• 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.

Supreme court ruling

I am not suggesting I know the answer, just providing food for thought. A quote from an article on this states, "The cases before the court involved laws from Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee that define marriage as the union of a man and a woman." Scalia also stated, "“These justices know that limiting marriage to one man and one woman is contrary to reason; they know that an institution as old as government itself, and accepted by every nation in history until 15 years ago, cannot possibly be supported by anything other than ignorance or bigotry.”

From what I understand, this does nothing to legalize plural marriage, but it does seem to open the door to it. Unfortunately, there is a tremendous cost. I personally just wish the government would get out of the business of overseeing marriages.
 
Chief Justice Roberts stated, "It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage. If “[t]here is dignity in the bond between two men or two women who seek to marry and in their autonomy to make such profound choices,” why would there be any less dignity in the bond between three people who, in exercising their autonomy, seek to make the profound choice to marry? If a same-sex couple has the constitutional right to marry because their children would otherwise “suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser,” why wouldn’t the same reasoning apply to a family of three or more persons raising children? If not having the opportunity to marry “serves to disrespect and subordinate” gay and lesbian couples, why wouldn’t the same “imposition of this disability,” serve to disrespect and subordinate people who find fulfillment in polyamorous relationships? "
 
Very true words. If if they were said as arguments against gay marriage (not sure if that's the case but I seem to recall that and can't look it up ATM), the argument can be used for us.
 
The interesting thing about the dissents in referencing polygamy is that the lower courts overturned the state bans on gay marriage they all cited a Scalia dissent in the DOMA case that said the majority opinion would lead to gay marriage. So in theory these three dissents that all reference polygamy would be a good sign for us you'd think, BUT you would be making the fatal mistake that our government is still a fair minded dispenser of justice looking to keep a level playing field for all of our citizens. Instead it is looking to promote and enshrine a chaotic and radical secular individualism. You can be sure that polygyny with its roots in patriarchy and religion will be opposed even if they find a way to sanction other unholy polyamorous unions. I just don't think anything is going to get easier for Christians from this point on. But who knows. God works in mysterious ways and I don't know nothing so we'll see.
 
Zec, I'm with you on that. The urge for biblical polygyny is patriarchal, hierarchical, and tribal, while the urge toward gay marriage (marriage equality, etc.) is feminist, egalitarian, and anti-tribal — they are not the same.

Some people think they're speaking for (or against) polygamy when they've really failed to distinguish between polygamy and group marriage, polyamory, etc. Talk of redefining marriage to include more than two people is a tip-off that they're on an entirely different wagon.
 
Don't for get though that the majority of "Christians" see polygamy (even polygyny) as wrong, and will fight against it, giving it the automatic secular support you fear.
 
True. The spirit that guides them though is not unaware of this and I have a hard time thinking he will let 2,000 years worth of work slide by the wayside.
 
What about the Cody Brown case? I wonder if this will end up at the Supreme Court. From what I understand, the recent ruling which decriminalized cohabitation in Utah is being appealed.
 
Yes but the appeal should be good for us. The higher court appeal should fail, which effectively automatically extends decriminalization to any state in the circuit. The higher it goes, the more it helps. Admittedly, it does put it at risk each time, but it's a very solid case.
 
Of course, the decriminalization of PM in general would probably mean, in this liberal world, an acceptance of polyandry and whatever other odd combos one can imagine... I wonder, however, if Biblical-style PM will specifically come under attack as being anti-(whatever liberal agenda fits best here) whereas other things such as polyamory and that nonsense will be championed as the next great strides in American freedom. (those last few words make my head hurt)
 
I just really don't see how polyamory could be legalized while polygyny remained illegal. Makes zero sense. Personally I don't care if marrying trees becomes legal, as I think the government needs to stay out of marriage in general.
 
I think you're right Zec. Didn't the same thing recently happen in Canada? The way I see it, polygyny is the philosophical polar opposite of the direction our society has headed and I'd be surprised if they open the door to it. They'll probably claim it's inherently abusive as it promotes inequality, which is the great "sin" of our day and age. Some people are more equal than others, you know.

Untold Glory, the government should ideally stay out of marriage. However, I fear that it's a poisoned pawn. If marriage ever ceases to be recognized then we will no longer belong to families, we will be individuals in the eyes of the law. This means increased license for government intrusion into our personal affairs. Wives could be compelled to testify against husbands, licenses could be required to work with children including your own, inheritance would pass more readily to the state, etc. It's a slippery slope indeed.

I'm becoming more firm on the opinion that the attack has been on Christianity itself all along, this time through vehicle of the destruction of the concept of marriage. Of course, the recent ruling is only one of many moral steps downward as adultery, divorce, fornication, drunkenness, and more are not only legal, but they rarely raise eyebrows even among Christians anymore.
 
You pegged it Joe. The church gave all of this ground up a long time ago. We pretty much made all of this inevitable when we decided to define marriage for ourselves, outlawing polygyny. The nail though was when we quietly let divorce become acceptable, when we okayed something God hates I believe He cut us loose right then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top