Hugh McBryde (the Modern Pharisee)

Judges 19-21. "Not the Bee" tries and fails on one of Scriptures most difficult passages.

2026-08-26T16:10:35.980-04:00

It's about right action in the face of sin.

They're kinda missing the point. The correct way to look at Judges 19, is to look at it, and the following two chapters which are the end of the Book of Judges. In all, it is the lengthiest story in all of the Old Testament in terms of sticking to the same narrative. The last story in a book. The longest continuous narrative. That's important. The summation is the Concubine is from the tribe of Judah. As was the frequent practice, Judah and Levi intermarried. The crime is horrific. The Levite husband and his wife are not the best of Characters and arguably, aside from the townsfolk of Benjamin, the husband is the worst character. What is the point? It's the response of Israel, who as a nation hit the ground running and in the face of overwhelmingly bad results, keep prosecuting the war to it's conclusion to avenge the Concubine's rape and murder. How do we KNOW? The Avenger of Blood is JUDAH, they go up first.

Rights are for slaves. Slaves don't get married.

2026-08-23T13:42:04.205-04:00

"Marriage" (for which there is no word in Hebrew, except perhaps in one specific form) is described, not named.

Marriage is an inheritance arrangement among many other things, but this vehicle is primarily necessary for to bring a line from Adam forward into the future. All lines not directly tracible to Adam are dead. There is a technique to "revive" a line in the Law of God as given to and through Moses, but we will lay that aside for now. Again retreating to the original description of Marriage (remembering that there IS NO WORD for it in Hebrew), all discussions of Adultery, Fornication, Sexual Sin (in general) and necessarily, Divorce (ker-ee-thooth'/כְּרִיתוּת) and the accompanying "sending away" (shaw-lakh'/שָׁלַח) are wrapped up in in the idea of BEING married and carrying forward an inheritance. The ideal qualifications for Marriage and exceptions to the rules of initial marriage are in many ways wrapped up in sin, since widowhood does not exist in a perfect world, and neither does a Divorce because Adultery would not exist either. The one word that may qualify as "Marriage" in Hebrew which pertains to a specific form seeks to address the event of Death and the failure to carry forward an inheritance. Jesus has this exception in his lineage. This brings into question the whole idea that ANY of us in the Western World, where taxation and legal intervention into marriage exist on a large scale, could even CALL ourselves married. Does this mean we live in Sin with our "So Called Marriages?" No, because the husband/wife relationship is described in many ways in the Old Testament where there isn't really any word for an initial marriage in the first place. We only find an English translation using the word in a phrase in Exodus 21 in describing secondary wives of slavery, and that is "Duty of Marriage", "Marital rights" or "Conjugal Rights". These all come from the Hebrew (o-naw'/עוֹנָה) that is poorly understood, but could be construed as "living together". Thus there are several forms of the Husband/Wife relationship where it is initially defined. A covenant or contractual spousal arrangement which is understood as marriage and understood to produce covenant children who inherit. Adultery is a TERRIBLE breach in this arrangement because it could produce a fraud in terms of an heir. There is a concubine, or wife of slavery, of whom sexual purity is expected while hitched to a husband, but is not necessary at the outset. Often a woman sold by her family into slavery was compromised already, and for this reason she brings a price to the family, but comes with no dowry and her children do not inherit. There is the "Spare Womb" concubine, the most prominent examples being Bilhah and Zilpah. Their children CAN inherit with the endorsement of the wife of marriage. Sarah offered Hagar to Abraham in an understandable show of "no faith." Later she does not claim Ishmael and he does not inherit. Rachel and Leah claim the children of Bilhah and Zilpah and their children are named as inheritors as a sort of extension of Rachel and Leah. There are the relationships of TOTAL slavery, and these are Governed by our Masters. You can keep your wife, but not as a free man. If you choose to go back to being a free man, if that path is available to you, your wife stays with your former Master after your period of indentured servitude is up. I should note at this point that the children of concubines who are not in a "spare womb" arrangement, go out with their mother from their father's house with gifts, but no inheritance in name or land. They are dispossessed and the relationship their mother was in was not Marriage. Examining our "Marriages" in this light, when one of our secular divorces occurs, and as is most often the case, the husband toils away and gives his substance to his masters and they in turn give this to their former wife who keeps the children, we are in a relationship of slave husband to slave wife serving a master, perhaps the lowest form of cohabitation there is. Comments are invited. Prove me wrong. Remember Hebrew translated to Greek and then to English does not make a relationship a marriage as defined Biblically. PS: I own a website I wish to develop and have for that reason proposed that this Blog will shut down. I'm not making progress beyond OWNING the website. For that reason I return here until I can set aside enough resources to develop it.

2020-05-26T17:27:00.004-04:00

Very soon, this blog will be closing down. (well, it didn't)

At some point a lot of it's "still relevant" content will appear elsewhere at www.polgyny.com EVENTUALLY.
For the time being, love it or hate it, you can still browse it. I will change at some point to PRIVATE and then some point after that, simply move. If there was something you wanted to investigate or take me to take about or read. Do it now.

2017-03-01T11:22:00.001-05:00

Let's look at it THIS way:

1.) We see nothing but the past. Some of it is very recent, but it's the past.

2.) Science is constantly reevaluating their preconceived notions of the planets and the universe as we send probes to look more closely.

3.) We have relied on the idea that future observations of the planets are going to be close to those made in the last 100 years.

4.) When we get there, we find a good portion of our forecasting has been wrong, and observations show "inexplicable" facts.

5.) We can't go into the relatively distant past to look at say, dinosaurs. We can only observe their bones and project, much as we do with the planets, before we go.

6.) Despite the clear and poor track record of predictions vs actual results in exploration, we still doggedly hang onto evolutionary theories, which are conveniently beyond direct observation, and therefore, proof.

Yeah, there were other shoes Tullian had to drop.

2016-06-14T02:28:00.000-04:00

I don't blog much these days, and I've not been keeping up on the one topic that I had blogged about recently, so I checked, as I had some free time.

Kevin Labby, Pastor, Willow Creek Presbyterian Church - “So much of what we were trying to do were based on an understanding that was completely inaccurate,” he said. “For months, we were using an approach that could have brought real healing, and even eventual restoration. But because we were deprived of key information, we weren’t dealing with the real problem.”I did say "Sorry folks, it doesn't work like that," because, well, it doesn't. I also said it was "Kim's Fault" and maybe not so much now with recent revelations of another Tullian affair predating his supposed only failure.

We don't know the correspondents in Tullians mounting affair count, so we don't really know what he's done. I'll say it again: "It doesn't work like that." At this point I'll call upon everyone in the PCA to recognize that Tullian was a pastor. His repentance is now of a very dubious sort. Public discipline involves knowing what the discipline is all about, and we still don't know.

Tullian Tchividjian Gets a Pass

2015-09-20T15:20:00.000-04:00

There are those who think the press, Christendom and the PCA have been hard on Tullian Tchividjian. It's hard to see how. Tullian has a job already, and is getting a divorce. His friend and counselor, Paul Tripp chimed in and proclaimed:

"From the point of Tullian's confession and repentance, he has been committed to dealing with the issues of his heart and to restoring his marriage. Much grace, counsel, thought, prayer and action has been invested over a six-month period of time with the hope of healing the marriage, but sadly, there are times when the trust is so deeply broken and patterns so set in place that it seems best to recognise (sic) that brokenness, cry out for God's grace, mourn, commit to forgiveness, rest in the truths of the gospel and with a grieved heart, move on.."

Those keeping up with the subject are probably familiar with Tullian's unfortunate public posturing during his dismissal from Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church and less so with the "non-denial denial" protestations of his wife of 21 years, Kim. Her statement on the matter was officially:

The Washington Post - "The statement reflected my husband’s opinions but not my own. Please respect the privacy of my family at this time, thank you. I do thank everyone for the outpouring of love for my family as well during this difficult time and we appreciate all the prayers and support we are receiving."

Essentially, Tullian accused his wife of Adultery, and she has never denied it. The worst media inflicted trauma Tullian endured for disclosing his wife's Adultery (her statement should be regarded as a plea of nolo contendere) has been the accusation that he was blaming her.

Since Kim has not denied the affair, let's get this out of the way first. It's her fault. Period.

We did need to know that Kim strayed as an explanation for Tullian's suspension from the Ministry at Coral Ridge, since that is what happened first (this is the official version so far). Shortly after his suspension, Tullian also revealed (apparently when confronted) that he had an "affair" of his own after the discovery of his wife's. A lot of discussion could occur here about what Tullian did being a sin or not. To some it seems rather clear. It's not that clear.

One explanation for why Tullian's affair was not a sin is the great divide on Reformed positions over what constitutes marriage. Since the State has "redefined" it recently, there are a lot of people in Theological circles that proclaim marriage simply isn't as the State defines it, but rather a compact with private parties. Some say the Church is one of those parties. Some don't. Virtually all conservative Christians think God is a party to that contract. Tullian, in this shifting legal environment could have regarded his marriage as already "Irreparably broken" and simply went and made another private agreement, with his and her genitalia as the signatories. Though that act almost certainly involves or is a sin, the main point is we don't know, and we should.

Why should we?

1st Timothy 5:19 & 20 - "Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear." (ESV)

For an Elder to be disciplined, he must be unrepentant, and in that event, the proceedings become public, and since they are public, we should know.

This is not to say that I am entitled to know, or that you are entitled to know, but that the PCA was entitled to know, and Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church should know, and as a result of their knowing, we should be able to know. In this very public social media world, of which Tullian was an active member, this means we'd know if we were keeping up at all. We don't.

Know what you say? Kim's correspondent in her affair. We don't know. The correspondent in Tullian's subsequent sexual escapade. We don't know. The marital status of both correspondents, since that defines what the sins are of which Kim and Tullian are accused, and may in fact lead to other untouched areas in need of Church discipline. If both correspondents were married members of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church, the well goes unfortunately deeper. Were both Kim and Tullian having affairs with members of the opposite sex? Yes, that question would not have to be asked if the discipline of Tullian had been handled properly, but again, we'd be able to know, and if we were keeping up, we'd know. We don't.

Let us for a moment assume that all reconciliation avenues regarding the dissolution of the Tchividjian marriage have been exhausted. David undertook to marry Bathsheba. What of Tullian and Kim? Tullian is already employed by another PCA Church, so the PCA is saying "Everything is resolved." It cannot possibly be so.

Another less than idle thought is this: Why hasn't the press exposed the identities of these persons? Usually they reserve such "privacy" rights only for those they regard as philosophical fellow travelers. Is this the way the see Tullian Tchividjian?

Tullian Trouble, Unanswered Questions

2015-07-03T17:22:00.001-04:00

By now, most every Reformed person, who is at all connected, is aware of the resignation June 21st of Tullian Tchividjian from Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church. What we know is mostly sanitized, with accompanying pleadings by Tullian and his wife Kim, to respect their "privacy."

Sorry folks, it doesn't work like that.

What everyone should know first, is how an elder in the church is to be disciplined. From the King James, 1st Timothy 5:

"Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses. Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear."

Other translations insert words modifying the sin, into an ongoing problem, creating the issue of Tullian's immediate repentance, and whether or not that affords him privacy. He has been disciplined though, severely, with the loss of his position. From Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church:

"Several days ago, Pastor Tullian admitted to moral failure, acknowledging his actions disqualify him from continuing to serve as senior pastor or preach from the pulpit, and resigned – effective immediately.

We are saddened by this news, but are working with and assisting Pastor Tullian and his family to help them through this difficult time, and asking people to join us in praying that God will bring restoration through this process and healing to all involved."

This means he has been disciplined publicly, but we really don't know why.

The Washington Post - "I resigned from my position at Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church today due to ongoing marital issues. As many of you know, I returned from a trip a few months back and discovered that my wife was having an affair. Heartbroken and devastated, I informed our church leadership and requested a sabbatical to focus exclusively on my marriage and family. As her affair continued, we separated. Sadly and embarrassingly, I subsequently sought comfort in a friend and developed an inappropriate relationship myself. Last week I was approached by our church leaders and they asked me about my own affair. I admitted to it and it was decided that the best course of action would be for me to resign. Both my wife and I are heartbroken over our actions and we ask you to pray for us and our family that God would give us the grace we need to weather this heart wrenching storm. We are amazingly grateful for the team of men and women who are committed to walking this difficult path with us. Please pray for the healing of deep wounds and we kindly ask that you respect our privacy."

Since discipline is in place, it should have been public, because Tullian is an elder, or there should be no discipline, since he has confessed to his error and repented of it.

Sorta.

Paul Tripp, a PCA pastor came down to talk to Tullian and initially pronounced him "not disqualified." At some point shortly thereafter it was discovered that Tullian was fooling around on his own. Tullian, who was initially on sabbatical, now moved to being disqualified.

I contend we do not know Tullian's sin, until we know who with whom he sinned. Frankly, we don't know if he sinned with a guy, though I doubt it. In these days and times, you need to ask. Everything about the aftermath of Tullian's sin has been well managed. We don't know who his lover is, and despite many searches, for the nearly two weeks after the confession, there isn't even any evidence on the internet of someone asking. Do you seriously believe even the press, who revels in the fall of a pastor, hasn't even asked?

Why is it important? Even if it is a heterosexual sin (and it's hard to accept the sigh of relief that accompanies knowing that), we still don't know the sins Tullian has committed. Was she married? If she was, the sin is bigger. If she wasn't married, what sort of obligation has Tullian created for himself?

Boaz, Drunk-az, Cheatin'-az and Ruth

2014-07-21T15:50:00.001-04:00

Often these days I hear women say they are waiting for their "Boaz." This implies they have at least the spirit of Ruth, and they seek to be worthy and find a worthy man, like Boaz, to be their husband. Many times I hear this from divorced women, who I shall assume for the sake of discussion, are not divorced because of their own failings, but of their former husband. It should be noted though that Ruth was a widow, and childless. It cannot be said of Ruth that any of her actions led to her status.

So, we know largely who Ruth is, but often we forget who Boaz is. I think one of the assumptions about Boaz that no one talks about was his marital status at the time of his acquisition of Ruth as his wife, was that he was single. This "given" is contained in the little bit of doggerel floating about the internet, often borrowed, but never attributed:

" 'Ruth patiently waited for her mate Boaz.' While you are waiting on YOUR Boaz, don’t settle for any of his relatives: Broke-az, Lyin-az, Cheatin-az, Dumb-az, Drunk-az, Cheap-az, Lockedup-az, Goodfornothingaz, Lazyaz and especially his third cousin Beatinyouaz. Wait on your Boaz and make sure he respects Yoaz!"

The "Cheatin-az" relative of the internet Boaz, would be, I assume, a man with other "girlfriends." This would include "Cheatin-az," who is a bigamist. Boaz, was also in his cups when Ruth made her offer to him, so there is some family resemblence to "Drunk-az." Was there a family trait tying him to "Cheatin-az?"

The word "nah·ar·ä' (נַעֲרָה)," Strongs H5291, is exactly the word used in Ruth for Boaz speaking of his "maids." It is the word used in Judges 19-21 to refer to the Levite's concubine, and if there was an argument as to exactly the role or relationship the Levite's "nah·ar·ä' " had with respect to him, two things make it clear. She "played the harlot" and her father was referred to as the Levite's "Father in Law." The word is used ten times in Ruth, it's most frequent usage, and on three occasions, it is "doubled" (used twice in a row), a feature of Hebrew that seems to change or emphasize a meaning to something more specific. All of the "doublings" are in reference to Ruth herself, once with the word for Moab placed between the two consecutive instances, the two straight doublings are used by Boaz, and it is Boaz who uses the word "nah·ar·ä' " to refer to his own maids.

Boaz uses nah·ar·ä', the word used in Judges for the Levite's concubine to describe his own maids. He seems to elevate the status of Ruth by "doubling" it as the translation would indicate. It is sometimes used for "damsel, young woman, virgin or even (oddly), " prostitute." This last meaning would seem to support my contention that a harlot or prostitute constituted a "concubine for a day" or "female day laborer." I do not defend harlotry or seek to legitimize it, but the condemnations of prostitution seem more directed at the "Johns" (whoremongers), than at the unfortunate women driven to prostitution. It's all the more significant then that Boaz makes sure that Ruth is kept close to HIS maids, so that Ruth is not accosted by other men in her unattached and "adrift" status.

For her part, Ruth refers to herself as a maidservant, but this time the Hebrew word is quite different, she calls herself a "shif·khä' " (שִׁפְחָה), a word meaning at times, a possession or female slave of a woman. The word means to "spread out a family" in some of it's usages. Ruth seems to see herself as the method by which the name of Elimelech might survive. "Shif·khä' " (שִׁפְחָה) is the word used to describe Hagar, Bilhah and Zilpah. Bilhah's and Zilphah's children are counted by no less than the LORD, as children of Rachel and Leah. Boaz and Ruth later have a child, who is given to Naomi, seeming to fulfill this bargain.

To underscore this even more, let us look at how a man might treat a "maid" In his house, in Exodus 21. He was to designate them for his sons, himself, and possibly a male servant. He had a DUTY of marriage to that maidservant.

So Boaz had maids. That meant he at least had concubines. He wasn't dead, as noticed by Naomi who says to Ruth that Boaz will make all due haste to get the job done of getting her as a bride, so we can conclude that Ruth wasn't his only bride at the time. Boaz and Cheatin-az are indeed related.

Finally, lets look at Boaz and his appraisal of himself:

"Blessed be thou of the LORD, my daughter: for thou hast shewed more kindness in the latter end than at the beginning, inasmuch as thou followedst not young men, whether poor or rich."

Boaz is an older man.

So are you looking for your Boaz? Really? An older guy that drinks on occasion(Drunk-az), lies about on the threshing floor (Lazy-az?) and has other women (Cheatin-az)? Are you really looking for your Boaz or is the rhyme just kinda a cute little in someone's face about how you're worth the right man?

In the end, I encourage you to wait for your Boaz, but he may not come dressed up the way society has taught you to recognize. It's also not about you either, since if you are Ruth, examine what Ruth called herself, the one who was chattel to her mother in law, whose purpose was to spread out her dead father in law's name. That's not getting in someone's face and saying "because I'm worth it." It's not about you if you're Ruth, and who you're looking for, if it's Boaz, quite often looks a lot different than what the world asks you to seek, Old Boaz-Drunkaz-Cheatinaz-Lazyaz.

Well, that last one is just a joke. Boaz may have liked to relax, but I hardly think he was lazy.

Governor Perry

2014-07-10T15:34:00.000-04:00

You were able to move at lighting speed with the threat of deadly force, well coordinated, with respect to American Citizens.

Does this mean you won't do it again, because politically, it works for you and you're cynically using a conflict with the President to further your own political career?

Does it mean you can't do it, and had to have collusion with the Federal Government to do it the first time, in 2008?

Jezebel

2014-03-10T20:09:00.002-04:00

A week or two ago, I called a woman "Jezebel." I apologize since the term involved too much connotation. What I intended to convey, which is embodied in the person and behavior of Jezebel was specific, and I should have concentrated on that problem in retrospect. This means my apology is qualified, and limited.

Since the conversation was private and not open to public eyes, I am not going to name that individual, but my explanation is here for her to see.

In one reference to Jezebel, she is said to "incite." The Hebrew word for incite is "סוּת (cuwth)." In my view the woman, consciously or unconsciously, incites and divides and has been doing it for me to observe for many years. The latest instance of it was particularly divisive as she tried to drive a wedge between myself and another Elder of the church, and a very good friend.

I stand by this assessment, but in retrospect could have used a smaller hammer.

Joe the Plumber picks the wrong pic

2014-01-30T15:48:00.001-05:00

Normally, I would be on Joe's side. I truly am thankful for his revealing what Obama was, by getting him to declare we should "spread the wealth around." This, however, is wrong:

Edson Jessop touches his traumatized son.

FLDS Members being taken away in a local "Christian" Church Bus

Joe is "borrowing" and image of children abducted by Texas and placed in foster care to bolster his argument that children who are home schooled by Christian foster parents, should be removed from their custody.

I'm sorry Joe, but these kids were abducted with the assistance of Christians, out of their homes and placed in foster care. The image you are using is one taken after Edson and Zavenda (their parents) logged 11,000 driving miles to get them back. This drips with irony, because Christians were complicit in taking the FLDS children, and it's happening to Christian foster parents in Texas.

If Marriage Falls in North Dakota, does it Make a Sound?

2013-12-20T13:07:00.001-05:00

Breitbart and Rush made mention of the huge plural marriage news this week (Limbaugh even linked us to Duck Dynasty).

CNN took the occasion as a chance to call all the names on their anti plural dance card and trot out the same story they essentially do every time polygamy is in the news. Then there's this take on it, which should sober all of us (yes, monogamy idiots, you're "us" when it comes to "traditional" marriage advocates).

The Western Center for Journalism - "While the 10th Amendment rightly affords individual states the liberty to pass laws as they see fit, such legislation can and does have rippling consequences across the nation. The left’s mission to dismantle ~~traditional~~ marriage represents a prime example." - B. Christopher Agee

The strike-through is mine. Marriage is what it is, or frankly, it deserves to change with the times like car styles, music and whatever else is like the grass. It withers, and the flower fades, but what stands forever?

The left cannot destroy marriage, but it can make it's practice difficult for those who wish to participate. If we want (on the Conservative Christian side of the aisle) to preserve marriage, we're going to have to realize what it is. To the rabid right in the Christian world, I have this to say: You're wrong, and you're doing more to tear down the practice and realization of "Traditional Marriage" than the left by enabling them.

Christian (and to some extent Mormon, maybe even Muslim) practitioners of polygygy (yes, that is the closest word in the dictionary to what we advocate) are on the same side as the Christian Right. Thus since they cannot recognize who their bedfellows actually are, they keep kicking "plygs" out of bed. Hello "Focus on the Family" types, you're bringing down the whole house around our ears.

For a few days earlier this week I thought my prediction regarding the reversal of Brown v. Buhman was premature. But important news like what happened Thursday and Friday of last week, falls by the wayside, and makes no sound.

(UPDATED) A Bisexual Legal Union (Marriage) will occur first in North Dakota?

2013-12-17T23:12:00.000-05:00

Hat tip to The Coalition of the Swilling, for alerting me to this article over at Breitbart.

"North Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem filed a legal opinion last week confirming that the state does not recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages, allowing a man married to another man to come to North Dakota and marry a woman without divorcing his husband."

This of course could also occur with a woman "marrying" a woman, and then going to North Dakota to marry a man. Apparently this can happen right now.

"While many wildly speculated that the legalization of same-sex marriage could lead to polygamy, they probably never thought it would be like this. Presented with a legal hypothetical, Attorney General Stenehjem answered three questions: whether someone in a same-sex marriage in another state can also receive a marriage license to someone of the opposite sex in North Dakota, whether they can file legal documents as 'Single' when they possess a same-sex marriage license in another state, and whether this would open the individual up for prosecution under another state's bigamy laws. The Attorney General's response can be read in full PDF form here."

Silly me, I thought it would be in Vermont. Somebody was thinking. I'll have to find out who. This is really a genius back door way to get where we're going. I wonder how long it will hold up though before the legislature of North Dakota catches up. Coverage is also at "Religion Clause." "Jon's Blog" noticed before the Kody Brown case was decided. See also "Rhymes with Right and Georgia Unfiltered."

The Legalization of Polygamy

2013-12-17T12:59:00.000-05:00

Of late, I have retreated a great deal from public view. Yes, to those of you reading for the first time, this blog and blogger were semi popular once, more semi popular than quite a few local newspapers. Not so much now. I've cut down to very occasionally pointing to other articles, in social media I've cut my list of friends down to less than a tenth of what they were, and I've closed off access to most of the public. I repost memes for the most part, and that's sorta what I'm doing here. I referred yesterday to a post I made over four years ago.

I have to admit this song made an impression on me:

"You start a conversation, you can't even finish it. You're talking a lot, but you're not saying anything. When I have nothing to say, my lips are sealed. Say something once, why say it again?"

It's an alternate lyric or version of the David Byrne/Talking Heads tune "Pyscho Killer." It's not so much that I have become the Psycho "first person" of the song, but I have no desire to be the object of his criticisms. "Say something once, why say it again?" That of course echoes "The Preacher" of scripture who says there's nothing new under the sun and that many books are wearying to the soul.

So I've said it before. The "Preacher" says it has all been said before anyway, and apparently Rod Stewart read Ecclesiastes (I couldn't quote you no Dickens, Shelley or Keats 'cause it's all been said before). Keep in mind I wrote this while I was about as high on the radar screen as I'll probably ever get.

"(W)hy (is it) important to legalize (plural marriage?) It's important to do so because as long as we classify people for tax purposes by marriage status and family size, (for this reason) the state will want formal marriage records. Get rid of our archaic, repressive and invasive tax code, and then talk to me about "marriage being none of the Government's business." Get rid of child molestation legislation tied to age difference, and then too, it won't matter too much whether you're legally married or not, either that or get the government to accept private records as acceptable proof of marriage. Bottom line? These things are almost certainly NOT happening in YOUR lifetimes. So the Government snoop is in bed with you, taxing you more and wanting to at least have a record of how you live."

"Notoriety (mine) that doesn't translate to income is infamy. It may still be infamy with income, but without it, it's just infamy. I'm sure the bum that stands on the same corner everyday on Wall Street is well known after a fashion, but only the Naked Cowboy makes money. I have more in common with the bum. The cowboy, for all his notoriety is not even as notorious as I, in internet terms. I have said I will begin to get negative inquiries. I have now begun to get them. This can't go on forever. Like a popular environmental buzzword, it's not sustainable, not in it's present form. The bum gets hauled off the stage eventually, the Naked Cowboy? He runs for mayor."

"Now is the time to get behind the effort to legalize Polygamy, or not. I only know that if not it looks more and more like I tied myself to the train tracks by getting out in front of an issue. One of the paths to legal polygyny is simply going to a state like Vermont, and trying to register to marry more than one wife, which will initially fail, but may evolve into a successful court challenge."

That opportunity has rolled around again. So who is it going to be? Who will be like Esther and Mordecai and go carve out a place for our people? In this regard, I am playing the role of Mordecai. Which family will be our Esther? Believe me, I'd play both roles if I had the opportunity, but it's not in the cards. I often joke that what I need is a naked (reformed) gal with a Bible and a CDL (which calls to mind a crude but germane Don Imus joke)*. There is no one on the radar screen that would fit the role of Mrs. McBryde II, Mrs. McBryde III or even IV. Ideally (in my mind) it would be a family with no minor children at stake, since the state would eagerly take the children hostage, or perhaps a vengeful former consort might seize some kids because of the inappropriate lifestyle of a former wife or lover. Nevertheless, someone from the Christian side of the plural marriage crowd needs to do it. Not a Mormon, not a Muslim. A Christian family. Who are you?

And somewhere David Byrne's psycho is saying: "AGAIN?!?!"

*FOOTNOTE The point is, that there is no such person. "Naked" is a loose way of referring to something no conservative Christian woman would do which also refers to the majority of them when it comes to plural marriage. "Reformed" is referring to a generally Presbyterian mindset, and again, few if any consider being a second or third wife. Then you pile on top of that they have a CDL, want to drive with me and marry a nearly 60 year old dude? That's a null set. Don Imus made a similar but crude observation regarding all the things women allegedly wanted from men, and if they ever FOUND that guy, they'd better move over because he'd probably be interested. The point being, that was also the aforementioned null set.

Kody Brown's Victory will be reversed (UPDATED)

2013-12-16T14:51:00.000-05:00

That's my prediction, and I hope I'm wrong. Here's why the decision will be reversed on appeal:

The Judiciary is highly politicized and tied to the news cycle. I may have missed it, but the almost complete lack of coverage of Brown v. Buhman in the Broadcast media is the proverbial canary in the mine shaft for decriminalization of Plural Marriage/Polygamy.

There has been nothing (as of this writing) on the "Drudge Report." I checked both CNN & Fox and they were late to the table with both of their stories, and despite the fact that I can't watch every channel all the time, I have tuned in enough to know that coverage on Television and Radio was minimal to non-existent. (UPDATE, Apparently Bill O'Reilly opined, but I can't find the transcript or video, I did find a CNN video complete with "plyg" clichés.) Both the political right and the political left are largely ignoring the story. Democratic/Left leaning media sources have begun to point out that Judge Waddoups was a Bush appointee, this using that sort of backhand to discredit the decision. Rush didn't mention it ~~at all on his show (I've listened MOST of the day~~) until December 18th, 2013. I'm not waiting to hear what Hannity will (or won't) say before sticking my neck out.

Face it. BIBLICAL plural marriage proponents have no friends on the right OR the left. The media KNOWS that and just signaled to the politicized judiciary that they're not going to be looking when the legal mugging occurs. Please remember there was overwhelming evidence (notice I did not say conclusive) that "informant" Rozita Swinton was probably a plant and a tool of law enforcement. This evidence was never followed by the media, either on the right or the left. Why? My best guess is that the outcome of incarcerating FLDS men was so important to both the left and the right, that no one cared how it was done.

I'm going to say we have exactly the same sort of situation here. Some supposed inconsistency of law is going to be cited on appeal, and Judge Waddoups decision will be reversed. My best guess is that it will be that Kody Brown had no standing. This will turn on the fact that he was never prosecuted for his supposed violation of law which will shove us back into the limbo of Law Enforcement using laws that contain phrases like "purport(ing) to be married" to break down your door, and then never trying the suspect for bigamy/polygamy. They will instead ransack the house, perhaps take any children present, and lever the "suspect" into a plea bargain on something like tax evasion or violations of some housing codes.

I fully realize that the case went ahead and the Judge dismissed the idea of "no standing" on the part of the Brown family as avoidance on the part of the State. I agree with him that it was. I was quite happy to see he swept the state's objection aside and went ahead with the case. I think that's the grounds though, on which the decision will be reversed.

I have qualifiers to my prediction. First it may be reversed on more than one or other grounds. Remember, no one is watching and all the right and left care about is a decision they like. They don't like religious plural marriage/polygyny. It's almost always one man with two or more women. It's not egalitarian. Both the left and the right agree on some version of couples only sexual relationships. Second, if someone comes forward, aggressively and uses this moment as a wedge opportunity, and goes to some place like Vermont or Washington DC and demands multiple marriage certificates/licenses at the same time, it might fan the flame of interest. Why those places? These are jurisdictions that have passed same sex marriage laws through their law making bodies. The idea of personal preference governing marriage practice is written into those laws and they are ripe for a test case.

Christians believing in Plural Marraige are largely Libertarian/Right Wing in their other views. They are hopeless idealists and look for all or nothing solutions.* Just as they won't vote for a McCain or a Romney, they will not be part of any incremental or interim solution that involves part of what they're looking for, and what they're demanding is a total exit on the part of all governments. That's not going to happen.

*Dr. Francis Schaeffer: "(I)f you insist on perfection or nothing, you will always have nothing."

(UPDATED) Judge "Decriminalizes" Plural "Marriage" in Utah

2013-12-14T02:09:00.000-05:00

I could write a wordy analysis, but this quote says it all, and quite a few of us have been saying something similar, for a while:

From the Salt Lake City Tribune:

"Utah’s bigamy statute technically survived the ruling. However, (Judge) Waddoups took a narrow interpretation of the words 'marry' and 'purports to marry,' meaning that bigamy remains illegal only in the literal sense - when someone fraudulently acquires multiple marriage licences."

Jonathan Turley cites among other things, Lawrence v. Texas. More also at "The Fall of Reynolds." In addition, there is the "Utah Political Capitol" and "The Aquila Report."

The "Volokh Conspiracy" is suddenly "noticing" the overt racism of Reynolds v. Sims/Reynolds v. United States:

"I’m no fan of the collected works of Edward Said, but I thought the Court’s use of Said entirely defensible. As the Court details, 19th-century hostility to polygamy was based, in part, on polygamy’s association with non-white races. As the U.S. Supreme Court wrote in Reynolds v. Sims, 'Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe, and, until the establishment of the Mormon Church, was almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and of African people.' Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 164 (1879)."

"Simple Justice" adds this observation:

"That Kody Brown, with the adult consent of the women in his life, has chosen a different path than others has no more to do with me than it does with you. He just doesn’t want to go to prison for it, and if everybody living with him is cool with the arrangement, then it’s nobody’s business but theirs."

If the decision is reversed, it's probably going to be based on something having to do with Kody Brown's "lack of standing." It's really the only way out for those that wish to keep plural marriage criminal and at the same time want to posture about and use that "illegality" for political purposes. Kody after all, had been promised he wouldn't be prosecuted prior to his "escape" to Nevada. All the government opponents want is the ability to bust down your door and search for "extant" circumstances, like tax evasion, and to round up your kids. They'll drop the initial charge of "purporting to be married" later.

All anyone remembers after whatever conviction or plea bargain occurs is that the man was arrested for "committing polygamy." That makes the ignorant masses happy.

Other opinions? Professor Stephen Bainbridge echoes Robert Bork (I'm generally a fan) and says we are "We are Slouching Towards Gomorrah."

"Hot Air" concludes the same thing I've been saying for probably a decade, but uses "Lawn Mower" as opposed to an Aardvark:

"But with all that said, while a wildly unpopular position among many conservatives, I still think the government’s hands should be as far away from the entire concept of marriage as possible. The fears that some are expressing over the Brown decision, however, aren’t really related to this question and appear to be unfounded. The court didn’t strike down rules against actual polygamy – the practice of being licensed and married to more than one spouse – but rather laws prohibiting one from saying they are married to additional people. You can say you’re married to your lawn mower, but that doesn’t mean the government is going to recognize it or grant you any benefits based on it."

I would note that "benefit" is for me, one of the biggest swear words in my vocabulary, and infinitely more so when it's attached to "government."

The New York Times hilariously reveals their "anti straight" bias merely via headline, stating that the polygamy law in Utah, has been "weakened." Had Kody been Gay, they would have doubtless trumpeted the huge victory for Gay Marriage. "Business Insider" does see it that way.

The odd interest of ALIPAC makes me wonder if they see it as an avenue to unlimited immigration. "Freepers" aren't exactly thrilled but might want to read "Hot Air" and take a deep breath.

At Breitbart Ken Klukowski points to the incremental slippery slope strategy. It's only the tip of the iceberg folks:

"This lawsuit is the brainchild of Prof. Jonathan Turley at George Washington University. He’s designed a two-step strategy, piggybacking on same-sex marriage: first, decriminalize polygamy, then assert a right to official recognition of polygamy."

Time magazine doesn't seem to think it's a problem for women anymore, including young women, but a problem young men.

"(Time's own) studies suggest that polygamy, when conducted among consenting adults (unlike the kind practiced by Warren Jeffs), is not as harmful to the young women who consent to being a second or third wife as it is to young men. Because the older and more successful men attract most of the wives, there are not enough women for the younger men to marry. In a community that values family above all, this can be devastating and has led to many leaving or being expelled from their homes."

And then they hit on the idea that plural marriage is only practiced in closed gated communities or "compounds." It's not, but beating that dead horse image still serves the purpose of "Anti Pligs." They also ignore the fact that the ruling throws open the door to group marriage and polyandry so it's a complete non sequitur as observations go. Doh!

The lack of comment at Poor Richard's News proves that no one cares. I have one of the two comments at the site, which is about the same as the performance here, and I've retreated to being a blogging nobody. There are some sites with a plethora of comments, but they are all first tier bloggers who chose to comment on the story. I've been scanning Fox and CNN but haven't caught either of them running the story. For this reason (should this trend continue), I will venture to make a prediction, probably by tomorrow.

I figured Al Jazeera would eventually run the story, and they have. Vox Popoli has commented. I always value what's said there, whether I agree or not. In this case though, Vox seems to be advocating a dictator or revolution:

"American society is rapidly slip-sliding away, to the extent that it can even be said to exist at all anymore. One may not be able to legislate morality, but it is becoming eminently clear that one can legislate civilization. And barbarism, for that matter. But we may be past the point where civilization can be legislated; it may have to be imposed."

I guess a King wouldn't have additional consorts and he'd keep us from having them. That's what we have found, right? Leaders, especially the most powerful, always keep their pants on, away from home.

Last but not least of course, the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) Blog has chimed in with some thoughts:

"The state of Utah, the judge noted, does not prosecute those who engage in cohabitation as an act of adultery — that is, a married person having intimate relations with a person who is not the spouse. The state thus threatens prosecution only for those who cohabit as a religious activity, according to (Waddoups).

The judge said the state has ample authority, under other criminal laws, to protect against crimes such as incest, sexual assault, and rape of a minor.

He thus struck down the cohabitation ban in the bigamy law, finding it intruded upon the free exercise of religion under the First Amendment. In addition, the judge also struck down that section of the law under other constitutional provisions.

Specifically, the judge struck this phrase from the law — 'or cohabits with another person'."

It's all been said before

2013-08-29T15:42:00.001-04:00

There is nothing new under the sun. With regard to the current Mideast "Crisis." I'll let an actor do the talking.

The Russians are now sending warships. Fred Thompson's character also intoned; ""Somebody messes up, we'll be in the biggest naval battle since the Jutland."

Then there's always Suzanne Sugarbaker:

"Personally, I do not enjoy history. People were always telling me I had to learn it because history repeats itself. I say, if it's gonna repeat itself, why the heck should I pay attention the first time?!"

Secret Footage of the Zimmerman Prosecution obtained under the Freedom of Information Act

2013-07-14T16:06:00.000-04:00

The prosecution does it's best to spin the Zimmerman Evidence.

In general, I hated the movie, except for this sequence.

Not Guilty (Get Over It)

2013-07-13T22:11:00.000-04:00

My "used to be a DJ" song dedication to the lynch mob:

Justice HAS been done for Trayvon Martin, AND George Zimmerman. If you don't like it, get over it.

The Real White Racist take on the Zimmerman Trial

2013-07-12T22:19:00.001-04:00

The real racist's reaction in a nutshell (warning, STRONG LANGUAGE):

When all of this Zimmerman Martin stuff started, my instant take on the situation was, "If I was a racist, why would I care?" D. L. Hughley after all, says all white people use the "N" word when they think no one else is around. At that point, I gave up and started to use the word (rhetorically).

Then all this "White Hispanic" nonsense started. I largely saw it as a way of suckering in a misled "Black" or "African American" community into believing that their problems were external. Instead of looking inward they look outward, for the source of their problems. It was all too easy to stir up support.

Only now has the media community on the right started to become vocal about the the observation that President Obama is as "White African" as George Zimmerman is "White Hispanic." Around the house I've been pointing that out for the last five plus years. Oh well, now I can start calling our Fearless Leader "White Chocolate." It's a sort of Darryl Dawkins thing.

Mystery Solved?

2013-04-13T19:17:00.000-04:00

Is this really it? Look at the before (and after) pictures.

The above? Before.

And after? Take a look:

This is the same part (or parts, DOC and DPF) from my truck.

One picture is taken on March 29th, the other today.

Could it be that the problem that won't go away, my recurring "regeneration" issues that began in January of last year, after my truck was repaired from a near total that very nearly killed or paralyzed me, it was on cockeyed two weeks ago. It was off and back on Wednesday, and now it is as I recall seeing it, most of the time when it was new. At least that's my memory. But which is really the cockeyed installation.

I will find out.

I can tell you that if the excess soot collection seems more likely to occur, in my humble opinion, in those tubes, when they're not on the top of the assembly. Guess what the dealer found in those tubes Wednesday? Lots of soot.

Because it keeps coming up

2013-03-27T20:17:00.000-04:00

I am the "Ban" master. I get banned regularly. It's hard to take it seriously anymore. With regard to being banned by Biblical Families, a "pro Christian Plural Marriage" discussion forum, I have the following to offer.

When I was banned, I sent the following to their email address that was for "further information" regarding the "banning." All I said was "As You Wish." I'm a huge fan of the movie, "The Princess Bride," in which the phrase "As You Wish" is eventually revealed as another way of saying "I love you."

I know, I have to be less obscure. Not all folks have seen the Classic.

Mark Cowperthwaite:

"I was going to put you on post approval due to your continued sarcastic and demeaning posts, but as that option was not available I had to ban you for the time being. I would be happy to take the ban off once we get the post approval option working again. I was in the middle of writing to you about this when I had to take care of one of the children who is ill. Let me know if you would like to be reinstated, but if you wish this, every future post will have to be approved by a moderator before it goes on the forums. I understand if this is not agreeable to you."

My Reply:

"Please cite what was sarcastic. Please then show that sarcasm is intrinsically inappropriate. Please show how I was demeaning.

You presume quite a lot Mark.

I have always said you can do as you wish with your forum so please do as you wish. When you communicate with me privately and off the board, drop your presumption and pony up with proof or do not communicate with me. I have no need of your sweeping judgement when you announce it without proof. If you have family issues, by all means attend to them, they come first. If you don't have the time for both tasks I would prioritize my family if I were you. You could always get back to me immediately after you find the time to do so even if that were a year from now.

I do not recall my objecting to your banning me. I would, since you mentioned it and did it, point out that I have asked this be done many times before as a voluntary move on my part but your collective wisdom deemed that you wait until you were angry and felt the need to throw me out in mid conversation. What kind of pathology requires you to wait until you feel the need to say 'get out and stay out' when I've offered to leave peacefully MANY times? It's one of those situations where someone is told 'You can't quit, you're fired.' Please share this with the rest of your moderators."

I was not, nor have I ever been "seeking an occasion" with Biblical Families and it's hierarchy. In truth, it seems that no one can remember why they asked me there in the first place and I've always been at odds with the nebulous management of the group that is ever changing. My personal guess is that at the time I was invited to join, I was considered a bit of a plural marriage heavyweight and you couldn't exactly have a forum like theirs without inviting me. I'm not that heavyweight anymore in terms of public consumption and that's fine by me. I have a church to attend to and that's a very consuming activity. We are growing slowly and I think most of what I do now is going to be seen in later generations if God blesses what I am doing.

I had been on a posting hiatus at BF for over a year and resumed posting when I began to see unedited work of mine distributed publicly at the forum without attribution. In fairness, I had given permission for that to be done with the poster in question as they wished to use the work with reference to their own church leadership. I hadn't expected it to show up in a public forum, but there it was, so I thought I'd return and see how things went. I got into tussles almost immediately, but this time with an entirely different group of moderators.

The two posts were well received when posted by someone else other than myself. That's interesting in view of the fact that it's my work and I've been accused of having all sorts of overtones that are insulting and demeaning when I write publicly. So I'm forced to think the following. I have a reputation. That reputation among the plural believers has always been of a difficult and contentious person. Thus if I say it, it's rude and insulting and sarcastic and demeaning. If someone else says it, even if it's not agreed with, it's not rude and insulting and sarcastic and demeaning.

So be it.

Here we go!

2013-03-27T14:06:00.000-04:00

Instapundit tipped me off to this, but I should be credited (shouldn't I?) for tipping all of you off in advance.

Ted Olson argues for overturning Proposition 8 of California. The Justice is Judge Sonia Sotomayor, an Obama appointee:

Justice Sotomayor - "Mr. Olson, the bottom line that you're being asked, and it is one that I'm interested in the answer: If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what state restrictions could ever exist? Meaning, what state restrictions with respect to the number of people, with respect to that could get married, the incest laws, the mother and child, assuming that they are the age I can accept that the state has probably an overbearing interest on protecting a child until they're of age to marry, but what's left?"

Ted Olson - "Well, you've said in the cases decided by this court that the polygamy issue, multiple marriages raises questions about exploitation, abuse, patriarchy, issues with respect to taxes, inheritance, child custody, it is an entirely different thing, and if you, if a state prohibits polygamy, it's prohibiting conduct. If it prohibits gay and lesbian citizens from getting married, it is prohibiting their exercise of a right based upon their status."

Olson also said banning gay marriage was 'picking out a group of individuals to deny them the freedom (the court) said is fundamental'." (CNS NEWS)

But what about BISEXUALS I keep asking? Homosexual rights advocates claim they are "homosexuals" on a fundamental and programmed level. They often argue it's genetic. If this is so, what about the bisexual that wishes to engage in the "fundamental right" of marriage with another adult? Isn't their status denied recognition in marriage when they can't also marry another person at the same time? A bisexual, to conduct and realize all of their orientation in marriage needs two marriage partners. A man, and a woman in addition to themselves. Marriage as three. Polygamy!

Notice the bigoted language of Ted Olson saying that the plural married are already in abuse, exploitation and so on.

Fundies Fear Polygamy more than Gay Marriage

2013-03-27T07:43:00.003-04:00

Dr. Andrew Selle (et al) before the Vermont Legislature in 2009.

Covenant Orthodox Presbyterian Church, the sole OPC representative for Vermont, sent an ordained pastor and Ruling Elder to the floor of the Vermont Legislature to testify. He's echoing the "What's Next, POLYGAMY!?" sentiment among conservative Christians all across the country. I thought this was germane since the matter is now before our Supreme Court and the plural friendly Christians of this world are content to let gays and fouled up fundies argue the matter.

Whatever result we get, I'm sure it's not going to help us. They would have had a hard time with King David in the congregation. The way these theological pillars of wisdom talk, they'd have allied with the gays to burn ole Dave and I at the stake, prior to granting the right to civil unions to the homosexuals of this country.

To my plural sympathetic friends: Don't come crying to me when the result (either today or in the future) contains unintended consequences that interfere with your "lifestyle."

By Georgia! (I think she's got it!)

2013-03-25T10:41:00.000-04:00

There is a ray of hope when 23 year old entry level workers see.

Some may have foreseen it what would happen to depositors equity. Indeed a student of the Russian Revolution of the early 1900's Dmitry Medvedev does seem to know. As history repeats itself, the youth now seem to know what the problem really is:

"Why should anyone believe anything this government says?" - Georgia Xenophontos.

Someone needs to get a picture of her now. We're talking poster child for the revolution (if it comes). This could be the face of the awakening.