The Right Opinion

Beck, Marriage and The State of The Union

By Ken Blackwell · Dec. 8, 2012

My buddy, Glenn Beck, has made a great contribution to the TEA party movement and to a renewal of popular interest in our Founding Fathers and their ideals. For all that he deserves praise.

But, I believe, he is making a serious error in abandoning the civil right of marriage. The Republican Party was founded in opposition to two historic wrongs. The party's first platform in 1856 denounced “slavery and polygamy – the twin relics of barbarism.” Slavery was finally put down with a terrible toll – 630,000 Americans dead in the Civil War. The new movie, Lincoln, tells the dramatic story of the Thirteenth Amendment to abolish slavery.

Polygamy was successfully fought with laws. Throughout the latter third of the nineteenth century, Republican presidents and Republican Congresses fought against this relic of barbarism. President Rutherford B. Hayes called upon Congress to make it a law for the western territories: an American must take an oath he is not a polygamist before he could vote for statehood, before he could even serve on a jury! That's a pretty strong stance for marriage.

Faced with this unyielding opposition, the Mormon Church wisely reconsidered its position on polygamy. Mormons desperately wanted to be included in the American Union. They were willing to give up a sincerely held tenet of their new religion in order to gain acceptance.

This turnabout led to one of the funniest episodes in congressional history. When Church Elder Reed Smoot was elected by Utah to serve in the U.S. Senate, he was vigorously opposed. Critics said that even though Smoot was not a polygamist himself, he had strongly supported polygamy as one of the Mormon Council of Twelve. Idaho Sen. William E. Borah, a fellow Republican and also a Mormon with only one wife, rose to argue for seating Smoot. “I would rather serve in this august body with a polygamist who doesn't polyg than with a monogamist who doesn't monog.” Smoot was seated. Washington scuttlebutt had it that T.R.'s daugher, Alice Roosevelt Longworth, was only with difficulty dissuaded from naming her newborn daughter Deborah (from Borah).

The LDS Church has since become a mainstay of support for traditional marriage. BYU Family Science Ph.D.s have provided some of the best scholarship supporting the tradition family. They clearly understand the difficulties that arise for the dignity and standing of women – and especially the hardships for children – that stem from plural marriage.

Glenn should have been at the Newseum four years ago. There, before an overflow crowd, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley said: “I know opponents of gay marriage say it will lead to polygamy. Well, I'm for that.”

Turley's shocking comments were wildly cheered by the room full of journalists, liberal congressional aides, and federal law clerks. True to his word, Prof. Turley has gone to court trying to overturn bans on polygamy.

Glenn told an interviewer: “The question is not whether gay people should be married or not, the question is: why is the government involved in our marriage.”

Okay, it's a civil question that deserves a civil answer: Children need and children have a right to the married love of a mother and father. Every reputable social science study shows that children do best when they have a loving, married mother and father in the home. They have better outcomes for health, education, and welfare. Children of married parents are less likely to commit crimes, far less likely to be victims of violence and sexual abuse, far less likely to fail in school, far less likely to drop out, use drugs, get pregnant out of wedlock.

If we care about children and the future of this nation, we cannot casually dismiss the institution of marriage.

Secretary Tim Geithner certainly understands the fiscal impact of out-of-wedlock births. Liberal that he is, Geithner said we cannot cut Medicaid spending – the main driver of deficits – because forty percent of all children born today are eligible for Medicaid. He means the 41% born out of wedlock.

Married parents want to care for their own children. They usually do not want the Nanny State. Single parents and cohabiting parents are often forced to rely on government assistance.

If you want Socialism, abolish marriage. If you want “Julia” to be the future of America, vote against the civil institution of marriage. Julia, of course, was the Obama campaign team's fictional single woman target voter. Julia goes from Head Start to college, parenthood, to retirement in a seamless web of dependency on government. She decides to have a child at age 29. No man in her life is even hinted at – no husband, no father, no brother, not even a male friend or business partner. Except one. The One: Mr. Federal Government.

It's hard to understand why anyone would want to end traditional marriage. It's the HOV lane to the Welfare State. Why any conservative, libertarian, or Republican would want to advance this process is a mystery.

Hollywood star Mae West was certainly no model for married life. WWII sailors called their buoyant life jackets their Mae Wests. But Mae West was onto something when she said: “Marriage is a great institution. I'm just not ready for an institution.”

I invite Glenn to spend just one hour with the Family Research Council's Marriage and Religion Research Institute's (MARRI) scholars. They are his type of intellectuals, and I think he would be moved by their body of work.

Traditional marriage is a great institution. And it's never been in greater danger.

30 Comments

Old Desert Rat in Las Vegas, NV said:

Each state should vote on this. The Federal government should have no say. People who want to marry need to abide by the law of the place they live. Republicans, please keep your eye on the main objective and let the Democrats mess up their own party.

Saturday, December 8, 2012 at 12:33 AM

mark in Idaho said:

Mr. Blackwell, While your column is well written and the history of Reed Smoot et all is a fact. Do you understand how marriage licensing laws came about in the United States? They came about to keep people of different races from "intermarrying". Prior to the turn of the last century when Mr. Smoot was attempting to be seated as Utah's U.S. Senator no sanction from the state was considered necessary to consummate a marriage. I submit the marriages of 19th century were substantially more stable than the state sanctioned marriages of today. So State sanctioning of marriage through licensing laws does not equate to stable marriages or families.

If the States repealed marriage licensing laws, marriage would then be what it should be, a religious commitment between two individuals. If the religious institution solemnizing the sacrament of marriage chose to do it for people of the same gender that would be up to that institution. Otherwise people could enter into a civil contractual relationship that would be governed by contract law. This would be similar to cohabiting people do now. Therefore no need for the state to sanction any form of marriage. Therefore avoiding the coming battle of same gender marriage vs religious liberty. This is the only way this battle will be avoided.

Saturday, December 8, 2012 at 12:42 AM

Bill in Texas replied:

Mark,
I agree with you, but not totally. I believe that you can still have the licenses, but with the passing of DOMA, the Federal Goverment took a Religious positon in violation of the First Amendment. With the passing of DOMA, the state marriage license became a talking point.
I believe that any two people who wish to share their lifes together can. If they wish to marry, find a church, temple, monestary, etc. If you wish to share a household as two individuals, go before the justice of the peace.

I still default to my personal position, and one found in the constitution, the declaration, and the 19th Amendment: All men and women are created equal; All men and women are endowed by their creator with inalienable rights including life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness.

Where does this dictate that onces sexual actions deny them anything?

Monday, December 10, 2012 at 2:51 PM

Tod the tool guy in brooklyn ny said:

Julia worked perfectly for the LEFT Wing Renegades! The provider male is pushed out of the picture, and Uncle Sam becomes the Nanny state provider, for liberal women. Where do the men go? We hold out- in the Adirondack Mtns. hunting deer, enlisting guys into the Tea Party, and ranting against the neo-Marx b@st@rd kases, like Axelrod!! DO NOT TREAD ON GUYS!!!

Saturday, December 8, 2012 at 7:25 AM

d.w.hudson in Michigan said:

Yeah. I'm sure it's here in our Constitution somewhere. Something about the governmental authority to ban individual consenting adult sovereign American citizens from marrying whoever they want to. Just gotta find it. Maybe it's part of that 'make no religion' thing. Gotta be here somewhere.

Saturday, December 8, 2012 at 8:15 AM

Wayne in Hinesville, GA replied:

d.w. Don't forget it also says the government will not interfere in the practice of any religion. If my religion says marriage is only between a man and a woman no one has the right to denigrate myself or anyone else who believes that. People can marry anyone they wish to just don't tell me I'm a bigot or a racist because I don't agree with it. As a free American I have the right to my own opinion and beliefs.

Saturday, December 8, 2012 at 4:46 PM

Capt. Call in New Mexico replied:

"Make no religion thing"??? I think you misunderstand the First Amendment!!

Saturday, December 8, 2012 at 11:02 PM

Gregory in Yakima Wa. said:

Wow...Glenn Beck and I agree on something. One wife is enough for me but if people want to construct relationships with multiple partners...group dynamics they certainly have history on their side.

It's funny to me how some who cite Biblical curses ignore the old Testament when it suits them. To conflate a marriage between consenting adults with morality or immorality is ignorant and arrogant.

Saturday, December 8, 2012 at 1:54 PM

Capt. Call in New Mexico replied:

Actually, you are incorrect. I am neither ignorant nor arrogant. God created one man and one woman and they were married. This is God's ideal. It is men who have corrupted this ideal through their sinful, lustful, fallen nature. This was explained by Jesus who declared that "they are no longer two, but one. What God therefore has joined together, let no man separate." [Confer with Matthew 19:1-12.]
The first man to have more than one wife, was a man named Lamech [Genesis 4:19-24] who also boasted that he had killed a man, and then that he would take care to revenge himself 77 times over without any help from God. This man chose for himself to disregard God's desire. We can see that Scripture assures us that God's intent was one man and one woman. Once again, the Truth of the Word of God gives the correct solution to this man-made dilemma. Yahweh God created the universe and all that is in It. Therefore, God makes the rules, whether man likes it or not. Indeed, it is hard for unbelievers to accept God's laws, because they think that they are superior to God, that they know better than He who created us knows. Indeed, it is funny to me how some, as we see here (above) always try to use the Bible to argue against the Bible. This is because although they know that their naturalism is both illogical and irrational [Romans 1] but they refuse to submit to God, because of their pride.

Sunday, December 9, 2012 at 12:09 AM

wjm in Colorado replied:

Gregory, it is you who are ignorant and arrogant, and quite insane. You are also a traitor to your country. You are a sick and twisted soul, and will rot in hell. You are the poster child for the marxist statist traitor who votes to Destroy the Republic. It is funny to me how you continue to post here and demonstrate the insanity of the left so well.

Sunday, December 9, 2012 at 10:51 AM

richard ryan in Lamar,Missouri said:

While I am a big fan of Glenn Beck, he`s wrong on marriage. Ken`s arguments for traditional marriage are unassailable. The foundation of the family and civilization have always been, and still are the traditional marriage. Keep up the good writing Ken.

Saturday, December 8, 2012 at 4:05 PM

Merry in Cave Creek, AZ said:

I agree with Glenn Beck. The issue of marriage is a religious matter...even if your religion is liberalism/Marxism. What someone else does makes no difference to my relationship. MYOB because the gubmint cannot legislate morality. Who in their right mind thinks what gubmint does "for" us is good---IN ANY CAPACITY except defense?

Saturday, December 8, 2012 at 5:06 PM

Gregory in Yakima Wa. said:

Richard Ryan: "The foundation of the family and civilization have always been, and still are the traditional marriage." Um...It's obvious you didn't do any research before making your grand summation. You're not the only one though.

Why are you kids so averse to research and so eager to misunderstand? I guess it's just easier for you this way. Google "history of marriage" and then re-write your comment. Informed comments are always better.

Look at Mark in Idaho's comments. See how genuine information reads so much better and is more interesting and more useful than the crap other people have offered? His conclusions sound like the thoughts of an informed, thinking individual.

Saturday, December 8, 2012 at 6:39 PM

wjm in Colorado replied:

Insanity exposed again, Gregory reads revisionist history and claims he has done research. The marxist statist traitors write that Stalin was a benevolent ruler, and the sodomite drinks up the koolaid and proclaims himself the all knowing intellectual. He is the poster child of the warped and deluded marxist statist traitor.

Sunday, December 9, 2012 at 10:54 AM

k. Dee Ignatin in Texas said:

Polygamy is a human rights violation of women and children. There is no country on earth where polygamy is legal that affords women equal rights with men. Monogamous marriage has been the ultimate equalizer for women in western society. Decriminalizing polygamy in America will lead to this being known as the golden age of women's rights. Our children will never know freedom and equality in a polygamous society. Even the Romans, long before the advent of Christianity, knew this to be true.

Saturday, December 8, 2012 at 9:43 PM

k. Dee Ignatin in Texas said:

And for those who use the "old testament" as a defense for this form of abuse of women, "because the patriarchs did it," I hope you are ready to defend their ownership of slaves as well. But I already know you aren't.

Saturday, December 8, 2012 at 9:52 PM

Capt. Call in New Mexico replied:

Dee, you are correct. The uniqueness of the Bible is demonstrated in that the people who are discussed therein, are shown with, as it is said, "their warts and all." In other words, God shows us the weaknesses of Godly men as well as their strengths. The Patriarchs were imperfect men, as we all are. But one cannot read about the life of Jacob without understanding the turmoil that was produced in his household by the presence of two wives, Rachel and Leah. So God's Ideal is one man and one woman; indeed this was shown by the Creation of one man and one woman in the beginning. But it was men who by their sinful, fallen, lustful nature corrupted this ideal.
When Jesus discussed divorce, He explained that "two" become
"one," and "what God has joined together" no man should seek to separate. What we find in the Old Testament, are these failures by men, which then become an example for us NOT to follow.

Saturday, December 8, 2012 at 11:35 PM

Bill in Texas replied:

I agree with your comment about "old testament" usage. I am one who does my best to get the old testament and new testament definitions and find the common ground. The think I have found most is that the Old Testament is more of Man's belief of Gods position and the New testament is Jesus's teachings and the apotles interpretation of those teachings. Only when we stand for judgement will we know the devine truth on our beliefs and positions in this life.

Monday, December 10, 2012 at 3:01 PM

Raymond Takashi Swenson in Richland Washington said:

You have the story backward. Idaho had passed kaws depriving Mormons ofthe right to vote and run for office. Borah was NOT a Mormon. He was rabidly anti-Mormon. Borah was known as an adulterer, a "monogamust who didn't monog", and another senator told Borah he would rather vote in Reed than Birah himself. This story was told by John F. Kennedy to Oscar McConkie Jr, who was JFK's campaign chairman in Utah in 1960, and McConkie told tge stiry to a class he taught for law students, which I attended.

Sunday, December 9, 2012 at 12:40 AM

Jim Billingsley in Smithville, IN said:

Bravo! Ken Blackwell is soooooo very right on this! Traditional marriage is the only definition of marriage and it is a great institution because it is God's institution. Defined by God, not man, nor man's law. It is the pinnacle of arrogance to stick our finger in God's eye and say: "You got the definition of marriage all wrong, God."

Sunday, December 9, 2012 at 7:39 PM

Army Officer (Ret) in Kansas said:

I guess it's my turn to be the odd man out.

The government has no legitimate reason to regulate marriage at all. If Ken Blackwell can write, "Why any conservative, libertarian, or Republican would want to advance this process is a mystery," then he is neither conservative nor libertarian, although he may be a Republican. He may not LIKE it, but to say that it is literally UNIMAGINABLE that some people think that granting the state ultimate authority over the most personal aspects of our lives could potentially be a bad thing brands him as just another guy who likes small government - until it comes to something HE cares about - at which point it magically becomes acceptable to force people to live their lives the way HE wants.

He gives the game away with this quote: "Every reputable social science study shows that children do best when they have a loving, married mother and father in the home. They have better outcomes for... Children of married parents are less likely..., far less likely to be ..., far less likely to..., far less likely to..." (Of course married polygamists ARE married, but he has no data for his assertion, so he just equates married polygamists with unwed mothers. Apples-to-oranges comparison.)

Prior restraint is the mark of a statist. "We can't let people make their own decisions because the state knows better than they do. Liberty must be curtailed because of what you MIGHT do with it." And of course he plays the libtard trump card, "But... but... it's for the chiiiiiiiiiildren."

Is polygamy ideal? Most of the time it is not. But is it the job of the state to FORCE people to live ideal lives? I think not. Even the Bible does not forbid it. A polygamist may not serve as a deacon or elder (I Timothy Chapter 3 & Titus Chapter 1), but those are the ONLY actual restrictions on polygamy in the Bible, and they ONLY apply to the clergy. Those same passages equally require clergymen to be husbands (married men), yet few denominations restrict clerical credentials to married men, and the Catholic Church actually does the opposite of what the Bible requires - their clergy are not even ALLOWED to marry despite that fact that both those passages specify monogamous marriage as a REQUIREMENT for clergymen.

Traditional marriage is a good thing, but our society has undermined it for decades. Gay marriage and polygamy are miniscule issues compared to "no-fault" divorce that incentivizes the destruction of marriages. Let's work on THAT.

Monday, December 10, 2012 at 11:41 AM

Army Officer (Ret) in Kansas replied:

Before anyone jumps on my definitions, when I wrote, "clergymen" I was referring to the offices of bishop (sometimes translated as "elder") and deacon. (See I Timothy Chapter 3 and Titus Chapter 1 for the entire list of requirements.)

Monday, December 10, 2012 at 11:56 AM

Jim D of Alabama in Daphne replied:

"Traditional marriage is a good thing, but ...[it's] no-fault divorce that incentivizes the destruction of marriages. Let's work on THAT."

Here! Here!

I was shocked to realize another conclusion to which I've arrived. The destruction of marriage is three pointed...

1) No-Fault Divorce...It's been nice hon but I gotta run.

2) Welfare...I don't need you, Honey, I got Obama Money.

3) Child Support Law... No need to Hussle, I got Gub'mint Muscle.

When there was no divorce, to speak of, the government had no need to be in the licensing business. We were free of that. The oath of marriage was until death do us part.

Before Welfare there was Charity and, before the statists engineered attrophy of conscience, it was sufficient, along with the actual hardship consequences that came of sloth and stupidity.

Before Child Support laws gave government and females near total control over an immense portion of the male populace, the care of bastards was a matter of conscience, and, left at that, there was a great incentive for young ladies to avoid having them.

Monday, December 10, 2012 at 6:51 PM

Rick in Columbia, MO said:

Every time the marriage issue comes up, I read a bunch of stuff about religion and a bunch of stuff about personal freedom. Very little about nurturing the next generation, though to me that is the most important reason for monogamy and marriage.

I don't see that anyone could credibly argue that a child brought up in an alternative environment is better off in the long run. I realize of course that some marriages are dysfunctional to the point of not being ideal for the child, but that does not make some other arrangement inherently better. There will always be some dysfunction in relationships.

I also realize that many marriages are without child, and the goals of that marriage may be different, as in to consolidate power or wealth. The key difference may be that the parties to that marriage are thinking of themselves for the most part, which nearly always leads to failure.

Thinking less of oneself and more of others, enhances the lives of both. It really isn't a political or moral issue, it just works. Maybe we can agree on the goal of doing things that work, and then think about how to achieve it, rather than argue scripture and the whole "if it feels good, do it" thing.

As long as people argue basically that they are a life support system for genitals, or that they deserve some legal validation of some sort of arrangement, this isn't going to get anywhere. Our goals should be concentrated on how to promote the legacy of our great country and our family name. The rest of it is trivial and is akin to a whining child insisting on getting it's way.

Monday, December 10, 2012 at 1:43 PM

Army Officer (Ret) in Kansas replied:

This may surprise you, Rick, but I agree with most of what you wrote, although I suspect Ken Blackwell would not.

You're correct: monogamous heterosexual marriage is the ideal in almost all cases. But if a society values liberty then "What ought to be" and "What ought to be legal" are not the same thing AT ALL.

Simply put, this is not a case of "Can't we all just get along?" One side claims the authority to use the coercive power of the state to enforce its will on the other side. And when they incorrectly use the Bible as justification for that, I'm going to call them out on it: I didn't bring it up. But as a Christian I have the right, perhaps even the duty, to point out when someone says "The Bible says..." when the Bible says no such thing.

I will agree with you that "what works" should be what we as a society strive for - I will NOT agree that government has the right to enforce that at gunpoint. And it HAS come down to enforcing it at gunpoint: President James Buchanan sent the U.S. Army to the Utah Territory to "settle the issue" of polygamy. Although about 150 people died (mostly innocent people at the hands of the Mormons), there were no actual pitched battles, but can anyone doubt that the presence of the "Utah Expedition" was THE deciding factor in Mormons renouncing polygamy, which both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young maintained was a central tenet of Mormonism?

When people who call themselves conservatives stop using the power of the state to dictate how other people live their lives I will agree with you that the "rest of it is trivial and is akin to a whining child insisting on getting it's way."

Whining children don't send SWAT teams to your house.

Monday, December 10, 2012 at 2:40 PM

Wayne Dequer in Monrovia, CA replied:

Army Officer (ret),

You said: "can anyone doubt that the presence of the "Utah Expedition" was THE deciding factor in Mormons renouncing polygamy." I doubt it since the "Utah Expedition" was in 1857 and polygamy was NOT "renounced" until 1890. If arithmetic serves me that something like 43 years. Perhaps you could clarify how you see a linkage between the "Utah Expedition" (a.k.a "Buchanan's Blunder") and any end of the LDS practice of plural marriage?

Tuesday, December 11, 2012 at 8:48 AM

Wayne Dequer in Monrovia, CA replied:

Oops! Arithmetic error. 33 years. Sorry. ;-)

Tuesday, December 11, 2012 at 8:51 AM

Army Officer (Ret) in Kansas replied:

Wayne,

Good question, and I will answer it.

I did not write that there was an "Appomattox Courthouse" moment at the end of the "Utah War" in 1858 where Brigham Young renounced polygamy. You are correct that that did not happen. What I DID write was that the presence of the U.S. Army ultimately forced an end to the practice - which it did. (Although, as you correctly noted, it took a few decades of occupation and suppression of the practice to bring about the official renunciation by the leaders of the Mormon church.)

The U.S. Army occupied the Utah Territory, and the main purpose for which it was sent was to suppress the practice of polygamy among Mormons - who considered it to be a CENTRAL tenet of their religion and had gone to Utah "en masse" to establish a Mormon nation. They did not end the practice for theological reasons but for practical ones - they had an army parked on their doorstep starting in 1857-58. You are correct that the LDS did not OFFICIALLY renounce one of the central tenets of their own religion until 1890 - under duress, but that does not invalidate my point that it was the U.S. Army's "Utah Expedition" (and ongoing occupation) that forced the Mormon Church to officially renounce polygamy. (The political aspects of the struggle went back and forth for many years - from 1858 until, arguably 1904.)

I suppose I should have mentioned the influence of the influx of non-Mormons into the Utah Territory after "Mister Lincoln's War" of 1861-65, but the fact remains that if the "Utah Expedition" had never been dispatched the Mormons would still be practicing polygamy today.

Tuesday, December 11, 2012 at 10:35 AM

Rick in Columbia, MO replied:

Army Officer - Actually it doesn't surprise me at all. I read a lot of your comments and feel we are on the same page for the most part. I was just trying to be less combative maybe. I am all for us fighting for God and the constitution and was not trying to say we should all just get along. I am no pacifist, in fact I am well armed and worry that it may come to me using my arms to fight the government or "the takers" when they realize they will have to rob someone to feed themselves. Liberals make me nauseous, but what I am trying to do is take the emotions out of the solution. Without emotions involved, they have nothing. If one takes an unemotional look at the role of government, then I think it is obvious that least is best.

This might be off the subject but I believe that citizens should have at their disposal at least what is available to the police, and I do for the most part.

I have three children and I am pretty sure we have squandered their future, but keep fighting on.

By the way, also maybe off the subject, but a sincere thanks for your service. I think often about how difficult it must be to be serving one's country, and be theoretically under the thumb of the set of dolts we have in Washington. Must be frustrating beyond belief.

Anyway not a very cogent response to you, but I hope you have more understanding of where I stand. I am on your side man.

If a SWAT team comes to my house it will probably end badly for both of us, but I am prepared for that.

Thanks for your vigilance.

Tuesday, December 11, 2012 at 12:06 PM

Army Officer (Ret) in Kansas replied:

No offense taken. I can usually tell when someone is looking to pick a fight, and you weren't. I agree that the police should NEVER have access to weapons that are unavailable to average law-abiding citizens in their jurisdiction. In fact, private citizens (who comprise the militia) should be, if anything, BETTER armed than the police, who are only a civilian constabulary and not part of the militia. I cannot think of a single reason why any police officer should have an automatic weapon, for example, as they are inappropriate in ANY law enforcement scenario.

I see it this way: polygamy is not ideal, especially when children are involved. But the U.S. is founded on the idea that adults should not be subjected to punitive state action unless they initiate force or fraud. It's a pretty simple concept, I think. If I meet two women who both want to marry me, and they're willing to share me, I don't see how it's anyone's business but ours - it is certainly not worthy of using the lethal force of the state to separate us.

My beef with all this is that guys like Ken Blackwell talk a good game about small government, but when it comes to things they feel strongly about they are very comfortable using the power of the state to make other people live as they see fit. That's an important distinction that NO liberals and FEW conservatives make: bucking the "power" of culture may be unpleasant, but it is ultimately voluntary - bucking the power of the state will ultimately cost you your life.

I have been married for 25 years, and even my wife agrees with me on this. She would be rightfully upset if I wanted to take a second wife (it would violate my vows), but she does not think it should be a CRIME if all parties are willing adults.

My other beef is that conservatives go on about gay marriage and polygamy, but ignore the wholesale destruction of marriage caused by presumptive mother-custody and "no-fault" divorce. This article (http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/04/14/threatpoint/) lays out how modern "Family Law" has made men into "de facto" servants to their wives - contrary to the Biblical model of marriage. Harping on the 2% of the population that is gay, or the tiny percentage of people who would marry polygamously, while ignoring those things is like obsessing over a fly buzzing around the light fixtures while an enraged bull is loose in the living room.

Tuesday, December 11, 2012 at 1:12 PM