Agreed, Keith.
On Saturday, March 8, 2014 5:29:21 PM UTC-6, KeithInTampa 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]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
