YO, WESTERN ANGLICANISM

Sunday, December 15th, 2013 | Uncategorized

You might want to get your theological ducks in a row as fast as possible since The Next Stage will be here a whole lot faster than any of you think:

A U.S. District Court judge has sided with the polgyamous Brown family, ruling that key parts of Utah’s polygamy laws are unconstitutional.

Judge Clark Waddoups’ 91-page ruling, issued Friday, sets a new legal precedent in Utah, effectively decriminalizing polygamy. It is the latest development in a lawsuit filed by the family of Kody Brown, who became famous while starring in cable TV channel TLC’s reality series “Sister Wives.”  The show entered a fourth season at the end of the summer.

I guess you can try that old “the spirit is doing a new thing/I have many things to say to you but you cannot bear them now” line but I think everyone has figured that scam out.  And I don’t think anyone’s going to buy “the Gospel writers didn’t know about life-long, committed three-ways” dodge considering what Jesus Himself said about marriage.

But give it your best shot.

36 Comments to YO, WESTERN ANGLICANISM

unreconstructed rebel
December 15, 2013

It was just a matter of time.

Tregonsee
December 15, 2013

Outlawing polygamy was required before Utah was admitted to the Union. I wonder if this means they get kicked out? :)

Whitestone
December 15, 2013

The Incest and Pedophile crowd are lobbying the APA and legislators to get their se xual proclivities normalized and approved as well.

Incest is being euphemized as Interfamilial Sexual Orientation.
Pedophilia is being re-styled as Intergenerational Sexual Orientation.

Bestiality practitioners already got approved by the US Military as a hidden feature of some legislation.

The denizens (politicians) of the District of Corruption seem to have no conscience or moral compass.

Fuinseoig
December 15, 2013

Now, Christopher, this is just the kind of scoffing attitude of non-inclusivity and judgementalism that I expect from the rule-bound, Pharisaical, homophobic, misogynistic, heteronormative, unloving types who cannot see that the Spirit is doing a new thing living into the tension of God dreaming Godself’s kingdom into being through us pursuing social justice as expressed via shalom.

What do you have against persons wishing the blessing and support of their community as they model a loving, monogamous faithful, permanent, covenanted relationship?

And remember, there is nothing in Leviticus or Deuteronomy forbidding it, there are many Biblical examples of polygamy, and Jesus never said anything about it!

Fuinseoig
December 15, 2013

Re: what Jesus said about marriage. Yes, but that was only about divorce, not being married to two, three or more women at the same time, and we’ve already kicked that to the curb.

Besides, now polygamy means that a man will not have to divorce his current wife in order to marry the new woman he’s fallen in love with, so it’s even more in line with Gospel values!

Ed the Roman
December 15, 2013

“Bestiality practitioners already got approved by the US Military as a hidden feature of some legislation.”

Citation, please.

Ad Orientem
December 15, 2013

OK everybody, take a deep breath. This ruling is probably not going anywhere too quickly. First it will be appealed. And secondly it flies in the face of settled law. The arguments employed were tried before and specifically rejected by the courts.

See Reynolds v United States (USSC 1878).

Michael Berry
December 15, 2013

AD Orientem, that was then and this is now. Reynolds cannot be upheld and allow the current rulings on Homosexuality to stand, thus when the question is presented Reynolds will go.

Steve
December 15, 2013

Toronto has had a problem for years with polygamous Muslims putting their kids on welfare. Ditto for some African Muslims in Philadelphia.

Concerning bestiality, in the past few months I overheard a member of a university atheists discussion group stating that he didn’t think there was anything wrong with pleasuring a pig.

Ad Orientem
December 15, 2013

Michael,
I respectfully disagree. There are a lot of differences between the cases that have tended to legalize gay marriage and the polygamy question. Among the most prominent is that the vast majority of the gay marriage cases have been adjudicated in state courts, not Federal. Thus those decisions were based on state laws and state constitutions.

Further I don’t see a threat to the basic underpinnings of Reynold’s from the SCOTUS. That said, if the ideological composition of the court were to change drastically then all best are off.

Ad Orientem
December 15, 2013

*best = bets

Note to self: Proofreading is my friend.

FW Ken
December 15, 2013

Whitestone is right: adult/child sex is next. NAMBLA will be demanding meeting space in churches and sue for discrimination when it’s denied.

Katherine
December 15, 2013

AO has a point that I hadn’t focused on. Why is this is federal court? Although the ruling is more limited than some of these comments assume. It didn’t directly rule that polygamy, with marriage certificates, must be allowed in Utah. It ruled instead that the portion of the Utah law prohibiting plural marriage also prohibited cohabitation, and it is the cohabitation which the judge held to be no longer illegal because it’s an unconstitutional infringement on private rights. I’d guess, with all the other garbage going on all over the country, that an appeal to outlaw cohabitation isn’t going anywhere.

Not that they won’t be back next time asking for marriage licenses. They will.

Fuinseoig, do you ever scare yourself? You’ve go them down pat.

Fuinseoig
December 15, 2013

Katherine, it’s uncannily easy to just let the fingers automatically type it all out.

I suppose I should be worried about invoking demons.

:-)

Allen Lewis
December 15, 2013

We seem to have jettisoned all moral compasses in our society, so why not this? We have become much too much like the Roman Empire for my sense of ease.

gone Papist
December 15, 2013

I’m sure that eventually polygamy will be recognized/legalized, but I don’t SE TEO getting on board with it: patriarchy is sin.

Michael Berry
December 15, 2013

Here is what is going on:

This lawsuit is the brainchild of Prof. Jonathan Turley at George Washington University. He’s designed a two-step strategy, piggybacking on same-sex marriage: first, decriminalize polygamy, then assert a right to official recognition of polygamy.

As Turley explained in previous court filings, he believes there is a “right to self-determination of private relations and family matters free of government intrusion.” He noted that many oppose polygamy, and goes on to assert that polygamists “are entitled to protection from such majoritarian animus and bias vis-à-vis their private lifestyles and relations. Their status under domestic law is a civil rights issue deserving the same protections afforded to homosexuals and other minority groups.”

The exact legal arguments for same-sex marriage equally apply to multiple-person marriages. Turley acknowledges that marriage laws that do not include both are “a tool for the imposition of a uniform moral agenda or tenets on citizens.”

Turley then goes on to make clear he is not only arguing for the form of polygamy technically called polygyny, which is one man with multiple women. In other words, he also argues for a right to polyandry (one woman with multiple men) and polyamory (multiple men with multiple women).

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/12/14/Federal-Judge-Rules-Laws-Against-Polygamy-Unconstitutional?utm_source=StandFirm&utm_medium=post&utm_campaign=link

We are at the Lawrence v. Texas phase. That is, the decriminilization part.

Bill2
December 15, 2013

Let the prophetic witness begin!!!!!

Let all the worthless ninnies who denied normalizing homosexuality would lead to normalizing pretty much everything eat my shorts.

Katherine
December 15, 2013

All of this will eventually have to lead to the complete destruction of any government programs or tax breaks or private insurance for marriage of any kind. No more filing jointly, no more social security or Medicare for non-working wives, no more family insurance policies through employers.

Michael Berry
December 15, 2013

Katherine, that’s my prediction.

Truth unites... And divides
December 15, 2013

Marriage bigot says marriage is one man and one woman.

Katherine
December 15, 2013

Off topic: Go Rams. What’s that about? Of course there’s still another half …

ccinnova
December 15, 2013

I can’t say I’m surprised. I figured a ruling like this was just a matter of time given the trend of recent jurisprudence.

If this decision gets upheld, laws criminalizing prostitution may be the next to be struck down.

gppp
December 15, 2013

The NAMBLA PsOS tried this in the 90s (during the rapist-in-chief’s time) in civil rights laws re-writes. We would hope that inexcusable perversion would still be seen as inexcusable perversion.

Remember that homos have fought to able to adopt. If anyone doubts they weren’t working with others in mind, normalizing the boy-lovers will (not might, but definitely will) lead to adoption for the sole purpose of molestation. It’s already been done:

http://victimsofgaybullying.wordpress.com/2013/05/14/gay-activist-frank-lombard-adopted-and-molested-5-year-old-boy/

unreconstructed rebel
December 15, 2013

“Whitestone is right: adult/child sex is next. NAMBLA will be demanding meeting space in churches and sue for discrimination when it’s denied.”

Wait ’til you see what they do to the wedding cake trade.

Whitestone
December 15, 2013

Ed, the Roman:

Way back in 2011, the Democrat-led Senate did the dirty deed:
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/senate-approves-bill-legalizes-sodomy-and-bestiality-us-military

Jedinovice
December 16, 2013

Of course, this is not about marriage save as a means to eliminate it.

Katherine has got it down pat:

>”All of this will eventually have to lead to the complete destruction of any government programs or tax breaks or private insurance for marriage of any kind. No more filing jointly, no more social security or Medicare for non-working wives, no more family insurance policies through employers.”

Yup. The whole idea is to abolish marriage by defining it into non-existence. When any relationship with anything counts as ‘marriage’ then the concept no longer exists. I have this problem with teaching ‘rhetorical functions’ in TOEFL. he definition of what equals a ‘Rhetorical function’ covers about 22 different forms and, as such, becomes meaningless. I just drop it and teach the students about function versus inference instead because those can be defined.

The plan is to have a nation of individuals with no close ties to one another sleeping around with whoever they like, irrespective of age or gender, with any children that survive the abortion mills brought up by state creches and child minders – virtually already the case in the UK where everyone must work! Shortly after my wife and I let the UK letters were sent by Her Majesty’s Government to housewives telling them to work “for the good of the economy” and have their children brought up by child minders. In the UK it is becoming unacceptable for mothers to bring up their own.

Yes, the child minders have a strict criteria for bring up children which includes indoctrinating them in political correctness the minute they acquire language skills. Child minders must supply audio and video evidence that the children are learning as requiring – before they hit school. Satan wants your children. Once the family goes the state can take over.

BTW, this was experimented with in Nazi Germany and produced a number of psychopathic children.

The non-marriage policy was fully implemented in the USSR where the family was suddenly imposed as a socialist ideal for the “the good of Mother Russia” when it was discovered that children brought up without a family ended up raving psychopaths.

In the UK you already have children, bereft of fathers or any sense of family, congregating into murderous street gangs at the age of 8… worse than the Mau-Mau’s and Bishops in the 1950′s! And the total abolishment of marriage has not formally occurred yet. Of course, it could be argued it has happened informally. The UK is already reaping the fruit. So far… no-one seems to care.

Of course, of the signs of Civilisation collapse is the Civilisation in question loses the ability to reason or pattern match and destroys itself as it rebels against it’s own values.

Which is why I am literally as far away from the West as I can be. I know how this ends.

LaVallette
December 16, 2013

“This lawsuit is the brainchild of Prof. Jonathan Turley at George Washington University. He’s designed a two-step strategy, piggybacking on same-sex marriage: first, decriminalize polygamy, then assert a right to official recognition of polygamy”.

It all starts with a demand to get the government out of the bedrooms (decriminalization) followed a few years later with a demand that the government gets back into it (official recognition and affirmation)
This is the proven successful strategy for with same sex marriage, which has not only rendered the traditional meaning of (secular) marriage useless but has now now set the pattern for the legal recognition of every other form of sexual practice, regardless of numbers, sexes or proclivities, and could be extended to other forms of human relations with or without sex. All of them of course would be entitled to government moral and legal support and the financial subsidies previously reserved for the traditional family unit engaged in the procreation raising education welfare and socialization of the future citizens of the state.

Dave
December 16, 2013

Fuinseoig – LOVED your first post. Are you sure you weren’t her imperial holiness KJS in a previous life?

Notice how the snowball picks up speed as it travels down the “slippery slope”.

Jim the Puritan
December 16, 2013

Actually, the scary thing about Reynolds v. United States (1878) is that it can be used as a basis to force churches to do same-sex marriages:

“In our opinion, the statute immediately under consideration is within the legislative power of Congress. It is constitutional and valid as prescribing a rule of action for all those residing in the Territories, and in places over which the United States have exclusive control. This being so, the only question which remains is whether those who make polygamy a part of their religion are excepted from the operation of the statute. If they are, then those who do not make polygamy a part of their religious belief may be found guilty and punished, while those who do, must be acquitted and go free. This would be introducing a new element into criminal law. Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship; would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband; would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice?

So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief?

To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and, in effect, to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.”

Jim the Puritan
December 16, 2013

Katherine– Re the end of government protections for marriage. Many States have laws that protect the property of husband and wife called “tenancy by the entirety.” The theory is that a creditor of only one spouse cannot take property of husband and wife that is held by the two of them in a “tenancy by the entirety.” The basis of this protection was originally that these laws were needed to protect the children, so that the family unit couldn’t be bankrupted by a profligate father or mother (usually father).

I am surprised that the legality of “tenancy by the entirety” has not yet been successfully attacked by a creditor on the grounds that all of the new same-sex legislation and litigation renounces the protection of children as being a core basis for marriage and restricting it to one man and one wife. That is ripe for the picking, for a creditor to feed all these arguments right back to the courts and say that since the courts and legislature have repudiated the basis for traditional marriage, the protections against creditors are invalid as well.

Ed the Roman
December 16, 2013

“I’m sure that eventually polygamy will be recognized/legalized, but I don’t SE TEO getting on board with it: patriarchy is sin.”

Dingdingdingdingdingdingding! We have a winner!

gone Papist
December 16, 2013

Tjanks, Ed. I won even though I can’t seam to spell write. On reflection, I’m sure TEO will support polygamy for Moslem immigrants, but condemn Mormon polygamy. I can’t quite explain why, but I’m sure of it.

Katherine
December 16, 2013

gone Papist, you’re right! Muslims are the “other” and therefore to be respected, but Mormons are just weird, and TEO folks don’t like weird unless it’s their kind of weird.

Jim the Puritan, it’s going to become financially impossible for most families to have an employed father and a stay-at-home mother unless Dad earns a whole lot of money.

Elaine S.
December 17, 2013

“the scary thing about Reynolds v. United States (1878) is that it can be used as a basis to force churches to do same-sex marriages”

I don’t see that happening, but what I CAN foresee is the state possibly withdrawing LEGAL recognition from wedding ceremonies performed by churches that “discriminate” against same-sex couples. That does not mean such ceremonies can’t be performed; it just means they wouldn’t legally count and the couple would have to also have a civil wedding if they wanted the legal benefits of marriage. This situation has existed for centuries in some countries that recognize only civil marriages.

Elaine S.
December 17, 2013

Actually, what obstacle is there right now to Mormons, Muslims or other polygamists performing their own private religious wedding ceremonies for multiple wives of the same man, so long as only ONE wife is legally recognized? The others would simply be, as far as the law is concerned, mistresses.

Support The MCJ

Search

Links

Meta