Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Polygamists fight to decriminalize bigamy
The Washington Post ^ | Nov 21, 2006 | John Pomfret

Posted on 11/21/2006 1:36:33 PM PST by presidio9

In her battle to legalize polygamy, the only thing Valerie hasn't revealed is her last name. The mother of eight has been on national TV; her photo along with that of her two "sister-wives" has graced the front cover of a glossy magazine dedicated to "today's plural marriages."

She has been prodded about her sex life: "He rotates. It's easy -- just one, two, three." Quizzed about her decision to share a husband with two other women: "You really have a good frame of reference when you marry a man who already has two wives." Interrogated about what it's like to live in a house with 21 children: "Remodeling a kitchen, that's no small feat with three wives and a husband involved."

All the while, the petite brunette with a smile as bright as Utah's sky has insisted that she's just like you and me: "I'm a soccer mom. My kids are in music lessons. They go to public school. I'm not under anyone's control."

Valerie and others among the estimated 40,000 men, women and children in polygamous communities are part of a new movement to decriminalize bigamy. Consciously taking tactics from the gay-rights movement, polygamists have reframed their struggle, choosing in interviews to de-emphasize their religious beliefs and focus on their desire to live "in freedom," according to Anne Wilde, director of community relations for Principle Voices, a pro-polygamy group based in Salt Lake.

In recent months, polygamy activists have held rallies, appeared on nationally televised news shows and lobbied legislators. Before the Nov. 7 elections, one pro-polygamy group issued a six-page analysis of all Utah's state and local candidates and their views on polygamy. "We can make a difference," the

(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Extended News; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: biglove; extendedfamily; familyvalues; pelosi; polygamy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 181-199 next last
To: Texas_shutterbug

Wealthy and powerful men have ever decided the rules of government and society - even today and even in America.


101 posted on 11/21/2006 4:18:18 PM PST by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Texas_shutterbug
Yes there are stories all over the web ... both for and against polygamy. Just like there are stories for abortion, smoking, public health care and just about every other social or economic policy where at least one person supports and one person opposes.

Non sequitur ... just because there are stories do not set up an argument for or against.
102 posted on 11/21/2006 4:21:32 PM PST by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer
Obviously, you don't know how welfare works.

Please stop telling me what I obviously do and don't know and start telling me why you think government should stop consenting adults from entering into any relationship they want because you think it might have an effect on welfare.

Also, please note that most of the world is not composed of Mormon religious off-shoots with self-proclaimed prophets dispensing teen brides to old men.
103 posted on 11/21/2006 4:24:42 PM PST by AnotherUnixGeek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: AnotherUnixGeek

Okay. It's your tax dollars. Have a nice day.


104 posted on 11/21/2006 4:33:47 PM PST by FlingWingFlyer (America! It's off with the desert BDUs and on with the lavender burqas!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: 2banana
1. You knew this was coming after gay-marriage was imposed by liberal judiciaries. They will use the exact same arguments.

Nah...long before that! This road started the moment government started butting into the personal religious concern known as marriage.

105 posted on 11/21/2006 4:48:26 PM PST by Gondring (I'll give up my right to die when hell freezes over my dead body!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ApplegateRanch

Sociologists predicted such problems in a "peaceful" world where young males aren't killed off enough to balance things.


106 posted on 11/21/2006 4:54:25 PM PST by Gondring (I'll give up my right to die when hell freezes over my dead body!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: SauronOfMordor
How is that different from inner-city thugs having multiple kids with multiple women that they're not married to?

Agreed, a good point. But at least the home grown leeches don't know how to make IED's. Yet.

Regards.

107 posted on 11/21/2006 4:54:56 PM PST by ARE SOLE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol

Ahhh, but those who are pro polgamy claim women are happy with that lifestyle. My point is that many are NOT.


108 posted on 11/21/2006 4:59:03 PM PST by Texas_shutterbug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

There should be no reason why a male goat, horse, or other barnyard friend cannot marry a woman. If the barnyard friend makes the first move on the woman and she consents, you have the consent that is necessary. Once the rules have changed from one man and one woman, anything should go.

It is problematical with a female barnyard friend. How can a male human prove that the animal gave consent?

I don't know how to evaluate a homesexual male human getting together with a homosexual barnyard friend. And transgendered barnyard friends really loses me.


109 posted on 11/21/2006 5:08:43 PM PST by doug from upland (Stopping Hillary should be a FreeRepublic Manhattan Project)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Texas_shutterbug

Just as those that are anti polygamy claim that the wives cant be happy or are brainwashed... the truth likely is somewhere in between the two positions. My experiences are with those that are happy in their families.


110 posted on 11/21/2006 5:23:02 PM PST by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland
I may be naive but I don't see how any judge could expand deviant human intercourse to include human/animal intercourse. It simply doesn't follow. Different flesh. If a judge tried, he would be overturned.

111 posted on 11/21/2006 5:31:35 PM PST by William Terrell (Individuals can exist without government but government can't exist without individuals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell

Not today, but how about in several years? If the definition of marriage is changed, what right does the state have to deny status to a woman and her donkey?


112 posted on 11/21/2006 5:53:41 PM PST by doug from upland (Stopping Hillary should be a FreeRepublic Manhattan Project)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: presidio9; Abram; albertp; AlexandriaDuke; Alexander Rubin; Allosaurs_r_us; Americanwolf; ...
Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
113 posted on 11/21/2006 6:01:11 PM PST by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/optimism_nov8th.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer

fight welfare, not polygomy. Socialism needs to be pulled out by it's roots.


114 posted on 11/21/2006 6:11:41 PM PST by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/optimism_nov8th.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland
what right does the state have to deny status to a woman and her donkey?

None, seemingly.

Women marry asses all the time...and vice-versa.

115 posted on 11/21/2006 6:20:36 PM PST by ApplegateRanch (Islam: a Satanically Transmitted Disease, spread by unprotected intimate contact with the Koranus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: ApplegateRanch; doug from upland
For that matter, I can even point to many cases of asses marrying assettes. ;)








Jf'nKerry comes to mind as a serial offender.
116 posted on 11/21/2006 6:24:46 PM PST by ApplegateRanch (Islam: a Satanically Transmitted Disease, spread by unprotected intimate contact with the Koranus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

Under the laws passed by Congress, the condition for the admission of Utah into the Union was that they abandon polygamy. In fact, under the Enabling Act, they could be thrown out of the Union if they renege. Same goes for Arizona. And New Mexico. Their state constitutions explicitly say that they cannot reinstitute polygamy without an act of Congress.

(So much for those who claim that marriage issues are not national, federal issues...)


117 posted on 11/21/2006 6:34:48 PM PST by EternalVigilance (The RINO presidential field says it has "solutions"..."solutions" are solids watered down to nothing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant; presidio9; AnotherUnixGeek; The Ghost of FReepers Past; marsh_of_mists; ...
The Supreme Beings should weigh in on this.

It was landmark U.S. Supreme Court precedent Reynolds v. United States in 1878 that made “separation of church and state” a dubiously legitimate point of case law, but more importantly; it confirmed the Constitutionality in statutory regulation of marriage practices.

(See also: Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States, 1890.)

No man can become a law unto himself under the guise of freedom of religion... Marriage is a religious rite, not a civil right...

"We have the right to regulate practice, not belief." (Reynolds)

118 posted on 11/21/2006 6:38:19 PM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ApplegateRanch

Wedlock amendment no breach of federalism
By Jordan Lorence
Published June 7, 2006

The proposed Marriage Protection Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not violate principles of federalism. The definition of marriage has never been left to the states.

Some conservatives urge defeat of the amendment because, they say, the Constitution has traditionally left regulation of marriage to the states. But the proposed amendment does not address state power to regulate marriage; rather, it requires states to adopt a uniform definition of marriage of one man and one woman -- something Congress has imposed upon states seeking admission to the Union for 160 years.

No concept of federalism has ever granted states the authority to define marriage any way they desire. Federalism only grants states the power to regulate marriage already defined as one man and one woman.

For the first half-century of America's history governed by the U.S. Constitution, no one questioned this assumption that all states had to define marriage the same way. The question first arose in 1848, when Brigham Young and the Mormon polygamists of the Utah Territory sought statehood from Congress and insisted on their authority as a state to define legal marriage as including polygamy.

Congress, however, refused to grant Utah statehood unless it banned polygamy in its state constitution. The Mormon-dominated territorial legislature of Utah objected to this condition for statehood for almost 50 years, triggering a great struggle between Congress and the citizens of Utah over state authority to redefine marriage, including several cases that came before the U.S. Supreme Court.(Utah finally gave up its demand for legalized polygamy and became a state in 1896).

The Republican Party itself began as a party opposed to slavery and polygamy in the territories. In its first platform in 1856, the party saw no conflict with its positions on polygamy and state power to regulate marriage when it wrote that "it is both the right and the imperative duty of Congress to prohibit in the Territories those twin relics of barbarism -- Polygamy, and Slavery."

So, Sen. John McCain of Arizona and other like-minded conservatives are simply wrong when they oppose the proposed Marriage Protection Amendment because, as Mr. McCain said in 2004 on the floor of the Senate, it is "antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans," because "it usurps from the states a fundamental authority they have always possessed." In fact, the Republican Party began as a party supporting congressional authority to impose a uniform definition of marriage on the states, even on states that wanted to define marriage differently.

The threat of state legalization of polygamy compelled Congress to require at least some states to ban polygamy in their state constitutions as a condition of statehood. Interestingly, Congress required some states not only to ban polygamy but also to prohibit any efforts to eliminate those polygamy bans without permission of Congress. They did not view this as a violation of the principle of federalism.

For example, Congress required Arizona to ban polygamy in its constitution when the territory became a state in 1912, and the Arizona Constitution further states that "no future constitutional amendment shall be made which in any manner changes or abrogates this ordinance in whole or in part without the consent of Congress (Arizona Constitution, Article 20, section 13). Mr. McCain, take note: The actions of Congress toward your own state demonstrate that, historically, federalism did not bar Congress from imposing a uniform definition of marriage on the states.

Additionally, the Utah and New Mexico constitutions state that their respective bans on polygamy cannot be repealed without the consent of Congress. Clearly, Congress saw no violation of federalism in ordering some states not to change a marriage definition provision of their state constitutions without the consent of the federal government. In other words, federalism does not empower states to redefine marriage.

The Supreme Court has written approvingly of congressional authority to condition statehood on a territory's adoption of a definition of marriage as one man and one woman. In the 1885 decision of Murphy v. Ramsey, the U.S. Supreme Court stated, "certainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank as one of the coordinate States of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization."

The court's language may be flowery, but its point is clear. Congress has the constitutional authority to require states to adopt a uniform definition of marriage. This is a separate issue from the question answered by the principle of federalism, which presupposes states regulate marriage but gives them no authority to redefine it.

Members of the House and Senate should vote in favor of the proposed Marriage Protection Amendment without concern they are violating a long-held understanding of federalism. Instead, they are fulfilling the historical understanding of Congress' role in the interplay of federalism and the definition of marriage.

Jordan Lorence is senior counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund in Scottsdale, Ariz. In 2004, he argued the case before the California Supreme Court in which it invalidated the marriage licenses issued by San Francisco to same-sex couples.

http://www.washtimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20060606-090944-4652r


119 posted on 11/21/2006 6:39:43 PM PST by EternalVigilance (The RINO presidential field says it has "solutions"..."solutions" are solids watered down to nothing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

See #119... there is the Supreme Court confirming just what you said...


120 posted on 11/21/2006 6:40:06 PM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 181-199 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson