Polygamy ruling?

[aidanbradypop]

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.

Yes I Lord did and sadly we still get divorced daily.

My stance makes wonderful sense! I tried to explain it but it seems I should go ahead and do so. Sodomy definition read the first line. So we see that it is not between two men but can also be between two women, a married straight couple. Even a married straight Catholic couple. The Church teaches that fourplay is ok between a married couple. So they are breaking the law of sodomy in some states.

So, we should help the process degrade all the more? Is that what you’re proposing?

I am not for “gay marriage” as I have stated on many threads. I am, however, in favor of ss civil unions. It is the basic civil right of every citizen of the GREAT COUNTRY to be treated fairly and equal.

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.

Nor do I oppose such stance Della. I believe every Church should stand firm in what they teach and believe. Just because the government states that the sky is purple does not mean it really is purple. You have every right to believe in what you believe. That is your civil right in this country we live in.

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

Is Mr. Brown holding a gun to their head? Let’s not mix up the Brown family with the FLDS group. Many are stuck with no way out and often become victims to horrible crimes. My heart breaks for them and what they go through.

[/QUOTE]

 

[iepuras]

It is easy to say that we shouldn’t compare the Browns to the FLDS, especially when the Browns are not anywhere near the norm for polygamous families in the US or globally. The Browns are not what polygamy typically looks like.

Look at how polygamy looks globally, and it ain’t pretty. Polygamy is practiced in Islamic countries, some places in Africa and in certain communities of the Intermountain West of the US. Overall, women are not equal to the husband and the children suffer. Polygamous marriages are inherently unequal. Even in relatively so-called “good” polygamous relationships like the Browns, there is jealousy between the women. The husband can easily abandon a wife he doesn’t get along with anymore or isn’t attracted to anymore because of pregnancy and childbirth and find a new one. Even if you only look at how polygamy has been practiced in Utah/Idaho/Arizona both currently and historically, you will find that women and children were and are often abandoned by the husband/father when he pursued a newer, usually younger, wife. The older wives often become single mothers in practice. Young men were sometimes physically assaulted by older, more powerful men to keep them away from desirable young women.

 

[aidanbradypop]

It is easy to say that we shouldn’t compare the Browns to the FLDS, especially when the Browns are not anywhere near the norm for polygamous families in the US or globally. The Browns are not what polygamy typically looks like.

Look at how polygamy looks globally, and it ain’t pretty. Polygamy is practiced in Islamic countries, some places in Africa and in certain communities of the Intermountain West of the US. Overall, women are not equal to the husband and the children suffer. Polygamous marriages are inherently unequal. Even in relatively so-called “good” polygamous relationships like the Browns, there is jealousy between the women. The husband can easily abandon a wife he doesn’t get along with anymore or isn’t attracted to anymore because of pregnancy and childbirth and find a new one. Even if you only look at how polygamy has been practiced in Utah/Idaho/Arizona both currently and historically, you will find that women and children were and are often abandoned by the husband/father when he pursued a newer, usually younger, wife. The older wives often become single mothers in practice. Young men were sometimes physically assaulted by older, more powerful men to keep them away from desirable young women.

I am in no way saying it is correct or I agree with. Preaching to the chior here

 

[Della]

Della;11506699:

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.

Yes I Lord did and sadly we still get divorced daily.

Which is no excuse for supporting further degradation of morals in our society.

My stance makes wonderful sense! I tried to explain it but it seems I should go ahead and do so. Sodomy definition read the first line. So we see that it is not between two men but can also be between two women, a married straight couple. Even a married straight Catholic couple. The Church teaches that fourplay is ok between a married couple. So they are breaking the law of sodomy in some states.

Foreplay is not the same thing as ss sex. Foreplay is only a precursor to the marital embrace, which is why is it allowed when sex is consummated within marriage. The Church does not allowed foreplay for its own sake–that is an abuse of the marital act.

I am not for “gay marriage” as I have stated on many threads. I am, however, in favor of ss civil unions. It is the basic civil right of every citizen of the GREAT COUNTRY to be treated fairly and equal.

SS civil unions are defined by the government as marriage, so it is gay marriage in the eyes of the state. But this is wrong on so many levels it should be obvious. No same sex people have any right to marriage of any kind because it is not for them any more than it is for children or those who cannot complete the marital embrace. In the case of ss relations the end is only self gratification, not bringing a man and a woman together as one flesh open to children. It’s a none event, and an abomination that should not be celebrated by the state nor anyone else. It’s not an injustice to deny something you cannot have/do.

Nor do I oppose such stance Della. I believe every Church should stand firm in what they teach and believe. Just because the government states that the sky is purple does not mean it really is purple. You have every right to believe in what you believe. That is your civil right in this country we live in.

Yes, but if certain factions have their way it won’t be much longer. They aren’t going to stop at getting gay marriage passed, they want to impose it on everyone as a civil right, which means the Church would be forced to acknowledge such “unions” or be closed down. Yes, it can happen. We aren’t guaranteed our freedoms–we have to be constantly vigilant to make sure others don’t take them away from us. If that means a bit of paranoia, I’m willing to risk it to make sure our children aren’t forced to accept the gay agenda the government is pushing. Just look at the Common Core curriculum if you don’t believe me.

Is Mr. Brown holding a gun to their head? Let’s not mix up the Brown family with the FLDS group. Many are stuck with no way out and often become victims to horrible crimes. My heart breaks for them and what they go through.

He is holding them by means of brainwashing, yes. They’re part of a cult that holds women and children hostage to the men’s lust. It is horrible even if it’s more subtle.

 

[aidanbradypop]

He is holding them by means of brainwashing, yes. They’re part of a cult that holds women and children hostage to the men’s lust. It is horrible even if it’s more subtle.

I left off the rest because we were getting way off topic but thank you for being charitable in that conversation.

He is not holding them hostage. I’m sure many do. I would go as far to agree with you that they are a cult.

Here is a question for you.

You do not want Mr. Brown or any of the likes to impose their religious beliefs onto you and your morals so why should you onto him and his faith?

 

[Della]

I left off the rest because we were getting way off topic but thank you for being charitable in that conversation.

He is not holding them hostage. I’m sure many do. I would go as far to agree with you that they are a cult.

Here is a question for you.

You do not want Mr. Brown or any of the likes to impose their religious beliefs onto you and your morals so why should you onto him and his faith?

Morals? Is hoodwinking women into sexual relations apart from a stable relationship with a man or their own moral? It’s not a matter of his faith, it’s a matter of defining marriage and of stable families, which are the bedrock of society. The more society lets go of the traditional family the more it suffers. It’s the children who suffer the most, with young girls being encouraged to give themselves to randy old men for their “faith.” That’s not faith, that’s the abuse of faith–that’s one of the fundamental definitions of a cult. And cults are not harmless, they do great damage to hearts, souls, and society at large.

 

[aidanbradypop]

Morals? Is hoodwinking women into sexual relations apart from a stable relationship with a man or their own moral? It’s not a matter of his faith, it’s a matter of defining marriage and of stable families, which are the bedrock of society. The more society lets go of the traditional family the more it suffers. It’s the children who suffer the most, with young girls being encouraged to give themselves to randy old men for their “faith.” That’s not faith, that’s the abuse of faith–that’s one of the fundamental definitions of a cult. And cults are not harmless, they do great damage to hearts, souls, and society at large.

I’m sure in some areas it is as bad as you say and maybe even worse.

 

[Della]

I’m sure in some areas it is as bad as you say and maybe even worse.

Yes, sadly. The worst of being in a cult is that the victim believes s/he has nowhere else to turn. They cannot see a way out of their situation. It’s a psychological trap even if there are no physical barriers or overt threats. My heart bleeds for the children caught up in such cults and now the government has ensured they will remain trapped with no way out. God help the judge in his blindness to the harm he is allowing to go on.

 

[Brandon_Cal]

I’m having trouble finding the part of the court’s opinion stating that their ruling here was influenced by same sex civil unions and/or marriage. Can some one point it out for me? I’m finding it hard to believe since Utah has neither same-sex marriage nor same-sex civil unions.

 

[Della]

I’m having trouble finding the part of the court’s opinion stating that their ruling here was influenced by same sex civil unions and/or marriage. Can some one point it out for me? I’m finding it hard to believe since Utah has neither same-sex marriage nor same-sex civil unions.

It’s not that the ruling was based on ss marriage, but rather that the loosening up of marriage definitions may have had an influence upon the judge’s decision. We too are shocked that a judge from Utah, of all places, would make such a ruling considering the Mormons don’t hold with sex apart from marriage, even if its a polygamous marriage.

 

[iepuras]

I’m having trouble finding the part of the court’s opinion stating that their ruling here was influenced by same sex civil unions and/or marriage. Can some one point it out for me? I’m finding it hard to believe since Utah has neither same-sex marriage nor same-sex civil unions.

Brandon, here is a link to the opinion I found.

lawprofessors.typepad.com/files/brown_utah_bigamy.pdf

I haven’t read through the opinion yet, but as far as I can tell, the court does not cite US v. Windsor (the DOMA case) but does discuss Lawrence v. Texas (the sodomy case).

 

[iepuras]

It’s not that the ruling was based on ss marriage, but rather that the loosening up of marriage definitions may have had an influence upon the judge’s decision. We too are shocked that a judge from Utah, of all places, would make such a ruling considering the Mormons don’t hold with sex apart from marriage, even if its a polygamous marriage.

Honestly, I’m not too terribly surprised this came from a judge in Utah. Enforcement of the anti-polygamy laws is nominal at best. It frustrates me that the state government in Utah really sees little need to enforce the law, especially with the cases of clear abuse. Many polygamous families live more or less out in the open. Even though the LDS church technically doesn’t practice polygamy, plural marriage is still a doctrine of the church.

 

[Della]

Honestly, I’m not too terribly surprised this came from a judge in Utah. Enforcement of the anti-polygamy laws is nominal at best. It frustrates me that the state government in Utah really sees little need to enforce the law, especially with the cases of clear abuse. Many polygamous families live more or less out in the open. Even though the LDS church technically doesn’t practice polygamy, plural marriage is still a doctrine of the church.

The part of it that is so bothersome is the claim that the women not legally his wife and he can carry on with their relationship no matter the consequences to them or their children. So many have the mistaken idea that there’s no harm done to the adults or the children when men and women live together in simulated marriages that actually deny marriage as it has traditionally been defined by both Church and state. The truth being it damages everyone, including the greater society in which it is allowed.

 

[Brandon_Cal]

Thank you iepuras for the cite!

The part of it that is so bothersome is the claim that the women not legally his wife and he can carry on with their relationship no matter the consequences to them or their children. So many have the mistaken idea that there’s no harm done to the adults or the children when men and women live together in simulated marriages that actually deny marriage as it has traditionally been defined by both Church and state. The truth being it damages everyone, including the greater society in which it is allowed.

I don’t know that it’s so much a matter of there being no harm whatsoever to children of polygamous families, but that there’s greater harm done to them in prosecuting their parents. I’m old enough to remember the Short Creek Raids, and I got to say even then I didn’t support them. I don’t see the benefit in locking up individuals who consent to such marriages, especially the supposed benefit to their children.

That being said, I have to echo iepuras’ confusion as to what this current ruling actually does given that anti-polygamy statutes are rarely ever enforced these days. The “Sister Wives” family that brought the suit to court; did they suffer any legal damage? Was the husband ever arrested? Detained? If not, how did the court even have sufficient jurisdiction to rule?

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

How long until a farmer tries to marry his goat?!?!?

Actually, in India several years back a widower received permission to marry a stray dog (who he fully believed was the reincarnation of his deceased wife).

 

[iepuras]

Thank you iepuras for the cite!

I don’t know that it’s so much a matter of there being no harm whatsoever to children of polygamous families, but that there’s greater harm done to them in prosecuting their parents. I’m old enough to remember the Short Creek Raids, and I got to say even then I didn’t support them. I don’t see the benefit in locking up individuals who consent to such marriages, especially the supposed benefit to their children.

That being said, I have to echo iepuras’ confusion as to what this current ruling actually does given that anti-polygamy statutes are rarely ever enforced these days. The “Sister Wives” family that brought the suit to court; did they suffer any legal damage? Was the husband ever arrested? Detained? If not, how did the court even have sufficient jurisdiction to rule?

You’re welcome. Here is another cite that I think will be a much more interesting read - a court decision from the British Columbia Supreme Court that upheld a ban on polygamy two years ago. Remember, this is Canada that also has same sex marriage.

courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/11/15/2011BCSC1588.htm#SCJTITLEBookMark3714

Chief Justice Bauman did a sweeping review of polygamy and found that polygamy is inherently abusive to women and children and there is too much inherent harm in the practice to justify legalizing it. I think I found my new hero for the day!

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

Honestly, I’m not too terribly surprised this came from a judge in Utah. Enforcement of the anti-polygamy laws is nominal at best. It frustrates me that the state government in Utah really sees little need to enforce the law, especially with the cases of clear abuse. Many polygamous families live more or less out in the open. Even though the LDS church technically doesn’t practice polygamy, plural marriage is still a doctrine of the church.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the next thing to happen in the next few years is the President of the LDS Church has another vision that God has reinstated the old requirement of plural marriage. With your background, what do you think?

I think it would be wise for the Catholic Church & Orthodox Church to clearly & fully separate a Church recognized marriage from whatever the State happens to call “marriage”. - From what I understand, right now, both Church’s currently require the couple coming for the Sacrament of Marriage to first get a State Marriage License and then the priest marries the couple under the authority the Church AND under the authority of the State by “power invested in me by the State of…”. What do you think?

 

[PaulDupre1]

Actually, in India several years back a widower received permission to marry a stray dog (who he fully believed was the reincarnation of his deceased wife).

And a British woman in Israel married a dolphin in 2006.

Just goes to show that the crazier you let people get, the crazier they will get.

Paul

 

[taylorf]

I wouldn’t be surprised if the next thing to happen in the next few years is the President of the LDS Church has another vision that God has reinstated the old requirement of plural marriage. With your background, what do you think?

That would be interesting, but it won’t happen. The church has spent nearly 80 years or so doing everything it can to disassociate itself from polygamy. Returning to that doesn’t make sense and would also give some credibility to the fundamentalist sects.

Also, polygamy does not have a lot of support among the members. I can’t think of one person I know over the past 30 years that was anticipating the return of the practice. Most members I know want to believe it was just a mistake on Joseph’s part or that the it was instituted for a very specific need at his time.

Most importantly, the church is obsessed about its image and its ability to maintain a steady stream of tithing revenue. Bringing back polygamy would be PR nightmare and would drive tithe paying members out of the church.

 

[Brandon_Cal]

That would be interesting, but it won’t happen. The church has spent nearly 80 years or so doing everything it can to disassociate itself from polygamy. Returning to that doesn’t make sense and would also give some credibility to the fundamentalist sects.

I partially agree. I don’t think the Church will ever go back to the same level of support of polygamy that it fostered in the 19th century. I can however envision the Church readmitting excommunicated polygamists to the Church should the Supreme Court find a right to polygamous marriages. I could see the Church taking on a slightly more neutral position; something along the lines of “it’s a personal matter that all parties involved must make after much personal study of the Scriptures, and fervent prayer and fasting.” I could also see the Church recommending monogamy over polygamy, while simultaneously instructing members who decide to practice the principle of plural marriage to not draw any attention to themselves.