If Marriage Falls in North Dakota, does it Make a Sound?

Breitbart and Rush made mention of the huge plural marriage news this week (Limbaugh even linked us to Duck Dynasty).

CNN took the occasion as a chance to call all the names on their anti plural dance card and trot out the same story they essentially do every time polygamy is in the news. Then there's this take on it, which should sober all of us (yes, monogamy idiots, you're "us" when it comes to "traditional" marriage advocates).

The Western Center for Journalism - "While the 10th Amendment rightly affords individual states the liberty to pass laws as they see fit, such legislation can and does have rippling consequences across the nation. The left’s mission to dismantle traditional marriage represents a prime example." - B. Christopher Agee

The strike-through is mine. Marriage is what it is, or frankly, it deserves to change with the times like car styles, music and whatever else is like the grass. It withers, and the flower fades, but what stands forever?

The left cannot destroy marriage, but it can make it's practice difficult for those who wish to participate. If we want (on the Conservative Christian side of the aisle) to preserve marriage, we're going to have to realize what it is. To the rabid right in the Christian world, I have this to say: You're wrong, and you're doing more to tear down the practice and realization of "Traditional Marriage" than the left by enabling them.

Christian (and to some extent Mormon, maybe even Muslim) practitioners of polygygy (yes, that is the closest word in the dictionary to what we advocate) are on the same side as the Christian Right. Thus since they cannot recognize who their bedfellows actually are, they keep kicking "plygs" out of bed. Hello "Focus on the Family" types, you're bringing down the whole house around our ears.

For a few days earlier this week I thought my prediction regarding the reversal of Brown v. Buhman was premature. But important news like what happened Thursday and Friday of last week, falls by the wayside, and makes no sound.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

(UPDATED) A Bisexual Legal Union (Marriage) will occur first in North Dakota?

Hat tip to The Coalition of the Swilling, for alerting me to this article over at Breitbart.

"North Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem filed a legal opinion last week confirming that the state does not recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages, allowing a man married to another man to come to North Dakota and marry a woman without divorcing his husband."

This of course could also occur with a woman "marrying" a woman, and then going to North Dakota to marry a man. Apparently this can happen right now.

"While many wildly speculated that the legalization of same-sex marriage could lead to polygamy, they probably never thought it would be like this. Presented with a legal hypothetical, Attorney General Stenehjem answered three questions: whether someone in a same-sex marriage in another state can also receive a marriage license to someone of the opposite sex in North Dakota, whether they can file legal documents as 'Single' when they possess a same-sex marriage license in another state, and whether this would open the individual up for prosecution under another state's bigamy laws. The Attorney General's response can be read in full PDF form here."

Silly me, I thought it would be in Vermont. Somebody was thinking. I'll have to find out who. This is really a genius back door way to get where we're going. I wonder how long it will hold up though before the legislature of North Dakota catches up. Coverage is also at "Religion Clause." "Jon's Blog" noticed before the Kody Brown case was decided. See also "Rhymes with Right and Georgia Unfiltered."

More →

Sphere: Related Content

The Legalization of Polygamy

Of late, I have retreated a great deal from public view. Yes, to those of you reading for the first time, this blog and blogger were semi popular once, more semi popular than quite a few local newspapers. Not so much now. I've cut down to very occasionally pointing to other articles, in social media I've cut my list of friends down to less than a tenth of what they were, and I've closed off access to most of the public. I repost memes for the most part, and that's sorta what I'm doing here. I referred yesterday to a post I made over four years ago.

I have to admit this song made an impression on me:

"You start a conversation, you can't even finish it. You're talking a lot, but you're not saying anything. When I have nothing to say, my lips are sealed. Say something once, why say it again?"

It's an alternate lyric or version of the David Byrne/Talking Heads tune "Pyscho Killer." It's not so much that I have become the Psycho "first person" of the song, but I have no desire to be the object of his criticisms. "Say something once, why say it again?" That of course echoes "The Preacher" of scripture who says there's nothing new under the sun and that many books are wearying to the soul.

So I've said it before. The "Preacher" says it has all been said before anyway, and apparently Rod Stewart read Ecclesiastes (I couldn't quote you no Dickens, Shelley or Keats 'cause it's all been said before). Keep in mind I wrote this while I was about as high on the radar screen as I'll probably ever get.

"(W)hy (is it) important to legalize (plural marriage?) It's important to do so because as long as we classify people for tax purposes by marriage status and family size, (for this reason) the state will want formal marriage records. Get rid of our archaic, repressive and invasive tax code, and then talk to me about "marriage being none of the Government's business." Get rid of child molestation legislation tied to age difference, and then too, it won't matter too much whether you're legally married or not, either that or get the government to accept private records as acceptable proof of marriage. Bottom line? These things are almost certainly NOT happening in YOUR lifetimes. So the Government snoop is in bed with you, taxing you more and wanting to at least have a record of how you live."

"Notoriety (mine) that doesn't translate to income is infamy. It may still be infamy with income, but without it, it's just infamy. I'm sure the bum that stands on the same corner everyday on Wall Street is well known after a fashion, but only the Naked Cowboy makes money. I have more in common with the bum. The cowboy, for all his notoriety is not even as notorious as I, in internet terms. I have said I will begin to get negative inquiries. I have now begun to get them. This can't go on forever. Like a popular environmental buzzword, it's not sustainable, not in it's present form. The bum gets hauled off the stage eventually, the Naked Cowboy? He runs for mayor."

"Now is the time to get behind the effort to legalize Polygamy, or not. I only know that if not it looks more and more like I tied myself to the train tracks by getting out in front of an issue. One of the paths to legal polygyny is simply going to a state like Vermont, and trying to register to marry more than one wife, which will initially fail, but may evolve into a successful court challenge."

That opportunity has rolled around again. So who is it going to be? Who will be like Esther and Mordecai and go carve out a place for our people? In this regard, I am playing the role of Mordecai. Which family will be our Esther? Believe me, I'd play both roles if I had the opportunity, but it's not in the cards. I often joke that what I need is a naked (reformed) gal with a Bible and a CDL (which calls to mind a crude but germane Don Imus joke)*. There is no one on the radar screen that would fit the role of Mrs. McBryde II, Mrs. McBryde III or even IV. Ideally (in my mind) it would be a family with no minor children at stake, since the state would eagerly take the children hostage, or perhaps a vengeful former consort might seize some kids because of the inappropriate lifestyle of a former wife or lover. Nevertheless, someone from the Christian side of the plural marriage crowd needs to do it. Not a Mormon, not a Muslim. A Christian family. Who are you?

And somewhere David Byrne's psycho is saying: "AGAIN?!?!"

*FOOTNOTE The point is, that there is no such person. "Naked" is a loose way of referring to something no conservative Christian woman would do which also refers to the majority of them when it comes to plural marriage. "Reformed" is referring to a generally Presbyterian mindset, and again, few if any consider being a second or third wife. Then you pile on top of that they have a CDL, want to drive with me and marry a nearly 60 year old dude? That's a null set. Don Imus made a similar but crude observation regarding all the things women allegedly wanted from men, and if they ever FOUND that guy, they'd better move over because he'd probably be interested. The point being, that was also the aforementioned null set.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Kody Brown's Victory will be reversed (UPDATED)

That's my prediction, and I hope I'm wrong. Here's why the decision will be reversed on appeal:

The Judiciary is highly politicized and tied to the news cycle. I may have missed it, but the almost complete lack of coverage of Brown v. Buhman in the Broadcast media is the proverbial canary in the mine shaft for decriminalization of Plural Marriage/Polygamy.

There has been nothing (as of this writing) on the "Drudge Report." I checked both CNN & Fox and they were late to the table with both of their stories, and despite the fact that I can't watch every channel all the time, I have tuned in enough to know that coverage on Television and Radio was minimal to non-existent. (UPDATE, Apparently Bill O'Reilly opined, but I can't find the transcript or video, I did find a CNN video complete with "plyg" clichés.) Both the political right and the political left are largely ignoring the story. Democratic/Left leaning media sources have begun to point out that Judge Waddoups was a Bush appointee, this using that sort of backhand to discredit the decision. Rush didn't mention it at all on his show (I've listened MOST of the day) until December 18th, 2013. I'm not waiting to hear what Hannity will (or won't) say before sticking my neck out.

Face it. BIBLICAL plural marriage proponents have no friends on the right OR the left. The media KNOWS that and just signaled to the politicized judiciary that they're not going to be looking when the legal mugging occurs. Please remember there was overwhelming evidence (notice I did not say conclusive) that "informant" Rozita Swinton was probably a plant and a tool of law enforcement. This evidence was never followed by the media, either on the right or the left. Why? My best guess is that the outcome of incarcerating FLDS men was so important to both the left and the right, that no one cared how it was done.

I'm going to say we have exactly the same sort of situation here. Some supposed inconsistency of law is going to be cited on appeal, and Judge Waddoups decision will be reversed. My best guess is that it will be that Kody Brown had no standing. This will turn on the fact that he was never prosecuted for his supposed violation of law which will shove us back into the limbo of Law Enforcement using laws that contain phrases like "purport(ing) to be married" to break down your door, and then never trying the suspect for bigamy/polygamy. They will instead ransack the house, perhaps take any children present, and lever the "suspect" into a plea bargain on something like tax evasion or violations of some housing codes.

I fully realize that the case went ahead and the Judge dismissed the idea of "no standing" on the part of the Brown family as avoidance on the part of the State. I agree with him that it was. I was quite happy to see he swept the state's objection aside and went ahead with the case. I think that's the grounds though, on which the decision will be reversed.

I have qualifiers to my prediction. First it may be reversed on more than one or other grounds. Remember, no one is watching and all the right and left care about is a decision they like. They don't like religious plural marriage/polygyny. It's almost always one man with two or more women. It's not egalitarian. Both the left and the right agree on some version of couples only sexual relationships. Second, if someone comes forward, aggressively and uses this moment as a wedge opportunity, and goes to some place like Vermont or Washington DC and demands multiple marriage certificates/licenses at the same time, it might fan the flame of interest. Why those places? These are jurisdictions that have passed same sex marriage laws through their law making bodies. The idea of personal preference governing marriage practice is written into those laws and they are ripe for a test case.

Christians believing in Plural Marraige are largely Libertarian/Right Wing in their other views. They are hopeless idealists and look for all or nothing solutions.* Just as they won't vote for a McCain or a Romney, they will not be part of any incremental or interim solution that involves part of what they're looking for, and what they're demanding is a total exit on the part of all governments. That's not going to happen.

*Dr. Francis Schaeffer: "(I)f you insist on perfection or nothing, you will always have nothing."

More →

Sphere: Related Content

(UPDATED) Judge "Decriminalizes" Plural "Marriage" in Utah

I could write a wordy analysis, but this quote says it all, and quite a few of us have been saying something similar, for a while:

From the Salt Lake City Tribune:

"Utah’s bigamy statute technically survived the ruling. However, (Judge) Waddoups took a narrow interpretation of the words 'marry' and 'purports to marry,' meaning that bigamy remains illegal only in the literal sense - when someone fraudulently acquires multiple marriage licences."

Jonathan Turley cites among other things, Lawrence v. Texas. More also at "The Fall of Reynolds." In addition, there is the "Utah Political Capitol" and "The Aquila Report."

The "Volokh Conspiracy" is suddenly "noticing" the overt racism of Reynolds v. Sims/Reynolds v. United States:

"I’m no fan of the collected works of Edward Said, but I thought the Court’s use of Said entirely defensible. As the Court details, 19th-century hostility to polygamy was based, in part, on polygamy’s association with non-white races. As the U.S. Supreme Court wrote in Reynolds v. Sims, '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 of African people.' Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 164 (1879)."

"Simple Justice" adds this observation:

"That Kody Brown, with the adult consent of the women in his life, has chosen a different path than others has no more to do with me than it does with you. He just doesn’t want to go to prison for it, and if everybody living with him is cool with the arrangement, then it’s nobody’s business but theirs."

If the decision is reversed, it's probably going to be based on something having to do with Kody Brown's "lack of standing." It's really the only way out for those that wish to keep plural marriage criminal and at the same time want to posture about and use that "illegality" for political purposes. Kody after all, had been promised he wouldn't be prosecuted prior to his "escape" to Nevada. All the government opponents want is the ability to bust down your door and search for "extant" circumstances, like tax evasion, and to round up your kids. They'll drop the initial charge of "purporting to be married" later.

All anyone remembers after whatever conviction or plea bargain occurs is that the man was arrested for "committing polygamy." That makes the ignorant masses happy.

Other opinions? Professor Stephen Bainbridge echoes Robert Bork (I'm generally a fan) and says we are "We are Slouching Towards Gomorrah."

"Hot Air" concludes the same thing I've been saying for probably a decade, but uses "Lawn Mower" as opposed to an Aardvark:

"But with all that said, while a wildly unpopular position among many conservatives, I still think the government’s hands should be as far away from the entire concept of marriage as possible. The fears that some are expressing over the Brown decision, however, aren’t really related to this question and appear to be unfounded. The court didn’t strike down rules against actual polygamy – the practice of being licensed and married to more than one spouse – but rather laws prohibiting one from saying they are married to additional people. You can say you’re married to your lawn mower, but that doesn’t mean the government is going to recognize it or grant you any benefits based on it."

I would note that "benefit" is for me, one of the biggest swear words in my vocabulary, and infinitely more so when it's attached to "government."

The New York Times hilariously reveals their "anti straight" bias merely via headline, stating that the polygamy law in Utah, has been "weakened." Had Kody been Gay, they would have doubtless trumpeted the huge victory for Gay Marriage. "Business Insider" does see it that way.

The odd interest of ALIPAC makes me wonder if they see it as an avenue to unlimited immigration. "Freepers" aren't exactly thrilled but might want to read "Hot Air" and take a deep breath.

At Breitbart Ken Klukowski points to the incremental slippery slope strategy. It's only the tip of the iceberg folks:

"This lawsuit is the brainchild of Prof. Jonathan Turley at George Washington University. He’s designed a two-step strategy, piggybacking on same-sex marriage: first, decriminalize polygamy, then assert a right to official recognition of polygamy."

Time magazine doesn't seem to think it's a problem for women anymore, including young women, but a problem young men.

"(Time's own) studies suggest that polygamy, when conducted among consenting adults (unlike the kind practiced by Warren Jeffs), is not as harmful to the young women who consent to being a second or third wife as it is to young men. Because the older and more successful men attract most of the wives, there are not enough women for the younger men to marry. In a community that values family above all, this can be devastating and has led to many leaving or being expelled from their homes."

And then they hit on the idea that plural marriage is only practiced in closed gated communities or "compounds." It's not, but beating that dead horse image still serves the purpose of "Anti Pligs." They also ignore the fact that the ruling throws open the door to group marriage and polyandry so it's a complete non sequitur as observations go. Doh!

The lack of comment at Poor Richard's News proves that no one cares. I have one of the two comments at the site, which is about the same as the performance here, and I've retreated to being a blogging nobody. There are some sites with a plethora of comments, but they are all first tier bloggers who chose to comment on the story. I've been scanning Fox and CNN but haven't caught either of them running the story. For this reason (should this trend continue), I will venture to make a prediction, probably by tomorrow.

I figured Al Jazeera would eventually run the story, and they have. Vox Popoli has commented. I always value what's said there, whether I agree or not. In this case though, Vox seems to be advocating a dictator or revolution:

"American society is rapidly slip-sliding away, to the extent that it can even be said to exist at all anymore. One may not be able to legislate morality, but it is becoming eminently clear that one can legislate civilization. And barbarism, for that matter. But we may be past the point where civilization can be legislated; it may have to be imposed."

I guess a King wouldn't have additional consorts and he'd keep us from having them. That's what we have found, right? Leaders, especially the most powerful, always keep their pants on, away from home.

Last but not least of course, the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) Blog has chimed in with some thoughts:

"The state of Utah, the judge noted, does not prosecute those who engage in cohabitation as an act of adultery — that is, a married person having intimate relations with a person who is not the spouse. The state thus threatens prosecution only for those who cohabit as a religious activity, according to (Waddoups).

The judge said the state has ample authority, under other criminal laws, to protect against crimes such as incest, sexual assault, and rape of a minor.

He thus struck down the cohabitation ban in the bigamy law, finding it intruded upon the free exercise of religion under the First Amendment. In addition, the judge also struck down that section of the law under other constitutional provisions.

Specifically, the judge struck this phrase from the law — 'or cohabits with another person'."

More →

Sphere: Related Content