ernie1241

Glenn Beck wrote the Introduction to the 2009 edition of Skousen's book, The 5000 Year Leap. In addition, Beck's 2003 book, The Real America, recommended Skousen's writings. In addition, a recent Salon.com series of articles on Glenn Beck discussed his admiration for Skousen and his frequent repetition of Skousen's assertions. More than 700 people accessed my report on Cleon Skousen (based upon his FBI personnel file) after the Salon.com article included a link to it. So I am just trying to address the numerous critics who are accusing me of dishonesty or "cherry picking" data to "smear" Skousen.

I have been getting a lot of flack from admirers of former FBI Special Agent W. Cleon Skousen who are claiming that I probably am intellectually dishonest -- OR that I am inventing the statements which I attribute to senior FBI officials in FBI memos discussed in my Skousen report. So, this afternoon, I revised sections of my Skousen report to include actual scanned copies of several relevant FBI memos pertaining to Skousen. I copied the memos which: (1) establish that Skousen was NOT considered an authority on communism while he worked at the FBI (2) prove that Skousen was NOT "a top aide to J. Edgar Hoover" as he and his admirers claim and (3) establish that the FBI dismissed several of Skousen's assertions which he made in his 3/71 article entitled Home Grown Subversion --- and those assertions are also made in Skousen's book, The Naked Capitalist. You may see these scanned documents here: ernie1241 - DOCUMENTS OR within the text of my Skousen report here: ernie1241 - SKOUSEN..rev 09/18/09 This should prove, once and for all, that my critics are attempting to libel me because of their own ignorance and malice about this matter.

I think you are totally mistaken --- but time will tell. Again, is there any expiration date associated with your theory? If, for example, 10 years from now polygamy is STILL illegal in all 50 states -- would you be prepared THEN to acknowledge that your theory is wrong?

I am not "dodging" your point. I have explicitly and repeatedly, and with emphasis told you that there has been no "humanizing" of polygamists.

I don't know what you mean by the phrase "demonstrably socially harmless". My point is very narrow. It is simply that many arguments raised against legalizing same sex marriages are irrelevant or based upon falsehoods or highly suspect assumptions, for which there is no evidence. I think one of the problems here is that there is a natural human tendency to want our laws to reflect absolute no exceptions consistency. In other words, if we identify a basic operating principle, then it should be applied across the board --without exception. But that is NOT how the real world works. In the real world, we do our best to create rules (laws) that are just and fair for the greatest number of persons but we recognize that (1) we cannot anticipate every conceivable circumstance and (2) unanticipated issues or controversies may develop later which require re-visiting what we have done. In the real world, we don't start from the premise that we must find the absolutely PERFECT (and internally consistent) solution to every issue or problem that we confront before we are allowed to pass laws. Often, we take small incremental steps and we know that our initial steps are our best judgment about how to proceed at that moment in time. The "good" is NOT the enemy of the "perfect". QUOTE=Just_A_Guy;377860]As a follow-up, Ernie1241, I just put my finger on something else about your reasoning that troubles me. You seem to be arguing that polygamy will not follow gay marriage--not because it isn't morally right that it should, but because there will be no viable constituency that will be able to get polygamy legislation passed. Does this mean that it's morally and constitutionally right to prohibit a particular nontraditional relationship--even if demonstrably socially harmless--simply because the parties to that relationship lack the political clout to overturn the prohibition?

This is the "slippery slope" argument used by opponents of interracial marriage 50 years ago i.e. if we permit the "mongrelization" of society, Christian civilization will come to an end and the moral underpinnings of society will crumble.

"Small segment"?? That was the prevailing attitude in our entire country where it was illegal. And the most virulent opposition to de-segregation and interracial relationships was based upon the alleged "biblical" justifications cited by anti-"mongrelization" clergymen who spoke for millions of Americans -- just as is the case now with respect to same sex marriages.

Well, I certainly disagree with your interpretation. I think that 20 or 30 years from now, postgraduates will write their master's theses and doctoral dissertations to explain the history of same sex marriage debate and those narratives will be read by new generations of Americans as time-machine journeys into a quaint past that will be incomprehensible to most people --- much as our current generation reads about the history of the interracial marriage and desegregation controversies of 50 years ago and then scratches their head and wonders what the fuss was all about. To illustrate my point, here are excerpts from a speech made by the Governor of Georgia, Marvin Griffin, in May 1956. Please notice the comparable doom-and-gloom premises and conclusions which are used today about same-sex marriages. “Let me say to you tonight as we counsel together, do not be concerned by what is said by the Communists, the pinkos, the radicals, the NAACP, the ADA, the one-worlders and all that motley group of crackpots who are clamoring for desegregation and mongrelization. These groups of organized minorities are chanting a chorus that opposition to the fraudulent order of the Supreme Court is defiance of law. Of course, that is not true. The decision of May 17, 1954 is not law. It is an attempt to make law where none existed before by a non law-making body.” … “You may take the map of the world today and look at all of the countries. Wherever you find a country that is populated by a black race, a colored race, or a mongrel race, the Christian religion has not been able to survive…I say without fear of contradiction, that the white race is the only race of people in history who have been able to perpetuate the Christian religion. Mongrelization of our people here in America will follow integration of the races in school and on the social level. When mongrelization of the races occurs---and God grant that it never will occur---it will bring with it the destruction of the Christian religion.” … “There are obvious and well-known differences between whites and blacks which no amount of glossing-over and covering up by subversive so-called anthropologists and pseudo-scientists can hide…There are many reasons why the white people object to their children having this close association with nigger children. Among them are: health; the Nigra’s high crime rate and disrespect for law; the lower mentality level; and the high rate of illegitimacy among Nigras.” … “I would like to, for just a moment, if you please, tell you very briefly what we are attempting to do in our State of Georgia. First, in Georgia, the Constitution and the laws of our state prevent the expenditure of state tax funds for the operation of mixed schools. Also, our General Assembly will never appropriate one dime for mixed schools. And let me say to you definitely and unequivocally, Georgia will have separate public schools or no public schools.” .

NOT "latent" --- EXPLICIT and codified into law.

Well, let me say this. If you are correct, and I am wrong, and the courts accept a test case regarding polygamy and they rule in favor of such relationships, then almost certainly there will be a huge outcry across the political spectrum and, as has happened in the past, the Congress will then expedite legislation to rescind the court decision and continue to make polygamy illegal in all 50 states. The reason I am so confident about this is because of the general political environment in our country. There simply is no interest or desire to legalize polygamy anymore than there is any desire to legalize marriage between humans and animals or between grandparent/grandchild or brother/sister. Yes, our courts are an independent branch of government --- but they are not oblivious to public sentiment or the status of prevailing law in all 50 states. In order for the U.S. Supreme Court to legalize polygamy, there would have to be a minimum 5-4 majority on the court. Those folks would have to be persuaded by some extraordinary argument that polygamy is a wholesome practice not subject to existing state laws. Again---there is no conceivable circumstance that I can think of which would persuade 5 of the current Justices (or any likely subsequent Justices) to rule the way you think they might.

Prison Chaplain: Please let me ask you a question. Suppose, for sake of argument, that gay marriages ARE legalized nation-wide through (as you think) "the courts" within, say, the next 5 years (i.e. by 2014). I'd appreciate learning from you what specific adverse consequences you anticipate will occur within our society during the subsequent 10-20 years as a result of legalization of gay marriage by 2014.

My comments appear underneath yours. However, by way of preface, I think you are conflating two situations which have similar aspects -- but you are declaring them to be the same -- when they are not. Quote: Originally Posted by ernie1241 In my experience, the persons who are most adamantly opposed to gay marriage are persons who have NEVER had any (or just minimal) personal contact with gay men or lesbians or bisexuals. Consequently, their impressions are formed almost exclusively from secondary sources some of which are highly inflammatory. Ditto regarding polygamy. NO! Not "ditto". Whereas negative public perceptions of gays have dramatically changed particularly over the past 10-15 years, I don't think the negative perceptions about polygamy have changed one iota. Whereas the gay community has both national and state organizations (and publications) which advocate on behalf of gay interests --- and politicians of both parties actively solicit gay support, attend gay functions, and endorse gay-friendly legislative proposals, there is no remotely comparable situation with respect to the polygamists. If anything, the exact opposite is the case. Whereas many anti-gay practices, laws, and stereotypes have been discarded, the general public perception of polygamy and polygamists is still highly pejorative. Polygamy is still illegal in all 50 states and, I repeat, there is no appetite anywhere within our society for changing those laws. You may recall the incident in 2008 in Texas where state officials took action against a fundamentalist Mormon church near Eldorado. The subsequent publicity was highly prejudicial to the polygamist community because of publicity regarding under aged girls being forced into polygamous marriages with older men. In July 2008 the Senate Judiciary Committee conducted hearings regarding "Crimes Associated with Polygamy: The Need for a Coordinated State and Federal Response." Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid testified on July 24th that there were parallels between organized crime and modern polygamists Here are excerpts from his testimony: "I felt that this was essential that I be here. The lawless conduct of polygamist communities in the United States deserves national attention and federal action. This hearing is an important milestone in the ongoing effort to curtail their pervasive criminal behavior." He said the polygamist groups are: "A form of organized crime. ... I'm not saying they're the same thing as the crime syndicates that were in Las Vegas, but they engage in an ongoing pattern of serious crime that we ignore at our peril. ... " According to Reid, among the crimes involved were: bigamy, and child abuse -- including the forced marriage of teens and pre-teens to older men -- welfare fraud, tax evasion and other "strong-arm tactics," such as witness intimidation. He said that: "These crimes are systematic, sophisticated and are frequently carried out across state lines. ... These lawless organizations must be stopped." Reid concluded that polygamists represent a... "sophisticated, wealthy and vast criminal organization. ... The lawless conduct of polygamous communities in the United States deserves national attention and federal action." If THAT is the attitude of the Senate Majority Leader and one of the most liberal members of the U.S. Senate --- then from what conceivable source will polygamists find the kind of support necessary for them to change American attitudes and law? Quote: . . . Then --- more and more prominent Americans from all walks of life started coming out of their closet. The cumulative effect of all this (IMHO) has been to humanize the entire question of commitment between two people of the same sex. How many well-respected personalities in politics, industry, show biz, ad nauseum engaged in "practical polygamy" by having mistresses concurrently with spouses? Quote: HOWEVER, there is NOTHING comparable with respect to polygamy. Most of the news stories that have reported on polygamous relationships usually reveal very derogatory data about the people involved -- including allegations of coercion, intimidation, and brainwashing. As did most stories regarding homosexuality, up until a few decades ago. Another example where you wrongly conflate similar into same. Media reports about homosexuality and homosexuals were frequently the result of moral objections by people who never had any personal contact with someone who was gay -- and often their objections were based upon personal prejudice and irrational fear or even outright hatred. Similarly, if you review the history of media coverage of interracial relationships and interracial marriage --- much of that reporting was based upon ignorance and fear and prejudice and stereotypes which many prominent U.S. politicians pandered to. With respect to homosexuals, there was no reasonable basis to connect them with coercion, intimidation, and brainwashing -- particularly in relation to children. Irrational fears were exploited successfully because demonization is always easier to accomplish when you have no personal knowledge of, or contact with, the targeted group. Quote: Furthermore, there has been no "humanizing" aspect to polygamy. No prominent, respected individuals (clergy, politicians, actors, entertainers, sports figures, businesspersons) have come forward to advocate or condone polygamy and there absolutely is no reason to believe that ANYTHING will change that situation. By your own admission--nor had there been for gays, when Loving came out. As I previously stated, there always has been a sub-rosa support network within the straight community for gays, lesbians and bisexuals. That support network included numerous famous people in all walks of life -- although it may not have been publicized. Perhaps even more significantly, that support network was populated by individuals who represented many different political strains within our society: conservatives, libertarians, liberals, and moderates. Consequently, it included such varied personalities as Ronald Reagan, Elizabeth Taylor, Liza Minelli, Sen. Barry Goldwater and, now, Dick Cheney. Furthermore, unlike the situation with respect to polygamists, many prominent, respected, and accomplished gay and bisexual people in U.S. and world history have been greatly admired (even though their true sexuality was not always public knowledge). There simply is nothing even remotely comparable to this situation with respect to polygamists. For example: FILM/TV: Sir John Gielgud, Sir Alec Guiness, Charles Laughton, Rock Hudson, Raymond Burr, Anthony Perkins, Richard Chamberlain, Sal Mineo, Montgomery Clift, Rupert Everett, Neil Patrick Harris, Tab Hunter, Sir Ian McKellen, Rosie O'Donnell, Ellen Degeneres, Suze Orman, Anderson Cooper, David Hyde Pierce, George Cukor, Janet Gaynor, Will Geer, David Geffen, Roddy McDowall, Agnes Moorhead, Franco Zeffirelli, Marlene Dietrich WRITERS/POETS/PLAYWRIGHTS: Thornton Wilder, James Baldwin, Tennessee Williams, John Cheever, Noel Coward, Walt Whitman, Gertrude Stein, Herman Melville, Amy Lowell, E.M. Forster, Edna Ferber, Hans Christian Andersen, Truman Capote, Sir Arthur C Clarke, Amy Lowell, Gore Vidal, POLITICIANS: Need I even list any of them? -- including prominent conservative Republicans? SCIENCE: George Washington Carver, Margaret Mead, Alan M Turing COMPOSERS/LYRICISTS: Harold Arlen, Leonard Bernstein, Aaron Copland, Cole Porter, Jerry Herman, Lionel Bart, Benjamin Britten, Stephen C. Foster, Maurice Revel, Stephen Sondheim FASHION: Gianni Versace, Perry Ellis, Halston, Yves St Laurent, Bill Blass ECONOMICS: John Maynard Keynes MUSIC: Barry Manilow, George Gershwin, Michael Bennett (choreographer), Liberace, Lily Tomlin, Johnny Mathis, Elton John, Melissa Etheridge, Adam Lambert (this year's American Idol runner-up), Clay Aiken, Nathan, George Michael, Joan Baez, K.D. Lang, Little Richard, Tracy Chapman, Lorenz Hart, Vladimir Horowitz, Janis Joplin SPORTS: David Kopay, Greg Louganis, Martina Navratilova, Billy Jean King, Glenn Burke, Brian Orser MILITARY: Col. T. E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia), Alexander the Great, Frederick the Great (Prussia) ARTISTS: Michelangelo, Leonardo Da Vinci, Salvador Dali MISC OTHERS: Siegfried and Roy GAYS FROM FAMOUS FAMILIES: Candace Gingrich (yes Newt's sister), Chastity Bono (Cher's daughter), Cheryl Crane (Lana Turner's daughter), Betsy Brooks (Garth Brook's sister), Ty Ross (Barry Goldwater's grandson), John Schlafly (son of Phyllis), Mary Cheney (VP Dick Cheney's daughter), Jason Gould (Barbara Streisand's son) Quote: By contrast, once again, the argument could be made with respect to same-sex relationships that they preserve or mimic the already existing template, i.e. a long-term commitment between 2 people. But long-term polygamous marriages have existed continuously for millennia, whereas long-term gay relationships have not. Which type of relationship is the real interloper to the definition of "marriage"? Frankly, your comment is quite ignorant (sorry -- I don't mean to be offensive). Long-term gay and bisexual relationships may have been hidden -- but they were not non-existent. Quote: Polygamy, however, I think would require a radical re-orientation that few people, if anyone, will support. In particular, "talking heads", pundits, and legal scholars don't seem to have any appetite for defending or recommending polygamy and there is no reason to believe that any court test would be successful. Again, you seem to be channeling the majority view circa 1967. No---see, for example, the comments I quoted by Sen. Majority Leader Reid above. If polygamists cannot count on the support of liberal politicians---then precisely whom can they count on? Certainly not conservatives!! .

Normally, that is exactly what I do Pam --- but the color drop down box did not operate the last time I attempted to use it. However, this morning it does work -- so I can use it (hopefully) in the future.

Sorry -- just had problems distinguishing my comments from Prisonchaplains. For some reason (perhaps because of the browser I use) I cannot create the neat individual quote boxes that you guys can so replies can be entered underneath them.

GOOD POINT -- BUT THE 'MILLENIA OF HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL PRECEDENT" DID NOT OCCUR IN THE UNITED STATES. IN ADDITION, ALL SOCIAL CHANGE SEEMS TO COME ABOUT THROUGH SLOW PROCESSES WHICH INVOLVE THE HUMANIZATION OF THE PARTICIPANTS AND THEIR SITUATION. IN OTHER WORDS, FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD, AN EMPATHY IS CREATED WHERE SKEPTICS AND CRITICS GRADUALLY ARE WON OVER TO THE NEW PROPOSALS -- SUCH AS LEGALIZATION OF INTER-RACIAL MARRIAGES. I JUST DON'T SEE ANY INTEREST OF ANY KIND WHATSOEVER IN AFFIRMING POLYGAMY AS SOME 'INHERENT RIGHT". BY CONTRAST, THERE ALWAYS HAS BEEN A MOVEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES (ALBEIT OFTEN QUIET) WHICH SOUGHT TO DE-CRIMINALIZE GAY BEHAVIOR, FURTHERMORE, THERE ALWAYS HAVE BEEN POCKETS OF SYMPATHY AND CONCERN FOR EQUAL STATUS FOR GAY, LESBIAN AND BISEXUAL INDIVIDUALS WITHIN STRAIGHT SOCIETY -- PARTICULARLY, FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE MOVIE AND ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRIES -- WHICH, DISPROPORTIONATELY, WERE POPULATED BY INDIVIDUALS KNOWN (OR SUSPECTED TO BE) GAY. LET ME MAKE THE POINT IN A DIFFERENT WAY: NANCY AND RONALD REAGAN HAD MANY MANY GAY FRIENDS AS FAR BACK AS THE 1950's AND 1960's. FOR EXAMPLE: THEY BOTH KNEW THAT JOHNNY MATHIS WAS GAY -- AND THEY DIDN'T CARE. THEY FREQUENTLY INVITED MATHIS TO THEIR HOME OR THEY ATTENDED HIS CONCERTS. DOES ANYONE READING THIS MESSAGE THINK THAT THE REAGAN's (OR ANY OTHER CONSERVATIVE POLITICAL FIGURES) WOULD EVER ASSOCIATE THEMSELVES WITH AND BEFRIEND KNOWN POLYGAMISTS? IF NOT -- WHY NOT? WHAT IS THE SUBSTANTIVE DIFFERENCE THAT EXPLAINS WHY THEY WOULD REJECT A POLYGAMIST BUT EMBRACE A GAY MAN?