Do not listen to Adam Greenwood or any of these other media geeks. For what ever reason, they have a high percentage of sexual deviants among them. Most people don’t give two hoots about the polygamy non-issue. Most people would much prefer to have a son who was a polygamist than one who was gay. In the media, reality is reversed. Do not listen to them. God ordained the practice of polygamy in the past, prophets have practiced it. Adam Greenwood is an idiot.

Making faith a purely private thing is bad for faith and bad for the country.

Replace the word “Catholic” with “Mormon”, and I think that’s the only way Romney would have a shot. Granted, he’d have to back that up with a bunch of other dialogue, but that would have to be the main message. If he followed John M’s suggested route in comment #12, he’d never be considered a serious candidate. Stump speeches aren’t for religious banter, they’re purely for talking about where you’d like to take the country as a whole. If a Presidential candidate starts talking about being under the guidance of a church leader who talks to God, no one would listen. We’d be in a strange Hillary Clinton conundrum yet again, only this time we’d see it coming – we all know they’d say that Romney’s not president. Gordon B. Hinckley is.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with Romney distancing himself publicly from the Church. To me it’s no different than any professional distancing themselves in the professional world. It’s not like an actor can cut into a film to bear their testimony, and we certainly never saw Steve Young call for a time out so that he could teach the first discussion from the 50 yard line. If Romney chooses to make his faith a non-issue and deal with impending questions accordingly, that doesn’t automatically make him a “Bad Mormon.” His running shouldn’t be looked at as a teaching opportunity first and foremost. First and foremost, this is a politician running for office. To expect anything more, even from a Mormon, is rather silly. If he doesn’t plan on adopting such an attitude, he might as well give up and save himself the time and money.

My impression is that some southerners and conservatives are concerned about Romney’s Mormonism but even more are concerned about his being governor of Massachussetts and a johnny-come-lately to social conservatism. The governor needs some narrative other than political expediency that explains his increasing focus on traditional values . A we-learned-from-polygamy-how-dangerous-it-is-to-tamper-with-marriage-and-traditional-values-so-SSM-here-in-Massachussetts-really-woke-me-up narrative might work, though I’m not sure it would be ideal.

Interesting point. I don’t think that seeing polygamy as an experiment that failed precludes it from being a divine commandment.

That Frist would win (in Tennesse) was a forgone conclusion. I would have bet my house that Allen would take 2nd and that the story would be McCain. Who would have guessed that Romney would best everyone but Frist?!? AND DOWN SOUTH!?

Heck, W. VA baptists voted for Kennedy in 1960…maybe this guy from MA has a shot afterall!

http://nationaljournal.com/srlc/
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/2006/03/12/frist_wins_romney_takes_2d_in_gop_straw_poll/?p1=MEWell_Pos1

Copyright New York Times Company Mar 11, 2006

If gay marriage becomes legal, its opponents have been warning, the next step in America’s moral deterioration will be legalized polygamy. These conservatives won’t be happy with ”Big Love,” the HBO series starting tomorrow night.

This story of a husband with three wives in Utah will not terrify Americans. Polygamy doesn’t come off as a barbaric threat to the country’s moral fabric. It looks more like what it really is: an arrangement that can make sense for some people in some circumstances, but not one that could ever be a dangerous trend in America.

After watching the husband on the show struggle to pay for three households and watching his three wives struggle for his attention, the question that comes to mind is not how to keep polygamy illegal. The question is why we bother to ban something that takes so much work these days.

When polygamy was outlawed in the 19th century, the Supreme Court upheld the ban by citing the ”evil consequences” of a practice that ”has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe.” It dismissed polygamy as ”a feature of the life of Asiatic and of African people,” as if that were reason enough to damn it.

Yet an institution that has been around for so long must have had something going for it. Humans aren’t as inclined to polygamy as some apes are — we probably evolved as hunter-gatherers who mostly had one mate at a time — but some form of polygamy has existed in the vast majority of cultures.

Some opponents of polygamy call it the exploitation of women by rich men, and that’s true if the wives are coerced into the marriages. But many wives have willingly chosen it, like the three women on ”Big Love,” who have married a successful businessman.

These three wives, who live in adjacent houses, sound much like the women in polygamous marriages I’ve talked to in rural Africa. The African wives told me they had mixed feelings about the arrangement — and their fellow wives — but over all, they figured it was better to share one prosperous husband than to marry someone else without land, cows or a job.

That’s the way social scientists figure it, too. Polygamy isn’t the cause of women’s low status in traditional societies, but rather a consequence of their trying to move up. The biggest losers from polygamy are the poorer men who end up with no wives. Women benefit because polygamy increases their number of marriage prospects — and in traditional societies, marriage is often the only way for a woman to improve her status.

Even in those societies, polygamy is practiced by just a small minority because few men have enough resources to entice more than one wife. As a society modernizes and women become educated, they gain other economic options and become less and less willing to share a husband. Eventually polygamy is out of question for practically everyone, men and women. At that point, the monogamous majority can safely proclaim its moral superiority and outlaw the practice for everyone else.

Critics say children would be better off growing up in a home with a full-time father, but a part-time one is better than what’s in many homes today. The father in ”Big Love” is more like Ward Cleaver than today’s alpha males who’ve dumped a series of wives and families.

Polygamy isn’t necessarily worse than the current American alternative: serial monogamy.

Elizabeth Joseph, a lawyer and journalist who was married to a polygamist in Utah, says her experience handling divorce cases made her appreciate the stability of her marriage. She also appreciated other perks, like the round-the-clock day care that enabled her to keep an unpredictable schedule at work and to relax when she came home.

”If I’m dog-tired and stressed out, I can be alone and guilt-free,” she explained in a speech to the National Organization for Women. ”It’s a rare day when all eight of my husband’s wives are tired and stressed at the same time.” She told the NOW audience that polygamy ”offers an independent women a real chance to have it all” and represented ”the ultimate feminist lifestyle.”

She won’t persuade many American women, feminists or otherwise. But if a few consenting adults like her still want to practice polygamy, there’s no reason to stop them. And if the specter of legalized polygamy is the best argument against gay marriage, let the wedding bells ring.