Posted on 12/08/2012 5:28:00 AM PST by Kaslin
My buddy, Glenn Beck, has made a great contribution to the TEA party movement and to a renewal of popular interest in our Founding Fathers and their ideals. For all that he deserves praise.
But, I believe, he is making a serious error in abandoning the civil right of marriage. The Republican Party was founded in opposition to two historic wrongs. The party’s first platform in 1856 denounced “slavery and polygamy—the twin relics of barbarism.” Slavery was finally put down with a terrible toll—630,000 Americans dead in the Civil War. The new movie, Lincoln, tells the dramatic story of the Thirteenth Amendment to abolish slavery.
Polygamy was successfully fought with laws. Throughout the latter third of the nineteenth century, Republican presidents and Republican Congresses fought against this relic of barbarism. President Rutherford B. Hayes called upon Congress to make it a law for the western territories: an American must take an oath he is not a polygamist before he could vote for statehood, before he could even serve on a jury! That’s a pretty strong stance for marriage.
Faced with this unyielding opposition, the Mormon Church wisely reconsidered its position on polygamy. Mormons desperately wanted to be included in the American Union. They were willing to give up a sincerely held tenet of their new religion in order to gain acceptance.
This turnabout led to one of the funniest episodes in congressional history. When Church Elder Reed Smoot was elected by Utah to serve in the U.S. Senate, he was vigorously opposed. Critics said that even though Smoot was not a polygamist himself, he had strongly supported polygamy as one of the Mormon Council of Twelve. Idaho Sen. William E. Borah, a fellow Republican and also a Mormon with only one wife, rose to argue for seating Smoot. “I would rather serve in this august body with a polygamist who doesn’t polyg than with a monogamist who doesn’t monog.” Smoot was seated. Washington scuttlebutt had it that T.R.’s daughter, Alice Roosevelt Longworth, was only with difficulty dissuaded from naming her newborn daughter Deborah (from Borah).
The LDS Church has since become a mainstay of support for traditional marriage. BYU Family Science Ph.D.s have provided some of the best scholarship supporting the tradition family. They clearly understand the difficulties that arise for the dignity and standing of women—and especially the hardships for children—that stem from plural marriage.
Glenn should have been at the Newseum four years ago. There, before an overflow crowd, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley said: “I know opponents of gay marriage say it will lead to polygamy. Well, I’m for that.”
Turley’s shocking comments were wildly cheered by the room full of journalists, liberal congressional aides, and federal law clerks. True to his word, Prof. Turley has gone to court trying to overturn bans on polygamy.
Glenn told an interviewer: “The question is not whether gay people should be married or not, the question is why is the government involved in our marriage.”
Okay, it’s a civil question that deserves a civil answer: Children need and children have a right to the married love of a mother and father. Every reputable social science study shows that children do best when they have a loving, married mother and father in the home. They have better outcomes for health, education, and welfare. Children of married parents are less likely to commit crimes, far less likely to be victims of violence and sexual abuse, far less likely to fail in school, far less likely to drop out, use drugs, get pregnant out of wedlock.
If we care about children and the future of this nation, we cannot casually dismiss the institution of marriage.
Secretary Tim Geithner certainly understands the fiscal impact of out-of-wedlock births. Liberal that he is, Geithner said we cannot cut Medicaid spending—the main driver of deficits—because forty percent of all children born today are eligible for Medicaid. He means the 41% born out of wedlock.
Married parents want to care for their own children. They usually do not want the Nanny State. Single parents and cohabiting parents are often forced to rely on government assistance.
If you want Socialism, abolish marriage. If you want “Julia” to be the future of America, vote against the civil institution of marriage. Julia, of course, was the Obama campaign team’s fictional single woman target voter. Julia goes from Head Start to college, parenthood, to retirement in a seamless web of dependency on government. She decides to have a child at age 29. No man in her life is even hinted at—no husband, no father, no brother, not even a male friend or business partner. Except one. The One: Mr. Federal Government.
It's hard to understand why anyone would want to end traditional marriage. It’s the HOV lane to the Welfare State. Why any conservative, libertarian, or Republican would want to advance this process is a mystery.
Hollywood star Mae West was certainly no model for married life. WWII sailors called their buoyant life jackets their Mae Wests. But Mae West was onto something when she said: “Marriage is a great institution. I’m just not ready for an institution.”
I invite Glenn to spend just one hour with the Family Research Council’s Marriage and Religion Research Institute’s (MARRI) scholars. They are his type of intellectuals, and I think he would be moved by their body of work
Traditional marriage is a great institution. And it’s never been in greater danger.
My argument is this.
Marriage between one law is part of the English common law.
Along with Habeaus Corpus and trial by jury. It is just as much a cornerstone of the English Common law, as the other two. You can’t take a leg off a three-legged stool and have it stand. Nor can you take away marriage and keep the other two.
Sorry, but WRONG. Polygamy was never “sanctioned” in the Old Or New Testament. If you got that it was PLEASE reconsider. The Patriachs “indulged” in it but even a casual glance by a believer shows that the ills we face TODAY or a result of their (mis)deeds.
More accurately, in the early part of the OT polygamy was just taken for granted.
While the Law may not have sanctioned it, I am also unaware of anywhere it was prohibited. In fact, it has sections whereby it is regulated.
Many of God’s favorite people were polygamists: Abraham, Jacob, Judah, David, Solomon, etc. He did not cut them off from his favor for this.
As I said above, it was just taken for granted as a part of life. Not encouraged, but also not prohibited, and not an inkling given that it was sinful.
“funniest episode” ???
Smoot lied like a dog under oath at the hearings about Mormonism and about what he believed and practiced...
and then there was the Mormon polygamist Brigham Henry Roberts who was elected as a Demoocrat in 1898 to Congress from Utah but never managed to get seated...
petitions with SEVEN MILLION signatures were sent to Washington from angry Christians around the country...
They didnt want an immoral polygamist from being able to pass laws for the rest of the nation..
Funnny how the author didnt mention BH Roberts...
Treat it as a farce at your own peril.
The whole point of State recognition of marriage is to FORCE the State to reccognize our union of marriage and to KEEP THEM OUT OF IT!
It grants automatic child custody, inheritance, power-of-attorny recognition that makes it possible for the 99+% of normal people out there to live there lives and raise their families WITHOUT the continual intrusion of the State.
Drop State recognition of marriage, and you will have to PROVE that your children are yours. In fact, it won’t matter if you can prove it, because children will have to be raised according to State guidlines, once gay adoption has made it necessary - and we ALL have to participate in order to be FAIR, don’t we?
This issue needs to be confronted by Conservatives in a way that combats the spin. State recognition of traditional marriage is what keeps it TRADITIONAL - i.e. Private, religious (at our choice) and outside of Government’s hands.
If Sodomites, or any other fringe social groups want to try to create their own social institutions which they think have merit and force the State to recognize them, let them go for it. It will not, however, be marriage, and should not interfer in the freedoms from State intrusion which married people have already established for themselves.
I meant of course mother and father. I hope that this is clear
In fact, the Bible doesn’t specifically prohibit polygamy in the New Testament either.
When Ken says “children have a right to ... “, I maintain he is talking about what is moral under Judeo-Christian values. It can also be argued from a common-sense, observational standpoint that societies that do not properly parent their own young bring down the worst results upon themselves. But although I see some elements of that observation in Ken’s article, I believe in that sentence he is speaking morally, not constitutionally or legally. No other interpretation makes sense of his statement there.
Our Founders deliberately left many moral underpinnings unstated in our Constitution. But if you doubt they understood the essentiality of Judeo-Christian principles, you wouldn’t be able to put two-and-two together to get four if your life depended on it. It is clear from history that they perfectly well understood it. They were setting up a governmental system that would - they hoped and prayed - avert despotism and unbridled use and abuse of centralized power, while adding a Bill of (individual) Rights.
But they understood that only a moral and religious people would be capable of maintaining that system, and a decent and workable society. And a foreigner, de Toqueville, stated upon observation, “America is great because America is good. If America ceases to be good, it will cease to be great”.
What happens to children in society is absolutely critical. I say the bedrock of THAT is morality. And that is what Ken is arguing. He is arguing that Beck, who bases many of his conclusions on a moral basis, errs and is inconsistent when he drops morality when it comes to this society’s view of marriage and children.
Personally I think Ken’s point is a no-brainer. We are reaping the bitter harvest now of leaving the Judeo-Christian moral system. It will also cause us to lose our freedoms. The people who are too dumbed-down and too self-absorbed to see or care what the Left is doing to this nation are primarily people who disavow this moral undperpinning.
Libertarians stand off to the side and take a more abstracted position on these matters. The rest of us are living the nightmare of a people who are ceding their American birthright to a big-daddy government and who think “the rich” can and should pay for THEM and want that “big daddy government” to get even bigger and more powerful in order to EFFECT that. This same force has destroyed the traditional family and family values. They act simultaneously and have become almost one and the same.
Except of course, for Libertarianism which abstracts itself out and goes “nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah” at us from off to the side...
Interesting. Would you happen to have a link to your sources? Thanks.
When one endorses or ignores poor behavior you get much more of it.
Is their a NT verse that says “thou shalt not engage in polygamy?” or the equivilant?
No.
But can you read and comprehend what the NT does say when it references marriage? If you can, then you cannot in good faith state that one man, one woman marriage is untaught in the NT. It clearly is taught because when reference is made to God’s institution of marriage throughout the NT the context is that of a husband-wife, husband-wife, husband wife.
NOT husband-wives, husband-wives, husband-wives.
THere are many, but to me the most telling teaching in regard to the NT view of marriage is the teaching that Christ and his Church have the same spiritual relationship to one another that a husband and wife physically have to one another. The Church is represented spiritually as the Bride of Christ. Christ is represented as the Church’s husband. Christ is true to his bride, so much so that he gave up his own life on the Cross to save his church. And the church is to be faithful to her husband, Christ, or else it will become like an unfaithful wife is to her husband.
There are many other references all of which depict a husband and a wife, not a husband and wives.
Anyone who cannot learn from the context of biblical writings but believes you must have a verse that states in exact human wording what the prohibition is, does not understand the most simple concept relative to finding what the bible teaches on a subject.
The bottom line is still that the US Govt cannot nor should it legislate "morality" nor be involved in the personal behavior (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) of its citizens, which includes marriage or the absence thereof. IMHO.
And this is why I am a conservative.
Many of God’s favorite people were polygamists: Abraham, Jacob, Judah, David, Solomon, etc. He did not cut them off from his favor for this."
All we need to do is look at God's original design for marriage, which was one woman for one man. In Genesis, He said He would make a helpmeet--singular---for Adam. Not a couple or a few of them.
The Bible says that God hates divorce, yet sinful human beings disobeyed His intentions there, as well. So He provided guidelines to be used in the event of divorce, knowing that man would continue to distort His will for marriage.
Deuteronomy 17:17 specifically forbids Israel's kings to take multiple wives. Also, polygamy is addressed in Malachi 2.
As for the men you call God's favorite people, they were all sinners, like the rest of us, and some of their sins were described in the Bible. David was an adulterer and a murderer, but neither was sanctioned by God. His grace and love is given in spite of our sins.
I do not believe that Bible (NT) allows a Christian to commit polygamy.
My response was strictly to those who claim that since the OT does not specifically endorse polygamy, it thereby prohibits it.
It seems perfectly clear to me that polygamy in at least the earlier part of OT was just an accepted part of life. In the NT it is equally clear that it is not accepted, although slavery still is.
Divorce, as an institution, Jesus told us frankly that God tolerated it because "your hearts were hard." It was certainly not his plan, and marrying after divorcing a wife make adulterers of all concern.
If you are an adulterer after divorcing a wife and marrying another, you are clearly an adulterer if you marry more than one at the same time. Deacons were supposed to be a man who had only one wife, so clearly monogamy was a value. It just was not a value men could respect when they wanted to abandon the first wife and find one younger.
You shouldn't take as a moral example David, Abraham, etc because while they were loved and found favor, were all capable of the same sin we are all capable of and their examples of failure make up most of the stories in the OT. Sarah's promotion of Hagar was in disobedience to prophesy of angels--and we're still paying the price with Ishmael's descendants who are as numerous as the grains of sand in the desert.
Actually, the Bathsheba/Uriah incident supports my position.
Nathan goes to David with a story about a rich man who chooses not to use one of his many own sheep for dinner, but instead takes the pet lamb of a poor man and cooks it up.
There is not a hint here that the rich man is doing wrong because he has many sheep, only that it is wrong for him to take away that of the poor man.
IOW, David's polygamy is accepted as perfectly normal and unexceptional, while his adultery (and resulting murder) is condemned.
I have no problem with the claim that God's original intent was one man/one woman. I have a beef only with those who therefore claim that the OT didn't allow for polygamy, when it obviously did. These were just facts of life in the Middle East of the time, and were accepted as such by the Bible writers.
Genesis 2:24
“Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.”
1 Timothy 3:2, 12 "A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach. . . . Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well."
God ordained one man and one woman in the beginning.
Genesis 2: 20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. 21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
Did you notice it didn’t say “wives”?
Polygamy started with the offspring of the first murderer. Those that were rebellious to God.
Genesis. 4: 16 And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. 17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch. 18 And unto Enoch was born Irad: and Irad begat Mehujael: and Mehujael begat Methusael: and Methusael begat Lamech. 19 And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.
God forbid kings to multiply wives. Deut. 17:14 When thou art come unto the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me; 15 Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother. 16 But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the Lord hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way. 17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.
Most men of God even in the Old Testament had only one wife. This is true for Adam (Gen. 2-4), Noah (Gen. 6:18), Isaac (Gen. 25:20-23), Joseph (Gen. 41:45), Moses (Exodus. 2:21), Boaz (Ruth. 4), Job (Job 1), Isaiah (Isa. 8:3), and Hosea (Hosea 3:1-3).
That should give you a good start on what God wanted and sanctioned. The ones who had multiple wives were living contrary to God's wishes and commands and it caused them problems.
the thousands of years of tradition that might be there for a really good reason.
And this is why I am a conservative.
####
Me, too.
Bird’s nests and eggs are protected by modern conservationists so that the species will not become extinct. But human children are regarded by modern leftists as not needing the same kind of protection. The reason that the union of a man and a woman has been protected in law is so that the future generations of the human race will grow into civilized human beings.
Rinse and repeat, generation after generation, or sink into the alternative - where the entire country comes to replicate what has happened in many of our inner cities - where Big Daddy Government has become the support of the children there - and too many of these children to not grow into productive citizens.
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.