The Post Election Polygamy Agenda

Harking back to what I have pointed out earlier, we're now the leftist "Obamanation." This means liberal judges on the Supreme Court and across the nation. Count on Republicans NOT being the obstructionists that Democrats were when it comes to the appointments of Federal Judges and Supreme Court seats.

In the book of Esther (the POLYGYNOUS wife of king Ahasuerus) the Jews do not strike first against their enemies, but fight back and carve out a place for the Jews among the heathen. They kill their enemies, but they do not go on a firey crusade to stamp out adulterers, fornicators, homosexuals and so on. King Ahasuerus "reigned, from India even unto Ethiopia," so there is little doubt about wholesale adherence to the cultural values of the Jews. There was no such thing.

In the END, the last verse in the book of Esther, after the Jews have confronted their enemies, enemies who sought the destruction and death of the Jews, it says this;

"For Mordecai the Jew was next unto king Ahasuerus, and great among the Jews, and accepted of the multitude of his brethren, seeking the wealth of his people, and speaking peace to all his seed."

Mordecai also sought the welfare of the King, as his advisor;

"And the king Ahasuerus laid a tribute upon the land, and upon the isles of the sea. And all the acts of his power and of his might, and the declaration of the greatness of Mordecai, whereunto the king advanced him, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Media and Persia?"

As second to the King, much like Joseph in Egypt, Mordecai has a hand in the prosperity of the King, the consolidation of his power and the collection of his tribute. Does Mordecai seek to "reform" the land morally? To conform it to the laws of Moses? We have utterly no evidence that he did. Not in Esther, and to my knowledge, no archeological or extra Biblical historical evidence exists that says he did either.

So as believers in an increasingly UNGODLY nation, that was never an annointed nation, a chosen people in the first place, what is our role?

Our greatness if we have it, should be on God's terms, among our people. If also we rise to political prominence, so be it. We should seek a place for OUR people. That is why I continually point to the need for marriage contracts. We are indeed slaves in this land and scripturally it is SLAVES that have the greater numbers of rights. Masters have obligations. I seek rights in the context of the laws of this nation for OUR people, the believers. Christians. Those who have accepted Christ as savior, as King.

This is why I utterly do not care what the granting of a right produces outside the group of believers. If homosexual "marriage" or polyandries are facilitated by a change in law, and at the same time a legal cul de sac is carved out to protect marriage practices acceptable to Bible Believing Christians, I am content with that. This is not to say that I will not continually witness to the saving love of God, his Grace, and pray and hope that all come to him. This of course would make matters much easier. I would also accept the office of absolute Monarch, though no one offers it, and that would make me the moral leader of this nation. Like I said, it's not being offered to me. Until then, like Mordecai, I seek the wealth or welfare of my people. I'm just not "second in command."

This is why it makes sense NOW, as the hour grows ever later, to protect the forms of marriage that we know are Godly. Never mind the fact that the legislation that protects US also helps others we would not have among us. Right now marriage is under attack by the state. They pretend they create it. They pretend they can break it up. They use their power over the police, the courts, and you and your spouses and children as citizens to confiscate property, deprive you of your children and allow your husband or wife to leave you for no reason. What we have now, is AWFUL and it could be improved.

Again I stress that homosexuals will do what they do no matter what. If those people who are homosexual want to say they're married, ARE THEY? Not if God defines marriage. What do we care? Unless we're going on some purge of the land, killing them all, they're going to be right where they are, doing what they do.

What is divorce? Divorce is essentially a child custody issue and a property issue from the perspective of the state. Largely this issue doesn't matter if Christians marry and adhere to what God says about marriage, but on occasion, this does not happen (about half the time) and marriages split up along lines that the STATE designates. The state also CHANGES those laws regularly so as to modify what amounts to the civil prenuptials we all have with our spouses. One day she can't divorce you and do that, tomorrow, she can.

In my experience, and that of other Christians that I know, frankly, it is the WOMAN who initiates the divorce among believers, and when she is in rebellion to her husband in that fashion, she is in flat out rebellion to EVERYONE, God included. Going to her and saying "God does not want you to do this," is futile. She's rebelling. Granted men also rebel against God and do many things to destroy a marriage, but it's the woman with all the power according to the state.

What if we approached the state and said, in exchange for no longer fighting the gay "marriage" issue, we would "come together" in "unity" and "get along" by throwing out the traditional definition of marriage? I personally think that would be best. Those of us who are polygynists anyway don't buy into Prop 8 in California because it defines marriage as only one man and only one woman at any given time. So "traditional marriage" for us, has always been a crock.

Let the gays "marry" gays. What skin off our nose is it? WE do not recognize them as married. They're NOT. We would, if obedient to our God, not allow them in fellowship anyway. Let a woman "marry" two men at once, or five. As before, it is no more marriage than gays "marrying" and all of these people go through the motions of marriage without the state "sanction" of marriage anyway. Where I live now, there are "civil unions" and it's on all the paperwork for titling a car or truck. What difference does it make what the ungodly THINK they're doing? Seriously?

If we wait, polygyny, polyandry and polyamory are going to be legalized ANYWAY. Then we have real problems. This worldly country is egalitarian in it's ethic. Men and women are alike in all respects. Equal rights. Equal votes. If polygamy is allowed in all it's forms, and women have equal rights. What stops YOUR wife from marrying another man while she's married to you? In doing that will she immediately "out vote" you in your new "marriage" and send you packing with a monthly bill and nothing else to show for it? Will your wives rebel against you, go lesbian and also toss you out? Once the state LEGALIZES such relationships, they will take control over how governance occurs within them and you won't like the result.

Monogamists will not be protected in their monogamies. Casual polygynists will not be protected in their polygynies. Like Canada has done, count on many informal polygynies being declared extant merely for the purposes of breaking them up.

Again, I point out that RIGHT NOW a table exists that could be sat at with the government where they could get what THEY want in exchange for the protection, the wealth, of our people. While we can never prevent a wife from LEAVING us, maybe when she signs on to the marriage, she could sign on to the fact that she must prove certain faults on the part of her husband, or she walks away with nothing. We can never stop others from running their marriages as a democracy, but perhaps, citing religious freedom, we could construct marriages that were run by MEN, not women. If the woman changes her mind, she could leave. Even in ancient Israel they did that. It can't be stopped, it can only be dealt with.

I urge Christians to do this NOW, now later. Later will be the state concoction that we all have "free will" and that we all are equal and we all can do anything we want. When that happens, without our input, we will be at the mercy of the state, which I can assure you does not exist.

I've been through a secular, civil divorce. I did not recognize it until certain events occurred that in my understanding of scripture made it possible for me to divorce my wife. She rebelled against me, the church and God. She took EVERYTHING. The effect was devastating to my children. I could NOT stop it.

What I could have had was a document in place, a marriage contract, that stated as a prenuptial that unless I did certain things, custody and property issues were already decided. A sort of "divorce in waiting" that she could enact if she wanted to, but not without consequence. Frankly? That might have saved my marriage since my wife would not have left her children. I did not have an "affair." I did not do the disqualifying things that allow a marriage to end per scripture. I had many faults, but I would have ended up with my house (I have not owned one since) and my children.

Faced with THAT, I honestly don't think my wife would have left me. That would have been infinitely preferable to what DID happen. I see the marriages of Christians die all the time. Prior to the breakups they were smug an secure in the notion that they had the "good marriage." Then one of them went off the farm. Such family destruction will always be ugly, but it could be better than it is now.

For the FLDS, to whom I extend my had as a "different faith, " I have these words to say. We are alike in many ways. We share many of the same scriptures. We view marriage in similar ways. If these protections of marriage contracts were already in place, YFZ would NEVER have happened. You could have had legal marriages, and the whole business of "molestation of children" and "underage pregnant girls" would be moot. Your temple? Undefiled. Your lifestyle? Firmly in place.

To the Monogamy Only religious crowd? I point to the destruction of my first marriage which was unjust. It happens to many like you. It will happen (God forbid) to people like you. Write your contract. "Define" marriage as "one man and one woman at any given time." It also is no skin off my nose. It also would be a marriage, though you have a sidebar that is not part of the marriage definition from my point of view. Protect that marriage. Protect the sanctity of your congregations.

Remember, a change of 2% in the vote on Prop 8 would mean "Gay marriage" would still be legal in California. You're rapidly losing control of this issue altogether.


Sphere: Related Content