Eagle Forum Legislative Alerts

Friday, February 14, 2014

Court Revives "Relic of Barbarism"

The very first national platform adopted by the Republican Party in 1856 declared that “it is both the right and the imperative duty of Congress to prohibit in the Territories those twin relics of barbarism — Polygamy, and Slavery.” Throughout English history, polygamy has been prohibited as a crime. The Supreme Court once observed that “there never has been a time in any State of the Union when polygamy has not been an offence against society.”

Yet polygamy is back, due to judicial supremacists who know no bounds of decency. A celebrity who promotes a polygamous lifestyle on television sued to establish a right to cohabit with multiple women, whom he calls his “sister wives.” He sued to establish a constitutional right to live in this polygamous-like arrangement. The only thing missing from formal polygamy is a marriage license with each of the women; he officially married only one, but unofficially cohabits with all four women. Together they raise 16 children. Utah law prohibits this arrangement, but in the case of Brown vs. Buhman a federal judge in Utah recently invalidated much of the Utah law. His decision allows the equivalence of polygamous relationships as long as there is not a formal marriage certificate for each wife. The judge portrayed opposition to polygamy as being historically racist, supposedly born of prejudice against eastern and African cultures that welcome polygamy. The court then found a constitutional right to polygamous relationships based on the free exercise clause in the Constitution and due process.

Why the deafening silence from feminists, from whom one might expect to hear a loud protest? Perhaps because the feminists are not pro-women; they just want to kill the nuclear family. So the burden falls again on the Republican Party to oppose and eradicate polygamy as one of the “twin relics of barbarism.”

Listen to the radio commentary here:



1 comment:

Anonymous said...

It's possible that feminist groups didn't say anything because they support Biblical marriage. Or maybe they were respecting the religious freedom of these Christians. They also might believe in smaller government that doesn't intrude on people's lives. But I think the most likely reason they didn't say anything is because there is no serious effort in this country to actually legalize polygamy.
Utah had a unique law that prevented adults from deciding their own living arrangements. The court ruling struck that down. Now Utah is like every other state on the issue of polygamy; it's not legal but you don't need a marriage license to live in the same house.

Post a Comment