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 ™

10th Amendment Prohibits Government Controlled Marriage - Quotes

Date: Mar 23, 2010
Word Count: 2200 words
Cross-Reference: 10th Amendment, marriage control, government controlled health care


The National Polygamy Rights Movement for Consenting Adults has repeatedly reminded supposed-to-be conservatives that the 10th Amendment makes government controlled marriage unconstitutional – the exact same 10th Amendment argument that supposed-to-be conservatives now make against the newly passed government controlled health care.

On   March   21,   2010,   the   Democrats   in   the   U.S.   House   of   Representatives   passed   their   final   bill   for   the   historic   new   heath   care   reform   law,   despite   unanimous   opposition   from   the   Republicans.     Democrat   President   Obama   signed   the   law   into   effect   on   March   23,   2010.     Immediately   afterward,   Republicans   and   many   State   Attorneys   General   announced   plans   to   overturn   the   law,   based   on   the   limited   government   position   of   the   10th   Amendment   of   the   U.S.   Constitution.      
 
The   10th   Amendment   is   written   as   follows:   "The   powers   not   delegated   to   the   United   States   by   the   Constitution,   nor   prohibited   by   it   to   the   States,   are   reserved   to   the   States   respectively,   or   to   the   people." 
 
As   Republicans   and   conservative   activists   seek   to   overturn   the   exclusively-Democrat-passed   government   controlled   health   care   law,   their   oppositional   argument   is   quite   simple   and   very   clear.   The   10th   Amendment   constrains   the   federal   government   from   such   overreach   because   such   power   is   not   enumerated   anywhere   in   the   U.S.   Constitution.    
 
It   is   this   exact   same   argument   that   pro-polygamists   have   been   arguing   against   government   controlled   marriage   for   years   and   years.     Hence,   now,   as   such   supposed-to-be   conservatives   return   back   to   their   limited   government   values,   pro-polygamists   gladly   remind   them   that   their   use   of   the   10th   Amendment   argument   against   health   care   control   equally   applies   to   marriage   control. 
 
The   National   Polygamy   Rights   Movement   for   Consenting   Adults   has   laid   down   an   extensive   and   archived   history   of   using   this   10th   Amendment   argument.     National   Polygamy   Advocate,   Mark   Henkel,   has   specifically   used   it   in   multitudes   of   media   interviews.    
 
The   following   is   a   small   sample   of   clipped   quotes   from   just   some   of   the   past   articles   sent   to   the   media   (through   Pro-Polygamy.com),   in   which   this   10th   Amendment   argument   has   been   repeatedly   made   over   the   years.     It   is   compiled   as   a   resource   with   which   to   remind   conservatives   that   their   use   of   the   same   10th   Amendment   argument   requires   them   to   equally   oppose   government   controlled   marriage   too. 
 
 
 
 
================================================ 
 
Some   Conservatives   Making   Mistake   on   Marriage 
Date:   Jul   30,   2003 
http://www.pro-polygamy.com/articles.php?news=0005 
 
...[B]ecause   federal   government   "marriage"   authority   is   not   enumerated   anywhere   in   the   Constitution,   the   Tenth   Amendment   prohibits   it   from   being   involved   in   "marriage"   whatsoever.    
 
That   makes   any   federal   "marriage"   legislation   unconstitutional.    
 
 
 
 
================================================ 
 
  These   Conservatives   Oppose   Unbiblical   Marriage   Amendment 
  Date:   Aug   14,   2003 
  http://www.pro-polygamy.com/articles.php?news=0006 
 
 
The   paradigm   of   modern   conservatism   is   based   upon   unchanged,   strictly   limited   government   and   un-enumerated   individual   freedom.     The   Tenth   Amendment's   principle   limits   federal   government   authority   to   explicitly   enumerated   items   in   the   Constitution.     The   Ninth   Amendment   codifies   the   converse   principle   that   individuals'   rights   do   not   have   to   be   enumerated.     Those   two   principles   are   what   define   true   conservatism.    
 
... 
 
Government-defined   "marriage"   is   nowhere   in   Scripture.   Not   one   man   in   the   Bible   was   ever   "married"   by   government.     Not   even   one.     Based   on   "sola   Scriptura,"   the   exclusively   Bible-based   Christian   paradigm   can   never   commit   the   abomination   of   such   idolatry.     In   the   Bible,   God   never   "needed"   the   false   god   of   government   for   marriage.     Never.    
 
The   word,   "marriage,"   is   nowhere   in   the   Constitution   -   nor   should   it   be.   Not   even   once.       Based   on   "sola   Constitution,"   the   conservative   paradigm   can   never   commit   the   constitutional   abomination   of   the   Federal   Marriage   Amendment.     The   unbiblical   concept   of   "one   man,   one   woman"   has   no   place   in   a   government-limiting,   individual-freeing   Constitution.     Never.    
 
Therewith,   surprising   many,   Christian   Polygamists   remind   fellow   conservatives   of   true   biblical   marriage   and   true   conservatism.    
 
 
 
 
================================================ 
 
  Anti-Polygamy   is   the   Real   'Slippery   Slope' 
  Date:   Apr   16,   2004 
  http://www.pro-polygamy.com/articles.php?news=0016 
 
 
Religious   freedom   and   limited   government   define   true   conservatism.   Insisting   on   "government   marriage"   violates   both.       Such   supposed-to-be   "conservatives"   are   really   "New   Liberals,"   opposing   their   own   principles   and   heritage.    
 
... 
 
Even   a   simple   and   quick   reading   of   the   U.S.   Constitution   shows   clearly   that   the   federal   government   has   no   authority   whatsoever   to   be   involved   in   marriage.       The   First   Amendment   protects   the   religious   freedom   of   marriage.     The   Tenth   Amendment   prohibits   federal   government   involvement   because   the   Constitution   never   authorizes   it   to   be   involved   in   marriage.    
 
... 
 
Enforced   federal   involvement   in   marriage   began   by   an   exclusively   territorial   law   enacted   in   1862   before   Utah   was   a   State.   Utah's   non-State   "territorial"   status   constitutionally   "allowed"   the   federal   government   to   bypass   the   Tenth   Amendment   constraint   [Article   4,   Section   3,   Clause   2].      
 
When   the   law   was   tested   in   1878,   the   U.S.   Supreme   Court   affirmed   it   and   ultimately   established   such   unconstitutional   anti-polygamy   case   law.     They   justified   their   decision   by   deferring   to   the   history   and   laws   of   other   countries.    
 
In   that   Reynolds   v.   United   States   decision,   the   Court   declared,   "Polygamy   has   always   been   odious   among   the   Northern   and   Western   Nations   of   Europe   and,   until   the   establishment   of   the   Mormon   Church,   was   almost   exclusively   a   feature   of   the   life   of   Asiatic   and   African   people.   At   common   law,   the   second   marriage   was   always   void,   and   from   the   earliest   history   of   England   polygamy   has   been   treated   as   an   offense   against   society."    
 
Obviously,   the   very   young   religion   of   "the   Mormons"   did   not   invent   polygamy.     The   Court   cited   two   other   continents   culturally   including   polygamy.     Still,   they   deferred   to   foreign   governments,   specifically   citing   the   very   country   against   which   the   U.S.   fought   the   American   Revolution!     They   conveniently   overlooked   numerous   historical   accounts   of   several   Biblical   polygamists.    
 
Even   so,   those   "liberal   activist   judges"   on   the   Supreme   Court   in   1878   usurped   American   sovereignty   and   freedom   by   basing   their   decision   upon   the   history   and   laws   of   -   not   American,   but   -   foreign   governments.    
 
... 
 
For   all   Americans   who   consider   themselves   heirs   of   constitutional   liberty,   marriage   can   only   be   defined   as   a   First   Amendment   religious   issue   -   not   as   defined   or   controlled   by   government.    
 
After   all,   not   one   man   in   the   Bible   was   ever   married   "by   government."     Not   one.    
 
Conversely,   there   are   numerous   examples   of   polygamy   in   the   Bible.     Abraham,   Israel,   and   David   are   among   the   dozens   of   holy   men   in   the   Bible   who   were   married   to   more   than   one   wife.     Even   Moses,   himself   -   the   man   who   authored   the   "Adam   and   Eve"   story,   the   original   "one   flesh"   passage,   and   "Thou   shalt   not   commit   adultery"   -   is   openly   recorded   in   the   Bible   as   also   having   two   wives.    
 
Despite   the   truth,   anti-polygamy   enforcement   overturned   all   that.     The   federal   government   thereby   acquired   authority   which   neither   the   Bible   nor   the   Constitution   gave   it   regarding   marriage.    
 
If   the   Constitution   had   been   explicitly   followed,   government   would   never   be   involved   in   marriage.    
 
 
 
 
================================================ 
 
  'New   Liberal'   Hypocrisies   on   Government   Marriage 
  Date:   May   15,   2004 
  http://www.pro-polygamy.com/articles.php?news=0017 
 
 
Immediately   after   Lawrence   v.   Texas,   "New   Liberals"   cried   out   that   the   "right   to   privacy"   is   not   explicitly   written   in   the   Constitution.     Again,   they   misapplied   the   Tenth   Amendment,   trying   to   suggest   that   the   Court   has   no   authority   to   rule   on   that   matter.    
 
The   Ninth   Amendment   answers   that   absurd   argument.     Specifically,   individuals'   rights   do   not   have   to   be   so   constitutionally   codified.     Besides,   the   last   clause   of   the   Tenth   Amendment   clearly   says,   "or   to   the   people,"   meaning   the   rights   of   the   individuals.    
 
Ironically,   though,   "marriage"   is   not   in   the   Constitution   either.     The   Tenth   Amendment   establishes   that   government,   constitutionally,   has   no   authority   to   be   involved   in   marriage   whatsoever.     After   all,   government   marriage   wields   big   government   power   and   involvement   over   any   individual   rights.     But   "New   Liberals"   obviously   ignore   the   Tenth   Amendment   when   it   comes   to   government   marriage.    
 
Nevertheless,   they   accused   the   Courts   in   2003   of   being   run   by   "liberal   activist   judges,"   even   as   such   "New   Liberals"   rely   upon   a   liberal   1878   precedent   to   support   big   government   marriage   involvement.    
 
The   1878   Supreme   Court   was   seemingly   run   by   "liberal   activist   judges."     Reynolds   v.   United   States   addressed   one   anti-polygamy   statute,   applicable   only   to   non-State   territories   where   the   federal   government   had   exclusive   jurisdiction   [U.S.   Constitution,   Article   4,   Section   3,   Clause   2].     However,   those   "liberal   activist   judges"   quite   liberally   expanded   that   issue   to   ultimately   concoct   a   nationwide   "government   involvement   in   marriage"   precedent.    
 
Beyond   non-State   U.S.   territories,   that   concoction   violates   the   Tenth   Amendment   because   "marriage"   is   not   in   the   Constitution.     As   such,   "New   Liberals,"   themselves,   rely   upon   "liberal   activist   judges"   who   decided   that   anti-polygamy   case   which   unconstitutionally   established   big   government   involvement   in   marriage.    
 
 
 
 
================================================ 
 
  Failed   Marriage   Amendment   Sabotaged   the   Churches 
  Date:   Oct   07,   2004 
  http://www.pro-polygamy.com/articles.php?news=0024 
 
 
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.    
 
 
 
 
================================================ 
 
  Again,   Jonathan   Turley   Repeats   Polygamy   Organization's   Arguments 
  Date:   May   02,   2006 
  http://www.pro-polygamy.com/articles.php?news=0042 
 
 
The   now-famous   sound-bite,   "'Polygamy   rights'   is   the   next   civil   rights   battle,"   has   been   well-established   as   being   originated   by   [National   Polygamy   Advocate,   Mark]     Henkel.     In   March,   2006,   word   of   Henkel's   sound-bite   had   exponentially   spread   rapidly   throughout   much   of   the   media.    
 
Accordingly,   Henkel   was   asked   to   conduct   numerous   interviews   in   which   he   explained   and   clarified   the   sound-bite's   meaning.     Namely,   as   Henkel   has   frequently   declared,   his   polygamy   rights   argument   actually   provides   the   win-win   solution   to   resolve   the   "same   sex   marriage"   debate   once   and   for   all. 
 
... 
 
In   that   interview,   Henkel   explained   to   Barry   Lynn,   "We're   not   saying   that,   one,   we're   following   the   homosexuals,   and   [two],   going   for   the   same   agenda.       We're   actually   saying,   'We've   got   the   solution   to   end   the   marriage   debate   altogether.'     And   that   is,   the   true   -   and   it's   a   win-win,   both   for   true   limited   government   conservatives   as   well   as   for   homosexual-behavior-choosing-individuals.     The   key   is,   you   get   government   out   of   it   altogether,   because   according   to   the   Constitution,   the   Tenth   Amendment   states   that,   if   it's   not   in   the   Constitution,   the   federal   government   has   zero   authority   to   be   involved.     Ergo,   the   word   'marriage'   is   not   in   the   Constitution   and   it   is   wholly   unconstitutional   for   the   government   to   be   involved   in   marriage   whatsoever." 
 
And   in   that   same   interview,   Henkel   also   re-declared   his   stated   definition   of   the   only   valid   role   for   government   regarding   marriage.     He   said,   "We're   saying   that   government   has   no   authority   either   way   and   the   only   function   of   government   at   all   in   marriage   is   as   a   public   repository   -   at   the   municipal   level   -   of   public   records   of   the   contractual   arrangements   that   consenting   adults   make." 
 
 
 
 
================================================ 
 
  Gun   Control   and   Marriage   Control   Infringe   Individual   Rights 
  Date:   Apr   27,   2007 
  http://www.pro-polygamy.com/articles.php?news=0051 
 
 
In   both   [the   Gun   Control   and   the   Marriage   Control]   debates,   supporters   of   big   government   control   use   exactly   identical   arguments:   "society's   rights,"   "democracy,"   and   re-defining   "the   People"   as   "the   collective."       Likewise,   opponents   in   both   debates   use   the   very   same   arguments:   Individual   Rights.    

...
 
Marriage   controllers   assert   that   "society   has   a   right"   to   control   marriage,   that   "democracy"   justifies   infringing   Individuals'   rights   for   the   supposed   good   of   the   people.     They   frantically   purport   that   society   is   imperiled   without   marriage   control.     Yet   the   Constitution's   Ninth   and   Tenth   Amendments   say   that,   unless   any   authority   is   specifically   delegated   to   the   federal   government   in   the   Constitution   itself,   the   right   is   always   reserved   to   the   States   or   to   "the   People"   (codified   or   not).     Marriage   is   –   appropriately   –   nowhere   in   the   Constitution.     Thereby,   government   is   banned   from   marriage.     Moreover,   both   federal   and   state   governments   are   additionally   prohibited   by   the   First   Amendment   (freedoms   of   assembly,   religion,   and   speech).     Yet   marriage   controllers   cry,   "Let   the   People   choose"   the   re-definition   of   marriage   through   majoritarian   collectivism.     Hence,   their   re-definition   of   "the   People"   means   a   constitutional   absurdity   that   the   government   –   not   the   Individuals   -   has   the   supposed   right   to   determine   marriage.          
 
But   there   is   no   such   thing   as   "society's   rights"   –   a   collectivist   idea   premised   in   Marxism.     America   is   not   a   "democracy."     And   constitutionally,   "the   People"   only   means   the   Individuals.     America   is   a   Constitutional   Republic   of   limited   government   to   protect   Individuals'   rights.     The   founding   principle   is   that   Individuals   are   endowed   by   their   Creator   with   inalienable   God-given   rights.     Accordingly,   Individual   Rights   are   neither   "granted"   nor   overturnable   by   government   –   precisely   because   they   are   God-given.    
 
 
 
 
================================================ 
 
  Rick   Warren's   Mistake,   "Forbidding   to   Marry"   Re-Defines   Marriage 
  http://www.pro-polygamy.com/articles.php?news=0065 
  SPECIAL   REPORT   By:   Mark   Henkel 
  Date:   Feb   12,   2009 
 
 
The   historical   fact   is   that   big   governmental   anti-polygamy   is   the   real   slippery   slope   that   led   straight   to   the   modern   invention   of   the   legal   construct   of   the   otherwise   biological   impossibility   of   "same   sex   marriage."     If   the   false   god   of   big   socialist   government   had   never   over-stepped   its   Constitutionally-constrained   authority   by   re-defining   marriage   in   the   first   place   with   anti-polygamy,   homosexuals   would   never   have   had   any   incentive,   justification,   or   even   legal   standing   with   which   to   pursue   the   modern   invented   re-definition   today.    
 
Ergo,   anti-polygamists   were   the   first   ones   to   re-define   marriage.     As   Rick   Warren   truly   wants   to   thwart   marriage   re-definition,   then   the   path   to   that   goal   is   obvious.       Return   to   the   U.S.   Constitution's   principles   which   prohibit   big   government   from   making   any   marriage   re-definition   whatsoever   for   consenting-adults   –   whether   the   re-definition   is   for   "same   sex   marriage,"   anti-polygamy,   or   otherwise.    
 
...    
 
The   only   valid   role   for   government   in   marriage   is   actually   at   the   municipal   level   as   a   repository   of   the   public   records   of   the   contractual   arrangements   that   consenting   adults   make.       Anything   more   than   that   is   Marxist-style   big   government   social   engineering   –   for   which   government   has   no   such   authority.    
 
Ultimately,   marriage   is   a   God-given   right   of   the   un-coerced   consenting-adult   individual.       Marriage   occurred   before   the   invention   of   government.     It   will   occur   if   government   ever   collapses.     No   one   in   the   Bible   was   ever   married   "by   government."     Indeed,   the   actually-socialist   notion   of   "government   marriage"   is   a   very   new,   modern   phenomenon   over   the   whole   span   of   human   history.     And   indeed,   the   U.S.   Constitution's   10th   and   9th   Amendments   together   prove   that   the   federal   government   has   no   authority   whatsoever   to   define,   license,   or   control   marriage   for   un-coerced   consenting-adults. 
 


###


Bibliographic URLs:

http://www.Google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iPveCNnU4JMQcLZ9tNU8My_kPylwD9EKFD2O0 
 
http://www.RenewAmerica.com/columns/fischer/100322 
 
http://www.Pro-Polygamy.com/articles.php 
 
http://www.PRWeb.com/releases/2007/05/prweb523648.htm 
 
http://www.TruthBearer.org/media/ 
 
http://www.TruthBearer.org/media/mark-henkel-interview-example/ 
 
 
 
 
[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 ™.