Birth of the Republican Party July 6, 1854

American Minute with Bill Federer

A decade prior to the Civil War there were two major political parties in the United States:

Democrats, who favored freedom of choice to own slaves;

and Whigs, who tried to be a big tent party to stem the loss of members to the Know-Nothing Party.

In Ripon, Wisconsin, anti-slavery activists met for the first time on February 28, 1854, then held their first State Convention in Jackson, Michigan, JULY 6, 1854.

This new political party stood against slavery, taking a moral stand for the value of human life.

Also, because of a movement in Utah to redefine marriage, this new party stood for marriage being between one man and one woman.

They named their party “Republican,” with the chief plank being “to prohibit…those twin relics of barbarism: POLYGAMY AND SLAVERY.”

Those attempting to redefine marriage were denounced by Republican President Ulysses S. Grant, December 4, 1871:

“In Utah there still remains a remnant of barbarism, repugnant to civilization, to decency, and to the laws of the United States…

Neither polygamy nor any other violation of existing statutes will be permitted…

They will not be permitted to violate the laws under the cloak of religion.”

On December 7, 1875, President Grant stated:

“In nearly every annual message…I have called attention to the…scandalous condition of affairs existing in the Territory of Utah, and have asked for definite legislation to correct it.

That polygamy should exist in a free, enlightened, and Christian country, without the power to punish so flagrant a crime against decency and morality, seems preposterous…

As an institution polygamy should be banished from the land…

I deem of vital importance to….drive out licensed immorality, such as polygamy and the importation of women for illegitimate purposes.”

Republican President Rutherford B. Hayes stated, December 1, 1879:

“Polygamy is condemned as a crime by the laws of all civilized communities throughout the world.”

President Hayes stated December 6, 1880:

“The sanctity of marriage and the family relation are the corner stone of our American society and civilization.”

Republican President Chester Arthur stated, December 6, 1881:

“For many years the Executive…has urged the necessity of stringent legislation for the suppression of polygamy…this odious crime, so revolting to the moral and religious sense of Christendom.”

Supreme Court Chief Justice Morrison Waite, appointed by Republican Ulysses S. Grant, rendered the Murphy v. Ramsey, 1885, decision:

“Every person who has a husband or wife living…and marries another…is guilty of polygamy, and shall be punished…

No legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth…than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family,

as consisting in and springing from the union for life of ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization;

the best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement.”

In the comprehensive annotated John Quincy Adams-A Bibliography, compiled by Lynn H. Parsons (Westport, CT, 1993, p. 41, entry#194), former President John Quincy Adams wrote in Essay on Turks, 1827:

“Mohammed poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy.”

Supreme Court Justice Stephen Field, appointed by Republican President Abraham Lincoln, rendered the Davis v. Beason, 1890, decision:

“Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries…

They…destroy the purity of the marriage relation…degrade woman and debase man…

There have been sects which denied…there should be any marriage tie, and advocated promiscuous intercourse of the sexes as prompted by the passions of its members…

Should a sect of either of these kinds ever find its way into this country, swift punishment would follow.”

Justice Stephen Field concluded:

“The constitutions of several States, in providing for religious freedom, have declared expressly that such freedom SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO EXCUSE ACTS OF LICENTIOUSNESS.”

Republican President Theodore Roosevelt stated to Congress, January 30, 1905:

“The institution of marriage is, of course, at the very foundation of our social organization, and all influences that affect that institution are of vital concern to the people of the whole country.”
___
For an in depth comparison of Political Parties-Past & Present, visit: http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/obamacare-decision-todays-dred-scott

---

The Moral Liberal contributing editor, William J. Federer, is the bestselling author of “Backfired: A Nation Born for Religious Tolerance no Longer Tolerates Religion,” and numerous other books. A frequent radio and television guest, his daily American Minute is broadcast nationally via radio, television, and Internet. Check out all of Bill’s bookshere.

316 – Nov. 12 – This Day in Baptist History Past

 

Simons was an Anabaptist

 

Menno Simons was not the founder of the Mennonite church but rather Conrad Grebel and his brethren, who founded a church in Zurich, Switzerland, in 1525. At this time Simons was struggling as a Catholic priest with infant baptism and trans- substantiation as well as attacking the Cult of Munster. The Munsterites were propagating insurrection, polygamy, fornication, and other heretical doctrines. Because this cult was falsely identified with the Anabaptists, the enemies of the Baptists used the Munsters to stereotype them many years into the future, even a century later in England. Simons wrote volumes attacking infant baptism and propagating believer’s baptism only. He used Rom. 6:3-4 to say, “Here the baptism of believers is again powerfully confirmed, and infant baptism denied as emphatically.” He went on to say that, “…spiritual death and resurrection are represented in holy baptism.”  Thomas Armitage quotes several writers as saying concerning Simons, “He was dipped himself, and he baptized others by dipping.”  In all of his writings he repudiated infant baptism and brought the wrath of the state church down upon himself and identified him as an Anabaptist. Concerning the Lord’s Supper, he made it clear that it was a memorial of the Lord’s death. Simons was a fugitive from the state and suffered greatly at the hands of the magistrates. He was pursued from place to place and saw his brethren who harbored him or were baptized by him tortured or put to death. He believed the church was the representative agent of Christ on earth, and that the Bible was the Word of God. Simons was an Anabaptist. [John Christian Wenger, ed., The Complete Works of Menno Simons, c. 1496-1561 (Scottsdale, Pa.: Hearld Press, 1956) pp. 157-58. This Day in Baptist History II: Cummins and Thompson, BJU Press: Greenville, S.C. 2000 A.D. pp. 618-20.]   Prepared by Dr. Greg J. Dixon

 

The post 316 – Nov. 12 – This Day in Baptist History Past appeared first on The Trumpet Online.

 

 

If gay marriage is legalized, polygamy is next, briefs warn

Polygamy

WASHINGTON (BP) — Redefining marriage to include same-sex couples would jettison the rationale and logic behind prohibitions on polygamous marriages, according to several friend-of-the court briefs urging the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the traditional definition of marriage.

“Ultimately, there is no principled basis for recognizing a legality of same-sex marriage without simultaneously providing a basis for the legality of consensual polygamy or certain adult incestuous relationships,” reads one of the briefs, filed by the Christian legal group Liberty Counsel. “In fact, every argument for same-sex marriage is an argument for them as well.”

Over the next three days, Baptist Press will preview some of the legal arguments made by supporters of traditional marriage ahead of Tuesday’s and Wednesday’s oral arguments. On those days the court will consider the constitutionality of two laws: California’s Proposition 8 and a section of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Prop 8 is a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman in California, while the DOMA section in question defines marriage in federal law in the traditional sense. If both are overturned, then gay marriage likely would be legalized in all 50 states.

A friend-of-the-court brief signed by 18 state attorneys general also briefly warns about the potential legalization of polygamy if gay marriage is legalized. The brief — which supports Prop 8 — says the traditional definition of marriage is tied to the fact that only a man and woman can reproduce, thus continuing society’s very existence. The state has an interest, the brief says, to see that children are raised, ideally, by the mother and father who beget them. A mother and father in each home is “optimal for children and society at large.”

“Once the natural limits that inhere in the relationship between a man and a woman can no longer sustain the definition of marriage, the conclusion that follows is that any grouping of adults would have an equal claim to marriage,” the attorneys general brief states, arguing that marriage no longer would be about the needs of children but about the desires of adults.

A friend-of-the-court brief supporting Prop 8 by three academians, including Harvard’s Robert P. George, says there is a movement in the United States to see group relations recognized by the government.

“Nor are such relationships unheard of: Newsweek reports that there are more than five hundred thousand in the United States alone,” the brief signed by George reads.

Liberty Counsel’s brief quotes 19th century Supreme Court cases that upheld the federal government’s ban on polygamy in Utah. Among them were Reynolds v. United States (1878) and Murphy v. Ramsey (1885). In the 1885 case, the justices affirmed the traditional definition of marriage, writing that laws are “wholesome and necessary” when they are established on the basis of the idea of the family as “consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony.” The court called traditional marriage “the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization.”

Liberty Counsel asserted that “when the traditional definition of marriage as that between one man and one woman is reversed to include other marriages, the state is left with little, if any, justification for other laws restricting marriage.”

“For example,” the Liberty Counsel brief warns, “some might argue that larger family groups (of 3 or more adults) would provide an even stronger private support network than the two-adult model. Or, marriage between certain close relatives would minimize the number of legal heirs, potentially minimizing disputes over property distribution upon death. At a minimum, there is nothing inherent in polygamous or certain incestuous relationships (e.g., consenting adults who are related, but not by blood) that makes those unions less worthy of state recognition under such criteria.”

In passing Prop 8, the state of California could have rationally concluded that marriage is “society’s way of recognizing that the sexual union of one man and one woman is unique, and that government needs to regulate and support this union for the benefit of society and its children,” Liberty Counsel said. California also could have concluded that despite “the personal fulfillment of intimate adult relationships, marriage laws are not primarily about adult needs for approbation and support, but about the well-being of children and society.”

“This court,” the brief says, “has long understood the importance of the marriage union as between one man and one woman.”
–30–
Michael Foust is associate editor of Baptist Press. Get Baptist Press headlines and breaking news on Twitter (@BaptistPress), Facebook (Facebook.com/BaptistPress ) and in your email ( baptistpress.com/SubscribeBP.asp)