Anthony Kennedy will decide….

Marriage has required a male component and a female component in every human culture since the dawn of time. That is universal. What isn’t universal is that it takes one of each to make a marriage.

In fact, polygamy is also a universal form of marriage that has occurred, in one form or another, around the globe an throughout history. It is as culturally common as the monogamous marriage of one man and one woman.

According to the Ethnographic Atlas Codebook, of 1,231 societies noted, 186 were monogamous. 453 had occasional polygyny, 588 had more frequent polygyny, and 4 had polyandry.

When a man is married to more than one wife at a time, the relationship is called polygyny. When a woman is married to more than one husband at a time, it is called polyandry. If a marriage includes multiple husbands and wives, its a group marriage. All have existed from place to place throughout history. Still, it is universal that each form of polygamy involved members of both sexes.

What hasn’t existed in any meaningful way is the marriage of two men or two women, at least not until the last several decades. Unlike heterosexual monogamy and heterosexual polygamy, this is a new thing.

Who gets to decide that marriage means something that it has never meant before? It might be Anthony Kennedy. If the court rules, he will redefine a universal and ancient human institution for a third of a billion Americans.

All hail Anthony Kennedy.

Bookmark the permalink.

27 Responses to Anthony Kennedy will decide….

  1. Ray Davies says:

    I have enough trouble keeping up with one wife,why in the hell would I want more than that. Why would any man in his right mind. I had a gay friend ask once how much we fought, he said gays have a lot more problems.

  2. rj says:

    Satan would be on roller skates before I’d want second wife, matter of fact if I ever gr rid of this one I’d never have another.

    That being said, no matter what they rule it only changes those who accept the ruling

    • Flatearther says:

      You guys are missing the point… If you have more than 1 wife they fight against each other not you.

  3. Frank in Texas says:

    The fight to completely rid our society of morals will not be complete until gay marriage is the law of the land. They have already normalized murder by abortion. Our founders knew that our republic could only stand as long as we were a moral society. Our republic is now teetering on shaky legs as the Constitution is ignored by Obama and his cohorts. Anyone who thinks any different is only fooling themself.

  4. fasttimes says:

    i am not understanding what the issue is in this case. I believe i read a comment a while back from you, RD, that basically said, the law is not unconstitutional because it does not keep gays from getting married, it just keeps them from getting married to someone of the same sex. just as it keeps all blacks from married someone of the same sex and all christians from marrying someone of the same sex and all paraplegics from marrying someone of the same sex. the law is applied to everyone equally regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, or physical disability.

    and not to rehash the same point over and over, but by definition two people of the same sex cannot be married. you can squeeze an orange and call what you get out of it, apple juice, but it will not change the fact that it is NOT apple juice.

    • R.D. Walker says:

      That was what I said. Nobody is denying homosexuals the right to get married. They can get married. “Married” under the law means one man and one woman and there is no law that prohibits gays from getting married. It does prohibit same sex marriage but that same prohibition applies to all people. Heterosexuals can’t marry someone of the same sex either.

    • R.D. Walker says:

      If the SCOTUS declares that laws stating that marriage means that laws defining marriage as one woman and one man are unconstitutional, at what point did they become unconstitutional? Were they unconstitutional in 1791?

  5. R.D. Walker says:

    From a cultural, biological, sociological, historical and religious standpoint, polygamy is a far more legitimate form of marriage than same-sex marriage.

  6. R.D. Walker says:

    All this aside, I don’t care in the least if two people of the same sex imitate marriage. I don’t care if the law gives them the same benefits as those of married couples. I don’t even what the SCOTUS rules. None of it matters. Same-sex marriage is a metaphysical impossibility. It doesn’t matter what the law says. It doesn’t matter what polls say. It doesn’t matter. Two people the same sex can’t be a married couple. The mirror every aspect of being married, but they aren’t.

    • Bman says:

      If you had the opportunity on election day, to vote on gay marriage, how would you vote?

      • R.D. Walker says:

        I don’t care what people do as long as it doesn’t break my leg or pick my pocket. Let ’em have their simulated, artificial marriages.

        Just because I don’t oppose something doesn’t mean I support it, however.

        I’d probably stay home on election day and wash my hands of the whole thing.

        • Flatearther says:

          RD and Nota, A while back I was trying to frame up an argument using religion and Christian values as the reason for a stable republic. I was wrong, and Nota’s Libertarian stance was only 1/2 right, so while pondering the problem I ran into the concept of Civic Virtue. If you look closely Libertarianism does not fit the framework of our constitution any more than communism could. Our framers built the constitution squarely on a foundation that relies upon Civic Virtue at it’s heart. That is the current problem. 45% still have it, 55% seem not to. That implies the end of the republic.

  7. Slaphappypap says:

    I think I know where you are going here RD. Are you saying the court doesn’t mean diddly-squat because the ritual of marriage is only controlled by God and the church? Correct?

  8. reboot says:

    Thank you R.D. , well said. I don’t give 2 shyts about it, just keep it out of my face. Just be glad that they can’t re-produce, so the number of chirren they can infect will be minimized.

  9. JCT says:

    And what becomes of the separation of church and state if the SCOTUS finds a “constitutional right” to same-sex marriage?

    The Catholic church is against abortion, but has no means by which they actively prevent it.
    The Catholic church is against same-sex marriage, and has the means by which they enforce a prohibition.

    Will Catholic churches in America be denying a “constitutional right” if same-sex marriage is so designated? Look for the elites and liberals to slap taxes on, or remove non-profit status or whatever other tricks come from their bags within minutes of the SCOTUS ruling.

    1973 was the Roe v. Wade ruling, which has done dramatic and irreparable harm to our society, with over 50 million souls perished (souls that would’ve filled schools, bought houses, created economic activity). It is still not sorted out (but North Dakota is advancing the ball!).

    Also not easily seen is the hand of the government in creating this mess…the federal government not allowing benefits; the state government not codifying the expressed will of the people. The dysfunction is, in part, created by the very same entities that are charged with executing the will of the people and, instead, advance minority views.

    • Flatearther says:

      You are exactly correct. This move for gay marriage will be the hammer used to distroy Christianity in this country. They problem is too many people don’t care what perversion happens as long as they don’t see it. I have also always maintained that what 2 other people do in private does not affect me. But it seems to be affecting me now. It is trying to destroy my belief system and make me the perversion.

      • RJ says:

        Yup, just like gun controllers never satisfied with any compromise, they want it all.

        Personally I dont care if they call it marriage and have every benefit as real married people and let it go.

        That however will not happen as soon as it is codified as a “civil right” every church who refuses to participate and perform their ceremony will be sued. Every person who speaks against it in a public forum will be attacked as a homophobe and “hate speech” laws will be enacted to prohibit any public discussion against it. federal civil rights lawsuits will ensue against any company or person who is perceived to be biased against it.
        Schools will teach that it is a normal and perfectly acceptable activity to participate in, failure to to so willl result in lawsuits.

        Any opposition will be to the point that like the cross in the middle of the desert on federal land it must be destroyed.

        Decent people will be cowed by the threats of jail and lawsuits, no one will ever speak out again or call it wrong and abnormal.

    • R.D. Walker says:

      You can’t force the Catholic Church to perform a gay marriage because a Catholic gay marriage is impossible. If you put a gun to the head of a priest and make him do it, it would be a sham, not a Sacrament. No government has the power to redefine the Sacraments. It is beyond the power of the United States Government to create a gay, Catholic marriage.

  10. James says:

    Homosexual marriage would not be a federal issue, if there was was not a federal entitlement state.

  11. notamobster says:

    Until we move the conversation to the proper role of government, attacks like this, and in them the Marxist cultural revolution, will continue unabated.

    Every liberal argument can be defeated with this tool. This conversation needs to be controlled. We have, thus far, failed in doing so. Until we can figure out how to make this happen, they will continue to destroy us.

  12. R.D. Walker says:

    I think we are confused by the idea that the government might force churches to perform same sex marriages. The government can’t do that. They could put a gun to the head of the clergy but the ensuing ceremony would be a sham. The government can’t define the sacraments.

    There are other sacraments besides marriage. Baptism and communion don’t have a civil component. In the Catholic Church, marriage is a sacrament co-equal with Baptism and communion. The government can no more define the sacramental aspects of marriage then they can baptism or communion.

    Don’t confuse the civil marriage they are talking about in SCOTUS with the sacrament of marriage. They are two completely different things. That they have the same name tends to confuse us. We shouldn’t let that happen. The sacrament of marriage will remain unchanged no matter what the justices say. They have no power over it.

    • notamobster says:

      I agree on the legal side, RD. However, the fact that the name is the same, is precisely why the cultural revolutionaries have gone after it. Again, the govt has no authority over as much, but the attackers have targeted it in an attempt to legitimize their chosen behavior, for that very reason.

      They’re attempting to adjust social norms with force. We see the result. They are clearly delineating the opposing sides. This seems to be a common theme in the world today. The volume of such dividing tacticts is increasing, almost daily.

      • R.D. Walker says:

        Not much you can do about it, however. If the majority of Americans are on board with same sex marriage, it’s not like we can stop it. There is nothing in the Constitution that I am aware of that would make it illegal.

    • Roy Ryder says:

      I disagree because there are considerable actions the government can take toward any church that it considers “unwelcome”. A church’s 501C3 tax-exempt status can be put in jeapordy and it’s finances wrecked, it’s leaders can be subject to focused and harrassing legal investigation, and it’s members can be subject to refusal of entry to various quasi-government professional organizations such as the state bar. Local branches of the church can be denied permits for building new places of worship (it’s already a very difficult process). Moreover, the government can act as facilitator for civil lawsuits that would otherwise not be permitted. In Canada, Mark Steyn and others have had to face a farcical inquisition of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, a legal entity that liberals would love to created here.

      I grew up in an area where many of the older houses had elaborate hiding places built into the walls, ceilings, and floors so the husbands could avoid arrest for polygamy. Believe me, it can happen again.

      • R.D. Walker says:

        That is a reasonable fear.

        Still, I don’t think it will be an effective opposition tool. The Catholic Church doesn’t support birth control. I don’t think that you can prohibit birth control because at some point it could be forced on Catholics.

        I don’t think you can outlaw pork because at some point it might be forced on orthodox Jews.

        You get my point. While your logic is impeccable and your fear reasonable, I don’t think that there will be any standing to say that gay marriage should be illegal because it might eventually be forced on churches.

  13. Flatearther says:

    Naw… government entities can’t change the way a church works…
    Freedom of religion and the 1st amendment, right?