Posted on 03/28/2013 2:36:39 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
In the nineteenth century, the courts agreed that it was necessary for the State to acknowledge the biblical requirement of monogamy over against polygamy (many wives). Marriage is by definition a union of one man and one woman.
The courts justified their rulings because of moral absolutes found in the Christian religion. What was true of polygamy was equally true of homosexuality since homosexuality was illegal in all the states, including the Mormon-populated state of Utah. The arguments against polygamy applied to homosexuality with little or no debate.
In The Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States (1890), the court determined that “[t]he organization of a community for the spread and practice of polygamy is, in a measure, a return to barbarism. It is contrary to the spirit of Christianity and of the civilization which Christianity had produced in the Western world.”
If the Supreme Court rules to strike down the decision of the voters of California to prohibit homosexual marriage, there won’t be anything standing in the way of people who want to have multiple husbands and wives.
In his dissent in the Romer v. Evans (1996) decision, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the following:
“Has the Court concluded that the perceived social harm of polygamy is a ‘legitimate concern of government,’ and the perceived social harm of homosexuality is not?”
The legal door will be open for the next minority group to argue for their marriage rights. Don’t be surprised if NAMBLA (The North American Man/Boy Love Association) becomes more public with its claim that sex with children is just as valid as same-sex sex and multiple marriage partners.......
(Excerpt) Read more at politicaloutcast.com ...
I can’t believe our once fine, RELIGIOUS country has fallen so far....it really is DISGUSTING and we are DOOMED.
Liverals = Barbarism
This actually presents an interesting tax planning scheme - simply marry all your adult children to avoid estate taxes.
If “their” hot then sweet deal....
Total “/S”. And the ultimate stoopit outcome.
Bringum Young University will take on a New meaning...
And no, there are no sane or morally right Mormons who are kr will be for that.
Just saying FLDS will suddenly find themselves exonerated and their convictions overturned...
Ido wonder if any of their now sanctioned, under the law, relationships and the films of their lascivious acts, as well the so called artists, who will paint portraits of their “free will” acts will also be found protected????
It ain’t right....
I can even see laws enacted/enforced to protect them from discrimination.
And so it would go and go and go further, til no act or union would be treated, under the law, as protected.
Just weird how far it could go.
It would be the wild west of sexuality and difficult to define what is profane or taking advantage of another human.
Why not bring back arranged marriages?
Suzy at 14 is betrothed by her parents to some sick 68 year old.
It’ll go that far, since there is religious compulsion in certain atavistic societies and religions.
If you can do paoti under the 1st amendment and religious conscience then where does the line end???
Once gay marriage is legalized there will be nothing to prevent polygamy from also being legalized. No argument for gay marriage cannot be equally applied to polygamy.
“What was true of polygamy was equally true of homosexuality”
Exactly. They were both outlawed on the same grounds. That’s why the legalization of polygamy will soon follow the legalization of gay marriage.
Can bestiality be far behind? [Pun intended.]
That's fine, but who gets to define "man" and "woman"?
I think it could happen in 30 to 60 years.
As the example of Mormonism illustrates, it’s a lot easier to conjure up a biblical rationale for polygamy than to do so for homosexuality. It is indeed hard to debate Scalia’s point that to approve of the latter would make it hard to justify rejecting the former.
You mean drone targets?
I was going to say that that question had been decided by God the Father Almighty, but then remembered that God died some time ago and was replaced by 5 "Justices" in black robes. Sometime around 1973 if I am not mistaken.
“””The courts justified their rulings because of moral absolutes found in the Christian religion. What was true of polygamy was equally true of homosexuality since homosexuality was illegal in all the states, including the Mormon-populated state of Utah. The arguments against polygamy applied to homosexuality with little or no debate. “”
Yeah, but being a fag wasn’t so trendy and popular at the time.
bump for later.
Polygamy doesn’t mean many wives. Polygyny means one man married to more than one wife. Polygamy is any multiple marriage regardless of the nominal or apparent sex of the participants.
So homosexual marriage is a massive societal switch. Polygyny has existed and been practiced in many civilizations and even condoned by God at times. Any other coupling outside of man/woman monogamy hasn’t.
I am ready for separate state right NOW!!
Utah was required to outlaw polygamy before the state would be allowed to join the U.S.
Massachusetts should’ve been ejected from the Union when the state legalized fake (aka “same-sex”) marriage.
I suppose that particular court (dead, lo these many decades) has not seen the current spate of music videos....Barbarism is de rigueur in 21st century America...and it emanates from the White House
7 Day Adventists do that now with separately built subdivisions with deed restrictions.
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.