90.9 WBUR - Boston's NPR news station
Top Stories:
PLEDGE NOW
A Comeback For Polygamy In Utah?

Polygamy, sister wives, plural families get a boost from a court ruling in Utah. We’ll ask, “What Now?”

Members of the polygamous Brown family of Utah gather for a Christmas gift exchange. A lawsuit the family brought against a Utah statute banning polygamous-style co-habitation was successful in a court ruling in late December. (DCL / TLC)

Members of the polygamous Brown family of Utah gather for a Christmas gift exchange. A lawsuit the family brought against a Utah statute banning polygamous-style co-habitation was successful in a court ruling in late December. (DCL / TLC)

In 1890, the US Supreme Court called polygamy “abhorrent to the sentiments of the civilized world.” Mormon Utah was required to ban the practice – sister wives and all – before it was granted statehood.  Ten days ago, a federal judge in Utah – a George W. Bush appointee – said no to all that.  Polygamous husbands and wives can’t all legally marry one another, he said, but they have every right to cohabitate and live as polygamously as they like.  Critics say it’s proof we’re on a slippery slope after gay marriage.  Supporters say its freedom.  This hour On Point:  polygamy unbound, again, in Utah.

- Tom Ashbrook

Guests

Howard Berkes, investigations correspondent for NPR, based in Salt Lake City.

Jonathan Turley, professor of law at The George Washington School of Law. He represented the polygamous Brown family  from the TLC reality series, “Sister Wives.” (@JonathanTurley)

Ken Klukowski, director of the Center For Religious Liberty at the Family Research Council. Senior legal analyst at Brietbart News. (@kenklukowski)

Kristyn Decker, a former spouse in a polygamous family. Author of “Fifty Years In Polygamy: Big Secrets and Little White Lies.” (@KristynDecker)

From Tom’s Reading List

Los Angeles Times: Polygamy supporters pleased that parts of Utah law are struck down – “Proponents say polygamist cohabitation among fundamentalist Mormons traditionally involves one marriage certificate; any additional wives represent religion-based relationships that are protected under the Constitution. They say the judge’s ruling has preserved laws against bigamy, which involves more than one marriage license. Waddoups ruled that while there was no ‘fundamental right’ to practice polygamy, the central issue was religious cohabitation, and that the language in the Utah law — ‘or cohabits with another person’ — should be struck.”

Salt Lake Tribune: The Utah polygamy ruling: Questions and answers – “In a nutshell, what did the judge say? He said the state could show no public interest in broad language that lumps cohabitation into the category of bigamy and the law was applied unevenly over the decades. Utah used it to prosecute people subscribing to early Mormon teachings and who were public about it rather than investigating anyone it suspected of breaking the statute. This, Waddoups said, amounted to violations of the First and 14th amendments.”

The Daily Beast: Was Rick Santorum Right About Polygamy After All? — “A decade ago, Rick Santorum said polygamy, among other things, would be allowed if bans on sodomy were struck down by the Supreme Court. ‘Sometimes I hate it when what I predict comes true,’ the once and likely future Republican presidential candidate tweeted Sunday after a federal judge decriminalized polygamy in Utah. Judge Clark Waddoups ruled late Friday that parts of the state’s law are unconstitutional, based on a Supreme Court ruling that legalized sodomy across the nation.”

Please follow our community rules when engaging in comment discussion on this site.
  • HonestDebate1

    And we were told the slippery slope from gay marriage to polygamy was silly.

    • DorothyMA

      It was and is. I certainly hope On Point isn’t suggesting… Or allowing guests to suggest…. That gay marriage (where only 2 people, consenting, non related,adults) means polygamy is inevitable. We should all remember… JUST LIKE STRAIGHT PEOPLE, Gays cannot legally marry more than 1 other non-related, consenting adult.

      The conversation about the history of polygamy is itself one thing. But it is not related to Gays. Remember we are talking about a practice that hearkens back to biblical times (and more recently, add the tale of the Romney family in Mexico tells).

      It seems to me that “pro ‘traditional’ marriage” groups have made a backfiring argument. By insisting that gay marriage is slippery slope to all sorts of outrages, they’re giving cover and credence to pro polygamy advocates.

      • HonestDebate1

        But the issue has gained much traction of late as a result of gay marriage. Historically for millennia marriage was defined as between a man and a woman. Remember we are talking about a practice that hearkens back to biblical times. You’re correct in your historical perspective but the very same arguments apply to polygamy and many pointed that out.

        • DorothyMA

          Confused by your point. Polygamy has a very solid historical pedigree. In the Bible. In Utah. In Romneys. ays have nothing to do with it.

          • TFRX

            He doesn’t have a point, actually. He’s just JAQing it, which is a speciality of his.

          • brettearle

            Homosexuality goes back to Antiquity.

          • Don_B1

            Including other mammals (dolphins, etc.) which exhibit homosexual behavior.

            But wait until the trolls take off with that one.

          • brettearle

            Yes, sir…

            [Although some trolls don't seem to need any impetus from the Enemy, in order to pontificate.]

          • HonestDebate1

            Sure it does.

          • Don_B1

            [Dis]HonestDebate1 always tries to confuse every issue, so don’t get too upset. He thinks it is “smart” to mess around with people’s minds rather than make any real contribution to the debate.

          • HonestDebate1

            Yes, that why I said your historical perspective is correct. My point is marriage had nothing to do with gays either until we redefined the word. Now all bets are off.

          • anon

            In Judaism until Israel made it illegal relatively recently, in Islam, all over Asia and Africa… in Hinduism… men in Hong Kong even now often have mistresses in mainland China, Jacques Chirac basically had two wives although only one could be legal, and that was respected in France… it’s not just Mormons.

      • brettearle

        Homosexuality harkens far back to antiquity, as well.

        For me, the argument, here, is:

        The Self-Righteous Police, from the Conservative Movement, will look for any reason out there, that, in their view, might encourage their definition of immorality or decadence.

        It’s one of the reasons why a part of the Conservative Movement still blames the 60s for “the decline and fall of America.”

    • brettearle

      With, or without, Mitt’s approval?

      • HonestDebate1

        I’m not sure I understand the question. I don’t think Mr. Romney supports polygamy.

        • DorothyMA

          His grandparents fled the United States to Mexico because they made polygamy illegal. Which goes to show ya, your concept of traditional marriage isn’t in fact very old or traditional at all. See also multiple wives in Bible.

          • brettearle

            Yeah, but in literal terms, HD may be right.

            Are you thinkin’ that Mitt, underneath it all, believes in polygamy–but that for political cover he had to suppress his true conviction?

          • HonestDebate1

            I could be wrong but I think you are absolutely correct. That is the implication too silly to put into words but easily lobbed out there for ideologues to connect their own dots.

          • 1Brett1

            It’s more likely that a powerful political figure who is devoutly Mormon, including respecting all of their traditions, has some interest in the legalization of polygamy, than it is a polygamist who wishes to be associated with gays and lesbians.

          • HonestDebate1

            It is absolutely consistent for you to ignore why he has said, ignore the fact that Mormons abandoned polygamy decades ago and believe you know what Romney thinks. It’s what you do.

          • 1Brett1

            I didn’t say anything about any of that; you just didn’t understand my comment. By the way, you sound as though you know that Romney is completely disinterested in this ruling…I can’t find anything that says he’s weighed in on this at all, yet. Besides, this wouldn’t be an issue if Mormons had no interest in it.

          • brettearle

            Brett,

            Did you know that traditional Mormonism locates the original Garden of Eden, in the state of Missouri?

            Look it up….and Merry Christmas.

          • 1Brett1

            Merry Christmas to you! And Happy Holidays! (the latter because I’m a commie pinko, that’s how we roll!).

            Yeah, I have heard that about Eden, and a lot of goofy beliefs that have been part of Mormonism, too. Supposedly, all manner of religious folk/prophets/mini-messiahs, etc., are expected to congregate there in Missouri, er, The Garden of Eden, just before the Second Coming!

            Have you heard about the strange “magical” undergarments young missionaries are expected to wear to prevent any feelings down in the nether regions?

          • brettearle

            Is this an SNL send-up or something else?

            [I shudder to think, what?]

          • 1Brett1

            It sounds like an SNL skit, but it’s true.

          • brettearle

            Maybe we should have the Elders host SNL one night.

            Ring up, Lorne!

          • hennorama

            This brings up the obvious question:

            Do Netherlanders call their “nether regions” ‘home’?

          • 1Brett1

            Yes, I believe they do.

          • brettearle

            Good one.

            That can be topped. [But only theoretically]

          • hennorama

            It lends a whole new meaning to “securing the homeland.”

          • brettearle

            Without any terrorist alert. [Unless you're a prude.]

          • 1Brett1

            HD1 is a cherry picker when it comes to defending his narrative, so facts don’t really matter to him (at least the ones that don’t fit his narrative don’t matter, anyway).

          • brettearle

            Disqus

        • brettearle

          C’mon, HD….

          Stop playing coy.

          It was a (guilty-by-association) political barb.

          • nj_v2

            He can deftly flip between willful ignorance and the inborn type.

          • HonestDebate1

            It missed the mark.

          • brettearle

            Translated:

            It went over your head.

          • HonestDebate1

            I caught the snark but it wasn’t based in reality. Snark needs a bit of reality to be effective. It just came off to me as an uninformed cheap shot. That’s just my opinion, there are plenty of cheap shot fans here who liked it. You’re cool.

          • brettearle

            God,

            Looks like I can reduce my visits to the psychoanalyst.

            Thanks for the euphoric heads-up….

            What do I owe ya?

          • HonestDebate1

            It’s on the house.

    • 1Brett1

      Jeesh, is there no end to your inanity? Yes, we know you are against gay marriage.

      • jefe68

        He’s a real pill.

        • 1Brett1

          He has engaged in that inane pastime of making some ridiculous causation between gay marriage getting more acceptance and polygamy. There has been a bill recently about gay marriage on the docket in Utah, but to suggest that this polygamy thing in Utah has a direct causation to gay marriage is…well, something only a narrow-minded, Phil Robertson-supporting redneck would try to pass off as real.

          • HonestDebate1

            The polygamist shifted into high gear as soon as the gay marriage decisions were codified. They were open about it. Now there is an On Point show. The Daily Beast article linked above makes the connection as does Tom’s own caption up top. This is not some lark I dreamed up. Would you call Mr. Ashbrook a narrow-minded redneck? This is what we told you would happen. The same arguments are being used.

          • 1Brett1

            I knew you were going to say that.

            You know, Tom also uses captions about Lady Gaga when he has a segment about Classical music. So? It’s called selling a topic. So what if news outlets want to combine the two to build controversy?

            So what if polygamists have seized on some opportunistic moment. Aside from that there is no “slippery slope” phenomenon going on here. It’s all trumped up for what interests there are: polygamists see a legal opportunity; On Point sees increased listeners for that segment; The Daily Beast want more hits that day; you never miss an opportunity to bash gay rights…so?

            You do have one thing correct: this might just be further indication that you have no original thoughts but are just spurred on by stuff you hear.

          • HonestDebate1

            I’m on topic, sue me.

          • 1Brett1

            Figures you would associate gay marriage purely with sodomy; based on what you have said the past few days, it’s all you associate with gay marriage.

          • HonestDebate1

            Not at all. Nothing could be further from the truth. Please don’t tell me what I think.

          • jefe68

            I feel sorry for him. I bet he has horses with more sense and brains.

          • jefe68

            I doubt that this Robertson character is really a redneck. It would seem a lot of this is nothing short of a marketing ploy.
            There are photos of one of them with bleached tips from a decade back or so and I don’t see to many redneck boys going for that kind of hairstyle. Mullet would be more like it.

          • 1Brett1

            Yeah, the whole image they project is phony (the article you linked yesterday–I think it was you, anyway–was spot on about the whole clan being rich yuppies who remade themselves into redneck backwoods regular folk for the show). The show is a marketing vehicle for the Duck Commander brand…I wouldn’t be surprised if there are a few more twists and turns to this stunt and Phil winds up back on the show (it’s like pro-wrestling).

            Phil’s words are still damning, especially to some young person thinking about coming out in a small, rural town replete with fundamentalist Christians; it serves to push people back in the closet.

            By the way, Happy Holidays, jefe, to you and yours, and thanks for your presence among these various hoodlums on this forum.

    • nj_v2

      That’s nothing. It’s all a precursor to bestiality. Just you wait and see.

      • TFRX

        You should be careful lest you end up covered in Santorum.

        • brettearle

          Can I assume–and I pretty much do assume it–that you know exactly what you are saying?

          • TFRX

            Oh, certainly. As assured as one high-media-profile ex-Senator from Penna should not be saying anything about “plugging up the back end” regarding the Obamacare website.

          • brettearle

            Santorum’s mind must have exploded [no jokes, please!] when he saw his name in the Urban Dictionary–next to a, shall we say, very specialized definition.

            Ah, the connotations of words and their meanings….

          • brettearle

            Not that it matters to the history of Mankind, but this exchange that we’re having, is somewhat of a humorous riot…

      • HonestDebate1

        Good point.

    • NrthOfTheBorder

      “We were told” by whom ?

  • Coastghost

    Maybe the cure here is for Federal judge Waddoups and Federal judge Shelby to wed in homosexual matrimony before each embarks on an unchartered course toward homosexual polygamy.

    • brettearle

      Caligula, here we come.

      • jefe68

        One must put Gaius Caligula into the context of the era he lived and reigned in. It’s not as if Tiberius was a saint.

        • brettearle

          You’ve exposed my dilettantism:

          That’s beyond my pay-grade.

          I’ll try to get back to you.

          • jefe68

            Tiberius retired to Capri, he had a huge villa built for him, Villa Jovis, the Villa of Jove (Jupiter). He was known for indulging in pedophilia with young children, mostly boys. He was also apparently drank copious amounts of wine.

          • brettearle

            Thanks for the curricula [of Caligula].

            Did Alexander the Great, in his writings, ever pay homage to Tiberius?

          • jefe68

            Sorry, but Alexander the Great (356 – 323 BC) was before Tiberius’ time (42 BC – 37 AD) by a few centuries. I have read that Tiberius claimed to be a descendant of Alexander the Great.

          • brettearle

            Thank you.

            Well, regardless of my historical [hysterical] inaccuracy, they apparently had the same syndrome.

          • jefe68

            How so? Did Alexander torture children and babies for sexual pleasure?

          • brettearle

            It’s my understanding that the Alexander of ancient times–had he lived now– would be registered as a Class 1 Offender.

          • jefe68

            All men of power in Ancient Greece used sex as form of dominance and doing it with young boys was part of that power.
            However, Alexander was not to my knowledge as deprived as Tiberius or Caligula.

            If you are interested in this subject you should read ‘TheTwelve Caesars’ of Suetonius (born AD 69), covering the Roman rulers from Julius Caesar to Domitian. It’s a fascinating history of the Caesars. I recommend the Robert Graves translation.

          • brettearle

            Thanks for the Reference.

            But it would be lower on priority.

            My interest in Ancient history lie in the Greek Polis, Thucydides, Gibbons’s Decline and Fall, Pericles, Alcabiades, Herodotus, Heraclitus, Lucretius, the Punic Wars; and early Greek settlements. Maybe some of Sophocles and Aeschylus.

            That’ll keep me going for a while….

          • jefe68

            The Punic wars were between Rome and Carthage. The First Punic War (264 to 241 BC) was fought many years (centuries) after the Athenian Golden age ( 480 BC-404 BC).

          • Don_B1

            I guess that would depend on who he preyed on. R. Kelley apparently gets away with preying on 14-year-olds because he targets young black girls from broken homes or worse.

            It is widely acknowledged that our culture seems to put poor black girls at the bottom of the (whatever) list.

          • jefe68

            What we now call pedophilia, yes they did.

  • Shag_Wevera

    I’m surprised that conservatives are so quickly against this. Isn’t it a libertarian, freedom of religion thing? If everyone involved is in agreement, what’s the problem?

    • Coastghost

      Is “freedom” simply “license”? No prudent bounds or limits for freedom?
      Why not just propose anarchy straight-up?

      • brettearle

        But do you not concede that your definition of Freedom is limited by your own Moral Code?

        And while we all have our limits–in terms of what we view that Moral Code to be–indeed, your moral code may very well be stricter than the moral code of most Liberals?

        And, basically, isn’t that the real reason why you asked Shag the question you asked–as if you were suggesting that it was an All-or-Nothing choice?

        “Either we accept Coastghost’s Moral Code, or else it is “Anarchy Straight-Up” for Mankind?

        • Coastghost

          I don’t recall offering any “moral code” for consideration: so no, I do not concede that my definition of “freedom” is constrained by “my own Moral Code”.
          To my eyes Shag was offering a rather open-ended view of what freedom and liberty consist of: I simply asked whether that’s a credible political view.

    • brettearle

      Libertarian principles, here, it seems to me, are subservient to the Dogmatic Moral Code of the Conservative Movement….

    • Rick Evans

      Libertarian conservative.

  • Scott B

    The tricky part is how do you divine the line between something like the Browns, which seem the more sane type of polygamy, where the women have say in the relationship, and the Warren Jeffs’ whacky version where a man has dozens of wives, keeps them barefoot and pregnant, some aren’t even close to being legal age, and all the young males are driven out of the town when they hit 18.

    • NrthOfTheBorder

      Let’s call the whacky version what it is: sick and perverted.

  • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

    Is anybody harmed with gay marriage or with polygamist marriage? Do people *have* to be married to live together?

    • rberryj3

      Neil,
      You are correct and everyone else is missing the point. The Gay Marriage movement allowed the meaning of “marriage” to escape the bounds of One Man and One Woman. After that, all bets were off; Polygamy, Incest, all of what is coming out now. While I do not practice or approve (as if it matters anyway), whom does it harm is THE question. Period! Unless someone can show (and good luck with that) a problem with children in such arrangements, please, leave people alone. There is NOTHING criminal in any of this, At the end of the day, it’s all about money, property, and legal rights (wills, child custody, health advocacy, etc,).

      • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

        No, I don’t think that incest or statutory rape or anything else is necessarily allowed after we legalize gay marriage.

      • NrthOfTheBorder

        rb. Great remarks.

  • fromanjon

    As a counselor and a student working on my PsyD, I’d be curious to hear how the children who are raised in polygamist families are affected by the living situation. I wonder if the children feel neglected by the paternal figure or abused by the other mothers of the other children. A very interesting situation.

    • brettearle

      What do you mean, `abused’?

      • fromanjon

        Emotional or physical. I haven’t watched the TV show that this discussion came from, but I can imagine that there are jealousy issues that pop up with the amount of attention given to the different wives and their children – which may lead to harassment of other wives’ children. Or different forms of discipline to children that are not their own.

        A bit off topic, but how do the children refer to the other wives of their father? Do they call them “sister-mother” or are they referred to as aunts?

        • brettearle

          I see your point.

          And it seems to me that it is a good point.

          It would appear that, human nature being what it is, such Impulses would be inevitable..

          However, can we assume that the closely monitored teachings of Mormonism–even though I, personally, might not `approve’ of the religion, myself–might try to play down, or, at least, actively discourage, such dissension?

          After all, if the traditional mores of Mormonism provide for Polygamy, one has to assume that the Holders of their Gospel have a built-in strategy, thereof.

          To wit: Polygamy was a founding principle/lifestyle, of this Faith, was it not?

          • fromanjon

            Kristyn seemed to make the point that there is abuse against the children, which can’t be applied to all families in polygamous relationships, but it doesn’t sound like it was a stand alone case.

  • Roy-in-Boise

    America is all about equal opportunity. With this judgement “Polyandry” lurks.

  • allenius

    On another topic, I hope that Tom will continue to do shows on the ongoing crisis at Fukushima where it is not only leakage of radioactive water at issue but possible explosions in the process of removing fuel rods from #4 as well as later trying to deal with the 3 reactors with melted down cores. This plant is in an earthquake zone and there are active undersea volcanoes nearby too, just to add icing to the cake. Fukushima is one of the greatest dangers facing the earth.

    • brettearle

      Call the executive producer of this program.

  • TFRX

    Breitbart News (sic) and FRC?

    I guess all the better guests are taking the week off.

  • Rick Evans

    Are the “sister wives” and their kids entitled to his Social Security benefits? I imagine the progeny are but I doubt the “sister wives” are qualified. I imagine Jonathan Turley has to be researching his big sister widows vs. Social Security Administration case.

  • Coastghost

    If only a single marriage license is issued to practicing polygamists, why are the “spiritual marriages” not construed as “adultery”?

    • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

      Is adultery a crime?

      • Coastghost

        Still constitutes grounds for divorce, does it not?

        • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

          That depends on the people involved.

          • Coastghost

            I think divorce laws remain much more robust than you suggest, nice try, though.

          • brettearle

            CG’s probably right about this–at least theoretically.

            I think that plaintiffs are often using Adultery as a defense, rather than Irreconcilable Differences or Irretrievable Breakdown.

            The Court still regards it with more weight.

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            There is a big difference between a crime and grounds for divorce. This On Point program is not about divorce.

          • Coastghost

            Get real: if the subject entails discussion of marriage laws in the US, it automatically entails consideration of divorce.

          • brettearle

            Never said it was about divorce.

            The only thing–again, the only thing that I was doing–was pointing out that adultery, I believe, can still be used as grounds for divorce, in legal proceedings for divorce.

  • hennorama

    What about a hypothetical circumstance in which “sister wives” pair off and get married? Then their “husband” could generously “donate” his genetic material. Children would then be legitimate, right?

    • brettearle

      That is much too Surrogate for me.

      • hennorama

        brettearle — apologies in advance, but you did Release The Crackin’:

        Surrogate = Urge, Sorta = Great! Ours! = Rare Gusto = Star Rogue = Rut Or Sage?

        • brettearle

          OK, this may yet be beyond my Ken, Henn….

          Out with it!

  • Coastghost

    Does Jonathan Turley endorse “consensual bestiality”? Doesn’t hurt anyone, does it?

    • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

      That is a separate issue, I think.

    • TFRX

      Koncern Troll is Conserned.

    • JasonB

      It hurts animals.

      • Coastghost

        Animal testimony is probably not allowable in most courts, however.

        • J__o__h__n

          speciesist

          • Coastghost

            Blame it on our legal system, the development of which I’ve made no contribution to.

          • Labropotes

            In custody disputes regarding dogs, the contending parties are often asked to call the dog in question. The dog decides.

          • Coastghost

            Ooooh, precedent! (Don’t tell Jonathan Turley!)

    • Bigtruck

      ahhh ignorance

    • elle

      yes, it does, the animals are victims. I understand most of us do not care about harm to animals.
      but anyway I believe women are often harmed in polygamy, poly relationships are mostly men taking several women partners. like in other societies where men are permitted to take several wives, the women are always lesser (eg Saudi Arabia).

    • hennorama

      Please explain how a “beast” can give consent.

      • Coastghost

        Oh c’mon, hen: a lawyer as credentialed and accomplished as Jonathan Turley, or a Federal judge as imaginative as a Shelby or a Waddoups, can surely find some plausible rationale.

        • hennorama

          Translation: your original post was an absurd fantasy.

          • Coastghost

            hen: this entire show has been an absurd fantasy.

          • hennorama

            I have to take your word for that, as I haven’t been listening.

          • hennorama

            Coastghost — any thoughts on the hypothetical I posed below, which is reality-based?

          • Coastghost

            Thanks for the invitation, but no: in keeping with the absurd premises of this show, I prefer posing my own hypotheticals: I’ve already offered a prompt for homosexual polygamy which no one has taken up.
            Polygamy properly can consist of either polygyny or polyandry, but I see no sign here that feminists are swarming all over the prospect of maintaining their own harems.
            I see from my copy of Webster’s Ninth Collegiate that baboons are polygamous, which gives us yet another sound basis upon which to consider this issue. (See my comments above concerning bestiality: baboons may be readily identifiable as consensual, at least as long as the relationship is polygamous.)

      • HonestDebate1

        If the beast does not bite off the perpetrators’s head then that implies consent.

        Two guys were walking down the road and saw a dog licking himself. One man said, “I wish I could do that” to which the other man replied, “Aren’t you afraid the dog will bite you”?

        • 1Brett1

          Still telling bad jokes from your fifth-grade recess breaks i see.

          • brettearle

            Deserves a verbal ha, ha–`stead of a thumbs up.

            [After all, it's Christmas.]

        • jefe68

          Oh the inanity.

    • JasonB

      Cruelty to animals is illegal.

      • Coastghost

        A good lawyer surely could prove that the animal in question was having a great time: if the privacy of any perpetrator’s home is sacrosanct, I don’t know how any judge could rule against him or her.

    • truegangsteroflove

      I wonder why someone would be curious about this.

      • Coastghost

        If curiosity about curiosity is a good thing, then surely curiosity itself is a good thing, no?

  • John_Hamilton

    I wonder if a woman who is in a poygamous marriage could marry a man who is in another marriage, polygamous or otherwise. Expanding the concept further, could a woman with several husbands have an additional marriage with a woman? Several women? It could get really interesting if the marriages were multiracial.

    It may be an afront to conventional sensibilities, but the key element seems to be quality of the home life. For all our national obsession with test scores, the most important factor I have found in student success in school is the situation at home. Millions of children in this country have an unstable home environment, typically with no father present, and often the mother absent. With polygamy it is highly unlikely for the father to be absent, and almost as unlikely for one or all of the mothers to be absent.

    Whatever the case, we’ll know our culture has really transformed when women with several husbands become commonplace. One can only imagine the scene on Saturday nights. Or Sunday afternoons during pro football season.

  • JasonB

    I’m troubled by this cohabitation law. These people cannot get multiple marriage licenses, but I’m shocked that there is a law that prohibits adults from living together.

    • Labropotes

      Reminds me of the idea that it is legal to grow poppies, but if the DEA can show that someone just KNOWS it’s possible to make heroin from poppies, it isn’t legal. Per Harper’s.

      • hennorama

        Pay no attention to the photographic avatar yonder <—. This is not the poppy grower you seek.

        • brettearle

          ‘Hennorama’ refers to tattoos, anyway.

          We know that his namesake runs a parlor in New Orleans.

          We’ve outed ya, haven’t we Henn?

          Admit it.

          • hennorama

            brettearle — you’re thinking of “HennArama,” which is a work of art “by jendalynn.”

            We are not affiliated with this particular artist.

          • brettearle

            OK, then what about Henna-Barbara?

            Out with it, you’re an animator.

            [Just a joke, just a pun]

          • hennorama

            brettearle — I once helped build an animation studio, albeit a very small one. But an animator? Hardly.

            I Roam, Tan.
            A Matron, I?
            Not Maria.
            Am Anti. Or?
            Ratio Man?

          • brettearle

            Give me a Hint.

          • hennorama

            New moniker for [hennorama]:

            The Anagraminator.

          • brettearle

            Stephen Marcato?

          • hennorama

            He Acts Omen Part?

          • brettearle

            Very Good!

          • 1Brett1

            Well, henn’s comments are nothing if not animated, I’ll say that!

          • brettearle

            No ego massage intended, for either of you, two….But ya know, that is a rather accurate (and animated) way of describing his mirth.

            Yesirree, Hob(bit)

          • brettearle

            There you again [as stated by Gumby], with the, “We”, Your Highness….

          • hennorama

            brettearle — as previously stated, we are not plural, nor do we claim any royal right.

            Perhaps One should expect some comeuppance when poorly paraphrasing Obi-Wan Kenobi.

          • brettearle

            How did Guiness get into this?

            Right about now, I’m high on a Double Martini, not very dry..

          • hennorama

            brettearle — it’s not as funny when explained, but “This is not the poppy grower you seek” was intended as a paraphrase of “These aren’t the droids …”

            Enjoy your Erudition Balm, Rebel Treat.

          • brettearle

            Well, as was once said in one of my top favorite flicks, of all time (albeit in a totally different context, so I apologize for my idiosyncratic and droll placement):

            “A slice off a used loaf’s never missed.”

            Betya can’t guess! [I'll bet you've seen it and loved it.]

          • hennorama

            Breaker, breaker one nine …
            What does the exterminator dream about? [cue Pink Panther theme] Dead ant, dead ant, dead ant, dead ant, dead ant?

            No.

            More ant, Morant, more ant.

          • brettearle

            C’mon….!

            Don’t give me the business!

            You looked that up!

            Be Honest!

          • hennorama

            What can I say? I really enjoy Bryan ‘I Dismember Mama’ Brown’s work.

  • J__o__h__n

    If religion’s brainwashing of women to accept an inferior status were not permitted, most religions would be illegal.

    • Labropotes

      …and secularism too!

      • TFRX

        What’s this “secularism”? Most people just call it “religious freedom”, while not religiousing.

        • Labropotes

          I keep trying to reply to this but I guess I am being offensive — I can’t imagine how. I tried to say that if we begin making laws about what ideas women can be exposed to, it is unlikely that it will stop at restricting religious liberty. You and I are on the side or religious liberty.

  • https://www.facebook.com/kyle.rose Kyle Rose

    The woman speaking right now (Kristyn Decker) seems to have a good argument against cults and/or religion, not against polygamy. I know lots of educated, non-religious people in consensual polyamorous relationships who are all very happy and aren’t there because they’re afraid they’ll go to hell if they leave.

  • Labropotes

    Kristen is making a very weak case against polygamy. Too much in SNAP benefits?

  • monicaroland

    Put aside any moral questions for the moment. What about public policy problems? Jon Krakauer, in his outstanding book “Under the Banner of Heaven,” points out that polygamous sects in the Southwest bring in countless welfare dollars. Taxpayers fund these polygamous unions because men impregnate more women than they can take care of. These so-called men father children, then raise them by picking the taxpayers’ pockets.

    • https://www.facebook.com/kyle.rose Kyle Rose

      That sounds like a problem with the government safety net, not with the structure of relationships. Issues with families gaming welfare programs should not drive the legality of consensual relationships.

    • LMGale

      @Kyle Rose, right on. If the social safety net gets redesigned with an objective eye toward the effect of incentive structures on human behavior, Polygamists and all sorts of other people who can’t actually afford to take care of the children they choose to bring into the world may behave differently. Let’s get real about what the problems are, because “ew it’s gross” should stop being a viable argument after third grade.

  • http://onanov.com Donald Baxter

    This issue is also interesting in that the Canadian Supreme Court has thrown out all of Canada’s laws on prostitution and has given the House of Commons a year to come up with something that passes Constitutional muster. We need to get the law out of the issue of consensual sex. And we also need to stop this incessant trend toward prior constraint. Of course there shouldn’t be coercion–but laws banning certain types of relationships haven’t taken care of those problems and might be making the situation worse. There’s a difference between legalizing something and taking the criminalization away from it.

    • Coastghost

      Truly? Formally, a young adolescent can consent to a sexual relationship with an adult (seems to happen commonly enough in US public schools these days), but American judges seem still ready to enforce laws against such relationships.

  • LMGale

    The justice system itself, based on the principles laid out in our constitution, is a fantastic institution which could keep America bumping along on a general trajectory of progress and innovation. Corroding the justice system by using the law to uphold subjective codes of morality is FAR more dangerous to the long-term strength of the nation than adults consenting to relationships other adults can’t identify with. What we could use is a lot more focus on problem solving around just about anything that actually matters in the public sphere, like sustainable food and water systems, infrastructure, energy and education.

    • Coastghost

      Well and good: but insofar as marriage has heretofore functioned as an institution facilitating social, cultural, political, and economic continuity from generation to generation, does it not merit considerable attention?

      • LMGale

        You present a false dichotomy based on the assumption that recognizing legally the legitimacy of a committed relationship between two people of the same gender or multiple people of different genders will unravel the fabric of civilization. It won’t. The vast majority of humans who choose to enter into marriage do so for the purpose of making concrete to themselves and indicating to others of our social species that they are building a new unit, be it family or just a committed couple, with the intention to maintain its integrity come what may. We all know hetero couples don’t necessarily respect the gravity importance or the social nature of that commitment. Accepting marriage as a commitment first and foremost honors the purpose of marriage, and accepts the reality of the gender spectrum, and the capacity of people to commit to and grow whatever family unit works for them. Humans have done that for ages. There isn’t a higher incidence of sexual depravity among homosexuals than heterosexuals. Divorce, cheating and other family-corroding behavior is rampant enough as it is, imagine how much more often that would happen if heterosexual couples were not allowed to formalize committed relationships.

        • Coastghost

          Whether homosexual unions yield high divorce rates remains to be seen: the jury is not “out”, the jury has not yet even been empaneled, since statistics on homosexual divorce rates have not yet been compiled appreciably: so your focus on relationship commitment can be regarded only as tentative.
          It is the case also that the advent of homosexual unions of whatever legitimization will not necessarily result in any kind of appreciable “mainstreaming” of homosexuals in the broader culture: homosexuals remain a marginal population (statistically deviant, that is), and I see no reason to suspect that homosexuals will ever comprise more than roughly 5% of any given population, even when aggregated under the collective rubric L, G, B, and T. Homosexuals may be enjoying social acclaim among Millennials just now, but Millennials will not comprise the US population from here until eternity, and since Millennials show every sign of having postponed the onset of emotional maturity, their present opinions remain subject to change.
          Heterosexual divorce rates I attribute largely to the advent of female contraceptive pharmaceuticals in the 1960s, along with other nifty novelties proffered by medical and biological science.

          • LMGale

            Your argument is full of willfully ignorant holes, but I’ll focus on this one- you present another false dichotomy based on the assumption that homosexuality can only be accepted as legitimate by mainstream culture if the population of people who gender associate as other than heterosexual surpasses 5% or so. Take that to any body of biological scientists and see if it passes muster. I’m a 6’1″ female, and it is rare to meet other women my size, but I assure you it doesn’t cause me to question the legitimacy of my height.

          • Coastghost

            I did not say or assume that “homosexuality can only be accepted as legitimate by mainstream culture if the (homosexual) population . . . surpasses 5% or so”. I said and continue to assume that the advent of legitimated homosexual unions will not necessarily result in lasting acceptance in mainstream culture, in part owing to the fact that the LGT population (I sometimes defer to Louise Brooks’ assurance that bisexualism does not even exist) likely won’t ever comprise more than roughly 5% of the general population.

  • Jon

    One of the freedom or human liberty is now defined and measured by how many women a man can mate with.

    • Coastghost

      Requisite specificity: by how many women a man can mate with, how many men a woman can mate with, how many men a man can mate with, how many women a woman can mate with.
      Still to come: how many parents, siblings, or children a man or woman can mate with, how many animals a man or woman can mate with, how many machines a man or woman can mate with, how many cadavers a man or woman can mate with.
      And we’ll just have to keep getting more and more inventive, somehow, our legal system requires it of us.

      • hennorama

        As Jon Stewart asked on April 3, 2013,

        “What is it with you guys and the animal f#cking? Why do you always go there?”

        • Coastghost

          YOU (and Jon Stewart) are specifying it here, hen: I was as utterly inclusive in my comment above as my feeble imagination permits.

          • 1Brett1

            By the way, Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays to you, Coastghost, whichever expression of good tidings you prefer. You keep the proceedings of the conservative contingent at a high mark for intellectualism…well, compared to the other usual suspects, anyway.

          • Coastghost

            Thank you, Brett, and Merry Christmas to you, too, with sincere wishes for a productive 2104. I appreciate your civility and your compliment. Permit me to apologize for being unduly snarky from time to time, while noting that “snarky” does not appear in my Webster’s Ninth Collegiate, so hang on to your OED!

          • 1Brett1

            Well, then, “snarky” IS in my OED! So there! Ha! And whatnot!

            Pfft…snark, schmark; I would be disappointed in you if you didn’t snark it up every once in a while!

        • brettearle

          The DAR Moral Code run amok, for fear of the “Slippery Slope” syndrome.

          • Coastghost

            DAR as in Daughters of the Amer. Rev.? Not mine, at least, my sources largely antedate the American Secession from Great Britain.
            No, I’m suspicious of self-fulfilling logic: kind of like the way women’s temperance types were vocal about TEMPERANCE (moderation of intake) for decades prior to passage of the Eighteenth Amendment, which then succeeded in imposing a regime of TOTAL ABSTINENCE, until the first opportunity to pass the Twenty-first Amendment came along.

          • 1Brett1

            “Regime”? I think you mean “regimen.”

          • Coastghost

            No, I meant to use “regime”, which is why I employed the word. Had I cared to use “regimen” as a synonym for “regime”, I suppose I would have resorted to it, which in this context would not have been appropriate to my meaning. (I’m one of those writers who prefers letting the meaning choose the word, I resist letting words tell me what I mean.)
            When not picking up my American Heritage Dictionary or my two-volume Thorndike-Barnhart, I consult Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate: I refer you to page 991, right column.

          • 1Brett1

            I don’t have a Websters, I have an OED, so I can’t turn to page 991, sorry.

            It is presumptuous to say, “I’m one of those writers who prefers letting the meaning choose the word, I resist letting words tell me what I mean.” It also seems designed as some kind of pseudo-clever put down, as if those who would choose the word “regimen” in this case are controlled by language in some unenlightened way. It is also a bit bloated to call the passing of an amendment a”regime” change. An entire government was not thrown out in favor of another one.

          • Coastghost

            Are you saying the OED contains fewer than 990 pages or that its entries for “regime” and “regimen” do not appear in your edition on page 991? (I resort to naïve literalism myself when it suits.)

          • 1Brett1

            If you wish to pretend that I meant what you describe, if that suits you, then that is your prerogative. It is also your prerogative to use the word “regime” instead of “regimen,” as overwrought as that is (to be a tad bloated myself in the use of “overwrought”), just so I am clear in my criticism.

            The pages in question are only two, for both dictionaries, unless Websters has devoted a whole section to the words “regime” and “regiment.” I doubt Websters has set up their dictionary that way. though, but I can’t speak to such. As I reiterate: I don’t have a Websters dictionary.

          • HonestDebate1

            I am going to step right into it knowing full well you dismiss this sort of thing. I hate to do it. I’ve restrained myself for years. There is a slippery slope from gay marriage to beastiality and that road goes straight through polygamy land via incest territory. There I said it.

            If your breaker hasn’t yet flipped and you’re still with me, allow me to challenge you on the facts of the matter. If we can redefine marriage so that it disregards sex, the fruit of humanity, what grounds do we have to argue against redefining it to include polygamy and ultimately beastiality? I am talking about purely on the unemotional legal merits.

            Answering that question has typically been dodged by claiming it is too insanely partisan insane to answer. The result is, it isn’t answered on the grounds of arrogance. You are not arrogant, you are charmingly humble. Oh, you try to be on occasion but you can’t pull it off.

            So, this was predicted:

            http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/06/28/polygamy-supreme-court/2473157/

            http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/19/leftist-law-professor-admits-gay-marriage-likely-to-lead-to-legalized-incest-polygamy/

            http://prospect.org/article/slippery-slope-polygamy-and-incest

            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/24/gay-marriage-jerome-corsi_n_3645009.html

            And now the first wave is coming true. Does the precedent now set by gay marriage help or hurt the polygamy argument? Obviously, it helps it just like it helps the incestuous animal F%ckers. And don’t tell me I’m equating squat, I’m not. I’m asking you to make the distinction your ilk told us didn’t exist. If it’s okay to change millennia of culture to redefine the most basic of all traditions, that marriage is a union between one man and one woman, then where is the line? Where? Exactly where?

          • brettearle

            HD….

            You’re bringing up the same mentality that almost has brought down the country from excessive McCarthyism in the 50s to Fear of Muslim Ideology in the 21st century…..

            and in the middle of this is the obsessive McArthyism of Sexuality:

            It is none other than Fear, Fear, Fear, Fear and Biblical Fear and Prudish Fear and Fear of the Devil and Fear of Guilt, Fear of Morbid Guilt and Fear of the Crucible and Fear of the Dark Nature of a Man’s Soul, Fear of your own dark side coming out and revealing itself….Fear, Fear, Fear, Fear, Fear, Fear

            You don’t have FDR to friggin’ kick around ANYMORE.

            You have ONLY your own goddamned FEAR that helps to destroy the basic FOUNDATION of this country….

            IF……YOU….AND…..MILLIONS….OF….. OTHERS….DON’T…..GET…OVER….IT!

            It will bring us all down….maybe not right away BUT EVENTUALLY

            Repent Ye! Thy Fear!

            AMEN

          • HonestDebate1

            Mine was a serious and sincere reply. I am often criticized around here for sounding this way or that; for insensitively coming off one way or another. Consequently, I get a lot of comments telling me what I already know. I am very well aware of the bulls eye I paint on my back. I’ll sincerely say I respect Rush, I’ll praise Palin, I’ll claim Cruz, root for Ryan, talk up the Tea Party and even judge George B better than most. And I’ll do it here in the liberal bastion.

            The truth doesn’t care about niceties like feelings, agendas and ideology.

            Your reply disappoints me, i had hoped for something more than a feeble attempt (as afore mentioned) at arrogance. It really doesn’t become you. Seriously.

          • brettearle

            Sorry.

            But your slick crusts of defense are obscured by your high intellect.

            Which is itself somewhat distorted, I’m sorry to say.

            You have one kind of aphorism–which you tout about; which comes up again and again:

            “Don’t tell me how to think.”

            It’s an issue for you.

            Why?

            Because, underneath it all–guys and gals like you and Palin and O’Reilly, and Coulter and Hannity and Beck and Phyllis Schlafley and even Cal Thomas and Charles Krauthammer and Newt and McConnell and Cheney and Santorum and Rumsfeld and Rice and Richard Perl and Wolfowitz and Curtis LeMay and Strom Thurmond and Rubio and Christie and Guliani and Hal Lindsey and Pat Robertson and McCain and Jeb Bush and Bush I and Bush II and on and on and on and on

            All of your–but all of you–are filled with uneven, excessive, even sometimes

            IRRATIONAL

            F E A R

            And the worst part about it is that most of you are in Utter Denial about it.

            And…..it is HELPING to destroy the country.

          • HonestDebate1

            I’ve never said don’t tell me how to think. Call me whatever you want but it would be nice if you even just made an attempt at addressing the issue.

            If it’s okay to change millennia of culture to redefine the most basic of all traditions, that marriage is a union between one man and one woman, then where is the line? Where? Exactly where?

          • HonestDebate1

            BTW, why didn’t you include Tom Ashbrook in your list?

          • 1Brett1

            “The truth doesn’t care about niceties like feelings, agendas and ideology.”

            Somehow, you’ve gotten the idea that your beliefs, your views, your mentality, your [whatever you want to call what you think] are essential, absolute truths. And, because societies may have embraced some aspect of some of your beliefs in the past, you are convinced this justifies your beliefs and makes them universal truths.

            A small mindset from a small mind, seriously.

          • HonestDebate1

            Please don’t tell me what i think.

          • 1Brett1

            When you tell others your opinion is an essential truth, you are telling them what you think/believe.

          • HonestDebate1

            There you go again. Read your comment, the sole indictment of me is that I think I hold the essential truth… or something. WTF!? It’s easy to criticize someone for thinking what you tell them they think. I think it’s bizarre that you have to make up stuff.

            I have opinions just like you, I will criticize you opinions if I disagree and you just write comments about me. As I told Brettearle, I know how I sound or come off, It’s on purpose. Telling me I sound racist or bigoted misses the point. My issue is honest debate. Liberals tend to avoid it and it’s fun to force them to confront the fact they cannot defend their positions. Then they get nasty, personal and start making stuff up. I love that. It’s not martyrdom. It’s rubbing liberals collective face in the fact they haven’t a leg to stand on.

            All I have to do is say Sarah Palin is intelligent or Rush is not a drug addicted hate monger and libs go nuts.

            I made the point to Brettearle that there is a slippery slope from gay marriage to polygamy. No one ever offered any counter argument. That’s the issue you stalked in on and avoided. So go ahead and continue to say what it says about me for bringing it up as you continue to offer squat to refute what is happening before your eyes.

          • 1Brett1

            Yeah, you say you intentionally sound the way you do [racist, bigoted, intolerant, and abrasive], but you are here for honest debate; okay, then.

            You mentioned “truth” in reference to what you post here; I don’t claim anything like that about my comments. You hint quite openly that you are intentionally being evasive and are using language to incite people, so at least you’re honest about that, for once.

            Why would anyone want to waste time arguing with you about your silly “slippery slope” ideas of gay marriage leading to polygamy then bestiality? It is nonsense.

            You “therories” are not worthy of some point-by-point debate. You tend to counter things with…well, let’s say it wouldn’t be surprising if you countered this “slippery slope” thing with some obscure story about a man having sex with his pig and held that up as some kind of argument support for a slippery slope.

          • HonestDebate1

            Thank you for proving my point. The polygamist are making headway and it is not unrelated to gay marriage. You can’t touch that so you dramatically dismiss it. It never has been addressed only scorned. Well, maybe there was merit and this is aside from whether it’s good or bad. On Point iS doing a show on it so I’m on topic, it’s you who can’t address the issue.

            And yes it is more effective for me to say Affirmative action judges by the color of skin. Or ask what is it about being black that make you too stupid to get an ID? I don’t care if I sound racist, I am combating racism.

            Or I’ll ask why is it intolerant to say men prefer vajayjays… as a hole. I get no answer only hate. I love slaying conventional wisdom, heres more: Tax hikes don’t always mean more revenue. The rich are paying more than ever. Less money came in under Eisenhower’s rates. GWB didn’t lie about WMD. These things make liberals heads explode. They are very passionate about thing they have been told are true.

          • HonestDebate1

            When a court rules in favor of pig sex I’ll comment. Your projections are so bizarre. Keep in mind I have never made the slippery slope gay marriage argument until this show where it was brought up.

            Your logic fails when you assume if someone sounds racist then they are racist. This can only be done with shallow dismissive thinking. That is what I expose.

            And I never sound abrasive, I’m cuddly.

          • jefe68

            Please don’t tell us what to think, then.

          • jefe68

            Caput tuum in ano est

          • LMGale

            Marriage is the institution which formalizes committed relationships. It’s a social indicator of a committed entity which other people are to be able to trust has integrity. All kinds of people make that commitment with integrity, whether society recognizes it or not. All kinds of people make that commitment without any integrity at all, an opportunity cost and disappointment to everyone in the committed unit and all the people who perhaps included that unit in their own circles of love and concern and find their social structure less solid as a result. It has nothing to do with gender or number, and everything to do with integrity. Pretending that this is the harbinger of doom for civilization is bullshit. The harbinger of doom has come and gone, with an adult population committed to individual economic gain however the profit-making use of resources corrodes health, integrity, intelligence, wisdom, and the Earth itself. The marriage discussion, and all other stupid distracting political discussions, are just flaming, crimson red herrings and you know it.

          • HonestDebate1

            Marriage is marriage and has everything to do with sex. That’s the bottom line. This isn’t an issue I am invested in but it is clear the word means nothing anymore and the slope is getting slippery. But it’s not the doom of civilization.

          • LMGale

            People can have sex without a license. I pity your spouse.

          • HonestDebate1

            I meant sex as in gender not intercourse. Gender is a term to do with grammar. Marriage is about a man an a woman. Gender is not incidental. Making it so under law has logistical problems. That’s all I’m saying. I’m all for civil unions.

          • LMGale

            Oh, good lol. As others have already said, your certainties about gender are as wrong as people’s certainties about race were not very long ago. In any case, thank goodness for the law. It doesn’t matter what your opinion is on the matter.

          • HonestDebate1

            I am smarter than what you say I think. I don’t question the legitimacy of anyones gender. I never wrote gender (sex) is more important than anything.

          • hennorama

            brettearle — it’s just another version of the Domino Theory.

        • brettearle

          See my longer diatribe, 3 comments below, in answer to HD….

  • anon

    Polygamy (or actually polygyny) has been accepted throughout most of the world, in pretty much all religious traditions, throughout history. In many places where it’s not officially legal, the tradition of men having mistresses is well-known and accepted. It cannot be compared to same-sex marriage or bestiality.

    The Mormon tradition is only one way and is not necessarily representative. In Islam, for example, a man can have up to four wives – if he meets certain conditions about treating them equally, being able to support them financially, etc. It is not required or even recommended. Each woman has the right to her own housing, and he is not allowed to marry a mother and daughter, two sisters, an aunt and niece, etc.

  • HonestDebate1

    I don’t typically enjoy the work of E.J.Dionne but I have to admit he makes some good points in this article.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ej-dionne-duck-dynasty-meet-pope-francis/2013/12/22/a147af9c-69ae-11e3-8b5b-a77187b716a3_story.html

    I particularly related to this line:

    “The answer lies in embracing a humility about how imperfectly human beings understand the divine, which is quite different from rejecting God or faith.”

    That has been my belief, it crystalizes the distinction between my views and atheism. It is the reason I think respecting each other’s religious beliefs (or non-beliefs) is paramount. We are not capable of knowing the ultimate truth.

    • J__o__h__n

      Or there isn’t an ultimate truth.

      • HonestDebate1

        A distinction without a difference.

        • J__o__h__n

          No it isn’t.

    • 1Brett1

      Not telling you what you think, here, but it seems the only beliefs you respect are Christian ones. I’ve not heard a single remark of yours that is even remotely critical of Christians. I’ve heard more then a few remarks of yours that are critical of other belief systems, including Muslims and atheists, so your sentiments seem feigned.

      • HonestDebate1

        I am not critical of Muslim’s or Atheist’s belief systems. I reject that notion completely. And I will criticize radicals whether they be Islamic homicide bombers or snake handling Baptist.

        • 1Brett1

          Oh, that’s easy for you to say when challenged, but I’ve not heard you support any particular Muslim’s or atheist’s views, but I have heard you support a lot of Christians’ views.

          It’s one thing to stand on a platform and proclaim to have an equal opportunity view of religion; it’s quite another thing to look at your record of overtly omitted support for any religion other than Christianity.

          By the way, Happy Holidays to you and yours, HD1! I say “Happy Holidays” because of my hatred, intolerance, and all around disdain for/my armchair war on Xmas.

          • HonestDebate1

            Yes, I’m sure you know my religious views better than i do.

  • MrBigStuff

    You’re going to have a legal logistics nightmare if bigamy is legalized in regards to divorce, child custody and support etc. The only feasible solution would be to emulate Canada’s current experiments with more open-ended marriage contracts and divorce proceedings.

ONPOINT
TODAY
Aug 22, 2014
Attorney General Eric Holder talks with Capt. Ron Johnson of the Missouri State Highway Patrol at Drake's Place Restaurant, Wednesday, Aug. 20, 2014, in Florrissant, Mo. (AP)

The National Guard and Eric Holder in Ferguson. ISIS beheads an American journalist. Texas Governor Rick Perry gets a mug shot. Our weekly news roundtable goes behind the headlines.

Aug 22, 2014
In this image from video posted on Facebook, courtesy of the George W. Bush Presidential Center, former President George W. Bush participates in the ice bucket challenge with the help of his wife, Laura Bush, in Kennebunkport, Maine. (AP)

The Ice Bucket Challenge: ALS, viral fundraising and how we give in the age of social media.

RECENT
SHOWS
Aug 22, 2014
In this image from video posted on Facebook, courtesy of the George W. Bush Presidential Center, former President George W. Bush participates in the ice bucket challenge with the help of his wife, Laura Bush, in Kennebunkport, Maine. (AP)

The Ice Bucket Challenge: ALS, viral fundraising and how we give in the age of social media.

 
Aug 22, 2014
Attorney General Eric Holder talks with Capt. Ron Johnson of the Missouri State Highway Patrol at Drake's Place Restaurant, Wednesday, Aug. 20, 2014, in Florrissant, Mo. (AP)

The National Guard and Eric Holder in Ferguson. ISIS beheads an American journalist. Texas Governor Rick Perry gets a mug shot. Our weekly news roundtable goes behind the headlines.

On Point Blog
On Point Blog
Why Facebook And Twitter Had Different Priorities This Week
Friday, Aug 22, 2014

There’s no hidden agenda to the difference between most people’s Facebook and Twitter feeds this week. Just a hidden type of emotional content and case use. Digiday’s John McDermott explains.

More »
Comment
 
Our Week In The Web: August 22, 2014
Friday, Aug 22, 2014

On mixed media messaging, Spotify serendipity and a view of Earth from the International Space Station.

More »
Comment
 
Your (Weird? Wonderful? Wacky?) Roommate Stories
Tuesday, Aug 19, 2014

We asked, and you delivered: some of the best roommate stories from across our many listener input channels.

More »
2 Comments