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.
Lawrence v. Texas
Pro-Polygamists Glad Jeffs Was Caught
Republicans threw away election with Majoritarian Collectivism
Polygamy Day, Inc.
[Reviewed for publication - Pro-Polygamy.com Review Board.]