal agenda.

Attention: Leave the children alone, you vermin!

16 posted on 07/04/2003 8:33:20 AM PDT by friendly ((Badges?, we don gots to show no stinkin' badges!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: tiamat
Many of the polygamous marriages, particularly if they involve the Kingstons, ( a HUGE family in Utah! ) are simply welfare scams.

NONE of this is about "marriage"; it's all about the "benefits" of marriage.
If our Nation didn't have such screwed up ways to steal our money from us in the form of 'taxes', there'd be NO clamor for any 'schemes' to get it back 'legally'!

17 posted on 07/04/2003 9:35:01 AM PDT by Elsie (Any misspellings are caused by a sticky keyboard!! [that darn ol' Coke!])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Noachian; tiamat; Utah Girl; restornu; Wrigley; Grig; White Mountain; P-Marlowe; RnMomof7
a question, NOT a command. 
So, when the 'Government' decides polygamy is now ok,
then the LDS organization is ready to drop right back into the old way of living.


The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty.
(Sixty-first Semiannual General Conference of the Church, Monday, October 6, 1890, Salt Lake City, Utah. Reported in Deseret Evening News, October 11, 1890, p. 2.)

It matters not who lives or who dies, or who is called to lead this Church, they have got to lead it by the inspiration of Almighty God. If they do not do it that way, they cannot do it at all. . . .

I have had some revelations of late, and very important ones to me, and I will tell you what the Lord has said to me. Let me bring your minds to what is termed the manifesto. . . .

The Lord has told me to ask the Latter-day Saints a question, and He also told me that if they would listen to what I said to them and answer the question put to them, by the Spirit and power of God, they would all answer alike, and they would all believe alike with regard to this matter.

The question is this: Which is the wisest course for the Latter-day Saints to pursue—to continue to attempt to practice plural marriage, with the laws of the nation against it and the opposition of sixty millions of people, and at the cost of the confiscation and loss of all the Temples, and the stopping of all the ordinances therein, both for the living and the dead, and the imprisonment of the First Presidency and Twelve and the heads of families in the Church, and the confiscation of personal property of the people (all of which of themselves would stop the practice); or, after doing and suffering what we have through our adherence to this principle to cease the practice and submit to the law, and through doing so leave the Prophets, Apostles and fathers at home, so that they can instruct the people and attend to the duties of the Church, and also leave the Temples in the hands of the Saints, so that they can attend to the ordinances of the Gospel, both for the living and the dead?

The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice. If we had not stopped it, you would have had no use for . . . any of the men in this temple at Logan; for all ordinances would be stopped throughout the land of Zion. Confusion would reign throughout Israel, and many men would be made prisoners. This trouble would have come upon the whole Church, and we should have been compelled to stop the practice. Now, the question is, whether it should be stopped in this manner, or in the way the Lord has manifested to us, and leave our Prophets and Apostles and fathers free men, and the temples in the hands of the people, so that the dead may be redeemed. A large number has already been delivered from the prison house in the spirit world by this people, and shall the work go on or stop? This is the question I lay before the Latter-day Saints. You have to judge for yourselves. I want you to answer it for yourselves. I shall not answer it; but I say to you that that is exactly the condition we as a people would have been in had we not taken the course we have.

. . . I saw exactly what would come to pass if there was not something done. I have had this spirit upon me for a long time. But I want to say this: I should have let all the temples go out of our hands; I should have gone to prison myself, and let every other man go there, had not the God of heaven commanded me to do what I did do; and when the hour came that I was commanded to do that, it was all clear to me. I went before the Lord, and I wrote what the Lord told me to write. . . .

I leave this with you, for you to contemplate and consider. The Lord is at work with us.
(Cache Stake Conference, Logan, Utah, Sunday, November 1, 1891. Reported in Deseret Weekly, November 14, 1891.)

Now I will tell you what was manifested to me and what the Son of God performed in this thing. . . . All these things would have come to pass, as God Almighty lives, had not that Manifesto been given. Therefore, the Son of God felt disposed to have that thing presented to the Church and to the world for purposes in his own mind. The Lord had decreed the establishment of Zion. He had decreed the finishing of this temple. He had decreed that the salvation of the living and the dead should be given in these valleys of the mountains. And Almighty God decreed that the Devil should not thwart it. If you can understand that, that is a key to it.
(From a discourse at the sixth session of the dedication of the Salt Lake Temple, April 1893. Typescript of Dedicatory Services, Archives, Church Historical Department, Salt Lake City, Utah.)

The above is Official Declaration #1, taken from the LDS organization's website -->
Can anyone find, anywhere in these words, a direct command from 'god' to STOP the practice?
No, merely a 'submitting to' of USofA 'law'.

18 posted on 07/04/2003 9:51:29 AM PDT by Elsie (Any misspellings are caused by a sticky keyboard!! [that darn ol' Coke!])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

12 We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

Happy 4th of July!

19 posted on 07/04/2003 10:11:01 AM PDT by restornu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: cartoonistx
Bestiality was already not prohibited under Texas law.
20 posted on 07/04/2003 10:12:49 AM PDT by Chancellor Palpatine (...insulting True Conservatives and disrupting their mental self abuse since 2000...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-163 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
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson