For those with a taste for satire (and the intellect to appreciate it), I have just posted again to Jesus’ General, this time on the subject of Judge Walter Steed and his three wives.
Enjoy. (Or not.)
Can’t Bring Yourself to Type the Word “Ass”?
Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!
Rats, you beat me to that one.
Goldy the CLOWN–
It’s pretty funny…..especially from a divorced guy with a young daughter.
I’ll bet the JUDGE could probably hammer you a bit too, don’t you think???
While I’m sure you work very hard to make things as normal as possible for your daughter……….you will probably be quick to moralize your divorce and pretend this is somehow “the best thing” for your daughter.
Let He who is without sin cast the first stone.
It’s been proven time and time again, the best home for a child is one where both parents life together in harmony with their children.
So is divorce that much BETTER than multiple wives. Neither is good. Both try to rationalize and justify.
Think about it…….
count on cynical to make a moral equivalence between divorce and bigamy. Hint: which one is NOT illegal?
Not illegal yet, you mean.
tj—
My point is not that Divorce is illegal or legal……
but that it has a very negative impact as a rule on children.
Adults who divorce rationalize and moralize the rescinding of a legal contract……unfortunately, kids have no say so.
Leave it to tj to imply divorce is good!
The point is, anyone can throw a spear at others who fall.
Goldy may think he is funny and cute……………
Throwing the spear feels better than receiving it.
I’m a Libertarian. I really don’t care about this Judge although I think Bigamy is morally wrong. I really don’t care about Goldy….but I think divorce is also wrong.
Cynical,
As the child of single parents, let me just say this to you:
Fuck off.
You don’t have a clue what you’re talking about, asshole.
Aaron–
Obviously you have an anger management problem.
Are you saying divorce is good???????
How would you know the flipside of parents living in harmony with their children??
I shamelessly plug Goldy’s ecumenicism here, at Also Also.
Well, by that I mean I’m shamelessly plugging it here. :)
Mr. C @ 5
I think you’re a bit off on this one. While I’ll grant that modern, drive-up-window divorces are terrible and parents that choose them as the first solution instead of the last are usually too selfish to deserve kids, there ARE cases where divorce is not only the best thing for the adults, it is the best thing for the kids. I’ve known people for many years who had abusive dads and/or crazy moms and the divorce (and subsequent custody by the more sane parent) looks to have been a positive choice.
Let’s not go down the Lefty (and Far Right) path of anything that isn’t 100% their way is wrong. Divorce, like abortion, has a place in society. The key is to make it safe and rare. (And to you Lefties, that also means teaching people that social choices come with responsibility)
Cynical….
Blah, blah, blah….
You obviously have no insight into my private life, the circumstances surrounding my divorce, and the family life my daughter now enjoys.
Now if you managed to come up with some sort of satirical dig at me, I suppose that would be fair play. But to pretend to give me advice on what is or is not best for my daughter, just makes you look petty and foolish.
Talk about “Un-hinged”. Hmmm maybe I will read that book.
Vancouver – In a new documentary about alleged horrors in a closed polygamous community in the United States, women who have fled say that child abuse is as plentiful as the wives…
http://www.rickross.com/refere.....my382.html
Nuff said!
It’s been proven time and time again, the best home for a child is one where both parents life together in harmony with their children.
Bullshit. Since polygamy is not legal, there are no studies at all comparing monogamous and polygamous marriages and their effects on the children of the adults involved. Admit it, you are a fucking liar.
Further, you have completely ignored any polyandrous marriages.
Mr. Cyn
You obviously have some real issues.
Having three wives is illegal.
Divorce is not.
I do agree however that divorce is not a good thing, but, it is necessary in alot of cases. (i.e. abuse, neglect, infildelity etc.)
I hope you don’t think that women (or men) in these cases just have to sit there and take it.
Before you start throwing stones at my glass house, I should inform you that I’ve been married for thirty years now, and have raised three children to be responsible taxpaying citizens, (With minds AND opinions of their own) that do not walk lockstep with any self-rightous group trying to force their beliefs on anyone..
The real problem with this country today is that people (such as yourself or your ilk) think that they can force their moral standards and ideologies on others.
Hitler tried this, and the people followed, you know the “rest of the story”
Goldy—
Just trying to get you to think a little broader before you fire a hit.
Undoubtedly you are a fine father and do everything in your power to help your daughter. I commend you Goldy….and that’s bull. Being married isn’t always a pice of cake….neither is being a single parent. And we can never truly get inside the heads of our kids.
All I know is that kids living in harmony with both of their parents is not only a good thing….but the best.
It’s that harmony thing that is hard to measure and hard to come by!
Hmmm, what’s the matter with you guys? Didn’t anybody notice that it was funny?
Very, very funny!
Thank you, Goldy, for making me laugh.
Iwood@15—says–
“The real problem with this country today is that people (such as yourself or your ilk) think that they can force their moral standards and ideologies on others.
Hitler tried this, and the people followed, you know the “rest of the story””
This is where your hateful ranting gets in the way of reality.
I have never suggested forcing my moral standards or ideology on anyone. I have never said divorce is not necessary in cases of abuse & infidelity. But you take yet another leap and throw in Hitler.
You basically agree with my observation….and that’s all it was.
Unfortunately, like most LEFTIST PINHEADED CLOWNS, you cannot resist spewing the “Hitler” venom at those who are merely expressing an opinion and may disagree with you at some level politically.
PS Congrats on your 30 years and 3 great kids!
If more people could do that, I guarandamntee you this would be a much, much better country!
Funny? Some poor schmuck is getting prosecuted for having multiple wives who themselves are not complaining. The only reason this was ever made illegal was because in the 1800’s it was for some reason deemed OK to violate the separation of church and state.
The only reason it still is not legal is because someone keeps bringing up polygamous marriages that were abuse, a practice on par with claiming that sex should be outlawed because some guy raped some woman sometime. This isn’t funny its a travasty.
I have never suggested forcing my moral standards or ideology on anyone.
Not just a liar, but a stupid liar
You said in this thread: I really don’t care about this Judge although I think Bigamy is morally wrong.
Mr. Cyn,
I wasn’t spewing Hitlerist venom/propaganda at you.
If we have not learned ANYTHING from history, one thing must be recognized. We must ALWAYS be on guard against factors in our world that try to impose THEIR ideologies on others that do not wish it.
BTW, I’m neither a leftist pinhead nor a right wing nut job.
Me, like the majority of U.S. citizens, are in the middle of the road, willing to speak reasonably regarding any issue.
Your opinions are black and white, while the rest of most of the world are colored.
Try to have a nice day.
Cynical,
You really are not only a jerk, but a self aggrandizing pompous ass of a jerk. You’re black and white version of the real world is just plain stupid. Bite me, asshole. How’s that for anger management?
Bill @19,
Actually, just to be clear, Judge Steed is not being prosecuted. He’s merely being removed from the bench.
The point as I see it, is that here is a judge who locks up people every day, sometimes for victimless crimes like possession of pot, and yet he is violating the state’s bigamy laws. The law is the law, and while I respect civil disobedience of a law one feels is unjust, one must also be prepared to accept the consequences.
wow aaron …issues issues issues.
so to poke this ant hill further….what if gay marriage is legalized. i’m sure some of them, maybe alot of them would be abusive situations as with alot of marriages it seems these days. so what’s next….do we legalize polygamy?
and if any of you think you know where i stand on this …i doubt it.
this is just a question.
goldy@ 23……..well said.
he should be removed for violating the law[ and being a big hypocrite] i wonder how many people he has put behind bars because they smoked wacky tobacky? it would be very interesting to find out……..
Aaron—
The ugliness of being a child of divorce often takes decades to surface. You need to get in touch with your inner child and release all that anger. This LEFTIST PINHEADED counselor can help you:
http://www.shantimai.com
Bill–
You too need some psychic healing.
How in the world is “thinking” something is morally wrong the same as “forcing” morals on someone??
Predictably, there are lots of Bill the CLOWN’s out there already. You have just tossed your rubber nose and floppy shoes into the ring with the rest of them!
ghost, There is no legitimate reason for polygamous (or polyanderous) marriages to be illegal, it has no relationship with legalization of gay marriages. If it is deemed immoral within particular religions then members of those religions should not practice polygamous marriages, but unless all religious so deem, its really not valid to say something should be illegal because it is immoral.
Cynical, the problem is when you take thinking something is morally wrong, and then getting a law passed, such as those that prevent bigamy. That is indeed forcing morals on someone.
A guy shouldn’t have three wives. He should have just one wife and cheat with two other women!
Mr. Cyn @ 26
I do have to agree with you on one thing.
Children of divorce often DO take decades to realize the impact of their parents splitting up.
My foks divorced when I was 13 years old, and I didn’t realize the impact until I was in my late 20’s.
(It was still a good thing they did split though, I dreaded waking up each night to their loud arguments)
xmasgoat:
At Least I Know How To Use The Shift Key.
Cynical:
Touching my inner child is abusive, and will not be tolerated. What are you, a pedophile?
Seriously, I’m not angry, I just think you’re stupid and don’t have a clue what you’re talking about, platitudes aside.
Aaron—
C’mon…be honest with yourself at least.
Obviously I touched a nerve with you. You sounded angry and you are angry and have to fight that anger. It’s ok….as long as you know it is there.
Divorce IS an ugly thing for any child. However, I am obviously not responsible for the decisions of others. I think it is always important though to be aware of the unwanted consequences.
A friend gave me a book years ago….cannot recall the Title or Author. But the bottom-line was the importance of being REAL about where you are in life and how you got there. No minimizing the Speedbumps or the Cliffs. Not easy to do. We all want to project an Idyllic Life and pretend when traumatic things happen (like a divorce) that it is somehow “for the best” and “didn’t bother me”. Of course it does!!! If it doesn’t, then there really is something wrong with you!
Know what I mean?
This discussion has nothing to do with Left vs. Right
or
Liberal vs. Conservative.
It’s about being a human being with frailties and disappointments.
Cynical,
You really are full of yourself, aren’t you? That’s not the only thing you’re full of…
–>Aaron
Wow, Mr. Cynical. After all your usual postings ranting about LEFTIST PINHEADS, USEFUL IDIOTS, GOLDY THE CLOWN, etc., your postings on this topic suddenly are starting to show glimmers of a caring individual. You’re not going soft on us, are you?
From what i can tell;
This guy has only 3 partners. If he were a democrat, he’d almost be celibate
bill-27 ‘..but unless all religious so deem, its really not valid to say something should be illegal because it is immoral.’
Example: Murder, or murder in the context of suicide bombs and chopping heads off should not be illegal just because it is immoral.
righton @ 34
Yeah, and if he is republican, he’ll admit to one, lie about the threatening nature of another, and let us all beleive that the third is necessary to stop the war on terrorism.
@1
I beat both of you to it.
@5
“My point is not that Divorce is illegal or legal……
but that it has a very negative impact as a rule on children.”
So does child abuse (or child murder), drug addiction, and/or alcoholism. Some people are not fit to be parents, and some children are better off without one (or both) of their parents. And, sometimes, while the children might be better off if the parents stayed together the burden on the parents is just too high.
Of course, it’s not surprising that a 17th-century troglodyte like Mr. Cynical thinks nobody should get divorced, ever, no matter what. He probably thinks wives should walk behind their husbands, too.
BTW, we haven’t heard from Mrs. Cynical in a long time … Mr. C, what have you done with Mrs. C??? Did you kill her, cut her up in the bathtub, and dispose of her remains in an oil drum cast adrift in the Strait of Juan de Fuca?
Mr. Cynical @ 5
“Adults who divorce rationalize and moralize the rescinding of a legal contract … I think divorce is also wrong.”
Mr. Cynical @18
“I have never said divorce is not necessary in cases of abuse & infidelity.”
No, but you’ve said (very recently, see your post#5 in this thread, above) that “divorce … in cases of abuse & infidelity … is … wrong.”
@34
“This guy has only 3 partners. If he were a democrat”
But he’s NOT a Democrat, and that’s the whole fucking point.
Cynical: As a supporter of you in many things I think you missed the issue. I can see the wives and children are not complaining about it. Who cares Cynical. As a person in an elected position sworn to uphold the laws of Utah and the United States, HE HAD TO BE REMOVED! He’s a law breaker. I fully support that. I feel you bringing up the divorce issue is not the same. I too am a product of a broken home and I had a great step-father who accepted us as his children when he married my mother. I learned much from him and we’re in our 24th year of happy matrimony!!!
Remember that joker who had five wives a few years ago. He bragged about it. The problem is when you stray away from God’s original plan of one man – one woman problems occur.
Sometimes Rupert Wabbet you are really disgusting. You called Cynical a “17th-century troglodyte” and “what have you done with Mrs. C??? Did you kill her, cut her up in the bathtub, and dispose of her remains in an oil drum cast adrift in the Strait of Juan de Fuca?” We haven’t heard from Mrs Bunnybutt either. What happened to her? Did you eat her, literally? Um um, good wabbet? See how stupid your comment is? I think you are the same thing.
bill @27……..i agree with you to a point. after all, one cannot legislate morality. some people are trying and that’s a shame.
but in the big picture isn’t polygamy no different than gay marriage? it’s a complete change from what we all grew up thinking marriage was, right?
it seems to me that the main problem with polygamy is that since it is illegal it is underground. and so that makes it easier for people to hide the abuse as they are now[see utah for example]..but is there a good side to it? maybe. i couldn’t say. each to his own.
personally i think marriage should stay as it is now. but i would be all for calling it something else so that everyone could have the benefits of a ‘legal’ joining. sad that we have to have the governments approval on any of this.
ah…. for example in a perfect world i would legalize all drugs and tax them. people already use them and if they were controlled as alcohol is now the novelty would wear off for most and the gangs [that the government created by making the drugs illegal…see joe kennedy here] would be stripped of their ability to destroy so much of america.
forget the war on drugs……get the gangs.
and no…i wouldn’t legalize murder or child molesting [to head you off at the pass] those are CRIMES that affect other people. there’s the difference.
If the Father in the family is Mr Irrelevent, divorce, and a restraining order, would be the only ethical action.
Puddy—
Make no mistake….I too believe the Judge should be removed for breaking the law. I don’t care about this Judge personally….but certainly professionally if he breaks the law, he must be removed. We are on the same page.
I was only trying once again to get these self-righteous LEFTIST PINHEADS to actually think a little deeper about the consequences of “legal actions”. That’s all.
Just because it’s legal, doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do.
Folks are ultimately accountable for ALL their decisions…..me included and certainly not accountable to me. These LEFTIST PINHEADED CLOWNS are quick to jump to the conclusion that someone is moralizing for expressing their opinion. So much for encouraging diversity. So much for tolerance. For example, I could care less about the LEFTIST PINHEADED CLOWN who allowed himself to be screwed to death by a horse. Actions….consequences. Always been that way. It’s just folks don’t always think thru the consequences. Cheating on your spouse may feel good….short run. Folks justify it every day. Doesn’t make it the right thing to do though, does it. No matter what.
I’m certainly not perfect….close, but not quite perfect.
Easy divorce has negative consequences on the whole of society.
Kids born out of wedlock has negative cosequences on the whole of society.
Let’s come to grips with consequences of actions and not delude ourselves into some rationale that doesn’t mirror reality.
Abortion is another touchy subject. I have never met a single woman who 30 years later feels good about having an abortion. NEVER. I can understand desperation, feeling trapped and immaturity at the time…..but in the long run, have you ever heard a woman proudly exclaim they are HAPPY they had an abortion 30 years earlier???? It’s a horrible burden to take to one’s grave I would suspect.
sadly , cynical, i know one woman very well who proclaims how happy she is [constantly] that she had 6 abortions.
is she a moron?…oh yeah.
and she is a proud member of planned parenthood…the twin corporation to microsoft[the guys that can’t make software without a “problem”]. who else could be in business so long without any success? more birth contol pills and pregnancy prevention methods available now than ever before and they still need abortions?
and for all of you gullible enough to believe that thousands of women would die from back alley abortions…get a grip. check out the stats….especially on the instance of pregnancy occuring from rape. you’ll do better in the lottery. the ugly secret is…most women who have abortions [especially today] are using the “abortion-as-birth-control” method.
or, for east indian women it’s the “have a sonagram and if it’s not a boy off to the clinic we go” moment.
sad but true……..and the worst part? the women don’t have much of a choice in it if they want to stay married.
so thanks femin-idiots for yet another load of crap.frankly ,as a woman, i don’t want some hairy-legged hemale that would never have to worry about getting pregnant in a million years coming up with these brilliant ideas. abortion today is right up there in the “it makes no sense” category with “instead of a vaccine let’s wait till you get polio and then we’ll give you these really neat braces”
think about it.
This has to be a shock to the donks that two people who always think RIGHT can have a disagreement. I just felt that your injection of divorce in this mix was a bad choice. You know, I agree with you on the abortion issue. We have a friend who aborted their child in college. She married the same dude after college. 22 years later she has not been able to have a child but they have adopted five children of different races and they are thriving.
If the father is stuckonstupiddon, the divorce judge would bust a gut laughing just looking at the knuckledragging stuckon and give the children in a heartbeat to the ex Mrs stupiddon.
Ageddon: Did someone marry your sorry ass? Just wondering how you can be passing judgment on Cynical.
Roger you are a bad person. Not only are you nasty, but you are sick. You need medical assistance.
PacMan: I agree on Rupert Wabbet. He is a sick fuck!
Puddy—
I do hear ya…..it’s just a “thinker” worth thinking about…..things we do, things we rationalize, things we are in denial about….unwanted consequences of actions. Important things that really matter and mold us into what we are and how we react.
The LEFTIST PINHEADED CLOWNS do tend to get a large bit defensive and take legitimate discussions about hard issues quite personal…..I think it’s that guilt thing they are burdened with. What a weight they carry, huh?
yearight, Try again, there isn’t any religions that actually say that suicide bombings are somehow OK.
ghost, I think you are exactly right, although I think if you really want to know how polygamous marriages work out, check out some of the online communities of people who are currently trying to have them, search the keyword ‘polyamory’.
I read recently that there is a move on taxing marijuana in California to the tune of billions in potential tax income.
I would like to point out that Judge Steed did not legally marry the second two wives (or try to), it was a religious ceremony that noone ever expected to have civilly recognized.
Resident troll brigade (our Idiot, pullmypuddy, paccrack etc) about the only ‘weight’ we carry is our ‘wait’ for then next idiotic post from you three misled mouseketeers. LMAO@U3, and xmasgoat, prr, pbj, PussAss, WrittenOff, etc
MonkeyFace@50–
Enlightened post CLOWN!!
Hey Gorillaboy posting as Chimp Pa-Troll: The weight you all have is trying to determine how you will explain the KCREALS voting mess and how you are going to get back Congress. If as Josef says the MSM is seeing and reporting the voting mess; can it help Sims?
@41
“I learned much from him and we’re in our 24th year of happy matrimony!!!”
Gee, puddybutt, I’m happy for you; and wish you and your stepfather many more years of happy marriage — you fucking pervert.
@41 (continued)
“Sometimes Rupert Wabbet you are really disgusting.”
Do you like it puddy? Sometimes I talk like a Republican so you can see what Republicans sound like. So, I hope you like it when I pretend to be what you are.
@46
Person? Who, me? A person? Nah, I’m just a cute fluffy 8 5/8-lb. bunny with a mild case of rabies.
@47
Awwww … did I rub your fur wrong, you poor sensitive trolls?
Oh God thank you oh God thank you oh God thank you oh God thank you
@49
Bill = apologist for polygamy
(Would someone puh-leeze give him Krakauer’s book for Xmas)
@52
“how you are going to get back Congress”
Easy — we just sit back and let Republicans be themselves for a while.
The way things are going, who knows, we may pick up 100 seats in 2006.
Sooo … Mr. Cynical … where IS Mrs. C, and what HAVE you done with (to?) her?
GOP PUSHES FOOD STAMP CUTS
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....07.html%5D
Well, what can we expect? They gotta get money somewhere to buy $7 billion of useless bird flue vaccine from Rumsfeld’s company.
“how you are going to get back Congress”
Easy – we just sit back and let Republicans be themselves for a while.
Last time that strategy worked was in 1994. Actually this is the best policy for the donks. The last things the donks want is for the public to fiqure out who they really are.
Any of you donks have any quesses on what happened to thoses 390 votes. And you donks call us liars? Donks fair and truthful
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahhahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahhahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahhahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahhahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahhahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahhahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahhahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahhahaha
For all the donks who didn;t read the papertoday here:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....on03m.html
Hey rabbit, did you ever stop and think that maybe mormons are not the only people who practice polygamy? You know, like almost everyone not originally from Europe and a lot of the pre-christian religions there?
The state can only restrict something if it has an over riding interest. What exactly is the states over riding interest in preventing polygamous marriages>?
BunnyASSSSSS: Nice try at deflection. Everyone knows I married to a beautiful woman except you dipshit. So bunnybutt where is Mrs Fucking Bunny? Oh that’s right you ate her. Did she taste good? Where did you deposit her bunnybones? Stefan’s lawn? Now I know why you like going to Stefan’s yard to fertilize it. You think shitting on her burial location will bring her back to life. Ha ha ha ha ha! Rupert Wabbet, so stupid he can’t decide if he is a carnivorous rabbit cannibal or a stupid human!
Reply to 66
You said you’ve been married to your stepfather for 24 years — don’t blame me for what you post! I quote from your #41 above:
“Cynical: As a supporter of you in many things I think you missed the issue. I can see the wives and children are not complaining about it. Who cares Cynical. As a person in an elected position sworn to uphold the laws of Utah and the United States, HE HAD TO BE REMOVED! He’s a law breaker. I fully support that. I feel you bringing up the divorce issue is not the same. I too am a product of a broken home and I had a great step-father who accepted us as his children when he married my mother. I learned much from him and we’re in our 24th year of happy matrimony!!!”
Leave me out of this, you low-life Republican scumbag troll!
As you can see, Mrs. Roger Rabbit is alive and well, thank you very much.
65
“Hey rabbit, did you ever stop and think that maybe mormons are not the only people who practice polygamy?”
Of course. Polygamy is widely practiced among primitive tribal groupings, although for some reason it’s not quite as common among the primitive Republican tribal grouping as it used to be. Maybe because Republican tribal females find Republican tribal males unattractive because they have swelled heads and small dicks.
“The state can only restrict something if it has an over riding interest. What exactly is the states over riding interest in preventing polygamous marriages>?”
Where do you get this shit from? The state can do any fucking thing it wants to, until another state with a bigger army comes along. The state can tax you; conscript you into its army; arrest and torture you; enslave you; and fuck with you in general. Look at Bush and the GOP congress, for example: They even spy on your fucking library records!
Under certain constitutional systems of limited governmental powers, such as the government we used to have in this country before Jan. 20, 2003, the criterion for valid exercise of state regulatory power is NOT “overriding interest” — learn some basic law before you spout off in public and embarrass yourself, for Chrissake — but whether the state activity is within the express or implied powers granted to the state by the constitution.
BTW Bill, since you’re apparently new here, it’s only fair to warn you — before you presume to lecture the Bunny on matters of constitutional law — that the Bunny is a law school graduate and has been a licensed attorney for over 30 years, so if you want to argue about law with the Bunny, you’d better know your stuff if you don’t want to look silly.
Rupert Wabbit: How do we know that’s the wife? It could be your butt buddy Dean Logan! You said you are a polygamist as you fuck many female bunnies all the time. You claim to have 6997 children left. How many of your offspeing did you fuck knowingly to get that high number? Did you read Wilt Chamberlain’s autobiography?
Regarding my post, I stated much earlier on this blog that my parents are dead. Oh that’s right you only have the attention span of what 12 or 24 hours? I was commending my step-father on his upbringing. Only a SCUMBAG would infer anything else.
PacMan @ 47 Welcome Back!
You promised you would never return. Way to lie!
Scooter Libby is proud of you!
Good job my anti-christian lying sack of shit friend!
PacMan, I have a very congratulatory and excessively hateful post for you that has been held up by Goldy’s filter.
I think the term I used about you that the filter caught was either “teabag whore” or “anal spelunker”
I can’t wait for you to see it, you teabag anal spelunking whore!
Bill — as to the question of whether the federal government, subject to limitations imposed by the Constitution, has power to prohibit the practice of polygamy, this question came before the U.S. Supreme Court in connection with the prosecution of one George Reynolds, Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145 (1878) (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/.....;invol=145).
The Court was presented with several questions. First of all, as to whether Congress may interfere with the practice of polygamy by those who consider a religious duty, as 19th-century Mormons did, the Court said: “Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order,” and pointed out, “Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship, would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? … To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.”
Of polygamy itself, the Court observed, “Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe, … and from the earliest history of England polygamy has been treated as an offence against society … we think it may safely be said there never has been a time in any State of the Union when polygamy has not been an offence against society.” Therefore, the Court concluded, “it is impossible to believe that the constitutional guaranty of religious freedom was intended to prohibit legislation in respect to this most important feature of social life.”
The Court commented that marriage, “in most civilized nations,” is “a civil contract, and usually regulated by law. Upon it society may be said to be built, and out of its fruits spring social relations and social obligations and duties, with which government is necessarily required to deal.”
The Court then concluded, “there cannot be a doubt that, unless restricted by some form of constitution, it is within the legitimate scope of the power of every civil government to determine whether polygamy or monogamy shall be the law of social life under its dominion. In our opinion, the statute immediately under consideration is within the legislative power of Congress. It is constitutional and valid as prescribing a rule of action for all those residing in the Territories, and in places over which the United States have exclusive control.”
The Court then went on to discuss whether a person’s religious beliefs exempted him from the law, and concluded they did not.
In case the actual language of the Court is too deep for you, Bill, let me summarize it this way. Polygamy is alien to our culture, and was punishable under English law (from which American law derived), so there was no reason to believe the Framers of the Constitution intended to extend protection to this practice when they drafted the First Amendment guarantee of religious freedom. Marriage is not only a religious covenant (depending on one’s religious beliefs) but also a civil contract governed by secular law. In addition, marriage is so important to society, and its effects on society are so great, that it is naturally a subject that government not only customarily regulates but of necessity must do so in order to maintain social order. Although Congress’ prohibition of polygamous marriages conflicted with the religious beliefs and practices of 19th century Mormons, to allow any individual’s religious practices to supersede the laws of the land would result in their being no law, government, or order at all.
And this brings us to a brief discussion of the nature and purpose of government. It may be that your personal political beliefs hold that all government is bad, and the best government is no government. If so, history is against you, for government has firmly established its role — with force, when necessary — in human affairs and recorded history shows us no example of human society without government. In fact, from an anthropological point of view, it’s questionable whether humans could even exist without government; and, if they did, they would exist only as animals living in the wild like other animals, and would never rise above bare individual survival. It is government that makes collective survival and civilization possible. Our Constitution established a democratic system for determining what the rules of society will be; but the power of government to adopt rules and enforce them is undeniable, both in legal theory and actual practice. If you don’t like the rules of our society, then go live in Borneo jungle society, or some other society more to your liking.
Personally, I think anything should be able to marry any number of other things.
How else can the Neo-Cons increase their numbers? Be fruitful and multply.
But ask a Neo-Con to do Differrential Equations, and you will be met by nothing but drooling, and thick glassed stares.
Pudwhacker @71
First of all, rabbits do not get married, you fucking idiot! We’re wild animals! I see a bunny, I fuck her, because Nature tells me to! Furthermore, a rabbit does not need a piece of paper to fuck another rabbit, and can fuck as many other rabbits as Nature tells him to. So, go screw yourself.
Secondly, I’m not responsible for your bad grammar. It’s not my fault you wrote that you’ve been married to your step-father for 24 years. If that’s not what you intended to say, then learn some fucking English! Go back to school if you have to. Your local community college has remedial courses for people like you. All the time you Republican blowhards are lecturing the rest of us about “responsibility.” Well, take some! YOU are responsible for what you wrote, and your inability to write in English. All the time you Republican hypocrites are evading responsibility for your actions. It’s YOUR fault you’re a fucking illiterate. So, go screw yourself.
Furthermore, Pudwhacker, I rescind what I said about wishing you and your step-father continued marital bliss, you fucking ingrate. If you don’t want to get along with your step-father, that’s your problem. Don’t bother me with your personal problems.
@71 (continued)
That was Mrs. Rabbit because I say so. If you don’t want to take my word for it, that’s your problem. Don’t bother me with your personal problems.
@75
Don – I’m shock … SHOCKED … that you would say such a thing! And after all the trouble I just went to quoting the U.S. Supreme Court on the government’s right to regulate marriage. No self-respecting liberal would deny the government’s authority on this subject. Or most other subjects, for that matter. Why, think of what this could lead to …
1. Dogs fucking cats
2. Cats fucking canaries
3. Horses fucking cows
4. Birds fucking caterpillars
5. Josef fucking Marummy
… it’s unnatural!
You may want to rethink your position on this.
i stopped reading posts after about #15. bummer that someone like cynical (live up to your name why don’t you?) could ruin some dang good satire. i’m glad goldy is posting for the general while he’s on maneuvers and am bookmarking this site in spite of butt headed trolls like cyn.
monica—
So you finally got up from your kneeling position huh?
You too sound like a hapless soul who has experienced divorce as a child or a spouse….or perhaps been involved in an abortion.
It’s important to realy express your feelings about the pain. This is not some joke. Millions of wounded individuals are stumbling thru life carrying the baggage caused by exercising their legal rights….ot their parents or someone else exercising a legal right. I know a guy years ago who’s girlfriend became pregnant. She ran out and had an abortion…telling him after the fact. He still wonders what migh have been to this day. So does she…..as they have been married for almost 30 years. You don’t think that is pain Monica??? Just because you don’t like to talk about it doesn’t mean it isn’t there NO MATTER WHO YOU ARE! It’s not about LEFT vs. Right or Liberal vs. Conservative………..it’s about pain caused by choices society deems ok and often encourages.
Same with bigamy or polygamy. If kids become involved, it can be devastating.
Do yourself a favor Monica…stay off your knees and acknowledge the pain. The truth WILL set you free. The denial or rationalizing is eternal bondage.
Rupert Wabbet, takes salient things and makes them prurient. Mind in the gutter. And, Leave me out of this, you low-life Republican scumbag troll! Comment by Mrs. Roger Rabbit— 11/3/05 @ 10:48 pm – Why would this be called Mr Roger Rabbit, UNLESS, marriage was implient mr lawyerman? Tripped up by your own words.
Gosh, I guess Mr Carter wandered a bit off the talking points… and finally made some sense!… amazing that the only way to make sense is too humiliate nutburgers, fruitcake fringies and fellow liberals… WAY TO GO WORST PRES EVER!
Well if Jimmy Carter condemns abortion, then it has to be stopped. DumbASSes on HorsesASS love to quote him on other things. Oh, no he left the reservation!!!
bill…….i’m sure you’ve already figured this out for yourself, but just in case…don’t listen to roger too much.he ‘may’ be an attorney but if he is he’s either a government one [so much time on his paws] or a really really lousy and out of work private attorney. can you imagine being this clown’s client?
“oh…oops….i meant to get that work done but but but….i had to comment every five seconds on things i know very little about. but, hey!, if you want foul language and childish rants….i’m your guy/bunny”
sock puppets don’t make very good attorneys i’m afraid……….
rabbit, I am the same bill thats been here for a while, I just don’t feel a need to spout off about everything under the sun.
As a lawyer, you know that appealing to Reynolds is disingenious at best. CHURCH OF THE LUKUMI BABALU AYE, INC., et al. v. CITY OF HIALEAH clearly overrides. Justice Kennedy ruled there that
“Under the Free Exercise Clause, a law that burdens religious practice need not be justified by a compelling governmental interest if it is neutral and of general applicability. Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U. S. 872. However, where such a law is not neutral or not of general application, it must undergo the most rigorous of scrutiny: It must be justified by a compelling governmental interest and must be narrowly tailored to advance that interest.”
I say again, you need a compelling government interest, what exactly is it? (incidently, yearright, there is your reason why you cant legalize suicide bombing if there really were a religion that said it was ok — the government has an overriding interest in not having the infrastructure blown up)
You are making a claim that the only modern societies that practice polygamy are ‘primative’. Pull your head out of your ass and go actually check, you are incorrect. As a matter of fact, there was a legal polygamous marriage in the Netherlands about a month ago.
I have to say rabbit, that is probably the worst slippery slope arguement I have ever seen you make and is little more than ‘We’ve always done it this way so it must be the right way, anyone who has the best technology must by default be morally superior to anyone else.’
Wabbet only cares if his argument is good for America, except when the Supremes suggest using alternative laws of foreign countries to support wacko leftist decisions. Bill, you assume Wabbet reads. Don’t assume. Wabbet will always to project is ASSness on others.
Puddy has a plane to catch. So I leave this thread in the capable hands of Cynical, ProudASS, Bill, christmasghost, Mark to the Right, MTR, Marks, and all other right thinkers!
Pudster—
Have a great flight!
Perhaps from your flight you can peer out the window and confirm that Seattle is indeed the Anal Canal of the Universe….or at least of this planet!
It probably looks like a Circus Tent from Barnum & Bailey’s….The CLOWNS are inside the tent. Especially in the Freemount District.
Monica @80
You must be new here. We need America-hating, unpatriotic, irrational Bush-stooges like Mr. Cynical, Mark the Redneck, Xmas Ghost, and last but not least Puddybutt; otherwise, we’d have nobody to kick around.
Speaking of Puddybutt — @82
WTF is this gibberish? Talk in English, so I can understand WTF you’re trying to say, then I’ll get back to you.
@83
Mr. Carter has lost his title of Worst.President.Ever to one George W. Bush.
@85
Ghost, if you ever need an attorney, I highly recommend Stefan’s attorney to you — you deserve each other.
@86
“As a lawyer, you know that appealing to Reynolds is disingenious at best. CHURCH OF THE LUKUMI BABALU AYE, INC., et al. v. CITY OF HIALEAH clearly overrides.”
Disingenuous? How so? Lukumi overrides Reynolds? How so?
The Court’s upholding in Reynolds of a statutory prohibition against plural marriage is still the law of the land. It has not been overruled by Lukumi or any other case.
Morever, Lukumi does not modify or overrule what the Reynolds opinion says about government’s authority to regulate religious practices that are inconsistent with secular law. Lukumi does not, for example, say the First Amendment protects the religious practice of human sacrifice. What Lukumi does say is:
“Although a law targeting religious beliefs as such is never permissible,”
which is entirely consistent with Reynolds, and continues,
“if the object of a law is to infringe upon or restrict practices because of their religious motivation, the law … is invalid unless it is justified by a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to advance that interest.”
Lukumi, far from being an overruling case, is a distinguishable case. It address an issue not discussed in Reynolds: Whether a law enacted to prohibit a practice BECAUSE it is motivated by religious belief is unconstitutional. Hialeah’s municipal ordinance did not prohibit the killing of animals; it only prohibited the killing of animals for purposes of religious worship, while permitting the killing of animals for purposes of food consumption, nuisance control, etc.
By analogy, if the factual situation in Reynolds had been that territorial or federal law generally permitted polygamous marriages, and only outlawed Mormon polygamy because it was part of a religious belief or practice, that law most assuredly would have been struck down on the same grounds as the Hialeah ordinance.
To follow the reverse analogy, if the City of Hialeah prohibited all killings of animals for any purpose, and the Santeri group challenged such ordinance on the grounds it discriminated against their religion, the chances are good that SCOTUS would have upheld the law on the grounds that the religious nature of the Santeris’ practice not entitled it to an exception to the generally applicable law.
Lawyers must draw, and are trained to draw, these distinctions. I appreciate that such finely shaded distinctions are difficult for a layperson, such as yourself, to comprehend. That is one of the many reasons why lawyers, not lay people, argue cases before courts and serve as judges. Of course, a lay person can argue his case in the SCOTUS or any other court; but a lay person cannot serve as a judge.
@87
(in entirety)
HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
bill….way to go!
and i see you finally shut him up too. now we will be treated to many stories of his lettuce encounters and lawn dancing, right rabbit?
and roger..i have a great attorney already,thanks…. and though he is liberal….very..he finds you terribly amusing.he was the one that said you were out of work. but i am betting on the king county job thing. i actually think you are too smart[and self-involved] to not have the funds to buy the fancy lettuce.
@82
“Rupert Wabbet, takes salient things and makes them prurient.”
That’s because there’s nothing about you or the other wingnuts that ISN’T prurient. I’m just observing reality.
GOP = perverts
It address an issue not discussed in Reynolds: Whether a law enacted to prohibit a practice BECAUSE it is motivated by religious belief is unconstitutional
I would suggest that when you look at the history surrounding Reynolds youll find that the ruling in Reynolds was indeed such a case and ultimately was as bad a ruling as the supremes ever made. Marriage, more then than now was primarily religious in nature. If a particular practice is only religious in nature, then a general ban on it is defacto a religious ban.
For example, if one were to enact a ruling that said noone anywhere was allowed to kneel on a floor in front of a cross anywhere in the US, this is a general ban, but Lukumi would suggest that this would be, because it is effectively a ban that really is religious in nature, only legal if the government could somehow come up with some overriding interest.
Now if marriage is primarily religious in nature, then laws that restrict it must come under the stricter tests. Lets face it, that really is a trend that the supremes have be going toward for at least 20 years. Face it, Reynolds was a mistake.
but a lay person cannot serve as a judge.
ummmm how do you figure? nope, not in the constitution as a requirement for the supremes. nope, no law against non lawyers running for elected judge positions. There have been a lot of non lawyers serving as judges. You dont have to like it.
So Judge Steed was “sealed” for religious reasons to three sisters. But he wasn’t “married” to them in a way that would invoke civil laws related to marriage?
This needs to be cleared up int he media – are the two other women who were “sealed” to him in his church in his bed? Would they fall within common law marriage laws.
I frankly don’t care what people believe in their churches so long as what happens outside the church doesn’t violate the law and does not become the rule of law.
This judge seems to be telling us he is “married” (civil law) to one woman yet “sealed” (religious belief) to three.
We don’t have enough information to judge the judge. Although Goldy’s leeter is sorta funny.
And President Bush wants to deny civil marriage rights to gay people who want to settle down together for life?
thor…..in oregon it was the VOTERS who decided they didn’t want gay marriage. isn’t that the way it should be? state’s
rights protect us all.
i think it should be decided on a state by state referendum.
ghost, by the same token the southern states along with Missouri, Kentucky, and I think the third was Tennessee all voted that blacks should be slaves. Now the southern states that participated, at the end of the civil war, had all the slaves their emancipated, but the three non rebelling slave states all had slaves emancipated a couple of years anyway.
By your arguement, states rights say that any state where all the voters decide that they should have some class of people made into slaves then it should be so.
In 1920, we decided that all women should get to vote, not just those in Wyoming where they had already extended that right to women. By your arguement, that should be a state by state referendum.
The problem is, the (christian) religious right has been made into a priveledged class. Since that class is (slightly more than) 50% of the population, they keep extending priveledges to themselves (such as preventing any form of marriage other than what they themselves recognize as marriages from being recognized).
No, Jefferson himself warned against this very thing when he talked about the ‘tyranny of the majority’.
You’ve got to remember, apologist on the conservative end, have been saying for a while now, that their objection is calling a union that is other than one man and one woman a marriage. They say so long as people live together, they havent got an objection.
But look at the steed case closely, that is what steed did. He is only married to one of the women, the rest is a religious ceremony only. And still he is persecuted (I used the right word this time, the use of prosecuted a few days ago was incorrect.)
You tell me, do people in the state you live in, if they all had a referendum, get to decide if you should be made into a second class citizen? Can everyone just decide that they should be allowed to marry the ones they love but not you? Can they declare that your religion is illegal even if you are never harming anyone or declare what you can and can not say or do when you worship your diety — even if noone is hurt by what you do?
bill……..slavery is ancient history.it is no more going to come back without the entire country having a really bad case of ‘stupid’ than a pandemic of balck plague will. i have more faith in the americans of today to make the right choices for themselves….and their neighbors.i agree that the “religious right” is a problem, but one that i am sure will be dealt with by cooler, and more rational , heads. the goldys’ of the world are the ones feeding this anyway….and he doesn’t even see it.
you said “In 1920, we decided that all women should get to vote, not just those in Wyoming where they had already extended that right to women. By your arguement, that should be a state by state referendum.”
well…my great grandfather was a senator in wyoming at that time…..so i have a reason for my optimism. not just a hunch about our countrymen………
Thanks for your activities!