Posted on 06/04/2014 10:19:50 AM PDT by Iced Tea Party
About polygamy, held by Mr. Reynolds to be a tenant of his religion. SCOTUS rejected the argument, fundamentally on the basis that government is superior over religion when it comes to practice of an action. But the case is interesting for what it says about polygamy, per se. And anything it says about polygamy it would have said IN SPADES about homosexual "marriage."
The case is also interesting as a window into an era when Western Civ thought itself superior (it is, in fact) rather than just one civilization among equals.
Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe, and, until the establishment of the Mormon Church, was almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and of African people. At common law, the second marriage was always void (2 Kent, Com. 79), and from the earliest history of England polygamy has been treated as an offence against society. ...But, todays federal judges find homosexual marriage to be a constitutional right, not even in a penumbra wehre the right to abortion resides.Marriage, while from its very nature a sacred obligation, is nevertheless, in most civilized nations, a civil contract, and usually regulated by law. Upon it society may be said to be built, and out of its fruits spring social relations and social obligations and duties, with which government is necessarily required to deal. In fact, according as monogamous or polygamous marriages are allowed, do we find the principles on which the government of the people, to a greater or less extent, rests. Professor, Lieber says, polygamy leads to the patriarchal principle, and which, when applied to large communities, fetters the people in stationary despotism, while that principle cannot long exist in connection with monogamy. Chancellor Kent observes that this remark is equally striking and profound. 2 Kent, Com. 81, note (e). An exceptional colony of polygamists under an exceptional leadership may sometimes exist for a time without appearing to disturb the social condition of the people who surround it; but there cannot be a doubt that, unless restricted by some form of constitution, it is within the legitimate scope of the power of every civil government to determine whether polygamy or monogamy shall be the law of social life under its dominion.
I’m not sure where your continuing confusion comes from. I suggest that the only involvement the state should have is to issue, certify and file the license. After that if you want to hire a Hutoo medicine man, a Mongolian Shaman or the clerk from the local Elks club to officiate at the celebration of your choice and design, it’s okay with me.
I don’t want to be involved (even by proxy by thecstate) in what marriage has become for the fringe.
Zot is now in the Title.
Who’s getting burned? The newbie OP?
He’s Dead Jim.
***************************
That was quick.
Wagglebee is back
(With a vengence - Woo Hoo)
And newbie trolls are frying like before.
My political goal is more realistic than yours, I only want to stop gay marriage, and fight it in the next presidential election, and win voter support for conservative candidates.
Your political goal is to somehow persuade America to vote to end marriage as we know it, remove it from all laws and government, including military service, and let religions, mosques and cults control marriage, which means that literally anything goes.
A political movement that we all know isn’t going to happen.
Your pretend political goals are not very convincing, especially since they are being used to oppose the important political issues we conservatives need to be discussing for the next election.
Might be-if so, I stand corrected. The person who told me about that is a LEO who belongs to the COC, and was really steamed about it, but he isn’t fond of Catholics, either so he might have been trying to shock me...
You couldn't possibly be more wrong.
The Pilgrims landed in 1620, spent the next several years figuring out how to stay alive and then passed the FIRST marriage license laws in America in 1639.
As you can see on this thread, the libertarians have switched to the “religion argument” to promote gay marriage and polygamy.
As though Mosques, Mormons, and gay churches are the answer to preserving marriage, and the even sillier pretense that Americans will vote to end marriage as we know it and remove it from law.
I haven't help get a troll zotted in a year and a half and I can't tell you how much I've missed it!.
But in that time there were also ecclesiastical courts, so not everything was handled by the State: this is the root of the disagreement between myself and Ansel12 — I do not believe that the government should be involved in defining marriage, he does; I do not believe that making a law
will solve the problem, he does; I believe the best way to remedy this is for Christians to act like marriage is sacred (something disproved, in general, by divorce-rate statistics [and accepting divorce for any-old-reason]) and Ansel [apparently] does not.
:)
Hey, I'm not that old! LOL.
If I am understanding your position, or at least that of ansel12, once we change the president, society will get all better (at least respecting homosexual marriage)? If I reject that proposition, them I am saying we should accept homosexual marriage?
Well, I reject it homosexual marriage as legitimate, even though "the law" says I am wrong. I reject the law. It is an ass. But I don;t see politics as a solution until and unless the politicians start talking about tossing the judges out; and then actually taking them out. The judicial decisions are wrong on so many levels, but "the law" has great power to mold people's minds/ Heck, some people follow the law because they see the alternative as anarchy.
At any rate, the only advice I offered was to pass Western Civ on to your children. Beyond that, I offered my opinion that Western Civ is doomed. It is decadent, its power brokers have little or no attachment to tradition.
Your winner has already been zotted.
I was merely a stand in.
:-)
With my own flavor.
Thank you, wagglebee. I thought that had to be wrong, but I couldn’t find anything online.
:)
Excellent. See you then! :)
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.