The marriage of many (Polygamy rights)

Washington Times ^ | 12.11.05 | Cheryl Wetzstein

[Coleus]

"Polygamy rights is the next civil rights battle." So goes the motto of a Christian pro-polygamy organization that has been watching the battle over homosexual "marriage" rights with keen interest. 

"We're coming. We are next. There's no doubt about it, we are next," says Mark Henkel, founder of www.TruthBearer.org. 

Traditional values groups  argue that legalizing same-sex "marriage" is a "slippery slope" -- that if marriage is redefined to allow homosexuals to "wed," it will be further redefined to allow other unions, including polygamous ones. 

Homosexual rights leaders and their allies insist that the "slippery slope" argument is a rhetorical dodge. It's a "scare tactic," says Freedom to Marry founder Evan Wolfson. 

"What homosexuals are asking for is the right to marry, not anybody they love, but somebody they love, which is not at all the same thing," Brookings Institution scholar Jonathan Rauch has written. 

South Dakota lawmakers this year proposed the first constitutional marriage amendment that specifically outlaws unions of "two or more" persons. 
The measure's author, South Dakota state Rep. Elizabeth Kraus, said the ban on polygamy is intentional. 

After Canada legalized same-sex "marriage," its government "launched a study to look at the ramifications of polygamy," Mrs. Kraus said. "Once you open the marriage door to anyone other than one man or one woman, you haven't begun to slide down the slippery slope. You've already hit rock bottom." 
    
Also this year, a New Jersey appellate court expressed concerns about a right to polygamy in its 2-1 rejection of same-sex "marriage." 

"The same form of constitutional attack that plaintiffs mount against statutes limiting the institution of marriage to members of the opposite sex also could be made against statutes prohibiting polygamy," New Jersey Appellate Judges Stephen Skillman and Anthony J. Parrillo said in their ruling in Lewis v. Harris.

[Coleus]

first it is the homosexuals, then it will be the polygamists, then your brother & sister, mother & father, then your dog, sheep and goat, and perhaps your blow-up doll.  It will not end.

[ncountylee]

It's the ISMs, always the ISMs.

[Triggerhippie]

If what they are each looking for is shared fiscal and insurance benefits they could always form a corporation, base it in their place of residence and live happily forever. And no-one will ever care (or know).

They want this "recognition" to destroy traditional views on marriage, and by extension, Judeo-Christianity.

[MBB1984]

No it will not. It is a continued descent into depravity. If the right of privacy protects sodomy how can it not include polygamy with consenting adults? Though I find polygamy abhorrent, I find homosexuality more abhorrent.

[Conservatrix]

What I fear is the NAMBLA crowd pushing for marriage of men to teenage boys. Talk about the lid being off the can... pretty soon, parents will have no rights and any slick &*^*& (insert word here) that manages to seduce or scare a young boy could go ahead and marry them. I suppose heterosexual pedophiles could end up doing the same thing...
and you are not kidding about "animal love." That is down the road. People will marry their pets. I mean, senile old women leave their fortunes to their kitties already, why not?
God, HELP US!

[GSlob]

Let them. Just imagine the messiness of a polygamous divorce settlement. That alone would finish them, and would be fun to watch.

[OrangeBlossomSpecial]

Animal Love? So now in addition to keeping a watchful over our brothers, sisters, sons and daughters we have to guard our beloved pets from sexual deviants as well?

[GAB-1955]

"What I fear is the NAMBLA crowd pushing for marriage of men to teenage boys. Talk about the lid being off the can... pretty soon, parents will have no rights and any slick &*^*& (insert word here) that manages to seduce or scare a young boy could go ahead and marry them. I suppose heterosexual pedophiles could end up doing the same thing... "

That is the time the social contract ends, and it is lawful to take up arms to protect your society, I would think.

[FreeRep]

Belgium and the Netherlands are two nations that have legalized civil union legislation for polygamous relationships. It is a "slippery slope."

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

Why not your android?

[Candor7]

Polygamy? Hell the Muslims will love that!

What about Polygny ( Women with multiple husbands?)

Once the bottle is opened there's no putting the stopper back on it.

[A.A. Cunningham]

"I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in such a matter."
Martin Luther Luther's Letters, De Wette -- Seidemann, Berlin, 1828, vol. 2, p. 459.

So much for sola scriptura

[Blue_Ridge_Mtn_Geek]

"I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in such a matter."
Martin Luther Luther's Letters, De Wette -- Seidemann, Berlin, 1828, vol. 2, p. 459.

So much for sola scriptura

---

There are constraints in the New Testament on church officers having more than one wife, but no explicit prohibition on polygamy. And, in the Old Testament, plural marriages abound, including such notables as Jacob, David, Solomon, and (if you include concubines) Abraham. The custome of levirate marriage also would imply the possibility of plural marriages.

So, which Scripture would you rely on as forbidding polygamy (as opposed to forbidding church officers to be appointed who are husbands of more than one wife)?

[Blue_Ridge_Mtn_Geek]

"first it is the homosexuals, then it will be the polygamists, then your brother & sister, mother & father, then your dog, sheep and goat, and perhaps your blow-up doll. It will not end."

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

You are probably correct. There are severe sanctions in the Old Testament against bestiality (sex with animals). Those Christians who argue that the Old Testament law is no longer relevant must contend with the fact that bestiality is nowhere explicitly prohibited in the New Testament. There are those who argue that though all believers, whether in Old Testament or New, are "saved by faith alone", all believers are also constrained by the non-ceremonial elements of the OT law. Of course, making the distinction between the ceremonial and moral laws can be very tricky, but they do have a point: if a moral or ethical standard has to be repeated in the New Testament in order to remain in force (as the sanctions against homosexual sexual activity are) and bestiality is not explicitly referenced, on what basis do such "NT only" believers oppose bestiality?

[A.A. Cunningham]

Thou shalt not commit adultery for starters.

[Tzimisce]

ROCK ON! I can take a date to my wedding!

[Blue_Ridge_Mtn_Geek]

"Thou shalt not commit adultery for starters."

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

So Jacob was an adulterer in fathering children with his wives Leah and Rachel? On what Scriptural basis do you make that claim?

[Cicero]

My friend Leo Miller wrote a book called "John Milton Among the Polygamophiles," which touches on this issue.

After the Reformation, there was some doubt whether the Bible allows divorce or polygamy. The Catholic Church had insisted that neither was allowed, but Protestants were unsure for some time whether that was the word of God or the word of man.

Luther did tell one German prince that it was OK to divorce and remarry. I suspect that's what this letter may refer to. Calvin also once suggested it was OK.

Miller examines a number of dissertations written for Doctor of Theology degrees in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries by Protestant candidates for the clergy. He shows that the issue was argued over for more than a century before it was settled.

Because of his five Divorce Tracts, Milton was primarily known on the continent during his lifetime as a divorcer and a bigamist. This was theory rather than practice: he had three wives, but the first two died of complications of childbirth before he remarried.

[fluffy]

So Jacob was an adulterer in fathering children with his wives Leah and Rachel? On what Scriptural basis do you make that claim?

Yes. Since Paul forbids marrying again while your original spouse is still alive (and calls anyone doing so an adulterer), it is clear that having more than one spouse is adultery. Also, it is clear in reading the NT (1cor 7, Matt 19) that the union of one man and one woman is God's design for marriage, and anything else is adultery.

[Kokojmudd]

first it is the homosexuals, then it will be the polygamists, then your brother & sister, mother & father, then your dog, sheep and goat, and perhaps your blow-up doll. It will not end.

Nah. It'll end. All cultures which normalize such behavior come to an end in one way or another.