Posted on 01/05/2014 1:53:12 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
In modern America, sex is increasingly where it should be: outside the reach of government. Anti-sodomy statutes have been tossed by the Supreme Court. Contraception is widely accessible. Anyone with a computer can gorge on pornography without fear of prosecution.
Same-sex marriage has been legalized in 18 states and the District of Columbia. Now another step has been taken to expel police and legislators from the bedrooms of consenting adults: a federal court decision striking down a key element of Utah's ban on polygamy.
Last month, District Judge Clark Waddoups ruled that the law infringes not only on constitutionally protected sexual privacy but on the free exercise of religion. Utah, he concluded, doesn't have to issue multiple marriage licenses to Kody Brown and his consorts, who appear in the reality TV show "Sister Wives." But it can't dictate their living arrangements.
The group belongs to a renegade Mormon sect that regards polygamy as sanctioned by God. Brown is legally married to one of the women and "spiritually married" to the other three. Together, at last count, they have 17 children.
If a man and a woman want to live together and call themselves partners, buddies, teammates, friends with benefits or Bonnie and Clyde, the government will leave them alone. Ditto if a guy can entice several fertile females to shack up with him and spawn a noisy horde of offspring.
But in Utah, it matters what the man calls the women living with him. If he refers to them as wives, he can go to prison. The law covers not only formal polygamous marriage but any relationships in which a married person "purports to marry another person or cohabits with another person." That was the provision ruled unconstitutional....
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
Bingo, you want to end any definition of marriage, and in effect end marriage.
That is a childish point of view since law has to deal with marriage and always has, America has never not had "legal" marriage, even a common-law marriage, had to, and still does have to, be "legal", to be recognized in courts and in law.
100 years ago, 50 years ago, 200 years ago, you could call whatever you wanted marriage, but it didn't make it legal.
Like the rest of the left, you want something that has never existed in America, and cannot exist in reality.
I did respond. See above.
You are one seriously confused individual.
At least I can see where you’re ‘coming from’.
A lot of progress has indeed been made despite dire predictions from ‘conservatives’ who thought the old ways were best.
One mild (possible) correction.
Prohibition was an imposition of the “religious left” upon America (’religious right’ being a media creation of the ‘80’s). It was truly the first ‘women’s issue’ in politics- except suffrage itself.
The ‘religious left’ is pushing this issue and I expect it to turn out as well as prohibition did.
It not..the Constitution is mute on marriage. .yet the federal recognizes it in laws and interject it self in it by granting privilege based on it...from a true libertarian perspective they should say no such thing as marriage should be acknowledge at any government level..it a simple religious vow (reason one for and government to butt out) it regards to a sex act( reason two for government to butt out)...so that would leave no such thing as legal (from the government perspective) marriage. For law it would rank right up there with a promise rings and going steady
Show me a civilization anywhere at any time in history that did not have some form of government? So, yeah. Government is, in fact, a necessary component of civilization.
I don’t see how the courts can possibly rule against polygamy in states where they claim homosexuals have a right to marry. I also agree with your statement that polygamy has a historical basis in the Bible. However, the Bible clearly speaks against it in the New Testament.
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have not come to abolish these things but to fulfill them.” Matthew 5:17
l never said government wasn’t necessary - l said it doesn’t comprise civilization - there’s a big difference.
Bingo, you want to end any definition of marriage, and in effect end marriage.
That is a childish point of view since law has to deal with marriage and always has, America has never not had "legal" marriage, even a common-law marriage, had to, and still does have to, be "legal", to be recognized in courts and in law.
100 years ago, 50 years ago, 200 years ago, you could call whatever you wanted marriage, but it didn't make it legal.
Like the rest of the left, you want something that has never existed in America, and cannot exist in reality.
Childish? You been hanging around mrsmith? LOL. What's childish is your attempt to to deny the source of marriage being religion, and not the government. Government administrative processes need a definition to acknowledge the existence of something, but that's a completely different thing from claiming the power to authorize and license something. You are mixing and matching the two freely.
And what's with the bingo, and how did I "want to end any definition of marriage, and in effect end marriage." By pointng out that Muslim marriages are different from Christian marriages? LOL, you think they're not? You think that as a Christian, if you got married before Allah, under the power of the Koran, according to the tenents of Islam, that your mariage is exactly the same as a Christian marriage - BECAUSE a government bureaucrat authorized it under the same federal code? You're telling me that without that federal code, no marriage woult be legal and lawful? And you claim that I am "ending marriage"?! What have YOU done to marriage, in reducing it to a form authorized under the Federal Register, if not killed it dead?
Like I said, go get married by a bureaucrat, and remember, it doesn't matter what religion you do it under, or if you do it under any spiritual traditions whatsoever. Because according to you, it's the bureaucracy that counts. It's the Burearocracy that legitimizes, legalizes, and makes lawful, marriage. Marriage: two people, coming together in contractual agreement before the Federal Code - and everything else is lawless.
Thanks for sharing, it's been fascinating. Let's not do it again real soon.
Whacky gibberish.
You could always make up your own marriage, always, and still can, it just isn’t legal, you want to legalize gay marriage and polygamy, which is disgustingly anti-American.
The founders would have lynched a whack case pushing this nonsense.
>> Same-sex marriage has been legalized in 18 states and the District of Columbia.
Under the guise of “Freedom” where every baker and photographer has a govt gun to the head.
Sorry, these govt controlled “marriage liberties” are anything but liberties.
You're off your meds. Get help.
Of course it does. And that's it's proper role - as PART of our civilization.
Not ALL of it.
No, you are talking gibberish.
You want to create some weird fantasy that is anti-American, even anti-reality as far as humans go.
You want everyone to just make up their personal version of whatever marriage is, and it be recognized as legal.
Now we are to the point where you are not truly conservative unless you are a christian bible thumper. This statement excludes others and it is BS.
You have just mandated being a strong christian to allowing one to be a strong conservative. There are many right wing conservatives out there who are not practicing christians. When you put forth this point of view you are doing several things. You are talking down to them. Indicating that they can't be strong conservatives unless they say your god words and sit in your church alienates them, separates them, and creates a division. You insult their right to believe or not believe what they chose and push them away from the right wing conservative beliefs.
There are several terms that the left uses to degrade the right. Most of them are in the neighborhood of, "the religious far right." Do you still wonder why the rest of the republicans will not stand up and defend you? You can not talk down to people and or display an "I'm superior" attitude and expect them to stand up for you.
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.