CNS News
Randy Hall
May 10, 2007
CNS News Reports:
Polygamy Activist Compares Gun Control to 'Marriage Control'"
On April 16, 2007, 32 innocent people were murdered by a suicidal killer at Virginia Tech. Consequently, liberals began calling for more gun control. Conservatives spoke against such calls. Yet, the liberal arguments used to justify gun control are the very same arguments that many would-be conservatives use to justify "marriage control." That term, "marriage control," is one that Mark Henkel, who is both the Founder of the TruthBearer.org organization and the National Polygamy Advocate, created for the polygamy rights movement years ago - to describe how conservatives betray their principles when they call for big goverment involvement in the God-given Individual Right to marriage.
On April 27, 2007, the national polygamy rights movement used Mr. Henkel's term, sending out an op-ed out to news outlets with the media distribution site,
Pro-Polygamy.com.
The op-ed was titled, "Gun Control and Marriage Control Infringe Individual Rights."
On May 3, 2007, the TruthBearer.org organization issued its own additional press release to further help get that news out even more quickly.
The press release was called, "
'Marriage Control' - New Political Label Recommended by National Polygamy Rights Leader."
Mr. Henkel, himself, provided many additional sound-bites directly, to further explain his longstanding "marriage control" term. He then recommended its use by any other political constituency who recocgnizes the big government hypocrisy of "marriage control" arguments.
On May 10, 2007, using the original April 27 Pro-Polygamy.com op-ed and the additional May 3 TruthBearer.org press release,
CNS News issued the
following report.
The article is archived here, followed by a Clarifications section and a Three Comparisons section afterward.
Polygamy Activist Compares Gun Control to 'Marriage Control'
By Randy Hall
CNSNews.com Staff Writer/Editor
May 10, 2007
© 2007 CNSNews.com (article here)
CNSNews.com –
A campaigner for polygamy said conservatives seeking to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman are using the same arguments liberals use -- and conservatives strongly oppose -- in the gun control debate.
Gun controllers and "marriage controllers" use the very same arguments of "society's rights," "democracy" and re-defining "the people" as "the collective," said Mark Henkel, founder of TruthBearer.org, a group promoting non-Mormon "Christian polygamy." Polygamy is defined as the practice of having more than one spouse (usually a wife) at the same time.
In a message posted on his website, Henkel cites the April 16 tragedy at Virginia Tech, where a student shot dead 32 people before shooting himself.
Many liberals "misapplied" the shooting to call for more big-government gun control, at the same time as "constitutionalists and many conservatives opposed it as infringement of individual rights," he noted.
"Yet, most of those same would-be conservatives had already justified identical big-government control," Henkel argued.
"Gun controllers assert that 'society has a right' to control guns, that 'democracy' justifies infringing individuals' rights for the supposed good of the people," he said. "They frantically purport that society is imperiled without gun control.
"Yet the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment expressly declares that 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,'" he stated, so "gun controllers re-define the meaning of 'the people,' asserting that it only means 'the collective' [as] represented by the government."
Along the same lines, Henkel asserted, "marriage controllers assert that 'society has a right' to control marriage, that 'democracy' justifies infringing individuals' rights for the supposed good of the people," he said. "They frantically purport that society is imperiled without marriage control."
Henkel noted that marriage -- "appropriately" -- appears nowhere in the Constitution. "Yet marriage controllers cry, 'Let the people choose' the re-definition of marriage [through a majority vote.] Hence, their re-definition of 'the people'" means that "the government -- not the individual -- has the supposed right to determine marriage."
"The [gun control] issue is not about the guns, hunting or sports. It is about individuals' God-given right to protect themselves," Henkel said.
"Marriage control equally infringes the God-given right of individuals," he continued. "Marriage pre-dates the invention of government. Ironically, marriage controllers cite Adam and Eve from the biblical book of Genesis. Yet that very story never involved government. In fact, no one in the Bible was ever married 'by government.'"
As Cybercast News Service previously reported, Henkel predicted last year that "freely consenting, adult, non-abusive, marriage-committed polygamy is the next civil rights battle" after same-sex "marriage."
He called the one man-one-woman model "marital Marxism," saying it was established by the Catholic Church during the Middle Ages.
"You don't have to be a pro-polygamist to see that 'marriage control' infringes the individual rights of consenting adults," the activist told Cybercast News Service on Wednesday.
"The dichotomy of people supporting marriage control while opposing gun control could not be more obvious," said Henkel. "It suggests that they believe that the individual right to marriage [is] more dangerous, necessitating big-government control, than the individual right to keep and bear arms."
"The only way to truly protect marriage -- and to prevent anyone from ever legally re-defining it -- is by entirely removing government from all marriage control," Henkel said.
J. Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues with the conservative group Concerned Women for America, called Henkel's metaphor "rather clumsy and frankly not very well put together."
"When you break it down, it consists of nothing more than the boilerplate libertarian talking points," Barber told Cybercast News Service on Wednesday. "He cries that we should be able to do whatever we want to do because we want to do it!
"The truth is that the parallel he awkwardly attempts to draw between gun control activists and traditional marriage advocates is more properly drawn between gun control activists and polygamy advocates such as himself," Barber argued.
"Both Henkel and proponents of gun control desire to change pre-existing laws to comport with their own radical agenda," he said.
"Gun control types want to radically redefine the Second Amendment removing our right to bear arms," while "Henkel wants to radically redefine marriage which, by definition, exists solely between one man and one woman," Barber said.
As a result, "Henkel is the one seeking to 'control marriage' by redefining it into oblivion," he added.
[ END OF ARTICLE ]
<><
Clarifications and Three Comparisons:
Clarifications
Overall, the report was generally positive. The following reported line should certainly capture the attention of - and even motivate - anyone concerned about both "protecting marriage" and "not letting anyone else re-define it." The report stated, "The only way to truly protect marriage -- and to prevent anyone from ever legally re-defining it -- is by entirely removing government from all marriage control," Henkel said. That is the true solution indeed - even though the opposing anti-polygamist at the end of the report does not seem to realize it.
Even so, there are three clarifications to make.
1. The report did confuse attribution between the op-ed and the press release, quoting Mr. Henkel directly with lines which actually appeared in the op-ed instead.
2. The report's title appears to minimize the national polygamy rights movement to one lone "campaigner."
3.
The report - again - repeated the erroneous "Middle Ages" reference from when CNS News first incorrectly reported that reference in their March 16, 2006 report about polygamy rights. The correction about that erroneous reference was already explained at that link here at the TruthBearer.org web-site. Point #7 stated, (Mr. Henkel) never mentioned "the Middle Ages;" he said "one man, one woman" was invented by the Catholic institution when Christianity changed from being a persecuted faith of Jesus Christ and became the political powerhouse of the Catholic institution - long before the Middle Ages.
Obviously, the anti-polygamist's comments at the end of the report made little sense in opposing Mr. Henkel's points. Indeed, the pro-polygamy position was clearly stated that no one has authority to re-define or control marriage. So, when no one has the authority to re-define or control marriage - including anti-polygamists and homosexuals - then it is a sheer absurdity to suggest that polygamists are hereby trying to radically re-define or control marriage. If the anti-polygamist in the report ever analzes how they were quoted there, they might find themselves embarrased by the undeniable absurdity. The TruthBearer.org organization has empathy for others when they make big mistakes such as that, though. Praying in all genuine sinscerity, may the Lord gently open and console the anti-polygamist's heart unto the truth.
Three Comparisons
When comparing what was written in the op-ed and the press release with that which the CNS News report quoted, seven relevant arguments may be immediately observed.
- COMPARISON #1
CNS NEWS
Henkel asserted, "marriage controllers assert that 'society has a right' to control marriage, that 'democracy' justifies infringing individuals' rights for the supposed good of the people," he said. "They frantically purport that society is imperiled without marriage control."
Henkel noted that marriage -- "appropriately" -- appears nowhere in the Constitution. "Yet marriage controllers cry, 'Let the people choose' the re-definition of marriage [through a majority vote.] Hence, their re-definition of 'the people'" means that "the government -- not the individual -- has the supposed right to determine marriage."
OP-ED ACTUAL
Marriage controllers assert that “society has a right” to control marriage, that “democracy” justifies infringing Individuals’ rights for the supposed good of the people. They frantically purport that society is imperiled without marriage control. Yet the Constitution’s Ninth and Tenth Amendments say that, unless any authority is specifically delegated to the federal government in the Constitution itself, the right is always reserved to the States or to “the People” (codified or not). Marriage is – appropriately – nowhere in the Constitution. Thereby, government is banned from marriage. Moreover, both federal and state governments are additionally prohibited by the First Amendment (freedoms of assembly, religion, and speech). Yet marriage controllers cry, “Let the People choose” the re-definition of marriage through majoritiarian collectivism. Hence, their re-definition of “the People” means a constitutional absurdity that the government – not the Individuals - has the supposed right to determine marriage.
- COMPARISON #2
CNS NEWS
"Marriage control equally infringes the God-given right of individuals," he continued. "Marriage pre-dates the invention of government. Ironically, marriage controllers cite Adam and Eve from the biblical book of Genesis. Yet that very story never involved government. In fact, no one in the Bible was ever married 'by government.'"
OP-ED ACTUAL
Marriage control equally infringes the God-given right of the Individuals. Marriage pre-dates the invention of government. Ironically, marriage controllers cite Adam and Eve from the Biblical book of Genesis. Yet that very story never involved government. In fact, no one in the Bible was ever married “by government.” Plus, the author of that Genesis story married two wives himself. Yes, polygamy - Moses was a polygamist. Therefore, even the Adam and Eve account proves that marriage is an inalienable God-given right of the Individuals. This is true even if the godless choose it or otherwise personally invent foolish re-definitions for their own imaginations.
- COMPARISON #3
CNS NEWS
"The dichotomy of people supporting marriage control while opposing gun control could not be more obvious," said Henkel. "It suggests that they believe that the individual right to marriage [is] more dangerous, necessitating big-government control, than the individual right to keep and bear arms."
PRESS RELEASE ACTUAL
"Cleverly re-named amendments will not really hide the issue either," Henkel continued. "In the same way that any re-named 'Gun Protection Amendment' would still only truthfully be a 'Gun Control Amendment,' any re-named 'Marriage Protection Amendment' would still only truthfully be a 'Marriage Control Amendment.'
"As such, the dichotomy of supporting marriage control while opposing gun control could not be more obvious," said Henkel. "It suggests that they believe that the Individual Right to marriage (or to imagination of 'make believe' marriage) is more dangerous - necessitating big government control - than the Individual Right to keep and bear arms. So, they trust consenting adult individuals to maintain their Individual Right to keep and bear arms - but they don't trust consenting adults to maintain their Individual Right to marry or to imagine that they are married."
In Comparison #1, the fact that the Constitution outright bans government involvement in marriage was missing. The citation of the 9th and 10th Amendments as proof was also missing. And, the more-accurate term, "majoritarian collectivism" - which rightly exposes the unconservative Marxism of the concept - was edited out with the softened, anti-republican "democracy" term, "majority vote."
In Comparison #2, the fact that Moses - the author of the Adam and Eve story - actually had two wives was missing from the report. The statement that marriage is an inalienable God-given right of the Individuals - even if the godlless choose it too - was also missing. And the statement that the godless also have the right to any foolish imagination was missing.
In Comparison #3, the explanation of the dichotomy of "Protection" equals "Control" in both marriage control and gun control amendment concepts was missing. And the essential parenthetical statement that Individuals also have the God-given right to an "imagination of 'make believe' marriage" too was fully deleted.
As the debate with marriage controllers goes forward, these above Three Comparisons expose the following seven arguments as being that which conservatives fear most.
- The 9th & 10th Amendments ban government from marriage.
- "Majoritarian collectivism" is the exactty accuarate term, exposing how anti-republican the marriage controllers are. (A "majority vote" has its legitimate place within government management, but not when used for infringing the Inalienable God-given Rights of the Individuals.)
- Polygamous Moses as the author of the Adam and Eve story utterly undermines marriage controllers' mis-use of that story for fraudulently justifying the unbiblical re-definition of marriage as "one man, one woman."
- Real marriage is a God-given Right of the Individuals.
- Even the godless have the right to choose real marriage.
- "Protection" equals "Control" - whether its "marriage protection" or "gun protection."
- The godless have the right to imagine any foolishness, including "fake marriage." (When no one can use government to re-define marriage - whether for anti-polygamy, pro-homosexual, or any other re-definitions - then the foolish imaginations of others can legally have no consequence of re-defining real marriage, anyway).
The CNS News report here, overall, was indeed quite positive. At the same time, the Three Comparisons do show the underlying fear of many supposed-to-be conservatives to the real arguments at issue. It
To CNS News's credit, this kind of report is at least a beginning. The TruthBearer.org organization is truly grateful to CNS News for reporting it.
As the debate goes forward, these arguments will continue to surface. All marriage controllers can count on it. May all be blessed as they eventually discover the truth that God's creation of real marriage can never really be re-defined by anyone, anyway - whether anti-polygamists, homosexuals, or anyone else.
