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

Skip to comments.

Strange Bedfellows: ABC Analyst Suggests Polygamy Ban Unconstitutional
NewsBusters ^ | Mark Finkelstein

Posted on 04/12/2008 5:53:29 PM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest

You might think MSM support for the raid by Texas state authorities on the polygamist compound in Eldorado would be a slam dunk. After all, the religion involved is the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Not just Mormons: fundamentalists Mormons! Throw in patriarchy and allegations of exploitation of young women, and surely the feminist-inspired liberal media would be cheering on the bust.

But not so fast. Support this intervention, and perhaps a precedent is established for restrictions on unorthodox family arrangements of a more PC tint.

Take the comments of Jonathan Turley on today's Good Morning America. The George Washington law school professor went so far as to strongly suggest that the ban on polygamy is unconstitutional. And co-anchor Bill Weir was anything but unsympathetic to Turley's arguments.

View video.

(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: jonathanturley; mormonism; polygamy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-46 next last
To: governsleastgovernsbest

the law professors at GW are nuts....one of them came on DC television during 9/11 and said it was all our own fault because we’re the largest gun dealer around the world....another African-American law professor there said inner city drug dealers shouldn’t be convicted because selling dope in the ‘hood is a crime of “empowerment”...those so called “teachers” love to get on TV and run their mouth talking crap.


21 posted on 04/12/2008 6:31:14 PM PDT by STONEWALLS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tbw2

“Paint your wagon” style marrage....


22 posted on 04/12/2008 6:45:36 PM PDT by ASOC (Training Storungen werden auf Papier notiert. Taktische Storungen werden im Stein geatzt. Gen Rommel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ASOC

Is that a reference to a movie?


23 posted on 04/12/2008 6:48:12 PM PDT by tbw2 ("Sirat: Through the Fires of Hell" by Tamara Wilhite - on amazon.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest
hell, if SCOTUS says homosexual sex isn’t illegal in Texas, why should Polygamy be illegal ?
24 posted on 04/12/2008 6:59:41 PM PDT by stylin19a
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tbw2

Ya, in 1969 it hit the big screen
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064782/

Clint the Squint and Lee Marvin - pretty good flick.

One woman, two husbands - 1880s style.


25 posted on 04/12/2008 7:00:47 PM PDT by ASOC (Training Storungen werden auf Papier notiert. Taktische Storungen werden im Stein geatzt. Gen Rommel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: ASOC
“Paint your wagon” style marrage....

No more like "Seven Brides for One Brother"

26 posted on 04/12/2008 7:01:38 PM PDT by Godzilla (We are the land of the free because of the brave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

Does the Book of Mormon explicitly permit polygamy?


27 posted on 04/12/2008 7:02:02 PM PDT by scrabblehack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tbw2

Remember polygamy was practiced and condoned by many cultures of the past, while sodomy was not that popular. Thus if the least popular sexual practice is condoned in the US, then Americans have a weaker ground to oppose polygamy. INMHO polygamy may be the only way blue collar Americans can maintain their standard of living given competition from globalism and job outsourcing. If a man has a personal income of $60,000 with ovetime and six wives who each make $ 35,000 annually, we are talking about serious income. Think of the exemptions if each wife has two kids, and each one can take turns taking one day of the work week to watch the kids while the other wives work. They can easily afford a MacMansion and have plenty of living space for themselves and children.


28 posted on 04/12/2008 7:25:10 PM PDT by Fee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

Before Roe V Wade, there was a case in 1965 that MAY have been the precursor to all this, Griswold v CT. It was about the banning of contraceptives.


29 posted on 04/12/2008 7:41:54 PM PDT by PghBaldy (Michelle O's handlers: "Get me white people...!!!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scrabblehack

No, I don’t recall that the Book of Mormon recommends polygamy. The polygamy among the Mormons was sanctioned by a “revelation” announced by Joseph Smith, “the American Mohammed” (as one historical account calls him). I forgot how many wives he had, but it was a fair number.

There is nothing in the US Constitution which says or implies that the states cannot regulate marriage any way they wish. It can’t be slavery, but otherwise it is up to the states.

My own opinion is that a society (such as ours) ought to be able to lay down some simple, obvious rules, or chaos will reign. One of our mores is monogamous marriage, and it is quite enough to manage.

If someone wants polygamy, he or she should move to some other country — far, far away — where this is permitted. And the destination is going to be a Muslim country, so good luck if you think that it’s going to be fun!


30 posted on 04/12/2008 7:43:52 PM PDT by docbnj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

Nah. FLDS just marry their mother in laws. Or their stepdaughters. Or sisters in law. Then they all become wives.


31 posted on 04/12/2008 7:44:27 PM PDT by ktscarlett66 (Face it girls....I'm older and I have more insurance....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Fee

That doesn’t sound like much fun at all. Who wants another woman (or 6) in her kitchen? Or bedroom?

Plus, $270,000 sounds like a lot until you divide it among 19 people. If there are more than 2 kids per mother, it divides even further. There’s a reason why Colorado Creek inhabitants get a lot of welfare money.


32 posted on 04/12/2008 7:51:21 PM PDT by ktscarlett66 (Face it girls....I'm older and I have more insurance....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Fee

I keep remembering the essay “I want a wife” written by a female grad student living with her husband.

A lot of “unemployed” women could act as an economic help by taking care of kids/ cooking/laundry / household maintenance that is currently outsourced / hired out.

A single mother making minimum wage with one kid upgraded to stay at home wife with hers and one more - and two other adults adding to the household - could be a step up. For some.

I can see the social benefits. I’d also kill my husband if he suddenly brought a “sister wife” home for me to meet.


33 posted on 04/12/2008 9:09:38 PM PDT by tbw2 ("Sirat: Through the Fires of Hell" by Tamara Wilhite - on amazon.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

Anything that helps damage traditonal marriage between one man and one woman, is at the top of the liberal support list.

Even racial stuff is below that.

I haven’t decided if they consider abortion more important than family destruction or less important.

This election has shown that racial politics is higher than feminism on the list. Feminism has been moving down. Animals and environment over people has been moving up. :)


34 posted on 04/12/2008 9:20:13 PM PDT by I still care ("Remember... for it is the doom of men that they forget" - Merlin, from Excalibur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tbw2
tbw2 said: "When I said gay marriage opened the door to polygamy, I was laughed at."

Certainly not by me.

The logic that a marriage benefits from having at least one man and one woman for procreation is inescapable. If gay marriages are tolerated, adding one member of the opposite sex makes possible procreation within the marriage.

One might question whether a child benefits from having "two Mommies", but is there really a question that a child who has two Mommies would benefit from also have a Daddy? Is there something about the second Mommy that precludes needing a Daddy? I don't see how.

And once we have two Mommies and a Daddy, why not add a second Daddy? Or two or three. And some more Mommies.

We could save a lot of hassle just by having a giant marriage ceremony in which every inhabitant of San Francisco can become married to every other inhabitant. Then they will all be one big happy family.

35 posted on 04/12/2008 9:23:31 PM PDT by William Tell (RKBA for California (rkba.members.sonic.net) - Volunteer by contacting Dave at rkba@sonic.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: kcvl
In the end, neither of these lines of attack will — or should — be successful. Still, it is worth taking a close look at each to examine the extent to which the Constitution allows states to shape — or forbids them from shaping — the definition of marriage, and regulating who can marry whom.

There are no laws against consenting adults shacking up. There are no laws against a man farthering children with as many consenting women as he sees fit, or a woman carring as many men's children as strikes her fancy.

If two people have a religious ceremony, and they consider themselves married in the eyes of God, that is a religious matter that is none of the state's concern. Gay weddings and "commitment ceremonies" go on every day in every state of the union, and there is no legal basis to ban them without seriously infringing the 1st amendment protection of free exercise of religion.

It becomes a legal issue when the state is asked to recognize the marriage. A religious marriage that carries no force of law is simply not a state concern -- just like a Bar Mitzvah is a rite of passage into manhood for Jews, but it does not confer the rights or privileges of adulthood in the eyes of the law.

In all of these polygamist cults I've heard of, there are certainly legal grounds to go after the leaders -- "marriages" to underaged girls, threats or coercion that make a mockery of "consenting adults," child neglect, abandonment and endangerment, and often welfare and other forms of fraud. All fair game. But to prosecute two people for simply feeling and saying that they are married is, indeed, a thorny constitutional issue. I can't see any constitutional justification for it.

36 posted on 04/12/2008 10:42:04 PM PDT by ReignOfError
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: tbw2
because the women are related, the rivalry is reduced.

You clearly don't know the same sisters I know.

37 posted on 04/12/2008 10:43:06 PM PDT by ReignOfError
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: tbw2

“When I said gay marriage opened the door to polygamy, I was laughed at.”

The purpose of marriage to make people responsible for the care of children. That’s why in every culture in history that has managed to survive for a while, marriage has been assumed to be between members of the opposite sex. Many if not most of these have permitted a man to have several wives.

This makes the notion of gay marriage silly if not a contradiction in terms. The legalization of gay marriage is being pushed by far leftists for the same reason that they discourage traditional marriage. They loathe western civilization and want it to die off. But by what logic did “gay marriage open the door to polygamy”?

Now I’m haven’t practiced polygamy,(except maybe in my fantasies), but I’m all for higher birth rates in the western world. So why not legalize polygamy ?


38 posted on 04/12/2008 11:40:03 PM PDT by haroldeveryman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

placemarker


39 posted on 04/13/2008 10:26:01 AM PDT by timm22 (Think critically)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: haroldeveryman
Now I’m haven’t practiced polygamy,(except maybe in my fantasies), but I’m all for higher birth rates in the western world. So why not legalize polygamy ?

Does THIS give you a clue?

DAMNED TO HEAVEN - Warren Jeffs - POLYGAMY


40 posted on 04/13/2008 10:32:14 AM PDT by greyfoxx39 (Are there any WOMEN FReepers who agree that the 1st. Amendment OKs sexual slavery?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-46 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