Rights are for slaves. Slaves don't get married.

"Marriage" (for which there is no word in Hebrew, except perhaps in one specific form) is described, not named.

Marriage is an inheritance arrangement among many other things, but this vehicle is primarily necessary for to bring a line from Adam forward into the future. All lines not directly tracible to Adam are dead. There is a technique to "revive" a line in the Law of God as given to and through Moses, but we will lay that aside for now. Again retreating to the original description of Marriage (remembering that there IS NO WORD for it in Hebrew), all discussions of Adultery, Fornication, Sexual Sin (in general) and necessarily, Divorce (ker-ee-thooth'/כְּרִיתוּת) and the accompanying "sending away" (shaw-lakh'/שָׁלַח) are wrapped up in in the idea of BEING married and carrying forward an inheritance. The ideal qualifications for Marriage and exceptions to the rules of initial marriage are in many ways wrapped up in sin, since widowhood does not exist in a perfect world, and neither does a Divorce because Adultery would not exist either. The one word that may qualify as "Marriage" in Hebrew which pertains to a specific form seeks to address the event of Death and the failure to carry forward an inheritance. Jesus has this exception in his lineage. This brings into question the whole idea that ANY of us in the Western World, where taxation and legal intervention into marriage exist on a large scale, could even CALL ourselves married. Does this mean we live in Sin with our "So Called Marriages?" No, because the husband/wife relationship is described in many ways in the Old Testament that there isn't really any word for an initial marriage in the first place. We only find an English translation using the word in a phrase in Exodus 21 in describing secondary wives of slavery, and that is "Duty of Marriage", "Marital rights" or "Conjugal Rights". These all come from the Hebrew (o-naw'/עוֹנָה) that is poorly understood, but could be construed as "living together". Thus there are several forms of the Husband/Wife relationship where it is initially defined. A covenant or contractual spousal arrangement which is understood as marriage and understood to produce covenant children who inherit. Adultery is a TERRIBLE breach in this arrangement because it could produce a fraud in terms of an heir. There is a concubine, or wife of slavery, of whom sexual purity is expected while hitched to a husband, but is not necessary. Often a woman sold by her family into slavery was compromised already, and for this reason she brings a price to the family, but comes with no dowry and her children do not inherit. There is the "Spare Womb" concubine, the most prominent examples being Bilhah and Zilpah. Their children CAN inherit with the endorsement of the wife of marriage. Sarah offered Hagar to Abraham in an understandable show of "no faith." Later she does not claim Ishmael and he does not inherit. Rachel and Leah claim the children of Bilhah and Zilpah and their children are named as inheritors as a sort of extension of Rachel and Leah. There are the relationships of TOTAL slavery, and these are Governed by our Masters. You can keep your wife, but not as a free man. If you choose to go back to being a free man, if that path is available to you, your wife stays with your former Master after your period of indentured servitude is up. I should note at this point that the children of concubines who are not in a "spare womb" arrangement, go out with their mother from their father's house with gifts, but no inheritance in name or land. They are dispossessed and the relationship their mother was in was not Marriage. Examining our "Marriages" in this light, when one of our secular divorces occurs, and as is most often the case, the husband toils away and gives his substance to his masters and they in turn give this to their former wife who keeps the children, we are in a relationship of slave husband to slave wife serving a master, perhaps the lowest form of cohabitation there is. Comments are invited. Prove me wrong. Remember Hebrew translated to Greek and then to English does not make a relationship a marriage as defined Biblically. PS: I own a website I wish to develop and have for that reason proposed that this Blog will shut down. I'm not making progress beyond OWNING the website. For that reason I return here until I can set aside enough resources to develop it. This is posted on my Facebook page, and also over at the Modern Pharisee.

Right now, it looks like it will happen in North Dakota? When? Now.

Hat tip to Coalition of the Swilling, for alerting me to this article over at Breitbart.

"North Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem filed a legal opinion last week confirming that the state does not recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages, allowing a man married to another man to come to North Dakota and marry a woman without divorcing his husband."

This of course could also occur with a woman "marrying" a woman, and then going to North Dakota to marry a man. Apparently this can happen right now.

"While many wildly speculated that the legalization of same-sex marriage could lead to polygamy, they probably never thought it would be like this. Presented with a legal hypothetical, Attorney General Stenehjem answered three questions: whether someone in a same-sex marriage in another state can also receive a marriage license to someone of the opposite sex in North Dakota, whether they can file legal documents as 'Single' when they possess a same-sex marriage license in another state, and whether this would open the individual up for prosecution under another state's bigamy laws. The Attorney General's response can be read in full PDF form here."

Silly me, I thought it would be in Vermont. Somebody was thinking. I'll have to find out who. This is really a genius back door way to get where we're going. I wonder how long it will hold up though before the legislature of North Dakota catches up. Coverage is also at "Religion Clause."

It's not "Illegal" anymore (but we knew that)

I could write a wordy analysis, but this quote says it all, and quite a few of us have been saying something similar, for a while:

From the Salt Lake City Tribune:

"Utah’s bigamy statute technically survived the ruling. However, (Judge) Waddoups took a narrow interpretation of the words 'marry' and 'purports to marry,' meaning that bigamy remains illegal only in the literal sense - when someone fraudulently acquires multiple marriage licences."

Jonathan Turley cites among other things, Lawrence v. Texas.

Progress!

I would like to report progress.  There is a new Church and Denomination on the block.  Not that we need one, and yes we do.  Yes that's a contradiction.

It was always my earnest hope (albeit a small one) that some existing denomination would be tolerant of what were entirely Biblical and acceptable marriage practices.  So far that has gone down in predictable flames.

In it's place is the small but growing (ever so slightly) and tentatively titled "Our Father's Presbyterian Church."  If you would like to know more about it, please contact me.  hughmcbryde@gmail.com

We have held so far two services.  I need help with the posting of the audio to a website.  I'd like to make them available to everyone who wishes to hear them.

Hugh McBryde

Restricting Access to Modern Pharisee

For a short period, maybe for a while, I'm going to restrict access to my primary blog, the Modern Pharisee. Some posts may be archived but there are some pests out there that are giving me a hard time and for now, until I can sort out what will and won't cause immediate short term problems, you can look, but you'll have to ask.

Be back soon.

Prayer Request...The cost of Christian Polygyny

I keep saying, you don't have a defense if you're not legally wed. I understand it shouldn't be that way, really, I do. Nevertheless it's a reality.

It just hit home. A person I "know of" is facing removal of their children. To my knowledge they have given no cause to anyone, save the cause of their polygyny.

They are NOT FLDS.

They are NOT in Texas.

They are Christian. They need prayer.

Name Change (suggestions welcome)

The fate of Vermont Polygamy is at least partially decided. It's not "Vermont Polygamy" anymore though the "URL" will stay the same. There is no need to change where find this blog (and me) if you already know where to go. Perhaps someday when I muster the courage (and finances) to migrate to my own server/hosting/whatchacallit, the URL will match the blog title better.

I've moved, and I won't say where, partly because I'm not really there yet. I could be working in a straight line of places (circle?) that's a thousand miles long covering several states. Right now I'm in Missoula Montana, but that's only because my RV was parked there, and I'm now in that RV.

My wife and I are discussing what color my/our parachute is and that will determine largely where we go and what we do.

I am the following things:

Lobbyist (amateur).

Journalist (see above).

Theologian (eccentric).

Radio talent (professional past).

Salesman/Sales Manager (considerable successful track record).

Preacher (been in the pulpit, no lie).

Activist. (Pain in the hindquarters).

Combining all those various talents I figure I could be:

Another Finance/Sales Manager in the car industry.

A salesman in the car industry (or several others).

An announcer/newsman or broadcast talk show host.

A real estate agent/representative.

The head of a new denomination (I keep suggesting this to a resounding silence).

A preacher.

A lobbyist.

The last three are what I'd really rather do but as I have said, the interest level is low. I figure to be an effective lobbyist, I'm going to have to get married again, and that is something I would have to rewrite a "deal" with the wife to do.

A preacher puts me at odds with the vast majority of polygynists (the form of polygamy practiced by most Christian plural marriage participants), since most of them have some form of "Calvinist lite" soteriology at best, and the rest have a strong "free will" leaning or an outright version of Arminianism that is so innate on their part that I don't even think they know they are Arminian. In short they seem to know they're not Cavlinist, and often violently react to a "Predestinarian" sort of outlook but I'm not sure they know who Jacob Arminius is.

There does seem to be a dawning awareness of a need for a "polygynist church," the the opposition to perceived "Churchianity" is also a barrier. Being a preacher, combining that with starting a new denomination would be, truly, a work of God in all ways.

Being a lobbyist runs up on the rocks of the same sort of independence that rebells against "Churchianity." Most Christian Polygynists don't want legal polygyny, they just don't want to be bothered. I fear that after a few more "raids" they'll change their tune. Some of these new singers will be trained (sadly) in the jailhouse. Being a lobbyist would be a close second in terms of preference, but in that case the easiest way to be heard is through taking another wife (which alters my agreement with my wife and requires her assent) and working a combination of court action and legislative presence. In that case I'd be traveling back to Vermont and New Hampshire and Washington DC to whine in the ears of an unreceptive legislature.

Failing to alter my agreement with my wife would require hooking up with a polygynist family who was willing to push a court case with them being the example.

So that's the rough outlook I have for a future. Chances are good I'll end up as some sort of salesman. I'd like to try the preacher/denomination/lobbyist path.