Posted on 03/27/2013 1:11:54 PM PDT by Maelstorm
Justice Sonia Sotomayor was questioning former U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson, a pro-gay marriage Republican. She brought up a very interesting question during the exchange: If gay marriage is legal, what about polygamy?
Sotomayor asked, "If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what state restrictions could ever exist?" before referencing "polygamy and incest among adults," as reported by Matt Canham of the Salt Lake Tribune. The argument is an illustration of a broader issue about the culture of American society. To agree that gay marriage is indeed protected by the "equal protection" clause in the Constitution, wouldn't the same apply for all consenting adult relationships?
Justice Sonia Sotomayor's thought-provoking question was echoed by Bishop Harry Jackson, a minister at Hope Christian Church in Beltsville, Md. He believes that "the real issue is the religious liberty issue and the issue of whether we can practice marriage as we believe it on an ongoing basis," and further stated that if same-sex marriage "is allowed to be mandated by fiat...then, right behind it, polygamy and many other forms of marriage will automatically sweep the land within just a matter of a few years." Advocates of legalizing gay marriage, as opposed to offering a compromise of "civil unions," which they argue is no different than "separate but equal" should consider this question.
Recently, President Obama's "Organizing for Action" tweeted a quote from the president, whose position on this has "evolved" in a big way from 2008, when he stated, "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage." The tweet quoted the President as saying: "Every single American deserves to be treated equally in the eyes of the law," followed by the hashtag #MarriageEquality. If this is true, than America should do away with programs like affirmative action, which do not treat everyone "equally". Additionally, if this is true, than loving polygamous families should be allowed to get married.
Islam calls for 4 wives and one guy.
Why not polygamy?
Any kind of marriage can be done using the homosexual argument for their sham.
If the court decides that homosexuals can marry then we will see lot s of lawsuits against churches, adoption agencies, Priests, Revs, wedding planners who refuse, teachers who refuse to teach this in the schools
Leave marriage as it has been for thousands of years, why all of a suddent a guy like pushing feces back into another guy then cry about how they shoudl be married is plain sick and mentally disturbed.
I hope this back fires and the court states all marriage is between one mand and one woman and all these homosexuals and activist judges who got us here will now wake up and go by the law and stop all this nonsense once and for all
I loved a girl some time ago but never got the chance to marry her because I was working away.
Why cannot I marry her now?
ARF
I;m sire you;ve heard leave it to the sttes, problem is that these people marry in MA, come to FL snd then tell everyone they;re married and want a divorce in say TX.
Stop all of this nonsense, ignore the liberaltarians who keep using the bumper sticker slogan of no Govt and keep marriage as it has for thousands of years
There are fewer muzzies in the US than there are Hindus or Buddhists. Entire muzzie nations like Algeria and Albania and the former Soviet stans do not have Sharia law. The folks pushing this 160 years ago would have been in the streets protestin that Irish and German Catholics were trying to get everyone in America to eat mackerel on Friday. Go after those muzzies who seek our harm through terror, but I doubt my Pakistani neighbor who worked 35 years at Chase and gave me a bottle of Makers Mark at Christmas is trying to bring Sharia to Long Island.
This might help you understand the issue better, coming from the LDS perspective.
The Family, a Proclamation to the World.
http://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation
This was published to the word in 1995, long before Prop 8 was a blip on the horizon.
Here’s a snip, from the end:
“we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.
WE CALL UPON responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.”
Then, tell us why Rip...most of the 200+ Lds men who took on additional plural wives after 1890 -- in the 1890-1910 period -- were not ex-communicated?
It was because of this post by Ripliancum -- and this post alone -- that I just took the time to post this new thread:
Solemn Covenant: The Mormon Polygamous Passage [Book lists almost 500 Lds in post-manifesto unions]
Here is what I said I post #1 of that thread...and shame on Ripliancum for his misleading comment:
*****************
From the BYU review article: The book began as an attempt to explain why ALMOST HALF OF THE LATTER-DAY SAINT CHURCH'S TOP AUTHORITIES, ALONG WITH MORE THAN TWO HUNDRED OTHER MEN, took plural wives after the 1890 Manifesto. Hardy soon realized that a full understanding of polygamy's protracted demise (1890–1911) required consideration of its equally prolonged birth (1831–52) and of the periods when Mormons practiced it openly (1852–85) or in hiding (1885–90) under federal pressure to abandon it. Thus, the first three chapters treat the Church's efforts to make a plurality of wives as much a part of its patriarchal theology as a plurality of gods. As a historian of ideas, Hardy places this attempt in the context of a little-known current of early modern Western thought that favored polygamy over monogamy.
I have this book by B. Carmon Hardy. I've looked at Hardy's appendix: He lists 220 Mormon men who took
Note: These 220 men took about 275 additional plural wives during that 20-year period. (Almost half of these men already had -- at my count -- about 112 plural wives between them before the manifesto...so the overall average was almost three wives per man).
About HALF of the 220 men Hardy lists in his appendix -- 109 to be exact -- were monogamists when the 1890 "Manifesto" was passed. IoW, they weren't used to a "polygamous lifestyle" -- and had NO reason to take on a second, third, fourth, fifth wives -- with the "manifesto" in place.
The 220 men who took on 275 ADDITIONAL wives broke down, year-wise, as:
1910: 5
1909: 10
1908: 3
1907: 6
1906: 4
1905: 4
1904: 20
1903: 39 [this was the year Lds "prophet" Joseph F. Smith had to "lay down" Manifesto II to tell the Mormons to "stop" polygamy]
1902: 28
1901: 33
1900: 21
1899: 9
1898: 20
1897: 15
1896: 4
1895: 5
1894: 12
1893: 3
1892: 6
1891: 3
1890 between Oct. 10-->Dec: 8
TOTAL: 275 women initiated among 220 men
And precisely because over 100 additional unions were done in the 20th century, some of these plural unions did not die out until the late 1950s, with two possible families, the early 1960s.
From the BYU review article: Hardy clearly agrees with Apostle Marriner W. Merrill's 1891 view: "'I do Not believe the Manifesto was a revelation from God but was formulated by Prest. Woodruff and endorsed by His Councilors and the Twelve Apostles for expediency to meet the present situation of affairs in the Nation or those against the Church.'" (150).
(Well, ya know what this means...it means that IF D&C 132 is "correct" -- in a "revelation" that opened the door for Mormon polygamy...then there's BEEN NO "revelation" to really "shut it." It's just all for socio-political expediency...says both an Lds past "apostle"...and, in effect, this BYU source!!!
And, what this also means is that the fLDS are the "only" true keepers of Joseph Smith polygamous orthodoxy! (And here we thought the Mormon fundamentalists were the "offshoot"!!!)
Ask Sonia “if woman has a right to murder the fetus living in HER belly, does she have the right to marry a man who is already married if the other woman is agreeable?.
Reparations for the Mormons!
Reparations for the Mormons!
Whatever works. The chute has been greased for the unraveling of society, to mix a few metaphors.
Boogieman, ALL, please pay attention to this one graph in the 1995 Lds "Family Proclamation to the World" by the Mormons:
"ALL HUMAN BEINGS—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a DIVINE NATURE AND DESTINY."
Normally, we only hear this gobbly goop from the New Agers; the Hindus; and the esotericists..
That "we ourselves are the 'godself'...'divine nature'"...
"And we only need to 'realize' our divinity...as we merge with divinity."
"ALL HUMAN BEINGS—male and female...each has a DIVINE...DESTINY."
But, leave it to the Mormons to toss out their "gospel" of...
...universalism here (no hell) ["each has a divine...destiny"]
...and this "divine...destiny" = supposedly becoming gods...
...even as Mormons know damn well within their own theology...
...that (a) all never-married singles aren't eligible for either divinity OR living with Heavenly Father -- at all;
(b) the over 80% of Mormons who don't have temple recommends aren't eligible for either divinity or living with Heavenly Father --at all;
and (c) ALL NON-Mormons aren't eligible for either divinity or living with Heavenly Father -- at all.
"Divine...destiny???"
How misleadingly false even from a mere Mormon angle????
Precedence is a bitch.
See the following chapters:
Part Fifth
Chapter II. Of the Domestic Relations -- Husband and Wife
This chapter talks about the laws of marriage, and the responsibilities of husband and wife.
This chapter talks about the responsibilities that parents have towards raising their children, and when those responsibilities end.The title page says that this book was "adapted to the purposes of instruction in families and schools."
"Marriage" was one of those things that people didn't need a definition of. This is what people taught their children about marriage and families.
-PJ
Inasmuch as there are numerous reports in circulation that plural marriages have been entered into, contrary to the official declaration of President Woodruff of September 24, 1890, commonly called the manifesto, which was issued by President Woodruff, and adopted by the Church at its general conference, October 6, 1890, which forbade any marriages violative of the law of the land, I, Joseph F. Smith, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, hereby affirm and declare that no such marriages have been solemnized with the sanction, consent, or knowledge of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And I hereby announce that all such marriages are prohibited, and if any officer or member of the Church shall assume to solemnize or enter into any such marriage, he will be deemed in transgression against the Church, and will be liable to be dealt with according to the rules and regulations thereof and excommunicated therefrom.
JOSEPH F. SMITH,
President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Manifesto
Most of the post manifesto marriages happened in Mexico and Canada. It became an ex-communicable offense in the first decade of the 1900’s. You can nick and knack to death and find little discrepancies all you want to please your pollution, but we both know the practice went away over 100 years ago like I said, no matter how you do the math.
Why do you think the fundamentalists movements started? It was because it became illegal practice it within the Church.
No matter how hard you try, the old fLDS label you try to stick the Mormon church doesn't hold muster.
Does the Mormon support of prop 8 really get your goat that you find you need to post this issue over and over again?
You have but one purpose only it seems, that is to smear another’s religion.
I take no joy in dialogue with such a person, I really hope you are finding some, because the nature and disposition of your posts seems void of that.
Good luck to you.
A set-up if I ever saw one.
If you go to this Lds "general authorities chart" General Authorities chart I believe the "Quorum of the Twelve" Lds "apostles" are ranked in the order selected:
After Boyd K. Packer, the next three "apostles" -- Dallin Oaks, L. Tom Perry, and Russell M. Nelson -- all have something in common: "All three men are widowers, and all three men have been 'sealed' to a second wife."
Source:
What is "Celestial Polygamy"? [Mainstream Mormons say polygamy still occurring near Kolobian colony]
Now what does this have to do with Rip's comment?
(1) Oaks, Perry, and Nelson have been sealed to TWO wives in the Mormon temple "for eternity." This means, that since Lds teach that "marriage is forever," this trio of Mormon "apostles" -- with likely other Lds "general authorities" to follow -- will become "eternal polygamists" upon death...well, if you believe Mormon doctrine, that is.
And yet, Rip insists that Mormons aren't practicing polygamy...well I guess the "qualifier" for Rip is: "only on the Kolob colony" -- eh, Rip?
(2) Almost HALF of all Lds leaders in the late 19th century were practicing polygamists...Have they stopped practicing that, Rip?
(3) The mainline Mormons didn't have an Lds "prophet" who wasn't a polygamist until the 1940s!!! (Have they all stopped practicing polygamy, Rip???)
(4) Deceased Lds "apostle" Bruce McConkie, in his raved-about book, Mormon Doctrine, (raved about by Lds Ensign Mag & Lds Church News in McConkie's obit), assured Mormons that polygamy as a "holy practice" would resume when the Mormon jesus returned to earth.
(I guess the Mormon leaders would then have to ex-communicate the Mormon jesus then, eh Rip?)
And I take no joy knowing that you are a very highly intelligent and educated man, yet post misleading info that needs to be "called out" on...
And here in post #26 you were questioning Mountainlion's education?
(Apparently you assumed plenty of joy with post #26!)
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.