The Daily Response: August 30th, 2004

James McGhee pounced on a pro-traditional marriage editorial writer in Today’s Statesman’s Letters to the Editor who claimed that “Marriage between one man and one woman … has always been the foundation of civilized society throughout the ages …”

Most ancient civilizations practiced polygamy. They and Sodom and Gomorrah were not destroyed because of that polygamy. Greek and Roman societies were based on heterosexual monogamy and yet their civilizations declined.

The Judeo-Christian tradition descends from the polygamous relationships of Jacob (aka Israel); the two greatest Jewish kings, David and Solomon, were not only polygamous but had multiple concubines; and there is no prohibition in the Old Testament against polygamy. The Chinese practiced polygamy for centuries (into the 20th century, in fact), as did inhabitants of the Indian subcontinent, Africa and Southeast Asia. For centuries and into the present, any male adherent of Islam, one of the world’s greatest religions in number of followers and political importance, has been entitled by his religion to four wives. Polygamy has been the foundation of most civilized society throughout the ages, not monogamy.

If Ms. Heikkola and others want a constitutional amendment that truly defends traditional marriage in its historic sense, it should be restoring polygamy. They aren’t defending tradition — they are legislating inequality and bigotry.

First, the statement that “marriage between one man and one woman” has been a historical fact is true for the simple reason that even when polygamy was allowed, each wife had a seperate marriage when you think about it. Rachel was married to Jacob, not to Jacob and her sister, Leah. Polygamy is when one man is married more than once. However, each marriage is to one wife.

Second, Mr. McGhee is doing a great job of making a point for us pro-Marriage folks, because he’s showing there’s a great history and many culture that practice polygamy. If this is not written into the Constitution, marriage may come under assault from Fundamentalist Muslim immigrants who want more than one wife and will file a First Amendment challenge to marriage laws.

George Bambauer has the following to say,

For this, the troops receive shortage of protective body vests, equipment and supplies of all types. Just when you are exhausted and it’s time to go home, your tour of duty is extended. And many troops are having problems getting paid on time, causing hardships for families.

President Bush calls this leadership. Do you?

Yes, there have been undeniable difficulties in Iraq. The question I’d have for Mr. Bambauer is how electing a man in Senator Kerry who refused to fund our troops, or a party that allowed our soldiers to go on food stamps is going to help matters.

Larry Hill wrote a letter claiming that the Statesman is not liberal, citing no real evidence, only that Boise Weekly is far more liberal. Of course, the reason one might think the Statesman is liberal is that it endorsed the more liberal candidate in every single Republican primary, its Editorials are mostly liberal. Indeed, can anyone show me why the Statesman is a Conservative paper.

The Statesman has a second section of letters.

Carol Bachelder writes,

It seems to me that good ol’ boy Republicans who try to defend President Bush can’t think of anything to say so they pick at Kerry. Pick, pick, pick.

If you haven’t missed it, Mr. Bachelder, we’ve had a lot to say about Bush as a war time leader, how he’s stimulated the economy. It has been Kerry whose been having nothing to say, except for blowing hot air.

Kerry seems like a decent man to me. He never lied to me.

Unless you were alive in the Vietnam era or read Douglas Brinkley’s book.

His policies never killed anyone.

Unless you count the people who died because liberals like Kerry tied the hands of the CIA.

Well, that’s about it for now. More liberalism tomorrow, I’m sure.

—–