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 ™

Failed Marriage Amendment Sabotaged the Churches

Date: Oct 07, 2004
Word Count: 750 words
Cross-Reference: Federal Marriage Amendment, New Liberals, Sabotaged Churches

The two premises which supporters used in justifying the failed amendment can now be used against them and the churches.

The   Federal   Marriage   Amendment   is   "big   government."     Pro-polygamists   repeatedly   warned   fellow   conservatives   of   that   dangerous   mistake   --   calling   it,   "New   Liberalism."     The   warnings   went   unheeded. 
Supposed-to-be   conservatives   justified   such   liberal   use   of   big   government   by   asserting   two   primary   premises.   They   purported   that   government   does   have   authority   to   define   marriage.     And   they   asserted   that   anti-polygamy   laws   legitimize   government   authority   to   "disqualify"   any   minority   opposition. 
On   July   14,   2004,   however,   the   Federal   Marriage   Amendment   failed   in   the   U.S.   Senate.     After   it   had   been   re-named   as   the   "Marriage   Protection   Amendment,"   it   likewise   failed   to   achieve   the   required   two-thirds   super-majority   in   the   U.S.   House   of   Representatives   on   September   30,   2004. 
Following   the   amendment's   failure   to   be   passed,   those   same   two   premises   can   be   turned   around   and   used   against   conservatives. 
Abandoning   true   conservatism,   they   sabotaged   the   churches. 
The   true   conservative   position   is   that   of   strictly   limited   government.   Constitutionally,   government's   only   legitimate   role   is   to   protect   each   individual's   rights   from   being   infringed   by   anyone   else   --   including   government.     Government's   purpose   is   not   for   social   engineering. 
The   Tenth   Amendment   constrains   federal   government   power   to   only   specifically   enumerated   authority.     The   Ninth   Amendment   codifies   that   the   rights   of   individuals   do   not   have   to   be   enumerated   whatsoever. 
Without   such   constraint   upon   government   power   and   such   protections   of   un-enumerated   individuals'   rights,   any   minority   is   vulnerable   to   the   tyranny   of   any   then-current   majority. 
The   principles   of   limited   government,   therefore,   do   not   even   allow   such   social   engineering   to   occur   in   the   first   place.     Simply   put,   social   engineering   is   big   government   liberalism. 
Enter   the   social   engineering   concept   of   government   involvement   in   marriage. 
When   the   U.S.   government   first   interjected   itself   into   the   religious   doctrinal   issue   of   marriage,   it   likely   appeared   as   a   "reasonable"   notion   to   earlier   political   majorities.    
Government   ultimately   took   social   engineering   to   an   extreme   level,   liberally   re-defining   marriage   to   deny   the   millennia-old   traditional   marriage   form   known   as   polygamy.     The   anti-polygamy   laws   were   passed.      
In   Reynolds   v.   United   States   (1878),   the   U.S.   Supreme   Court's   liberal   activist   judges   affirmed   such   re-definition   of   marriage,   the   authority   of   big   government   involvement   therein,   and   the   tyrannical   violation   of   First   Amendment   rights. 
Consequently,   they   authorized   government   to   "decide"   which   religious   beliefs   and   practices   may   be   "disqualified"   from   having   First   Amendment   protections   --   even   when   no   other   individual's   rights   are   in   any   peril.    
Over   time,   polygamists   would   not   be   the   only   ones   to   feel   oppressed   by   such   liberal   social   engineering. 
In   recent   decades,   an   entirely   different   minority   --   homosexuals   --   have   been   asserting   that   they,   too,   felt   oppressed   by   the   side   effects   of   the   big   government   marriage   laws. 
As   the   homosexuals   amassed   increasing   political   support   from   liberals,   to   have   big   government   also   recognize   "same   sex   marriages,"   many   conservatives   hastily   made   a   horrendous   tactical   error. 
They   walked   right   into   the   "liberal   versus   liberal"   trap.     By   fighting   for   a   big   government   amendment   and   then   losing   that   battle,   they   --   themselves   --   directly   established   the   premises   for   a   horrific   threat   against   the   churches. 
That   is,   "same   sex   marriage"   may   be   forced   upon   the   churches   --   or   government   will   "disqualify"   them   from   being   a   "valid"   religious   institution. 
"Government   has   no   authority   to   define   marriage   against   our   beliefs,"   the   churches   will   cry.     But   the   first   primary   premise   of   the   pro-amendment   justifications   had   exactly   rejected   that   defense.     Like   it   or   not,   government   with   the   liberal   authority   to   re-define   marriage   as   "one   man,   one   woman"   has   the   same   liberal   authority   to   re-define   it   as   also   including   "same   sex   marriage." 
Moreover,   a   government   authorized   to   define   marriage   is   a   government   authorized   to   decide   who   may   perform   such   marriages.     Any   church   that   does   not   perform   only   that   which   the   government   defines   as   "marriage"   may   be   denied   a   government-license   to   marry   anyone   and   may   be   "disqualified"   as   a   religious   institution. 
"Government   has   no   authority   to   violate   our   'freedom   of   religion'   rights,"   the   churches   will   plead.     But   the   second   primary   premise   of   the   pro-amendment   justifications   had   exactly   obliterated   that   defense   too.     Like   it   or   not,   government   with   the   liberal   authority   to   "disqualify"   the   First   Amendment   protections   of   polygamists   who   oppose   government's   re-definition   of   marriage   has   the   same   liberal   authority   to   "disqualify"   churches   who   refuse   to   perform   "same   sex   marriages." 
Indubitably,   promoting   the   failed   marriage   amendment   sabotaged   the   churches. 
Politically,   only   true   conservatism   can   rescue   the   churches   from   that   oppression.     Pro-polygamists   have   always   had   the   solution:   abolish   big   government   involvement   in   marriage   altogether.      
But   as   the   churches   watch   in   panic,   what   will   the   "New   Liberals"   do? 
Heartbreakingly,   the   reasoning   for   re-naming   the   amendment   exposes   their   facade   and   priorities. 
As   the   Baptist   Press   reported   (9/29/2004),   leaders   purposely   re-named   the   amendment   because   the   "Federal   Marriage   Amendment   sounded   too   synonymous   with   big   government." 


Bibliographic URLs: 

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 ™.