Friday, May 16, 2008

This is Outrageous

Those tolerant and culturally informed liberals are at it again. Check this out. Newly minted Obama superdelegate, Pete Stark, has lovely things to say about the Mormons:
I wonder what they're going to do with the Mormons. I'd like to put polygamy up if they want to fight this battle. Let's go into Utah and have it out. I mean, I don't have any quarrel with polygamy, as long as they leave little kids alone, which is child abuse.
This lovely tidbit comes in a discussion of the recent California Supreme Court ruling that gay marriage is a constitutional right. The truth is so far from Stark's world view. Not only are Mormons going to largely fight the gay marriage ruling, we will also be among the quickest to fight polygamy.

Gay marriage opponents cite polygamy as the next domino after gay marriage is legalized. (After all, Muslim men in Britain get welfare benefits for multiple wives now.) But gay marriage proponents say the "slippery slope" argument is a fallacy. Well, looky here. Now a gay marriage proponent has said polygamy and polyandry are a-okay.


Brian Was Here said...

Actually, the Supreme Court long ago decided that polygamy was a no-go in one of the most famous religion cases they have ever heard (Reynolds v. United States, 1878). Basically, the Court said that polygamy naturally led to abuse and repression of women. Ironically, the Utah territory was one of only two places at the time who had allowed women the right to vote.

I read the California decision, and it's paper-thin (although, to be honest, I've also felt that way about many Scalia decisions I've read). As a left-leaning individual myself, I'm frankly disgusted with how much my party bends over backward for the gay lobby. I wish we could just cut them loose and embrace religion to a greater extent (although that might spell trouble for your party).

Anywho, I'll be supporting the CA amendment on my write-in ballot next fall. And considering that I already know how my home district will side in the national elections, I'm basically writing-in solely for the amendment.

cougartex said...

Nice to hear from you Brian. I am somewhat familiar with the Reynolds case. Sister Black covered it in Church History at BYU. The prolbem is that all the arguments that are used for gay marriage work just as well for polygamy.

There has to be a line drawn somewhere. Frankly, I would like to draw it somewhere in the past when divorce was not as easy. As big a problem as gay marriage and people shacking up could be, these problems have their roots in no-fault or unilateral divorce. Certainly, abusiveness or infidelity are causes worthy of divorce, but everything else harms the children and the couple.

(In a side note, I am considering a law degree sometime after my MBA. I would have some solid legal and economic training, which is more that most people in both parties can say. There are few in either party who understand the economy.)

Brian Was Here said...

A law degree is pretty handy. However, I would recommend going to either BYU or a state school, just to keep costs low. Unless you want to work for a huge law firm that pays you a ton once you sell them your soul. Otherwise, you'll be stuck with 100K+ in debt.
My new plan is to join the FBI after a year or two at a firm. (Apparently, my soul can only be temporarily rented.)

cougartex said...

I have actually thought about BYU. It will be a few years down the road, but I am considering it. I just need to pay down some of my current student loan debt first.