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

Skip to comments.

Polygamists see open door for acceptance
WorldNetDaily.com ^ | 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 TruthBearer.org, 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 biblicalpolygamy.com 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 TruthBearer.org) 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.

TruthBearer.org, 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.

TruthBearer.org'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 1-5051-100101-150151-163 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
PING
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:
http://palaceofreason.com

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.

Tia

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

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/900757/posts
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.


Exactly!!!
 
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.


 
EXCERPTS FROM THREE ADDRESSES BY
PRESIDENT WILFORD WOODRUFF
REGARDING THE MANIFESTO


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 --> http://scriptures.lds.org/od/1
 
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
THE ARTICLES OF FAITH OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS

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]

To: JohnHuang2
As LDS many of us too are as concern about this latest ruling from the courts.

In the last couple of days in the NYC news all kinds of mini havoc is breaking out!

White power left in the subway car looking like Amtacks and tell the MTA to go to hell.

A plane crashes close to a refinery in NJ

20 fires have been started when folks are asleep in Wash. D,C, it seem the house is laced with gas and than set a frie so far none have lost their life!

It is sad the nation is losing because of the enemy with in.

21 posted on 07/04/2003 10:56:20 AM PDT by restornu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2; Torie
Here they come!

Happy Independence Day guys.

22 posted on 07/04/2003 10:58:28 AM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
Many people here believe that childrena and animals can give legal consent. Strange!

On the polygamy thing, I get dibs on Charley's Angels.

23 posted on 07/04/2003 10:59:57 AM PDT by breakem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Look for Muslims to bring a case to court, arguing that laws against polygamy unduly constrict their religious rights
24 posted on 07/04/2003 11:03:07 AM PDT by SauronOfMordor (Java/C++/Unix/Web Developer looking for next gig)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
He says the ruling effectively voided every anti-polygamy law on the books, assuring that "whatever consenting adults choose to do" is permissible.

"He" is an idiot. I will let you know when the legal elites decide polygamy has cachet. It is simply wonderful the power "we" now have (before it was simply great, now it is close to omnipotently omnipresent). It is great to be an American, but greater still to be an elite legal community member American, who has had his taxes slashed. It has been an absolutely splendid year so far.

25 posted on 07/04/2003 11:06:28 AM PDT by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Oh yes, happy 4th to you and your cherished wife, and no doubt robust grandkids, as well.
26 posted on 07/04/2003 11:08:05 AM PDT by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: tiamat
No, it wasn't the Kingston family in Utah. I remember the TV stories about them.

The guy I was thinking of wasn't part of a large, Kingston type, famiily. He had a job, everyone lived together in the same house, but he WAS getting some government assistance. He's serving prison time right now for bigamy.

The point is that in the TV interviews all the wives were adults and none were forced into marriage. They volunteered. So, given the high courts ruling about privacy I wondered how that ruling would effect consensual polygamy especially in Utah.

Polygamy was part of the Mormon faith, and if marriage is redefined then I'd expect the Mormons to reintroduce polygamy to their faith.
27 posted on 07/04/2003 11:16:47 AM PDT by Noachian (Legislation without Representation has no place in a free Republic)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Noachian
I'd expect the Mormons to reintroduce polygamy to their faith.

I think not. Mormanism has shed a lot over the years that it is not ever going back to. JMO.

28 posted on 07/04/2003 11:19:56 AM PDT by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Noachian
I'm not familiar with the case you are talking about then.

Interesting and thankyou for telling me!

Tia

29 posted on 07/04/2003 11:20:06 AM PDT by tiamat ("Just a Bronze-Age Gal, Trapped in a Techno World!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Torie
Don't be naive.
30 posted on 07/04/2003 11:27:59 AM PDT by Wrigley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Utah Girl
What do you think?
31 posted on 07/04/2003 11:28:53 AM PDT by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: breakem
breakem wrote:

On the polygamy thing, I get dibs on Charley's Angels.

********************************

LOL!

So I guess this means I can have more than one husband?

You know, one who can cook, one who can fix stuff, one who's a "hottie" and looks good in a speedo.......

The possibilities are endless!

Tia

32 posted on 07/04/2003 11:32:39 AM PDT by tiamat ("Just a Bronze-Age Gal, Trapped in a Techno World!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: SauronOfMordor
There are LOTs of Muslims in this area with more than one wife.... they just refer to "My wife's sister" a lot......

Tia

33 posted on 07/04/2003 11:35:00 AM PDT by tiamat ("Just a Bronze-Age Gal, Trapped in a Techno World!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Torie; Utah Girl; White Mountain; Grig
No matter what kind of laws the world authories those who follow Jesus Christ obey/listen to the Lord.
34 posted on 07/04/2003 11:58:41 AM PDT by restornu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Torie
"He" is an idiot

LOL

35 posted on 07/04/2003 12:08:13 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: breakem
CA's...........

First set or second set???
36 posted on 07/04/2003 12:14:16 PM PDT by Elsie (Any misspellings are caused by a sticky keyboard!! [that darn ol' Coke!])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Torie
I think not. Mormanism has shed a lot over the years that it is not ever going back to. JMO.

Ha!

If their 'Living Prophet' gets a 'word' and the rest of the yesmen ok it, by golly, it has thundered from Heaven, and the rank&file better fall in line, or else Headquarters will say you are NOT Mormon (Oops: LDS).
(That's what they claim about the Mormon fundies, anyway)
37 posted on 07/04/2003 12:17:46 PM PDT by Elsie (Any misspellings are caused by a sticky keyboard!! [that darn ol' Coke!])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: tiamat

What!?

Ya mean I'd have to do it ALL???
38 posted on 07/04/2003 12:18:47 PM PDT by Elsie (Any misspellings are caused by a sticky keyboard!! [that darn ol' Coke!])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: restornu
No matter what kind of laws the world authories those who follow Jesus Christ obey/listen to the Lord.

AFTER Headquarters speaks, of course..............


If you get a conflicting, heartwarming 'message', what's a girl to do???
Just look at how hard it was for poor ol' Emma to take the FIRST 'revelation' of polygamy!!!

[And, it's SCRIPTURE!!!]

39 posted on 07/04/2003 12:22:36 PM PDT by Elsie (Any misspellings are caused by a sticky keyboard!! [that darn ol' Coke!])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
I really don't see how, if there's a constitutional right for a man to stick his penis in another man's anus, there can not be a right to polygamy as well, as long as its private and consensual. Nor prostitution. In fact, I don't see how the state can interfere with me if I want to privately grow pot in my bedroom.
40 posted on 07/04/2003 12:22:47 PM PDT by johnb838 (Understand the root causes of American Anger.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
The religion has a very modernist adaptibility to changing conditions, and changes when it is prudent to do so, sort of like a CEO doing his job. That is a key to its success. Deal with it.
41 posted on 07/04/2003 12:22:51 PM PDT by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07; aristeides
Here they come!

Right on cue.


42 posted on 07/04/2003 12:24:46 PM PDT by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Torie
Sorry, but the millions of LDS members are the ones who have to 'deal with it'.
Shifting sand doesn't make for a very strong foundation.
43 posted on 07/04/2003 12:25:22 PM PDT by Elsie (Any misspellings are caused by a sticky keyboard!! [that darn ol' Coke!])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: novacation
That guy was marrying them when they were 14. OTOH, 14 is a common age of consent, so why should the state be able to say they have to be 16 or 18? What gives them the right to enforce that sort of morality. Ooh. I hadn't thought of that. This IS truly scary. Only way to protect your daughter will be with a shotgun.
44 posted on 07/04/2003 12:26:22 PM PDT by johnb838 (Understand the root causes of American Anger.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
Bestiality was already not prohibited under Texas law.

Of course it wasn't. What are them A&M boys sposed to do when they gets lonely?
45 posted on 07/04/2003 12:28:44 PM PDT by johnb838 (Understand the root causes of American Anger.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Torie; jwalsh07
I will let you know when the legal elites decide polygamy has cachet.

A few years after "Heather has Eight Parents" is included in the syllabus.

Foolish lawyer, it's teachers that are omnipotent.


46 posted on 07/04/2003 12:29:24 PM PDT by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: johnb838
OTOH, 14 is a common age of consent,

OTOH, why not 12? Who are you to say it's wrong?
47 posted on 07/04/2003 12:32:25 PM PDT by johnb838 (Understand the root causes of American Anger.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: johnb838
In fact my cousin (2nd) is real cute and she's almost 12...
48 posted on 07/04/2003 12:33:34 PM PDT by johnb838 (Understand the root causes of American Anger.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: All
"Can anyone find, anywhere in these words, a direct command from 'god' to STOP the practice?"

Elsie has had this answered to her many times, but for the rest of you...

If you read the whole OD1, you will see this:

"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;"

That's good enough for every faithful Mormon. The fact that it is an Official Declaration makes it the same as scripture to us, the word of God commanding an end to the practice.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is already established in nations that DO allow polygomy, but members are still prohibited from practicing it there or anywhere else. It is only an acceptable practice when divinly authorized, and the Church no longer has the authority to authorize plural marriages.

The courts did not take that authority from the Church, and the courts can't grant it either. Nor will you find it easy to find a faithful Mormon who has any real desire for the lifestyle, obligation, responsibilites, rules, and public opposition that go hand in hand with plural marriage so I really doubt there will be any serious effort by any group of faithful members to get the laws changed. Even when it was OK, less than 5% of Mormons did practice it.
49 posted on 07/04/2003 12:38:49 PM PDT by Grig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Librarina; sinkspur

One cannot eat breakfast all day,
Nor is it the act of a sinner,
When breakfast is taken away,
To turn his attention to dinner.
And it's not in the range of belief,
To look upon him as a glutton,
Who, when he is tired of beef,
Determines to tackle the mutton.
But this I am willing to say,
If it will appease her sorrow,
I'll marry this lady to-day,
And I'll marry the other to-morrow.

-- Trial by Jury.


50 posted on 07/04/2003 12:40:52 PM PDT by dighton (NLC™)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-163 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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