New Hampshire Sends Gay "Marriage" Bill to Governor Lynch

If at first you don't succeed.

Details at "Vermont Polygamy." There is no truth to the rumor that there was a rider on the bill to rename "New Hampshire "Gomorrah" and that Vermont's legislature was set to embrace Sodom during their special session.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Why monogamists will lose, and polygynists will lose right along with them.

The April issue of "Origins," a publication of The Ohio State University.

"Polygyny is the family structure most often mentioned in the first five books of the Old Testament."

That saves me the project time devoted to counting them all. I thought so. For years I have warned Christians, Bible thumping fellows of the "fundamentalist" bolt of cloth that they were playing a losing hand on marriage.

The world outside the Church, or those denominations nominally described as Christian, but liberal in doctrinal outlook, point to our failure to recognize that monogamy is only a form of marriage endorsed by God, not marriage itself. Clinging to this wishful view of marriage, in truth a vestige of Rome, will get us what we don't want. For the Stephanie Coontz leaps right from that launching point, the assertion that scriptures most favored families in the Torah, were polygynists, not monogamists, to asserting that we're just wrong. And she's right. The problem is that while we have our heads up our collective posteriors, she will go on to insist that because of this arbitrary change, we should not be listened to when it comes to defining marriage. She, and others will take care of that, for she moves on to discuss a form of marriage not even discussed in scripture.

"Polyandry—one woman and many men—has also been found in some societies. In Tibet and parts of India, Kashmir, and Nepal, a woman may be married to two or more brothers, none of whom can claim exclusive sexual rights to her."

Polyandry, in the Bible is simple adultery, not marriage at all. But remember, she has us dead to rights in the fundamental community. We don't recognize our roots as the most "Bible Believing" group. So if we don't, why pay attention to us? We change things, so they get to as well. Next Stephanie proposes a lie, but a plausible lie, in view of our history.

"The Christian tradition was more condemnatory toward same-sex relationships, but on the other hand, early Christianity wasn’t too keen on heterosexual relationships either. St. Paul maintained that getting married was better than being consumed with passion and giving in to sin, but he argued that staying single and celibate was the best way to serve the Lord. In the medieval European hierarchy of female virtue, the unmarried virgin came in first. The widow, safely delivered from the corruptions of the flesh, came second. And the wife occupied the lowest rung of respectable womanhood."

Fundies are now, unrealistic, prudish loons. Don't listen to them. Christians, have made us backward.

"In the modern industrial world, the United States remains an anomaly in its intolerance toward same-sex relationships. In 2002, an international poll found that 42 percent of Americans believed that homosexuality was morally wrong, compared to just 5 percent of Spaniards, 13 percent of the French, and 16 percent of Italians.

In December 2008, 66 member states of the United Nations signed a statement calling for the decriminalization of homosexuality worldwide. The United States was the only major Western nation that refused to sign. Today, countries as diverse as the Czech Republic, Spain, Norway, South Africa, Australia, Canada, and Croatia permit same-sex domestic partnerships or marriage, with Taiwan and Nepal soon to sign on."

This week, in Vermont, where I live, the the debate rages in the legislature over homosexual marriage. Christians line up insisting that marriage is one man, one woman only. They laugh at us, and discount us, because we are blind, and dishonest. We'd have a far better chance if we hadn't redefined marriage in such prudish ways to start with. More believable. To the inexpert ear after having it demonstrated conclusively that we're lying to ourselves, the lie that homosexuality is acceptable is more attractive.

We have descended to this. Defending an alteration of God's word, as God's word and the world doesn't believe us as a result. What we're going to get as marriage law will attack and destroy us in ways we have not thought of, but I have. I am sure of course, that I have only exposed the tip of the iceberg. The real results of redefining marriage culturally will now come back to haunt us in completely unforeseen ways.

I propose again, that we carve out a place to protect our marriages, not fight society as to what is marriage. If we ever had credibility in their eyes, we no longer do. Esther and Mordecai did not seek to change the world around them, as strangers in a strange land. They sought only the tools to defend themselves. This is what we should seek now, in a post Christian culture.

The problem for the Monogamy Only proponent is that the protection they seek can only come with allowing protection of a variety of other groups, polygynists included. If we want to carve out a place for "Christian Marriage" in the law, we will be asked to show that we have been consistent if we want the protections of our religious freedom. We haven't been, and that's where we will lose. Maybe not this week. But soon, and it will be a bigger loss if we fight the losing battle we now fight.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

And now, the Heartland?

Remember this? The organization known as "the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence" invades the Catholic Church of the Most Holy Redeemer in San Francisco. Fast forward to California's Prop 8 battle where the electorate reverse the presumption of the courts and established that marriage is between a man and a woman in California, by imbedding it in their constitution. As you who regularly read here know, I don't even believe "gay marriage" is possible, whether declared legal, or not. Sure, those who think it is possible will use those words and perform ceremonies where it is legally "possible," but that does not make it any more a reality than the moon turning out to be made of cheese.

I disagree with Prop 8 because it attempts to codify something I don't believe to be correct in an attempt to head off the specter of "gay marriage" by defining marriage as one of it's parts; Heterosexual Monogamy. I'm all for Heterosexual marriage, but of course believe that polygyny is part of the Heterosexual marriage spectrum.

Nevertheless, Prop 8 opponents came perilously close to getting their way and they know it. The incidents of intimidation in the wake of Prop 8's success show it for what it it really is, a failure. Less than 2.3% of the voters of California need to change their minds for the pendulum to swing back the other way. Out of 12,153,632 votes cast on the issue, 263,802 voters need to change their minds or 527,603 more gay marriage sympathizers need to show up and/or register to vote. That's certainly within the reach of voter fraud.

The Orange County Register -SANTA ANA - "Proposition 8 leaders gathered Friday to denounce their opponents' post-election tactics as harassment, intimidation and – in the case of white powder sent to two Mormon temples – 'domestic terrorism.' "

There are many other incidents. Gay rights activists are emboldened. They foresee a greatly more liberal judiciary under Obama and the Democrat near super majority in Congress. They're pressing their advantage. Prop 8 was not a win for "traditional marriage" advocates. This attack was repulsed. The next will not be. Or the next, or the next....

The Lansing State Journal - Delta Township - "Protesters who entered the Creyts Road church along with worshippers surprised the congregation when they stood up during the service, threw fliers at churchgoers and shouted slogans such as 'It's OK to be gay,' and 'Jesus was a homo,' according to David Williams, communications director at the church. His father, Dave Williams, is the church's longtime pastor. He was not preaching at the church Sunday.

Another group of protesters demonstrated outside the church at the same time as the indoor protest."

The Eaton County Sheriff's Department responded to the scene Sunday but no arrests were made."

Eaton county has about 104,000 people in it. By comparison, Orange county California has over 3,000,000 people. More than 4 times as many people cast their vote against Prop 8 (for "gay marriage") in Orange county than live in Eaton county Michigan, 15 times as many than the number of people who live in Delta Township where the Mount Hope Church is located.

The behaviors of the Gays in both cases recalled here are reminiscent of the Angels experience at Lot's home in Genesis, and later that of the Levite in Gibeah. These people will not give up, their tactics are thousands of years old. God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. Israel razed Gibeah, we do not have that option. Short of evangelizing them all, they're going to keep coming back. This is also a prelude to suing the churches to gain acceptance in the congregations.

Let me warn you about what is coming in the legal fight to keep gays out of the conservative churches. You Will Lose. Not the Gays. You Will. Conservative Christians. I am one of you. The difference between you and I in the Conservative Christian Camp is that I am more conservative than you are. You are not simply Conservative Christians, you are Cultural Christians.

If you're going to hope to win this battle or at least stall it's progress into the foreseeable future, you need to stake your ground out in the Bible. Not in the west. Not in the traditions of the Reformation. Not in the Catholic Church, IN THE BIBLE.

Your problems are several as noted often before here in this blog. Christianity, as based in the Bible, does not condemn some forms of marriage that Cultural Christians who imagine themselves conservative, condemn. Polygyny is never discouraged or frowned on in scripture. It is perfectly acceptable.

The monogamy only doctrine has been the result of over a thousand years of spin and nuance and interpretation. It is a doctrine of men. When you defend Heterosexual Monogamy as marriage itself, you add to scripture. In doing so you have established the church, the ecclesia, as having the authority to define marriage politically or arbitrarily. These are simply words for majority rule. Most of you see it that way, that's why it is that way.

Gays will seize this. They will not only invade your churches, they will take you to court and they will find a venue in which they will prove that YOU have twisted scripture to define marriage culturally. They know you will not give this cultural vision up. They have you. You're toast.

Once it is proved that your defintion of marriage is arbitrary you will be liable for damages. You may have to compensate gays by allowing them into the governance of your denominations. They will pursue you wherever you go.

Or, you can give up your pride now. You can reexamine the scriptures. You can admit that you have been conned into believing that marriage is monogamy. You can give up the notion that marriage occurs in churches and/or courts or it is no marriage. If you define marriage Bibilcally, you can in fact hope to defend yourself in court, because when you pull the Bible out, and they pull the Bible out to defeat you with your own book, they will not be able to. That will be because you defend Scriptural territory, not your cultural heritage.

Culture changes. God does not. Stake out your territory near God, where you can defend it. You're not there now.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

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.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

The Case for Marriage Contracts

Why I read "Religion Clause."

"In Zawahiri v. Alwattar, (OH Ct. App., July 10, 2008), an Ohio court of appeals affirmed a Columbus, Ohio domestic relations court's refusal, in a divorce action between a Muslim couple, to enforce the "mahr" (dowry). Under Islamic law, the mahr must be part of the marriage contract. The mahr, signed by the bride and groom during the wedding ceremony, included an agreement for husband Mohammad Zawahiri to pay his wife, Raghad Alwattar, $25,000 in case of divorce or Zawahiri's death. The trial court refused to enforce the mahr, holding that the Establishment Clause of the Ohio Constitution bars it from enforcing a contract that requires performance of a religious act. The trial court also held that the mahr was not a valid pre-nuptial agreement. The court of appeals held that the mahr contract— rushed into just hours before the wedding ceremony-- is not a valid pre-nuptial agreement. That being the case, the court said that the Establishment Clause challenge is moot."

Muslims and the "breakaway" LDS sects provide experimental real life test situations for informal polygyny. If the relationships are not legal, the private agreements will not be upheld in court. More →

Sphere: Related Content

We must legalize it now. Polygamy.

In actual fact I wish to have Polygyny legalized. I am morally opposed to Polyandry, a form of Polygamy and actually would declare that such a union is no union and no marriage. Group marriages are not recognized by God. Clan marriages are not recognized by God. As scripture tells it marriage is actually a relationship defined as being (among other things) "one man" and "woman." The concept of woman in scripture is embodied in the word 'ishshah which in Hebrew might best be translated as "joined, joiner or joining." Look it up. It's used to describe how five curtains are joined together as one in the temple, by God. The concept describing what a woman is is also the concept for marriage, among other things. I believe that marriage or the husband wife relationship is a continuum of relationship having it it, one living man.

The train has LEFT the station when it comes to legalizing Polygamy. Yisrayl (Buffalo Bill) Hawkins has been charged with Bigamy in Texas. Not FLDS members, Yisrayl Hawkins. He's a nut job. Certifiable. He thinks the world will end, was going to end, but now will end soon, but might not end soon as he said, but could end soon after that. Nutters. Wacked. Any pejorative term for crazy that you might want to choose. I've been looking forward with dread to the time when such a test case would occur. Now it has.

Why DREAD if I am a Polygyny supporter? Because with this case, and the fact that this month in California gays can start getting married we're loosing control of the perception of marriage and thus the legal climate in which it exists. As far back as 2004-2005 I said it was coming. Legal Polygyny. But it would come in the form of legalized EVERYTHING. Men with Goats, women with donkeys, five men with four women, ten gay guys, 20 lesbians, you name it.

Good, you say. Bring it on. However, the problem with that is we will not define our relationships legally. They will be legal, but they will be defined by the state. Suddenly let us suppose, you are in a Polygyny and your wife wants to start having sex with, your other wife. Sin is sin folks. Don't think it won't happen. Marriage laws being defined by the state, she and that other wife says, well, "WE want a divorce." Oh oh. Or maybe you have three wives, two turn lesbian, one sits on the fence and "doesn't want to get involved." You get the picture?

How about this. Your wives decide (the majority of them) that they want to marry another man. But wait. This is ADULTERY you say. Good luck. The state defines marriage as a LEGAL concept. The state also defines DIVORCE as a legal concept. You're out bucko, paying child support and arrested for pressing your nose up against the glass of what used to be your former household. Once Polygyny is LEGAL, the legal destruction of it or legal modification of it is a state matter.

If Buffalo Bill lives long enough he is going to be before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court might well have a decidedly liberal bent after January 20th, 2009. President Barack Obama might just appoint Hillary to the court. Who knows what deal they made yesterday?

You do not WANT the chaos that sudden court declarations make, instead you want to do it in an orderly fashion. Thus I suggest again Marriage Contracts. This is good for the "One Man One Woman" crowd. It works for the "Big Love" crowd. It works unfortunately for gays that wish to be "married" and Bisexuals who wish to express their sexual "preference" in the context of "marriage."

You can't control your neighbor, don't try. Texas just did and see where it got them? Arizona tried 55 years ago with similar results. In a legal climate where there are no cohabitation laws to restrict consenting people from having sex behind closed doors in whatever manner they wish, all you do is end up with people who can't produce a piece of paper to say the state knows about it.

What we need right now is a push to legalize Polygyny which unfortunately will result in other legal relationships. We also need to push at the same time for marriage contracts, maybe push for them even before that. With marriage contracts in place we can say for instance, that marriage is "One Man/One Woman" if we wish to. I think you people are nuts, but to be fair, you people think I AM NUTS. The point being I can help YOU preserve your marriage the way you see it, and you can help me preserve MINE.

Marriage contracts will allow us to do things like predetermine custody, asset splits, those sorts of things. We should go before our legislatures and if we have Neanderthal, backward, stone age concepts of marriage, so be it. I for instance want a marriage contract that says none of my wives can ever do anything but run off and leave. I won't get that, but I might get a contract that says she can run off, but unless she does so for specified predetermined reasons, she gets a check and a "so long." If anybody wishes to join such a "ridiculous" or "sexist" arrangement, that's their problem. You might wish to form a 50-50 partnership. I think YOU'RE nuts, but I can't stop you, that's your problem, not mine.

I cannot realistically ask the state to insulate me from all the consequences what they call a divorce based on my religious beliefs. I might be able to say "I get the kids" up front, unless abused is proved as a crime, in court (not as a custody issue.) If a wife wishes to "play the harlot" then, and leave me, I might still regard her in MY mind as my wife, but I keep the kids, she gets an asset check, she leaves, and the state says she is divorced from my marriage. That would solve a lot of FLDS problems, it would solve a lot of mine, and it might just be something that could be legally accomplished.

Otherwise you're going to have marriage be constantly recreated as a legal concept by the state over and over and over again. The consequences of that are about as ugly as your imaginations can make them.

I think I'm pretty much done with the FLDS controversy. I am not an FBI agent, I don't have the resources of the press. I think I've exposed as much of what is going on as an unemployed man in rural Montana can.

I would like a NEW job, not in the car industry, but promoting legalized polygyny and marriage contract issues. I don't think I'm going to get that job, but you could fool me. Send money. Send enough and I'll incorporate as some sort of advocacy group, "not for profit" or otherwise. I'll do whatever political action thing is necessary to promote the cause. I'll go on Oprah if I have to. I'll finish my book. Whatever. Right now though it looks like I will have to go to work again in, in sales. Sooner or later my public self in business will be merged to my public self in terms of profession and I'll have to give up one, the other, or both. I do have a PayPal button and you CAN tell me you want me to do this. Or not. More →

Sphere: Related Content