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

  MEDIA:   Interview Requests    Join Media List  
  Pro-Polygamists:   Join NOTICES List    Links 

<-- Previous          Next -->


Conservative 'Silence' on Marriage Amendment, One Year after 'Lawrence'

Date: Jun 26, 2004
Word Count: 750 words
Cross-Reference: Lawrence v. Texas, Conservatives, "Same-Sex Marriage"

Many supposed-to-be conservative leaders admit they are losing the debate for the liberal, idolatrous Federal Marriage Amendment.

Following the June 26, 2003, Lawrence v. Texas U.S. Supreme Court Decision, many supposed-to-conservatives had become rather cocksure about promoting the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment.   Yet, as the first-year anniversary of Lawrence v. Texas now arrives, numerous leaders have admitted their diminished confidence, surprised that they are losing the debate. 

But pro-polygamy activists are not surprised.   They frequently tried to warn such fellow conservatives that the proposed amendment is an utter betrayal of conservatism.   Any supposed-to-be conservative pushing it is idolatrously advancing "New Liberalism" because it violates all conservative principles of the Constitution, limited government, and the Bible. 

Conservative leadership from the Christian polygamy (non-Mormon) organization,, was immediately explaining that the true conservative response to legalizing so-called "same-sex marriage" is to remove the false god of big socialist government from any involvement in marriage.   Then, no one would be forced to recognize any alleged forms of marriage -- real, fictional, or otherwise.   Moreover, not only would the amendment unscripturally deny the polygamous marriages of many Biblical heroes, but not one person in the Bible was ever married "by government" anyway.   Indubitably, the amendment is unbiblical and unconservative. 

"New Liberal" leaders, however, self-confidently refused to listen. 

But one year after Lawrence v. Texas, those same leaders are now openly dumbfounded.   Indeed, numerous supposed-to-be conservative leaders have openly acknowledged that grass roots supporters do not seem to be joining this outright betrayal of conservatism. 

Their "admissions of losing" initially began on February 18, 2004.   Gary Bauer was the first.   He issued a lamenting press release from his organization, Campaign for Working Families.   The title despaired, "Why We Always Lose."    

But a few days later, on February 24th, U.S. President Bush publicly supported the proposed amendment.   Such official presidential support re-invigorated Bauer and other "New Liberal" leaders, of course.   Once again, they had hope in their idolatrous Federal Marriage Amendment. 

But the subsequent milestone-date of May 17, 2004, came quickly.   Massachusetts, as Court-ordered, officially began issuing "same sex marriage" licenses to homosexuals.   Minimal negative public response thereto made Bauer's -- and others' -- re-invigoration rather short-lived. 

And "admissions of losing" re-started. 

On Sunday, May 16th -- the day before that landmark-date in Massachusetts -- the New York Times published an article by David D. Kirkpatrick.   The article reported how grass roots conservative supporters have shown a "tepid response" to the calls-to-action by the supposed-to-be conservative leaders.   And those leaders are rather dumbfounded about that lack of outrage and even outright silence. 

Louis Sheldon, chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition, was quoted as saying, "I don't see any traction. The calls aren't coming in, and I am not sure why." 

Matt Daniels, who founded the Alliance for Marriage, which helped create the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment, was also quoted in that New York Times article as saying, "Our side is basically asleep right now." 

Dr. James Dobson, of Focus on the Family, re-iterated his own surprise about this in a June 24 Baptist Press op-ed.   He wrote, "...the biggest shock of all may be that this development has prompted little more than a minor outcry from most Americans." 

Both the silence of the conservative masses and the dumbfoundedness of the "New Liberal" leaders were again reported in another major newspaper.   On June 20, 2004, the Washington Post published an article by Alan Cooperman. 

It reported, "Evangelical leaders had predicted that a chorus of righteous anger would rise up out of churches from coast to coast and overwhelm Congress with letters, e-mails and phone calls in support of a constitutional amendment...   But that has not happened." 

The article then quoted Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, "Standing on Capitol Hill listening, you don't hear anything." 

None of this surprises polygamy activists, though, who believe such leaders are "not hearing anything" because they would not listen to true conservative pro-polygamists' warnings.  

Conservatism cannot succeed against "gay marriage" liberalism by advancing marriage amendment liberalism.   And Bible-believing Christians cannot preach against homosexual behavioral sin by committing big government idolatrous sin. 

For genuine Christians, the polygamy issue exposes the marriage amendment's greatest hypocrisy.   It liberally denies the polygamous marriages of numerous Biblical heroes.   Such "New Liberalism" undermines the Bible more than anti-religious liberals could ever hope to achieve. 

Hence, opposing liberalism with liberalism guarantees that liberalism "wins" the debate.   And true conservatives absolutely do lose. 

On this first-year anniversary of Lawrence v. Texas, renowned "New Liberal" columnist, Cal Thomas, conceded it the most clearly, on May 19th.   Supposed-to-be conservatives "have given it their best shot, but this debate is over." 


Bibliographic URLs: 
Pro-Polygamists tried to warn fellow conservatives, to no avail 
Washington Blade 
Gary Bauer 
New York Times 
[Free text at:] 
James Dobson 
Washington Post 
[Free text at:] html 
Cal Thomas 

Pro-Polygamy supporters! Be notifed of latest
 Alerts/Releases.    Subscribe to NOTICES list. 

Enter Address:
2004 Jun 18
'Polygamous Orientation' Study Amuses Pro-Polygamists
A published study suggesting "polygamous orientation" humorously exposes homosexual hypocrisy on equal rights.
NEXT Headline
2004 Jul 04
July 4, 2004 - Christian Polygamy 'Movement' is 10 Years Old
On this Independence Day, 2004, the new social movement of Christian Polygamy is ten years old.

  MEDIA:   Interview Requests    Join Media List  
  Pro-Polygamists:   Join NOTICES List    Links

Latest Headlines
From the Archives of
Pro-Polygamy Articles

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.

2017 Jan 01
Will Supreme Court Hear 'Sister Wives' Polygamy case in 2017?
As Brown v. Buhman case petitions SCOTUS, "Article 3 standing" technicalities could deny any "merits" of arguments from even being heard.

2016 Aug 19
Pro-Polygamists Celebrate 16th Annual 'Polygamy Day'
On August 19, 2016, unrelated consenting adult polygamy supporters (UCAPs) are celebrating "Polygamy Day 16" the sixteenth year of annual Polygamy Day celebrations. 

2016 Aug 10
Last Steps for Polygamy Heading to Supreme Court in 2017
In the "Sister Wives" polygamy case, plaintiffs given until September 10, 2016, to petition Supreme Court to hear Brown v. Buhman in Spring, 2017. 

2015 Aug 19
Pro-Polygamists Celebrate 15th Annual 'Polygamy Day'
On August 19, 2015, unrelated consenting adult polygamy supporters (UCAPs) are celebrating "Polygamy Day 15" the fifteenth year of annual Polygamy Day celebrations.  

2015 Jun 28
Obergefell Half-Right & Half-Wrong (Still Against Polygamy)

2015 Jun 27
SCOTUS: States Must License Same Sex Marriage (but not Polygamy)

2014 Sep 02
Judge Awards Damages to Polygamists for Utah Violating Rights

2014 Aug 19
Pro-Polygamists Celebrate 14th Annual 'Polygamy Day'

2014 Jul 04
July 4, 2014 - Christian Polygamy Movement is 20 Years Old

Read More
From the Archives of
Pro-Polygamy Articles

Copyright © 2003 - 2017     ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
"" is an exclusive legal Trademark of ™ .