- Status
D
Della
Guest
Sen. Santorum was right. A lot of us warned that this would be the outcome of allowing same sex marriage, but we were told we were crazy. Well…I guess we weren’t. 
Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
It didn’t allow anyone to have more than one legal spouse, it just doesn’t let people be prosecuted for being married and co-habitating with other men or women. So Cody Brown with his one legal wife and his other make believe marriages can’t be prosecuted.
D
Della
Guest
Yes, but it’s foot in the door, just as decriminalizing sodomy was in passing same sex marriage. It’s definitely not a step in the right direction.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
“When marriage is elastic enough to mean anything, in due time it comes to mean nothing.”
Russell Moore, Southern Baptist Convention
Russell Moore, Southern Baptist Convention
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
Mary Elizabeth Williams over at Salon, who has in the past spewed mouth-frothing vitriol against the Church, ridiculed the Church’s definition of marriage and announced that the true definition of marriage is “a human-made state, replete with ritual and contractual obligation.”
It is this attitude that invites polygamists, incestual marriages, pedophiliac marriages, temporary marriages, conditional marriages, etc… to ensure that the basic foundation of society, the mother-father-child family, be unrecognized as society’s basic foundation.
It is this attitude that invites polygamists, incestual marriages, pedophiliac marriages, temporary marriages, conditional marriages, etc… to ensure that the basic foundation of society, the mother-father-child family, be unrecognized as society’s basic foundation.
P
phil19034
Guest
How long until a farmer tries to marry his goat?!?!?
S
Stilldreamn
Guest
Other than Muslims, which world religions permit polygamy? And which nations allow it? I think it’s only a matter of time before a group makes a claim on religious grounds.
A
aidanbradypop
Guest
SS civil unions have nothing to do with this so stop trying to throw in a low blow.Sen. Santorum was right. A lot of us warned that this would be the outcome of allowing same sex marriage, but we were told we were crazy. Well…I guess we weren’t.
Decriminalizing sodomy actually helped everyone because the sodomy laws were not just about sex between two males.
You can be against what Mr. Brown is doing but it has nothing to do with ss civil unions. The Utah law was against the civil rights of Mr. Brown and his loved ones. Nothing more…nothing less.
S
stewstew03
Guest
You might try reading the opinion.SS civil unions have nothing to do with this so stop trying to throw in a low blow.
Decriminalizing sodomy actually helped everyone because the sodomy laws were not just about sex between two males.
You can be against what Mr. Brown is doing but it has nothing to do with ss civil unions. The Utah law was against the civil rights of Mr. Brown and his loved ones. Nothing more…nothing less.
A
aidanbradypop
Guest
Read one, you have read them all. Same ole same ole.
A
aidanbradypop
Guest
Ok I read it.
S
Stilldreamn
Guest
This is an “opinion” piece, but I think it rightly predicts the course that we are now on as far as secular marriage rights are concerned:
Opinion: it’s time to reconsider polygamy
Bearing in mind the RCC stance on the Sacrament of Marriage, it is time (and past time) for the rest of us to repent of our laxness and divorce ourselves from the notion of secular/legal marriage. How can we be agents of the government in such a narrow sense of a definition of marriage?
I
iepuras
Guest
I read that piece too, including the comments. I am disgusted. It certainly didn’t take much time at all. If we didn’t have SS marriage, we wouldn’t even be talking about legalizing polygamy. However, it did not start with SS marriage. It started with artificial birth control and no-fault divorce. It’s been quite a ride down that slippery slope, hasn’t it?
The Browns really had no practical need to file suit in that Utah’s enforcement of the anti-polygamy laws is nominal at best.
Polygamy (or should I say polygyny since why shouldn’t the ladies also have polyandry?) is inherently unequal. Women are subordinate by default and have fewer rights in such relationships. Children also suffer. And let us know forget the “lost boys” who are cast out of their communities so the older men do not have to compete with young men for wives.
LDS church leaders cannot be happy with this development. Even though plural marriage is still very much a church doctrine, they don’t want this albatross to keep them from turning the LDS church into a mainstream Protestant denomination.
Since I left the LDS church, I discovered something really interesting. Many LDS who find out the true teachings and doctrines as taught by Brigham Young and other earlier prophets end up leaving the LDS church. A very, very small number never question if Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were prophets and determine that they need to have plural marriage to achieve the celestial kingdom. Some of those couples actually will seek out plural wives. Every once and a while these polygamists in the LDS church are discovered and excommunicated.
If polygamous marriages become legal, there is no reason the LDS church cannot bring it back. In fact, some LDS believe that polygamy will be restored either shortly before the Second Coming of Jesus or during the Millenium. I don’t think most LDS church leaders even want to bring polygamy back because it would cause all kinds of problems including more people leaving the church. It could happen though and I would not be shocked if it did.
D
Della
Guest
Low blow? To point out the obvious connections?SS civil unions have nothing to do with this so stop trying to throw in a low blow.
Legalizing sin helps no one–not in this life and certainly not in prep for the next.Decriminalizing sodomy actually helped everyone because the sodomy laws were not just about sex between two males.
It has everything to do with it. It’s the next step to devoid the word marriage of any meaning at all. If the state can define marriage it can define family, and the next step is taking children away from parents who won’t accept the government’s definitions. If you can’t see this, then you are indeed blind, my friend.
A
aidanbradypop
Guest
Very much a low blow! Will ss civil unions always be the fall back for everything now? If that is the case then shall we go back even further to when Moses allowed the Israelites to divorce. Maybe we should start there.
Look up sodomy. I do not want to post it in case we have “G” eyes watching. It goes well beyond intercourse between two men.
Divorce is a sin…yet legal…getting drunk is a sin yet alcohol is legal.
I get what you are saying Della but do not agree with how you are putting it. SS civil unions is not the start of the revolution. Us straight folk have pretty much brought marriage down all by ourselves.
I guess I am blind then. Maybe that is a good thing.
Since when does the Church care about who or what defines a marriage? Mr. Brown, although I do not agree with what he is doing, is only legally married to ONE woman. He has not married all of them. Just ONE and that is legal in every state and country. So he has 3 other women he has children with and calls them wives. That is between Mr. Brown and God. He is not asking that the courts allow him to marry all 4.
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
The legal rationale for “SS civil unions” can be used for all these other “marital arrangements” without changing the legal rationale whatsoever. Since our legal system is largely based on “precedent” rulings, the phenomenon of “SS civil unions” obviously led the way to other rulings, such as this, which piggyback on that precedent without changing its legal rationale. I don’t think it proper to chastise those whose foresight has now come to reality.
C
Corki
Guest
This is the main point. As much as some people want to try to distance SS “marriage” from the question of polygamy, legally they hinge on the same argument.
- Does the state have the right to define and re-define marriage to fit the whims of the times
- Is marriage a natural law event, codified by a state, that is between one man and one woman?
There is no logical way to take that position without including polygamy and polyandry. From a sociological and historical viewpoint, there is a stronger case for these relationships than for SS “marriage”. And there is no biological constraint in the case of polygyny as there is with same sex unions.
A
aidanbradypop
Guest
While they chastise others?
As I stated, if we are going to go off of the “piggybacking” theory then we must look to Moses first with allowing divorce.
I remember talking to a very devout Catholic lady that lives down the street. We were talking before the presidential election. She asked if I was voting for Romney and I said yes…she had a
look on her face and stated…He will make this country a Mormon country so I am voting for Obama!..She judge him by his religious beliefs and yet wants her beliefs to be put into law?..pot calling the kettle black
D
Della
Guest
Our Lord corrected Moses 'actions, which he did to save women’s lives, btw. And yes, no fault divorce and contraception were the beginning of a culture sea change that led to SS unions becoming legal.
Exactly. So, why would you call it an injustice to tell people they can’t indulge in it? It’s not healthy and it’s not what God intended. We Christians can’t put our Christianity into a pocket and forget about it when we vote. If we don’t uphold our values in the public square where should we do it? In private only? That’s just what the secularists want. Why should we surrender to their skewed values? Because they shout the loudest? Your stance makes no sense.
So, we should help the process degrade all the more? Is that what you’re proposing?Divorce is a sin…yet legal…getting drunk is a sin yet alcohol is legal.
I get what you are saying Della but do not agree with how you are putting it. SS civil unions is not the start of the revolution. Us straight folk have pretty much brought marriage down all by ourselves.
The Church has always cared about the definition of marriage. In our times it is powerless to stop governments from changing that definition because it has no armies to enforce its teachings. The Church can only stand firm and state the truth against a secular-minded society.I guess I am blind then. Maybe that is a good thing.
Since when does the Church care about who or what defines a marriage? Mr. Brown, although I do not agree with what he is doing, is only legally married to ONE woman. He has not married all of them. Just ONE and that is legal in every state and country. So he has 3 other women he has children with and calls them wives. That is between Mr. Brown and God. He is not asking that the courts allow him to marry all 4.
And no, it’s not just between Mr. Brown and God. What about the “wives” and the children involved? Don’t they count? Especially the children who are stuck in that mess with no way out–and now the law has taken any legal way out from them. I am appalled, and so should you
- Status