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 can always make a good point by quoting de Tocqueville. I have been kicking around the idea of writing a book on the worldwide cultural effect of ancient French religion (Caesar to Mao), and at the base is the hatred that the French have toward marriage: the ancient goddesses were Arduinna and Rosemerta. Arduinna was called Diana by Caesar, and Rosemerta was Venus. However, Rosemerta was a goddess who hated her husband and every marriage (a proto-NOW member?); thus, the Gauls worshiped virgins and whores.
The relation to the France of de Tocqueville’s day and today is fairly obvious. I also agree that the loosening of marriage legally has led to a rapid change in American morality generally. Tightening the laws may not make us more religious, but at least it will help keep from disaster those who have trouble controlling themselves.
Excellent post. Unfortunately ‘Tocqueville: America was great because America is good’ is a hoax quotation dating to 1941.
| 2400 Adultery, divorce, polygamy, and free union are grave offenses against the dignity of marriage. |
| 2387 The predicament of a man who, desiring to convert to the Gospel, is obliged to repudiate one or more wives with whom he has shared years of conjugal life, is understandable. However polygamy is not in accord with the moral law." [Conjugal] communion is radically contradicted by polygamy; this, in fact, directly negates the plan of God which was revealed from the beginning, because it is contrary to the equal personal dignity of men and women who in matrimony give themselves with a love that is total and therefore unique and exclusive." The Christian who has previously lived in polygamy has a grave duty in justice to honor the obligations contracted in regard to his former wives and his children. |
| 1664 Unity, indissolubility, and openness to fertility are essential to marriage. Polygamy is incompatible with the unity of marriage; divorce separates what God has joined together; the refusal of fertility turns married life away from its "supreme gift," the child (GS 50 § 1). |
| 1610 Moral conscience concerning the unity and indissolubility of marriage developed under the pedagogy of the old law. In the Old Testament the polygamy of patriarchs and kings is not yet explicitly rejected. Nevertheless, the law given to Moses aims at protecting the wife from arbitrary domination by the husband, even though according to the Lord's words it still carries traces of man's "hardness of heart" which was the reason Moses permitted men to divorce their wives. |
| 1645 "The unity of marriage, distinctly recognized by our Lord, is made clear in the equal personal dignity which must be accorded to man and wife in mutual and unreserved affection." Polygamy is contrary to conjugal love which is undivided and exclusive. |
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.
In your post #26 you stated So do away with Government-recognized marriage altogether. Allow civil contracts between any consenting parties and be done with it..
You have called for the replacement of marriage with civil contracts - with no definition of "marriage". Therefore to the observer - you have called for the elimination of marriage via replacement with "civil contracts". It is not missed that you stated any consenting parties you've opened the door to gay marriage as well as polygamy, polyamorism, etc.
You further expressed "interest" in not legalizing marriage at all (post 22).
Finally in post 18 you stated Just more proof that Government should get out of the marriage business altogether. You legitimize things by officially recognizing them - so don’t recognize any of them.
So you are advocating ceasing to recognize any marriage. Civil unions are not marriages - thus you are advocating an elimination of marriage. You see, your arguments above do not recognize the Christian definition in favor of a 'civil union'.
reaganaut:Or better yet, start a vanity thread about your views to dissolve the legal entity of marriage. That would be fun.
FTSL : Because that's not what I've ever advocated here. It's what you want to believe I wrote, but nowhere near the truth.
I have pointed out three citations from you where you have done exactly that - advocating the dissolution of the legal entity of marriage. For all your bluster, the challenge is correct, not in error. You have shown that not only have you advocated the dissolution of the legal entity of marriage, you advocated a non-Christian basis of marriage.
I didn’t put that in quotes because I didn’t know what the exact quote was....but his meaning was exactly that....it was deduced from his entire writings...which this is only a part:
Democracy in America (Alexis de Tocqueville)
“The philosophers of the eighteenth century explained in a very simple manner the gradual decay of religious faith. Religious zeal, said they, must necessarily fail the more generally liberty is established and knowledge diffused. Unfortunately the facts by no means accord with their theory. There are certain populations in Europe whose unbelief is only equaled by their ignorance and debasement; while in America, one of the freest and most enlightened nations in the world, the people fulfill with fervor all the outward duties of religion.”
To me, I will repeat....Tocqueville is stating that America is great because America is good. He could have said that exact statement...it is what he observed.
I pinged you because reaganaut chose to ping you first; it is common courtesy, correct?
You have called for the replacement of marriage with civil contracts - with no definition of "marriage".
On the contrary, as you quoted I called for doing away with Government-recognized marriage. There is a difference - marriage still exists, it is recognized by the Church - not the Government.
And in fact, our Government already recognizes such - there is no need to have a religious ceremony to be married, in the eyes of the Government it is merely a set of signatures on a purchased piece of paper, and entry into a Government registry that creates a union that was intended to only happen with the blessing of God.
Therefore to the observer - you have called for the elimination of marriage via replacement with "civil contracts".
To those who wish to drop the adjective phrase "Government-recognized" used to describe "marriage", sure. To those who read the words as written wholly and entirely, I would say no.
It is not missed that you stated any consenting parties you've opened the door to gay marriage as well as polygamy, polyamorism, etc.
For a civil contract - which I stated, and you claimed, absolutely. Such right to a civil contract exists TODAY. There is nothing that states it is illegal - or even immoral - to draw up a contract of responsibilities and sharing of assets with any other person or entity, is there?
So you are advocating ceasing to recognize any marriage. Civil unions are not marriages - thus you are advocating an elimination of marriage. You see, your arguments above do not recognize the Christian definition in favor of a 'civil union'.
Legitimize is to make legal; if you eliminate Government from recognizing marriage, then by definition it is no longer legitimate - it is not legal. That does not mean the marriage does not exist, nor does it imply anything about the religious aspect of marriage - which is the sacrament being defiled with legitimate gay marriages.
In an ever-increasing number of States, legitimate marriage IS heretical and an abomination in the eyes of God, because it allows for gays to marry. That is what legitimate - legal - marriage brings us today.
So remove the power of the State to even interfere with marriage. Give it back to the Church.
I have pointed out three citations from you where you have done exactly that - advocating the dissolution of the legal entity of marriage.
Dissolve the legal entity of marriage, yes. Dissolve the religious entity of marriage? Of course not
You have shown that not only have you advocated the dissolution of the legal entity of marriage, you advocated a non-Christian basis of marriage.
Now, to reach THAT conclusion you're going through some pretty interesting gyrations! How is removing the corruption of the sacrament by the Government, advocating a non-Christian basis for the sacrament?
Is gay marriage legal in some jurisdictions of the US? How does that square with a Christian-basis for marriage? Better to pluck the offending eye out than let the entire body be lost to sin. So remove the offending part - Government involvement in marriage - as to preserve the sacrament as a whole.
I certainly agree that there is a greater Biblical acceptance of polygamy than of same-sex unions - but that’s not saying much, considering that homosexual acts are called an abomination before the Lord. There’s greater Biblical authority against eating pork than the pig farmers want to admit, too.
The evils of family breakdown have little to do with doctrinal differences of opinion, but much to do with governmental imposition of opinion. The mere fact of recognizing marriage does not corrode; the idea that government grants marriage does. What the government grants, it may modify or take away. Such is the state of marriage today.
Removing recognition throws out the baby with the bathwater. Yes, general restrictions such as monogamy may indeed originate in sectarian views, but the positive social effects generated flow even to atheists. Easy outs such as no-fault incontestable divorce not only interfere with religious practice (for example, a Catholic woman who believes she is still married to the man who divorced her, because her Church teaches her so, is generally regarded as crazy), but also redound to the detriment of society as a whole. Uncertainty in intimate relations is not the fault of recognition of marriage, but of redefinition of marriage.
In short, bad drivers would not become better by banning the Department of Motor Vehicles.
thank you for confessing that reaganaut's assertion from the original post is correct then - perhaps you can apologize to her now.
There is a difference - marriage still exists, it is recognized by the Church - not the Government.
As clearly cited - you advocate a 'civil union' between ANY PARTNERS - No church definition or association.
To those who read the words as written wholly and entirely, I would say no.
That is your story and you are sticking to it - other observers discern otherwise.
For a civil contract - which I stated, and you claimed, absolutely. Such right to a civil contract exists TODAY.
And you have liberally broadened the definitions and allowances to who can be in those 'unions' - except those contracts are still limited - contrary to your ANY partner definition.
<>Legitimize is to make legal; if you eliminate Government from recognizing marriage, then by definition it is no longer legitimate - it is not legal. That does not mean the marriage does not exist, nor does it imply anything about the religious aspect of marriage - which is the sacrament being defiled with legitimate gay marriages.
So your's becomes an anything goes proposition - as not everyone is under the Church.
How is removing the corruption of the sacrament by the Government, advocating a non-Christian basis for the sacrament?
Once again, yours is flawed - you replace the church with 'civil unions' .
The mere fact of recognizing marriage does not corrode; the idea that government grants marriage does. What the government grants, it may modify or take away. Such is the state of marriage today.
Because we've given Government dominion over marriage, it can make of marriage what it wants. And right now, it's making it an abomination.
So, we have the option of trying to take Government back in the right direction, or simply taking marriage back. Of the two, I believe the latter is easier to do, as it uses Government's own avarice to keep the secular union under its grasp, and eliminates much of what it sees as "opposition" to its position.
We know the "Defense of Marriage" approaches are failing in State after State, and most likely will fail ultimately at the Federal level. The Christian foundation for such unions is no longer considered; it is only the secular, across-all-societal-groups that is of import to our Government. Thus we will never win the battle over keeping marriage pure when it is controlled by Government.
Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's. Caesar can have his secular union; God gets marriage.
In short, bad drivers would not become better by banning the Department of Motor Vehicles.
This is an interesting analogy, but perhaps not fully on-point. I would say that bad drivers can still get their license, but only drivers that commit to good driving habits can get insurance (those who marry in a Church receive the sacrament of marriage).
Interesting thoughts, however!
Huh? What is with some folks here - can't you see the words "GOVERNMENT-RECOGNIZED"? Doesn't that work? Right now, we have PARALLEL marriage ceremonies - one of the Government, one of the Church. Eliminate the Government one - it does not imply elimination of the one in the Church - the REAL marriage.
As clearly cited - you advocate a 'civil union' between ANY PARTNERS - No church definition or association.
Sure. They exist today. Is that at odds? How is that any different than what any group of parties can do THIS VERY DAY? It is not. Thus your insistence that somehow this is "wrong" is not just moot, it is irrelevant.
You can get married, and you can also have a civil union. In fact, we call those 'civil marriages' where the Church is not involved at all. And many times prenuptial agreements are used - legal contracts to spell out the civil union arrangements between the parties.
This is a non-issue to the central point - get the Government out of the business of marriage.
So your's becomes an anything goes proposition - as not everyone is under the Church.
On the contrary! I am saying the ONLY people who can get married are those who will do it under the Church! If you choose to not do it under the church, then get yourself a civil union - because it is NOT a marriage.
Once again, yours is flawed - you replace the church with 'civil unions' .
Not even close. If you get married today in a Church, are you married?
What if you choose to not get a marriage license? Are you still married?
I contend it is those who insist that Government recognize a union of man and woman, before the Church and with God's blessing, who are placing the Church and the sacrament of marriage as subservient to the Government. For you are telling all that a marriage is not valid unless the Government blesses and condones it.
That is, IMHO, heretical.
Marriage is the union of man and woman, becoming one flesh in the eyes of God and their fellow believers. Two people becoming one legal entity is a civil union. That is the matter for the Government - not the Church - to decide.
The distinction is quite clear and obvious for those willing to read my words plainly, without preconceived notions.
As far as an apology for reaganaut, if my words were hateful, I apologize. They were not meant as such, but as correction in a manner which I deemed she would understand, as it was the manner in which I was addressed and my words taken out of context and abused.
Correct. It was clearly his meaning, but many mistakenly think it is his wording.
I've cited your posts and your words - 0bamaesque word parsing at this stage of the game shows your failure. Your hole is just getting deeper.
And many times prenuptial agreements are used - legal contracts to spell out the civil union arrangements between the parties
And yet you still want government involvement after all - seriously confused I'd say.
The distinction is quite clear and obvious for those willing to read my words plainly, without preconceived notions.
As already cited numerous times, your words do not match or have consistency.
As far as an apology for reaganaut, if my words were hateful, I apologize. They were not meant as such, but as correction in a manner which I deemed she would understand, as it was the manner in which I was addressed and my words taken out of context and abused.
As was displayed- her statement was confirmed in three separate posts - so your bleat was out of order and as you did the previous post - proved further your errors.
As the Oak Ridge Boys used to sing, trying to love two women is like a ball and chain, and as I like to say, trying to love any more than that is like wrapping yourself in anchor chain.
Says the man who's willing to lie about what I posted by removing critical words from my quoted text. Thank you, that says a lot about the integrity of discussing anything with you...
And yet you still want government involvement after all - seriously confused I'd say.
SHOW ME WHERE. You can't, because I never said that. I said marriage is for the Church, and Government is out of the marriage business. Civil unions EXIST TODAY, and have existed for hundreds of years.
You want to twist my words and the Deceiver would? Go ahead - but the truth is here for all to read. It is your folly, and your false witness against me that is the failure here, not mine.
As already cited numerous times, your words do not match or have consistency.
You do not understand because you choose to not understand. You refuse to acknowledge the very words you quoted. You put pride for others ahead of the truth. That is simply not Christian at all. And yes, I just went there.
Can you admit that I was quite explicit in qualifying the elimination of marriage only in context with Government-sanctioning? Can you? Simple question - yes or no. If I get nothing else from this reply, either one of those words would tell me immensely about the type of person you are, in terms of posts on threads.
As was displayed- her statement was confirmed in three separate posts - so your bleat was out of order and as you did the previous post - proved further your errors.
One last time - GOVERNMENT RECOGNIZED. You have a mental block on those words? It was always quite clear, and only when people read what they wanted to read do they find something else.
The failure is on the reader's part; I don't know what else I can do. I can show you the words, but I cannot force you to read - you have to want to do that on your own.
Barring your ability to state one way or another that I clearly qualified my statement as GOVERNMENT-RECOGNIZED, I'll just assume you're not much more than a concern-troll who bounced to the aid of an online friend who got caught in their own error.
Good grief they even have people who have gone on TV showing their lifetsyles as polygamists. Makes it difficult to believe the church opposes this... There are some who practice this, though they never actually marry...not because of what the church thinks as much as once the women have children they go on the welfare rolls...the more women in the household the more revenues from the taxpayers for the free ride.
And if it removes its recognition of marriage, it will be seen as having ABOLISHED marriage. Whatever is not permitted, is prohibited.
Thanks ‘zilla
Government sanctioned ‘civil unions’ are the same as government recognized or sanctioned ‘marriage’.
Changing the name will not change the legal aspects of it, however it will destroy the traditional definition of marriage and open it up to all sorts of perversions.
BTW, polygamy was never sanctioned by God. Even in the OT, it is MAN’s doing - not God’s.
Yep, retread. Has to be.
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.