This is the camel’s nose under the tent for Sharia law.

Next up, a not guilty verdict in Florida or California for an honor killing.

This is an extremely slippery slope.

Jonathan E. Grant on July 13, 2011 at 3:34 pm

Keep exposing them out. So many dirtbag lawyers who wont turn down a client.

CaliforniaScreaming on July 13, 2011 at 3:52 pm

Jonathan Turley – wasn’t this the same guy who’s face was all over the media/talking-heads as a “Constitutional Expert” during the Clinton impeachment trial/Lewinsky scandal?

Doesn’t surprise me this turd would be doing something like this.

pats on July 13, 2011 at 3:53 pm

Yes, Pats. Thank you. I knew I knew that name from somewhere. What a douche he is.

Thanks DS. You always clarify what we regulars should have known. When I heard this story I knew it struck me as weird. Now I know they are using these moronic dupes as beards.

Islam is not behind every corner because of paranoia…it’s behind every corner because IT IS. And as the years roll on, USA gets more accepting of this intolerable death cult.

I was gonna say something about this dumb show, but I think our Islam problem is so much more important. And I will let that stand.

Skunky on July 13, 2011 at 4:18 pm

I would say that this is something that mainstream Mormon groups should speak out against. If this or s similar lawsuit brought by the likes of Turley succeeds, the general public is not going to distinguish between the main Mormom body and the separatist group unless the main group publicly disassociates itself from the splinter. Silence is not golden in this case.

Worry01 on July 13, 2011 at 6:29 pm

I remember when this whole BS of gay marriage came up…was said if that went then next would by polygamy/bigamy. I laughed…guess I shouldn’t have. Once these go through the next on the list was legalizing bestiality and then pedophilia and then anything some freak thinks up….be scared America be very scared it is all coming true.

YeahRight on July 13, 2011 at 6:31 pm

The West’s best chance of turning its Death Express fertility rates down is to protect traditional marriage from all threats. Civil Unions provide gay couples with the legal benefits of marriage without the societal endorsement of that way of life, which it is critical NOT TO PROVIDE. Just because something is not Criminal does not mean that it should be encouraged.

Monogamy is good for kids. Heterosexual marriage is also good for kids. Please, stop the madness! The fact that I have to state this obvious fact is a sign of how far along the road of madness we have travelled.

Occam's Tool on July 13, 2011 at 6:37 pm

Sorry—“These obvious facts.”

Occam's Tool on July 13, 2011 at 6:38 pm

The Left’s Motto — “Anything to undermine traditional Western values.”

In an extremely perverted way, we have to respect the Muslims. They have goals and their own values, and they do not compromise. In the West, everything is a compromise. Right and wrong, is relative, and truth is not an absolute (remember Clinton’s comments about the truth?)

Christianity and Judaism is mocked not only from without, but from within, often by religious leaders and, the media, the liberals, and the Democratic party.

The Constitution, written in plain English is perverted by the Courts. Recently, a Federal Appeals Court ruled that it was a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s “equal protection under the law” not to favor certain races in employment and college entrance. In other words, equal protection is not equal!!

Each day, we slip further into the abyss. And for those looking for a place to flee, remember Ronald Reagan’s words, “America is the world’s last best hope.”
.

Jonathan E. Grant on July 13, 2011 at 6:58 pm

Yasser Arafat stated that the Muslim secret weapon is the womb. In the UK a man seeking asylum with a polyganmous partnership gets a welfare package of the house for him and first wife and all other wives are treated as ‘single mothers’ in their allocated properties together with financial benefits.The Burka brigade, needless to say, never do a day’s work to contribute towards the host country. There are no homes to suit 29 in a family besides Buckingham Palace. These PP have a right to bring in their illiterate parents, 4 sets of parents plus hubbys.When the offspring are just old enough to have partners, sooner than later, arranged marriages bring in the next bunch of cousins from abroad accelerating the illiteracy and congenital deformities through inbreeding. If non-compliant wives-to-be put their red toe-nailed western feet out of line, they are doomed to their other favourite barbaric trick, Honour Killings. Male Honour Killings don’t much make the news!!!

The flip side of this is the inheritance laws which are governed by Sharia. When a Muslim husband dies the ‘estate’ goes to his brother which is then distributed as he sees fit. Grieving wife will sometimes be allowed ‘ a smidgeon’ and will then go to the welfare authorities to take pity on the starving women and her brood. Another Muslim ploy. No inheritance tax ever paid, just keep it in the family for the men.

The above was highlighted when Nelson Mandela took over in South Africa in 1994. A deputation of Muslim women approached him to change the law as they had contributed towards the ‘estate’. At that stage South Africa had no welfare benefits whch would have left the women beholden to a brother-in-law. Did Nelson Mandela swing it, I don’t know.

It’s high time the law was clearly stated for the nu-world order of weary,overstretched taxpayers who can only sit on the sea shore and watch their hard earned cash sail by on the flotilla of negative growth. This is what we are up against. Only vote for politicians who preach ‘planned parenthood with personal responsibility’ not the bloody gangsters seeking votes through moulding and manipulating these maniacal masses. And as for these lawyers who promote un-American customs…what can I say..a good ‘feather and tarring’..in a public square, would be a start.

Eyes Wide Open on July 13, 2011 at 8:11 pm

Jonathan Turdley is a media whore

Gman213 on July 13, 2011 at 8:25 pm

Read “Under the Banner of Heaven” by Jon Kraauer.

Societies that practice polygamy resemble each other.

Tanstaafl on July 13, 2011 at 9:31 pm

This is the most racist BS I have ever heard.

Steve on July 13, 2011 at 10:52 pm

Yesir, looks great to see those matching gloves, dark coats and scarfs, just like the publicity photos of our president with matching dignitaries where they were matching-color clothes.

Two peas in a pod, or identification with the aggressor. I wonder if Turley will try to put Romney on the spot if he gets the nomination. Support these clowns or else lose some (maybe not very many, but certainly some) if he doesn’t.

Little Al on July 13, 2011 at 11:16 pm

Debbie we’d all be better off if the federal government stopped recognizing marriages altogether. The Feds are using it to social engineer and generally penalize people for getting married. Better they should leave it up to individuals to define their families and marriages and do something other than promoting anti-social agendas.

A1 on July 14, 2011 at 12:03 am

I have no problem with polygamy (either multiple wives or multiple husbands), so long as all spouses are consenting adults, and fully aware of the situation. That is, no secret spouses. No pretending to be single when you marry your second or third spouse, and keeping them hidden from each other. No marrying children or teens under the age of consent. And no forcing the marriage on anyone.

There are some people who actually choose a polyamorous relationship, and all partners are fully committed for the long-term. They do not currently have the legal right, in America, to be married to each other, in the combination they’d prefer. However, they do have the right to maintain the relationship they’d prefer, and it’s their business, and I have no problem with that.

Making it legal for polyamorous partnerships is the same as making it legal for gay/lesbian/trans partnerships: They’re going to do it, anyway, with or without the legal benefits. Whether or not they get the legal benefits is a matter for the voters. If the voters say yea, I’ll support it. If they say nay, I’ll not support that decision, too.

Frankly, after all the debate and vitriol, I have reached the point where I don’t care if it’s legal, or not, provided I don’t have to hear about the bedroom shenanigans, and provided that all parties are fully aware, consenting adults. Their living arrangements are not my business, nor their sex lives.

However, I am violently opposed to both forced marriages and child marriages. Children don’t have the experience to make an informed choice, and forced marriages take choice right out of the picture. And people who marry, then marry again without disclosing their current marriage are just complete jerks – the same as those who marry and then cheat on their spouses, telling their new paramour that they are single / divorced / separated, when they are not. Lying to get what you want is just plain wrong.

Michelle on July 14, 2011 at 10:19 am

As for the Sister Wives thing – they should obey the laws, as currently written.

If they want to live together as husband and wives, that’s fine with me. If they want some spiritual ritual, bonding them together before God, that’s fine, too. However, their marriages are not legal. As long as they don’t *claim* to be legally married, they’re not really breaking any laws, so it’s not a problem.

If they are suing for the right to be married, then it’s not a case for a lawsuit, but for changing the law, through legislation. Let the voters decide, not the courts.

Michelle on July 14, 2011 at 10:23 am

Big Amy – true, polygamy has been around and recognized since at least the time of Abraham. It was usually polygyny, but polyandry is not unheard of.

This doesn’t make it right for everyone. However, if you believe the Bible, and that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were prophets of God, you have to admit that it CAN be right for SOME.

Again, I say that as long as all partners are fully aware, consenting adults, I have no problem with it. Only when it’s forced, under the age of consent, or done without full disclosure among all partners – then I think it’s heinous.

Unfortunately, according to Islamic law, forced, under the age of consent and done without full disclosure are all considered OK. This is wrong – a form of slavery – and must not be allowed in our country!

Michelle on July 14, 2011 at 10:31 am

Occam’s Tool – “Just because something is not Criminal does not mean that it should be encouraged.”

Absolutely! Just like we don’t encourage people to drink or smoke! Drinking and smoking are not criminal, but we don’t encourage it. We inform people of the issues involved, and let them decide for themselves. The vast majority choose well – avoiding smoking and drinking in moderation.

Keep the criminalizing for truly criminal acts, such as theft, murder, fraud, and the like. Otherwise, use social stigma to direct behavior that should not be encouraged.

Michelle on July 14, 2011 at 10:36 am

A1 – getting government out of marriage, and letting it be a purely private thing, between the partners and God (if they believe in God) is a good idea.

However, marriage IS a stabilizing influence on society. Long-term committed relationships lead to less chaos and crime, and thus they should be encouraged. By giving legal breaks, it encourages marriage.

If we get rid of legal marriages, and just let people choose their relationships for themselves, without legal recognition, then we as a society must find another way to encourage the stabilizing long-term relationships.

Bring back social stigma! Use it to encourage stabilizing behavior and discourage non-stabilizing behavior.

We look down on drunkards, but we don’t throw them in the penitentiary. Instead, we ridicule them, put them down, refuse to hire them until they get their act together. We warn our children not to get involved with them. This is social stigma.

We can expand the use of social stigma, the way we used to. And those who make the choices against that stigma will do so, knowing that it will be hard, but deciding that the thing they want is worth the price. If they’re willing to pay that price, then they have the right to their non-criminal behavior.

Michelle on July 14, 2011 at 10:47 am

Are you sure about the wife count? There are five women in the picture with the guy. Oops, sorry, I thought the one on the far right was actually two women, but after looking again real close I can now see it’s just one.

CornCoLeo on July 14, 2011 at 11:12 pm

Debbie, I know Turley (he was a law prof of mine & I volunteered for a prison program of his) and besides being a smart & witty guy who’s sincerely passionate about Constitutional law, Turley’s a really nice guy who is not at all a greedy, sleasebag-for-hire type, no way. He’s just been very blind, for very long, to matters that touch on Islam, Israel, and Christianity — a spiritual blindness, if you will. I see no sign of any improvement either.

Cindy on July 15, 2011 at 6:16 pm

pg 38

“http://jonathanturley.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/brown-complaint.pdf

—————————–

WAAAHH !  Dont you just hate it when Judeo-Christian views contradict those pesky child molesters and wife beaters!

Its an outrage I tell you!  Why cant we be more like Syria?

Beat children in school, shoot their parents, or better yet, be like the FLDS and rape the little girls and tell them they better comply because if not they and their family are going to hell.

Thankfully, the country I live in “contradicts” that kind of “deeply held moral belief” behavior.

Stamp on July 17, 2011 at 11:08 am