• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Let's get something started...

Scarecrow

Scarecrow

Member
...we have a genuine opportunity here people.

The Federal Bigamy and anti-polygamy laws from the late 1800s were aimed at shutting down the Mormon Church and Utah's ability to support and protect the Mormons, and quite frankly did a very thorough job of it. The Federal Government (those running it at the time) blatantly violated the very protection the Constitution was supposed to provide. But there has been a ruling in Massachusetts by a Federal Judge that has struck down the DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) as unconstitutional because it violates States rights. This precedence is the swing of the pendulum that may finally grant the freedom many of us have been seeking for a long time. We must strike while the iron is hot and build momentum to overcome what has been hundreds of years of repression to those who wish to practice Biblical Marriage legally! With the Federal Government filing suit against Arizona and the overturning of DOMA the people of this country are seeing the Federal Government as antagonistic (be it right or wrong) and we will have a much more sympathetic electorate to appeal to at this point in time. We cannot waste this opportunity. Please get involved by sending a message of support to the Governor of Utah, and telling anyone you know to do the same.

Utah needs our support! The Governor needs to hear from people now and take decisive action to challenge these biased and unconstitutional Federal Laws. Please send him a message through his contact page:

Use this link if you would like a response from the Governor or his office:
http://governor.utah.gov/goca/form_governor.html

Use this link to just leave a comment not requiring a response from the Governor or his office:
http://governor.utah.gov/goca/form_comment.html

Here is the message I sent to him:

__________________________________________________

Dear Governor Herbert:

Considering the ruling by a Federal Judge in Massachusetts that the D.O.M.A. violates States rights in defining marriage, have you or any agency of the Utah Government considered challenging the Federal Bigamy and Polygamy laws? If not are you aware of any individuals, organizations, or other entities that are considering or beginning to act on this opportunity?

I am a Christian who discovered that polygamy does not violate Biblical principals. I have read 5 different translations of the Bible from cover to cover and spent hundreds of hours in self study of the scriptures. I was appalled when I discovered that for most of my life the "Christian" churches had been lying to me about marriage.

I would very much like to support any initiative or effort in any way I can to challenge the Federal bigamy and anti-polygamy laws thereby allowing Utah to be the first state to legalize Biblical Marriage.

I would also wish to quickly establish residency and business in Utah should the State begin to license Biblical Marriage.

Sincerely,

Someone who feels the injustices to Utah are long overdue for restitution, and wishes to practice marriage as my biblical forefathers did.

__________________________________________________

Please, please, please...act now...let's gain momentum for our movement to legalize Biblical Marriage.

Utah Governor's Office

Office Hours: Monday - Thursday 7:00 am - 6:00 pm
Closed Friday

Utah State Capitol Complex
350 North State Street, Suite 200
PO Box 142220
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-2220
801-538-1000
800-705-2464
Fax 801-538-1528
 
I have found numerous web sites and organizations that understand Biblical Marriage and polygyny. While there are differences in theology about other Biblical topics, I would think that the common belief in Biblical Marriage and the legitimate practice of polygyny would allow the unification of these organizations. I am not saying that we all need to merge into one organization, but just as all the individual States have representatives that go to one central location (Washington), could we not work toward having one main independent organization which could represent all the individual organizations and be a much more powerful political entity?

As Biblical Marriage and polygyny have been a relatively recent discovery of mine, I have spent most of my time gleaning from the information I have been able to find and through study of the scriptures. While doing research on line, what I have not been able to find is a cohesive effort to organize and administer a united effort to represent the views of Biblical Marriage. Knowing Satan’s tactics, to divide and conquer, I would have to say it seems that he has done a pretty good job of suppressing the Biblical truths of marriage by keeping them separated and distinct from each other.

It seems unlikely, that should any governmental entity decide to allow legal unions between more than two individuals, that it would be restricted to the biblical definition of polygyny; just as marriage between two individuals is now not always limited to one man and one woman. This would be seen as prejudiced against polyandry and other forms of multiple unions which would have the same legal challenges to the one man one woman definition of marriage as polygyny does. It just dawned on me that this may be the "slippery slope" that most conservative Christians fear yet are unable to articulate; that in recognizing polygyny it will open the door to other forms of multiple unions that are forbidden in the scriptures. Wow...an epiphany while composing a post...that was interesting. It seems to me that only by quenching the leading of the Holy Spirit could a Christian, that has been exposed to even a limited examination of the scriptures in regards to biblical marriage, could reject it. But it could also be a subconscious realization that to acknowledge polygyny would open the legal flood gates for other types of multiple unions prohibited by the scriptures.

I don’t know that making political alliances with other groups that believe in multiple unions that are beyond biblical definitions would be prudent or not, as scripture shows us how Israel and Judah both were punished for alliances of this nature. Yet at the same time a unified front politically would provide greater awareness publically and a much stronger political presence. I am reminded of Paul stating:

1 Corinthians 5:12-13 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. "Purge the evil person from among you."

It seems that a political alliance without the adoption of their beliefs would be allowed to further our cause. A common enemy or cause can make for unusual bedfellows (that may not be the best cliché to use in this situation). Israel was punished because their alliances led them into idolatry. Political alliances are formed between countries for the purpose of strengthening themselves against other countries that oppose them, yet they do not necessarily adopt the laws and customs of the other countries they are allied with.

The structure of such an overall organization could have representatives from different belief systems, and each belief system could have its own organizational structure to provide representation to the main organization. Like a pie chart with different slices, one slice (likely the largest) would be representative of Biblical Marriage, and within that slice would be representatives from organizations that promote Biblical Marriage.

It seems that we have an opportune moment in time with the recent rulings by Federal Judges and the current animosity toward government in general, and should an organized effort be realized some real progress could likely be made on behalf of those who wish to observe and practice marriage as they feel led and their religion allows. Are there any such movements in progress? If not, would we want to be involved in initiating such an organization?

Just thinking out loud…through my keyboard…
 
Well, as you know this is a topic we have been discussing in the Mens only section that I started. We need to get a lot of facts straight first. A unitiy like you were talking about it will come once the issue starts getting pushed. People dont usually start anything but will jump on a bandwagon. Im waiting to hear from Hugh. I hope he reads the thread I started and maybe we can go from there. ALL of us together. We havnt had much response as of yet though.
 
There's not too much I can do to help you guys Stateside, but I do have communication going with a member of the media up here who wants an interview once we actually have a second. God willing we will do that in a timely fashion and it will help in general.
 
Hey brother Scarecrow,

This might be a thought. I posted this in another thread. It is something worth considering.

One of the suggestions that I offer is that people consider looking at the Libertarian party. Why? Well because in that group there would be a freedom group composed of people from diverse backgrounds who all want the government to be out of private matters.

From what I can tell this would provide more support than going at the PM issue alone, which would need a Red Sea miracle work of God to make it through Congress at this point in history.

However, there are those who are not for PM but would quickly join in the effort with those who are for PM to push for removing government from marriage all together. Thus in this way two or three other groups could work side by side with those of the PM view to obtain a common goal that would benefit all sides. The Libertarian party is gaining strength and numbers. It is, as I understand, the 3rd largest political party in the nation. Though I agree with some of our founders of the nation that we should not have parties, for now we do and for now this group could be used as an avenue to work for a common agenda that would benefit both those for PM and those who simply want government out of marriage.

Statistically it could work this way:
20% of nation who desire for PM
25% who desire government not to grant license but do not care anything about PM
10% who think families should be arranged according to the rule of fathers
10% who think alternative lifestyles should be allowed by government by not authorized by the government
5% who just don't care but will vote with their party stance

Now in these hypothetical numbers you have 70% who could come together for a common goal to remove government from the process which would give PM more freedom today to do what now government at the least frowns upon and in some cases pressures against.

But if the 20% of the nation goes to fight for their own view then they stand against a large number the other way. But with working with monogamists, and those who may not personally agree with PM but agree with the right of individual liberty who would support removing government from the process, then legislation might be passed quicker and easier that would benefit PM in a great way.

If you go to the Libertarian website you can see some great articles by them on why the government should not grant a license and why they should not be involved in adults who consent to form their own families according to their own consciences.

Some big names are also starting to go towards the Libertarian ideology as well. For example, Glen Beck on Fox News is now a strong supporter of the Libertarian view/party ideology.

Look up your local Libertarian party and see if you can work through them to help remove government from areas where people should have natural liberty.

Dr. K.R. Allen
 
So I guess we are at a standstill again? Anyone gotten intouch with Hugh? Im waiting on my lawyer friend to message me back. Not sure if he has even read the message yet. So what are we planning here guys? Personally, Im doing this because I believe my wife and futrue wives should all be able to be married to me. By MANS so called law. How about the rest of you?
 
I agree that the government should butt out of its citizens private lives. I don't think that they should involve themselves in marriage at all save perhaps to register married couples, threesomes or what have you for the purpose of insurance, census or whatever. As for the slippery slope argument; I'd paraphrase Paul and say, "What business have Christians whit the antics of non-believers?" As long as Christians live their lives according to His principles, and provide witness and example to the rest of the world, avoiding Israel's sin of falling into idolatry, they should be left alone. The government needs to get out of the business of playing big brother, thinking that morality is something that can be legislated. That's the business of the family and the church. Instead hold people responsible for how their behavior hurts others.

Dave
 
Scarecrow said:
It seems unlikely, that should any governmental entity decide to allow legal unions between more than two individuals, that it would be restricted to the biblical definition of polygyny; just as marriage between two individuals is now not always limited to one man and one woman. This would be seen as prejudiced against polyandry and other forms of multiple unions which would have the same legal challenges to the one man one woman definition of marriage as polygyny does. It just dawned on me that this may be the "slippery slope" that most conservative Christians fear yet are unable to articulate; that in recognizing polygyny it will open the door to other forms of multiple unions that are forbidden in the scriptures. Wow...an epiphany while composing a post...that was interesting. It seems to me that only by quenching the leading of the Holy Spirit could a Christian, that has been exposed to even a limited examination of the scriptures in regards to biblical marriage, could reject it. But it could also be a subconscious realization that to acknowledge polygyny would open the legal flood gates for other types of multiple unions prohibited by the scriptures.

I don’t know that making political alliances with other groups that believe in multiple unions that are beyond biblical definitions would be prudent or not, as scripture shows us how Israel and Judah both were punished for alliances of this nature.
Click to expand...

I know that this is the slippery slope that first entered my mind when I first started out to find the truth about polygyny and the mind of my extended family. They would say that the benefits of legalizing plural marriage for polygyny would not out weigh the further degrade of society that would be propagated by polyandry and polyamory. I think that in this society, since we are headed there already, they are most likely correct. We should do everything we can to hold back the tide of corruption that looms of our country and even the world, but we should do so standing on the truth of God's word and not make stances on traditions of men as much of the church has in its opposition against homosexuality or rather as it would say its protection against marriage and the family structure. The second slippery slope or problem, really that exists already, (polygyny could/would just aggravate it) is that men who not properly leading one wife taking on yet another and failing with both.

When I read your post "Lets get something started" and others like it, although polygyny would convenient for it to be legal and culturally acceptable, I am quite convicted that allying politically with such groups would not be prudent. I would think that it would mar something that was holy and good with something that God considers an abomination. Gideon won with three hundred, our country was made by God supported under dogs. Which takes greater faith and gives God more glory? That is what I ask myself!
 
I never did get a reply of any kind from my email to the Governor of Utah. I think he has his hands full dealing with the people there much less individuals such as me that are not residents.

PolyPride left a couple of links to very good videos of kids from polygamous families going to the capitol in Utah to express their views. There really is a strong movement in Utah to remove the bigamy and anti-polygamy laws. This leads me to believe that Utah will likely be the first state to have a vote brought before the public to amend their constitution allowing polygamy. Unfortunately Utah was forced to put wording into their constitution to become a state that, should polygamy ever be legalized, it would require the approval of the amendment to their constitution by the other states as well; that particular section of their constitution would likely be ruled unconstitutional in itself however as it brings up the sovereignty of the state.

Should the strategy be to challenge the constitutionality of the laws prohibiting bigamy and polygamy then I think the best States to operate in would be Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, or Vermont due to the fact that they have already overcome the one man one woman marriage definition. In this scenario, residents of any of the states I listed would need to petition the government and file suit to obtain the legal permission to license more than one marriage simultaneously.

I am not sure which of these will happen first, or if another challenge with regard to the freedom to peaceably assemble will be the dark horse in this race. In any case I am very encouraged with the activity I am witnessing. I feel like I am part of a movement to deny the earth is flat and the sun revolves around the earth; both were vehemently opposed by the religious authorities at the time, and both proved to be egg on their faces ever since. I will be extremely pleased when I am able to participate in Biblical Marriage without the concern of the government interfering with it.

For those within the church worried about legislating their doctrine upon society:

1 Corinthians 5:12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. "Purge the evil person from among you."

Maybe there will come a day that churches will focus their attention and resources inward and the rate of teen sexual promiscuity, marital infidelity, and divorce will once again be below the rates seen in the secular society, maybe even significantly lower...as it is now if you claim to be a Christian they mock you because the numbers simply make the church hypocritical statistically.
 
Hey Screcrow and Who is Like God, and others,

As for the Utah constitution it would not need any other state's input or permission for them to change it. State constitutions govern only within their own boundaries and thus no other state can have a say in it. Of course the Supreme Court could rule on something in their constitution if it came before them (or a federal court). But they, people of Utah, are free in themselves to change it as they see fit. The issue at first was that the OTHER states and federal government said they could not come into the UNION UNLESS they added something in their own constitution to keep this polygamy out. But the people still had to change the governingh document; no other state could do that then or even now. Then if they had not of voluntarily complied then the others states would have rejected their admission. But once in they can now adjust it as they see fit for the most part.

Also, I'm fairly convinced by simple legal stats that a positive law approach will not work, and it really should not if we remain consistent with our natural right theory. A positive law approach is a bad legal system because it makes/creates laws instead of recognizing what is already in natural law. It will probably take a small percentage of groups who may not agree on several areas but all agree that government should not govern who can and cannot come together in a union. Probably it will include Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Atheists, and others who come together to de-establiush or de-regulate certain laws without per se making new laws. It generally takes less work and momentum to de-regulate than to build a law or regulation. Thus, I think whatever route is taken that will be an easier first step. Although, I do understand the homosexual movement has made headway there may still be some problems legally for them once they get what they think they want. As long as they allow the government to define marriage what happens when the government adds a requirement or definition by case law that disrupts the movement? Thus, I think it is much safer to get government out of it and allow people to assemble in a union as they see fit and however they want to define it.

That is why I think there is much more hope of de-establishing the prohibition laws instead of making and adding laws. If certain laws were removed then we could return to the days when marriage was recognized as a natural right that could not be interefered with by the civil authorities unless something went astray in the union where one begins to defraud another or hurts another physically.

Who is Like God,

I totally understand your concerns. As you can see in my other post concerning this legal issue, I'm concerned about being linked together with the ACLU. However, I think, as I noted, that it is my own emotional reaction and bias bleeding through. I certainly join them in so many other ways and I am connected to them in other ways to a degree of some sort.

For example, I am already linked to these people by a constitution and federal constitution. I'm in a contract or a type of union with people who oppose Christ because i'm in a nation with them. Furthermore, we would all most certainly support the 1st Amendment right of people who worship a false religion to still have the right to worship as their conscience guides them even if we disagree with them. I don't think we would choose to get rid of that right and return to the use of the sword to enforce the worship of God. We've been down that road before and we can learn from history that such an effort is a bad idea. Only God can change the heart of man and move him or her to truly worship him. Thus, to some degree we would support their right and liberty to be free to worship God as their conscience guides although we would not always agree with the way they exercise their conscience. For example we would support the right of a Roman Catholic to worship as they do but oppose them on many areas of their worship but without the use of the sword
(legislative law, executive, and judicial government).

Likewise, I think in this issue with a natural right for people to be able to peacably assembly together for common purposes we would support the right of all people to be able to do this but once we get that recognized we would not agree with what everyone calls their assembly. For example, we would support the idea that any two or more people can assemble together and be protected by the law even though if we as Christians see people use this right or liberty in a sinful way we would speak out on that in the community through teaching, preaching, free speech, media, etc just like we already do with religions we differ with. We support their right to assemble in peace but we on a personal and church level oppose what they do with their right.

I think this issue of personal unions, assemblies, marriages, will probably best be won with pushing for everything to be under one umbrella just like we have many religions under one umbrella. From there the people in the peacable assemblies/unions can define them and call them whatever they so choose. But all would be protected by law and not restricted in forming an assembly that is protected by law just like all religions are protected by law so long as the assembly is for a common purpose and is brought together in a peaceful, consensual, vonluntary way.

Allen
 
Dr. K.R. Allen said:
That is why I think there is much more hope of de-establishing the prohibition laws instead of making and adding laws. If certain laws were removed then we could return to the days when marriage was recognized as a natural right that could not be interfered with by the civil authorities unless something went astray in the union where one begins to defraud another or hurts another physically...

...Likewise, I think in this issue with a natural right for people to be able to peaceably assemble together for common purposes we would support the right of all people to be able to do this but once we get that recognized we would not agree with what everyone calls their assembly. For example, we would support the idea that any two or more people can assemble together and be protected by the law even though if we as Christians see people use this right or liberty in a sinful way we would speak out on that in the community through teaching, preaching, free speech, media, etc just like we already do with religions we differ with. We support their right to assemble in peace but we on a personal and church level oppose what they do with their right.

I think this issue of personal unions, assemblies, marriages, will probably best be won with pushing for everything to be under one umbrella just like we have many religions under one umbrella. From there the people in the peaceable assemblies/unions can define them and call them whatever they so choose. But all would be protected by law and not restricted in forming an assembly that is protected by law just like all religions are protected by law so long as the assembly is for a common purpose and is brought together in a peaceful, consensual, voluntary way.

Allen
Click to expand...

Agreed and well said!

For legal purposes do we need to form an organization to operate under, some sort of non-profit? If so does it matter what type of organization it is, or which state we organize in? Who will be the members of the organization and what will the structure of the organization look like?

How do we publicize and rally support for this "movement"? Should we contact other organizations that support polygyny, talk shows, newspapers, NEWS programs?

Based on other posts it seems that we need to get started on assembling our legal team/advisers as well.

Perhaps we should begin by drafting letters. One to potential legal allies expressing our concerns and requesting opinion and input, another as a type of press release for media attention. Then in a coordinated effort mail those letters and follow them a week to 10 days later with a followup phone call.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top