Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: "marriage is between a man and a woman ... and a woman and a woman.

Posted 2 years ago on June 1, 2012, 5:17 a.m. EST by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

JENNIFER DOBNER AND GLEN JOHNSON | February 24, 2007 09:25 PM EST |

Compare other versions » SALT LAKE CITY — While Mitt Romney condemns polygamy and its prior practice by his Mormon church, the Republican presidential candidate's great-grandfather had five wives and at least one of his great-great grandfathers had 12.

Polygamy was not just a historical footnote, but a prominent element in the family tree of the former Massachusetts governor now seeking to become the first Mormon president.

Romney's great-grandfather, Miles Park Romney, married his fifth wife in 1897. That was more than six years after Mormon leaders banned polygamy and more than three decades after a federal law barred the practice.

Romney's great-grandmother, Hannah Hood Hill, was the daughter of polygamists. She wrote vividly in her autobiography about how she "used to walk the floor and shed tears of sorrow" over her own husband's multiple marriages.

Top NewsTop Posts

Romney's great-great grandfather, Parley Pratt, an apostle in the church, had 12 wives. In an 1852 sermon, Parley Pratt's brother and fellow apostle, Orson Pratt, became the first church official to publicly proclaim and defend polygamy as a direct revelation from God.

Romney's father, former Michigan Gov. George Romney, was born in Chihuahua, Mexico, where Mormons fled in the 1800s to escape religious persecution and U.S. laws forbidding polygamy. He and his family did not return to the United States until 1912, more than two decades after the church issued "The Manifesto" banning polygamy. "When you read the family's history, you realize how important polygamy was to them," said Todd Compton, a Mormon and independent historian who wrote a book about the polygamous life of the church's founder, Joseph Smith. "They left America and started again as pioneers, after they had done it over and over again previously."

B. Carmon Hardy, a polygamy expert and retired history professor at California State University-Fullerton, said polygamy was "a very important part of Miles Park Romney's family."

Hardy added: "Now, very gradually, as you moved farther away from it, it became less a part of it. But during the time of Miles Park Romney, it was an essential principle of the Romney family life." Other Mormons have run for the White House, including Romney's father in 1968 and Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, in 2000. But Mitt Romney's stature as a leading 2008 contender has renewed questions about his faith and its doctrines.

At the same time, polygamy remains a part of current events. HBO is airing a television series, "Big Love," that features a man in Utah _ where the Mormon church is based _ with three wives. Self-proclaimed "Mormon fundamentalist" Warren Jeffs, formerly on the FBI's 10 most wanted list, is facing multiple felony charges for sex crimes related to underage marriages among members of his breakaway church's 10,000 members in Utah and Arizona, who openly practice polygamy.

Romney has joked about polygamy, saying in various settings that to him, "marriage is between a man and a woman ... and a woman and a woman." But in serious moments he has called the practice "bizarre" and noted his church excommunicates those who engage in it.

An introductory film played at his fundraisers and campaign appearances features his wife, Ann, talking about their 37-year marriage. Romney himself notes they started as high school sweethearts.

This month, Ann Romney tried a different tack, taking a lighthearted jab at her husband's main Republican competitors, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, as she introduced Romney at a Missouri GOP dinner.

The biggest difference between her husband and the other candidates, Ann Romney said, is that "he's had only one wife." McCain has been married twice; Giuliani three times. The Romney campaign had no comment for this story. Joseph Smith, who founded the Mormon church in 1830, quietly introduced polygamy. He believed it had roots in the Old Testament and was necessary to reach the highest salvation in heaven. Smith is believed to have had 33 wives.

Brigham Young expanded the practice after the church's migration from the Midwest to Utah, which began in 1846. He is said to have had 55 wives. Historical texts show Young also asked Orson Pratt to publicly proclaim the church's belief in polygamy in 1852. In 1862, while Utah was a territory, President Abraham Lincoln signed the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act, banning plural marriage. In 1882, Congress also passed the Edmunds Act, an anti-polygamy law. That was followed in 1887 by the Edmunds-Tucker Act, which disincorporated the church and threatened to seize its nonreligious real estate as part of the crackdown on polygamy.

In 1890, Mormon President Wilford Woodruff issued "The Manifesto," in which he declared the church no longer taught or permitted plural marriages.

Nonetheless, the law of polygamy _ Smith's revelation that God authorized polygamy _ remains in Article 132 of the church's Doctrine and Covenants. In addition, Mormon widowers who remarry today believe they will live in eternity with their multiple wives.

Mormon genealogical records, among the most detailed and complete of any religion, show that two of Mitt Romney's great-great grandfathers, Miles Romney and Parley Pratt, had 12 wives each.

Compton, the polygamy scholar, disputes that. He believes Miles Romney only had one wife because the records do not show the dates for his other 11 marriages or any offspring from them. Miles Romney and his one clearly documented wife, Elizabeth Gaskell, had 10 children. Among them was Miles Park Romney, one of Mitt Romney's great-grandfathers.

Miles Park Romney had five wives. With his first wife, Hannah Hood Hill, he had 11 children. Among them was Gaskell Romney, Mitt Romney's paternal grandfather.

Hannah Hood Hill's autobiography offers an eyewitness account of the Romney family's polygamous past. Hardy, the Cal-State historian, found it amid research for his upcoming book, "Doing the Works of Abraham: Mormon Polygamy."

Hood Hill wrote of Miles Park Romney: "I felt that was more than I could endure, to have him divide his time and affections from me. I used to walk the floor and shed tears of sorrow. If anything will make a woman's heart ache, it is for her husband to take another wife. ... But I put my trust in my heavenly father, and prayed and pleaded with him to give me strength to bear this great trial." Miles Park Romney's final marriage, to Emily Eyring Smith, came in 1897, more than six years after "The Manifesto."

Gaskell Romney, Mitt Romney's grandfather, was not a polygamist. He married Anna Amelia Pratt, the daughter of polygamists and the granddaughter of Parley Pratt, the apostle with 12 wives. Their marriage took place Feb. 20, 1895, in Dublan, Mexico . Gaskell Romney had moved to Mexico with his parents in 1884 amid the proliferation of U.S. laws prohibiting "unlawful cohabitation." Anna Pratt was born in Utah, but had emigrated to Mexico and lived in one of nine Mormon colonies established over the border.

Gaskell Romney and Anna Pratt had seven children, including George Wilcken Romney, the former Michigan governor. He lived with his parents in Mexico until 1912, when the family returned to the United States.

George Romney married Lenore LaFount, who does not appear to have polygamy in her family tree. The couple, now deceased, had four children, including Mitt Romney.


63 Comments

63 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by writerconsidered123 (344) 2 years ago

huh people polygamy is not a hereditary disease and even if it is it skipped mittens. If you want to attack his personal views on gay marriage you don't need to attack his forfathers religous practice. Gay marriage is a stand alone issue.

And the dumbest part of all this is marriage is a state rights issue. The federal government doesn't make these decisions

[+] -5 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Mittens' Church outwardly abandoned polygamy after thirty years of resistance under extreme intense pressure: http://www.mormonheretic.org/2009/09/19/the-anti-polygamy-raids/

Mittens is a practiced liar as are the leaders of his church (of which he is actually one) who model themselves after the conman prophet Joseph Smith. So, when he disparages polygamy and claims that marriage is meant for a man and a woman he is either in open opposition to his church's continuing religious doctrine or he is lying, lying like a Mormon.

[-] 3 points by writerconsidered123 (344) 2 years ago

get back to me on that when you find is other wifes

[+] -4 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

It's not about whether or not Romney is a secret polygamist. It's about lying and deception.

I agree that monogmy especially as we know it is a crock. For men of means especially it's always been a fiction. They've always had access to mistresses, prostitutes, women under their employ, etc. Monogamy was intended for certain women to adhere to, so that these men could be sure that they really were "baby's daddy". Mormon style polygamy takes this to a higher level. I am not even so much shouting about it as I am shouting about mormon secrecy, dishonesty, deceptiveness about it.

They simply flat out lie when they praise monogamous heterosexuality as their norm. They will do and say whatever it takes to get access to power. Their ultimate goal is domination. They tried it in Utah.

[-] 3 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

I don't believe the government or other people should have any influence in the voluntary sexual decisions of adults. That is not a government issue or the business of anyone outside of the people engaging in that practice, whether it's called marriage or not.

While I may not care for Mitt Romney and would certainly not vote for him, my decisions have nothng to do with his ancestry. My ancestors were slave owners in Russell County, Virginia. Does that mean I should be held responsible for their decisions?

Of course not, and he is no more responsible for what his ancestors did than you are. If you mean that he shouldn't be elected because of his religious beliefs, whether you agree with them or not, you're treading on thin ice.

[-] -2 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

http://occupywallst.org/forum/marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman-and-a-woman-/#comment-752107

You are missing the point. Of course Mormons should have the legally protected right to believe whatever stupidity they want to. They don't have any more right to violate laws (through actions) than do the Massai devinely inspired cattle thieves were they to settle here en masse.

My ancestors probably were not slave owners, certainly not in the US, but my heritage as a Jewish born person includes slave buying and selling. I'm not responsible for those deeds of other individuals long ago just responsible for reaping benefit and advantage from it. It puts a certain moral pressure on me to be and act correctly, especially towards the descendants of slaves.

And Romeny shouldn't be elected for his religious beliefs because those beliefs are odious and are political. They help explain his gross dishonesty. Etch a sketch that.

[-] 2 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

I feel no moral imperative for what my ancestors did or did not do. I don't care what they did.

Do you single out Romney--who by the way I don't like--as the only grossly dishonest politician? You can't be that naive.

[-] -3 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

It's not about what ancestors did, you weren't thee and neither was I. It's about benefiting from their crimes, inheriting wealth and/or advantage. It's about other people having been hobbled over generations because of those crimes.

[-] 2 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

The only thing we can hope to change is ahead of us. Let the past die, otherwise you'll be chained to it. Let's work on changing the future using real issues not membership in a legal, religious cult.

The LDS do not practice baby eating or euthanasia.

I notice you bring up the fighting in Missouri. That was not initiated by Joseph Smith, crazy as he might have been, or his followers. Rather residents of the surrounding area attacked the Mormons and forced them out of the state.

From there the fledgling cult moved to Nauvoo, Illinois. Once again people from the area, frightened because of the quick spread of Mormonism and Smith's growing power, attacked the Mormons, this time capturing Joseph Smith and killing him in Carthage, Illinois.

[-] -3 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

True what you say. Mormons aroused well deserved opposition as they could dominate a region politically and economically due to their cohesion and discipline. That means they could marginalize, pauperize and ultimately cleanse out or convert their neighbors. Their neighbors reacted in self defense.

Oh, a Mormon youth actually told the truth about mormon political activity and he was quickly silenced.

http://nomormonpresidentnomittromney2012.blogspot.com/2012/06/mormon-student-tells-truth-and-gets.html

[-] 3 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

If a man has one wife or two thats his business, if a man is kissing another man in front of my children, Im making it my business, and I dont care what other men's laws they put into effect. I live by my conscience, not by other men's stupidity.

From a biblical standpoint, Abraham Issac and Jacob were all polygamists, and all were saved in the kingdom of heaven. So really the point of polygamy is null and void in considering them.

[-] -3 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

You wouldn't want to live in a world of Deuteronomy and part of the reason you don't is because Jesus overthrew that cruel old testament. You may visit parts of Brooklyn, NY and see oddly attired individuals who would have you believe they strive to live by those silly old books, Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Good Luck With That.

You will not find in your new testament Jesus denouncing homosexuality or homosexuals. On the contrary Jesus blessed a homosexual relationship if you believe the bible.

http://www.gaychristian101.com/Centurion-And-Pais.html

http://www.gaychristian101.com/Gay-Centurion.html

[-] 3 points by DoubleVoice (115) 2 years ago

No religion has the right to define what a word means for everyone else. Not Mormons, or Christians, or Muslims, or anyone else. Live and let live.

[-] -3 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Not sure what your point is. Polygamy was outlawed in the US under Lincoln.

http://www.nomormonpresidentnomittromney2012.blogspot.com/

[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

But we still have state constitutions that are being amended directly from things that these books have written in them, i.e. Amendment One. If 60% of North Carolinians were Mormons, would they have also voted to add Polygamy to the state constitution? IDK

[-] 1 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

The United States Would not permit Utah to get statehood unless it abandoned polygamy. After thirty years of fighting it out they said they had abandoned it but the truth is at least twenty more years they did polygamy in secret and Mitt's ancestors went to Mexico specifically to evade the law in the US against polygamy. That was illegal in Mexico too, but the state was not powerful enough to impose its will.

[-] -2 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Well into my lifetime several states outlawed marriage by people of African descent to people of European descent. It was the federal government thankfully that ended that embarrassment.

[Removed]

[+] -4 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

The "mainstream" Mormons, those of Romney's church claim to abhor polygamy even though their religious doctrine still mandates it. Where polygamy leaves women's choice of who they live with or poorer men's opportunities to have heterosexual love and families is clear.

http://www.childbrides.org/boys.html

The "Lost Boys"

They are just young men (mostly young teenagers) who have become competition to the older men who want more (and usually much younger) wives. They are kicked out of their homes and run out of town. They often leave with just the shirts on their backs. Most have minimum education and few life-skills. But, the Prophet said that they must go away. So their parents cast them out like unwanted pets. Now, they are out on the street trying to fend for themselves. They are known as the "Lost Boys".

Read the tragic stories of their attempting to survive and to integrate into mainstream society. These articles are in chronological order.

Group urges sponsorship of boys cast out of polygamist sect By Patty Henetz The Associated Press KUTV.com Originally published Saturday July 31, 2004

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) Even though he was abandoned by his family after his church leader excommunicated him for wanting to go to public school, a former member of a polygamist sect on Saturday asked that people not condemn his father. "The fathers are not always the bad guys. They, too, are being persecuted by the prophet," said Richard Gilbert, who was in Salt Lake City to speak on behalf of some 400 boys and young men pushed out of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ. The prophet is Warren Jeffs, who reportedly has banished hundreds of men and boys from the twin border cities of Hildale, Utah, and Colorado City, Arizona, in a struggle for control over the sect, whose estimated 6,000 to 12,000 members make it the largest polygamous group in the West. Gilbert and about 50 other boys appeared at a Capitol news briefing to help announce the efforts of the nonprofit group Diversity, a mentoring group seeking donations and sponsors the hundreds of youths abandoned by their families. Gilbert said he was excommunicated at age 16 after saying he wanted to attend public school. In July 2000, Jeffs, told followers to stop associating with apostates and outsiders and pull their children from public schools. "This is really happening in the United States," he said. "There's a lot that goes on that people need to see and help with." Read more

Ex-communicated FLDS Boys are Asking for Help By Kimberly Houk KSL TV Channel 5 News Originally broadcast July 31, 2004

More than 400 teenage boys are wandering the streets of southern Utah ... with no where to go ... and no where to call home. They're called the "Lost Boys" ... Utah's Attorney General says they've been forced out of their polygamist homes in the community of Colorado City, Arizona ... and Hilldale, Utah. Kimberly Houk joins us from the State Capitol with more. More than 1 hundred of the "Lost Boys" filled the Capitol's steps earlier this afternoon. They were there asking for help ... and wanting to tell their story. And it's a sad story ... filled with intimate details of what it's like to be a young boy living in the polygamist colony controlled by FLDS prophet Warren Jeffs. "FISCHER: ON A MONTHLY BASIS MULTIPLE FAMILIES ARE BEING DESTROYED. CHILDREN WAKE UP FINDING THEY HAVE A NEW DADDY FINDING THAT THEY HAVE NEW BROTHERS AND SISTERS." Read more

Group Discusses Plight of Boys from Fundamentalist Church KSL TV Channel 5 News Originally published July 31, 2004

Hundreds of boys from the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ Latter-day Saints are speaking out and turning to you for help after facing excommunication. The boys have been expelled from the church, their families, and their homes. "Diversity", a non-profit organization, held a media conference at the State Capitol to make the public aware of their situation. "Diversity" provides mentors, financial support, housing, schooling, and counseling to help the boys learn how to excel in American society. Most of the boys were evicted for what many would consider to be normal teen behavior -- watching movies, wearing short sleeved shirts, or even just talking to girls. Read more

Sect's distress tugs at author Extremism: He is involved in helping victims of the Short Creek polygamous group, such as the "lost boys" By Patty Henetz The Associated Press Originally published July 31, 2004

A year ago, Jon Krakauer told more than 800 people crammed into a downtown movie theater for a reading of his book, Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith, that he wasn't pursuing social reform when he wrote about religious extremism. Since then, he has so deeply immersed himself in the distressed lives of members and former members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints he no longer will write about the polygamous sect that inhabits twin towns on the Utah-Arizona border. "I've been asked to help a lot of people who feel they've been victimized by this culture," Krakauer told The Associated Press on Friday in a rare interview. "I just keep getting drawn deeper and deeper into this." By "this", Krakauer means the religious politics of FLDS and its leader-prophet, Warren Jeffs, who reportedly has banished hundreds of men and boys from Hildale, Utah, and Colorado City, Ariz., in a struggle for control over the sect, whose estimated 6,000 to 12,000 members make it the largest polygamous group in the West. Krakauer's best-selling book on religious extremism focused on the 1984 cold-blooded murders of Brenda Lafferty and her 15-month-old daughter, Erica, in American Fork. He will be in Salt Lake City today to lend weight to an organization calling itself Diversity, founded by former polygamist Dan Fischer. Read more

Aid sought for church's victims By Stephen Speckman Deseret Morning News Originally published Sunday, August 1, 2004

They are boys banished from their own families because polygamous FLDS Church leaders said it should be so. Now, the nonprofit group Diversity, founded by Dan Fischer, a former member of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, is asking for the public to help more than 400 of these boys, many of whom are forced to live out of cars and behind Dumpsters. Two of these so-called "lost boys" spoke out publicly for the first time on the state Capitol steps Saturday afternoon. Joining them were dozens of former FLDS teens and young adults — a few were females or girlfriends — along with Jon Krakauer, author of "Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith," and Attorney General Mark Shurtleff. "We just want everyone to become aware that this is really happening in the United States," said Richard Gilbert. "There's a lot that goes on that people need to see and help with." Gilbert, 19, was kicked out of the FLDS Church, which is not affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, when he was 16, in part, because he wanted to attend public schools. Gilbert said his father was banished first, followed by the rest of the family after his mother refused to remarry at the direction of FLDS leadership. Read more

[-] 3 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

sound like the way animal herds operate.. all the young males are driven away at puberty so the old males can claim ownership of all females.

[-] 0 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

yep

[+] -4 points by RealityTime (-224) 2 years ago

But our culture does and it's the gay lobby that's trying to change the definition of what the culture knows as marriage. At least Christians are a majority. live and let live; but don't try to bend the definition of a word to fit your social engineering agenda. Call it a civil union, call is a gayrraige, call it anything you like, but the word marriage is taken.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by RealityTime (-224) 2 years ago

That's funny.

Come up with your own word for the shit you do. Marriage is taken. Maybe go with "Gayrriage". It can still be legally recognized, but it sure as hell isn't marriage.

[-] 1 points by DoubleVoice (115) 2 years ago

I don't care what you fiction book says the word is. I can make that word mean anything I want to. YOU can't infringe on MY religious beliefs, which are that Christianity is a crock of fascist bullshit based on nothing but fiction and gullibility.

[-] 3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

The concept of monogamy is a religious based concept and has no business in our legal system which requires separation of church and state.

Whenever I her someone speak of the sanctity of marriage is is always based on some religious text. The idea that marriage should only be one man to one woman is silly. If three women want to marry and share a life together why should they not be allowed to?

[-] -3 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

http://www.nomormonpresidentnomittromney2012.blogspot.com/

Monogamy is not mandated anywhere in any Bible I ever heard of or read. It's origins are a bit murky in fact. All the Old Testament Big Shots had multiple wives and most had concubines to boot. Women were property and the rich men had the most. Romney is claiming that monogamy is something religious. First of all that's a laugh riot because while his church claims to have ended polygamy it is still sanctioned in their religion in Doctrine and Covenants 132:4.

D&C 132

While a Mormon would be excommunicated for practicing polygamy today, the command to engage in plural marriage is still included in modern editions of the Doctrine and Covenants. Section 132:4 declares: "For behold, I reveal unto you a new and everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory."

According to the introduction to volume 5 of the Documentary History of the Church (DHC), the revelation was written down in order to convince Smith's wife, Emma, of its authenticity. When exactly this "revelation" came to Joseph Smith is somewhat confusing. According to the same volume (5:501), Joseph Smith was given this revelation on July 12, 1843. However, the heading of section 132 states it was only recorded on that date only, for "this revelation had been known by the Prophet since 1831." It would seem that the latter would be more correct since D&C 132:52 records a warning to Smith's wife, Emma, to "receive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph." Emma never liked the idea of polygamy, and despite a warning in verse 54 saying she would be destroyed if she did "not abide this commandment," she lived a full life. Her husband, on the other hand, would be dead within a year.

When the revelation was given or recorded is relatively unimportant and does not in any way solve the polygamy dilemma. There is plenty of evidence to show how Smith held to this view long before 1843 and even practiced it secretly. The real question is why was polygamy considered essential for exaltation in the early LDS Church while its practice today is grounds for excommunication?

Polygamy and the Book of Mormon

Despite the importance placed on this practice during the 1800s, the Book of Mormon has relatively little to say about polygamy. We find no reference within its pages that plural marriage was observed with God's permission. In fact, Jacob 2:27 reads, "Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none."

Some Mormons have countered with Jacob 2:30. This passage reads, "For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things." The usual argument insists that polygamy was allowed in the early years of Mormonism in order to "raise up seed." Proponents of this rebuttal say God allowed polygamy because there was an overabundance of women in the LDS Church, making it necessary for men to take on more than one wife. This argument is not supported by the facts and is actually refuted by LDS Apostle John Widtsoe. He wrote,

"The United States census records from 1850 to 1940, and all available Church records, uniformly show a preponderance of males in Utah, and in the Church. Indeed, the excess in Utah has usually been larger than for the whole United States, as would be expected in a pioneer state. The births within the Church obey the usual population law -- a slight excess of males. Orson Pratt, writing in 1853 from direct knowledge of Utah conditions, when the excess of females was supposedly the highest, declares against the opinion that females outnumbered the males in Utah. (The Seer, p. 110) The theory that plural marriage was a consequence of a surplus of female Church members fails from lack of evidence" (Evidences and Reconciliations, p.391).

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Why in the first place do we permit the Gov to require its permission to marry? It is a tremendous intrusion into the private lives of the people.

[-] 5 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

The government gets involved because of taxes and property rights. There are also issues related to insurance coverage, hospital visitation, child custody, and other legal issues.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

These are all areas where he Gov should not meddle. We give up our liberty for a few shekles.

[+] -4 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Well, polygamy was regarded as akin to slavery by Lincoln's contemporaries. the Republican national convention said the following in June, 1856: ''“It is the duty of Congress to prohibit in the territories those twin relics of barbarism, polygamy and slavery.” The polygamy reference was aimed at the Mormon settlement in Utah territory."

http://www.mormonheretic.org/2009/09/19/the-anti-polygamy-raids/

and

http://www.alternet.org/rights/63071/ CIVIL LIBERTIES
Washington Post Writers Group / By Ellen Goodman COMMENT NOW! Polygamy and Forced Sex in the Name of God The view of polygamy as just another lifestyle choice has been countered by the growing evidence of communities rife with abuse. September 24, 2007 |

LIKE THIS ARTICLE ? Join our mailing list: Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Civil Liberties headlines via email.

BOSTON -- I'm glad I didn't fall for the latest Internet hoax. MarryOurDaughter.com? Hello? Did the millions who clicked onto this site actually think there were parents out there putting a bridal price on the head of their 15-year-old Ashley ($37,500) or 16-year-old Kristin ($49,995)?

The hoax proved to be the brainchild of John Ordover, a Brooklyn man practicing his viral marketing skills. It was Ordover who hyped this site as an "introduction service assisting those following the biblical tradition of arranging marriages for their daughters."

But before you deep-six your most paranoid fantasy about the arranged marriages of young girls, let us turn to reality. In a courtroom in St. George, Utah, there is a defendant named Warren Jeffs who surely regards himself as a celestial matchmaker.

Jeffs is the autocrat and reigning prophet of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (FLDS), a polygamous community of about 10,000 that regards itself as the one true Mormon faith. It survives much to the embarrassment of mainstream Mormons, who gave up polygamy in 1890, and much to the horror of the state.

Jeffs is either deeply creepy or downright evil depending on how you label religious leaders who consider themselves the voice of God and marry multiple women, including 30 of their late father's youngest widows. He is infamous, among other things, for kicking hundreds of teenage boys out of his community and matching hundreds of their sisters into plural marriages. For those hooked on "Big Love," Jeffs makes Alby Grant look appealing.

But the man is not on trial for being a polygamist, let alone a creep. As the judge and prosecutor told the jury, this case is not about polygamy. Jeffs is being tried as an accessory to rape. He's charged with intentionally aiding the sexual assault of a 14-year-old girl by her husband.

To hear the alleged victim, known only as Jane Doe, describe her marriage is to be as deeply saddened as the jury was. After resisting Jeffs' order to marry her 19-year-old first cousin, she found herself at the altar, head hanging, forcing out the words, "OK, I do." After refusing sex, she went back to Jeffs for counsel and was told to "repent," to "do your duty," and be "obedient." And so the girl who didn't know what sex was or where children came from says she was forced to submit to her husband.

Did this teenager make her own choice? We forget how the rules governing consent have changed. Conflicting state laws now navigate between a girl's sexual maturity and her vulnerability. In many states, including Utah, a girl can marry with her parents' permission at a younger age than she can have sex...

http://johnharmstrong.typepad.com/john_h_armstrong_/2011/04/polygamy-and-womens-rights.html

...Human rights, for both men and women, suffer where polygamy is allowed. Women in polygamist cultures get married sooner, bear more children, have higher rates of HIV infection than men, sustain more domestic violence, succumb to more female genital mutilation and sex trafficking, and are more likely to die in childbirth. Their life expectancy is shorter than that of their monogamous sisters and their children, both boys and girls, are less likely to receive both primary and secondary education.

There are multiple reasons for these results but clearly polygamy is not good for women and women’s rights. When small numbers of men control larger numbers of women one of the most cherished of modern rights suffers. In this case religious freedom does not outweigh the social and moral consequences of allowing polygamy to spread.

Some fundamentalists argue that polygamy is biblically based since they see it in the Old Testament. This is not the place to debate the ethical norms of the Old Testament and how to interpret them but suffice it to say polygamy is a step backward for women and civilized societies. In this case the convergence of modern thought about women and the broader biblical model of justice and compassion argues against any relaxing of our laws against this practice.

[Removed]

[+] -4 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

I agree that monogmy especially as we know it is a crock. For men of means especially it's always been a fiction. They've always had access to mistresses, prostitutes, women under their employ, etc. Monogamy was intended for certain women to adhere to, so that these men could be sure that they really were "baby's daddy".

Mormon style polygamy takes this to a higher level. I am not even so much shouting about it as I am shouting about mormon secrecy, dishonesty, deceptiveness about it.

They simply flat out lie when they praise monogamous heterosexuality as their norm. They will do and say whatever it takes to get access to power. Their ultimate goal is domination. They tried it in Utah.

[-] 5 points by WildMan (27) 2 years ago

There are plenty of great Morman people. I work with one. There is no secret polygomous relationships. He is a devoted husband and father of 5. He works very hard to suppport them.

I agree with Joe. You find examples of extremists and condemn the whole group. That is the definition of bigotry.

[-] 2 points by secnoot (-14) 2 years ago

Romney's supposed family history of polygamy is generations in the past. Obama's father had three wives; a far more contemporary example of familial polygamy. I would also add that Mormans engaged in polygamy because of legally sanctioned murder of Mormon men. Obama's father, on the other hand, did it to flop from bed to bed....

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/04/27/135770919/immigration-files-of-obamas-father-paint-unflattering-picture

The documents also show that the CIS investigated the elder Obama as a polygamist, having a wife in Kenya and a "wife and child in Honolulu." [A] memo adds that "Polygamy is not an excludable or deportation charge as Subject is a non-immigrant."

I think Obama's father's polygamist past is far more damning that Romney's. Kinda like Obama's dog eating past is far worse than Romney's "loving his dog enough to bring it along on vacation" past.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

Pure tripe from the OP and others. You should eat it rather than spread it like manure.

No one is responsible for what his or her ancestors did including Romney or President Obama. If you're just a bigot, whether religious or racial, admit it and be done with all the digging into people's genealogies.

[-] -3 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

I reject your accusation of bigotry. Mormonism is a collection of beliefs and practices that are hateful. That isn't bigotry, that's the result of reading about Mormonism and talking with Mormon recruiters. I happen to know what they re about and it is not good. Yeah and worse than other religions.

[-] 3 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

Most religions or religious cults tend to have hateful beliefs and practices. The other guy is always wrong and going straight to hell or some other equally odious place.

If Romney were not Mormon but a fundamentalist Bible-banger, wouldn't you find faults with those beliefs as well. What I'm saying is don't pick on the LDS church,if you're anti-Romney, because the Mormons are not alone in having incredible and very often distasteful beliefs and practices.

[-] -3 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Romney is trying to pass himself off as a bible banger but he is not one. He is a leading member of a devious dangerous cult. The mormons are not alone in hateful beliefs and practices, it's just that they bring it to a higher level, and are very disciplined and insidious. they are trying to pass themselves off as being just another church. They are more and worse than that. People should know what they really are and what they actually represent - a clear and present danger.

I advise you and everyone else to study up on Mormonism and the mormon organization.

http://nomormonpresidentnomittromney2012.blogspot.com/

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

sleep with lots of women cause you might die? thats a reason? lol

[-] -3 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Mormons engaged in armed conflict with their neighbors and the government in Missouri, Illinois and Utah. In Utah they murdered 100 - 140 men, women and children on September 11, 1857 .

http://nomormonpresidentnomittromney2012.blogspot.com/2012/05/mountain-meadow-massacre-9-11-1857.html

[-] 3 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

everybody dies.. its an absolute fact, how can it be used as reasoning for marriage? ive never heard of death as a reasoning for marriage. from any religion.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (22350) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Some people imagine their immortality is in their offspring.

[-] -2 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

As an old veteran I can tell you that soldiers shipping out have utilized their imminent danger (real or not so real) to score. But not to marry.

[-] -2 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

First, Romney's father was born in a Mormon commune in Mexico that was established by Romney's great grandfather for the purpose of evading United States law outlawing polygamy. Romney just turns reality on it's head when he says that his church is against polygamy. His church is against going to jail. Mormon Doctrine and Covenants to this day upholds polygamy. So Romney lies like a Mormon.

Obama last saw his father at age ten and he doesn't go around telling people lies about that. He upholds the rights of two adults to enter into a loving and committed relationship.

http://www.nomormonpresidentnomittromney2012.blogspot.com/

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Polygamy has a better approval rating than Congress.

  • That's a fact.
[-] 0 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

No doubt. I heard on the radio that Communism does too.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

The BP oil spill had a better approval rating than congress. Another fact.

Congress Approval Rating Lower Than Porn, Polygamy, BP Oil Spill, 'U.S. Going Communist' (VIDEO) - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/16/congress-approval-rating-porn-polygamy_n_1098497.html

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

what do you mean I can't have a car ?

[-] 0 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Marriage is a contract. All that requires one to be eligible to enter into a binding contract is to be of sound mind, not coerced, and to be of legal age.

[-] -3 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

http://www.nomormonpresidentnomittromney2012.blogspot.com/

There are laws regarding contracts. Most obvious one cannot contract the murder of another person. One cannot sell himself into slavery. One cannot enforce a contract for sexual services in lieu of payment. The list goes on. Society has decided that monogamy is desirable and polygamy isn't. Could be that's wrong but that's where things have stood in this country since 1863.

[-] 0 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Could be that's wrong....

Yes could be. Religious values determined that law.

[-] -3 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Show me where the Bible condemns polygamy and mandates monogamy. Seems to me all the big shots in the old testament got all the women, approved by God. Where in the New Testament is that practice overturned?

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

I could show you Leviticus 20:13 that calls homosexuality unnatural and specifies for the death of homosexuals, I'm sure that colors the religious voters perception and views of them marrying.

[-] -3 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

You wouldn't want to live in a world of Deuteronomy and part of the reason you don't is because Jesus overthrew that cruel old testament. You may visit parts of Brooklyn, NY and see oddly attired individuals who would have you believe they strive to live by those silly old books, Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Good Luck With That. You will not find in your new testament Jesus denouncing homosexuality or homosexuals. On the contrary Jesus blessed a homosexual relationship if you believe the bible. http://www.gaychristian101.com/Centurion-And-Pais.html http://www.gaychristian101.com/Gay-Centurion.html

[-] -2 points by Dgoerz (20) 2 years ago

Why should the public call it marriage. It is a religious concept. Change the name to civil union and allow anybody to join with anybody even animals.

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

I agree with you in principle, the government should not be involved in marriage, but perhaps should issue certificates of partnership that are legally exactly equal to the rights of married people now, but the issue has evolved to way past where that could take place any time soon.

[+] -5 points by tupacsugar (-136) 2 years ago

Marriage is between a man and his brother,

Marriage is between a man and his son,

Marriage is between a mother and her son,

Marriage is between a brother and sister,

Marriage is between a father and his daughter,

Marriage is between a man and his sheep,

Marriage is between a woman and her dog,

Marriage is between a man's deceased horse.

These are just some of the marvelous possibilities available to all Americans since the Liberal/Progressive/Gay Mafia Left deemed it necessary to put asunder the tradition of Marriage.

Our lives will be so much more meaningful now that everything is more equal and fair.

What will be the next issue that will become a "civil rights" fight?

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Dgoerz (20) 2 years ago

Well, that is what is coming.

[-] 3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

And would that harm you in any way?

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

that's exactly why I don't understand the opposition to gay marriage.

Who cares? Seriously. What kind of person goes out of their way to oppress people? They need to take a chill pill or something.

[-] 0 points by Dgoerz (20) 2 years ago

No, it's fine with me.

[Removed]

[+] -5 points by tupacsugar (-136) 2 years ago

I disagree,it does matter. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman and it is based on procreation. A child is better served and raised and protected by a Father and a Mother period. You may not care but that doesn't mean it should not be that way.

This whole Gay Marriage issue is merely a wedge tool to further acclimate the American public to eventually accept Gays and to increase the indoctrination of our children in public schools to except and even believe homosexuality is an everyday norm.

There is a Gay Mafia and it is working to change the fundamentals of our culture and destroy the family unit,much like the Left has all but destroyed the Black family with abortion and welfare.

[-] 7 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

While I am not gay, my sister in law has been with a female partner for 20 years.

My other sister in law was in a marriage where she was beat by her drunk husband in front of the children for years. He was rude and abusive to the children. This all did not come out until years later.

Now if something were to happen to me, I would chose to have my children cared for by my gay sister in law and her partner. They are kind, honest, caring, and generous. I would never leave them with my heterosexual asshole brother in law.

[-] -3 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

You wouldn't want to live in a world of Deuteronomy and part of the reason you don't is because Jesus overthrew that cruel old testament. You may visit parts of Brooklyn, NY and see oddly attired individuals who would have you believe they strive to live by those silly old books, Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Good Luck With That. You will not find in your new testament Jesus denouncing homosexuality or homosexuals. On the contrary Jesus blessed a homosexual relationship if you believe the bible. http://www.gaychristian101.com/Centurion-And-Pais.html http://www.gaychristian101.com/Gay-Centurion.html

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

I don't care what people do with consenting adults in their own time.

Why do you want the government to be so involved in people's personal lives?

The government should stick to budgeting for police officers, schools, and roads instead of wasting time on such nonsense as anti-gay marriage crap.

[-] -2 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Some of that stuff you are advocating there tupacsugar could be classified as cruelty to animals and are against the law.