No Means NO
This is just great. I picked it up from the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler (ALERT! Overuse of "colorful metaphoric prose").
The issue: civil rights lawyer suing Utah for not allowing plural marriage. I'm really quite amazed that somebody would have the audacity to bring this into the courtroom. "But Jason, you're a Mormon! Isn't that what you want?" Ummm...no.
I don't find polygamy to be morally reprehensible unless it's done without the current spouse's consent, in which case it's just lying and adultry like any other affair. The problem I have is that Utah outlawed polygamy for a reason. That reason was two-fold: 1) people were beginning to abuse the principle (non-consent of current spouses, not being approved by church leaders and other such rules being broken) and 2) the time for it was over. Families were no longer being torn apart by bloodthirsty mobs. Let me repeat the key phrase there: the time for it was over. Apparantly some people do not know how to follow instructions.
As far as our beliefs go, polygamy works like this (paraphrasing God, right out of the Book of Mormon): "If I want it done, I'll tell you to. And I'll give you instructions, and you follow those instructions. And until I tell you to, you are to have one spouse, just like everybody else." On top of that, the actual rules consist of such strict, all-encompassing prose as to make most lawyers squirm. There is no room to "wiggle."
If God were to bring it back, it would not be announce publicly from the pulpit, with all of its rules re-stated, and following legal means. Not from old men marrying 14-year-olds and lying to the government. And said old men, regardless of what they may say, have no part or parcel with the Church. As in excommunicated. We take those kind of offenses seriously. Like a heart-attack.
But onto the actual case.
The lawyer in this civil suit is citing the Supreme Court's overturn of Texas' anti-sodomy law. I find fault with this because of context. If two guys want to do something to each other, fine. I don't approve (and will never approve), but I can't do anything about it. Nor do I think anybody has the right to invade another's privacy to go find out. Enforcing the anti-sodomy law would be unconstitutional to everybody, straight or gay.
Polygamy, however, deals with public records and documents. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints abolished polygamy long before the majority of these documents were around. I'm not talking about marriage/birth/death certificates, but taxes, welfare and other government programs. I'm talking about home loans, car loans and student loans. I don't want some guy getting welfare when he has a family of 26. Especially if he could have supported a normal family of 4-8. Enforcing anti-polygamy (unlike anti-sodomy) is a simple matter of public records, and currently standing laws. The issue has come up before, and hasn't gone anywhere. I pray it stays that way.
13 January, 2004 09:24 | TrackBack
2 Comments
Bugmaster:
I was always a bit puzzled (and, of course, revolted) by this fascination with marriage, which is shared by most monotheistic religions, especially Christianity. These people clearly believe that the matter of whom I choose to live with is more important than the economy, education, budget, war, technological progress, civil liberties, etc., etc. In other words, who cares if the market crumbles around us, if our kids grow up dumber each year, and if the rest of the world is overtaking us in all the major areas of research ? As long as we eliminate these pesky gay marriages and polygamists, we're all set !
I just don't get it. This is like worrying about what color to paint the mast when your entire ship is steering straight into the iceberg. Totally counterproductive.
13 January, 2004 11:42 CSTJason:
First off, I'd like to point out that this is not Christianity decrying some group of people who don't believe as they do. This is a "victim group" (that has been just fine for the last 100 years) saying "I want mine." That's not to say that Christianity won't react to it, just that they didn't start anything. Personally, I find this absolutely sickening.
I have two problems with this. The first is entirely religious, and moot as far as this conversation is concerned.
The second, though, I think is the more serious issue. Utah has referendum and initiative (as I recall). They could use the system. But instead of using their resources, they put a drain on the system with a civil suit. It costs tax money to get it to court. If it's heard, then it costs money throughout the trial. If it succeeds (and polygamy becomes legal), I can promise that every polygamist family out there will come out wanting tax breaks ("I have 45 dependants!!"), welfare, health care and the rest. That is a lot of money. And if it becomes legal, there will most likely be 30,000 more that pop up deciding they want to be polygamist, whether or not they actually believe that way. More drain.
Personally, I think that this particular issue has a significant effect on economy, education, budgets, welfare and health care. Also in the private sector R&D (government can't give incentive grants if the money is going to other programs). That effects technological development. Even though this is just at the state level in Utah, the Bill of Rights "full faith and credit clause" would pretty much extend the ruling to all 50 states.
13 January, 2004 15:59 CSTPost a comment
Trackback
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://metabug.dyndns.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/77
Links to No Means NO:
» More Liberal Drivel or "Isn't Marriage Stupid!" from Lex Libertas
Bug has posted a comment on a post about a court case involving polygamy, over at a friend's webpage. I would just like to point out the not only unsubstantiated but patently false claims, as well as assorted idiocy. I......[read more]
Tracked: January 13, 2004 03:11 PM