Baxter dissented from the majority 2008 opinion that created same-sex marriage for a short time in the state, arguing the consequences of the decision were not thought out.
He wrote: "The bans on incestuous and polygamous marriages are ancient and deeprooted, and, as the majority suggests, they are supported by strong considerations of social policy. ... Our society abhors such relationships, and the notion that our laws could not forever prohibit them seems preposterous.
"Yet here, the majority overturns, in abrupt fashion, an initiative statute confirming the equally deeprooted assumption that marriage is a union of partners of the opposite sex. The majority does so by relying on its own assessment of contemporary community values, and by inserting in our Constitution an expanded definition of the right to marry that contravenes express statutory law."
"Who can say that, in 10, 15 or 20 years, an activist court might not rely on the majority's analysis to conclude, on the basis of a perceived evolution in community values, that the laws prohibiting polygamous and incestuous marriages were no longer constitutionally justified?"
It won't stop there either.
"We polyamorists are grateful to our brothers and sisters for blazing the marriage equality trail," Anita Wagner Illig told U.S. News and World Report.
Pederasts, pedophiles, and people of every sort of sexual desire no matter how abnormal those desires are generally considered to be right now, are also glad at the relaxation of once higher standards.
The aim of the so-called Sexual Liberation Movement, whether its rank and file are aware of it or not, is sexual anarchy where all sexual activity imaginable at the time (things that have yet to have ever even been imagined) are licensed.
Just how far this false liberation will manage to drag humanity into the pit remains to be seen. That liberation (enslavement on an ever steeper and slippery slope) will constantly seek to diminish the people's general knowledge and understanding about the harm done to that movement's victims. Consent as a concept will be used in a way that completely ignores all the deception perpetrated upon the mass victims. If someone who acts now in ways generally considered extremely disturbed and evil does the same after the movement has succeeded in greatly devolving society from even its low point now, then short of God's miraculous intervention requiring no human action, only the most horrific pain and suffering of literally sexually enslaved and physically imprisoned people rising up en masse will stand a chance of overturning the jailers and their demented masters.
This Sexual Liberation Movement hasn't been leading into the light. It hasn't been modernizing. It hasn't been freeing people from evil. It has been doing the exact opposite.
The main problem is that society hasn't been sorting the truth from the falsehoods. It is true that women were, and many still are, mistreated. However, the Sexual Liberation Movement, which has been inextricably tied to the Women's Liberation Movement, taken as a whole has brought with it the enslavement to clearly dangerous and harmful sexual behaviors, as documented in much valuable research.
The mistake has been in not avoiding the new forms of enslavement to evil while truly liberating people from evil enslavements of other or older kinds, not that sexual enslavement is new to the world. It's really simply a renewal of ancient enslavements that not too long ago, humanity had thought had been permanently overcome. They thought that marriage being exclusively only being between one man and one woman was permanently enshrined as the "cornerstone of civilization," as Joseph Farah terms it.
Well, how wasn't it the cornerstone of civilization? A man and a woman procreate, which forms a family of parents and offspring. The one flesh of the man and woman is so important, that deviating from it is to introduce degradation rippling through their lives and those around them negatively impacting by breaking the demonstrativelyÂ more wholesome status that is monogamous, heterosexual exclusivity.
People are falsely imagining that multiple spouses is as good for children and society as monogamy. They are falsely imagining that same-sex couples and threesomes or what have you, are as good for children and society as opposite-sex marriages. No matter how many other factors are outwardly suggested as being equal, in the not too distant future, the negatives associated with the lessening of the standard, the lessening of the vital importance of opposite-sex monogamous marriages, will ripple through humanity. The longer it goes on, the more the lessening is, the greater the ripples, even the shock waves.
The problem will be with people being unable by then or unwilling by then (as they are now to a large extent) to see the longterm causality, the cause for the degradation and shocks being the lessening of higher moral standards.
Sorting out falsehoods is key.
Homosexual sex by and large brings with it changes to the structure and function of the brain which changes drop natural and correct inhibitions such that disease is rampant despite all of the "educational" warnings against self-destruction that are put in front of those who nevertheless behave recklessly. The "liberal" (they are false liberals, as they are leading into enslavement under evil) educators of today falsely believe that homosexuality can have its cake, eat it, and simply avoid all the dangers. Well, there are some who walk the tightrope, but many hundreds of thousands have fallen without a net. They are dead as a direct result of homosexuality. Just pointing that out to would-be homosexuals isn't enough because the children are getting way too many mixed and confused and false signals. The Homosexual Movement, the Homosexual Agenda, attempts to tiptoes through the minefields and deliberately lie about homosexuality, such as for one, telling everyone even slightly tempted that he or she is therefore genetically a homosexual, which is nonsense and a lie (caused by the disease itself), as identical-twin studies clearly prove.
The solution to sexually transmitted diseases is not condoms or drugs or vaccines. They are not foolproof and even when used, don't prevent the changes to the brain that induce greater promiscuity even in so-called same-sex marriages, as many of those are based upon the Sexual Liberation Movement position of "open marriages" wherein the parties may have sex outside the "marriage" while the "married" ones still claim monogamy. Diseases morph, and the diseases of homosexuality, a disease state itself, a vector of other diseases, will do so, will morph. Homosexuality is not going to escape the negative consequences of its deviation from the wholesome, real marriage I've described above.
Update October, 18, 2013:
I posted the full text of this post on Google+. It garnered a comment that led to a back-and-forth with a self-styled Christian polygamy-advocate. See it here.
Here's the discussion thread. I reproduce it here in case it gets changed. Also, the thread is on my post, which is completely open to the public. There are no copyright issues.
Mark Henkel - National Polygamy Advocateâ„¢ Oct 16, 2013
You have it backwards. Truth is, Anti-Polygamy is the REAL slippery slope that led TO same sex marriage. It's actually YOUR Fault for abominating the doctine of marriage with the false god of big socialist goverment in the first place. Not one person in the Bible was EVER married by th false god of big socialist government. Here is more for your research: http://www.Pro-Polygamy.com/articles.php?news=0016&g=20131016
Tom Usher Oct 16, 2013
Your contention that if we had never stood for monogamy and opposed the idea of polygamy that then the Homosexual Movement would not have arisen calling for same-sex marriage is false propaganda.
My God is the God of Jesus Christ, not any secular government.
You are in error on many fronts.
I stand by my post.
Mark Henkel - National Polygamy Advocateâ„¢ Yesterday 5:07 AM
You are free to deny the facts all you want, but they do not change the reality. If you allow yourself to really study the Bible, you will find that NO ONE in the Bible was EVER married "by government. See this speech: "Bible NEVER Created One Man One Woman Doctrine" http://youtu.be/ Ot9bfg7dwDQ ) God does not "need" - and has not ever "needed" - any government to "protect" His doctrines. It is idolatry to put your trust in the false god of big socialist government. When Christian leaders teach that idolatry on marriage control, they have "gone the way of Jeroboam son of Nebat" to lead God's people into the sin of idolatry. And the consequence of that has led TO same sex marriage. It is an absolute FACT that if the OMOWs (one man one woman supporters) had not committed that idolatry and used big government to re-define, license, and control marriage, the newly invented modern legal construct of SSM (same sex marriage) would never have happened. Indeed, if the false god of big socialist government was never involved in marriage, SSMs would have had NO REASON and NO STANDING to even think of that possibility. Hence, as much as you might hope to deny the light of truth in this matter, the truth remains the truth nevertheless. True Christians put their faith in GOD. We do NOT put our faith in the false god big socialist government as our "savior" of marriage doctrine. Jesus Christ is the Savior. And marriage control is idolatry -- "which thing God hates." God forbid that we have big government Gospel Control. God forbid that we have big government Baptism Control. God forbid that we have big government Lord's Table Control. And likewise God forbid that we have big government MARRIAGE CONTROL. As long as you support that idolatry, you allow yourself to remain in the idolatry that was Holy Ghost prophesied by Paul in 1_Timothy 4:1-3a. (See http://www.biblicalpolygamy.com/exegesis/forbidding-to-marry/ ) I encourage you to pray and seek the real truth, and come out of the idolatry. May God bless your soul.
Tom Usher Yesterday 9:18 PM
Mark, contrary to the teaching you've received on the subject from whomever, much of the government, as you put it, in the Bible was the religion. For one, who do you think Samuel was? Exactly under what law and state did Moses's writs of divorcement stand up?
I don't have a great deal of time to deal with you on these matters, but of course the New Testament establishes only one-man-one-woman marriage. Jesus said one flesh. If there were no limits on marriage, as you claim, then there would be no such thing as adultery even in Christianity, as anyone could claim to be married to everyone else. That's inescapable logic. The conclusion follows from the premises. Run it through a logic program if you doubt it. I don't need to. Also, only someone very ignorant about Jesus's teachings would imagine that Jesus was for allowing/sanctioning sexual orgies on any level.
Who's putting his trust in "big socialist government" that I assume you mean as the secular government of the US? I'm not a secularist. I made that clear. Regardless though, big government is fine if it's good government. Big government is not necessarily bad. Heaven is big, and it's governed. As for socialism, the Apostles shared all their possessions. Not one of them was a capitalist toward the other. That's the real Christian standard. They didn't force that on anyone. That's the Christian standard. In addition, when Jesus returns, he will head the government of the entire world. That's big. He won't have changed his view on one purse either, not that we'll even need "money."
You accused me of leading to same-sex marriage by standing for monogamy. I am not attempting to force the secular state. I only say what the Christian doctrine is and why. I also use secular law to show secularists and others where hypocrisy lies. I've done nothing there that Jesus himself didn't do.
"It is an absolute FACT that if the OMOWs (one man one woman supporters) had not committed that idolatry and used big government to re-define, license, and control marriage, the newly invented modern legal construct of SSM (same sex marriage) would never have happened." The US Revolutionary War was fought and won by those following the men called the Founding Fathers, who were a mixed bag that included many centrally placed deists and Freemasons. The government they devised was and is secular. It is not a Christian government. I am a Christian, a Theocrat. That said, homosexuals have existed to one degree or another and continuously for many thousands of years. They always wanted what they are clamoring for, and gaining somewhat, via secular governments but also now in various institutions claiming of themselves to be Jewish synagogues and Christian churches.
The Roman Catholic Church fought violent crusades against others in Europe who were advocating for sexual liberation. I don't think they should have done what they did; but it was not a "big socialist government" that did it, and to imagine that homosexuals hadn't been "coming out," as it were, might be naive, though those advocating for the "liberation" were put down and their history likely purged to some extent, making it difficult for people now to fully learn what went on with the Gnostic types/varieties and others.
"...marriage control is idolatry...." The true Christian doctrine on marriage, which I've outline here, is not idolatrous, whether you think so or not.
In my view based upon your statements so far, you may be blaspheming. You are certainly leveling false accusations against me, but I grant that you are ignorant about me and may be simply jumping the gun, which I can't say I've never done.
Christianity is for Christians. People who do not want to live by the Christian doctrine are free to leave Christianity. If you want more than one wife at a time, leave.
What are your answers to these questions?
Are you registered with the secular government to vote?
If so, do you cast any ballots?
Are you advocating that the secular government sanction polygamy?
Are you for or against same-sex marriage?
Are you calling for everyone to come out of the secular government and state?
When they don't, do you stop communicating with them, stop advocating to them?
Mark Henkel - National Polygamy Advocateâ„¢ 3:56 AM
You clearly need an education of the Bible.
I will start and end this very brief education with the recommendation that you get out your Bible and then watch and learn from this speech:
"Bible NEVER Created One Man Woman Doctrine"
http://youtu.be/ Ot9bfg7dwDQ [If you want to go watch it, copy and paste the URL and delete the space after http://youtu.be/%5D
There in, you will learn answers to the four key arguments:
* The Grace / Law Hypocrisy
* Polygamists in the Bible
* Adultery and "One Flesh"
* Limitations of Only Kings, Bishops, Elders, and Deacons
For additional quick resources to further help you...
Adultery in the Hebrew was "na'aph" which Strong's shows only meant "woman that breaketh wedlock."
That, therefore does not crrate the silly ILLOGIC you invented about sexual orgies. As along as the woman is not another man's wife when Moses, David, Abraham, or Moses married a second wife, then no adultery (the Biblical definition of "na`aph") occurred. It was only when it WAS with another man's wife that God was against it - eg., David with 8 known-named wives then also being with Uriah's wife Bathsheba). IN fact, In 2_Samuel 12:8, God HIMSELF told Davcid that He had given David all his wives and if David had wanted, God said He would have given David more.
When Jesus spoke of "one flesh" n Matthew 19, He was re-quoting the words authored by Moses, a polygamist with two wives.
For indeed, the Bible shows that Moses had TWO wives
And every doctrine from the Law was written by that polygamist Moses.
As polygamy was not only NOT prohibited but even given instructions about it under the Law with the Old Covenant (Deuteronomy21:15 and Exodus 21:10, for examples), then marriage doctrine would not be made MORE LEGALISTICALLY RESTRICTIVE in the times of being under grace of the New Covenant.
God described Himself in polygamist terms in both Jeremiah 3 and Ezekiel 23.
Jesus Christ did likewise in Matthew 25:1-13.
If polygamy was a sin, the SINLESS Savior, as well as the LORD Himself, would never have used such examples to self-describe Himself.
Nowhere in the New Testament is polygamy EVER prohibited. Even the very-mis-translated verses of the "one wife" verses of 1_Timothy 3:2, 12 and Titus 1:6 do not prohibit polygamy. Those three verses speak against DIVORCE only for BISHOPS, ELDERS, and DEACONS because the word used in the Greek is "mia" which means those specific leaders must be the husband of their "FIRST wife."
I will not debate your Theocrat theology, because unless it is under Jesus Himself, any other theocracy is idolatry.
Anyone who relies on GOVERNMENT to define marriage is an idolator. Such idolatry violates 1st of the Ten Commandment AND the 1st of the Two Great Commandments. It would be an abomination to have big government GOSPEL Control. It would be an abomination to have big government BAPTISM Control. And it would be an abomination to have big government LORD'S TABLE Control. It is likewise an abomination to have big government MARRIAGE Control.
Except under Jesus Christ Himself, any theocracy is an abomination as much as the Catholic institution tried to enforce and led to the Reformation and on to our Constitutional system of LIMITED government. Government is only for protecting Individual rights, it is NOT for the whimsy of any majority's view of God's doctrines. When government is used for "protecting" God's doctrine (or, more accurately, man's flawed interpretation thereof), therein enters the abomination of idolatry. God doesn't NEED the false god of big socialist government for ANYTHNIG because HE is bigger than any false god, including government.
And indeed, the Holy Ghost prophesied of this very hypocrisy as a "doctrine of devils" in 1_Timothy 4:1-3a.
So, with all that as a quick resource, I re-iterate my recommendation that you get out your Bible, watch this video, and allow yourself to learn what the Bible REALLY says about the issue.
"Bible NEVER Created One Man Woman Doctrine"
I encourage you to keep studying and learning. May the LORD bless your search for His TRUE Truth.
The Lord bless you as you do.
Tom Usher 5:40 AM
Oh, you have made so many errors that it's difficult to even know where to begin.
First of all, the New and Old Testament are obviously different, and when Jesus quotes the Old it in no way means that he has not brought more to the issue than was surrounding that same issue during the Old. Moses having more than one wife, any of the people in the Old having more than one wife, is completely irrelevant to my syllogism. It still stands and will stand forever.
When Jesus spoke of many things also spoken of in the Old, the Old Testament scholars at the time were most often completely dumbfounded because he meant more than they did when using the same term. And who is my neighbor? So, what is one flesh? Is it as Moses meant it with his wives, or is it as Jesus meant it? It is as Jesus meant it, and you missed it.
Did Jesus keep all of the Mosaic Law exactly as Moses expected? No. Jesus showed the hypocrisy and kept the real law.
Your view about God as polygamist is amazingly terrible exegesis. Jesus said they aren't married in Heaven in the sense you mean. God is not having sexual intercourse with multiple wives.
The rest of your comment is 1) a rehash of what you already said, which rehash shows that you completely misread my comment and 2) some sort of Libertarian/Anarchist-Capitalist version of the US government. So, the secular US government can't compel anyone concerning marriage but it can compel them on other issues ("Government is only for protecting Individual rights")? Where do you get that in Jesus's teachings? You don't because it isn't there. It seems you may be just picking and choosing to suit your personal sexual desires. What's the matter? Couldn't you be faithful? Jesus can forgive adultery and fornication and polygamy. Just repent. Go and sin no more.
Lastly, I see that you refused to answer my questions: telling. You're registered and you vote in the wicked, secular, idolatrous government's elections then? Hmmm.
Your interpretation of the teachings of Jesus is very poor. You duck clear questions. You are wrong about Christian marriage.
I have no problems standing before God answering for what I've written here. You have brought nothing to me. I reject polygamy. It is un-Christian for sure.
Mark Henkel - National Polygamy Advocateâ„¢ 6:09 AM
1_Timothy 4:1-3a. The Spirit expressly foretold of your idolatrous big goverment secular liberalism of "forbidding to marry." You have gone the way of Jeroboam son of Nebat. I am done dealing with your stiffnecked, reprobate unwilingness to learn and manifest silliness of illogic. May the Lord bless your very soul.
Tom Usher 7:42 PM
You are mistaken to quote Strong's to make your case. The married woman couldn't sleep around, but a married man could? That would constitute hypocrisy no less than sinners stoning others for their sins concerning Christianity.
If adultery in Christianity pertains only to a married woman having sex with other than her husband, then how is it that Jesus said in Mark 10:11, "Whosoever shall put away his wife (including under the polygamist Moses), and marry another, committeth adultery against her"? A married man commits adultery against his wife with another he falsely considers his wife. Clearly, adultery under Christianity is not limited to a married woman having sex with other than her husband.
You completely missed the point of the syllogism. If everyone could marry whomever he or she wants under the secular law, then everyone could claim to be married to everyone else. Anyone could have sex with anyone else. There would be no adultery between or among them, as they would all be married to each other. They could certainly have orgies. The fact that you dispute that is amazing.
You sound like a hyper-antinomianist. Are you a dispensational evangelical?
You prattle on about "big" government even after I said that Jesus's reign will be big government. It will be everyone living under a world government. Enforcement of the laws will be easy because everyone, except for when evil is loosed for a time again, will have the law written on his or her heart. Eventually though, all evil will be shut away forever. The world government will join Heaven, the biggest government there is. You though, came back at me with that you still don't understand that I'm saying that, that government is and will be under Jesus Christ.
You don't answer the questions but quit and walk away while still wickedly ignoring that I have said that I'm not for secular government.
You use the same sort of arguments that the homosexual activists use: that Jesus never expressly said something akin to "Thou shalt not commit homosexuality." In your case, it's "Thou shalt not commit polygamy."
Under your confused theology, a man can have multiple wives while a woman cannot have multiple husbands because a man cannot be married to a woman who is married to another man. Exactly how does that law square with Jesus doing unto others (women in this case) as he would have them do unto him? Why are women to be treated as second-class in marriage? Jesus treated women very, very well. He treated them in a manner equal to the men. Whom did he instruct to go instruct the men concerning his resurrection?
You won't answer to that though because you can't. It's not addressed in any of your links. It's never been put to you before. And there is no correct answer against it, not here and not in Heaven. All you can do is cite the Old Testament out of the Christian context and show where the New doesn't list every sin in the manner the sinners insist or they will continue maintaining that their acts are sanctioned by Jesus. I'm not saying that Jesus doesn't know you've been ignorant, but now you've been informed. Do you have ears to hear?
You are all tied up in your extremely narrow reading of scripture to the extent that you aren't moved by the Holy Spirit on these matters. Hypocrisy is the enemy of Jesus. I have just shown you where hypocrisy lies. Reject it at your own peril. I reject your polygamy. I stand by a husband remaining faithful to his one-and-only wife. I don't care what Moses did in marrying two or more women at the same time. He also stoned people to death though he had sinned. I'm not condemning his soul by any stretch. I am saying to you that your mind is closed to this:
For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them. (Matthew 13:17)
You don't listen. You have a myopic, inconsistent agenda; and if you don't get your way while being highly selective in making your case and in dealing with the points of others, you quit and go to take your failed case to those who are weak-minded enough to simply fall with you into apostasy due to your heretical pronouncements.
I note that you stopped repeating "socialist" "socialist" "socialist" while not expressing the reason, which was that you were wrong to have been hammering with it, wrong because the Apostles were socialists/communists (not Marxists, as Marx came later). I won't repeat all the things you failed to address and did so for what are obvious reasons to me.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)