Posted on 05/15/2005 10:05:49 AM PDT by Rummyfan
Ping - a - roo!!!
Logical conclusions.
Somehow I can't seem to convince my wife that I need a second wife. She seems to think two husbands would be OK, but that just doesn't appeal to me at all.
It has always been difficult for me to understand how the United States Government could outlaw polygamy in Utah, when the U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom of religion. It is not as if they are practicing human sacrifice or any other religious rite that actually hurts another person without their consent.
Well, I live in a compound with my second ex wife and her husband. The kids (3) play in the yard between the houses. I take my son over to the front house in the AM before I go to work and they homeschool him. On weekends if they need to get out, I act as a babysitter. My daughter will spend the night on occasional weekends. It works for us.
As opposed to my first wife who divorced me to live with her girlfriend, then (falsely!) accused me of horrible things when she got jealous of my second wife.
It's just like Roe v Wade. Imposed by Federal Courts, right? Gay marriage is next, it's already happening needless to say.
bttt
Doesn't the New York Times and the MSM refer to the Kennedy's Hyannis Port home as a "the Kennedy compound?"
For the purposes of accuracy, the decision to ban the states from making an abortion illegal, in Roe v. Wade, was based on "viability" of a fetus.
A fetus is a non-human according to the Supreme Court in 1972 until it is "viable" outside of the womb, approximately after 6 months of preganancy.
Until that point, the fetus has been declared, in effect, human tissue or an organ, such as a kidney.
And just as all citizens have the "right to privacy" to determine what they do with their own kidney, a woman has the "right to privacy" to dispose of the "non human" as she wants.
The "people" can fix Roe V. Wade, by having the Congress declare a fetus, from conception, a human being.
Then the fetus has a "right to privacy," as well and cannot be murdered.
Such legislation has been introduced by Cong. Ron Paul.
Call your federal rep and make sure he/she supports and votes for this legislation.
They didn't. The US just refused to admit Utah to the Union as a state until Utah outlawed polygamy. I suppose Utahansof the day believed that the advantages of being a state outweighed the advantages of having more than one wife.
I have a problem with these guys having several wives and many children -- that I have to support. If they want to support them, fine. If I have to, they are no different from any other low-life welfare cheat.
They tried the same type of thing in Arizona, where the state Constitution called for the ability to recall judges. The federal government would not let Arizona become a state until this provision was taken out.
After the provision was taken out, and Arizona became a State, Arizonans promptly held a referendum at the next election and put it back into the State Constitution.
Whatever the merits of gay nuptials, it’s hard to see why, if gender is irrelevant, the central immutable feature of marriage should now be the number of participants.
BANG! Mark puts one in the black!
Can't come up with an argument there!
The Kennedy compound immediately comes to mind here. Next time the NYT mentions the "Kennedy compound," it will make more sense to me.
A "compound"?
Steyn, baby!!! What a fascinating and witty tale.
It is also interesting that there is apparently no instances of polygamy that work the opposite way - that is, women marrying multiple men.
I want multiple husbands.
three is a good number.
I want one who can fix stuff, one who can cook, and one who looks cute in tight jeans!
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.