Pro-Polygamy.com ™

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

Click to order DVD
image
Order Your Pro-Polygamy Passport ™

Anti-Polygamy is the Real 'Slippery Slope'

Date: Apr 16, 2004
Word Count: 1000 words
Cross-Reference: Slippery Slope, "Same-Sex Marriage", "New Liberals"


"New Liberal" conservatives have only themselves to "blame" for causing legalized "same-sex marriage."

"'Same-sex   marriage'   is   the   slippery   slope   to   polygamy."       Well,   at   least,   that   was   the   repeated   mantra   by   the   Spring   of   2004.     Numerous   conservatives   frequently   attempted   the   "slippery   slope"   argument   in   seeking   to   prevent   legalized   "same-sex   marriage." 
 
But   they   have   it   backwards.     It   is   their   own   surprisingly   liberal   big   government   view   which   created   the   real   slippery   slope   to   "same-sex   marriage"   in   the   first   place.     One   could   even   say,   legalized   "same-sex   marriage"   is   their   "fault." 
 
Religious   freedom   and   limited   government   define   true   conservatism.   Insisting   on   "government   marriage"   violates   both.     Such   supposed-to-be   "conservatives"   are   really   "New   Liberals,"   opposing   their   own   principles   and   heritage. 
 
In   the   centuries   leading   up   to   the   birth   of   the   United   States,   the   experience   of   history   demonstrates   much   about   religious   doctrine   and   government. 
 
Specifically,   the   Catholic   institution   had   established   its   own   traditions   over   doctrine   in   the   Bible.     In   the   centuries   during   the   discovery   of   the   Americas,   many   of   the   European   governments   were   under   the   specific   control   of   the   Catholic   institution   to   enforce   that   institution's   own   traditions.   Marriage   was   one   such   tradition   enforced   by   those   Catholic-controlled   governments. 
 
When   some   Bible-studying   people   determined   that   many   of   the   Catholic   institution's   dogmas   were   often   in   profound   conflict   with   the   Bible   itself,   that   gave   rise   to   what   history   calls,   "The   Reformation."     Protestantism   was   borne   of   ---and   even   defines---   this   Reformation.     Protestants   "protested"   the   unbiblical   doctrine   and   ultimately   the   government-control   by   the   Catholic   institution   to   enforce   such   Catholic   traditions. 
 
Protestantism   arose   from   the   hunger   to   be   free   to   believe   true   doctrine.     Hence,   to   escape   Catholic-controlled   governments   enforcing   Catholic   doctrine,   Protestantism   was   the   primary   motivation   for   many   Europeans   to   travel   to   what   was   then   called   the   "new   world."     People   simply   hungered   to   be   free   to   believe   what   the   Bible   really   says,   with   neither   oppression   nor   interference   by   government. 
 
The   United   States   was   eventually   born,   a   direct   consequence   of   the   Reformation   and   its   Protestantism.       The   U.S.   Constitution   was   ratified   in   1787.   The   Bill   of   Rights,   being   the   first   ten   amendments,   was   ratified   in   1791.     Liberty   was   acknowledged.     People   could   be   free.     Any   one   religion's   traditions   would   not   be   enforced   upon   the   people   by   government. 
 
Or   so   they   hoped. 
 
Sadly,   many   quickly   forgot   that   very   heritage.   Most   even   perpetuated   some   of   the   unbiblical   traditions   they   had   only   inherited   from   the   Catholic   institution.     The   ideas   of   marriage   doctrine   and   government-involvement   therein   are   obvious   examples   of   this   sad   fact. 
 
Even   a   simple   and   quick   reading   of   the   U.S.   Constitution   shows   clearly   that   the   federal   government   has     no   authority   whatsoever   to   be   involved   in   marriage.     The   First   Amendment   protects   the   religious   freedom   of   marriage.     The   Tenth   Amendment   prohibits   federal   government   involvement   because   the   Constitution   never   authorizes   it   to   be   involved   in   marriage. 
 
Even   so,   the   Constitution   was   ignored   even   as   soon   as   the   19th   century.     And   one   could   even   say   that   many   descendant   Protestants   became   the   "New   Catholics"   ---especially   as   they   sought   to   use   government   to   enforce   the   traditions   of   the   Catholic   institution,   i.e.,   marriage. 
 
Enforced   federal   involvement   in   marriage   began   by   an   exclusively   territorial   law   enacted   in   1862   before   Utah   was   a   State.   Utah's   non-State   "territorial"   status   constitutionally   "allowed"   the   federal   government   to   bypass   the   Tenth   Amendment   constraint.    
 
When   the   law   was   tested   in   1878,   the   U.S.   Supreme   Court   affirmed   it   and   ultimately   established   such   unconstitutional   anti-polygamy   case   law.     They   justified   their   decision   by   deferring   to   the   history   and   laws   of   other   countries. 
 
In   that   Reynolds   v.   United   States   decision,   the   Court   declared,   "Polygamy   has   always   been   odious   among   the   Northern   and   Western   Nations   of   Europe   and,   until   the   establishment   of   the   Mormon   Church,   was   almost   exclusively   a   feature   of   the   life   of   Asiatic   and   African   people.   At   common   law,   the   second   marriage   was   always   void,   and   from   the   earliest   history   of   England   polygamy   has   been   treated   as   an   offense   against   society." 
 
Obviously,   the   very   young   religion   of   "the   Mormons"   did   not   invent   polygamy.     The   Court   cited   two   other   continents   culturally   including   polygamy.     Still,   they   deferred   to   foreign   governments,   specifically   citing   the   very   country   against   which   the   U.S.   fought   the   American   Revolution!     They   conveniently   overlooked   numerous   historical   accounts   of   several   Biblical   polygamists. 
 
Even   so,   those   "liberal   activist   judges"   on   the   Supreme   Court   in   1878   usurped   American   sovereignty   and   freedom   by   basing   their   decision   upon   the   history   and   laws   of   --not   American,   but--   foreign   governments. 
 
Where?     As   the   Court   said,   Europe.      
 
Anti-polygamy   law   was   justified   based   upon   the   traditions   of   the   very   same   foreign   governments   ---most   of   which   the   Catholic   institution   controlled---   from   which   the   original   American   settlers   had   fled!       So   much   for   the   Reformation   and   limited   government.     "New   Catholics"   indeed. 
 
For   all   Bible-believing   Christians   ---specifically,   Protestants---   who   consider   themselves   heirs   of   the   Reformation,   marriage   can   only   be   defined   from   a   Biblical   basis   ---not   as   defined   or   controlled   by   the   Catholic   institution.     (Only   Catholics   should   be   Catholic.) 
 
For   all   Americans   who   consider   themselves   heirs   of   constitutional   liberty,   marriage   can   only   be   defined   as   a   First   Amendment   religious   issue   ---not   as   defined   or   controlled   by   government. 
 
After   all,   not   one   man   in   the   Bible   was   ever   married   "by   government."     Not   one. 
 
Conversely,     there   are   numerous   examples   of   polygamy   in   the   Bible.     Abraham,   Israel,   and   David   are   among   the   dozens   of   holy   men   in   the   Bible   who   were   married   to   more   than   one   wife.       Even   Moses,   himself   ---the   man   who   authored   the   "Adam   and   Eve"   story,   the   original   "one   flesh"   passage,   and   "Thou   shalt   not   commit   adultery"---   is   openly   recorded   in   the   Bible   as   also   having   two   wives. 
 
Despite   the   truth,   anti-polygamy   enforcement   overturned   all   that.     The   federal   government   thereby   acquired   authority   which   neither   the   Bible   nor   the   Constitution   gave   it   regarding   marriage. 
 
If   the   Constitution   had   been   explicitly   followed,   government   would   never   be   involved   in   marriage.   Even   individual   States   would   be   likewise   prevented   via   the   First   Amendment. 
 
And   legalized   "same-sex   marriage"   would   never   happen.     That   would   mean   freedom   for   all   ---including   homosexuals,   anti-polygamists,   and   polygamists. 
 
No,   in   2004,   it   is   not   so   much   that   "same-sex   marriage"   is   a   slippery   slope   to   polygamy.     Rather,   anti-polygamy   directly   led   to   legalizing   "same-sex   marriage."       "New   Liberals"   have   only   themselves   to   "blame." 
 
Anti-polygamy   is   the   real   slippery   slope. 


###

image
image
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 TruthBearer.org 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

Subscribe

Media or Pro-Polygamists

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