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 ™

Marriage Control Losing Ground by 4th Anniversary of "Lawrence"

Date: Jun 27, 2007
Word Count: 1000 words
Cross-Reference: marriage control, Lawrence v. Texas, 2007


The series of events that occurred during the year leading up to June 26, 2007, reveal that big government marriage control is rapidly losing ground.

By   the   fourth   anniversary   of   the   U.S.   Supreme   Court   decision,   Lawrence   v.   Texas,   on   June   26,   2007,   many   events   over   the   preceding   year   reveal   that   big   government   marriage   control   is   losing   ground. 
 
On   August   29,   2006,   fugitive   Warren   Jeffs   was   apprehended.     As   "prophet"   of   the   rogue   Mormon   polygamous   sect,   the   Fundamentalist   Church   of   Jesus   Christ   of   Latter   Day   Saints   ("FLDS"),   Jeffs   had   been   on   the   FBI's   Top   Ten   Most   Wanted   list   for   charges   involving   underage   girls   in   his   sect.     Although   hyped   as   being   "about   polygamy,"   not   one   of   the   FBI’s   charges   actually   involved   polygamy.     On   the   same   day   of   Jeffs'   capture,   the   national   pro-polygamy   movement   immediately   responded   with   a   press   release.     It   applauded   the   arrest   and   noted   that   the   modern   movement     -     which   began   with   Christian   Polygamy,   and   includes   others   such   as   secular   polygamists   and   more   -   is   not   limited   to   Mormon   polygamists.     It   further   noted   that   even   many   Mormon   polygamists   oppose   the   FLDS/Jeffs   brand   of   Mormon   Polygamy   too.     The   more   credible   news   outlets   in   the   media   rightly   reported   that   news.     Anti-polygamists   had   hoped   to   exploit   Jeffs'   capture   in   order   to   justify   marriage   control   against   normal   consenting-adult   pro-polygamists.     But   with   the   media   recognition   of   the   national   movement’s   opposition   to   Jeffs,   marriage   controllers   lost   use   of   that   fallacious   argument. 
 
On   September   29,   2006,   Republican   congressman,   Mark   Foley,   of   Florida,   was   exposed   for   sending   salacious   internet   messages   to   underage   male   congressional   pages.     Facing   the   underaged   homosexual   scandal,   would-be   conservatives   had   to   recognize   that   such   an   anecdotal   example   was   obviously   not   "representative"   of   all   Republicans.     Consequently,   anti-polygamists   within   the   GOP   could   thereby   no   longer   exploit   anecdotal   examples   of   criminals   against   polygamists   either.     Any   anecdotal   example   of   a   polygamist   involved   in   underaged   issues   or   other   crimes   is   as   obviously   not   "representative"   of   all   pro-polygamists   just   as   Mark   Foley’s   homosexual   pederasty   is   obviously   not   "representative"   of   all   Republicans.     Hence,   the   Mark   Foley   scandal   immediately   disarmed   marriage   controllers   from   any   further   use   of   such   anti-polygamy   rhetorical   absurdity. 
 
On   November   7,   2006,   the   Republicans   lost   their   majorities   in   both   houses   of   Congress.     With   their   anti-republican   cry,   "let   the   democratic   majority   choose"   big   government   marriage   control,   the   democrat-wannabe   GOP   had   successfully   persuaded   voters   to   accept   the   democrat   notions   of   majoritarian   collectivism.     So,   voters   listened   –   and   they   elected   the   real   Democrats.     Among   the   marriage   controllers   who   lost   the   election,   Rick   Santorum   -   the   chief   and   most   vocal   "marriage   Marxist"   cheerleader   -   lost   his   Pennsylvania   Senate   seat   as   well. 
 
On   February   26,   2007,   the   U.S.   Supreme   Court   refused   to   hear   Holm   v.   Utah.     In   that   case,   a   member   of   the   same   rogue   Mormon   polygamy   sect   of   Warren   Jeffs   had   sought   to   apply   the   Lawrence   v.   Texas   case   of   2003   as   the   means   to   have   his   underage   conviction   overturned.     Marriage   controllers   were   hoping   that   the   Court   would   use   the   case   to   affirm   more   anti-polygamy   precedent.     However,   because   the   case   was   not   about   consenting   adults,   Lawrence   v.   Texas   clearly   did   not   apply   to   Holm's   case.     Rightly,   the   Court   refused   to   even   hear   it.       The   national   pro-polygamy   movement   was   relieved   by   the   Court's   refusal,   glad   to   retain   application   of   Lawrence   v.   Texas   for   a   future   case   that   applies   only   to   normal,   consenting-adult   polygamy.      
 
On   April   16,   2007,   a   suicidal   lunatic   went   on   a   shooting   spree   at   Virginia   Tech.     Because   of   the   school’s   "gun   free   zone"   policy,   the   killer   was   able   to   mass   murder   32   innocents   as   easily   as   "shooting   fish   in   a   barrel."       Gun   controllers   exploited   the   tragedy,   calling   for   even   more   big   government   gun   control.     But   many   would-be   conservatives   who   opposed   such   calls   had   already   used   the   identical   liberal   arguments   –   "society’s   rights,"   "democracy,"   and   re-defining   "the   People"   as   "the   collective"   -   in   their   own   calls   for   big   government   marriage   control.     Consequently,   the   TruthBearer.org   organization   issued   a   press   release   to   the   media.     Its   founder,   national   polygamy   rights   leader,   Mark   Henkel,   recommended   that   the   rhetorical   term   he   had   created   and   had   been   using   for   years,   "marriage   control,"   be   added   to   the   political   lexicon   of   anyone   else   seeking   to   expose   the   hypocrisy   of   all   the   big   government   marriage   control   arguments.     Frustrated   marriage   controllers   were   unable   to   intellectually   refute   or   counteract   the   overwhelmingly   obvious   applicability   of   the   new   political   label   against   them   for   use   by   an   expanding   list   of   different   constituencies. 
 
On   May   31,   2007,   the   State   of   New   Hampshire   became   the   first   state   of   the   nation   to   establish   civil   unions   as   a   "government   marriage"   alternative,   without   any   push   from   any   court.     Although   the   new   law   did   not   allow   for   consenting-adult   polygamous   choice,   and   although   pro-polygamists   actually   want   government   out   of   marriage   altogether,   marriage   controllers   clearly   lost   further   ground   on   the   issue.     Such   lost   ground   is   further   emphasized   by   the   fact   that   New   Hampshire   is   no   liberal   state,   does   not   even   have   an   income   tax,   and   its   license   plate   motto   is   "Live   Free   or   Die." 
 
Losing   even   further   ground,   on   June   14,   2007,   the   legislature   in   Massachusetts   -   the   only   U.S.   state   with   actual   marriage   laws   for   "same   sex   marriages"   –   voted   to   prevent   any   current   possibility   of   a   state   constitutional   amendment   for   overturning   such   laws.     Although   most   pro-polygamists   do   not   support   the   legal-constructed   invention   of   the   "biological   impossibility   of   same   sex   marriage,"   the   vote   was   clearly   another   defeat   for   big   government   marriage   controllers. 
 
Throughout   the   month   of   June   2007,   HBO’s   popular   new   show,   "Big   Love,"   about   a   quasi-secularized   Mormon   polygamous   family   in   Utah,   began   its   second   season.     The   show's   continued   popularity   had   become   quite   an   annoyance   to   virtually   all   marriage   control   pundits. 
 
Lastly,   an   unplanned   yet   hilariously   ironic   twist   occurred   to   mark   the   fourth   anniversary   of   Lawrence   v.   Texas.     Specifically   on   the   very   date   of   June   26,   2007,   the   U.S.   Patent   and   Trademark   Office   officially   registered   Polygamy   Day,   Inc.’s   trademark,   Polygamy   Day   ®.     Such   a   humorous   serendipity   for   activism   against   big   government   marriage   control   could   not   have   been   more   precisely   timed. 
 
Indubitably,   by   June   26,   2007,   the   fourth   anniversary   of   Lawrence   v.   Texas,   marriage   control   was   continuing   to   lose   ground.     By   so   rapidly   losing   ground,   even   marriage   controllers   may   quickly   realize   that   the   only   solid   ground   is   the   polygamy   rights   WIN-WIN   solution   –   abolish   big   government   marriage   control.

###


Bibliographic URLs:

Lawrence v. Texas 
 
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=02-102 
 
 
 
 
Pro-Polygamists Glad Jeffs Was Caught 
 
http://www.pro-polygamy.com/articles.php?news=0046 
 
http://www.truthbearer.org/media/ap/2006-09-06-polygamists-glad-warren-jeffs-caught/ 
 
http://www.truthbearer.org/media/ap/2006-11-24-polygamists-say-jeffs-case-paints-distorted-picture/ 
 
http://www.truthbearer.org/media/cnsnews/2006-08-31-report-pro-polygamists-respond-to-warren-jeffs-capture/ 
 
http://www.truthbearer.org/media/court-tv-morning-with-vinnie-politan/2006-09-05-response-to-warren-jeffs-capture/ 
 
 
 
 
 
Mark Foley 
 
http://www.pro-polygamy.com/articles.php?news=0047 
 
 
 
 
 
Republicans threw away election with Majoritarian Collectivism 
 
http://www.pro-polygamy.com/articles.php?news=0048 
 
 
 
 
 
Rodney Holm 
 
http://www.pro-polygamy.com/articles.php?news=0049 
 
http://www.prwebdirect.com/releases/2007/2/prweb508420.php 
 
 
 
 
 
“Marriage Control” 
 
http://www.pro-polygamy.com/articles.php?news=0051 
 
http://www.prwebdirect.com/releases/2007/5/prweb523648.htm 
 
http://www.cnsnews.com/Culture/archive/200705/CUL20070510a.html 
 
 
 
 
 
New Hampshire 
 
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/06/01/new_hampshire_law_makes_same_sex_civil_unions_legal/ 
 
http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070603/FOSTERS01/106030271&SearchID=73284554787785 
 
 
 
 
 
Massachusetts 
 
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a1IaemG3sUNg&refer=us 
 
http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=25957 
 
 
 
 
 
Polygamy Day, Inc. 
 
http://www.PolygamyDay.com  
 
 
 

[Reviewed for publication - Pro-Polygamy.com Review Board.]



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 ™.