I stand corrected, there are indeed religious whack-jobs in Maine who justify this on pseudo-religious grounds. But they need an especially woman-bashing form of twisted Christianity to maintain subservience of the women involved. Is is safe for me to say that no one here who calls themselves Christian would accept this group's teachings as valid? What do you think their chances are to "spread their faith" in a state that elected Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe to the US Senate?
I guess if you look hard enough on the Internet, you can find some fringy group (or an individual masquerading as a group) to advocate anything. Just because the Internet has become the 21st Century's version of the graffiti wall in the men's bathroom, doesn't give the ideas presented any credibility.
The movement to legalize polygamy on that basis has already begun. See my post #237. A lawsuit has already been filed
Just as any fool with a computer can post something on the Internet, any fool with a law degree can assert whatever they want in a case brief. Find a judge who goes along with the "reasoning" being used, and I'll agree we have a problem, namely, a judge who needs to be removed.
The one thing that was standing in the way of this "freedom" was the Federal Marriage Amendment.
No, the thing standing in their way is the good sense of people who abhor polygamy. Even the feminazis who defended Clinton's use of Monica and the others, have no stomach to push polygamy, especially where it involves pseudo-Biblical justifications.
The will of the majority has already been rejected. That's the point. The Massachusetts ruling demolished the reasoning that marriage is based on what the majority wants.
A majority of Americans abhor same-sex unions, yet the courts found their opinion moot. A person therefore cannot appeal to “what the people want” in arguing against polygamy.
It no longer matters how many individuals advocate polygamy (though it is more than just a few; there are an estimated 20,000 - 30,000 practicing non-legal plural marriage in Utah alone). What matters is the soundness of their argument presented in court.
Using the precedent made in Lawrence v. Texas, polygamists have the upper hand in the debate. Their argument will be even more unstoppable, if the Supreme Court upholds the Massachusetts gay marriage ruling. That ruling, incidentally, citing Lawrence v. Texas as the basis.
The only way to prevent them from succeeding is the Federal Marriage Amendment. That is why polygamists opposed it.