| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"johac" |
| Date: |
21 Nov 2007 12:42:06 AM |
| Object: |
Polygamy leader Jeffs sentenced to prison |
Good! This creep deserves it.
---
Polygamy leader Jeffs sentenced to prison
By Tim GaynorTue Nov 20, 5:50 PM ET
U.S. polygamist leader Warren Jeffs, the self-proclaimed "prophet" of a
sect of breakaway Mormons, was sentenced on Tuesday to 10 years to life
in prison for having forced a 14-year-old girl to marry her first cousin.
The leader of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day
Saints, or FLDS, received five years to life for each of two felony
convictions on charges he was an accomplice to rape. The sentences will
be served consecutively and a state board of pardons will ultimately
determine how much time he spends in prison.
Jeffs spent 15 months on the run and was on the FBI's Most Wanted list
before his arrest in August 2006. He was convicted in September.
Looking gaunt, Jeffs showed no emotion when the sentence was read and he
declined to address the Utah court.
But his victim, who is now 21, was in court and directly spoke to the
judge before sentencing.
"Jeffs and his influence over me, as a 14-year-old girl, affected me and
my family in so many ways," said Elissa Wall.
She said she trusted the court would give him "the sentence that he
deserves and that some good would come from this." Jeffs forced her to
marry her 19-year-old cousin despite her objections.
Revered as infallible by his followers and reviled as power-crazed and
delusional by others, Jeffs, 51, led some 7,500 FLDS members in the
red-rock borderlands of Utah and neighboring Arizona.
Women members of the church wear long, pioneer-style dresses, have their
hair in long braided plaits and are brought up to be submissive to their
husbands. Church members are generally suspicious of outsiders.
The trial of the sect leader riveted Utah, the western state with a
majority Mormon population, many of whom consider polygamy an outdated
embarrassment to their faith.
The practice of taking multiple wives was an early tenet of the Mormon
faith, although it was banned in 1890 when Utah sought to become a
state. The FLDS -- which has no ties to the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints, whose members are called Mormons -- is the largest
group still practicing polygamy in the state.
Jeffs now faces similar charges in Arizona.
---
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071120/ts_nm/usa_polygamy_jeffs_dc_2
--
John #1782
.
|
|
| User: "Michelle Malkin" |
|
| Title: Re: Polygamy leader Jeffs sentenced to prison |
21 Nov 2007 03:51:40 AM |
|
|
"johac" <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-CAFA25.22420620112007@news.giganews.com...
Good! This creep deserves it.
---
Polygamy leader Jeffs sentenced to prison
By Tim GaynorTue Nov 20, 5:50 PM ET
U.S. polygamist leader Warren Jeffs, the self-proclaimed "prophet" of a
sect of breakaway Mormons, was sentenced on Tuesday to 10 years to life
in prison for having forced a 14-year-old girl to marry her first cousin.
The leader of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day
Saints, or FLDS, received five years to life for each of two felony
convictions on charges he was an accomplice to rape. The sentences will
be served consecutively and a state board of pardons will ultimately
determine how much time he spends in prison.
Jeffs spent 15 months on the run and was on the FBI's Most Wanted list
before his arrest in August 2006. He was convicted in September.
Looking gaunt, Jeffs showed no emotion when the sentence was read and he
declined to address the Utah court.
But his victim, who is now 21, was in court and directly spoke to the
judge before sentencing.
"Jeffs and his influence over me, as a 14-year-old girl, affected me and
my family in so many ways," said Elissa Wall.
She said she trusted the court would give him "the sentence that he
deserves and that some good would come from this." Jeffs forced her to
marry her 19-year-old cousin despite her objections.
Revered as infallible by his followers and reviled as power-crazed and
delusional by others, Jeffs, 51, led some 7,500 FLDS members in the
red-rock borderlands of Utah and neighboring Arizona.
Women members of the church wear long, pioneer-style dresses, have their
hair in long braided plaits and are brought up to be submissive to their
husbands. Church members are generally suspicious of outsiders.
The trial of the sect leader riveted Utah, the western state with a
majority Mormon population, many of whom consider polygamy an outdated
embarrassment to their faith.
The practice of taking multiple wives was an early tenet of the Mormon
faith, although it was banned in 1890 when Utah sought to become a
state. The FLDS -- which has no ties to the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints, whose members are called Mormons -- is the largest
group still practicing polygamy in the state.
Jeffs now faces similar charges in Arizona.
---
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071120/ts_nm/usa_polygamy_jeffs_dc_2
I hope the ***** stays in prison for the rest of
his rotten life.I wonder how many 12, 13 and 14
year old girls he forced into such 'marriages'.
--
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Michelle Malkin (Mickey) aa list#1
BAAWA Knight & Bible Thumper Thumper
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
When fascism comes to America, it will be
wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross -
Sinclair Lewis
--
John #1782
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Polygamy leader Jeffs sentenced to prison |
21 Nov 2007 11:48:01 PM |
|
|
In article <JuqdnQTm7vIAYt7anZ2dnUVZ_vShnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
"johac" <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-CAFA25.22420620112007@news.giganews.com...
Good! This creep deserves it.
---
Polygamy leader Jeffs sentenced to prison
By Tim GaynorTue Nov 20, 5:50 PM ET
U.S. polygamist leader Warren Jeffs, the self-proclaimed "prophet" of a
sect of breakaway Mormons, was sentenced on Tuesday to 10 years to life
in prison for having forced a 14-year-old girl to marry her first cousin.
The leader of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day
Saints, or FLDS, received five years to life for each of two felony
convictions on charges he was an accomplice to rape. The sentences will
be served consecutively and a state board of pardons will ultimately
determine how much time he spends in prison.
Jeffs spent 15 months on the run and was on the FBI's Most Wanted list
before his arrest in August 2006. He was convicted in September.
Looking gaunt, Jeffs showed no emotion when the sentence was read and he
declined to address the Utah court.
But his victim, who is now 21, was in court and directly spoke to the
judge before sentencing.
"Jeffs and his influence over me, as a 14-year-old girl, affected me and
my family in so many ways," said Elissa Wall.
She said she trusted the court would give him "the sentence that he
deserves and that some good would come from this." Jeffs forced her to
marry her 19-year-old cousin despite her objections.
Revered as infallible by his followers and reviled as power-crazed and
delusional by others, Jeffs, 51, led some 7,500 FLDS members in the
red-rock borderlands of Utah and neighboring Arizona.
Women members of the church wear long, pioneer-style dresses, have their
hair in long braided plaits and are brought up to be submissive to their
husbands. Church members are generally suspicious of outsiders.
The trial of the sect leader riveted Utah, the western state with a
majority Mormon population, many of whom consider polygamy an outdated
embarrassment to their faith.
The practice of taking multiple wives was an early tenet of the Mormon
faith, although it was banned in 1890 when Utah sought to become a
state. The FLDS -- which has no ties to the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints, whose members are called Mormons -- is the largest
group still practicing polygamy in the state.
Jeffs now faces similar charges in Arizona.
---
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071120/ts_nm/usa_polygamy_jeffs_dc_2
I hope the ***** stays in prison for the rest of
his rotten life.I wonder how many 12, 13 and 14
year old girls he forced into such 'marriages'.
Really. If they force these children into forced marriages they are
guilty of statutory rape and should be treated accordingly.
--
John #1782
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "skyeyes" |
|
| Title: Re: Polygamy leader Jeffs sentenced to prison |
21 Nov 2007 03:51:34 PM |
|
|
On Nov 20, 11:42 pm, johac <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Good! This creep deserves it.
For want of a better word...amen!
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes at dakotacom dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Polygamy leader Jeffs sentenced to prison |
21 Nov 2007 11:46:09 PM |
|
|
In article
<0a3433b9-9603-47a9-9778-c0cb12004c23@y5g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
skyeyes <skyeyes@dakotacom.net> wrote:
On Nov 20, 11:42 pm, johac <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Good! This creep deserves it.
For want of a better word...amen!
In the same vein - Hallelujah!
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes at dakotacom dot net
--
John #1782
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lord Calvert" |
|
| Title: Re: Polygamy leader Jeffs sentenced to prison |
21 Nov 2007 01:01:39 AM |
|
|
On Nov 21, 1:42 am, johac <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Good! This creep deserves it.
He does but unfortunately it is going to be taken the wrong way.
Because of idiots like him, when people think of polygamous marriage
they will assume that it is non-consensual, no matter what the real
circumstances are. The Supreme Court did in Reynolds v. United States.
Every idiot like this sanctimonious ***** will delay the day when
polys will be able to marry the partners they consent freely without
big-government standing over their shoulders like a predatory vulture
ready to tear their hearts out simply because they're in love.
Here's an idea. Why not make all non-consensual marriage illegal while
all consensual marriages are not made illegal. That way idiots like
this will still go to jail as will abusive partners while those who
truly wish to be married won't be prohibited to do so by big-
government.
"Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a
day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to
marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the
person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind
of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their
race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should
have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing
some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies
people's civil rights. I am still not a political person, but I am
proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help
reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that
so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in
life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and
loving, are all about." - Mildred Loving, 21 June 2007, plaintiff in
Loving v. Virginia (1967)
Rich Goranson
Amherst, NY, USA
aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1
EAC Department of Cruel and Unusual Choreography.
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Polygamy leader Jeffs sentenced to prison |
21 Nov 2007 01:53:44 AM |
|
|
In article
<683569f2-08a9-4b0b-ba8a-38d31d224c1e@y5g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
Lord Calvert <CalvertdeGrey@msn.com> wrote:
On Nov 21, 1:42 am, johac <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Good! This creep deserves it.
He does but unfortunately it is going to be taken the wrong way.
Because of idiots like him, when people think of polygamous marriage
they will assume that it is non-consensual, no matter what the real
circumstances are. The Supreme Court did in Reynolds v. United States.
Every idiot like this sanctimonious ***** will delay the day when
polys will be able to marry the partners they consent freely without
big-government standing over their shoulders like a predatory vulture
ready to tear their hearts out simply because they're in love.
I think that the big problem here was that kids were involved.
Here's an idea. Why not make all non-consensual marriage illegal while
all consensual marriages are not made illegal. That way idiots like
this will still go to jail as will abusive partners while those who
truly wish to be married won't be prohibited to do so by big-
government.
I think that the government should get out of the marriage business
altogether and just recognize 'civil unions' between consenting adults.
Period. Let the churches worry about 'marriage'.
"Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a
day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to
marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the
person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind
of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their
race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should
have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing
some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies
people's civil rights. I am still not a political person, but I am
proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help
reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that
so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in
life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and
loving, are all about." - Mildred Loving, 21 June 2007, plaintiff in
Loving v. Virginia (1967)
Rich Goranson
Amherst, NY, USA
aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1
EAC Department of Cruel and Unusual Choreography.
--
John #1782
.
|
|
|
| User: "skyeyes" |
|
| Title: Re: Polygamy leader Jeffs sentenced to prison |
21 Nov 2007 03:57:02 PM |
|
|
On Nov 21, 12:53 am, johac <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article
<683569f2-08a9-4b0b-ba8a-38d31d224...@y5g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
Lord Calvert <CalvertdeG...@msn.com> wrote:
On Nov 21, 1:42 am, johac <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Good! This creep deserves it.
He does but unfortunately it is going to be taken the wrong way.
Because of idiots like him, when people think of polygamous marriage
they will assume that it is non-consensual, no matter what the real
circumstances are. The Supreme Court did in Reynolds v. United States.
Every idiot like this sanctimonious ***** will delay the day when
polys will be able to marry the partners they consent freely without
big-government standing over their shoulders like a predatory vulture
ready to tear their hearts out simply because they're in love.
I think that the big problem here was that kids were involved.
That is correct. The case was about Jeffs forcing a 14-year-old girl
into marrying a man whom she did not love, or indeed, hardly even
knew.
I don't give a flyin' flip who marries whom, as long as they are
consenting adults and not coerced into the union. Jeffs and his
compatriots force young girls in their early teens (I think some
Mormon polygamists do this to girls as young as 12) to marry men
chosen for them by the cult leaders, and they frequently coerce them
into marrying (1) men who are *much* older and (2) men to whom they
are related by blood or close marriage.
Frankly, I hope Jeffs gets forcibly "married" in prison. It would
serve him right.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes at dakotacom dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Polygamy leader Jeffs sentenced to prison |
21 Nov 2007 11:50:46 PM |
|
|
In article
<639242f8-49e2-424d-8f4e-cfb566e75563@f3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
skyeyes <skyeyes@dakotacom.net> wrote:
On Nov 21, 12:53 am, johac <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article
<683569f2-08a9-4b0b-ba8a-38d31d224...@y5g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
Lord Calvert <CalvertdeG...@msn.com> wrote:
On Nov 21, 1:42 am, johac <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Good! This creep deserves it.
He does but unfortunately it is going to be taken the wrong way.
Because of idiots like him, when people think of polygamous marriage
they will assume that it is non-consensual, no matter what the real
circumstances are. The Supreme Court did in Reynolds v. United States.
Every idiot like this sanctimonious ***** will delay the day when
polys will be able to marry the partners they consent freely without
big-government standing over their shoulders like a predatory vulture
ready to tear their hearts out simply because they're in love.
I think that the big problem here was that kids were involved.
That is correct. The case was about Jeffs forcing a 14-year-old girl
into marrying a man whom she did not love, or indeed, hardly even
knew.
Statutory rape. No question about it.
I don't give a flyin' flip who marries whom, as long as they are
consenting adults and not coerced into the union. Jeffs and his
compatriots force young girls in their early teens (I think some
Mormon polygamists do this to girls as young as 12) to marry men
chosen for them by the cult leaders, and they frequently coerce them
into marrying (1) men who are *much* older and (2) men to whom they
are related by blood or close marriage.
They are slime.
Frankly, I hope Jeffs gets forcibly "married" in prison. It would
serve him right.
Forcibly married into a prison cult that believes in polyandry.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes at dakotacom dot net
--
John #1782
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "L. Raymond" |
|
| Title: Re: Polygamy leader Jeffs sentenced to prison |
21 Nov 2007 02:24:56 AM |
|
|
johac wrote:
Lord Calvert <CalvertdeGrey@msn.com> wrote:
He does but unfortunately it is going to be taken the wrong way.
Because of idiots like him, when people think of polygamous marriage
they will assume that it is non-consensual, no matter what the real
circumstances are. The Supreme Court did in Reynolds v. United States.
Every idiot like this sanctimonious ***** will delay the day when
polys will be able to marry the partners they consent freely without
big-government standing over their shoulders like a predatory vulture
ready to tear their hearts out simply because they're in love.
I think that the big problem here was that kids were involved.
I believe that was his point, that in thinking of polygamy, people will
automatically connect it with rape and child molestation.
Here's an idea. Why not make all non-consensual marriage illegal while
all consensual marriages are not made illegal. That way idiots like
this will still go to jail as will abusive partners while those who
truly wish to be married won't be prohibited to do so by big-
government.
I think that the government should get out of the marriage business
altogether and just recognize 'civil unions' between consenting adults.
Period. Let the churches worry about 'marriage'.
I have to disagree. There is no reason to allow religions to define
marriage. Let them create religious unions if hatred and discrimination
are so important to them. Marriage is a cornerstone of civilization,
and is far too important to permit the childish and superstitious to
have any say in the matter.
--
L. Raymond
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Polygamy leader Jeffs sentenced to prison |
22 Nov 2007 12:03:37 AM |
|
|
In article <1g0aroohy2t53$.5e9b90p23mlu.dlg@40tude.net>,
"L. Raymond" <badaddress@....com> wrote:
johac wrote:
Lord Calvert <CalvertdeGrey@msn.com> wrote:
He does but unfortunately it is going to be taken the wrong way.
Because of idiots like him, when people think of polygamous marriage
they will assume that it is non-consensual, no matter what the real
circumstances are. The Supreme Court did in Reynolds v. United States.
Every idiot like this sanctimonious ***** will delay the day when
polys will be able to marry the partners they consent freely without
big-government standing over their shoulders like a predatory vulture
ready to tear their hearts out simply because they're in love.
I think that the big problem here was that kids were involved.
I believe that was his point, that in thinking of polygamy, people will
automatically connect it with rape and child molestation.
Yes.
Here's an idea. Why not make all non-consensual marriage illegal while
all consensual marriages are not made illegal. That way idiots like
this will still go to jail as will abusive partners while those who
truly wish to be married won't be prohibited to do so by big-
government.
I think that the government should get out of the marriage business
altogether and just recognize 'civil unions' between consenting adults.
Period. Let the churches worry about 'marriage'.
I have to disagree. There is no reason to allow religions to define
marriage. Let them create religious unions if hatred and discrimination
are so important to them. Marriage is a cornerstone of civilization,
and is far too important to permit the childish and superstitious to
have any say in the matter.
But should the state decide who can marry whom? That is my objection.
The individuals themselves can call their union whatever they wish. They
needn't go to a church, but some churches now permit gay marriage and
even polygamy (Mormons, eg).
The interest of the state should be to see that property rights are
respected, hospital visitation and funeral arrangement rights are the
same for all, and that the interests of the children, if any, are
protected.
I would say that the more important concept is family, and whatever
people want to call such an arrangement should be their own business.
--
John #1782
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Liz" |
|
| Title: Re: Polygamy leader Jeffs sentenced to prison |
21 Nov 2007 06:07:28 AM |
|
|
On Nov 21, 3:24 am, "L. Raymond" <badaddress@....com> wrote:
johac wrote:
[---]
I think that the government should get out of the marriage business
altogether and just recognize 'civil unions' between consenting adults.
Period. Let the churches worry about 'marriage'.
I have to disagree. There is no reason to allow religions to define
marriage. Let them create religious unions if hatred and discrimination
are so important to them. Marriage is a cornerstone of civilization,
and is far too important to permit the childish and superstitious to
have any say in the matter.
I agree. Marriage was a social institution long before religions
coopted it as a rite. Marriage should be a civil right. The churches
can have an additional religious ceremony santifying the sexual union
of their believers if they wish . . . just like they do now.
Liz #658
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: Polygamy leader Jeffs sentenced to prison |
21 Nov 2007 08:44:02 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 04:07:28 -0800 (PST), Liz <mtstack@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Nov 21, 3:24 am, "L. Raymond" <badaddress@....com> wrote:
johac wrote:
[---]
I think that the government should get out of the marriage business
altogether and just recognize 'civil unions' between consenting adults.
Period. Let the churches worry about 'marriage'.
I have to disagree. There is no reason to allow religions to define
marriage. Let them create religious unions if hatred and discrimination
are so important to them. Marriage is a cornerstone of civilization,
and is far too important to permit the childish and superstitious to
have any say in the matter.
I agree. Marriage was a social institution long before religions
coopted it as a rite. Marriage should be a civil right. The churches
can have an additional religious ceremony santifying the sexual union
of their believers if they wish . . . just like they do now.
Liz #658
It's all a matter of words then, isn't it. A civil union is the same
thing as a marriage to those of us who don't care about religion's
'blessing'.
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p." |
|
| Title: Re: Polygamy leader Jeffs sentenced to prison |
21 Nov 2007 09:36:30 AM |
|
|
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:47914339.1914291890@news-west.newscene.com...
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 04:07:28 -0800 (PST), Liz <mtstack@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Nov 21, 3:24 am, "L. Raymond" <badaddress@....com> wrote:
johac wrote:
[---]
I think that the government should get out of the marriage business
altogether and just recognize 'civil unions' between consenting
adults.
Period. Let the churches worry about 'marriage'.
I have to disagree. There is no reason to allow religions to define
marriage. Let them create religious unions if hatred and discrimination
are so important to them. Marriage is a cornerstone of civilization,
and is far too important to permit the childish and superstitious to
have any say in the matter.
I agree. Marriage was a social institution long before religions
coopted it as a rite. Marriage should be a civil right. The churches
can have an additional religious ceremony santifying the sexual union
of their believers if they wish . . . just like they do now.
Liz #658
It's all a matter of words then, isn't it. A civil union is the same
thing as a marriage to those of us who don't care about religion's
'blessing'.
According to the law all marriages are civil unions. It makes no difference
if a clerk, judge, priest etc. witnesses it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Polygamy leader Jeffs sentenced to prison |
22 Nov 2007 12:05:48 AM |
|
|
In article <47914339.1914291890@news-west.newscene.com>,
(Kate ) wrote:
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 04:07:28 -0800 (PST), Liz <mtstack@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Nov 21, 3:24 am, "L. Raymond" <badaddress@....com> wrote:
johac wrote:
[---]
I think that the government should get out of the marriage business
altogether and just recognize 'civil unions' between consenting adults.
Period. Let the churches worry about 'marriage'.
I have to disagree. There is no reason to allow religions to define
marriage. Let them create religious unions if hatred and discrimination
are so important to them. Marriage is a cornerstone of civilization,
and is far too important to permit the childish and superstitious to
have any say in the matter.
I agree. Marriage was a social institution long before religions
coopted it as a rite. Marriage should be a civil right. The churches
can have an additional religious ceremony santifying the sexual union
of their believers if they wish . . . just like they do now.
Liz #658
It's all a matter of words then, isn't it. A civil union is the same
thing as a marriage to those of us who don't care about religion's
'blessing'.
I agree. What the individuals in the relationship want to call it is up
to them.
--
John #1782
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "L. Raymond" |
|
| Title: Re: Polygamy leader Jeffs sentenced to prison |
21 Nov 2007 03:23:43 PM |
|
|
Kate wrote:
Liz wrote:
"L. Raymond" wrote:
I have to disagree. There is no reason to allow religions to define
marriage. Let them create religious unions if hatred and discrimination
are so important to them. Marriage is a cornerstone of civilization,
and is far too important to permit the childish and superstitious to
have any say in the matter.
I agree. Marriage was a social institution long before religions
coopted it as a rite. Marriage should be a civil right. The churches
can have an additional religious ceremony santifying the sexual union
of their believers if they wish . . . just like they do now.
It's all a matter of words then, isn't it. A civil union is the same
thing as a marriage to those of us who don't care about religion's
'blessing'.
You're right, it is mostly a matter of words (marriage imparts legal
rights that civil unions wouldn't, but in essence they're similar).
I've seen interviews with people on the street in which they'll make
faces and act repulsed at the idea of gay marriage but then go on to
agree that gay civil unions would be OK. Our hucksters in the US have
convinced people that religion is the *only* valid source of marriage.
They're wrong, and to not challenge that position is wrong. No religion
has the right to dictate to a secular society how to treat its citizens.
--
L. Raymond
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Polygamy leader Jeffs sentenced to prison |
21 Nov 2007 06:17:27 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 15:23:43 -0600, L. Raymond wrote:
Kate wrote:
Liz wrote:
"L. Raymond" wrote:
I have to disagree. There is no reason to allow religions to define
marriage. Let them create religious unions if hatred and
discrimination are so important to them. Marriage is a cornerstone
of civilization, and is far too important to permit the childish and
superstitious to have any say in the matter.
I agree. Marriage was a social institution long before religions
coopted it as a rite. Marriage should be a civil right. The churches
can have an additional religious ceremony santifying the sexual union
of their believers if they wish . . . just like they do now.
It's all a matter of words then, isn't it. A civil union is the same
thing as a marriage to those of us who don't care about religion's
'blessing'.
You're right, it is mostly a matter of words (marriage imparts legal
rights that civil unions wouldn't, but in essence they're similar).
Only because we call one kind of civil union a "marriage" and the other a
"civil union".
And in CA, at least, civil unions are identical to marriages in
everything but the term (per a law that took effect in 1/1/2005).
People are weird...
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"Can you unmasterbate to someone?"
- Bill Maher
.
|
|
|
| User: "L. Raymond" |
|
| Title: Re: Polygamy leader Jeffs sentenced to prison |
22 Nov 2007 03:39:43 AM |
|
|
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
L. Raymond wrote:
You're right, it is mostly a matter of words (marriage imparts legal
rights that civil unions wouldn't, but in essence they're similar).
Only because we call one kind of civil union a "marriage" and the other a
"civil union".
And in CA, at least, civil unions are identical to marriages in
everything but the term (per a law that took effect in 1/1/2005).
People are weird...
That's excellent. I hadn't known any state included the right to not
testify against one's spousal equivalent.
--
L. Raymond
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Polygamy leader Jeffs sentenced to prison |
22 Nov 2007 08:22:22 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 03:39:43 -0600, L. Raymond wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
L. Raymond wrote:
You're right, it is mostly a matter of words (marriage imparts legal
rights that civil unions wouldn't, but in essence they're similar).
Only because we call one kind of civil union a "marriage" and the other
a "civil union".
And in CA, at least, civil unions are identical to marriages in
everything but the term (per a law that took effect in 1/1/2005).
People are weird...
That's excellent. I hadn't known any state included the right to not
testify against one's spousal equivalent.
Actually, that's an iffy "right" and has been for a long time. It's
rooted in common law and much of it came from medieval times. One reason
a spouse was not allowed to testify *at all* (not even for her husband)
was "incompetence". It actually took a court case to overturn the
assumption that wives were incompetent.
I'm sure you're shocked eh? The USSC's comment was:
"The ancient foundations for so sweeping a privilege - whereby a woman
was regarded as a chattel and denied a separate legal identity - have
long since disappeared, and the contemporary justification for affording
an accused such a privilege is unpersuasive."
(TRAMMEL v. UNITED STATES, 445 U.S. 40 (1980))
There's a discussion here: http://tinyurl.com/2btrxw
From an FBI law enforcement bulletin from 8/03.
The privilege (in fact, all of them, attorney-client, doctor-patient,
etc.) are based in common law, not the Constitution. And, frankly, from a
public interest perspective, I find them rather... archaic? I mean, such
as a mafia boss' wife is protected from being compelled to testify
against her husband because she has a piece of paper? I dunno.
But anyway. Given that one isn't a solid right in straight marriages, it
can't be extended much to anybody...
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
“The alms-giver, in return for a trifling expenditure
on this earth, will be rewarded with an infinity of bliss
post-mortem. This purely selfish note is struck with
great clarity by Judaism, and only less clearly by
Christianity....religion has not really promoted charity,
but debased it.”
- H. L. Mencken
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kelsey Bjarnason" |
|
| Title: Re: Polygamy leader Jeffs sentenced to prison |
26 Nov 2007 08:57:05 AM |
|
|
[snips]
On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 08:22:22 -0600, Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
That's excellent. I hadn't known any state included the right to not
testify against one's spousal equivalent.
Actually, that's an iffy "right" and has been for a long time. It's
rooted in common law and much of it came from medieval times. One reason
a spouse was not allowed to testify *at all* (not even for her husband)
was "incompetence". It actually took a court case to overturn the
assumption that wives were incompetent.
I'm sure you're shocked eh? The USSC's comment was:
"The ancient foundations for so sweeping a privilege - whereby a woman
was regarded as a chattel and denied a separate legal identity - have
long since disappeared, and the contemporary justification for affording
an accused such a privilege is unpersuasive."
All very nice and whatnot, but a question...
Wives cannot testify against husbands because of a historical precedent
saying they are chattel... but the standard used is that a _spouse_
doesn't testify against their spouse. Since, presumably, husbands are not
regarded as chattel, it follows either that they can be compelled to
testify against their wives (which has not been the traditional
application), or there is another, sufficient restriction on their
testifying which, in turn, would presumably be applicable to wives - so
what is that justification? If wives don't testify because they're
chattel, what has prevented compelling husbands to testify all this time?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Polygamy leader Jeffs sentenced to prison |
26 Nov 2007 01:16:59 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 06:57:05 -0800, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
[snips]
On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 08:22:22 -0600, Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
That's excellent. I hadn't known any state included the right to not
testify against one's spousal equivalent.
Actually, that's an iffy "right" and has been for a long time. It's
rooted in common law and much of it came from medieval times. One
reason a spouse was not allowed to testify *at all* (not even for her
husband) was "incompetence". It actually took a court case to overturn
the assumption that wives were incompetent.
I'm sure you're shocked eh? The USSC's comment was:
"The ancient foundations for so sweeping a privilege - whereby a woman
was regarded as a chattel and denied a separate legal identity - have
long since disappeared, and the contemporary justification for
affording an accused such a privilege is unpersuasive."
All very nice and whatnot, but a question...
Wives cannot testify against husbands because of a historical precedent
saying they are chattel... but the standard used is that a _spouse_
doesn't testify against their spouse. Since, presumably, husbands are
not regarded as chattel, it follows either that they can be compelled to
testify against their wives (which has not been the traditional
application), or there is another, sufficient restriction on their
testifying which, in turn, would presumably be applicable to wives - so
what is that justification? If wives don't testify because they're
chattel, what has prevented compelling husbands to testify all this
time?
I'm not sure. Though back when "woman as chattel" was the norm, I suspect
it wasn't hard to get a husband to turn on his wife. I mean, you're
legally liable for damage caused by your property. If your bull gores
somebody, you're in trouble. If you have a chance to blame the bull and
have it take the rap, why not?
The standard did become a privilege of spouses but the point here is that
the root of it was women were property and property can't testify against
its owner. Kind of part of the right to not "self-incriminate".
I can't say I see a point to perpetuating it now. Just because two people
have an intimate relationship is no reason to allow them to obstruct
justice. Or if we're going to allow such a thing, what about parent-
child? Why should it be that I could be compelled to testify against,
say, my mom but her husband couldn't be touched?
I'm just not getting this one. And I really don't care for priest-
penitent. That one has become a lot weaker these days but, frankly, I
think it shouldn't exist. A priest who hears "Bless for I have
slaughtered twenty children between the ages of 5 and 9" should be on the
phone to the cops immediately or put in jail for becoming an accomplice
after the fact.
I find attorney-client and doctor-patient iffy as well. Though something
on the level of a warrant. That is, they stand unless you can convince a
judge of a compelling need.
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
“The larger the mob, the harder the test....when the
field is nationwide...then all the odds are on the man
who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre--
the man who can most easily adeptly disperse the
notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum.
“The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men.
As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more
and more closely, the inner soul of the people.
“We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and
glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their
heart's desire at last, and the White House will be
adorned by a downright moron.”
- H. L. Mencken
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
