2008
Posted on 02/11/2020 3:28:31 PM PST by MacNaughton
From 1852 to 1890, polygamy was regularly practiced in the Mormon church. Polygamy was first practiced by Joseph Smith after God supposedly gave him a direct revelation, but it was later defended by Apostle Orson Pratt, which gave it widespread approval until Utah territory joined the United States under the condition that polygamy would be discontinued.
A new law in Utah is set to reverse that and remove heavy criminal penalties for being married to more than one spouse. It was commonly said during the gay marriage debate in the United States that once sodomy-based unions were legalized, polygamy would follow. Although some mocked the prediction, it seems to be coming true. Utah has more than 30 thousand living in polygamous communities and they seem to have found a friend in Utah senator, Deidre Henderson.
The Republican lawmaker said, “The law is a failure. It hasn’t stopped polygamy at all and it’s actually enabled abuse to occur and remain unchecked.
Local news outlets say Henderson’s bill “has gathered significant support.” The bill was unanimously approved by a legislative panel Monday.
Never has a political cartoon been more dead on.
They have no standing to prohibit polygamy after the “gay” marriage redefinition. Now, “love” is all that is required to get “bennies.”
For your interest.
Why should polygamy be illegal. It was good for the Hebrews after all. Seriously, I would like to know a reason other than “Jesus opposes it.”
Gee, I wonder if Mitt Romney’s wife will let him get a few more wives.
‘zactly. And if there are no absolute moral grounds, then how can anything be illegal if the practice of homosexuality is now legal? There is no legal basis for denying polygamy or any other perversions.
What makes you believe it was ok for them, just because the Bible records they participated in it doesn’t mean it’s God’s design for us.
If someone is crazy enough to want wives (((now in stereo))), then have at it.
They should just move to Mexico.
Great SCOTUS case on the subject of polygamy as a religious liberty.
Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878)
Run down to " 5. As to the defence of religious belief or duty."
Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe, and, until the establishment of the Mormon Church, was almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and of African people. At common law, the second marriage was always void (2 Kent, Com. 79), and from the earliest history of England, polygamy has been treated as an offence against society. ....By the statute of 1 James I (c. 11), the offence, if committed in England or Wales, was made punishable in the civil courts, and the penalty was death. As this statute was limited in its operation to England and Wales, it was at a very early period reenacted, generally with some modifications, in all the colonies. In connection with the case we are now considering, it is a significant fact that, on the 8th of December, 1788, after the passage of the act establishing religious freedom, and after the convention of Virginia had recommended as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States the declaration in a bill of rights that "all men have an equal, natural, and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience," the legislature of that State substantially enacted the statute of James I., death penalty included, because, as recited in the preamble, "it hath been doubted whether bigamy or poligamy be punishable by the laws of this Commonwealth." 12 Hening's Stat. 691.
From that day to this, we think it may safely be said there never has been a time in any State of the Union when polygamy has not been an offence against society, cognizable by the civil courts and punishable with more or less severity. In the face of all this evidence, it is impossible to believe that the constitutional guaranty of religious freedom was intended to prohibit legislation in respect to this most important feature of social life. Marriage, while from its very nature a sacred obligation, is nevertheless, in most civilized nations, a civil contract, and usually regulated by law. Upon it society may be said to be built, and out of its fruits spring social relations and social obligations and duties with which government is necessarily required to deal. In fact, according as monogamous or polygamous marriages are allowed, do we find the principles on which the government of the people, to a greater or less extent, rests.
Professor, Lieber says, polygamy leads to the patriarchal principle, and which, when applied to large communities, fetters the people in stationary despotism, while that principle cannot long exist in connection with monogamy. Chancellor Kent observes that this remark is equally striking and profound. 2 Kent, Com. 81, note (e). An exceptional colony of polygamists under an exceptional leadership may sometimes exist for a time without appearing to disturb the social condition of the people who surround it; but there cannot be a doubt that, unless restricted by some form of constitution, it is within the legitimate scope of the power of every civil government to determine whether polygamy or monogamy shall be the law of social life under its dominion.
In Mitt’s case you mean, move BACK to Mexico.
The elites have no standing to prohibit sex with farm animals at this point....
The gay poligamists will be interesting, legalised gay orgies. Btw, how does the tax situation work out? I mean marry 3 or 4 people and claim them on your taxes?
I could just imagine the drama after getting hitched to several of these self absorbed young women these days.
Just watch the show Bachelor (my wife’s fav show) and tell me how well being married to multiple wives would work out.
One is enough.
Doesn’t mean anything. I’ll believe this will pass and stick when I see it.
I mean there isn’t any rationale left to stop voluntary polygamy with current political developments, but polygamy is mostly seen as a heterosexual ‘guy thing’ and so of no interest to the feminist and gender theorists currently in control. In fact they are very likely to oppose it since they’re pretty much automatically against all male fantasies, even the theoretical ones that arent quite the same thing in real life. People, especially libs are very good at being hypocritial.
Come on! It’s old school Mormons behind this!
Mitt Romney has binders full of potential wives.
with every new wife comes a new mother-in-law
If gay marriage is legal, what’s the argument against polygamy? None.
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.