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 ™

Obergefell – Half-Right & Half-Wrong (Still Against Polygamy)

     By: Mark Henkel
Date: Jun 28, 2015
Word Count: 1000 words
Cross-Reference: Obergefell v. Hodges, SCOTUS, marriage equality

AUTHOR: Mark Henkel  
Mark Henkel is both the National Polygamy Advocate for the overall National Polygamy Rights Movement for Consenting Adults. He has been interviewed and reported by numerous major media in the United States. He is also a professional speaker who has given numerous speeches before non-polygamous audiences, including a Keynote Speech at Yale.  
FMI, see  
Obergefell – Half-Right & Half-Wrong (Still Against Polygamy) 
. . . . . . . . . by  
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mark Henkel  
Copyright © 2015 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 

Obergefell v. Hodges was half-right to acknowledge the fundamental liberty right of Individuals to choose their marriages, but half-wrong to specifically give special rights for same sex marriage while still depriving polygamy. 

Marriage   is   a   God-given   Right   of   the   Individuals

Marriage   comes   before   government.   These   truths   are   self-evident: 

  • Marriage   is   a   God-given   right   of   the   Individuals.
  • Marriage   existed   before   the   invention   of   government.
  • Marriage   will   still   exist   even   if   government   collapses.
  • Marriage   (just   in   case   anyone   forgot   already)   is   a   God-given   right   of   the   Individuals.

For   these   reasons,   Marriage   is   a   fundamental   liberty   right   of   the   unrelated   consenting   adult   Individuals   to   self-choose   and   self-define. 
Beyond   the   very   few   items   expressly   identified   in   the   US   Constitution,   the   role   of   government   is   only   to   protect   the   rights   of   Individuals   from   being   infringed.   The   Constitution   was   established   to   define   and   limit   the   power-struggle   between   the   Federal   Government,   each   of   the   States,   and   the   Individuals. 
All   power   begins   -   first   -   with   the   Individuals   having   their   God-given   rights.   Power   does   not   start   from   the   Federal   Government,   flow   down   to   the   States,   and   then   flow   farther   down   to   the   Individuals.   Rather,   all   power   starts   with   the   codified   and   uncodified   rights   of   the   Individuals.   Then,   powers   flow   down   to   the   States.   From   there,   only   those   powers   expressly   codified   in   the   actual   text   of   the   US   Constitution   flow   farther   down   to   the   Federal   Government.   Government's   assignment   of   power   is   only   to   protect   the   rights   of   the   Individuals. 


Government   has   no   Authority   in   Marriage

The   Federal   Government   is   formed   with   three   separate   Branches.   Congress   writes   the   laws.   The   Supreme   Court   judges   the   laws.   The   President   executes   the   laws.   Again,   all   federal   laws   are   constrained   to   only   that   which   is   expressly   authorized   in   the   text   of   the   Constitution   itself. 
"Marriage"   is   mentioned   nowhere   in   the   US   Constitution.   That   is   because   Marriage   is   a   God-given   right   of   the   Individuals.   Thereby,   the   Tenth   Amendment   prohibits   the   Federal   Government   from   any   involvement   in   Individuals'   Marriages.   And   both   the   Ninth   Amendment   and   the   First   Amendment   prohibit   the   States   too.   (Yes,   not   only   does   the   First   Amendment   protect   the   "freedom   of   religion"   in   marriage,   but   it   also   protects   Individuals'   right   to   Marriage   as   "freedom   of   assembly.") 
Under   such   Constitutional   constraint,   that   means   that   no   one   else   has   the   authority   to   infringe   an   Individual's   exclusive   right   to   self-choose   and   self-define   their   own   unrelated   consenting   adult   Marriage.   And   that   means   that   no   one   -   no   government,   no   "majority   vote"   (small-d   democrats),   no   federal   government,   no   state   government,   and   no   court   -   has   any   legitimate   authority   to   license,   define,   or   control   the   fundamental   liberty   right   of   every   Individual   to   their   own   unrelated   consenting   adult   Marriage. 
Whether   it   is   supporters   of   OMOW   (one   man   one   woman)   having   their   religious   catholic   belief   to   redefine   marriage   by   excluding   UCAP   (unrelated   consenting   adult   polygamy),   or   it   is   others   having   their   imagination   to   redefine   marriage   by   now   including   SSM   (same   sex   marriage),   neither   side   has   the   authority   to   infringe   the   fundamental   liberty   right   of   any   Individuals   to   define   or   control   their   own   unrelated   consenting   adult   marital   relationships.   Both   sides   do   indeed   have   the   right   to   self-choose   and   self-define   their   decisions   for   OMOW   or   SSM,   but   they   do   not   have   the   authority   to   impose   their   respective   re-definitions   of   Marriage   on   others. 
The   Congress,   therefore,   has   no   Constitutional   authority   to   write   any   laws   for   Marriage.   The   Supreme   Court   has   no   Constitutional   authority   to   define   any   specific   definition   of   Marriage.   The   President,   therefore,   may   have   no   Constitutionally-authorized   laws   or   judicial   decisions   about   Marriage   to   execute   for   unrelated   consenting   adults. 


Proper   for   SCOTUS   to   Protect   Rights   of   Individuals

However,   because   the   right   to   self-choose   and   self-define   one's   own   unrelated   consenting   adult   Marriage   is   a   fundamental   liberty   right   of   all   Individuals,   there   is   indeed   one   context   in   which   the   Supreme   Court   of   the   United   States   (SCOTUS)   does   have   a   Constitutionally-assigned   role. 
It   is   essential   to   understand   that   there   is   a   distinct   and   profound   difference   between   the   Supreme   Court   defining   and   mandating   any   specific   definition   of   Marriage   versus   the   Court   generally   protecting   the   God-given   right   of   Individuals   to   self-choose   and   self-define   their   own   Marriages. 
For   SCOTUS   to   define   and/or   mandate   any   specific   definition   of   Marriage   is   an   unconstitutional   over-reach   by   the   Court   -   "legislating   from   the   bench"   as   well   as   violating   the   Tenth   Amendment.   Hence,   SCOTUS   is   Constitutionally   prohibited   from   mandating   specific   definitions   -   such   as   OMOW   or   SSM. 
But   SCOTUS   does   have   the   appropriate   role   to   protect   the   rights   of   Individuals.   To   be   clear,   when   correctly   doing   so,   such   Supreme   Court   Decisions   are   not   acts   of   top-down   big   government   over-reach.   Rather,   when   protecting   the   God-given   rights   of   the   Individuals,   SCOTUS   is   correctly   and   Constitutionally   fulfilling   their   assigned   role   of   protecting   the   Individuals   from   government   over-reach. 
Hence,   because   Marriage   is   a   fundamental   liberty   right   of   the   Individuals   to   self-choose   and   self-define   as   unrelated   consenting   adults,   it   is   proper   for   SCOTUS   to   generally   protect   that   right   of   the   Individuals. 


Obergefell   v.   Hodges   –   Half-right   &   Half-wrong

When   SCOTUS   decided   Obergefell   v.   Hodges   on   June   26,   2015,   its   majority   rendered   its   decision   by   being   "half-right   and   half-wrong." 
It   was   right   in   determining   that   Marriage   is   most   definitely   a   fundamental   liberty   right   of   the   Individuals.   If   the   Court   had   stopped   there   and   had   only   generally   protected   that   right   to   unrelated   consenting   adult   Marriage   for   all   Individuals   (realizing   that   no   governments   have   authority   to   infringe   those   rights   for   anyone),   SCOTUS'   decision   would   have   been   Constitutionally   correct   and   perfect. 
But   its   5-4   Majority   went   beyond   their   Constitutional   constraints.   Instead,   SCOTUS   specifically   defined   and   mandated   its   new   (biased   and   bigoted)   re-definition   of   Marriage   supposedly   as   a   "two-person   union,"   thereby   specifically   adding   SSM   (same   sex   marriage)   into   Marriage   laws   that   the   Constitution   does   not   so   authorize.   Such   unconstitutional   Judicial   over-reach   was   clearly   wrong. 
Thereby,   SCOTUS'   over-reach   specifically   expanded   the   unconstitutional   special   rights   for   those   who   choose   the   government-defined   and   government-controlled   re-definitions   of   Marriage.   OMOWs   still   get   their   big   government   special   rights.   Now,   SSMs   get   those   big   government   special   rights   too.   But   what   about   polygamists? 
Despite   the   SSM   celebrations   and   hoopla   of   so-called   "marriage   equality"   via   the   Obergefell   Decision,   UCAPs   will   receive   no   such   "equality."   Instead,   all   unrelated   consenting   adult   polygamists   will   still   be   tyrannically   deprived   of   their   God-given   rights   as   Individuals   to   self-choose   and   self-define   their   polygamous   marriages.


Bibliographic URLs:

Obergefell v. Hodges 
June 26, 2015 
National Polygamy Advocate ™ 
Will SCOTUS Legalize Polygamy in 2015? 
January 28, 2015 
SCOTUS: States Must License Same Sex Marriage (but not Polygamy) 
June 28, 2015 
[Reviewed for publication - Review Board.]

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 ™.