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 ™

Privatize Both Social Security and Marriage

Date: Mar 11, 2005
Word Count: 600 words
Cross-Reference: Privatization, Social Security, Marriage Amendment

True conservatives can not support big government socialism in either case.

In   the   State   of   the   Union   Address   on   February   2,   2005,   President   Bush   presented   his   agenda   for   solving   the   looming   Social   Security   crisis   --   privatization.       But   as   soon   as   the   president   finished   outlining   such   an   actual   conservative   agenda,   he   then   betrayed   it   with   his   speech's   very   next   agenda   item   --   "government   marriage"   and   a   federal   marriage   amendment. 
In   the   speech,   President   Bush   accurately   presented   the   conservative   foundation   for   privatization   of   Social   Security.     He   said,   "Here's   why   the   personal   accounts   are   a   better   deal.   Your   money   will   grow,   over   time,   at   a   greater   rate   than   anything   the   current   system   can   deliver   --   and   your   account   will   provide   money   for   retirement   over   and   above   the   check   you   will   receive   from   Social   Security.     In   addition,   you'll   be   able   to   pass   along   the   money   that   accumulates   in   your   personal   account,   if   you   wish,   to   your   children   and/or   grandchildren.     And   best   of   all,   the   money   in   the   account   is   yours,   and   the   government   can   never   take   it   away." 
That   is   the   conservative   way   --   individual   freedom   through   privatization,   removing   big   government   socialism. 
True   conservatives   view   big   government   Social   Security   as   "Socialist   Security"   --   a   simple   "Ponzi   scheme"   pyramid   which   will   inevitably   fail,   just   as   all   such   pyramid   systems   fail.     Moreover,   without   saving   anything   whatsoever   for   the   future   of   the   young,   the   system   coercedly   takes   money   from   the   young   to   directly   transfer   to   retirees.     Compared   to   that   example,   a   purer   definition   of   applied   socialism   --   even   communism   --   could   not   be   observed. 
However,   just   as   the   president   finished   making   his   conservative   case   for   such   privatization,   he   betrayed   that   conservatism   --   moving   on   to   promote   big   government   marital   socialism. 
President   Bush   presented   the   "New   Liberal"   reason   for   big   government   involvement   in   marriage   by   opening   up   with   what   would   otherwise   be   --   if   spoken   in   its   own   isolated   context   --   a   legitimate   conservative   statement.     He   started,   "Because   marriage   is   a   sacred   institution   and   the   foundation   of   society,   it   should   not   be   re-defined   by   activist   judges."    
As   a   declaration   by   itself,   that   opening   sentence   would   be   exactly   correct.     Marriage   is   indeed   a   very   sacred   institution   --   so   much   so   that   not   one   person   in   the   Bible   (including   all   the   holy   men   with   more   than   one   wife)   was   ever   married   "by   government."     Truly,   activist   judges   should   not   ever   re-define   marriage. 
Yet,   President   Bush's   "New   Liberal"   support   for   a   federal   marriage   amendment   is   completely   based   upon   a   precedent   of   past   liberal   activist   judges   who   did   just   that.     When   the   U.S.   Supreme   Court   decided   Reynolds   v.   United   States,   those   liberal   activist   judges   in   1878   unbiblically   "re-defined   marriage"   by   liberally   affirming   big   government,   unconstitutional   anti-polygamy   laws. 
However,   because   the   president's   opening   sentence   in   this   speech's   point   was   not   stated   in   isolated   context,   he   instead   transformed   it   into   a   pretext   for   big   government   socialism.     He   continued,   "For   the   good   of   families,   children,   and   society,   I   support   a   constitutional   amendment   to   protect   the   institution   of   marriage." 
But   no   one   in   the   Bible   was   ever   married   "by   government."     The   amendment   "protects"   nothing   from   the   Scriptures   whatsoever.     Instead,   it   would   un-usefully   codify   "government   marriage"   to   dictate   the   unbiblical   marital   socialism   of   "one   man,   one   woman." 
Consequently,   President   Bush's   deferrence   to   "the   good   of   families,   children,   and   society"   in   order   to   justify   such   big   government   involvement   in   marriage   was   actually   pure   liberal   rhetoric   --   not   conservative   at   all. 
Indeed,   when   justifying   privatization,   the   argument   that   it   is   "necessary   for   the   good   of   the   people"   is   typically   true   conservatism.     But   when   justifying   big   government   socialism,   that   same   argument   is   actually   pure   liberalism.    
Ultimately,   therefore,   as   conservatism   promotes   privatization,   while   liberalism   promotes   big   government   socialism,   the   true   conservative   solution   is   obvious. 
Privatize   both   Social   Security   and   marriage.    


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 ™.