In Iowa, plural marriage speculation starts.

Monsignor Frank Bognanno is horrified, but correctly observes the potential.

The Des Moines Register - "Monsignor Frank Bognanno said he has heard no debate at his Christ the King parish. Twenty centuries of Catholic teaching won't change, he said.

'I'm just telling them what the natural law is. It is prima facie - self evident,' he said. Marriage between one man and one woman is best for society and raising of children and not simply a religious argument, he continued.

'Even atheistic cultures hold to one man, one woman. The next logical thing is you are going to have polygamy. I would predict someone is going to file a lawsuit and say I have fallen in love with three women and we all want to get married. Since there is no law, why discriminate against me?' "

"Natural Law?" That's specious. If natural law made this evident to us, why do so many cultures practice polygamy? Why do so many members of the animal kingdom? This is posturing. Bravado.

Nevertheless, whether it is the fearful Monsignor, or someone like myself, with anticipation and advocacy, we're both seeing the same thing. It won't be long before someone tries it. I still think the best place to try it, is here in Vermont. If I'm wrong about venue, and right about the result, I am content.

Starting with Granite Tombstones....

It was logical, believe it or not, that my wife and I ended up talking about the church and marriage, I just can't at this point, remember how we got there. I can remember the gist of the conversation. Oh wait, now I remember. I won't bother you with the details but it had to do with Christian Patriarchy. Nevertheless after walking through a boring monologue on Calvinism (unnecessary too, believe me, with my wife's sensibilities) we got to the meat of the discussion and it went like this:

The conservative churches are greatly afraid of dealing with gay marriage in the pews. It's not that they think their various parishioners will suddenly start marrying same sex style, but that they believe militant homosexuals will show up and begin to disrupt their services by claiming marriage, claiming conservative doctrines and that the "Marriage Bed is not Defiled." From there will ensue a discussion about how they're not married, they will say they are, and about how the particular conservative denomination in question, does not think so. I won't go into all the arguments, but there will then be a discrimination lawsuit, and we're on.

This is how it will go. The gay couple will argue that it is the church that is arbitrarily defining marriage. The church will not see it that way, but will maintain that "well, we're the church, that's what religious freedom is all about, please go away." The gay couple will then go on to prove that the denomination in question does in fact, arbitrarily define marriage. They will do so by proving that (using scripture without distorting it) polygyny is an acceptable form of marriage, yet the denomination forbids it, favoring instead, monogamy only. They will even point to cases where evangelical denominations have overlooked polygyny in foreign countries because they entered into a culture that had polygynous marriages. In short, we will be shown to be both hypocritical, and arbitrary, using the power of the church to declare certain forms of marriage to be marriage.

If it is not that we base marriage forms entirely on scripture, but instead on the power of church leaders, councils and government to declare what is and is not marriage, then we will be shown to have discriminated. We will lose the resulting lawsuits. Right now we have the insulation of polygamy being against the law, but really, that's not going to last long. Particularly if I have my way about it.

Wednesday Roundup?

Why a Wednesday Roundup? Because I didn't do one yesterday. From "Midnight Urbanites," she thinks we should legalize polygamy:

"I also think polygamy should be legalized. I am very confused as to why that wasn't the first battle...it seems like a more natural progression to wear people down."

Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse seems to publish one of those blogs that just collects articles some of which are hers. The tone seems anti polygamy but it might be a good resource. "Ted's Blog" repeats the argument that gays always bring to the table, namely, whose "Traditional Marriage" are we talking about?

"Abraham, Jacob, David, and most notoriously Solomon all practiced polygamy."

John T. Floyd, whose blog I like and follow, answers an email to my friend Ziggy, whose blog I like and follow. It's great to like people:

"The recent decision by the Iowa Supreme Court legalizing 'gay' marriages (along with Connecticut and Massachusetts) will ultimately create the new line of attack on bigamy statutes, The traditional reason for prohibiting homosexual marriages, just as with multiple marriage, is the threat they pose to our society’s historical definition of 'marriage.' If gay marriage does not unconstitutionally threaten that historical definition, then certainly polygamy does not pose a greater threat. Again, as we presented in our blog, Texas does not, nor do most states, protect marriage, either through its constitution or laws, as an 'institution.' It is a 'status.'” A 'status' can be redefined while an 'institution' cannot. Ergo, 'gay' marriages in Iowa (the American 'heartland'), Connecticut and Massachusetts )."

"Vegan.com" shows why we ultimately cannot count on the left whle they may be convenient allies in the foxhole right now:

"America has no shortage of lunatic polygamous militia sects. No shortage of anti-government Neo Nazi white power yokels who would move heaven and earth to destroy the fabric of this nation. And I’ve got to tell you, if I were some bat sh*t crazy white power militia guy, right now I’d be feeling a little hurt."

But then the writer turns right around and complains about FBI persecution:

"Now I know I’m turning all of this into a joke, but it’s really the only way to address this insanity. It’s been known for a while that the FBI has a raging (vendetta) for vegans. And I wonder how long it may be before the FBI comes after vegans who’ve condemned all forms of property destruction and violence."

Maybe if you turned that blast furnace of a mouth down a bit and realized we might all be in a similar fox hole?

Let me know if you've found any articles, I'll post them.

It's Official! I am now a Lobbyist!

I, Hugh McBryde, am now an official LOBBYIST in the state of Vermont. That, I think, means I can wander the hallowed halls of lawmaking and maybe the cloakrooms of the legislature and do a little arm twisting. I shall have to do some investigating on that front right away. Probably Thursday.

Vermont cashed my check, and they initially and predictably misspelled my name, something I am assure will be corrected quickly. I feel like Lance Parkertip, NNR. My commission though, has not yet expired!

More serious business. I need to begin collecting money. This is a nasty, dirty necessity but there's no getting around it. Very soon after it is determined what protocols I must or must not obey to use the name "Vermont Polygamy" in connection with donations, I will put up the appropriate "Pay Pal" button and also list an address for taking donations. There are other various filings. Once there are $500.00 in donations I have to file certain things with Vermont.

This is important because I can be just as serious about promoting legalized polygamy in Vermont, which ultimately means legalized polygamy everywhere to the degree the effort is monetized. There is a web address I wish to buy that costs a good deal of money. There is the question of whether or not I do this part time, or full time. I will be willing to mortgage my future to the cause if you are.

Further Proof, Gay Marriage is more acceptable to the Church, than Polygyny.

Writing in the American Spectator, Jeffrey Lord observes the following:

"Left-wing activists, just as Dracula fears the cross and with interestingly similar reasons, understand at a gut level that once the American public connects gay marriage to polygamy or polyamory and hence the legal vulnerability of their own personal marriage -- gay marriage could quickly become a very dead legal duck. This is why there is no "P" in the alphabet soup of 'GLBT.' As l'affaire Springsteen is vividly illustrating, gay activists understand that lots of Americans may indeed shrug their shoulders at the notion of gay marriage -- but the idea of their own marriage being tampered with is something else again."

Perhaps indeed this may be the scary part. Conservative Christians dislike gay marriage, but feel they can repel those borders. They are less confident they can repel polygynists and thus react with teeth baring fear like cornered animals, believe me, I know. You end up having reactions in legislative testimony like this, where the first and last person testifying in the clip ask the question "What's next? POLYGAMY!?!?!" These people are conservative Christians, more worried about Polygamy than gay "Marriage" and they have examples, more examples actually than not, of the heroes of the faith in ancient time having more than one wife simultaneously. Yet the tremble in anger and fright at that prospect, and less so at the propsect of gay marriage, despite the fact that we are losing the court battles.

This is also why I would greatly prefer formally legalized polygamy, with marriage contracts as opposed to "test case" legalization. Do you wish to protect your marriage from what you think is an intrusion and keep marriage laws from being used to attack you and your marriage from the inside? Have marriage contracts legalized. Everything from straight traditional western heterosexual monogamies, with that understanding written into the prenup, or seemingly sexist polygynies where it is understood that guys can have as many wives as they decide to have and women just have to lump it. I'm putting it that way because it's a free country and if an adult wants to enter into what we would call an unequal relationship, so be it. We do it in employment all the time. I predict marriage will become more and more like a job or a sports team you join in terms of it's civil application. We need to be ready for that.

"In the words of the Hoover Institution's Stanley Kurtz in a lengthy 2003 article in the Weekly Standard: 'Among the likeliest effects of gay marriage is to take us down a slippery slope to legalized polygamy and 'polyamory' (group marriage).' Kurtz, in a masterful research job, introduces us all to a world where the legalization of gay marriage effectively ends the concept of marriage as it now exists, and has existed. In a world where gender is no longer sacred, there would be nothing sacred in the least about number. Over time, there would be very little legal leg left to stand on to deny not only the guy who wants more than one wife (hello Bruce Springsteen?) or the woman who wants more than one husband (hello Jersey Girl?) Other legal barriers would be swept away resulting in such rarified new institutions as 'triple parenting' or a world where Bob could marry not only Ted but Alice as well -- at the same time. In a sign that this very thought is gaining speed among the usual cultural suspects one need look no further than HBO's Big Love series (about polygamy) or the recent suggestion in Time magazine that marriage be abandoned altogether. The HBO show, by the way, is being mainstreamed by actor Tom Hanks' Playtone productions."

We're probably not going to be presented with a perfect solution, we being 50 states, and with the foot dragging tantrum pitching resistance of conservative Christianity to the truth, the chances for those better solutions really approach zero. The Time article may be the best solution available where we dump marriage altogether, but that probably will require a change in national tax codes so sweeping as to make it impractical. Someday I'll get to that. Polygynists and Polygamists really need to be against the income tax and insist on a consumption tax. That way the government gets out of the business of snooping into our personal lives, at least, they would loose that tool and wouldn't have to classify us as either married "couples" or single people.

A Muslim Perspective on Western Polygyny

From Somalia (or Canada), Mohamed Awaleh:

Hiiran Online - "Although polygamy was supposedly outlawed by the Vatican ( the Pope's headquarter in Rome) hundreds of years ago, the practice is still far from dead in the North America and the West, in general. The only difference today though is - they call it : mistress.

The majority of married men in America, Canada and Europe are known to cheat on their wives – as part of social norm.

The difference between a mistress and a second wife is : the (second wife) is honoured, recognized and respected in the Muslim community while a mistress is kept in the dark, unacknowledged and reduced to just a piece of meat. A mistress is merely there to serve the satisfaction of the Man's lust and ego.

Yet the Western media and Politicians have the audacity to judge the Muslims about the practice of the Polygamy. The religion of Islam is repeatedly bad-mouthed in order to systematically divert the American, Canadian and European females attention away from the humiliation and the emotional and psychological bruises they endure from cheating and other forms of sexual exploitation : pornography, nude-dances and breast implantes, etc.

Unfortunately, Western women are constantly and maliciously entertained with lies - through series of well-calculated documentaries and films that are usually aimed at painting Muslim women as being abused by their husbands ; simply to make their women feel good about themselves.

The Western males have surely duped their women into thinking that they are free and independent ; better than the Muslim women, of course. Boy… do I envy ; they Western men's little fraudulent psychology : make the Western females feel good about themselves – at the expenses of putting every body else down.

According to various studies, however indicates that over ninety percent of wealthy and affluent men ( Politicians, Businessmen, Media personalities, Lawyers and Medical professions, to mention few) in the West are likely to and do engage in extra-marital affairs with one or more partners. Adultery within a marriage has been accepted as normal, particularly among these phony men, whether they publicly admit to it or not.

Think of how many families they have destroyed in the process ; and they pretend as champion of human rights. They have no moral authority to tell anybody what to do. They have to quite kidding themselves and legalize Polygamy ; if they are serious of alleviating the pain and suffering of their women and children."

Mohamed Awaleh's email address is awaleh@consultant.com. Mr. Awaleh seems ill informed on the practice of Christian and LDS/FLDS polygyny not realizing that we simply don't register our marriages, but the second wives and third wives are well aware of each other and often live under the same roof. Nevertheless I present his article to you as the justifiably derisive snorting of one who sees hypocrisy and says something about it.

Church Monogamists are losing the court battles to gays

So, you think you're going to win? What was that definintion of insanity? Continuing to do the same thing over and over again expecting to get a different result. How will it improve when Polygamy is legal because in the churches, right now, you're losing the legal battle to homosexuals.

"-- A Christian photographer was forced by the New Mexico Civil Rights Commission to pay $6,637 in attorney's costs after she refused to photograph a gay couple's commitment ceremony.

-- A psychologist in Georgia was fired after she declined for religious reasons to counsel a lesbian about her relationship.

-- Christian fertility doctors in California who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian patient were barred by the state Supreme Court from invoking their religious beliefs in refusing treatment.

-- A Christian student group was not recognized at a University of California law school because it denies membership to anyone practicing sex outside of traditional marriage."

From the Washington Post, by way of Gold Plated Witch on Wheels.

Mark Steyn on the inevitability of Polygamy

Yes, it's Canada, but he and I think the same thing will happen on both sides of the border. Mark fears polygamy, I embrace it. Oddly, we were thinking the same way, at the same time. He claims to have pointed this out in 2004, about the same time I did.

MacLeans - "(A) mere half-decade down the slippery slope and here we are, with the marrying kind of Bountiful, B.C., headed for the Supreme Court of Canada. Five years ago, proponents of same-sex marriage went into full you-cannot-be-serious eye-rolling mode when naysayers warned that polygamy would be next. As I wrote in that Western Standard piece:

'Gay marriage, they assure us, is the merest amendment to traditional marriage, and once we’ve done that we’ll pull up the drawbridge.' "

The logic is the same on both sides of the border, and gay marriage is now legal here in Vermont, for the first time in these United States as a function of the will of the people, through the Vermont Legislature.

Setting Up Shop

I have received a $60.00 donation, and will be filing the necessary lobbyist forms with the state of Vermont this week. The next fund raising goal is $500.00. When that additional donation mark is reached, Vermont Polygamy will file paperwork to register a political action group in this state. For now, until I put in a "Pay Pal" button, you may donate at "Modern Pharisee."

Speed is of the essence. The goal of the political action committee is to have legislation ready by the next legislative session which starts in January of 2010. The immediate goal of Vermont Polygamy is to have a test case in the courts or decided by September of this year when Vermont's liberalized marriage law takes effect.

Very simply the more money that comes in, the more time I can allocate to this pursuit. The more money, the more organized. The more money the more legal assistance. You get the picture. Ultimately a full time organization could pursue legalization in other states.