Posted on 12/22/2013 6:18:16 PM PST by ReformationFan
With the ruling of a federal judge last week that declared part of Utah's anti-polygamy law unconstitutional, the left finds itself torn. Of course, with their ever-wavering consciences that are willing to go along with whatever seems the latest fad that tests our moral boundaries (especially in the sexual realm), some liberals say that it is time that we take a closer look at plural marriage. After all, if consenting adults want to enter into such relationships, what is the problem? In other words, as I asked over five years ago, what's wrong with polygamy? However, some liberals took comfort in the fact that the federal judge's ruling in the Utah case was somewhat limited in its scope. So don't worry, declares Jay Bookman of the AJC, (in spite of where the redefining of marriage will eventually lead us) judge Waddoups' ruling "does not in any way require government to recognize a polygamous marriage."
Haven't we heard something like this before? No need to amend the U.S. Constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman; the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is sufficient. For over a decade (and marriage has only been an electoral issue for little more than a decade), the vast majority of elected U.S. Democrats were for biblical marriage, until they were against it. In 1996 DOMA passed by a 342 to 67 margin in the U.S. House, and an 85 to 14 margin in the Senate, and was signed by President Clinton.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
If everything hinges on “equal rights”, then polygamy will be allowed. At this point I don’t even care any more. Judges are making up laws as they go. Christians are being more marginalized every day. America is becoming weaker in many ways. Obama is hastening our demise but it has been coming for a long time. Makes me glad I’m old.
I love polygamy!! My husband wont let me do it. Can you imagine the lust and sex. But as Phil Robertson says “ It won’t be in the ass”
Look on the bright side of this idea:
Due to hypergamy, women will tend towards plural marriage with the few alpha males who don’t give a rat’s rear end for feminism or feminists.
The feminists will be left alone, or having to settle for the beta/gamma males who aren’t worth jack. And increasingly, those men are refusing to marry.
Within two generations, we could be done with feminism for good - the feminists will have seen what their stupidity bought them, and they’ll realize that they brought the results on themselves.
Excellent!
After DOMA, until 2003, only three U.S. states (AK, NE, NV) saw fit to amend their constitutions to limit the legal definition of marriage to a union of one man and one woman.
__________________________________
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Tennessee Marriage Protection Amendment
state constitutional amendment barring same-sex unions first proposed in 2004 and adopted in 2006
only marriage between a man and a woman will be recognized by the state..
voted by 81% of the people and adopted
and guess what ???
we didn’t have the Mormons coming here to get in our way and mess up the process..
we managed to do it all on our lil ol apostate/Christian lonesomes..
They’ll support it for bisexuals. There has already been talk about that out here in CA.
California valiantly tried to amend their constitution but the courts over ruled
Question...Can I Marry myself to myself?? I need the tax write off
With the way our world is going, it would only be “equal” and “fair”.
Do these people not understand what they are doing? What if 1,000 people want to get “married” or what if A,B,C,D, and E are “married” but A and B want out. C wants to stay married to D and A, but divorce the rest. E wants to stay married to everyone, and on and on. This will bring the courts to a standstill over problems with property settlements, inheritance, alimony, and the most destructive issue of all, child custody.
Polygamy has only worked (if you want to call it that) in situations where the women involved felt bound by religious convictions. It was a small, self-regulating little world. It’s horribly immoral, but they kept to themselves.
If you unleash the idea that the word marriage has no definition, then society will unravel. You simply cannot have order and stability and a secure way of raising children unless you have marriage according to the actual definition of the word.
This continuing decline of morals and standards in this country will lead to its destruction.
Exactly it is the bedrock of civilization.
So of course libertopians take the side of destroying the institution of marriage
My initial thoughts are that men will be more likely to have multiple wives than the reverse.
Your comment spurred a thought.
Knowing how when women get together and their cycles all line up, what man in his right mind would want to try to handle seven women all with PMS at the very same time?
“If you unleash the idea that the word marriage has no definition, then society will unravel. You simply cannot have order and stability and a secure way of raising children unless you have marriage according to the actual definition of the word.
“This continuing decline of morals and standards in this country will lead to its destruction.”
Bingo. That’s the left’s true goal in all this “marriage ‘redefinition’” nonsense. Destroy the natural family and replace it with the state.
http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoals.htm
Check out goals 25 and 26.
Then why would another man want you for a second wife...?
Or a second man want to..., Oh, never mind....
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.