Helping the Media & Information-gatherers by providing
news, reports, and insights from the pro-polygamy view.

Click to order DVD
Order Your Pro-Polygamy Passport ™

Some Conservatives Making Mistake on Marriage

Date: Jul 30, 2003
Word Count: 750 words
Cross-Reference: Federal Marriage Amendment, Lawrence v. Texas, protect marriage, Conservative Christians

Responding to Lawrence v. Texas, some Conservatives are forgetting the Constitution, the Bible, and the Conservative position of limited government.

After   the   Supreme   Court's   decision   in   Lawrence   v.   Texas,   overturning   a   Texas   anti-sodomy   law   and   establishing   a   consenting-adult   "right   to   privacy,"   many   conservatives   immediately   decried   it,   calling   for   "protecting"   marriage.

Many   asserted   the   "states   rights"   part   of   the   Tenth   Amendment,   saying   a   "right   to   privacy"   was   not   in   the   Constitution.     Sodomy   was   linked   to   incest,   bestiality,   and   polygamy.   And   a   "Federal   Marriage   Amendment"   was   promoted.


Any   conservative   Christian   truly   empathizes.     The   case's   specific   aspect   involved   a   specific   homosexual   behavior,   "sodomy"   ---a   term   which   comes   directly   from   the   Bible's   Genesis   19   account   of   God's   judgment   upon   the   inhabitants   of   Sodom   for   homosexual   practices.

For   conservative   Christians,   the   Bible   speaks   explicitly   against   such   behavior.   The   passage   of   Leviticus   18:22   in   the   Old   Testament   and   Romans   1:26-27,32   in   the   New   Testament   are   understood   as   overtly   clear   prohibitions.

But   some   conservatives   "couldn't   see   the   forest   for   the   tree."     They   got   so   focused   against   the   sodomy   aspect   of   the   case   that   they   missed   seeing   the   larger   set   of   issues   and   solutions.  

Insodoing,   such   particular   conservative   Christians   unwittingly   forgot   the   Constitution,   the   Bible,   and   even   the   true   conservative   position   of   limited   government.


The   Tenth   Amendment   does   address   "states   rights."   More   importantly,   though,   its   final   clause   defers   to   individuals.

Opposite   the   Tenth   Amendment's   constraining   government   to   only   explicitly   enumerated   authority,   the   Ninth   Amendment   conversely   declares   that   rights   of   individuals   do   not   have   to   be   explicitly   enumerated.   That   is   how   a   "right   to   privacy"   for   individuals   may   be   constitutional.

Ironically,   in   the   same   way   that   the   "right   to   privacy"   phrase   is   truly   not   enumerated   in   the   Constitution,   neither   is   the   word,   "marriage."

The   same   Tenth   Amendment,   which   some   mis-perceived   as   applicable   against   the   "right   to   privacy"   for   individuals,   specifically   does   indeed   apply   to   "marriage"   involvement   by   the   government.

The   Ninth   Amendment   can   allow   the   "right   to   privacy"   of   individuals   without   it   having   to   be   constitutionally   enumerated.     At   the   same   time,   because   federal   government   "marriage"   authority   is   not   enumerated   anywhere   in   the   Constitution,   the   Tenth   Amendment   prohibits   it   from   being   involved   in   "marriage"   whatsoever.

That   makes   any   federal   "marriage"   legislation   unconstitutional.


As   for   the   Bible   on   marriage,   not   one   man   in   the   Bible   was   ever   married   by   government   authority.   Not   even   one.

Defining   marriage   exclusively   by   government   falsely   accuses   all   the   married   men   of   the   Bible   as   allegedly   unmarried   fornicators.

Likewise,   mistakenly   linking   polygamy   to   the   Biblically-defined   sinful   homosexual,   incest,   and   bestiality   behaviors   defames   several   of   the   Bible's   greatest   faithful   heroes.     Namely,   it   insults   such   polygamists   as   Abraham,   Israel,   David,   and   Moses.     Even   the   sinless   Jesus   Christ   described   Himself   in   a   polygamist   context   in   a   Matthew   25   parable.   Christians   making   such   a   mistaken   link   profoundly   undermine   the   very   Bible   itself.

To   have   marriage   defined   exclusively   by   government   authority   unwittingly   commits   the   sin   of   idolatry.     The   verse,   Revelation   21:8,   opposes   idolatry   as   being   hellfire-bound   as   much   as   Romans   1:26-27,32   likewise   opposes   homosexual   practices.     Relying   exclusively   on   the   false   god   of   socialist   government,   to   "protect"   what   the   one   true   God   alone   defined,   is   indeed   a   form   of   idolatry.

For   conservative   Christians   reading   the   Bible,   the   Scriptures   indicate   that   idolatry   (as   in,   exclusively   relying   on   the   false   god   of   socialist   government)   is   just   as   much   a   Bible-defined   sin   as   that   of   homosexual   behavior.     (That   same   hellfire   verse   also   says   "all   liars"   are   going   to   hell.     Yet,   few   would   seriously   propose   a   Constitutional   Amendment   to   "protect"   society   from   liars!)

Conservative   Christians   do   believe   that   God,   alone,   defined   marriage   doctrine.     So,   no   false   god   is   "needed"   to   "protect"   or   define   doctrine.

That   makes   any   idolatrous   notion   of   "marriage"   legislation   un-biblical.


The   proposed   "Federal   Marriage   Amendment,"   however,   expands   the   false   god   of   socialist   government,   advocating   state   authority   above   individuals   rights.

Valuing   marriage   is,   of   course,   conservative.   But,   amending   the   Constitution   by   expanding   bigger   government,   rather   than   constraining   it,   is   not   conservative.

That   makes   any   "marriage"   Amendment   or   legislation   un-conservative.


Other   constitutionalist   conservative   Christians,   however,   do   see   beyond   the   sodomy   aspect.     Their   solution   sees   the   larger   issues.

Employ   the   Tenth   Amendment:   eliminate   government's   marriage   involvement.

For   those   trusting   that   God   is   God,   there's   no   real   threat   to   Godly   marriage.     While   sinners   may   imagine   their   own   "marriage"   definitions,   gospel-preaching   Christians   are   additionally   guided   by   Psalm   1:1   to   also   not   stand   in   the   way   of   (consenting-adult)   sinners.

By   eliminating   the   false   god   of   socialist   government's   marital   involvement,   no   one   would   "have   to"   recognize   any   ungodly   imagined   "marriage"   definitions.

Employing   the   Tenth   Amendment   is   truly   constitutional.     Trusting   in   God   is   truly   biblical.     And   limiting   government   is   truly   conservative.

But   how   many   fellow   conservatives   will   see   the   forest   too?


Click to order DVD

Latest Headlines

From the Archives of
Pro-Polygamy Articles

2017 Aug 19
Pro-Polygamists Celebrate 17th Annual 'Polygamy Day'
On August 19, 2017, UCAPs (unrelated consenting adult polygamy supporters) are noting and celebrating "Polygamy Day 17" – the seventeenth year of annual Polygamy Day ® celebrations.  

2017 Aug 07
Finding Polygamists 'Guilty of Polygamy' Pushes Canada Backwards
After anti-polygamy law deemed "constitutional" to criminalize in Canada, one lone judge finds two leaders of Bountiful group "guilty of polygamy," even as case involved only adult women and no other real crimes.

2017 Jun 25
Pro-Polygamists Glad that Fugitive Lyle Jeffs was Caught
"It's like déjà vu all over again." Mark Henkel, National Polygamy Advocate and founder of the organization, responds to the news and is available to media for comment.

2017 Feb 01
Supreme Court Declined to Hear 'Sister Wives' Polygamy case
SCOTUS denied even hearing the Brown v. Buhman petition, letting the appeals court's reversal stand, not even hearing any of the pro-polygamy merits, and bringing the whole issue back to the status quo.

Read More
From the Archives of
Pro-Polygamy Articles


Media or Pro-Polygamists

© Copyright 2003 - 2018       ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
"" is an exclusive legal Trademark of ™.