Posted on 10/08/2014 2:25:01 PM PDT by right-wing agnostic
This week, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected gay marriage appeals from Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin, in essence allowing lower courts to legalize same-sex couples. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS), an institution that has vigorously opposed gay marriage for some time now, conceded that the political battle over marriage is over. “As far as the civil law is concerned,” the Mormon Church admitted, “the courts have spoken.”
Actually, nothing is over until God says it’s over. At least, this is my understanding of how religion operates. So while I don’t want to accuse Mormons of being a bunch of serial quitters, let’s just say this isn’t the first time they’ve folded in the face of adversity. Luckily, every time a door closes …
Obviously, polygamy, once practiced by early church members, has long since been renounced by the LDS church. It the late nineteenth century, after decades of religious persecution and pressure from the U.S. government, Mormons dropped the practice (although some obstinate fundamentalist groups persist). The LDS is probably the last group willing to bring up plural marriage, but now would be the time to right some historical wrongs.
The would-be polygamist needs only to use the arguments of a gay-marriage advocate: What kind of moral claim, for instance, does anyone have to stand in the way of peaceful, consenting adults who call their union a marriage? Shouldn’t every minority, no matter how beleaguered, be able to enjoy happiness with the one—or ones—they love? In a perfect nation, wouldn’t all Americans be immune from the cultural and religious prejudices of others? Isn’t it a tad judgmental for us to force every household to comport to our own stifling definition of family? Sally Kohn knows what I’m talking about.
(Excerpt) Read more at thefederalist.com ...
Its false to claim equality in a social good where there natural faculty that makes it possible is absent.
Marriage only applies to Hetero sex because that is naturally fecund.
Butt sex is not Hetero sex. It is not naturally fecund.
How wrong is it for a man to have two wives? Compared to a couple of male coprophiles it really seems quite tame.
Stating the obvious. However when he says he doesn’t think there will be a slippery slope towards polygamy and the rest of the “minority” would-be family redefinitions, he contradicts himself.
The Mormon religion is fortunate enough to get timely revelations which reverse God’s previous orders to them.
When God’s order to practice polygamy interefered with Mormon goals, he was kind enough to reverse the order, in 1978, when forbidding blacks to be full Mormons had always been God’s order to them, he reversed himself on it just in time to avoid some hassles for them.
I think in time that we will learn from the Mormons that God has reversed himself yet again, on polygamy.
It’s just a guess, but I would bet money that they reveal the revelation within the next decade or two, or whenever the time is right.
“Butt sex is not Hetero sex. It is not naturally fecund.”
I agree, there is nothing normal about homosexuality. It
is a perversion in every sense of the word. If anything
it is natures way of saying “do not reproduce you have nothing
to contribute to the human gene pool”.
This whole homo marriage thing is all about adoption. An
easy way to legally obtain little sex toys and replenish
their ranks.
From what I could tell, from the instances of Jacob and Abraham God was okay with either of these people having multiple wives at a time. It isn’t all that suitable or desirable for reasons of economic incentive in today’s world. I wouldn’t be interested either. One set of in-laws, and 30 nieces and nephews is enough for me and my one wife.
More than likely polygamy won’t be sanctioned with licenses. More than likely if there exist any laws against cohabitation, they will be struck down by Courts as happened in Utah.
Control the language, control the culture. . .
It the late nineteenth century, after decades of religious persecution and pressure from the U.S. government, Mormons dropped the practice
_____________________________________________
No they didn’t Woodruff “married” more young girls years after 1890 when he made the so called proclamation against polygamy..
Mormons just kept on with their polygamy right up to today..
its still in their religious doctrines and literature..
the proclamation by Wilford Woodruff was just BS so that the US government would stop arresting and imprisoning Mormon males for “unlawful habitation” and confiscating their property, and also so that Utah could become a state..
for decades later Wilford Woodruff and other Mormon leaders just kept on “marrying”: more young girls and until 1945 when the last polygamous Mormon “president/prophet” died there was always a polygamous top leader in SLC..
about 1895 years after the proclamation the Utah males elected a known polygamous guy with at least three “wives” to congress but sent him off to Washington..
SEVEN MILLION outraged Christians around the country signed a petition stating that the immoral representative from Utah not be seated in congress..it worked and Utah was forced to beat the bushes for a qualified guy who only had one wife.. difficult to do...
No this one wasn’t a Romney..the Romneys were still busy being polygamists until the 20th Century..
If you think we have two decades them ship me some of that dope your smoking we are real close to the Second Coming.
The remainder of this thread is previously posted evidence that pro-gay judges and justices are wrongly ignoring 10th Amendment-protected state sovereignty to independently decide gay issues.
----------
Gay marriage is unconstitutional for the following simple reason imo. The states have never amended the Constitution to specifically protect so-called gay “rights,” such as gay marriage. This means two things under the Constitution.
The Founding States had made the 10th Amendment to clarify that the Constitution’s silence about things like marriage means that such issues are uniquely state power issues.
Since the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect gay marriage, gay marriage is not a constitutionally protected right.
Also, regardless what the corrupt media wants everybody to think about the Supreme Court's decision concerning DOMA, Section 2 of DOMA is still in effect. Section 2 is reasonably based on Congress's Article IV, Section 1 power, the Full Faith and Credit clause, to regulate the effect of one state's records in the other states, and gives the states the power to ignore gay marriages recognized in other states. But Section 2 is wrongly being ignored by both judges and justices imo.
DOMA Section 2. Powers reserved to the statesNo State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.
So the states are free to make 10th Amendment-protected laws which discriminate against constitutionally unprotected gay “rights,” such as gay marriage imo, as long as such laws don’t unreasonably abridge constitutionally enumerated rights.
Again, the troubling question is why are legal professionals who are supposed to be protecting state laws prohibiting gay marriage evidently not arguing the above points in defense of such laws?
"Gay marriage is unconstitutional for the following simple reason imo."
That statement is in error and should read as follows.
"Tenth Amendment-protected state laws prohibiting gay marriage are not unconstitutional for the following simple reason imo."
So you disagree that the Mormons will hear God speak to their Prophet giving them back polygamy, “within the next decade or two, or whenever the time is right.”
Why again?
The 10th amendment doesn’t control federal marriage law and regulations in the military, for federal employment, in immigration, or in foreign policy, nor in appointment of federal judges and the Supreme Court.
Who said they're not making those arguments? Every state that has defended its marriage laws (and yes, a few, such as California and Virginia just rolled over and agreed their laws were unconstitutional, but most states fought the issue) have argued the Tenth Amendment. The federal courts have rejected that argument, but the argument was certainly made.
BillyBob
I wanted to comment on your most expressive and unsolicited FReepMail to me today at 3:04:39 PM PDT, here in the thread because I for one am able to say all out here in the open..
because both of us know that you would have been in a big pile of doodoo with the mods if you had said to me here what you said in that FM..
Men state their religious opinions in public and don’t hide behind a woman’s skirts ...
Meanwhile DO NOT send me any more FReepMails..
If you feel you must say something to me, please be man enough to say it out here in the thread..
I’m sure the Mods and my FRiends would like to know how you really feel..
and the true spiritual condition of your heart ...
Thank you
Tennessee Nana
But the question is, why not? Why not polygamy? Why not any other form of cohabitation being licensed as well? Logically, any type of “love” deserves the same stamp of approval as any other.
Are they demanding marriage licenses for it, or are they fine simply cohabitating. If there’s anything that polygamists do well with, it’s living like they are married with people even though they have only one marriage license, if any at all. The state doesn’t care if you cohabitate without marriage, you pay a fine to get a marriage license, and you lose a lot of advantages that you had from being unwed, such as pay less individually when you file taxes as an individual.
Bigamy/polygamy and consanguinous marriage among consenting adults will happen. They’re going to get cleared through the courts, using the decisions on same-sex unions as template and precedent. You cannot tell one class of adults they can get married and another not. You just can’t. “It’s icky” is not going to be a defense. “It’s not how marriage has worked through history” is really going to be even less of a defense than with same-sex marriage, because those actually are historical. I suppose there’s a public-health argument, actually a eugenic argument, to be made about incestuous marriage. Good luck finding somebody who wants to make it in a modern American courtroom, let alone listen to it. And it’d be completely irrelevant if, say, a couple of gay siblings wants to tie the knot.
So those laws are gone, as soon as somebody decides to make the case. Somebody will file for the right to multiple marriage. Somebody will file for the right to marry close relatives. God help us, maybe the same somebody. And they’ll win.
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.