Polygamists Win in Court Using Trail Blazed by Same-Sex Marriage

Last December U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups issued a ruling effectively decriminalizing polygamy in Utah.

Under Utah law, a person may not file for more than one marriage license or cohabit with more than one “spouse.” The law is intended to prevent both state-recognized polygamy and the unofficial polygamy practiced by some people in which a man is legally married to one woman, but has other “wives” to which he is not legally married.

Kody Brown and his wives, stars of the reality TV show “Sister Wives” depicting their polygamous lifestyle, filed suit against the State of Utah over the law, and last December Judge Clark Waddoups struck the portion of the law preventing people from living together in polygamous relationships; Judge Waddoups did, however, leave the portion of the law preventing a person from filing for more than one marriage license. Since most polygamous groups do not typically file for multiple state marriage licenses anyway, this effectively decriminalizes polygamy in the State of Utah.

A stay was placed on Judge Waddoups’ initial ruling last year, pending a decision on whether or not Utah owed the Browns any financial compensation. This week, Judge Waddoups ruled the State of Utah must pay the Browns’ attorney fees, and put the full force of his December ruling into effect.

This ruling is significant, because the logic employed by Judge Waddoups decriminalizing polygamy is the very same logic being used to advance same-sex marriage around the country. Gay activists have long dismissed claims that same-sex marriage would lead to polygamy as “fear mongering.” However, Judge Waddoups’ ruling owes a lot to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Lawrence v. Texas ruling which has been used over and over again in court to argue against everything from the federal Defense of Marriage Act to state marriage amendments.

Judge Waddoups’ ruling largely hinges on the following: (more…)

Gay Activists Employ Conflicting Arguments

This week on BreakPoint, John Stonestreet with the Chuck Colson Center for Christian Worldview points out how gay activists are using conflicting arguments when it comes to “LGBT” issues.

Stonestreet writes,

“We’re all familiar with the argument by now: homosexual attraction is an innate characteristic—maybe genetic. Therefore, denying same-sex attracted individuals the ‘right’ to get married is the same as racism.

“But an alternate narrative has appeared on the horizon, and by ‘horizon,’ I mean the cover of a recent TIME Magazine issue, where it’s used to promote the ‘T’ in the acronym ‘LGBT.’ The ‘T,’ of course, stands for ‘transgender,’—those who say their biological sex and their perceived gender don’t match. The mantra here goes, ‘I was born this way, but I want to change. In fact, I have a right to change.’

“So we’re told that the biology of the ‘L,’ the ‘G,’ and the ‘B’ can’t change. But when it comes to ‘T,’ the biology doesn’t matter.

“Confused? Well, you’re not alone.”

Stonestreet goes on to cite how the “I was born this way” argument for homosexuality has given way to arguments based entirely on personal feelings and preferences.

This is significant. You cannot in one breath say a person’s biology controls their feelings (as many homosexuals do) and in the next breath say a person’s feelings trump biology. The two arguments contradict each other.

Complicating this debate further is the fact that science still has not concluded that sexual orientation is genetic, and leading psychology experts have gone on record saying they have seen people successfully change their sexual orientation.

Before we try to build our lives or our public policy on our feelings, let’s consider the words of the prophet Jeremiah:

“The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?”

Jeremiah 17:9

Listen to Stonestreet’s full commentary below.

[audio:http://bit.ly/UN6kNu|titles=John Stonestreet – Feelings, Nothing More Than Feelings]