Actually, I think the ACLU lawyers are proud of the fact that they hate America and are proud of their efforts to destroy our Judeo-Christian culture.
"But I think the majority of Americans view ACLU lawyers as people who hate America and who want to destroy all Judeo-Christian values and beliefs."
Here is a little irony: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob (name changed to Israel), Moses. King David, King Solomon, etc. were ALL polygamists and yet they are highly revered still today. Anybody see any inconsistencies on this?
(Please note: I definitely am NOT advocating the legalization of polygamy today, and the ACLU drives me nuts; I'm just pointing out an historical fact that people in the Judeo/Christian tradition of today typically fail to acknowledge when abhoring polygamy).
:)
Didn't everyone pooh pooh Santorum when he warned this was coming down the pike?
Historically polygamy (man and more than one wife) has been practiced by many cultures. Sodomy on the other hand is considered unacceptable. I find many liberal females are uncomfortable with polygamy. Many of the married one will not be happy if their husband shows up with another woman and declares her to be his second wife. Let the ACLU legalize it, and you will see many liberal females question their own support for the liberal agenda.
I think people should be free to enter into polygmus(sp) relationships as they please. Freedom is freedom, whether we consider it wacky or weird or what. Problems arising from freedom can be blamed on socialism - government benefits for marriage, government certificates for marraige, entitlemnt programs and child welfare programs etc...
If government didn't define marrage and let the people define it then we wouldn't have any of these problems. IMGO
If I recall the government sent the troopos in against the mormons and threw a bunch of them in jail and prevented them from voting and all kinds of tyranny took place out there.
Regards,
It may not please many people but one can do what one wants to a very large degree if one is simply quiet about it.
Oh what a shocking development. /sarcasm
Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005
Information here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1413875/posts
There you will find information about the bill, links to contact your congressmen and state representatives, and links to Stop the ACLU, among others.
Who DIDN"T see this coming? How many times have opponants of same sex coupling sited this very thing.
I pray someday, people will heed our warnings, instead of the old "that will never happen" BS.
As traditional marriages go, polygamy is one of the oldest.
They aren't doing a very good job of it in Utah. Everytime there is a prosecution of a polygamist in Utah I've never heard a peep from the ACLU. No briefs filed, no amiecus curei (sp?) , no friend of the court--NOTHING.
Do you think they're just blowin' smoke?................NAH!
Still, I'd prefer much less immigration and crowding, even if it means monotonous monogamy.
Thanks for the ping.
What exactly does ACLU mean?
Is it their domain to protect our property rights?
That didn't take long. This was inevitable, since polygamy is less unnatural than homosexual "marriage." But there's no logical limit to the destruction of marriage since we've accepted the principle that "marriage is what we say it is."
It was landmark U.S. Supreme Court precedent Reynolds v. United States in 1878 that made "separation of church and state" a dubiously legitimate point of case law, but more importantly; it confirmed the Constitutionality in statutory regulation of marriage practices.
Congress, state legislatures and public referenda have statutorily determined polygamous, pederast, homosexual, and incestuous marriages are unlawful. No Constitutional Amendment restricting marriage is required to regulate "practice" according to the Reynolds decision.
Marriage is a religious "rite," not a civil "right;" a secular standard of human reproductive biology united with the Judaic Adam and Eve model of monogamy in creationist belief. Two homosexuals cannot be "monogamous" because the word denotes a biological procreation they are not capable of together; human reproductive biology is an obvious secular standard.
"…In our opinion, the statute immediately under consideration is within the legislative power of Congress. It is constitutional and valid as prescribing a rule of action for all those residing in the Territories, and in places over which the United States have exclusive control... Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices... So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed..."[Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 8 Otto 145, 24 L. Ed. 244 (1878).]
See also:
Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States, 136 U.S. 1, 10 S.Ct. 792, 34 L. Ed. 478 (1890). Revised as 140 U.S. 665, 11 S.Ct. 884, 35 L. Ed. 592 (1891).
Strossen has no intention of supporting polygyny or polyandry, it would overturn their beloved "separation of church and state" decision. She was just lying to hopefully get support for homosexual monogamous marriages. They would have no problem stabbing the idiot polygamy advocates in the back once they get what they want.
Furthermore, I don't think by some of the comments I have seen or heard anywhere that people are capable of discerning by the foggiest notion what is at stake with this.
bump
bump