ditto On Saturday, March 8, 2014 8:57:01 PM UTC-6, brine wrote: > > This is one of the things we agree upon 100% Keith!!! > > > On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 6:29 PM, Keith In Tampa > <[email protected]<javascript:> > > wrote: > >> The big, big, really really big mistake, was to call civil unions >> "blessed" or maybe better said, "Ordained" by local or State governents, >> "Marriage". They are not "Marriages" by any stretch of the imagination. >> Marriage is, and always has been an ecclesiastical function, and the only >> reason that local and State governments, (Connecticut and California were >> the first States to get involved in this treachery) was to prevent >> misegination, and then later, for tax revenue! >> >> The logical solution is for ALL governments to get out of the marriage >> business. If a man and a woman, or a man and a man, or a group of men and >> a group of women want to enter into some type of contractual, bindng legal >> relationship, that's fine, and governments may have need (especially if >> you want a State or Local court to intervene when there is a breach of that >> agreement!) and if you can find a Church that will "Marry" you and your >> "Spouse/Partner/Gang/Pet", then more power to you! >> >> >> On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 5:31 PM, MJ <[email protected] <javascript:>>wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> *"The idea that the government should be regulating who can be ordained >>> a priest or who can be baptized is of course a non-starter, and anyone who >>> can escape his grade-school civics brainwashing can see that regulation of >>> marriage is equally invalid." *March 8, 2014 >>> >>> *Why We Should Have Tolerated Mormon Polygamy *Ryan McMaken >>> >>> The memo is going >>> about<http://www.patheos.com/blogs/publiccatholic/2014/03/my-five-wivesthe-push-to-normalize-and-then-legalize-polygamy-is-on/?utm_content=buffer9775e&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer>among >>> Christian religious bloggers that one of the next developments in the >>> culture wars that we should apparently worry about is plural marriage, >>> otherwise known as polygamy. >>> >>> Naturally, this remains a highly charged political issue because many >>> Christians still cling to the dangerous >>> idea<http://archive.lewrockwell.com/mcmaken/mcmaken135.html>that secular >>> governments should be entrusted with defining and regulating >>> marriage. For Catholics like myself, this assertion is all the more >>> ridiculous, since for us, marriage isn’t a mere custom, but a sacrament on >>> a par with holy orders or baptism. The idea that the government should be >>> regulating who can be ordained a priest or who can be baptized is of course >>> a non-starter, and anyone who can escape his grade-school civics >>> brainwashing can see that regulation of marriage is equally invalid. >>> >>> The Catholic hierarchy, however, gave up much of its >>> credibility<https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/the-church-lost-the-marriage-debate-decades-ago-its-time-to-get-out-of-the-game/>on >>> the issue decades ago when it threw in the towel on no-fault divorce and >>> accepted the government’s proposition that “marriages” can be formed and >>> dissolved with a few strokes of a pen. In terms of coercive state power, >>> people should be of course free to enter into whatever contracts they like >>> on whatever terms they like. But the state’s definition of marriage since >>> the adoption of no-fault divorce is so contrary to the Catholic definition >>> of marriage, as to render little doubt about the fact that there is no >>> meaningful moral connection between government-defined “marriage” and the >>> real thing for any serious believer. >>> >>> The recent move to define unions between people of the same sex is not >>> revolutionary, but is simply the natural next step in the no-fault divorce >>> debate. (What *was* revolutionary was the handing over of marriage to >>> secular state authorities for regulation.) If the state can define a >>> divorced and re-married person as “married” (something the Catholic >>> hierarchy apparently accepts, contrary to Catholic interpretation of the >>> scriptures) then why not define two men as “married”? There’s not a major >>> legal leap here, but simply an extension of the idea that the state can >>> define marriage. >>> >>> Polygamous marriage will of course be able to build on exactly the same >>> trend. It’s hard to see why this should require much of a fight at all on >>> the part of the polygamists. Clearly, the vast majority of Americans accept >>> that a person can marry multiple times as long as it’s done one after >>> another. There is indeed no limit beyond the natural limitations of life >>> span and sound mind as to how many spouses a person can have in the minds >>> of most Americans. Since we’ve already established that having multiple >>> living spouses is already perfectly acceptable, why not take the next step >>> to simply allowing multiple spouses at one time? It’s hard to find a >>> morally significant difference between the two propositions. >>> >>> Indeed, it would be interesting to be lectured by people who accept the >>> concept of serial marriage, but who, for whatever reason, are now outraged >>> by the idea of simply taking on the same number of spouses at one time. >>> Similarly, some advocates of gay marriage also oppose the legalization of >>> plural marriage. Ridiculously, the Equality Network of Scotland, a >>> pro-gay-marriage group, denounced critics >>> <https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/government-marriage-for-me-but-not-for-thee/>who >>> >>> pointed out that the legalization of gay marriage could be compared to >>> plural marriage and other arrangements. Apparently for some within the gay >>> marriage lobby, once you get what you want, it should be denied to everyone >>> else. >>> >>> Historically speaking, the matter of legal polygamy is even more >>> interesting, since if Americans had ever had any actual respect for the >>> United States constitution, polygamy would have been legal in at least one >>> US state since the nineteenth century.What actually happened during the >>> Mormon-polygamy episode, however, established that it is fine to persecute >>> religious minorities in the United States. >>> >>> The Latter-Day Saints religion, as its members call it, and which the >>> rest of us know more commonly as Mormonism, was founded by Joseph Smith in >>> the 1820s in what is now called by historians the “Burned Over District” of >>> upstate New York where a variety of new religious sects and uopian >>> movements were founded. Smith introduced plural marriage to the religion >>> possibly as early as the 1830s, but it wasn’t until the 1850s, after the >>> Mormon flight to what is now Utah, did polygamy become a publicly-known and >>> often-practiced part of Mormon society. Brigham Young, who lead the Mormon >>> church following the murder of Joseph Smith, is of course notable for >>> having 51 wives. >>> >>> While in Utah, the Mormons kept to themselves, and even if taking into >>> account the Mountain Meadows >>> massacre<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Meadows_massacre>, >>> it’s hard to argue that the Mormons were more badly behaved than other >>> groups of people on the frontier. Nonetheless, the Mormon religion, >>> regarded then as now by most Christian groups as a polytheistic religion, >>> wasn’t winning many friends back east. After the 1850s, the animosity was >>> continually fueled by the moral outrage among most Americans about plural >>> marriage in Utah. Lurid stories about the treatment of the plural wives >>> (some true and some not true) were spread among the American population. In >>> places like Denver and other western cities, feminist reformers and others >>> set up what we would today call “safe houses” for women who fled their >>> plural marriages. >>> >>> The territory including what is now Utah became US territory after 1848, >>> and at that point began a decades-long history of small-scale military >>> meddling and widespread legal meddling in Utah by the U.S. government, much >>> of it justified by a commitment among easterners to stamp out polygamy. By >>> the 1860s, the Congress began passing a series of anti-polygamy laws >>> targeting Mormons. The 1862 Anti-Bigamy act outlawed polygamy in all US >>> territories. Lincoln, at the time, was busy invading other parts of north >>> America and never attempted to enforce the law. Even by the 1860s, it was >>> clear that Utah would never be admitted to the Union as a state until the >>> government of Utah (run by Mormons, of course) outlawed polygamy. >>> >>> In 1882, the US House of Representatives refused to seat a non-voting >>> delegate from Utah who was a polygamist, and new acts of Congress in the >>> 1880s forbade polygamy and even authorized the seizure of Mormon property >>> if the Mormons persisted in tolerating or encouraging polygamy. >>> >>> Brigham Young had declared that if abandoning polygamy was a condition >>> of statehood, then Utah would never be granted statehood. Thus, the >>> persecution would have likely continued indefinitely had the the new leader >>> of the Mormon church, Wilford Woodruff, not decided one day that God told >>> him that polygamy was no longer a central doctrine of the church and would >>> be banned. Utah was admitted to the Union as a state not long afterward. >>> >>> Now, it’s hard to see what legal authority the Congress ever had to >>> seize Mormon property and deny statehood (and thus legal representation) to >>> Utah residents over the matter of their chosen type of marriage. Certainly, >>> nowhere in the constitution is there anything about marriage, nor is it >>> mentioned in the enumerated powers of Article I. Nor did the framers, when >>> meeting in 1787, ever discuss the proper role of the US government in >>> regulating marriage. >>> >>> Defenders of this type of federal meddling will point to the fact that >>> by the 1860s, it had been legally established that the US government would >>> directly regulate and legislate on all matters in US territories that were >>> not in states. This is likewise a pretty unconvincing argument since the US >>> constitution authorizes neither the annexation of huge tracts of land for >>> direct administration by the US Government (as occurred following the >>> Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848) nor does it authorize federal >>> regulation of activities such as marriage that fall well outside the scope >>> of anything mentioned among the powers of the federal government in the >>> constitution.* >>> >>> Had Americans of the nineteenth century been serious about respecting >>> the rule of law and the US constitution, or even the concept of >>> self-determination, they would have accepted that a group of people living >>> far away should have just been allowed to define marriage as they saw fit. >>> Sending out military detachments to make people practice marriage they way >>> the Congress says smacks of the very worst type of imperialism, so who can >>> be surprised that the persecution of the Mormons (along with the early >>> conquest of the West in general) helped set the stage for decades of >>> federal activism that followed, including the oppression of Southerners, >>> plains Indians, Mexicans, Chinese, and others. >>> >>> It’s hard to imagine that had the US government actually respected its >>> own constitution and allowed the polygamists to exist in peace in the wilds >>> of Utah, that it would have ushered in the apocalypse, and it must be said >>> that anyone who today makes excuses for the persecution of the Mormons >>> then, likewise makes excuses for the persecution of religious minorities >>> today. Those who decry modern federal intolerance of their own religious >>> beliefs should think twice about a tacit acceptance of persecution of >>> others in the past. >>> >>> Indeed, had Americans erred on the side of respecting local customs and >>> social arrangements, as well as deferring to political decentralization, it >>> would have been very much to our advantage today. Had freedom been allowed >>> to prevail in those days, and a precedent of tolerance had won the day, >>> it’s far less likely that today we’d be facing federal meddling on every >>> matter from contraception to marriage with federal judges handing down >>> decisions telling us for whom we must bake >>> cakes<http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/12/12/Christian-Baker-Willing-to-Go-to-Jail-for-Declining-Gay-Wedding-Cake>or >>> that local and state laws about marriage are “unconstitutional” based on >>> the idea that every tiny aspect of life can and should be regulated by the >>> feds. >>> >>> But that’s not how it worked out. The defenders of marriage in the days >>> of yore decided that one’s idea of marriage is properly regulated with guns >>> and bayonets, and the idea has certainly stuck. Now we’ve been hoisted on >>> our own petards, and we have the nineteenth century’s guardians of decency >>> to thank for it. >>> >>> >>> Notes >>> >>> * I should note that I do not view the US Constitution as the >>> end-all-be-all of defining appropriate state powers. However, to the extent >>> that it reflects eighteenth-century ideals of self-determination, it can be >>> a useful starting point in discussing issues like religious freedom and >>> state action in the United States. >>> >>> -- >>> -- >>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >>> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >>> >>> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ >>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >>> >>> --- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "PoliticalForum" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to [email protected] <javascript:>. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >> >> -- >> -- >> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >> >> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ >> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >> >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "PoliticalForum" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected] <javascript:>. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > > > -- > brine > http://brineb.blogspot.com/ >
-- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
