Posted on 07/30/2011 3:22:34 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
In a single dramatic hour Friday, the course of the San Angelo, Texas, trial against polygamous sect leader Warren Jeffs might have changed course.
With a rambling outburst that included a malediction against the prosecutors, a defense of polygamy, and direct quotes from "the Lord God," Jeffs broke his prolonged silence in the trial, then continued to interrupt proceedings throughout the rest of the day.
The outbursts could merely be a continuation of Mr. Jeffs's apparent legal tactic: delay. But they also have also effectively turned the courtroom into a pulpit for the leader of the breakaway Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who is now representing himself in the proceedings.
"No longer is it really a trial. He just wanted an occasion to give a sermon," Laurie Levenson, professor at the Loyola Law School, told CBS News.
Jeffs is charged with sexually assaulting two underage girls. If convicted, he could receive life in prison. He has claimed that, as the head of his church, he has the constitutional right to practice his own religion, which includes polygamy. The mainstream Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, also known as the Mormon church, repudiated polygamy more than a century ago.....
(Excerpt) Read more at csmonitor.com ...
You really don’t know what you are talking about. Every legal system in history has recognized marriage. There are serious negative consequences to not legally recognizing marriage at all.
Most legal systems in history have recognized slavery and polygamy, too...
I’d be interested to hear the negative consequences of not legally recognizing marriage at all. Is it the breakdown of the family? Fatherless households? Out-of-wedlock children? All those things we have now - with our legally recognized marriage?
Government needs to legitimize one woman for one man for the general welfare—the only form of family that leads to equality of the sexes and the model that most guarantees that children will be raised by their biological parents (inalienable right to life in the natural design—biological)—the safest for children, both emotionally and physically.
Government of the US is designed on the ideas of property rights and children being the property rights of their biological parents. Parents have the “duty” to raise any children they bring into the world. Marriage of one man, one woman promotes equality of the sexes and unifies them for the purpose of doing their duty, which if people do their “duty” creates responsible, flourishing societies.
Also for property rights, inheritance, etc. there needs to be a structure to form societies...and anthropology and science has proven that the most successful one is the Christian model. Black’s dictionary defines marriage as one man and one woman which is the understood definition for thousands of years...so it should never be changed.
Marriage is understood to be the fundamental unit of a culture because children need 18 years to mature and be protected and nurtured.
If you destroy the family unit, you destroy the children and then you destroy the culture. That is what Dalrymple is documenting in England right now—the destruction of the family—the complete destruction of the offspring who are being abuse, killed, neglected like in no other generation in the history of man. If they do make it to adulthood they are drug addicts, ignorant, and useless to society—in fact, the cost of their dysfunction is mind boggling. They had no loving parents, so they can’t love anything....especially themselves and are incapable of having any lasting relationships so they create children who are usually taken away because they neglect them.
It is that simple, the cultural Marxist started targeting the family in the 1930’s to destroy it and Christianity—to destroy America. Read up on Marcuse and Gramsci...they explained their plans and implimented it in the curricula of American schools through the socialist John Dewey.
All anthropology has shown the importance of biology and kinship in the formation of societies...that is why Marxist try to destroy that biological connection which is what creates security and happiness in children and their best best for a flourishing future. Prisons are filled with psychologically damaged people who were abandoned by one or both parents which creates dysfunction from addictions to Charles Manson type behavior (he never knew his dad and was sodomized as a boy). Fathers are crucial to healthy sexual identities in males children and also determine if girls grow up to hate or love men and can relate to them.
There is an emotional side to human beings. You are neglecting the emotional health of children by saying govenments should not support marriage of one man and one woman—the best proven method of raising children. Societies can not afford to have emotionally unstable people which is usually caused by no loving mother and father. It is documented.
No, not that. Those are the negative consequences of not properly recognizing marriage as a lifelong covenant with rare instances of divorce.
The negative consequences are the fact that man and woman will not be recognized as one. Divorce will be difficult to deal with. Shared assets will be difficult to deal with. With marriage law, in cases of divorce assets can be split up properly. Those are just the most practical implications of not protecting the lifelong covenant between man and woman.
So tell me how Government recognition of marriage as one man/one woman is working out with the family today, in the US. Or in the UK. Or in any Western society.
Family units are breaking down, and have been breaking down for generations. Government recognition of marriage isn’t helping to stop that, as far as I can tell.
If anything, there is a Biblical basis for polygamy - consider Exodus 21:10 and Deuteronomy 25:5–10. Or Deuteronomy 21:15–17.
I’m not a supporter of polygamy. I am a supporter of getting Government out of the marriage business, since we’re at the situation where Government either recognizes - and thus legitimizes - gay marriage, or just drops recognition altogether. I see lots of potential damage from the former (it’s a foundation for a much stronger push for gay rights in all aspects of society) and - at this point - really no damage from the latter.
I’m pretty sure we had out-of-wedlock children before divorce was common. It was societal pressure as “not acceptable” that kept it to a minimum, not the legal difficulty of obtaining a divorce.
I lived in Chile in the early 2000s - divorce was illegal at that time. Yet there were still plenty of single-parent households where a child was conceived out of wedlock. It happened anyway.
As far as assets, I think it’s simple - register names, like on cars. If one name is listed, then it’s owned by that individual. If two names are listed, they jointly own it 50/50 unless other documented ratios are presented. For household goods - well, just like roommates divvying up stuff, it can get messy - but any severance of a relationship is messy, and not just from a financial standpoint.
I’m just looking at the pragmatic reality of today - Government recognition of marriage is NOT preventing the societal ills that marriage is supposed to prevent, and is in fact leading to a path of greater acceptance and legalization of the gay agenda. So do away with Government-recognized marriage altogether. Allow civil contracts between any consenting parties and be done with it.
He's trying for the Insanity Plea Defense
Evidently the writer never looked up the history of it all:
Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriage...I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws..."~ Wilford Woodruff, 4th LDS President
The spineless 'leaders' of MORMONism rolled over and exposed their collective bellies to the US Gov't like a litter of fearful puppies!
Which is why Official Declaration #3 will be counter to OD #1.
He’s trying for the Insanity Plea Defense
- - - - -
I would think so to but IIRC he has already been evaluated and found fit to stand trial.
On the contrary, marriage was working in America as perfect as any system ever devised, in the history of the world—for freedom, creativity, equality—no other government was as successful for creating such wealth and freedom for such a diverse group of people....why? Tocqueville said it best and I don’t have the time to retell his conclusions to why America was so great but this is partly why:
It was because of the devotion of women to raising their children (unlike the French, whom Tocqueville said that French men would never discuss their women with other men because those men might know their spouse better than them-—in other words...women in America were more faithful and it was entirely because of the Christian paradigm and a Bible in most every house hold.
Tocqueville: America was great because America is good. He was referring to the Christian paradigm and design of the family and extended family...such a support system which gave men the freedom to do great things and think up great things. Division of labor.....the thing Communist feminists have been trying to destroy since the seventies. Family. Why—because the division of labor and the family being responsible for the education of the young-—teaching them to read with the Bible—like Lincoln.
It created individualism, self-sufficiency, a support structure other than government. It was freedom to raise your children with your own worldview—an ideology where sacrifice was important and immediate gratification could be delayed for more important things. There was meaning to life, since, of course, God put you on earth for a reason.
So why is it not working????? Because of the insertion of the Prussian design of mass forced schooling to destroy the morality of the children—create mass conformity, destroy individualism and the “thinkers outside the box” by taking kids away from the family unit, and sticking them into mass indoctrination factories, which are designed to destroy their “fixed beliefs”. (BK Eakman)
This is intentional....Dewey was a socialist and he wanted forced schooling for younger kids (they want to be god and design human beings to do what the state wants (J.S. Mills)-Take away young children from loving parents so they can “resocialized” and conditioned them to be slaves—just do what they are told....is exactly what schools condition them to do....raise your hand and wait to be called on..... (Dewey threw out the God-centered McGuffey Readers...killing the Christian paradigm of moral absolutes....a value system where there is Absolute Truth, which Allan Bloom writes about extensively in The Closing of the American Mind.
The Pope also writes about this “Age of Relativism” —the Marxist ideology posited into the school system and controlling media, esp. Hollywood starting in the 30’s with few exceptions.
Undgerground History of American Education by Gatto is another good book that tells of the stealth destruction of morality in people so that Marxist ideology could redesign the “family” to destroy all biological connections—because Marcuse et al. knew to take control over America they had to destroy the family unit and Christianity...the two things which created individualism and a support system which defies intrusive government.
What did they do first...inject Kinseyian ideas, The Beats, etc—Rockefeller and Carnegie Foundations and others paid to elevate trash into culture and the university—and kick out the Classical Education—that which taught Honor and Truth—all the virtues which led to the most successful relationships (and happiness).
They elevated evil—The Beats—whose books were vulgar and vile—Burroughs had hanging boys with erections being sodomized —ideas as vulgar as that and worse being given “prizes” with Marxist professors glorifying it and demoting Milton and Dickens and those “evil” white men. Ayn Rand commented at the time....there is such dedication to the destruction of values. It was everywhere (Germany’s Weimar Republic in 1919—same thing) in America by the 60’s and by the 70’s standards continued to elevate things which divide people and destroy relationships.
Then they created no-fault divorce to destroy marriages which destroys the ability of children to form long term relationships. Children of divorce are far more likely to divorce—so it became exponential. Divorce was very low until after the 60’s and the promotion through hollywood of divorcees as being glamorous and beautiful and ideal. Hollywood constantly glamourizes dysfunctional behaviors as being good and fathers as being bigots and dummies—starting with Archie Bunker.
Marketing of Evil tells also of the deliberate destruction of worldview to the atheist German Postmodernism one. It is intentional, been going on for a hundred years, actually, and is designed to destroy the family unit, so that children are easily manipulated and people have no support structure to oppose the state. People need emotional support of family—it is where all happiness originates....take that away and you have no design in human nature—no God—no meaning to life...except the immediate physical sensations—feel good do it which always destroys societies.
Theodore Dalrymple writes extensively about the destruction of the family unit in England (intentional by welfare system and elite theories (marxism) that has ruined the support system of the children and if the children manage to live....they are addicts, gang members or some other drain on society.
Charles Manson is someone who never knew his father and was not protected in childhood. He was abused and sodomized....which happens when there are not two parents to help each other out in the caring for children—strangers are employed to watch over the precious human beings that need to learn empathy, compassion and trust by parents consistently being there for years.
Easy divorce is how Lenin ruined Russia...he took women out of the house and invented day care for his mass indoctrination of toddlers to have total control designed by Pavlov of there worldview. The emotion damage still exists, because of this separation....there is absolutely no trust between the people. The ability of mass exterminations is because of the lack of compassion that children receive in early childhood. Mansions are created in early childhood.
Trust is formed in the formative years of a child. If they have no stable relationships or a mother that flakes out they will be unable to trust. (Piaget, Erikson, Freud).
Study the effect of Romanian orphanages. Humans need a loving, caring adults—preferably a man and a woman so they can learn to relate to all people and model a healthy relationship where it is easiest to flourish.
Hmmm....
So the moral fiber of individuals is what made marriage work. And the Government intrusion into education is what is breaking down the family, destroying that fiber.
And you don’t see a problem with Government intruding into marriage? If it’s destroyed the moral fiber of America, and the educational system, what makes you think it won’t destroy the concept of marriage - just like it’s doing now?
Welcome to FR, n00b. Good advice would not be quite so vocal about doing away with marriage on a PRO-FAMILY site.
It doesn’t bode well for your future.
Heh - I guess when all else fails, it's time to call out the seniority card, gramps? Thankfully conservatism is about reason and logic and morality, not age of presence. Unless of course you consider Daniel Inouye and Patrick Leahy as "better" Senators than Jim DeMint because they've served much longer than him?
Is a seniority-based society what you envision for FR, rather than a meritocracy? No? Then I'd suggest cutting out the slurs like "n00b"...
Good advice would not be quite so vocal about doing away with marriage on a PRO-FAMILY site.
Please tell me ANYWHERE where I said we should do away with marriage - PLEASE! Your inability to accurately read and comprehend English as written is no excuse to accuse me of doing what you think I'm doing.
Go ahead, tell me where I said we should eliminate marriage, and I'll cheerfully leave FR. Would you like to make the same offer - tell me where I said we should eliminate marriage or you will leave FR? No?
Since you obviously could not follow it, let me lay it out for you again: I said the Government should get out of the marriage business; not that the marriage business should end. For most people it's an obvious difference; others don't quite have the cognitive ability to discern the two.
If you take offense at this - so be it. That's your issue, not mine, but I do recognize that for some people, being schooled by a "n00b" can be an embarrassment.
Hey, I’ve been here 10 years, you less than a month. And you are the one in need of schooling.
Why don’t you head back to DU where you belong. Or better yet, start a vanity thread about your views to dissolve the legal entity of marriage. That would be fun.
You have shown no logic, no morality and therefore the joke is on you.
If you are so thin-skinned as to be offended by ‘noob’ then the Religion Forum isn’t for you at all.
Post #25 and #26 for starters. Doing away with government sanctioned marriage is doing away with marriage. But I don’t expect much from lib trolls trying to pretend to be conservative.
LOL. You are not off to a good start here. I will bet money I will be here long after you get the zot.
Hey, Inmans, some fresh meat on the Plygy threads.
The purpose of government is to provide a Rule of Law—a system to protect the Natural Rights of all citizens which includes their posterity. In Natural Law Theory—duties always come before any “rights” and that was the philosophy of our Founders who adopted Natural Law Theory and where the term “Natural Rights” comes from, which presupposes a Supreme Being. (why the laws of nature and nature’s God exists in Declaration and our Rights come from the Creator).
You can’t get much clearer than that.
Just Law which is defined by Cicero as “Right Reason according to Nature”. That is where our government’s idea of Justice comes from—right reason assumes there is a “wrong” reason.
All Just Law has to be based in Right Reason which is governed by the laws of nature....(God’s design)....which is the foundation of reason and logic and science (Newtonian). Cause and effect in nature assumes there was a Creator since all of nature points to a cause. This is the philosophy that was incorporated into the Constitution and as such guarantees our “Natural Rights”. There is a teleological design to man..proven by nature....that is easily knowable to all human beings....and the best, most equal system for human beings to flourish and be productive in the emotionally safest and most flourishing model is marriage which promotes the long term nurturing of their own posterity—the connectivity of the past with the future which gives genetic interest to both and a reason to sacrifice for others. Marriage assures selflessness since there has to be sacrifices made because of the possibility of children. Selfish societies are always destructive societies. Christianity teaches selflessness....and sacrifice...it is why it was so perfect for flourishing, creative, productive societies....and science...it teaches delayed gratification—perseverance which is crucial to intellectual development.
In Natural Law Theory which is the underlying principle of our Constitution, human beings have duties of caring for their biological offspring....which is where the right to personal property originates. It is necessary to ensure the survival of self and offspring. It is the basis of Natural Rights and as such the government has the “duty” to provide a system where human beings will be able to flourish and care for their biological offspring...it is the purpose of government. Marriage is essential to the emotional and physical survival of children....the importance of a mother and father to all children has never been in dispute until marxist studies similar to the global warming ones...to manipulate “feelings” and worldview and promote agendas..... I’ve studied child development and worked with children for decades.
It only started to become “controversial” because of the feminist movement which was developed to remove the mother from her children and destroy patriarchy—destroy the trust that children have in parents. It used to be considered extremely evil to have strangers watch young children up until the Feminist movement—than all the agitprop made “daycare” a good, AFTER they renamed it “preschool” so mothers would fall for the ruse and abandon their young (primates would never do it) to strangers to form the children’s worldview. BK Eakman writes and documents decades of intentional destruction of “fixed beliefs” of children so children will believe up is down etc....there will be no logic—the laws of nature won’t exist. Marx’s design of utopia....where no biological relationships exist so that loyalty and dependence is only for the state.
Why don’t you head back to DU where you belong.
Because I'm not a liberal or Democrat. I'm a conservative. Apparently one that can read as well...
Or better yet, start a vanity thread about your views to dissolve the legal entity of marriage. That would be fun.
Because that's not what I've ever advocated here. It's what you want to believe I wrote, but nowhere near the truth.
You have shown no logic, no morality and therefore the joke is on you.
Really? Can you point out where? You came in here, busting my chops, and added nothing to the argument. Did not address my comments at all in terms of logic or morality, just your own ignorance and example of lack of reading comprehension.
So, how about doing the conservative thing and showing me where my logic is in error?
If you are so thin-skinned as to be offended by ‘noob’ then the Religion Forum isn’t for you at all.
It's not the term "n00b" that's the problem - I was called that much earlier here at FR. It's that you said it in a clearly mocking, condescending manner. It wasn't said in the love of Christ now, was it? And isn't that what the Religion forum is about?
Doing away with government sanctioned marriage is doing away with marriage.
Really? Explain that. How is it we need a State to recognize a religious ceremony? How is my commitment to another - in front of fellow brothers and sisters in Christ and the Lord God Himself - only valid if the Government sanctions it?
I'd be VERY curious to see what you say about that...
LOL. You are not off to a good start here. I will bet money I will be here long after you get the zot.
I'll do you one better - I've pinged the Religion Moderator on this post as well. If he can find that I've called for elimination of marriage - and not just elimination of State-recognition of marriage - I'll ask that he immediately "zot" me.
Failing that, if I'm still here in a day, I think the Christian thing for you to do would be to apologize, and consider how you behave in front of your fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.
Lastly, it is 100% Biblical to confront and correct a brother in Christ when they are going astray in there walk with Christ, and attacking and condemning others without cause.
LOL. Don’t need support, just thought they would be amused by you.
And I’m thinking you might be a retread.
First off, I want to THANK YOU for the polite, open, and informative exchanges! I wish others in this thread would take your example and learn from it...
I do understand the issues with Natural Law, and the Rule of Law. However, my concern is that we - as a nation - are turning away from the source of our Rights (the Creator, as identified in our foundational documents) and towards Man. So rather Natural (which is to say, God-based) Law, we are moving toward Man’s Law. And so we see the legalization of things like gay marriage.
I contend that society is going to be more damaged by a legalization of gay marriage - which, at this point, I believe is not only inevitable but required as one of the signs of the future return of Christ - than the elimination of State-sanctioned marriage. A marriage commitment at this point, from a legal/Government standard, is no more than a simplified contract with implied clauses of property divisions.
I believe that if we are to maintain the sanctity of marriage as God intended it, we need to take it back from the State. Make it a Christ-centered thing only. Let the Government offer its civil ceremonies to man and woman, man and man, woman and woman, man and man and woman, man and phone, whathaveyou. Let it descend to the level of what the Government functionally considers it to be today - a simplified contract between parties with some implied conditions.
Take marriage back from the State, and keep it holy in the Church. What two people pledge to each other before God and their fellow believers has no less import because the State does not recognize it. Much of the early life of America saw such religious marriages lasting for years before they could be “legally” registered, yet it made those marriages no less valid in the eyes of God.
If the gays want to get “married”, and the Government and legal system has sunk to the level where such an abomination is their right, then remove the entire religious aspect from the act. Do not let it be defiled by such deviant applications. Strip Government out of the marriage business, let it deal with the secular and legal ramifications of a union of people.
Put marriage back in the hands of the church and God.
Anyway, that’s my opinion, and thank you again for your kind, courteous, and expressive posts!
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.
