As such, the dichotomy of supporting marriage control while opposing gun control could not be more obvious
Old Orchard Beach, Maine (PRWEB) May 3, 2007
National polygamy rights leader, Mark Henkel, who is the Founder of the TruthBearer.org organization for non-Mormon evangelical Christian Polygamy, has created and used a political label to target supporters of marriage amendments and laws (et al). "I call it, 'marriage control,'" Henkel said, "because - in the marriage debates - marriage controllers use the exact same arguments which they otherwise say they oppose as 'liberal' in the gun control debates. After the murderous rampage of 32 innocents at Virginia Tech on April 16, 2007, many of the same 'conservatives' apparently re-acquainted themselves with - and began re-declaring - their oppositional arguments to gun control. The label 'marriage control' exposes their extreme contradiction. But anyone else may certainly also use our movement's rhetorical tool too." Identifying the specifics, an official op-ed was released to the media on April 27, 2007: http://www.Pro-Polygamy.com/articles.php?news=0051
The op-ed itself demonstrates how both gun controllers and marriage controllers use the very same arguments of "society's rights," "democracy," and re-defining "the People" as "the collective." It further observes that, when opposing each other, they also use the same opposing arguments of Individual Rights.
Commenting about the op-ed, Henkel offered many additional explanatory sound-bites.
Henkel explained, "Most marriage controllers declare that the Second Amendment prohibits gun control. But then, for example, they blindly ask pro-polygamists, 'Where in the Constitution is there a polygamy amendment?' Initially, the humorous but precisely logical response right back to them asks, 'In that light, then where is there a monogamy amendment?' Obviously, there is neither one. So, their own question answers itself in that humorous way. But with all humor aside, the actual Constitutional answer is that Individual Rights do not have to be codified in the Constitution anyway. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments work together to unquestionably protect that standard. Most conservatives recognize that point - except when it comes to marriage control, it seems. Because marriage is not in the Constitution, the government is actually prohibited from involvement and control.
"Moreover, and just as absurdly, any response suggesting that opponents of marriage control are 'anti-marriage' is as ridiculous as saying that opponents of gun control are 'anti-gun,'" said Henkel. "The real issue is the Constitutionalism of Individual Rights.
"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."
The op-ed also notes that marriage (as well as imagination) is a God-given right of consenting adults. It further notes that, not only were Adam and Eve never married "by government," but also that same Genesis story was written by a polygamist with two wives, Moses.
Commenting about that point, Henkel added, "No one is constitutionally authorized to re-define marriage. Any would-be conservative - if they genuinely value limited government - needs to re-think and reject their marriage control views. After all, a big government that is authorized to re-define marriage one way is then equally authorized to later re-define it another way. That is, a government that is authorized to exclude polygamy today is then equally authorized to exclude heterosexual marriage in the future. While they would not want that at all, it fully demonstrates a circumstance by which even they would begin declaring that marriage is a God-given Right of consenting-adult Individuals. So, 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. Because that is the only Constitutional answer, I have been saying it for years. Indeed, this argument has long been our own polygamy rights win-win solution to finally ending the whole marriage debate for everyone.
"So, now," concluded Henkel, "our rhetorical tool - of targeting marriage controllers with the 'marriage control' label - should no longer be limited for use only by pro-polygamists. To constitutionalists, libertarians, true limited government conservatives, and even liberals, we now gladly recommend its use against any form of unconstitutional, big government 'marriage control.'"
The specifics of this story are more completely presented in the op-ed at
Inquiring reporters and other interested parties may also want to use that op-ed or contact Mark Henkel for interviews at (207) 450-8603.
TruthBearer.org is the non-Mormon, cross-denominational, evangelical Christian Polygamy organization. It has been reported by the 700 Club, The Associated Press, The Washington Times, Newsweek, CourtTV, NBC's TODAY Show, and many more, as noted at
Mark Henkel is the National Polygamy Advocate and the Founder of the TruthBearer.org organization. For more details, please see:
Pro-Polygamy.com is the authorized media-distribution site of professional pro-polygamy op-eds and press releases for use by news outlets, with its archive at
Mark Henkel, Founder
# # #