The fictional and cinema hero Forrest Gump somehow always managed to turn up at historic moments in the latter twentieth century. But whereas Forrest usually had a positive role to play at the hinges of fate, the equally ubiquitous Hillary Gump usually appeared as a bit player who made things far worse. You ain't seen nothing yet!
BLUF: [Politico] Conventional arguments against polygamy fall apart with even a little examination. Appeals to traditional marriage, and the notion that child rearing is the only legitimate justification of legal marriage, have now, I hope, been exposed and discarded by all progressive people. What's left is a series of jerry-rigged arguments that reflect no coherent moral vision of what marriage is for, and which frequently function as criticisms of traditional marriage as well.
#1
This makes sense,if I can marry another guy, why should I be forbidden to marry a woman I love just because I am already married to someone else?
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia ||
06/29/2015 6:52 Comments ||
Top||
#2
This makes sense,if I can marry another guy, why should I be forbidden to marry a woman I love just because I am already married to someone else?
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia ||
06/29/2015 6:52 Comments ||
Top||
#3
You will now see something that has been simmering for a few years be brought to light for all, yet another collusion between the left and Islam exposed for all to see.
How, exactly?
The academic, NPR-listening pseudointellectual crowd has for quite some time now bought into the idea that when Mormons practice polygamy, it is an example of a white male plot to monopolize women as a resource, but when Muslims practice polygamy, it is a beautiful expression of diversity.
If polygamy is allowed, it will only be allowed for Muslims, not for Mormons.
Remember where you heard it first.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
06/29/2015 8:09 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Its a contract between individuals. The state's interest in such a contract is that any dissolution of it is done as a disinterested third party favoring neither side. That the contract does not bind anyone one else but the parties involved to obligations or entitlements. That the state protect the interests of those physically, mentally, or chronologically unable to do so for themselves.
Get out of the subsidies business and it'll all sort out. Originally it was all about inheritance and property and 'legitimacy', who legally owns what.
#9
I think Alabama had the best response. If the State can't make decisions about who gets to marry, then get the state out of the marriage business altogether. It really takes the wind out of the gay lobby's sails.
Posted by: Menhadden Spawn of the Antelope2599 ||
06/29/2015 11:59 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Because polygamy works so well in the hellholes paradises where it is practiced?
#11
then get the state out of the marriage business altogether That may be the best idea at the state level. I am sure SCOTUS can torture reasoning into forcing all the states to continue to force marriage on their helpless citizens, per the gay lobby.
#17
If the State can't make decisions about who gets to marry, then get the state out of the marriage business altogether. It really takes the wind out of the gay lobby's sails.
Now if they'd start cutting the "subsidies" part of it, it'd really be effective.
#18
Constitutional question: Can the State (or one state of the U.S.) actually be forced to marry people at all?
Posted by: European Conservative ||
06/29/2015 17:13 Comments ||
Top||
#19
Per SCOTUS today, what Constitution? The 10th Amendment covered that question, but SCOTUS has ignored that addition for many decades now. That leaves the feds to pick up the job. see - Obamacare state exchanges.
#20
In a different direction, suppose we had recognition of mutual responsibility/joint ownership in an extended family, as with brothers and sisters sharing a house and income. The state would get less tax, so it won't happen spontaneously, but it would be very useful for several families I know.
Posted by: James ||
06/29/2015 18:13 Comments ||
Top||
#21
If the 21nd amendment limits the 18th amendment, then the 14th amendment limits the 10th.
Knowing a few of these folks, and the people who seek funding for them, I could see that happening.
Posted by: Mullah Richard ||
06/29/2015 20:49 Comments ||
Top||
#23
#21, limits but does not dissolve. Otherwise, think of the 'efficiency' of doing away with 50 redundant bureaucracies that merely exist to carry out the whim of those who sit for life.
#24
It should be noted that although polygamy was tolerated in the early history of the Mormon Church the practice has been officially banned by the Mormon Church since 1889. Although polygamy was banned in 1889 it still persisted among some church members for about 15 years. In 1904 any church member found to be engaging in polygamy were excommunicated from the church and banned from entering church property.
I am not a member of the Mormon Church. But I am aware that many members of the Mormon Church do consider any suggestion that they do or would consider engaging in polygamy to be offensive and repugnant.
Just because some members of other religions owned slaves more than a hundred years ago does that mean members of those same religions should be accused of believing in slavery today ?
Just something I feel people should be aware of.
#25
How would polygamy affect joint tax returns? Three (or more) exemptions? And I have cats - why can't I marry them and claim multiple spousal exemptions?
[PJMedia] ...On Friday my phone was blowing up with messages, asking if I'd seen the news. Some expressed disbelief at the headlines. Many said they were crying.
None of them were talking about the dozens of people gunned down in Sousse, Tunisia, by a man who, dressed as a tourist, had hidden his Kalashnikov inside a beach umbrella. Not one was crying over the beheading in a terrorist attack at a chemical factory near Lyon, France. The victim's head was found on a pike near the factory, his body covered with Arabic inscriptions. And no Facebook friends mentioned the first suicide bombing in Kuwait in more than two decades, in which 27 people were murdered in one of the oldest Shiite mosques in the country.
They were talking about the only news that mattered: gay marriage.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
