Um, “we told you so”
oh dear! I suppose now that so many states have played same sex marriage, the p9polygamists are riled enough for a grand battle for polygamy! The ramifications begin!
The children of these perverts are, essentially, growing up in a brothel.
Also, I want to see the finances of this group. Welfare? Food stamps?
If he moves to New York or any of the other handful of nutball atates which recognize gay marriage, I really cannot see where there is any legal basis to tell him no.
And now it begins.
Anyone carefully reading the legal philosophies embedded in the legal arguments in favor of redefining marriage to include same-sex couples knows that the groundwork has been laid in those legal decisions in the courts that under those same arguments will make it difficult to deny legalizing polygamy.
The radicals knew exactly what they were doing and knew they laid the groundwork for approving the current challenge to traditional Judeo-Christian marriage.
The useful-idiot fellow travelers (Liberals), knowing only their “good intentions” claimed that approving such additional changes, like polygamy, was not their purpose. The radicals working behind the scenes and actually writing the legal language knew the Liberals claims were just that - their “good intentions”, not the legal groundwork that was actually being laid.
You cannot think that the cases for polygamy will be the end of it either.
IBTMC
(In Before The Mormon Comments)
Well, turnabout is fair play.
Marriage wasn’t an issue of national law until the Democrats made it so. And they made it so in order to go after the polygamists and Mormons.
Now the Mormons have come full circule.
Oh, and the policy about going after the polygamists/Mormons and making marriage a national issue? Yea, that was brought about under the presidency of perhaps the only known homosexual POTUS we’ve had, James Buchanan, who also led us into the Civil War.
The irony is so thick, you can’t cut it with a chainsaw.
It would seem that Mr. Brown is facing an uphill battle.
The United States Supreme Court decision the case of Reynolds v. United States case (98 U.S. 145) is directly on point regarding the issue of polygamy. Citing from the decision, George Reynolds, Brigham Young's personal secretary, plead as follows:
On the trial, the plaintiff in error, the accused, proved that at the time of his alleged second marriage he was, and for many years before had been, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, commonly called the Mormon Church, and a believer in its doctrines; that it was an accepted doctrine of that church "that it was the duty of male members of said church, circumstances permitting, to practise polygamy; . . . that this duty was enjoined by different books which the members of said church believed to be to divine origin, and among others the Holy Bible, and also that the members of the church believed that the practice of polygamy was directly enjoined upon the male members thereof by the Almighty God, in a revelation to Joseph Smith, the founder and prophet of said church; that the failing or refusing to practise polygamy by such male members of said church, when circumstances would admit, would be punished, and that the penalty for such failure and refusal would be damnation in the life to come." He also proved "that he had received permission from the recognized authorities in said church to enter into polygamous marriage; . . . that Daniel H. Wells, one having authority in said church to perform the marriage ceremony, married the said defendant on or about the time the crime is alleged to have been committed, to some woman by the name of Schofield, and that such marriage ceremony was performed under and pursuant to the doctrines of said church."A unanimous court rejected all of Reynolds' arguments, essentially ruling that Congress has a right to prohibit any activity it deems detrimental to society in general. If the question before the bar had involved the practice of polygamy by Mormons alone, then Reynolds would have prevailed. Since the question concerned the practice of polygamy by anybody, Reynolds lost. Reynolds was left with the only solution of "throwing the rascals out in an election and voting for representatives more sympathetic to his cause.
It has been some time since I Shepardized the decision, but I would be surprised if it is not still good law. It is my understanding this is one of the cases the Feds use to enforce the prohibition of other perverted religious practices such as animal sacrifice, human sacrifice, ritualized rape, child abuse, animal torture, drug abuse, and much more. Finally, I have been told that this case is high on the list of decisions the ACLU would like to see overturned.
It would be much better in the long run if polygamy became legal even before all of the states allowed gay marriage.
It might make them think twice, or at least just once, before supporting the oiling down of the slippery slope.
The courts would never restrict five gay men from living together, or five lesbians. Why then is it that a man and four women can’t live together?
Oh, wait...they can.
If they’re Muslims. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90857818
See, one rule for them and another for everyone else.
Since there is only one legal marriage they cannot be charged with Polygamy.
The guy has one wife and 3 live-in girlfriends.
Case closed.
MMMMhmmmmm....
How is this guy different than someone who is sleeping with multiple women and knocking them all up? Usually they all go on welfare anyway!
He isn’t “really” married to all of them in the eyes of the law, just the eyes of their “religion”.
And if we can’t tell gays they can’t marry, we can’t tell anyone they can’t marry whomever they want.