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 where 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 at the outset. 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. (Update: This attempt at forming a church ended in complete failure.)

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. (UPDATE: I am attempting to start a website for which I own the domain. It will take a lot of effort to start up, and I've never found the time. For this reason I'm at least temporarily posting at my old blogs. We'll see what happens.)

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. (UPDATE: I ended up owning a trucking company.)

Episode 4

That interview is now up.

That Polygamy Show

My friends Scott and Steve have a podcast they record every week.  It's called, "That Polygamy Show."  I just got through recording what will probably be "Episode 4."  When they are finished editing it for time, I imagine it will be up on the site.

End of the Line/Fish or Cut Bait.

Everything must change, and I suppose even this COULD, but this is probably one of the last posts to be made on Vermont Polygamy.

The reason? I probably will NOT stay in Vermont, since today I learned I won't be working where I do work anymore.

I have tried to make this a full time occupation, but the support for the effort, is less than tepid.

The last post was geared at a fund drive of some sort, if you WANT me to do this, pretty much you'll have to PAY me to do this. It's as simple as that. I have the time now, to do anything I want, and I am answerable to no one except the LORD and the Landlord (who wants his rent in 2 weeks, and frankly, I don't have it.)

I can stay here and do this. FULL TIME if you wish for me to do so, but that now has a price tag.

Plain and simple, SEND MONEY, or DON'T. If the LORD wills it, it will happen. Otherwise my future goes down a different path.

MY ADDRESS:

Hugh McBryde
PO Box 433
Montpelier VT 05601

The first dime I get (figurative speech, it would have to be a collectors dime) I will go down to the legislature and start doing what I need to do. Without it, I won't.

If you think I am a positive voice for Polygyny

I need something now. Not soon, now. You may contact me at my EMAIL address, which is hughmcbryde (at) gmail (dot) (youknowwhat). There is a rather sizable investment that could be made on behalf of polygamy in general. You'd own something in return, and you would get your money back, in all likelihood. I say that because there is no way to guarantee any investment, but the normal prospects are good.

This is urgent. If you're serious about the promotion of polygamy (specifically polygyny) as an acceptable "lifestyle," contact me right away.

200 plus years of Marriage Controversy, in Vermont

I don't think this present state of "marriage" was what US Senator George F. Edmunds of Vermont had in mind, when he authored a bill that banned "cohabitation" for the purposes of "strengthening" a prior piece of Legislation "the 1862 Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act that also revoked polygamists' right to vote and made them ineligible for jury service, and prohibited them from holding political office."

Thanks to an obscure blog called the "Blog of Dave" (not exactly a fellow traveler in the campaign for the most ancient of traditional marriage forms) I became aware that about the time Senator Edmunds (who was also a State Senator in Vermont) was pushing his bill nationally to put teeth into the Morrill Act, 127 years later, his home of Vermont was pushing to let men "marry" men, and women "marry" women. Vermont was successful I might add. I'm going to have to visit Senator Edmunds grave here in Vermont, and see if I can hear him turning in it.

You have to realize that from my perspective, Vermont has now been interfering with marriage for nearly 150 years, and not in a good way. As a firm believer in a "no accidents" God, it can't be said to be a coincidence that Vermont Polygamy is here at the scene of the crime, several crimes as a matter of fact, trying to turn back the clock, at least partly, to where it should be.

It is also interesting to note that leaning on the "cohabitation" angle was what the Edmunds Anti-Polygamy Act of 1882 was primarily about. Some supposed attorney types on the other side of the FLDS controversy in Texas claim that "Lawrence v. Texas" has nothing to do with bigamy and polygamy cases and laws, but it does. It was the very lack of teeth in the prior "Morrill" that inspired Edmunds to go for the cohabitation angle, and that is why court cases like "Lawrence" DO apply to bigamy/polygamy cases all over the country.

You say 2010-1882 does not equal 150 years (or 200) and it doesn't. But the "Morrill" in the 1862 "Morrill Anti-Bigamy" act was none other than US House Representative (later Senator) Justin Smith Morrill. From Strafford, Vermont.

Vermont is both a symbolic and real place in the battle swirling around marriage. Even Joseph Smith Jr. was born in Sharon, Vermont. 205 years ago in 1805. Maybe Morrill and Edmunds felt responsible.

It was this date in history, 1882 that the "Edmunds Anti-Polygamy Act" was passed.

A subsequent piece of legislation by Senator Edmunds, the Edmunds Tucker act of 1887, also directed at polygamy and Mormons was repealed in 1978.

For one of the smallest states in the Union, we cause a lot of marital discord.

Same Sex Marriage Actually VERY Popular in Vermont

Initially in September of 2009, it did not seem as if Vermont Same Sex "Marriage" was going to be very popular. In fact it was popular, at least for the short run. Time will of course tell, if the rate of Same Sex "Marriage" will continue at these high levels. From September through December of 2009, people of the same gender married at a rate of 5 a day in Vermont, nearly half of them being from out of state. "Normal" heterosexual marriages numbered 1610 during the same period of time. So far the State of Vermont has recorded 16 Same Sex "Marriages" for 2010, but Vermont is very manual about it's records and it takes time for them to get to the state for compilation. I'd suspect that the 16 represents only a portion of a month for 2010.

I would figure that people are not rushing to Vermont to marry here any more than other states in the Union if their intent is to marry in the "normal heterosexually monogamous" mode. I'm sure some couples see Vermont as a wedding destination. Others see Polebridge Montana as a wedding destination. I'm sure the statistics roughly even out with some Vermonters leaving the state to marry, and some Georgians coming here to marry.

28% of the civil marriages in Vermont were of the "Same Sex" variety. Half of those were from out of state. New Hampshire is now on board for "SSM," and so is Washington DC. Convenience will doubtless dictate where people go for their "marriages" this year. New Hampshire is closer to Boston's airport, than any in Vermont and probably cheaper to fly into than Burlington. I don't expect that the numbers this year, will be along the same lines as last year. Time will tell of course.

Confronting the Church on Marriage, Part V

When we last left off, I promised to take up this discussion, interacting with Hebrew Language professor Stewart "Woody" Lauer on the topic of "Elder Monogamy," and a surprise admission. That was last year, then several stories I had been following blew up, and dominated my time.

Sorry about that, it is hard for me at least, to maintain burning intensity of interest on several fronts at once, I don't know about you, but that's me.

I had written the following for public consumption about 6 years ago, and had sent it to the session of my church in April of last year, who then sent it along to Dr. Lauer. It is the argument based on the supposed argument that Elders are to be monogamous. It's a sort of "AHA!!" contention that is offered to polygyny proponents by monogamy only proponents. I lay aside the contention of some that the Greek word "mia" is mistranslated for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that calls our translations into so much disrepute that we would have to all go learn Greek and Hebrew to continue the discussion. I'll accept, at least for the sake of discussion with the OPC, Dr. Lauer, and the COPC session that it means "Husband of One Wife."

"Elders are to be husbands of one wife" Again, "dicto simpliciter." This is a condition of office, not a rant against polygyny. Again, take a deep breath. The argument using this verse employs the notion that it is an ideal to be striven for. Credible, until you realize you've just said women are sub creatures. Besides it's virtual proof that there were polygynous couples in the early church. Otherwise why say anything about it?

Remember this is a talking point, designed to get the conversation going. There is a great deal more to talk about on the polygyny side of the argument, and perhaps we will get to those other points. The most significant contention I make here, is conceded outright:

Dr. Lauer - "I agree with the last two sentences, above."

I've highlighted what he agrees with. First some housekeeping. I hadn't noticed in 6 years that I said something incredibly silly that NO ONE has ever picked up on. "Polygynous couples?" That should be families, not couples but the concept of the adult component of family being a "couple" is so deeply embedded in our culture, that I said it, repeated it, didn't pick up on it, and no one did for all that period of time where I have used that form of the argument as a "foot in the door" when discussing polygyny.

Dr. Lauer concedes without a fight that one of the major contentions of many "monogamy only proponents," that "polygyny is not mentioned in the New Testament and not present in the early church" is completely false. They were there, that's it, and from my point of view at least, the practice was so unremarkable that it's only mentioned in passing. Indeed, if you were to ask of a Disciple why they never mention polygyny as part of a claim they didn't, because they were downgrading the practice, you'd get a really weird look, like "we didn't mentioned beards either, dummy."

All of what I am doing here, has now come to light in my church over the issue of membership. After months of stonewalling me on membership, I went to the congregation and said "they won't let me join" and the church responded with an email in which they said the following:

"(Our refusal to allow Hugh to join) involves (him) both believing and publicly advocating, especially via the internet, a position that that is so seriously sinful that no church throughout all of Christendom accepts it."

Which makes you wonder if they even read the response they contracted with Dr. Lauer, to write.

The position was "so seriously sinful" that Paul, the apostle, whose writings are the ones on which we base doctrine and church governance, didn't think it was even important enough, to mention. He doesn't mention it in the face of SPEAKING to congregations in which he looks out over the church, identifies and sees (and knows) men who are in church, with several of their wives in tow.

In the past a friend (now deceased), of mine and I had remarked to one another, if we ever got past the first rung of church elders, and reached the "intelligentsia" round, very quickly many of the arguments routinely raised and fervently held to, would be dropped. That drop was audible. Dr. Don Dean and I have had discussions with prominent theologians who admit in one way or another, privately, that our arguments are not unsound, they just won't sell in the church. In Dr. Lauer's response through the session of COPC a number of such concessions occur. This is one of them.

It is in fact powerfully convincing that polygyny is an acceptable practice when it's going on right in front of Jesus, his disciples and the growing church in the New Faith. It's going on, and the disciples and apostles say NOTHING whatsoever about it except that Paul seems to be saying "If you have a polygynous man in church, don't make him an elder."

Woody goes on to say that it indicates disfavor, but that is frankly impossible. Again now the first part of my contention comes back into play.

Dr. Lauer - "(I)t is clear that the apostles (representing Jesus officially; 1 Cor 14:36) viewed it with disfavor, disqualifying the man from office. This official, negative attitude toward the practice on the part of the Lord’s apostles cannot be dismissed so lightly."

There are some, who employ the phrase "it is clear" because it is precisely the opposite, it's not clear.

Dr. Lauer is easily refuted. If those disqualified from the office of Elder are viewed with "disfavor," then he is saying women are viewed with disfavor. (Elders as husbands unpacked, means among other things, elders are to be men.) Any other man that qualifies for office on marital status can be disqualified also because they are not "apt to teach." Paul himself says "teaching is a gift:

"Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles?" - 1st Corinthians 12:29 (ESV)

This is extremely simple logic. Some of the qualfiers for office of Elder in the church have to do with morals, and indeed, on the face of it, it could very well be that being polygynous is being morally compromised, or at least "morally not quite the best thing." Elders are not to be drunks for instance, but Paul mixes up his list naming things that are merely things Elders should and should not be, but otherwise acceptable, and things that no one should be, particularly elders. A man not gifted by God to teach is not to be an Elder. A woman, no matter how she is gifted, is not to be an elder. Neither are viewed with disfavor, it does not logically follow that a polygynous man is viewed with disfavor. We know from other passages of scripture that drunkenness is a bad thing, there is no such corresponding scripture for a much married man.

Though the this post is short, and Woody's answer is short, it is what you do when you're trying to avoid an uncomfortable truth. Unless you change your position on the subject, you give it a short shrift and blow past it. This is what Woody does, but not before showing us a very important fact.

Polygyny is mentioned in the New Testament. It is NOT commented on, in that context, as a negative. The most important theologians in the church, Christ, and his immediate Apostles say nothing whatsoever about polygyny being wrong or substandard, even though polygyny is right in front of all them, among the believers. The most that seems to be said is; "Don't make them, and women, and people who can't teach, Elders."

Another front opens for legal polygamy, Washington DC

The vote came yesterday:

The Washington Post - "The legislation would allow gay couples from anywhere in the country to marry in the city. Those couples who live in the District would be entitled to all rights afforded to heterosexual married couples under District laws.

Although a final signature on the bill by Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) could come by the end of the week, same-sex marriage opponents vowed to step up their effort to get Congress or a court to block the initiative during the 30-day congressional review period."

This amounts to a sort of test vote it would seem on gay marriage for the nation. The above mentioned "congressional review period" would be more or less a "veto power" over the law in our nations capital.

New Hampshire starts gay marriage January 1st, Vermont already has it and now it seems, Washington DC. All we need is somebody in Vermont, New Hampshire or Washington DC who IS in an informal polygamy, or who WANTS to be in a polygamy to go and attempt to obtain with full disclosure to the agency involved, a marriage license.

They will be DENIED of course, and that forms the basis for a court case.

Vermont Polygamy as a lobbying effort is getting zero support beyond the initial donation to register as a lobbyist. As a lobbyist, I am getting solicitations to attend certain functions, such as this one:

The Vermont Democratic House Campaign

Invites you to have a cocktail and kick off the 2010 legislative session with
Special Guests

Speaker Shap Smith
House Majority Leader Floyd Nease
Assistant House Majority Leader Lucy Leriche
and
Chairs & Vice Chairs of Standing Committees of
the House
-
Tuesday, January 5th – 6:00pm ‘til 8:00pm
Black Door Bar & Bistro
44 Main Street – 3rd Floor
Montpelier, VT
-
Individual Admission - $150
Friend of the Democratic House - $250
Very Good Friend of the Democratic House - $500
Best Friend of the Democratic House - $1,000
-
Please make checks payable to:
Vermont Democratic House Campaign
PO Box 1058
Montpelier, VT 05601
RSVP to (802) 279-2719 or info@vthouse.org
Paid for by the Vermont Democratic House Campaign.

To be a "bestest best friend," I can make out my check for $1,000.00. For one function. Showing up costs $150.00. There's no mention of an "open bar," but there is a "cash bar" and I'm sure luminaries in the Vermont political system like their lubrication.

None of this is said to criticize our form of government, or legislative process. Everything has a cost and campaigning has a cost. Rubbing elbows with our representatives all gathered nicely in one spot and getting noticed and schmoozed by them, that might run into the thousands, for one night.

My PO Box number? 433 at the same zip code as the Vermont Democratic House Campaign.

Vermont Polygamy is rapidly approaching the "fish or cut bait" point. Being a lobbyist in an effective way means being known, well known, for your activity. It is also probably going to be a full time job and spread into places like New Hampshire, and now it seems, Washington DC.

I would greatly prefer that government stay out of marriage, but they're not going to. The reasons are they wish to classify us for tax purposes, and we pay income tax and file returns in this country.

Privacy laws mean you have to (oddly) carry around documentation and permission to see your kids in school or be called the Dr, etc. Even in private institutions.

Laws about sexual behavior send men to jail in staged raids in Texas. As long as the government says that age is a factor in sexual relations, and sends men to jail for sometimes 40 years for being involved in simply discussing the matter, there will need to be laws to protect polygynists by making it possible to legally register their relationships.

Either you want confrontation and outrage or silence, hiding and lying, or you want to set your lamp on a stand.

If you're Christian, I think you want to let your light shine.

With the penalty phase of the Allan Keate trial probably winding up today, I'm not looking at a lot of story line to deal with concerning the FLDS, and hopefully I can concentrate only on legalizing polygamy. That of course, depends on you.

New York says No for Now to Same Sex Marriage

This leaves neighbors Vermont and New Hampshire as the only two states in the Union with laws legalizing "Gay Marriage" that have been ratified as some extension of the will of the people:

The New York Times - "The 38-to-24 vote startled proponents of the bill and signaled that political momentum, at least right now, had shifted against same-sex marriage, even in heavily Democratic New York. It followed more than a year of lobbying by gay rights organizations, who steered close to $1 million into New York legislative races to boost support for the measure.

Senators who voted against the measure said the public was gripped by economic anxiety and remained uneasy about changing the state’s definition of marriage."

Granted, no measure has survived popular referendum as we learned in Maine and California. In both cases it does well to note that 2-4% of the electorate changing their minds to be at least "tolerant" would be all it would take to clear that hurdle.

20 years ago it would have been well into the double digits, in terms of the margin of rejection. It's a matter of time.

Vermont and neighboring New Hampshire remain the best places for pushing legislation and/or court cases legalizing polygamy.

New York Teters on the Edge of Same Sex Marriage

Sleeping New York State is back on the Gay Marriage blotter:

The Troy Record/AP - "Some key legislators have tied the long awaited vote to passing a deficit reduction plan. That’s now expected to be done this week.

While the bill was passed months ago by the Assembly and has the governor’s backing, its prospects in the Senate remain uncertain.

Paterson says Tuesday he’s confident it will pass, but he wants a debate and vote in any case to advance the cause.

Opponents like Democratic Sen. Ruben Diaz say they remain ready to fight the measure and don’t think a vote is imminent."

I have been a lobbyist in Vermont, for 6 months now, I could easily expand my efforts to the nearby State Capitals in New York, New Hampshire and Maine.

There's no interest though and it's expensive.

I figure we'll wait until the Polyamory crowd defines marriage in plural fashion, in a way that will be harmful to ours.

Gay Marriage fails in Maine

This shows of course, how at odds a population can be, with it's legislators, Governors and Presidents. That has wider implications beyond the marriage issue.

FoxNews - "Gay marriage has now lost in every single state -- 31 in all -- in which it has been put to a popular vote. Gay-rights activists had hoped to buck that trend in Maine -- known for its moderate, independent-minded electorate -- and mounted an energetic, well-financed campaign.

'The institution of marriage has been preserved in Maine and across the nation,' declared Frank Schubert, chief organizer for the winning side.

Gay-marriage supporters conceded early Wednesday.

'We're in this for the long haul,' said Jesse Connolly, manager of the pro-gay marriage campaign. 'For next week, and next month, and next year -- until all Maine families are treated equally. Because in the end, this has always been about love and family and that will always be something worth fighting for.' "

Like the "Healthcare Issue," Same Sex Marriage will be back. I'm sure they're disappointed, and as I say repeatedly, I am not in favor of a Same Sex Marriage law in this country, and as always, the flip side of the coin is the opportunity it presents for polygynists.

ABC News - "Maine would have been the sixth state in the country to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry, but instead becomes the 31st state to oppose the unions in a popular vote.

With 87 percent of precincts reporting as of 2 a.m. today, gay marriage opponents claimed 53 percent of the vote to supporters' 47 percent."

For those who only support heterosexual monogamy as the only form of marriage, this is not really that good a piece of news. Only 3% of Maine's electorate needs to change it's mind. The numbers were similar in California for Prop 8.

This leaves New Hampshire (the law becomes effective January 1st, 2010) and Vermont as states that have passed a Same Sex Marriage law, by some extension of the will of the people. Vermont's legislature had to override a veto to do it, and probably would pass the law if it were submitted to referendum. I can't speak for New Hampshire.

Vermont Polygamy will be publishing more, soon, as the Raymond Jessop trial winds down, as as a few leads pan out. In both Vermont and New Hampshire only one word needs to be changed in their laws to make Polygamy legal. These are ideal states for such activity since the new laws intents are more easily challenged in court, to gain legal acceptance of one of the oldest forms of marriage.

Baring your teeth

Snarling hatred is on display.

The Sechelt Coast Reporter - "There will be more on the pitiful, repulsive life within Bountiful next week in Coast Reporter. We urge you to educate yourself on this blight in our midst. If you care about the fates of these young people, email, write or phone MLA Nicholas Simons, Premier Gordon Campbell and Prime Minister Stephen Harper. These children and Jane Blackmore need to know we care."

For more of this naked blood lust, go here.

Why it has to be legal

Because "they" will never stop. In this case "it" is Polygyny, and "they" is Canada, but human nature is the same everywhere.

Christian Telegraph - "A top law official in Canada is considering an appeal after a court threw out polygamy charges against two men, who claimed the nation's Charter of Rights and Freedoms permitted them to have several wives, reports Ecumenical News International.

'The first order of business will be to read the decision in its entirety, which I have not done yet,' said Mike de Jong, attorney general of British Columbia, after the court's 23 September decision.

'Obviously, I will talk to officials within the ministry and a decision will be made around a possible appeal.' Winston Blackmore, aged 52, and James Oler, 44, from Bountiful, British Columbia, belong to the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS), an offshoot of the mainstream Mormon church, which formally renounced polygamy in 1890."

It has to be legal, or you are second class citizens at the back of the bus. In a way I hope Canada does appeal the ruling and takes it all the way to their highest court. Of course, Blackmore and Oler probably just want to get on with their lives.

I apologize for being away from this blog so long. The revelations and investigations surrounding Rozita Swinton and the FLDS and the Colorado Springs Police Department took up a lot of time, in addition, I was ill on and off again for the first part of this month. It did not completely incapacitate me, but it sapped my energy for such things.