Slate: 'Marriage Equality' Includes Polygamy

[Revmitchell]

As a lawyer in the same-sex marriage litigation at the Supreme Court who has spent a couple years working through all the implications of declaring a constitutional right to gay marriage, it became clear that such a declaration would also mean there is a right to polygamy.

When I previously explained these reasons, gay marriage supporters said the country would never go there. Well, now the far-left magazine Slate has come out with a full-throated endorsement of polygamous marriage.

For thousands of years, Western Civilization has always recognized three elements to marriage. It is the union of (1) two consenting adults, (2) of opposite sex, (3) who are not close blood relatives. Gay marriage advocates say the second element can be jettisoned. I’ve always asked why those same people say the first element cannot be touched.

Slate believes, “Legalized polygamy in the United States is the constitutional, feminist, and sex-positive choice.”


http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journa...-Marriage-Leads-to-Polygamy-and-Endorses-Both

 

[Aaron]

Well, duh.

 

[Aaron]

That wasn't directed to you, Rev, but to the liberals on this board.

 

[Salty]

...For thousands of years, Western Civilization has always recognized three elements to marriage. It is the union of (1) two consenting adults, (2) of opposite sex, (3) who are not close blood relatives. Gay marriage advocates say the second element can be jettisoned. I’ve always asked why those same people say the first element cannot be touched. ...

First, I believe the good Rev is talking about h0mosexuals (always like to clarify when someone uses the synonym for happy)
Second - as I have stated in the past, I have always wondered why the h0mosexuals have not included polygamy in their lawsuits? (if anything a polygamist has more Biblical support than a h0mosexual.
Third, as Rev says the h0mosexuals want to "jettisoned" # 2 (of opposite sex). Why would they not ask for exceptions on #3 - (close relatives).

Again, those who demand tolerance from Bible believing Christians are the most intolerant of all.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

This just goes to show that those who have been warning of the slippery slope are correct. Once one group (the homosexuals) seeks to chip away at one part of the definition of marriage, how then can this group prevent other groups (polygamous etc) from chipping away at other parts of the definition?

Once all aspects of the definition of marriage have been revised or whittled away, the term 'marriage' will finally have become meaningless.

 

[Bob Alkire]

This just goes to show that those who have been warning of the slippery slope are correct. Once one group (the homosexuals) seeks to chip away at one part of the definition of marriage, how then can this group prevent other groups (polygamous etc) from chipping away at other parts of the definition?

Once all aspects of the definition of marriage have been revised or whittled away, the term 'marriage' will finally have become meaningless.

My friend, I believe you have hit the nail on the head!

 

[church mouse guy]

The Slate article argues that women have the right to choose and the only reason that Mormonism has such a sordid history with polygamy is that it has been illegal. If you say that a man with 50 children is spread too thin, then Slate says that a lot of men are already spread too thin and that plural wives would be good for the children to counteract that lack of fatherly attention. Slate is publishing nonsense on stilts.

This is nonsense because the history of polygamy is ancient and it has always led to misery and degradation and we have seen that upclose in the history of Mormonism since Joe Smith first introduced the problem in this country in the early 19th century.

I personally still think that if the court (and who knows what John Roberts will do) overturns Edmunds Tucker Act of 1887 and legalizes polygamy, then Mormons will be entitled to compensation plus interest for the property confiscated under the federal act just as those who lost under FDR's executive order and the court decision Korematsu v US had to be compensated for being interred because of their Japanese ancestry during WW II.

But you have to agree that if the federal government cannot define marriage as one man and one woman, then Edmunds Tucker is unconstitutional and 125 years of federal legislation outlawing polygamy is null and void.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

These comments sound like people think it would be the end of the world if polygamy were legalized. IMO, as long as all parties are of consenting age and the arrangement is agreeable to them, what business is it of the state? What about smaller government? This doesn't mean your church would have to recognize the unions. In fact, people DO live in polygamous and polyamorous arrangements today, even though the state doesn't recognize such. Keep the government out of familial arrangements altogether would be the best policy.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

These comments sound like people think it would be the end of the world if polygamy were legalized. IMO, as long as all parties are of consenting age and the arrangement is agreeable to them, what business is it of the state? What about smaller government? This doesn't mean your church would have to recognize the unions. In fact, people DO live in polygamous and polyamorous arrangements today, even though the state doesn't recognize such. Keep the government out of familial arrangements altogether would be the best policy.

I guess at the end of the day, what concerns me the most about this is that there are militant activists who wouldn't be content just for the state to recognize these so-called "marriages", but who would also want to bully churches and private businesses etc into accepting them as well. I worry about the enactment of 'hate crimes' at the behest of the self anointed politically correct thought police which would infringe on the rights of churches and/or private citizens and businesses to refuse to call something a "marriage" that really isn't such in the eyes of God.

 

[church mouse guy]

These comments sound like people think it would be the end of the world if polygamy were legalized. IMO, as long as all parties are of consenting age and the arrangement is agreeable to them, what business is it of the state? What about smaller government? This doesn't mean your church would have to recognize the unions. In fact, people DO live in polygamous and polyamorous arrangements today, even though the state doesn't recognize such. Keep the government out of familial arrangements altogether would be the best policy.

I spent some time this fall studying the history and doctrine of Mormonism in connection with the federal election. The history of polygamy is disgusting and it is bad for all concerned, especially the women and children. Romeny's family apparently moved to Mexico to avoid Edmunds Tucker although his father returned to the States during the depression and rose to be president of American Motors and Governor of Michigan.

Government does have a right to define marriage and family and the US government began in 1887 to outlaw polygamy.

I suggest you read Ed Decker at Saints Alive or Sandra Tanner at Utah Lighthouse Mission http://www.utlm.org/

Sandra Tanner appeared on the anti-polygamy tv show "Polygamy: What Love Is This?" The video can be seen here:

http://www.whatloveisthis.tv/episodes/2010/ep308.htm