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

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

Here we go!

Instapundit tipped me off to this, but I should be credited (shouldn't I?) for tipping all of you off in advance.

Ted Olson argues for overturning Proposition 8 of California. The Justice is Judge Sonia Sotomayor, an Obama appointee:

Justice Sotomayor - "Mr. Olson, the bottom line that you're being asked, and it is one that I'm interested in the answer: If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what state restrictions could ever exist? Meaning, what state restrictions with respect to the number of people, with respect to that could get married, the incest laws, the mother and child, assuming that they are the age I can accept that the state has probably an overbearing interest on protecting a child until they're of age to marry, but what's left?"

Ted Olson - "Well, you've said in the cases decided by this court that the polygamy issue, multiple marriages raises questions about exploitation, abuse, patriarchy, issues with respect to taxes, inheritance, child custody, it is an entirely different thing, and if you, if a state prohibits polygamy, it's prohibiting conduct. If it prohibits gay and lesbian citizens from getting married, it is prohibiting their exercise of a right based upon their status."

Olson also said banning gay marriage was 'picking out a group of individuals to deny them the freedom (the court) said is fundamental'." (CNS NEWS)

But what about BISEXUALS I keep asking? Homosexual rights advocates claim they are "homosexuals" on a fundamental and programmed level. They often argue it's genetic. If this is so, what about the bisexual that wishes to engage in the "fundamental right" of marriage with another adult? Isn't their status denied recognition in marriage when they can't also marry another person at the same time? A bisexual, to conduct and realize all of their orientation in marriage needs two marriage partners. A man, and a woman in addition to themselves. Marriage as three. Polygamy!

Notice the bigoted language of Ted Olson saying that the plural married are already in abuse, exploitation and so on.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Prayer Request...The cost of Christian Polygyny

I keep saying, you don't have a defense if you're not legally wed.

I understand it shouldn't be that way, really, I do. Nevertheless it's a reality.

It just hit home. A person I "know of" is facing removal of their children. To my knowledge they have given no cause to anyone, save the cause of their polygyny.

They are NOT FLDS.

They are NOT in Texas.

They are Christian. They need prayer.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Massive Lurch Towards Legal Polygamy

With a judge striking down the defense of marriage act that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman, what's to stop a man and a woman and a woman from stepping into the void and getting married?

The Boston Globe - "A federal district court judge in Boston today struck down the 1996 federal law that defines marriage as a union exclusively between a man and a woman.

Judge Joseph L. Tauro ruled that the federal Defense of Marriage law violates the Constitutional right of married same-sex couples to equal protection under the law and upends the federal government’s long history of allowing states to set their own marriage laws."

Where does this leave the "enhancement clause" on which the super long sentences of FLDS members is based as well?

It may be no longer necessary to lobby for legal polygamy, it may very well be here. I'd encourage some already polygynous family to rush out and attempt to marry themselves, all three, four or five (or however many) they are.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Road Trip On Again (I'd like to get to know you...)

I will be in the Seattle/Tacoma airport for 10 hours May 29th (Saturday, Memorial Day weekend). I will be traveling by car from Montpelier out West between the 20th (Thursday, the preceding week). Your chance to "Meet A Pharisee!"

While I am between jobs (let's hope), I am using this time to redistribute family resources (driving an antique Peugeot out west) and look for work. Purchasing the airline ticket represents the first step in giving up on the North East. I am saddened by the fact that I was only able to get thrown out of an OPC Church and that I was unable to actually Lobby in two legislative sessions here in Vermont.
I consider it instead to have been a "witness" in which I discovered that "Mainstream" Conservative Christianity will abandon any Reformation tenet in order to retain monogamy only doctrines and even regards same sex "married" couples as preferable to polygynists. This is made more sad by several other discoveries.

There are two predominant forms of Christian Polygynists. One is best described by a "live quietly beneath the radar and 'they' can't/won't get me" attitude. I have had it literally said to me that what happened at YFZ "won't happen to us." This was said on the two year anniversary of the taking of YFZ children.

The other attitude seems to be more a strange mixture of John Browns, Freemen, and the Christian Identity Movement. In this group there is a desire to draw a line and declare that "we alone know what the Constitution means and we alone know what the Bible means." This group has got a chip on it's shoulder and seeks confrontation with Federal, Local and State government.

In the case of the confrontational group, I admit to sharing a good percentage of their views in terms of Constitutional interpretation, and since it is a rather broad spectrum of views (apart from polygyny) that we share on scripture, it's harder to nail down what we believe there, except to say that there is a stink of liberalism and progressive revelation and the nastiest of cult belief.

In the latter case, that assessment is not likely to make me any friends. If correct about such people, there wouldn't be much to talk about anyway. My goal would be to seek out a true vision of what such a person was about, probably attempt briefly to dissuade them from their path, and later maybe even warn others about them, as wolves. If you'd like to sit down and talk under those circumstances, I'd love to talk.

In the former case, I see those who hide as truly, not needing to be polygynists. It's not that I think we should be out in the world stirring things up and declaring some variation of "We're Fierce, We're Polygynists and We're in Your Face," it's that if your polygyny offends your witness, you shouldn't do it. People should know you're a Christian if the topic comes up. If you have to hide, live quietly, and "live off the grid," well then you're not much of a believer, in a world of 7 billion people that needs your witness.

I am a Christian Polygynist in terms of belief and (in the past) practice. I don't smear it in everyone's face (surprisingly the internet does not count) as evidenced by the fact that I didn't tell any rank and file member of my church and they didn't find out until church leadership chose to out me. They did not know for a year and a half, and might still not know, if it wasn't for that "outing."

I think the Scriptures teach submission to authority, something we have to believe if we are Christian Polygynists. We should try to be a part of the widest possible fellowship we can, without sacrificing our Biblically based beliefs, and we should see to live openly and at peace with all, including our Government, no matter how far they have strayed from the founding principles of our nation.

I have a plan, to do that. It might be a bit of an eyebrow raiser to know that I didn't expect lobbying to make the practice legal. I do expect lobbying to play a part though.

I'd like to meet some of you, if you're along my route. As noted, I'll be in the Seattle airport most of Saturday on Memorial Day weekend. I will be driving cross country as far as Missoula Montana, starting anytime after Thursday Morning, this week. The closer I get to the Memorial Day weekend, the fewer opportunities for visiting I have. I will be more concerned as May 29th approaches, with GETTING to Missoula, than stopping to chat.

I'll even talk with enemies if they wish to surface. Though I have been at this, for almost 20 years now, I have met none of you. I'd like that to change.

Email me, hughmcbryde@gmail.com

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Game Changer

It's a whole new ball game.

The reason? I probably will NOT stay in Vermont, since today I learned I won't be working where I did work, anymore.

I have tried to make this a full time occupation, but the economic support for the effort, is less than tepid to say the least.

A recent post was geared at a fund drive of some sort, if you WANT me to do this, pretty much you'll have to PAY me to do this. It's as simple as that. I have the time now, to do anything I want, and I am answerable to no one except the LORD and the Landlord (who wants his rent in 2 weeks, and frankly, I don't have it.)

I can stay here in Vermont, and promote the legalization of Polygamy, FULL TIME if you wish for me to do so, but that now has a price tag. I can also continue to blog on other subjects.

Plain and simple, SEND MONEY, or DON'T. If the LORD wills it, it will happen. Otherwise my future goes down a different path.

MY ADDRESS:

Hugh McBryde
PO Box 433
Montpelier VT 05601

The first dime (figurative, it had better be one of those rare ones) I get, I will go down to the legislature and start doing what I need to do. Without it, I won't and I may have to board up the Modern Pharisee, at least for a while. Employers are picky, and I'm controversial. That's quite a corner to be painted into in "this economy."

More →

Sphere: Related Content

If you think I am a positive voice for Polygyny

I need something now. Not soon, now.

You may contact me at my EMAIL address, which is hughmcbryde (at) gmail (dot) (youknowwhat). There is a rather sizable investment that could be made on behalf of polygamy in general. You'd own something in return, and you would get your money back, in all likelihood. I say that because there is no way to guarantee any investment, but the normal prospects are good.

This is urgent. If you're serious about the promotion of polygamy (specifically polygyny) as an acceptable "lifestyle," contact me right away.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Mark Henkel & Gretchen Carlson on John Stossell

It's a clear win for Mark. Mark and I DO NOT get along, but that doesn't mean he's wrong.

It's unfortunate that no one in the room on the pro polygamy side understands that it needs more than "decriminalization." Again, you do not HAVE to get legally married to understand why being ABLE to be legally married helps you.

Decriminalization means it won't be a felony but it's still against the law. The fact that you can essentially get a parking ticket for too many people in the bedroom means that the police have a right to enter your bedroom.

Ms. Carlson makes the lame excuse (for an apparent conservative) that the polygamist family will have tax advantages. I keep telling people, as long as we have an income tax, and particularly a progressive income tax system (which we have), the government is always going to stay in the arena of marriage. You want marriage off the books? Get rid of the income tax. Completely. All vestiges of it. THEN you have a shot.

That and you'll have to get government out of the business of defining pedophilia. This is an UGLY truth because we are so twisted around and phobic as Christians of a "Crime" or "Sin" that isn't even a sin in scripture that we react with blind feeling. Perhaps a compromise can be reached with marriages to minors involving court consent and licensing. Until then though, government has entered the room in the marriage discussion, and it isn't leaving.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

I get the boot (UPDATED) & miss Church for the first time

I have been forbidden, to enter my church or come to it's grounds:

"Dear Hugh,

We, the elders of Covenant OPC, are agreed that we must ask you not to attend any worship services, classes, or any other church events, or go onto the church property, effective immediately, and until further notice.

These are our reasons: 1. Your words posted on your blog on 12/23/09, 'It won't be long until my passion spills out into the aisles of my own church, and I can't tell you what will happen then,' have been understood as extremely threatening to some in the church, and they have caused real fear in their hearts. In reading your words in context, the session does not understand them as an intent of physical violence; however, they are so incredibly inflammatory that it has raised even more serious concerns about you. You sound like a very angry man. We have a responsibility to protect the well-being of the flock, and we will take whatever actions are necessary to do that. 2. Our boundary with you has been that you do not talk with church people about your views about polygamy. By sending your email to the church list, in violation of presbyterian government, you effectively (if perhaps unintentionally) violated that boundary by virtually insuring that more church people would search and find your blog. 3. Our reason for having welcomed you to attend services was that you might grow under the preaching of the Word under the oversight of church leadership. Your words and actions indicate that you have rejected that oversight. That being the case, we have even greater concern about your stated agenda to spread your false teaching, and we must do whatever we can to protect our brothers and sisters from it.

Hugh, we hope and pray that this will not be a permanent requirement, but that you will repent of your errors and publicly repudiate them. As a first step we would like to have from you in writing immediately an explanation of the words from your blog quoted above. Second, if that explanation is satisfactory to us, we would be willing to meet with you at our regularly scheduled session meeting on January 11, 2010, to discuss our decision with you, to pray for you, and review your status. Please let us know if you would like to meet with us then. Again, though, we insist that you do not attend any COPC functions before that time.

Sincerely,

Pastor Carl Durham, Mike Breen, Chris Liff, and Andy Selle

The Session of Covenant Orthodox Presbyterian Church"

Let me explain the excerpt then:

"Your words posted on your blog on 12/23/09, 'It won't be long until my passion spills out into the aisles of my own church, and I can't tell you what will happen then,' have been understood as extremely threatening to some in the church, and they have caused real fear in their hearts."

"Spill(ing) into the aisles of my church," means only that the discussion, would move to that physical location. I can't control others, I don't know what will happen when the discussion is public and at church. Only in my wildest imaginations would I ever think that it would become threatening to anyone. I am not, a violent man. I would not come to church armed in any way. I am not skilled in the martial arts, nothing would happen at my initiation. Any encounter would have to be initiated by another person. All responses on my part would be verbal.

The session ignores the rest of the post in which I condemn John Brown, who took matters moral into his own hands, violently. The session ignores my condemnation of the "Freemen." The session is in fact ignoring my absence from the Thursday Night Christmas Eve service. I thought I would give a chance to cooler heads, to prevail. While saying that in context they didn't see it as implying violence, but turning around and saying that I am an angry man, I don't think the session is being truthful.

In addition, the visits to my blog, which have now started by the congregation, did not start until A.) The session ignored me, again. B.) The session emailed everyone and told them essentially, where to look. In fact NO one in Vermont, from the church, visited my blogs until AFTER the session told them the INTERNET was the best place to look to discover the source of the controversy. (Elder Michael Breen acknowledged this to be a fact.) Additionally, the session through Andrew Selle, fully knowing my intent to send the letter out TWO DAYS in advance of sending that letter, only plead that it was "Christmas Time" in an effort to stop me, and offered more delays. Had this been against Church Law so to speak, then it was really an appropriate time to tell me that, but it was not said:

Dr. Andrew Selle - "It is a time when we invite those outside the Kingdom to taste the joys of knowing Christ. Do you not see that such a communication at this time would bring discouragement to the Body? and in so doing would undermine our evangelistic efforts? In the end, I'm not afraid for the church, yet I care for these concerns mentioned above, and I hope you will, too. At the least, I hope you will see reason and let this sit until the new year."

I have reviewed all communications with the session prior to my sending out the letter via email. No one warned me that it was a grave violation, only the pleading that I be nice at Christmas time. Not once has my inquiry about the topic coming up in session as Pastor Durham seemed to promise been answered. The session is covering up their neglect, and by doing so, making it worse.

UPDATE - One of the elders sent the following:

"I am writing on behalf of the Session of COPC.

While we find your answers to our email somewhat reassuring, we must repeat our request that you not attend any activity at Covenant Church until this matter can be satisfactorily resolved. We have several members who have indicated that they don't want to come if you are there. We believe our request of you is necessary for the peace of the church, and that worship may not be hindered.

Would you please confirm, at the earliest possible time, your intention to comply with our request not to attend Covenant Chruch [SIC] tomorrow. Thank you."

I then got a call from another elder whose talent seems to be experience with "Exit Interviews."

I've no sympathy with either in the current narrow context. I have heard from neither prior to this evening and it seems as if they are rotating from "unsuccessful" people in the interpersonal arena, to other ones in the hope that they'll match up better.

I've no respect for the request of nameless brothers or sister in Christ that won't come to church for fear that this post represents a threat of violence of some sort. I suggest if they are still reading at this late an hour, that they call the elders and withdraw their complaint. No such threat of violence exists.

In my conversation on the phone I was not kind. I would have to characterize my dealing with that elder as angry, something at this point, that I do not regret. I was lied to. It has been held up to me that continued exposure to the teaching and preaching at COPC would cause me to see the error of my ways. The elder calling me expressed that they thought there was "no hope" of changing my mind and thus no reason to meet with me and discuss it.

"Which is it" I wanted to know? Was I being placated with language of the faint hope of discussion or was I intractable and unable to change? Either view made the other offering a lie.

I asked WHAT argument was offered to me that was in the view of this elder, convincing. He could give me none.

I offered the two arguments extended by seminarian Stewart Lauer, and pointed to the fact that the word on which "Woody" (Stewart) hung his argument in fact meant quite a different thing, offered to prove it by examination, and this elder refused to look. He also would not discuss what it meant for a reformed seminarian to declare that Christ quoted scripture from the Old Testament, and then chose to change those words meanings and appealed to a sort of progressive revelation where God "Finds" meanings that didn't exist before.

His conclusion was that we weren't going to debate it. (From a how to fire advice article)

US News - "Don't enter into a debate. Your decision is final, and while you hope the employee understands it, the time for back-and-forth is over. Let the employee know your decision and then cover logistics, like returning keys and other property, the final paycheck, COBRA, etc.

Sound familiar?

How do you convince someone when you refuse to debate? How do you hold them responsible for correct teaching if you won't explain it? He also did not want to know that Luther or Augustine agreed with me. It seemed to make no difference that the father of the Reformation would not be welcomed as a member.

POST SCRIPT (December 27th) Not that faithfulness is measured by church attendance, or even that I would suggest genuine belief is signified by it either, but I had not missed church all year. That occurs to me as I am sitting here at home this morning, and not in church on the very last Sunday of 2009.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

And the point is?

Polygamy needs to be legal:

The Eldorado Success - "Law Professor John J. Sampson testified that Allan Keate was legally prohibited from marrying the victim."

Which means two things. Allan could "marry the victim," but could not as a polygynist. For that he's going to spend the rest of his life in jail?

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Same Sex Marriage fails in New York

Vermont and New Hampshire are the only two states in the Union with laws legalizing "Gay Marriage" that have been ratified as some extension of the will of the people:

The New York Times - "The 38-to-24 vote startled proponents of the bill and signaled that political momentum, at least right now, had shifted against same-sex marriage, even in heavily Democratic New York. It followed more than a year of lobbying by gay rights organizations, who steered close to $1 million into New York legislative races to boost support for the measure.

Senators who voted against the measure said the public was gripped by economic anxiety and remained uneasy about changing the state’s definition of marriage."

Granted, no measure has survived popular referendum as we learned in Maine and California. In both cases it does well to note that 2-4% of the electorate changing their minds to be at least "tolerant" would be all it would take to clear that hurdle.

20 years ago it would have been well into the double digits, in terms of the margin of rejection. It's a matter of time.

Vermont and neighboring New Hampshire remain the best places for pushing legislation and/or court cases legalizing polygamy.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Canada May Legalize Polygamy

When charges against Winston Blackmore and Jim Oler were dropped, many of us thought the great polygamy challenge we hoped for in Canada, was done for the foreseeable future. Wrongo.

FoxNews - "Attorney General Mike de Jong said he believes polygamy is against the law and should remain so, but he said the justice system needs clarity about whether Canada's law barring multiple marriages is constitutional.

Two Canadian laws stand in contradiction: Polygamy is banned, and religious freedoms are firmly protected.

The move comes a month after a judge quashed polygamy charges against two leaders of a polygamous community in western Canada. The judge ruled the province did not have the authority to appoint a special prosecutor to consider the cases of Winston Blackmore and James Oler after previous prosecutors recommended against charges.

The government has decided to seek the British Columbia Supreme Court opinion rather than appeal that court ruling. De Jong said the case may ultimately have to be decided by the Supreme Court of Canada."

Hip Hip Hooray for Mike de Jong then. The only benefit to pro polygyny advocates of polygyny persecutions is that one day prosecuters will maneuver themselves into a court challenge that strikes down anti polygamy laws.

Thanks Mike. Bravo. Let's have our day in court.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

I want a divorce

I want a divorce from Mark Henkel.

From his Facebook Page, assuming the comment is still there:

"Rather, these issues are only addressing the error of any Hobbyists who intentionally teach people to purposely be socialists, to purposely expect something for nothing, no matter how much hard work someone has worked and paid on ther behalf. Such expect-something-for-nothing socialism is made even worse when such evil teachings come from those who claim to be 'in Christ.' The Scripture of Jeremiah 22:13 says unto those maligners, 'Woe unto him... that useth his neighbor's service without wages, and giveth not for his work.' "

Mark is apparently hard up for money. This is all I can conclude. Several times now he has posted to his page rather cryptic remarks about people he characterizes as "Hobbyists," who in this case teach people to be "socialists."

I think I know what he means and have a rough idea of who he speaks about and why they are "socialists" but I can't tell for sure. A similar couple of posts were made a few days or weeks back, and I asked a similar question or two, about who he referred to and he did not offer an explanation. He then rather quickly deleted the posts I made and made no effort to contact or explain to me privately, what he meant.

The comments I made today along the same lines also have been deleted.

I don't want to be associated with this crackpot. He does not have a copyright on Biblical truth any more than I do. I have attempted to reach out to him as a member of the pro polygyny side of Christianity. There is no love there, on his part. Take a hike, buck o.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Canadian officials may appeal dismissal of Blackmore/Oler Charges

Just make it legal. Get on board for legalization if you practice or affirm polygyny is acceptable.

More at Vermont Polygamy.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Apparently, there will be no Polygamy Test Case in Canada

The charges against Blackmore and Oler? Dropped. Child abuse? Not even mentioned.

The Canadian Press/CTV - "A British Columbia court decision has quashed polygamy charges against two controversial B.C. religious leaders.

Winston Blackmore and James Oler were arrested earlier this year in Bountiful, B.C., and charged with one count each of polygamy.

The men had petitioned the court to stay the charges, arguing that the B.C. attorney general had gone 'special prosecutor shopping' until he found someone who would go ahead with charges.

In a decision released Wednesday, B.C. Supreme Court Judge Sunni Stromberg-Stein agreed.

The judge said the province's attorney general did not have the jurisdiction to appoint a second special prosecutor to consider charges against Blackmore and Oler after the first special prosecutor recommended against charging the two men.

She found that the appointment of the second special prosecutor -- and therefore the decision to charge the men was 'unlawful.'

The attorney general had no jurisdiction to appoint a second special prosecutor, the judge concluded."

Will the charges be brought back?

"(Blackmore and Oler's attorney) said he's not sure whether the charges could be resurrected.

'I believe this will be the end of the criminal case but what the judge has actually done is to quash the appointment of the special prosecutor,' (Bruce Elwood) said.

The B.C. Criminal Justice Branch will have to decide what they will do now, he said."

So, they went venue shopping to "get" someone. How strange. It is probably not an accident that the Canada avoided a "Charter Rights" issue at the same time.

Renn Oldbuster is all over it.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

No, it's not important to get into the "What is Legal Marriage" fight.

Because it doesn't affect you, right?

I have repeatedly stated that I am not FOR the legalization of "Same Sex Marriage" but neither does it bother me overmuch if the law blesses their relationship in some way and calls it marriage, but we're LOSING all the battles, or most of them, when it comes to fights with homosexuals, and their rights.

The Associated Baptist Press - "The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Aug. 31 that a lawsuit filed by taxpayers to end state funding of Kentucky Baptist Homes for Children -- now known as Sunrise Children's Services --can move forward.

It overturned a decision by a lower court last year to dismiss the case following a Supreme Court ruling that narrowed taxpayers' rights to sue over allegations of state-sponsored religion.

The lead plaintiff in the lawsuit is Alicia Pedreira, who was fired from her job as a family specialist at Spring Meadows Children's Home after her employers found out she was a lesbian. Her termination notice said she was fired because her 'homosexual lifestyle' was contrary to the agency's values. A later policy announcement cited KBHC's 'Christian values.' "

Hat tip to "True Discernment."

That's not exactly a "Gay Marriage" issue, I know, but that's the foot in the door. Activist organizations don't just get a foot in the door, they also push all the way in and then kick you out. It's important to know where to fight the battle. Not knowing where to draw the lines on marriage means not being able to tell people what they do is sexually moral or immoral. Not being able to prevent them from "marrying," legally, means we must define it morally. We won't win the battle on "traditional marriage" because as Christians, we don't define marriage "conservatively," we already define it "progressively." Marriage includes polygyny as part of the traditional spectrum. You think you can draw the line culturally. Mostly because you don't even think you're defining marriage culturally. But you are, and you're going to lose the whole fight. That is, if you're a monogamy only advocate.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

If it was so important for Gays to Get "Married," why aren't they? (And What's Craig Ferguson Doing in this Post?)

The issue has generated a lot of controversy here in Vermont, and across the nation. Vermont today became the first state to openly endorse Gay Marriage in fact, as opposed to judicial fiat, as in other states. Vermont's law is the only one that can claim to endorse Same Sex "Marriage" as a function of the will of it's people since a well funded Gay Marriage movement descended on Vermont and arguably started a process that eventually ran Governor Jim Douglas out of office.

Yahoo/AP - Duxbury - "(Vermont) became the first state to legalize gay marriage through a legislative decree and not a court case.

Some couples — including many who obtained civil unions in Vermont — plan to return to the state to get married. But most are in no rush. City and town officials say only a handful of licenses had been issued to same-sex couples in anticipation of Tuesday's start."

Maybe happy gay couples thought they couldn't get a license ahead of time, and there will be a later rush, or maybe it was just smoke. No one so far has covered this aspect of the story that I know of.

Right now there is a news void that could be filled by some intrepid informal "trigamists" or "quadragamists" stepping up to the plate and asking for a license to marry among themselves and/or each other. I am running into increasing responses to my obvious trolling for support, financial and otherwise of "I'm not political" which is then immediately countered with "well, I didn't mean it that way." What way did you mean it?

I'm running thin on patience with my polygynist brethren of all religious persuasions due to this "ho hum" attitude towards it's legalization. YFZ was invaded because the marriages in that community were not legal. Not "Child molestation," but because the marriages could not be registered. Would the FLDS have registered them if they had the opportunity? I dunno, probably not. Nevertheless.

I am regularly accused of arrogance and narcissism when I point to site stats, but they mean things. Yesterday I set another record with the Modern Pharisee reaching 286,565th world wide and more importantly broke into the top 50,000's (49,374th) in the United States (Alexa). That's not BLOGS folks (my wife often misunderstands this), that's SITES, plain and simple. In a nation of 305 million people and a world of 6,767,805,208 citizens and 25% of them ON the internet, that's not insignificant.

And still, that's 75% that aren't on the internet and no rank and file member has noticed I'm here, at church for instance. I don't publicize what I do (except to the elders), I don't lie, and I don't hide, but I don't call attention to it either. Craig Ferguson may "Google" himself, I might, but apparently we're not "Googling" or "Binging" each other very much where I fellowship. Here we have the reason for Craig being in this post. People GOOGLE each other, that's the point. If not now, eventually. Also, Craig did get married in Chester Vermont, to a "Vermonter." A female Vermonter. ("The wedding was in Vermont. They have legalized gay civil unions, and I married a woman!")

So back to why it's important to navel gaze and why it's important to legalize. It's important to do so because as long as we classify people for tax purposes by marriage status and family size, 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.

The navel gazing part? Notoriety 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.

It doesn't always rain when the clouds gather, and a dreary day can turn to a sunny one. I don't know, or control the future, but I generally step out of the way of onrushing trains. Experience and observation tells me that I don't want to see what happens if I stick around. These seven lean cows of notoriety look like they want everything I have, which isn't much.

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.

More →

Sphere: Related Content