Vermont Political Action on Polygyny? $60.00. Winning the battle? Priceless.

The goal is to hit the ground running. The "Pay Pal" button is on the right. To that end I visited with the Vermont Secretary of State's office on 26 Terrace Street in Montpelier.

The likelihood of drafting a bill, introducing it into Vermont's legislature and gaining passage prior to the end of the current legislative session is very low. It's probably better than me winning the lottery, provided I buy a lotto ticket, but not much better.

The best way to gain legal status right now for polygyny in Vermont is to strike, through court action, the word "two" from the current marriage law of Vermont, as altered through SB-115. For that I need a test case, and I need donations. Pure and simple.

As a lobbyist in the state of Vermont, I can solicit money to any amount, and must report such donations at the time when I reach a spending level of $500.00 related to my lobbying activity. It costs a minimum of $60.00 to register for that activity, so I will be registering when I get $60.00 in donations which I am actively soliciting beginning NOW.

When I reach $500.00 in spending I am required to file forms with the State of Vermont detailing financial activity. That activity I will keep track of publicly, either here, or on some other public site.

This is your chance to be serious about legal polygamy which would detach polygamy from the myths of "child abuse," pedophilia and rape. I know you're out there, I know you fear persecution. I know you have in some cases, already been persecuted. If this had happened two years ago, and had this action been taken, such as I am taking right now, YFZ could have been averted.

Beyond money, I need legal help, preferably from inside Vermont.

Beyond legal help, I need a test case, preferably again, a "trio" or better from inside Vermont that wishes to attempt to register their marriage legally through the state of Vermont. This would involve going as soon as possible to Vermont and asking for a marriage license which would be denied based on the fact that it is to a man already married.

I will not promote a polyandry as a test case.

I will not promote a group marriage as a test case.

I will not promote a bisexual union of more than one woman with a man as a test case.

This effort will be to promote the union of one man with more than one woman legally in a relationship that is stated to be heterosexual.

The time is now. If you don't join with me and support this effort, you aren't serious about protecting polygyny or your families. It's entirely possible that if action is taken quickly, the first polygynous union could occur before the end of this year.

While the effort is ongoing to gain court approval, there will be an effort beginning in 2010 in Vermont's annual legislative session to strike the word "two" from our marriage law. That stands less of a chance of approval, but will gain attention for the cause.

I'm willing to go on point. Support me or don't complain about persecution. This is certainly one of the main reasons I have been moved to Vermont by the LORD our God. I cannot divine his complete purpose, but for me to enter the fray at this point I have little doubt of God's purpose. The outcome I pray, and I hope you will pray as well, will be in keeping with his best intents for us as believers.

I'm entirely willing to believe if you don't support me personally in this cause, you still support legalization of polygyny, but you would have to support someone. If that person is not me, I really think I should do less banging of my head against the wall on this issue. You, the reader, who alleges to support polygyny, I cannot regard as serious.

So support ME, in this cause NOW, or support SOMEONE and if you find that someone, let ME know who they are so that I can in turn support them. Support no one and I have to regard you collectively as dilettantes and ultimately cowards, at this moment of historic opportunity.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

What did I tell you?

On me!

"[If the Court accepts gay and lesbian Appellant's argument for] separating the [marriage] statutes from their language and their historical foundations, the groundwork will be laid for other groups to claim the right to marry. The most obvious are polygamists and proponents of group marriage. Following the arguments of Appellants, such persons would have strong claims to fit within the 'purposes' of the marriage statutes."

Before the Supreme Court, Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell as found in the Rutland Herald.

Contact me now if you wish to start a group to push for the legalization of Polygamy in Vermont.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Vermont House Overrides Gay "Marriage" Veto (UPDATED)

The House vote was 100 to Override the veto, 49 to sustain. I listened to the vote via streaming, FoxNews and CNN also confirm S-115's passage.

Polygamy could easily be next. It is one word and one court case away in Vermont.

Hitting the vote total exactly at 100 suggests the outcome was not in doubt, and all those not needed were released to vote politically to sustain the Governor's veto.

Since the debate is over, I will be removing most blogs referencing the subject. Vermont now joins Sodom, Gomorrah and Gibeah as the first states to legalize gay marriage through assent of the governed.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Why the Vermont Veto of Gay "Marriage" will be overriden (UPDATED).

Vermont Public Radio has an analysis of the upcoming veto override vote in the Vermont State House. The Senate has overriden the veto 23-5 as expected according to the Times-Argus.

"Backers of the bill need 100 votes today in the House to override the governor's veto. Middlebury College political science professor emeritus Eric Davis thinks there are several things have to happen for supporters to reach this total.

First, he says the 5 Republicans who voted for the bill last week need to support the override motion.

Davis thinks this will happen because, unlike other override votes in recent years, the Governor has made a conscious decision not to pressure the Republicans to support his veto..."

This means the Governor is walking the tightrope of trying to have it both ways. It's like he's saying "Stop, or I'll write nasty letters" as opposed to "Stop, or I'll shoot." For the moralistic Republican Crowd (which in general I would have to identify myself with) this amounts to a sop and a real chance. A sop in the sense that he's not fully behind it. It's not like the Governor is going to go out and strong arming party members to hold the line. It's a real chance in that anything can happen. I have been given numerous examples of Democrat/Liberal legislative posturing in this state's recent past that has bills brought to the floor, only to flop in embarrassing ways. This is Vermont, not DC.

Vermont's moralists do in fact stand a chance of holding onto enough votes to uphold the veto. I doubt they will do so if they do nothing, and it's by no means a sure thing that the can sustain the veto if they turn up the heat full blast, but they have a chance. If though certain Democrats opposed to the bill initially, and Republicans, change their votes, it will be because of the window dressing of slightly "substantive" improvements to the bill.

"Bennington Senator Dick Sears - the chairman of the Judiciary Committee - explained that there were only a few changes between this version and one that cleared the Senate last month. Sears said one change made it absolutely clear that religious institutions are not obligated to support same sex marriages.

'(Sears) For example, a same sex couple who wants to get married under our new version wants to use the Knights of Columbus hall. This would allow the Knights of Columbus to say no.' "

This sets the stage for departures from Governor Douglas' unenthusiastic veto of SB-115 and for him to have it both ways. He will be remembered by Moralists as being the man who stood by Traditional Marriage. He hopes that GLBT types will forgive him as doing what he had to do and because it's a long time until his next reelection campaign, sorta like Senator Max Bauchus of Montana voting against the gun lobby right after he was elected a few years back. He was right. By the time he was up for reelection, people had forgiven or forgotten.

The House is debating the Veto right now, and until it is over, you can listen HERE. One of the debate points being made is that the issue will keep coming back, until it passes. The Vermont House overrode the veto, 100-49 as noted above.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Governor Douglas Vetos Vermont Gay "Marriage" Bill

Setting up an override showdown tomorrow morning, Vermont Governor Jim Douglas exercised his constitutional power to kill SB-115.

More at "Vermont Freedom to Marry"

This sets the stage for an override vote. Here is the "Green Mountain Daily's" take on the fight:

"If the pro-equality Republicans hold - and that is a big if (when it comes to Republicans, I am generally highly cynical these days... hopefully I'll be proven wrong), given that Rep. Westman joined their number, that would leave pro-equality 4 votes short, assuming everyone is there (and I'm still hopeful that some of the no-voting Dems will get the - ah - blue flu).

One vote, as has been pointed out already, could come from the Speaker. And the other three may already have lined up. It's already out there that no-voting Democratic Representatives Sonny Audette (South Burlington) and Debbie Evans (Essex) are indicating they will vote for the override as a matter of respect for the process, if not a change of heart on the bill itself. Word from the Statehouse is that Representative Bob South (St. Johnsbury) may be the 4th vote that puts the override over. No word on the other no votes - including Winooski's two Democratic Representatives, who could well find themselves primaried from their intransigence on this issue."

Earlier last week, Bennington Republican Rep. Joseph L. Krawczyk Jr. was singing the opposite tune.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Forecasting Vermont S-115, supporters in State House to Come out of Closet

We don't know what the behind the scenes transactions are, but at least one Vermont Republican thinks there will be 6 more votes added to the total of 94 votes in favor of Gay "Marriage" that will overcome a "for show" veto by Governor Douglas.

UPI - "Rep. Joseph L. Krawczyk Jr., a Bennington Republican who voted against the bill, said its supporters likely will find the necessary votes to override a veto."

Which means certain nervous legislators that are now telling "Traditional" marriage supporters they won't vote for S-115, will.

It is of course, not over until it's over but it looks like Joe Knows something. As always, I remain divided on the bill. I cannot of course support "traditional" marriage as formulated by it's supporters. To me, it's not really traditional. I cannot support the notion that the state defines marriage in any way shape or form and thus don't think Gays will be able to marry despite what the state says at the end of this abominable process.

Nevertheless I am mindful of the fact that we are one court case or legislative act away from accepting true traditional marriage as marriage. If the word "two" goes out the window in Vermont's law at some point in the future, it works for me.

One of two scenarios will occur. A polygamist of some stripe will sue to have their marriage recognized. I'm betting on a "polyandry" myself. Gays in Vermont have led with Lesbian "couples" as that seems somehow to take the edge off the whole business. Statistically there are more male homosexuals, but Lesbians have a more "poster child" quality to them.

Another scenario is that a bisexual trio or group will sue to be able to marry. The latter will plead sexual preference and point out quite correctly that if gays wish to have their marriages arrangements defer to their sexual orientation, there can be no barrier to a bisexual wishing to have his or her preferences/orientations "sanctified" by the state as well.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Iowa Goes Gay, Douglas will veto in Vermont.

While Vermont is going about it the legislative way, Iowa jumps around the voters, and does it through the courts.

CNN - "Iowa will become the third state in the nation to allow same-sex marriage, after Massachusetts and Connecticut.

Not everyone was pleased.

'It's, quite frankly, a disaster,' said Brian English, a spokesman for the Iowa Family Policy Center, a nonprofit research and educational organization committed to strengthening the family.

'Obviously, we're extremely disappointed,' he said. 'We're saddened. Perhaps a little bit surprised in the unanimous decision that the court handed down.'

English, who said opponents of gay marriage prayed outside the courthouse Friday as they awaited the court's decision, already has begun lobbying the legislature for an Iowa Marriage Amendment.

'It (the proposed amendment) will be very brief. It will reaffirm in the state constitution that marriage is the union of one man and one woman,' he said. 'We're beginning the next step in the process.'

A spokesman for One Iowa, which supports gay and lesbian equality, said the earliest the issue could get on a ballot would be 2012."

That's along way off and quite a few people will doubtless "marry" in Iowa, making it the heartland's first to attempt to redefine marriage through the courts. Yet we continue to persecute polygynists. Just as we have no stomach for protracted war, for whatever the cause, the American voter has no stomach for fighting Gay "Marriage." Eventually the fact that their lives don't change much in the short term will lead the myopic electorate to say that it doesn't affect them, so it doesn't matter, and shut the religious right up by passing a law, or not passing their amendment. Oh, the inevitability of decay.

Meanwhile in Vermont, the house has fallen (so far) five votes short of being able to override a Governor Douglas veto. It's all so much theatre though. Just as the Senate intially seemed to resist cloture and stopping the bailout, they eventually gave in. Expect that the remaining five votes will be found somewhere with legislators pleading with Governor Douglas behind the scene to let the law pass without veto, so they can keep their quiet support for the bill, quiet.

Reuters - "Lawmakers in the Democratic-led House voted 95-52 in support of the measure, which had already passed the state Senate by a 26-4 vote. Advocates were five votes short of the two-thirds majority needed to override a veto.

The bill, which faces a largely procedural vote (today) before heading to the desk of Republican Governor Jim Douglas, would have made Vermont the third U.S. state, after Connecticut and Massachusetts, to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry. California briefly recognized gay marriage until voters banned it in a referendum last year.

Lawmakers in New Hampshire and Maine are also considering bills to allow gay marriage, putting New England at the heart of a divisive national debate over the issue."

It's coming, and it's coming in a landslide while opportunistic gay rights activists put on the full court press believing this is the best time to entrench such practices, while there is a liberal Washington.

I've been warning Christendom about this now for years. It is best to take the legislative path, and get what you can get in exchange for this inevitability. What we can get, is protection for our forms of marriage. Otherwise, we will merely be defeated and marginalized.

Vermont, if it overrides a Douglas veto, is one word and one court case away, from legal polygamy.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Gay Marriage Bill marches towards passage in Vermont House.

"Vermont Freedom to Marry" has the story.

"The Vermont House of Representatives voted by an overwhelming margin to support the freedom to marry. The vote total was 95-52."

There were some amendments designed to quell fears on the traditional marriage side of the aisle or at least placate those persons for the time being. Governor Douglas is expected to veto the final version in what has to be termed a symbolic gesture.

"After the final house vote tomorrow (Friday the 3rd), we expect the Senate to concur with the House amendments before promptly forwarding the bill to the Governor. The override vote may come as early as Tuesday."

Vermont will then become the first state to allow gay "marriage" by some function of the people's will.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

The Beginning of Monogamy as Marriage? Matthew 19

It is primarily the misinterpretation of Matthew 19, and Christ's words about divorce, that has led to the error of portraying monogamy as the equivalent to marriage.

That, and probably the fact that Christianity grew up in an officially monogamous culture, the Roman Empire. Early on, culturally polluted Christians began to look for ways to justify what it is they did as a matter of cultural conditioning, inside of their belief. That's normal. We all do it. The task of Christians is to become more like Christ, to live more as Christians first, than as Romans, or part of the vast cultural known as "the West" that grew out of Rome.

Let's look at Matthew 19, and how it pertains to the idea of Monogamy as Marriage.

"And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, 'Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?' He answered, 'Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh?" So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.' They said to him, 'Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?' He said to them, 'Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.' The disciples said to him, 'If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.' But he said to them, 'Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.' "

Score one for the home team right away. Jesus does debate the issue with the Pharisees, which is a good sign. He chastens those whom he loves. When dealing with the Sadducees Jesus backhands them as essentially ignorant of the word. Whatever a Pharisee is, it is the Pharisees that are included among the roles of the early Church, we never hear from the Sadducees again.

What is this passage about? Well, divorce primarily and not as it is frequently said to be, about monogamy. This comes from the frequent cultural coloration of the passage that monogamy is marriage, so when the two become one, it's a monogamy and that's obvious, isn't it? No, it's circular.

When Jesus says "but from the beginning, it was not so," he refers to divorce. What has changed since the fall? The advent of divorce Christ says. What was marriage like in the beginning? It was permanent for our lifetimes. Absent the influence of sin there would be no divorce.

I have remarked before that great truths are discovered in the sidebars of scripture. Like many before him, Pastor Marty Braemer asserted that the sidebar here was "only the two become one" and that this was a sort of reaction like nuclear fusion, where two hydrogen atoms are altered into helium, and no other reaction is possible. Single atoms of hydrogen are highly reactive and can form bonds. Helium is a noble gas, bonding with nothing.

This is a strong point, that I understand, but it doesn't conform with the rest of scripture. Either Christ restarts the marriage contract here, or condemns marriage modifications that have occurred in the interim. Let's focus though on what Christ says about Genesis 2:24, which he quotes and then pronounces that whatever that passage meant, it simply does not change.

I contend Genesis 2:24 becomes ammunition for the pro polygyny side of the argument. You must keep in mind always that while the order of these events takes place over a long period of time, the final compilation or chronicling of the events of Genesis occurs contemporaneously with those of Exodus. Please be aware that I by no means attack the veracity of the Holy Scriptures in observing this, but the LORD in his infinite wisdom chooses the same moments in time to share with us his Holy Law and record the events of the other four books of the Pentateuch or "Torah" as he does Genesis. I assume as most Reformed people do, that Moses penned "Genesis" (the final edition) and did so with God's watchful blessing. It is inspired. It is correct, but it is contemporary to the other scriptures of the early Bible.

With this tucked away in the back of our minds we should realize that it is entirely possible that Moses wrote Deuteronomy for instance, before he wrote or completed Genesis. Certainly that would be more true for books like Exodus than it would be for Deuteronomy or Numbers or Leviticus. They could have been written concurrently. They could have been written in various non chronological orders. Is the "First Book of Moses" the First written or is the "First Book of Moses" (Genesis) the first book in the Chronicle of God and his people and that is why it is referred to as the "First Book?"

Whatever order they come in, they are written in Moses voice, with his understanding of Hebrew and inspired and commissioned at the same point in the Covenant of God with his people, which brings us to this. The utterance of the words in Genesis 2:24 are NOT words spoken in the Garden of Eden. They are an analysis by Moses, inspired by God in Sinai, as Moses is receiving and transcribing the law, and possibly afterward, in the light of the law he has just received. It is Moses whose face, shining with that light pronounces those words over the first marriage. It is Christ who then repeats those words in Matthew 19 and draws a plumb line taught over the law, and drops it straight across the law and pronounces that it does not change. Undeviating. Straight. Unchanged. Unchangeable. Whatever therefore is contained in the law, that is descriptive of marriage, was contained, at least as a potential, in the first definition of marriage.

This means that polygyny was envisioned by God at the beginning, and decided by God to be a form of marriage. The alternate possibility is that yes, marriage is a monogamy but then a man is not limited to the number of monogamies he enters into, but a woman is. Yes, each marriage is a oneness, but similar to your children having only one father, or one mother, a wife can only have one husband, but a parent can have many children. Either way you conceive of it, it was a planned inclusion because no sooner than the LORD has spoken of adultery in Exodus 20, he provides for mulitple wives in Exodus 21. He regulates them in numerous places in the Law HE gave to Moses (Leviticus 18 being most prominent). Christ, the Son, is present for all of these things as part of the Godhead.

There is also the issue of the Hebrew word for woman or wife not even having a plural or singular form, it is like the English word "Sheep." You have one sheep, or many sheep or two sheep. It's all the same.

God himself says that he "wives" or "marries" or joins many curtains and parts of the temple together, as one.

It's hard to get a concept of monogamy from a word that doesn't have a singular form and it is hard to get an endorsement of monogamy as an exclusive form of marriage from a God who is on the one hand thundering against adultery and no sooner than he has done that, he is regulating the practice of marriages to one man, without a breath of sin or condemnation pronounced in that regulation.

It's hard to think that while God is slaying his own people in multiples of thousands for their various sins and interactions with pagan cultures, that while his wandering people spend 40 years being purified and having the "Egypt" beaten out of them, that the LORD makes concessions to those very cultures and their practices that he is in the process of stamping out and stamping out of his people. The simplest explanation is that God is regulating polygyny as he does monogamy without negative comment, because neither are wrong, in the slightest.

The other alternative? As alleged by many, Christ changes the definition of marriage, and it's practice, all while saying it doesn't change, and hasn't, since the beginning. That's ridiculous.

With this post I begin the writing of a short book or pamphlet on marriage forms as presented in God's word. I invite comments. If I left out something, let me know. Any who wish to debate the topic also are invited to offer their view, as Iron does indeed, sharpen Iron. Expect there to be modifications of this post. If a comment prompts that, I shall acknowledge the change in comments.

I also go before prominent men in my church Sunday, God willing, to discuss this topic. Your prayers are welcome for our mutual edification.

In that a Gay "Marriage" bill is before the Vermont house, and soon to be passed, I would note that the next step is merely the removal of the word "Two" from the description of marriage in Vermont, and then polygamy would be legal.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Gay "Marriage" bill passes Vermont Senate Easily (UPDATED)

Edging closer to being the first State to welcome gay marriage legislatively, Vermont's Senate passed S-115 by a vote of 26-4. I sit here and watch from a few blocks away, as we squander our chance to protect ourselves. (UPDATE - The bill did pass overcoming a Veto on the way.)

I still believe that we could create legal cul de sacs in which to defend marriage from a Christian point of view and used such legislation as a sort of Trojan Horse to do so. When the gay community begins to get it's way though, they will increasingly oppose any attempts to accommodate, believing themselves to be able to define their own aggressive agenda. And so the opportunity passes.

The Barre Montpelier Times-Argus - "(A) handful of Republicans join(ed) their Democratic colleagues in supporting the same-sex marriage bill, which would make Vermont the third state in the country to allow gays and lesbians to marry.

Senators are expected to easily give the bill final approval in a procedural vote today to make way for the start of hearings before the House Judiciary Committee, which will begin at the Statehouse this afternoon."

The Vermont house side of the debate will probably start this afternoon while we tilt at the windmill of stopping it's passage.

The most disgusting thing about being a conservative, both politically and sociologically is watching us pout when we don't get our way, and end up getting nothing as a result. "If we insist on perfection or nothing in any area in this fallen world, we will have nothing every time." - Dr. Francis A. Schaeffer. Perhaps worse.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Further Testimony on Vermont's "Right to Marry"

The Reformation is officially a less than 500 year old movement. The representation of "Historic Christianity" as being a monogamous tradtion, or even supposing to go back before that into Judaism denies the existence of Holy Roman Emperor Charlemagne, the practice of polygyny among Anabaptists during the reformation and the practice of it by protestant hymn writers like Martin Madan.

Dr. Selle, purporting to represent the "growing" evangelical protestant movement in Vermont, offers the following:

"Marriage is a public legal lifelong commitment between a man and a woman, that's the historic Christian and the Evangelical Protestant view. The Government (this is the point), the Government has the important task to protect and defend and foster marriage."

I disagree, the government should perhaps be in the business of defending it, but it would best defend it by simply viewing marriage as a contract and making the least number of regulations with regard to it, leaving us free to contract ourselves for marriage. The government does not inspect contracts, unless they fail. When you get your car repossessed, arguably something that may do more damage to you socially than a divorce, the government does not get involved, most of the time. The bank shows up with your contract, declares that you are in default, cites it's remedies, and takes your car. Only if they seek a judgment to recover deficiency does the issue show up in court. Marriage should be this way as well. So should the unfortunate occurrence of divorce. There are plenty of contracts that are executed, completed and resolved without the involvement of the courts. The courts are not necessary.

"It is the fundamental building block of all societies and cultures. Since the reformation, the government has been seen as such a protector, and therefore we would not accept as a legitimate compromise, a state marriage as a generic genderless civil act which then churches and religious people can tack on tack on their own little religious ceremonies as an add on, that simply will not cut it with this constituency."

I in fact would love to see a generic relationship contract where we could in fact tack on our own little religious ceremonies or addendums.

Marriage in the Bible is not a religious ceremony. It is not a sacrament. A religious ceremony is certainly not ruled out, but it's not required and there is no example of it in scripture nor is there a suggestion there should be such a ceremony.

Marriage in the Bible is never said to be a civil act either. Again, there is no example of such an occurrence, nor is there a suggestion that there should be such a civil oversight function.

Marriage in the scriptures are acts engaged in by private parties. The only public thing about them is that everyone tends to know there is a marriage. The only legal writ associated with a marriage in the Bible is the act of it's dissolution, divorce. That is the only event connected to marriage said to be in writing. A writ of divorcement essentially became a woman's license to act on her own, having been set aside by her husband.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

A word about "Gay Marriage" blogroll additions

You may notice I have added (for the time being), a few blogs about Vermont Marriage Legislation, and some are from the Gay/Lesbian/Homosexual perspective.

It should be noted that in attempting to find sources of information on the topic, they're the only place to go. Vermont Freedom to Marry keeps an excellent archive of Vermont hearings and public comment. I haven't found anyone else doing so. They're offered by the pro "gay marriage" site without comment, which is to their credit. Of course, it's easy to be above the fray in appearance, when you're winning the legislative war.

It is my intention to remove most of such pro "gay marriage" sites from the blogroll when the issue is passed or fails, until it perhaps, comes up again. The number of exceedingly vile sites that came up when I researched the topic was surprising even for me. I of course, did not link to them.

Hopefully the readership of the Modern Pharisee will take the information at face value and appreciate the fact that I already did a little research, and kept you away from opinions that while relevant, are perhaps too extreme for the Christian sensibility.

Statistically, it is my understanding that gay men represent a greater portion of the entire homosexual community than do lesbians. It then becomes interesting that the majority of testimony on the homosexual side of public comment, is coming from "Lesbian Partners" and advocates of "gay marriage." That then asks the question of whether or not the gay male side of the issue isn't so presentable, for the camera, or suggests that we are more accepting of Lesbians, than gay men.

Such legislation is of interest, because it is a legal precursor to legalized polygyny and polygamy. I do not see the issues as morally connected, but they are legally connected.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Sue Sweeney asks, "Which Tradition?" "The Old Testament Tradition?"

Is it the New Testament Tradition Sue asks, or the Old where a man could have as many wives as he wanted?

Which gets right to the heart of it. If, she is asking between the lines, we can redefine marriage to be ONLY one man and ONLY one woman from one man and however many women, can't we do that again?

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Vermont Gay Marriage, What's next? POLYGAMY?

I believe this reveals that our greatest concern in the churches, is not "Gay Marriage," but polygamy (polygyny). We would rather have homosexuals in our pews as "couples" than polygynists as heterosexuals.

Why do I say this? At least two people testifying here, one of whom I know, state; WHAT'S NEXT? POLYGAMY? and then go on to lump it with child sex and beastiality.

By ordering their words in this way they reveal that what worries them is Gay Marriage, but what worries them more? Polygamy.

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