Christian Polygamists Rejoice at 2004 Election
Date: Nov 07, 2004
Word Count: 750 words
Cross-Reference: 2004 election, Conservative evangelicals, marriage amendments
Why should that surprise anyone? All such Christian evangelicals have cause to rejoice -- and a federal marriage amendment is still not likely to pass.
Following the re-election of President George W. Bush and the expanded Republican majorities in the House and Senate, many Christian Polygamy activists had cause to rejoice -- to the surprise of many.
Supporters of Christian Polygamy -- having no connection to Mormonism -- span many different denominations and political viewpoints. Although this new movement originated with conservative Christians in 1994, many religious liberals -- required by their own "tolerance" dogma -- have since embraced it, as well.
Primarily, though, most of the movement's principal activists are Bible-absolutist, constitutionalist, conservative, evangelical Christians.
Accordingly, such Christian Polygamists typically hold the same moral and political views -- of Bible and Constitution -- as that held by most other evangelical Christians. On issues spanning from freedom to pray, to ending pre-natal infanticide, to reducing taxation, there is little political separation.
The only difference involves the unbiblical ideas of "one man, one woman" and "government marriage."
Notwithstanding the Republican Party's own hypocritical socialistic tendencies, the 2004 election's clear repudiation of overall big government liberalism is a cause for common joy among all evangelicals -- including conservative Christian Polygamists.
Alongside these 2004 election results, state constitutional marriage amendments also passed in all 11 states where such an initiative was on the ballot.
While Christian Polygamists had warned fellow conservatives of the socialist idolatry of voting for such amendments, the election results do provide a short-term positive benefit. The Christian churches are no longer under immediate threat.
Prior to the election, supposed-to-be conservatives had sabotaged the churches. They had used big government justifications to promote the Marriage Protection Amendment, quickly metamorphosing into "New Liberals." After failing to pass that federal-level amendment, however, their big government justifications put homosexuals in the position to also use those same socialist arguments in order to force "same-sex marriage" on the churches.
The election results halted that pending tyranny in the short-term -- a great reason to rejoice, indeed.
But those voters had turned to the false god of big socialist government to define a doctrine which God alone defined. They sought to governmentally define such doctrine in a way which God never defined it in the Bible ("one man, one woman"). And they did so in order to "protect" something which God never once used nor required ("government marriage"). Sadly, they followed their "New Liberal" leaders right into the sin of idolatry.
Seeming contradictions such as this are typically viewed by most Christians as how "God will use a negative to work a positive."
While the election results positively protected the sabotaged churches, those who voted for the amendments -- despite trying to oppose the sin of "gay marriage" -- were still in great sin for doing so. Regardless of sincerely good intentions or results, Revelation 21:8 warns Christians that all idolators are also going to hell.
But the joyous news is that the sabotaged churches are no longer immediately threatened -- and sinning voters can repent.
As for each state amendment, itself, each one may already be unconstitutional, according to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In Romer v. Evans (1996), the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a Colorado state amendment for being an "impermissible targeting" of a class of individuals. That same precedent may very well apply in equally overturning the 11 state marriage amendments.
For that reason, "New Liberals" will try again for a federal marriage amendment.
Even so, pro-polygamists still have reason to be optimistic.
Amending the U.S. Constitution requires a two-thirds super-majority in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. From there, 38 of the 50 state legislatures must ratify it.
When the original Federal Marriage Amendment failed in the Senate on July 14, 2004, they could not even reach a simple majority of 51 votes -- never mind trying to get a two-thirds super-majority of 67 votes.
When that re-named Marriage Protection Amendment subsequently failed in the House on September 30, 2004, the 227-186 vote was short by more than 50 votes for the required two-thirds super-majority.
Clearly, the small net-increases to Republican majorities in the House and Senate in the 2004 election were still insufficient to pass any federal marriage amendment.
But even if it could get through the Congress, a mere 13 state legislatures could still prevent its ratification. While President Bush won the election in 30 states, he did not win in 20 of them.
So, a ratified passage of a re-attempted federal marriage amendment remains unlikely.
But "New Liberals" will still try. And Christian Polygamists will try to help them return to true conservatism.
So, it should be no surprise. Christian Polygamy activists have cause to rejoice.