THE PRACTICE OF POLYGYNY IN AN HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT

(CALIFORNIA, FOR EXAMPLE)

COPYRIGHT (c) 1997, 2002, 2009 BY L. TYLER

P.O.Box 620763
San Diego, CA92162-0763
oldservant8@aol.com
Jabez1Chr4@hotmail.com
elkanahtyler@gmail.com
kiieli@yahoo.com

This file may be copied and distributed publicly if it is not changed.

PART ONE OF FOUR

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
#1. A legal polygynous covenant for a polygynous union event.
#2. An introduction to the laws and legal principles applicable to
polygyny.
#3 Federal law and the practice of polygyny.
#4. California law and the practice of polygyny.
#5. The Biblical basis for diligent discretion in polygyny
#6.More legal polygynous wedding covenants/contracts

#1.AN AFFIRMATION AND COVENANT OF INTIMATE UNION FOR LIFE

*********HIS PART*****************
I,_________________, accept _______
as my own woman, before God and the angelic
witnesses here present. I do solemnly affirm,
declare and accept my responsibility before God to __________ as my
own woman, in all
honor and love, in all service and duty, in all faith and tenderness, to
live with, comfort, keep, unselfishly and compassionately cherish
_____,according to the ordinance of Jesus Christ in the holy bond of our
union before God. I accept the ordinance ofKing Jesus that indicates
that any heterosexual intimacy of ours is to be experienced only
within the holy bond of our union and according to His Word. I do
solemnly affirm, declare and accept my responsibility in our union to
be _________'s loving and faithful intimate partner, to love and to
unselfishly cherish her in plenty and in want, in joy
and grief, in health and infirmity as long as we both shall live. I hereby
leave and separate myself and my allegiance from my parents and
family to loyally bond with ________ as one in our intimate union,
submitting to each other according to the Word of God in the reverence
of God. I commit myself to her with all of my heart, to live wisely with
her; not domineering or
tyrannizing her but repectfully, unselfishly
cherishing her, feeding her the Word, holding her up in prayer, taking
care of her and humbly leading her by my example, by the grace and
enabling of Jesus Christ.

**************HER PART**********

I,_____________, accept _______________

as my own intimate partner for life, before God and the angelic
witnesses here present. I do solemnly affirm, declare and accept my
solemn responsibility in our union to ____ as my own intimate partner,
in all honor and love, in all service and duty, in all
faith and tenderness, to live with, comfort, keep, unselfishly and
compassionately cherish _____, according to the ordinance of Jesus
Christ in the holy bond of this our covenanted and intimate union. I
accept the ordinance of King Jesus that indicates that any heterosexual
intimacy or ours is to be
experienced only within the holy bond of our
intimate and covenanted union and according to His Word. I do
solemnly affirm, declare and accept my solemn responsibility in our
union to be ______'s loving and faithful marital partner, to love and to
unselfishly cherish him in plenty and in want, in joy and grief, in health
and infirmity as long as we both shall live. I hereby leave and separate
myself and my allegiance from my parents and
family to loyally bond with ________ as one in
our intimate union, submitting to each other
according to the Word of God in the reverence
of God. I commit myself to him with all of my
heart, to live wisely with him to follow his lead in the Lord, showing him
honor and respect in all matters.

************(in unison) ************

We covenant before God and all present, that we are intimate partners
for life, bound together in our solemn and intimate union to be one
flesh in the Lord until death part us. We covenant before God and His
angels that it is our solemn and lifelong responsibility to unselfishly
and compassionately cherish each other in our intimate union
according to His Word, the Holy Bible, and to His glory and honor. Pray
for us.
_________________________
The Couple's Signatures and Date
Witnessed by God and His holy angels.
or he writes out his part to her and she writes out her part to him and
sign them.
#2. INTRODUCTION OF THE LAWS AGAINST POLYGYNY

Bigamy is the "criminal offense of willfully and knowingly contracting a

second marriage (or going through the form of a second marriage)
while the first marriage, to the knowledge of the offender, is still
subsisting and undissolved.">a Bigamy is the "state of a man who has
two wives, or of a woman who has two husbands living at the same
time.">a

"A married person is guilty of bigamy, a misdemeanor, if he contracts

or purports to contract another marriage, unless at the time of the
subsequent marriage . . . . . the actor reasonably believes that he is
legally eligible to remarry." Model Penal Code #230.1 >a [>a Deluxe
Black's Law Dictionary, p. 163, West Publishing Co. St. Paul, MN]

Polygamy: "A person is guilty of polygamy, a felony of the third

degree, if he marries or cohabits with more than one spouse at a time
in purported exercise of the right of plural marriage. The offense is a
continuing one until all cohabitation and claim of marriage with more
than one spouse terminates. This section does not apply to parties to
a polygamous marriage, lawful in the country of which they are
residents or nationals, while they are in transit through or temporarily
visiting this state." Model Penal Code #230.1>b [>b Deluxe Black's
Law Dictionary, p. 1159, West Publishing Co. St.
Paul, MN]

The sticky issue in the WEST/OCCIDENT is that "a married person is

guilty of bigamy, a misdemeanor,"
a) if he SIGNIFIES that he is contracting another marriage while he is
still married to another.
b) if he IMPLIES that he is contracting another marriage while he is still
married
c) if he CLAIMS OR PROFESSES to be contracting another marriage
while still married
d) if he engages in a wedding/marriage given in other than the exact
words.

In the WEST/OCCIDENT, "person is guilty of polygamy, a felony of the

third degree , if he marries . . . more than one spouse at a time"
a) SIGNIFYING that is exercising the right of plural marriage.
b) IMPLYING that he is exercising the right of plural marriage.
c) CLAIMING/PROFESSING to be exercising the right of plural marriage.
d) engaging in the exercise of the right of plural marriage using other
than the exact words of marriage or of a wedding.
In the WEST/OCCIDENT, A "person is guilty of polygamy, a felony of the
third degree , if he . . . cohabits with more than one spouse at a time"
a) SIGNIFYING that is exercising the right of plural marriage.
b) IMPLYING that he is exercising the right of plural marriage.
c) CLAIMING/PROFESSING to be exercising the right of plural marriage.
d) engaging in the exercise of the right of plural marriage using other
than the exact words of marriage or of a wedding.

I understand these provisions to mean that anyone who wants to

practice polygyny in the WEST/OCCIDENT must not publicly, or in
writing,
a) SIGNIFY that he/she is contracting another marriage while still
married to another.
b) IMPLY that he/she is contracting another marriage while still married
c) CLAIM/PROFESS to be contracting another marriage while still
married
d) engage in a "wedding/marriage" given in other than the exact words
(see the alternatives to the use of loaded words like
"wedding/marriage" in union celebrations or union ceremonies)
e) SIGNIFY that he/she is exercising "the right of plural marriage."
f) IMPLY that he/she is exercising "the right of plural marriage."
g) CLAIM/PROFESS to be exercising "the right of plural marriage."
h) engage in the exercise of "the right of plural marriage" using other
than the exact words of "marriage" or of a "wedding". (There must be
no claim to the right of plural marriage in the union celebration, no
claim to the right to exercise plural marriage in the union celebration,
no use of synonyms for "marriage" [matrimony, wedlock, etc.] or for
"wedding" [marriage, nuptials etc.]).
i) cohabit with more than one spouse at a time, SIGNIFYING that he/she
is exercising the right of plural marriage.
j) cohabit with more than one spouse at a time, IMPLYING that he is
exercising the right of plural marriage.
k) cohabit with more than one spouse at a time,
CLAIMING/PROFESSING to be exercising the right of plural marriage.
l) cohabit with more than one spouse at a time, engaging in the
exercise of the right of plural marriage using other than the exact
words of marriage or of wedding for the relationship or event. (There
must be no claim to the right of plural marriage in the cohabitation, no
claim to the right to exercise plural marriage in the cohabitation, no
use of synonyms for "marriage" [matrimony, wedlock, etc.] or for
"wedding" [marriage, nuptials etc.] in the cohabitation.)

"The showing of minimal numbers of prosecutions does not establish

an abandonment of the State's laws or an irrational revival of them
here. . . . . Mere failure to prosecute other offenders is no basis for a
finding of denial of equal protection." (See U.S. v. Salazar, 1983. P.
107) The courts follow the waves and tides of society. Right now it is
neither important , popular or cost efficient to prosecute bigamy/
polygyny cases now. The tide can turn at any time. If you believe in
the cycles of our culture as I do, you now how well the cultural tide can
turn. Consider the following:
1700- 1730, 1800 - 1830 and 1900- 1930 were times of majority rule
and the minorities be damned. If you were a woman or a minority,
watch out and step back. It was a time of heavy handed rule by the
majority for the majority. Many of the majority indulged themselves
excessively and at the expense of the minorities. It was a cultural
Catholic and WASP world, a time of ghettos for the minorities, who
were thankful when the majority left them alone or ignored them.
THE PENDULUM HAD SWUNG TO FAR CONSERVATIVE SIDE.

1730 -1750, 1830 -1850 and 1930 - 1950 were periods when the
government faced a series of crises that kept it from dealing with
major wrongs in society. The government was doing well if it could just
keep the lid on the pot of society. It was not a time of minority rights
because women, Jews, minority races and ethnic minorities essentially
had no government recognized rights other than those for all in the
Constitution, but their rights were ignored in "benign neglect". The
government was too busy coping with wars, collapsing economies and
a struggle to keep the country unified.

1750 - 1770, 1850-1870 and 1950-1970 were periods of great social

turmoil and dramatic cultural crises resulting in legislated reforms and
moves towards democratic goals.
THE PENDULUM HAD SWUNG TO THE LIBERAL SIDE.

1770 - 1790, 1870 - 1890 and 1970 - 1990 were periods of general
malaise and disillusionment with the reforms and democratic advances
of the '50's - '70's. The dreams died and many of the new and more
democratic laws suffered from "benign" neglect. An erosion of
personal liberties began, but things didn't become as bad as they were
before the reforms. The people turn inward, more preoccupied with
themselves and their issues than the culture's issues. They werere
burnt out and tired of cultural reforms and movements.

1790 - 1810, 1890 - 1910 and 1990 -2010, if the cycle continues to
hold true, the rights of minorities will almost be totally neglected by an
exhausted and self-centered population AND THE PENDULUM WILL
SWING TO THE HARD CONSERVATIVE SIDE. The individual will
have to survive the best he can in a cold and uncaring world---unless
China or Russia ignite World War III and the great war of Revelations
Six ushers in the Tribulation, with scenario #1, one third of the world's
population dying within a month of the outbreak of The War; or
scenario #2, one third of the midEast's population dying within one
month of such a war.

Whatever the scenario, we who believe in polygyny, and especially

those who practice it need to think defensively and think survival in a
world that grows colder, harder, more insensitive and more evil day by
passing day. If I were practicing polygyny, especially if I were raising
children in polygyny, I would take every precaution, every defensive
measure and exercise every discretion to protect my loved ones and
my home from the packs of wolves and hyenas that are out there
waiting for us to make an unnecessary mistake that would expose and
our loved ones to their fangs, to the great pain and loss of our loved
ones. We must be wiser than serpents and foxes, yet harmless as
doves and sheep, remembering how easy doves and sheep die. Thank
God that we are doves and sheep indwelled and shepherded by the
Lord Jesus Christ, the thankful possessors of eternal life and the hope
of living eternally with the God who is Unselfish and Compassionate
Cherishing, Truth, Light, Life and the Way.

#3. FEDERAL LAW AND THE PRACTICE OF POLYGYNY

Federal Law (Federal Reporter, 2d Series, #760, pp. 1065-1071):"Utah

was justified, by compelling interest, in upholding and enforcing ban on
plural marriage to protect monogamous marriage relationships."
(U.S.C.A. Const. Amends 1,14)

In Reynolds v. U.S., 98 US (8 otto) 145, 25, L.ED. 244 (1878; p. 1068),

"the Supreme Court affirmed a criminal conviction of a Mormon for
practicing polygamy, and rejected the argument that Congress'
prohibition of polygamy violated the defendant's right to the free
exercise of religion."
Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878) - Court finds that the
federal law prohibiting polygamy, which was challenged by a Mormon
defendant, to be constitutional. Polygamy was outlawed. In the 1972
Yoder case, "The Supreme Court has recognized the continued validity
of [the] REYNOLDS [case]."
“Reynolds v. United States was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in
1879. . . . . (98 U.S. [1879]). The Reynolds decision distinguished
between religious opinions and religious practices, leaving the former
free while allowing for government regulation of the latter (see Civil
Rights; Legal and Judicial History of the Church).”

The Edmunds-Tucker ANTI-POLYGAMY ) Act of 1887 makes illegal in

every Territory of the U. S. the act of polygamy. That law is still in
force. It was passed by both houses of congress by a majority
vote..”the Edmunds law of 1882 was passed - which made unlawful
cohabitation a crime.” It established legal precedent for the illegality of
polygamy. “In 1882 Congress passed the Edmunds Act, which was
actually a series of amendments to the Morrill Act. It restated that
polygamy was a felony punishable by five years of imprisonment and a
$500 fine. Unlawful cohabitation, which was easier to establish
because the prosecution had to prove only that the couple had lived
together rather than that a marriage ceremony had taken place,
remained a misdemeanor punishable by six months imprisonment and
a $300 fine. . . . Because the Edmunds Act was unsuccessful in
controlling polygamy in Utah, in 1884 Congress debated legislation to
plug the loopholes. Finally, in 1887, the "hodge-podge" Edmunds-
Tucker Bill passed. It required plural wives to testify against their
husbands, . . “
[http://historytogo.utah.gov/historyofpolygamy.html]

1890 P / B U.S. Davis v Beason, 133 U.S. 333 Basically part of

the overall Mormon cases Bigamy polygamy cases followed the
Reynolds reasoning i.e., civil law. (cited 5 times in The Myth of
Separation)
“U.S. Supreme Court
DAVIS v. BEASON, 133 U.S. 333 (1890)
133 U.S. 333
DAVIS v. BEASON, Sheriff.
February 3, 1890
“Mr. Justice FIELD, after stating the facts as above, delivered the
opinion of the court.
SNIP
“Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and
Christian countries. They are crimes by the laws of the United States,
and they are crimes by the laws of Idaho. . . . To call their [133 U.S.
333, 342] advocacy a tenet of religion is to offend the common sense
of mankind. If they are crimes, then to teach, advise, and counsel their
practice is to aid in their commission, and such teaching and
counseling are themselves criminal, and proper subjects of
punishment, as aiding and abetting crime are in all other cases.
SNIP
“However free the exercise of religion may [133 U.S. 333, 343] be, it
must be subordinate to the criminal laws of the country, passed with
reference to actions regarded by general consent as properly the
subjects of punitive legislantion.
SNIP
“ . . . So here, as a law of the organization of society under the
exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural
marriages shall not be allowed. . . . “

Cleveland v. United States, 329 U.S. 14 (1946) - Court rules that

transporting a woman across state lines to enter into a plural marriage,
even if motivated by a religious belief is illegal.

U.S. Supreme Court

MUSSER V. UTAH , 333 U.S. 95 (1948)

333 U.S. 95
MUSSER et al.
v.
STATE OF UTAH.
No. 60.
Reargued Jan. 5, 1948.
Decided Feb. 9, 1948.
“ The crucial question, which the case was brought to this Court to
review, is [333 U.S. 95 , 99] whether the state supreme court has
construed the Utah statute to authorize punishment for exercising the
right of free speech protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments
to the Federal Constitution. . . .
the charge was not restricted to a claim that appellants had conspired
to urge particular violations of the law. Instead, the information as
construed by the state court broadly condemned the conspiracy to
advocate and urge the practice of polygamy.
. . . The Utah statute was construed to proscribe any agreement to
advocate the practice of polygamy. . . . The Constitution requires that
the statute be limited more narrowly. At the very least the line must be
drawn between advocacy and incitement, and even the state's power
to punish incitement may vary with the nature of the speech, whether
persuasive or coercive, the nature of the wrong induced, whether
violent or merely offensive to the mores, and the degree of probability
that the substantive evil actually will result. See Bridges v. California,
314 U.S. 252 , 262, 263, 193, 194, 159 A.L.R. 1346. . . . But the other
extreme position, that the state may prevent any conduct which
induces people to violate the law, or any advocacy of unlawful activity,
cannot be squared with the First Amendment.”
[ Footnote 8 ] 'But even advocacy of violation, however reprehensible
morally, is not a justification for denying free speech where the
advocacy falls short of incitement and there is nothing to indicate that
the advocacy would be immediately acted on.' Mr. Justice Brandeis,
concurring in Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 at 376 at page 648.
[http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=333&in
vol=95]

In YODER (p.1069), the court cited REYNOLDS in support of the

proposition that it "is true that activities of individual's, even when
religiously based, are often subject to regulation by the states in the
exercise of this undoubted power to promote the .. . . . general
welfare, or the Federal Government in the exercise of its delegated
powers." The Reynolds case against polygyny/bigamy was reaffirmed
in 1983 (Bob Jones Univ. v. U.S.).

>>The Court has already made up its mind that, in the USA, you may
not practice polygyny as a right in the free exercise of your religion.
"Since Yoder [1972], the Court has said that statutes "making bigamy a
crime surely cut into an individual's freedom to associate, but few
today seriously claim such statutes violate the First Amendment or any
Constitutional provision." YODER p. 1069

In 1978, the Steward and J. & Powell decisions concurred in the

judgment that the "state may legitimately say that no one who has a
living husband or wife can marry. . . . the state has the undeniable
interest in insuring that its rules of domestic relations reflect widely
held values of its people. . . . . " YODER p. 1069 Majority rule, or
majority sentiment or majority values RULE and we all know how the
majority feels (especially the majority of women) about bigamy and
polygyny. Give this rule of law, it is futile to attempt to get the
Supreme Court, or any state, to change its provision. Bigamists and
polygynists are the minority, and neither a recognized nor a protected
minority. We must live our lives wisely in an hostile environment, and
not expect or ask for society's help or recognition.

"After Reynolds, though before Yoder, the Supreme Court upheld Mann
Act convictions for transporting at least one plural wife across state
lines either to cohabit with her or to aid another person in such a
project, despite a challenge based on the Free Exercise Clause." (See
Cleveland vs. U.S., 3294514, in 1946). p. 1070

In State v. Barlow (107 Utah 292-1944), "The Utah Supreme Court

rejected the defendant's free exercise challenge and affirmed their
convictions for cohabitating with more than one person of the opposite
sex." The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the defendant's appeal of the
Utah Supreme Court decision. p. 1070
"We find no authority for extending the Constitutional right to privacy
so far that it would protect polygamous marriages. We decline to do
so." 1985, see Roe v. Wade. p. 1070

>>>In such a state or where ever there exits a law against cohabiting
with more than one person of the opposite sex, wisdom would decree
that each wife would have to have her own studio/cottage/cabin
following the African polygyny model where the husband would make
the rounds visiting his wives dwelling in a fair and equitable manner to
fulfill his "duty of marriage" with each. With today's economy and
prices two female mates (of their own man) might go together and live
in a one bedroom or studio apartment. All could still come together in
one place for meals, fellowship, prayer and fun without violating the
laws against cohabiting with more than one woman. Again, I believe
all the taboo words must be religiously and conscientiously avoided
(wife, husband, marriage, wedding, spouse etc.) in such a hostile
environment.

The "Constitutional right of privacy prevents the state from

criminalizing the non-prostitutional heterosexual activities of two
unmarried consenting adults when such activities occur in privacy of
home." Duling, 603 F. Supp. 960 (E.D. Va 1985). p. 1071 It behooves
American polygynists that are legally married to be legally UNMARRIED
AND CONSENTING with any other covenanted sexual partners they
may have, exercising their polygyny in the privacy of their home,
sexually, verbally and editorially.

“To the extent, if any, that this opinion permits the imposition of
adverse consequences upon mere abstract advocacy of polygamy, it
has of course been overruled by later cases. See Brandenburg v. Ohio,
395 U. S. 444 (1969) (per curiam). But the proposition that polygamy
can be criminalized, and those engaging in that crime deprived of the
vote, remains good law. See Richardson v. Ramirez, 418 U. S. 24, 53
(1974). . . . Modern laws framed to protect homosexuals from
discrimination are fundamentally at odds in principal and precedent
with existing laws enacted in the previous century discriminating
against polygamists. Using Justice Scalia's word, laws that discriminate
against polygamists on the basis of their belief in and practice of
polygamy seem to be "unconstitutional" when compared to recent
Supreme Court rulings. ” [Supreme Court Of The United States
No. 94-1039
Roy Romer, Governor Of Colorado, ET AL., Petitioners
v. Richard G. Evans ET AL.
On Writ Of Certiorari To The Supreme Court Of ColoradoThe
"Constitutional right of privacy prevents the state from criminalizing
the non-prostitutional heterosexual activities of two
unmarried consenting adults when such activities occur in privacy of
home." Duling, 603 F. Supp. 960 (E.D. Va 1985). p. 1071
It behooves American polygynists that are legally married to be legally
UNMARRIED AND CONSENTING with any other covenanted sexual
partners they may have, exercising their polygyny in the privacy of
their home, sexually, verbally and editorially. In the kingom of people,
legally, to the public and for the public record the Biblically polygynous
must appear to be non-prostitutional, heterosexual, unmarried,
consenting and adults. In the Kingdom of God they must be married,
but the Kingdom of God does not require a public, legal or state
acknowledged wedding/marriage.

As to conspiring or inciting to commit the "crime" of polygyny:

Musser v. Utah 333 US 95 (1947)
Decision of the Court: The defendants of this case were accused of
committing acts which amount to conspiring to counsel, advise and
practice plural marriage.

"IF IT WERE TRUE THAT NONE OF THE DEFENDANTS DID ANYTHING

OTHER THAN TO ATTEND MEETINGS AS INDICATED ABOVE (SEE NOTE 3
SUPRA), EXPRESSING DISAGREEMENT WITH SOME OTHER
DENOMINATION, CRITICIZING LEGISLATION, AND GIVING OPINIONS ON
RELIGIOUS SUBJECTS, NONE OF THE CONVICTIONS COULD BE
UPHELD. THE RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH CANNOT BE CURTAILED BY
INDIRECTION THROUGH A CHARGE OF CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY." 110
UTAH 533, 552, 175 P.2D 724, 734.

HOWEVER THE COURT HELD "THAT AN AGREEMENT TO ADVOCATE,

TEACH, COUNSEL, ADVISE AND URGE OTHER PERSONS TO PRACTICE
POLYGAMY AND UNLAWFUL COHABITATION, IS AN AGREEMENT TO
COMMIT ACTS INJURIOUS TO PUBLIC MORALS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF
THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE." 110 UTAH 533, 546-547,

So AN AGREEMENT TO ADVOCATE, TEACH, COUNSEL, ADVISE AND

URGE OTHER PERSONS TO PRACTICE the non-prostitutional,
heterosexual COHABITATION of two unmarried and consenting adults is
NOT A CRIME. AN AGREEMENT TO ADVOCATE, TEACH, COUNSEL,
ADVISE AND URGE OTHER PERSONS TO PRACTICE the non-
prostitutional, heterosexual COHABITATION of MORE THAN two
unmarried and consenting adults is POTENTIALLY A CRIME IF THE STATE
SO LEGISLATES AND THAT LAW WOULD BE UPHELD BY THE SUPREME
COURT UNDER EXISTING PRECEDENTS. This tells me that a polygynous
husband must be and live with only one wife at a time, the wives living
in separate dwellings.

AS TO the homosexual case of JOHN GEDDES LAWRENCE and TYRON

GARNER,
PETITIONERS v. TEXAS
on writ of certiorari to the court of appeals of
texas, fourteenth district
[June 26, 2003]
Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court.
SNIP
"The present case does not involve minors. It does not involve persons
who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships
where consent might not easily be refused. It does not involve public
conduct or prostitution. It does not involve whether the government
must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual
persons seek to enter. The case does involve two adults who, with full
and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices
common to a homosexual lifestyle. The petitioners are entitled to
respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence
or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime.
Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full
right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the
government. "It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of
personal liberty which the government may not enter." Casey, supra,
at 847. The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which
can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the
individual."
SNIP
"The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Texas Fourteenth District
is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not
inconsistent with this opinion."

This tells me we may safely practice our polygyny as long as it does

not involve public conduct, formal recognition of any relationship,
more than two adults fully and mutually consenting to engage in
sexual relations privately and discretely.
This supports the polygyny that anthropologist and ethnologists have
found to be the most successful, where each wife/concubine-by-
covenant has her own residence, or at least her own bedroom, kitchen
and bathroom. These files/documents are found at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PolyPolygamyPolygnyNJesus/files/ or
[http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/MAmbSdwkE2ptxM2PopPNxou1HX-
v1GIzrtZsnS9AP
Yl4tF5TSArLgxNwayuWZ8LSkeGWmou98wyY1WJcjwplEQ/SuccessfulBib
liclPo
lyImprovdA071308.html] and
[http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/MAmbSW2QSxltxM2PIncXSVRRPY9L1uUD
-0KO
WdbYKG1z3HPIH2G5w_VlnY2fEww7news2gyHYppWI1-
bUQOEnA/UrbanBlue
CollarPolyToday0908.html]

End of Part one of four

PART TWO OF FOUR

#4. CALIFORNIA LAW AND THE PRACTICE OF POLYGYNY

“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, or to justify practices inconsistent with
the peace and safety of the state Thus, the constitution of New York of
1777 provided as follows: 'The free exercise and enjoyment of religious
profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall
forever hereafter be allowed, within this state, to all mankind:
provided, that the liberty of conscience hereby granted shall not be so
construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness, or justify practices
inconsistent with the peace or safety of this state.' Article 38. The
same declaration is repeated in the constitution of 1821, (article 7, 3,)
and in that of 1846, (article 1, 3,) except that for the words 'hereby
granted,' the words 'hereby secured' are substituted. The constitutions
of California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland,
Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, and South Carolina contain a
similar declaration. “
[1890 P / B U.S. Davis v Beason, 133 U.S. 333 ]

California Law: (#284) "Every person who knowingly and willfully

marries the husband or wife of another . . . . is punishable by fine not
less than $5000 or by imprisonment in state prison." (7/1/'97) Again we
see the need for all parties to a polygynous relationship should be
legally single, not legally married. It is simply a precaution against this
kind of prosecution/persecution. State prison is Hell and is daily filled
with life threatening experiences, even on the less violent classification
levels, and should be avoided at all costs.

"Bigamy is punishable by a fine not exceeding $10,000 or by

imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or in the state
prison." (#283 Calif. Penal Code; 9/27/'83; operative 1/1/'84) One
should not be so selfish and cavalier as to jeopardize their family
unity, their emotional, intimate and sexual union, for the "cause" of
polygyny. It is not worth the hardship of loss and separation to you and
your loved ones to be put in jail for practicing your belief in polygyny
that violates the specific laws of society. It is a wiser course to practice
one's faith, including polygyny, "striving to live peacably with all men",
seeking to give offense to no one, by practicing it as instructed in
Romans 14, i.e. privately , discretely and with great discernment so as
not to unnecessarily stumble or offend our weaker brethren who are
still bound by the laws and traditions of men.

To pracitce polygyny in California today, you must not:

>> 1. Be legally married to more than one "wife" at the same time
(CA Criminal Law #820)
>> 2. Be married in an officially recognized ceremony to more than
one "wife" at one time (CA Criminal Law 822; Fam Law #66))
>> 3. Be married in a state or publicly recognized common-law
marriage to more than one wife at the same time (CL 822; Fam Law
#65 & #66). Public here means the general public, not polygynous
families who join you in a covenanting event.
>> 4. Be married by state license to more than one mate at the
same time (CL822)
>> 5. Be solemnized in marriage to more than one wife at the same
time by an official recognized by the state (CL822). If the polygynous
"marriage" is "solemnized" by ceremony, rite or ritual, the words
"wife", "husband" and "marriage" should be avoided carefully (a good
thesaurus will help. See the
appendix. See Fam Law#65).
>> 6. Be authenticated in marriage to more than one wife at the
same time (in polygyny) in any way acceptable to the state
(CL822)
>> 7. File the marriage certificate of registry with the state, for your
polygynous marriage. (CL822)
>> 8. Conclude in an official civil manner or legally your "marriage"
in polygyny. (CL824)
>> 9. Publicly cohabit as husband and wife, publicly and mutually,
assuming marital rights, duties and obligations, including sexual
relations with more than one wife at the same time.(CL825) [Public
here is the general public, not one's polygynous associates. Even
though they may not cohabit as husband and wife, they may cohabit
as man and woman, man and his own woman, exclusive lovers,
exclusive love/life partners, exclusively devoted lovers, a man and his
covenant woman/lover/partner/pal, or viceversa for all the above (e.g.
a woman and her own man).]
>> 10. Have the reputation in a community of being married, nor
deport yourselves in the neighborhood as husband and wife (Fam Law
61 & 62). Specifically you must not allow/permit/encourage common,
general, uniform, and undivided repute among witnesses/
neigbors that you are married to more than one mate at the same
time. (Fam Law#65, Re Estate of Gill; Hite v. Hite; Re Estate of
Baldwin). The reputation of being a man with more than one
woman/lover would be legal.
>> 11. Have any one other than the actual parties of the polygynous
uniting present at the "uniting" ceremony (Fam Law 62), since every
witness of the "uniting" is a possible "witness" of the polygynous
uniting in a bigamy trial. See # 5 above. If they are willing to take the
chance, there would be relative safety in having other polygynously
"united" couples present. I don't see any problem with witnesses at a
"covenant event", "union ceremony", or "bonding ceremony" (not
wedding ceremony, see ch. 3). It would be foolish and risky to invite or
inform the monogynous and/or the opponents of polygyny to any such
uniting event. It only takes one witness to files criminal charges.
 A man and his women who practice polygyny in Calif. must realize
that the admissions of polygyny by one of his mates is hard evidence
for the state in a felony bigamy case. The "testimony by a party to
one of the marriages in issue" (People v. Van Wie/O'Neal/Rauch) is hard
evidence. The danger of this can be reduced by a prenuptial witnessed
contract in which they bind themselves to be responsible for the
payment of all attorney fees of all parties involved if one of them
should ever admit practicing polygyny in such a way that their
admission or testimony results in litigation, criminal or civil; and
agreeing to the sale of all their present and future possessions to pay
for such attorney fees and all costs incurred by the one being
prosecuted/litigated for polygyny as the result of such an admission.

The testimony of any witness to a polygynous uniting is such

evidence (People v. Stokes/ DuFault). The testimony of witnesses of
the polygynous mates' cohabitation and their reputation of "being
married" is such hard evidence (People v. Beevers/DuFault). This can
be avoided by making no public claim that you all are husband and
wives, by publicly introducing and presenting you and your mates as
exclusive lovers, covenanted lovers or a man and his own women etc.
and making sure to use a covenant like the one at the end of this
article. Traditional wedding rings on the wedding ring finger should not
be used on the wedding ring finger since they are a public statement of
marriage. A wooden ring or a braided ring on the wedding finger could
be sufficient for the polygynous. But all life is full risks and there is
always the possiblity of a Judas in the crowd in every gathering. One
who opposes polygyny should never be invited or made aware of a
polygynous uniting. For those who feel led to enter into polygyny in
California, they must do so at their own risk and they must do it very
prudently, counting the cost before entering into it.

To be polygynous in California, your "marriages" must be without

benefit of the civil law, its protection and its requirements. It is best if
none of the members of a polygynous marriage is legally/ officially
married to the husband of the family (Fam Law58). There is no law
against two or more single people living together and having sex
together, so a polygynous family can take on this
appearance/manifestation. The second or etc. covenanted woman in a
polygynous marriage can neither have nor seek protection or
recognition of marital rights or obligations by the state. The state and
the public must not know the true nature of the polygynous
relationship.

Rights and responsibilities may be drawn up and agreed to in a private,

but a witnessed contract (see examples below) could be used, carefully
avoiding the use of words like "husband" or "wife" or "marriage". Such
a contract must not have any language that represents or presents the
parties involved as husband and wife or wives. Property rights, money
distribution, bill payment, financial responsibilities, child rearing duties,
sexual relations, inheritances, house keeping duties etc. can all be
covered by a witnessed (by God or by humans) contract/covenant
between the parites involved. I believe that every "wife" in polygyny
should be given the "power of attorney" in all matters of her own man
in the event of his incapacity or hospitalization, and every man in
polygyny should be given the "power of attorney" in all matters of each
of his ow women. Of course all parties involved should have carefully
drawn up wills or living trusts covering the disposition of their property
and children in the event of their death or incapacity.

There can be no state recognized ceremony or documents or

documentation. There can be no state recognized common law
marriage of the parties involved in the polygynous relationship. As
stated in Hebrews 11:13-16, our citizenship is in the heavenlies in the
spiritual realm and we await the City of God. So instead of being
licensed by the state, Christian polygynists must get the permission to
marry from their King, the Lord Jesus Christ. Instead of being
solemnized by an official of the state, the polygynous marriage must
be solemnized by the presence of God, His angels and His children. His
Word that He hates covenant breaking (Malachi 2) and that He hates
the break up of marriages----that Word gives all the necessary
solemnity to a sincere exchange of marital covenants between the
polygynous man and his own woman. The fact that He knows our
hearts, the thoughts and intents of our hearts, makes Him the only One
Who can really authenticate such a polygynous relationship. Nothing
needs to filed with God since He was there as witness and every word
said and every thought imagined are a matter of record with Him.

To conclude your polygynous uniting with cohabitation requires

great discretion on the part of those involved. They may not present
themselves as "husband" and "wives" to society in general and their
neighbors in particular (Boyd v. Boyd, 1962, CrimLaw825). A
polygynous husband must not address his own polygynous woman as
wife in public, in introductions or even in writing to those not intimately
involved in the polygynous relationship. Romans 14:16-23, especially
verse 22, makes it real clear that the practice of such controversial
things requires secrecy and discretion on the part of those who have
the liberty to practice it. To the world they may be only man and
mistress, or boy friend and girl friends shacking up. If the women have
their own separate residence, then when their own man comes to visit
etc. he would be presented/introduced as their own man, or their own
devoted and covenanted lover. Only in the circles of their polygynous
confidants and supporters may they be recognized as "husband" and
"wife", even though those words are not used.

In California "It is no defense to a charge of bigamy that the

doctrines and practice of polygamy are a part of the religion of the
accused" (Reynolds v. U.S.; Davis v. Beason). Polygyny in California
may not take the form of Common Law marriage, nor may it involve
the public presentation of the parties involved as husband and wife/
wives. To practice polygyny in California, you may not publicly
address your own polygynous mate(s) as wife and she (they) should
not publicly address you as husband.

But what is in the word "wife"? Isn't it the relationship, the covenants
that make the marriage, and not the words "husband and wife"? If a
wife in polygyny knows that her husband is an honorable man before
the Lord, a man of integrity, a man who honors his word and his
commitments, then she will feel just as much his wife when he
introduces her as, or calls her "my Beloved", "my Darling", "my
Lover", "my Lady", "my darling Helpmeet", "Blessed Companion", "the
Queen of my heart", etc. instead of "my wife".

If a husband in polygyny knows that his mate in polygyny is an

honorable woman before the Lord, a woman of integrity, a woman who
honors her word and her commitments, then he will feel just as much
her husband when she introduces him as, or calls him "My own Man",
"My Mate", "Beloved", "my Companion", my Partner" etc. instead of
"my husband". There are many names for a wife and a husband other
than "wife" and "husband". Love and creativity can join forces to
develop names that are uniquely yours in your marriage that speak to
you of the intimate and confidential nature of your polygynous
relationship. It is the covenant before God that makes the relationship,
not the names or titles.

One must be extremely careful when polygynously courting. If the

relationship goes bad, the offended party has hard evidence of your
intention to get that party to engage in "the crime of polygyny". All of
the legally sensitive words mentioned above should be avoided when
describing one's marital status or intentions in all correspondence,
email and phone communications. You should not make hard evidence
that you intend to engage in "the crime of polygyny", that you have
engaged in it, or that you are engaged in it. Romans 14:19-23 should
be observed in this matter at all times with all parties, carefully,
privately and discretely guarding your personal liberty to be
polygynous.
END OF PART TWO OF FOUR PARTS.

#5. THE BIBLICAL BASIS FOR DILIGENT DISCRETION IN POLYGYNY

(From my Divorce & Polygyny file at
http://www.etext.org/Religious.Texts/Polyamory )

MARRIAGE, CONCUBINES, CIVIL LAW, PERSONAL LIBERTY AND A

LOVING CONSCIENCE!
Surely Romans 13 and related passages apply. And certainly the
principles of Romans 14 and l Cor 8 & 10 apply. The following is a
brief summary of those principles, introduced by an application of 1
Cor 10:

¶ All things are lawful, but all are not profitable; all things are lawful,
but all do not edify. Let no one seek his own advantage, but that of the
other.
>>>Practice every form of Biblical marriage<<<, making no inquiry
for conscience sake.
26 For the earth is the Lord’s and its fulness.
27 But if any one of the unbelievers invite you, and ye are minded to
go, >>>practice your form of Biblical marriage<<<, making no inquiry
for conscience sake. But if any one say to you, ">>>Your marriage is
contrary to the law of man and/or God in my opinion and belief<<<,
do not >>>practice your controversial marriage before him/her<<<,
for his sake that pointed it out, and conscience sake;
but conscience, I mean, not thine own, but that of the other: for why is
my liberty >>>to practice polygyny<<< judged by another's
conscience?

If *I* partake >>>in Biblical polygyny<<< with thanksgiving, why am

I spoken evil of for what *I* give thanks for? Whether therefore you
>>>are celibate, monogynous or polygynous<<<, or whatever ye do,
do all things to God’s glory. Give no occasion to stumbling, whether to
Jews, or Greeks, >>>to the celibate or the monogynous<<< nor the
assembly of God. Even as *I* also please all in all things >>>including
my marriage<<<; not seeking my own profit, but that of the many,
that they may be saved.

1. Receive the weak in faith (their faith allows them very little personal
liberty) but not to dispute doubtful things/points>61 . Doubtful things
are things that the Bible is not explicitly clear about leaving a gray
area for individuals to exercise their own judgment (e.g. eating meat
vs. vegetarianism, length of dress, courtship and engagement,
television, movies, computer use etc.)

2. Don't despise or condemn your brother/sister in Christ if (1) they

feel free to do doubtful things or (2) they don't feel free to do doubtful
things>62

3. Don't put a stumbling block, an occasion to take offense, put an

obstacle in the way>82 , give someone an opportunity for sinning>63

4. Don't make your brethren uneasy>83 or hurt, injure or damage

others' feelings>84.

5. Don't destroy your brethren's faith with your personal liberty>64

6. Let not the personal liberty your faith allows be evil spoken of>65

7. Do that which builds and helps the faith of your brethren>66 .

8. Don't put a temptation to sin in someone's way>.85 , or do that

which leads another to sin>.86 .

9. Have your faith from the Word that allows you your personal liberty
privately, discretely and personally before God and be happy in it>67

10. Don't do anything you have doubts about, doubts about whether
or not it is God's will for you to do, be or have)>68

11. If your faith is strong allowing you a great deal of personal liberty,
you should bear the weaknesses of those whose faith allows little
personal liberty, not pleasing ourselves. Seek to please your brethren
for their good, growth and development in the Lord and Word>69 .
[Footnote: [>61 (Rm.14:1) >62 . (Rm. 14:3,4) >.82 Please
see Arndt & Gingrich's Lexicon. >83 Please see Thayer's
Lexicon. >63 . (Rm. 14:13). >.84 Please see Arndt &
Gingrich's Lexicon. >64 . (Rm 14:15). >65 (Rm.
14:16,17). >66 (Rm. 14:18,19). >.85 (Rm. 14:13)Please see
Arndt & Gingrich's Lexicon. >.86 Please see Thayer's
Lexicon. >67 (Rm.14:22). >68 . (Rm. 14:23). >69 .
(Rm. 15:1-3)]

But how do these principles apply? Obviously polygyny or

concubinage is a felony, the secular crime of officially marrying (by
man's laws) more than one woman, involving the government's law,
public records, inheritance laws and divorce laws in most Western or
industrial nations. Obviously it is socially acceptable, legal and not a
felony in most Asian nations, the Mid East, Africa and Indian tribes in
the Americas. That is as clear as black and white. But there is a great
big gray area. Many Western states recognize informal marriage
(concubinage) as common law marriages but as soon as they become
official they come under the monogamy laws. But they can live for
years in the morally acceptable informal and unofficial common law
status without any illegality.

Under Administrative Law in California, County Welfare officials set up

semi-official marriages with people who live together without being
married where one or both parties could still be legally married to
others. Administrative Welfare law recognizes them as a semi-married
couple and will grant them AFDC aid and even help them get divorces
so they can eventually marry IF THEY WISH. With the state's approval
they live together as a family sometimes for years, but they have no
IRS rights, or inheritance rights or marital tax status from the state as
a married couple. It is legal and approved of by state law.

California's courts have also established palimony rights where they

protect the covenant/contractual rights of people living in unofficial
marriage or concubinage. While they have no official tax status or
inheritance rights the courts have established that a marital
relationship, and the members of that relationship, have protection
under the law in terms of their covenants, contracts, vows, espousal
or betrothal. The courts have awarded "palimony", property and child
custody rights in and from these relationships. The new no-
discrimination-against- one's-sexual-orientation laws would seem to
protect those who practice informal contractual polygyny or
concubinage, but they haven't been applied in court to polygyny as far
as I know. God prescribes no "wedding ceremony", ritual, vows or
rite>87 to make two people married, leaving it to the local churches or
assemblies to have their own Biblical local and indigenous marital
customs>88 .

The covenants, betrothals and prenuptial contracts seem to be

covered by God's standards in the following: [Footnote: >87 See
appendix #4 . >.88 See appendix #4 .]
***EZEKIEL 16: 3 and say, Thus saith the Lord Jehovah unto Jerusalem:
. . . 8 And I passed by thee, and looked upon thee, and behold, thy
time was the time of love; and I spread my skirt over thee, and covered
thy nakedness; and I swore unto thee, and ENTERED INTO A
COVENANT WITH YOU, saith the Lord Jehovah, and YOU BECAME MINE.”
***MALACHI 2:14 Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because Jehovah hath been a
witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou
hast dealt unfaithfully [i.e. deceitfully, treacherously, failing and/or
betraying her trust and confidence, violating your allegiance to her,
breaking your covenant to her]: yet is she thy companion, and the wife
of thy covenant. 15 And did not one make them? and the remnant of
the Spirit was his. And wherefore the one? He sought a seed of God.
Take heed then to your spirit, and let none deal unfaithfully [i.e.
deceitfully, treacherously, failing and/or betraying her trust and
confidence, violating your allegiance to her, breaking your covenant to
her] against the wife of his youth, 16 (for I hate putting away, saith
Jehovah the God of Israel;) and he covereth with violence his garment,
saith Jehovah of hosts: take heed then to your spirit, that ye deal not
unfaithfully [i.e. deceitfully, treacherously, failing and/or betraying her
trust and confidence, violating your allegiance to her, breaking your
covenant to her]. ”
***ECCLES. 5:4 ¶ When thou vowest a vow unto God, defer not to pay
it; for he hath no pleasure in fools: pay that which thou hast vowed. 5
Better is it that thou shouldest not vow, than that thou shouldest vow
and not pay.“
*** PSALM 15:1 ¶ <<A Psalm of David.>> Jehovah, who shall sojourn
in thy tent? who shall dwell in the hill of thy holiness? 2 He that
walketh uprightly, and worketh righteousness, and speaketh the truth
from his heart. 3 He . . . who, if he have sworn to his own hurt,
changeth it not; 5 . . . He that doeth these things shall never be
moved.”
*** ROMANS 1:28 And according as they did not think good to have
God in their knowledge, God gave them up to a reprobate mind to
practise unseemly things; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness,
wickedness, . . . 31 void of understanding, faithless covenant breakers,
without natural affection, unmerciful; 32 who knowing the righteous
judgment of God, that they who do such things are worthy of death,
not only practise them, but have fellow delight in those who do them..”

We know that Jesus put to death people (Acts) called by His Name who
lied to Him; and the rich (1 Cor 11) who were shaming, offending and
grieving the poor, failing to share eqitably with them; ordered that the
bodies of those involved in sex sin (1 Cor 5) be delivered to Satan for
the destruction of the bodies so that their spirit could be saved; and
declared to be worthy of death (Rom 1) those who deceitfully,
treacherously fail and/or betray trust and confidence; and who violate
covenanted allegiance , breaking covenant. Nothing like the fear of
being put to death by God to motivate one to keep one's covenants:
***1Cor 11:30 "On this account many among you are weak and infirm,
and a good many are fallen asleep. 31 But if we judged ourselves, so
were we not judged. 32 But being judged, we are disciplined of the
Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world."
Since covenant breaking is listed along with adultery and sex sin, the
church discipline of 1 Cor 5 would be
approprite after Matt 18:15-18 had been done according to Gal. 6:1
and 2 Tim. 2:24-26:
***1 Cor. 5:3 For *I*, as absent in body but present in spirit, have
already judged as present, 4 to deliver, in the name of our Lord Jesus
Christ (ye and my spirit being gathered together, with the power of our
Lord Jesus Christ), him that has so wrought this: 5 to deliver him, I say,
being such, to Satan for destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be
saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. 6 Your boasting is not good. Do ye
not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump?

It is the treachery of breaking marital covenants that God condemns

in these passages and that which he hates. "Yes, I swore an oath to
you and entered into covenant with you, and you became Mine," says
the Lord God>70 . We become a part of the bride of Christ in the
same way. The Spirit considered Mary and Joseph as husband and
wife on the basis of their espousal/betrothal/ covenants even before
the wedding and the coming together>71. [Footnote: >70 (Ezek.
16:8). >71 (Mat. 1:18-25 ;Deut. 22:23-27)]

So why can't two Christians exchange espousal/betrothal covenants

and become each other's marital partners without a formal marriage,
especially when it is a polygynoous informal marriage which could be
illegal according to the laws of man? Of course they can since
common law marriages are legally acceptable in most of America’s
states and in most of the countries of the world, and marital "pals" are
recognized by the courts of California. But should they? We are
bound by our covenants and God makes it clear He has no pleasure in
the fools who break them >72 . We enter into the gray zone of the
liberty we have in Christ>73 that is limited by the cords of Agape
love. Yes two Christians could exchange their covenants without a
formal/legal wedding day but when they became involved in intimacy
and that intimacy became an offense or stumbling block to another
saint, it would be sin and could destroy the work of Christ in another
or embolden one whose faith is weak to be marry and be intimate
contrary to his/her conscience>74 .

So is such intimacy a sin between two Christians who have solemnly

and formally covenanted before God that they are maritally one flesh
as long as they both live? It is neither illegal nor sinful but it becomes
sin if it stumbles, offends, grieves another in Christ, causin such a one
to act contrary to his/her faith in Christ> 75 . [Footnote: >72 (Eccles.
5:5; Psalm 15). >73 (Rom 14). >74 (l Cor. 8 & 10). >75
(Rom. 14; 1 Cor. 8 & 10).]

But what about the command in Romans 14 that states that if you
have a solid controversial conviction from the Word, you should and
could have it to yourself before God? Happy is the one who does not
condemn himself in what he approves>76 . But woe to him if he does
it with doubts or offense to another in Christ. So it seems to be with
post covenant but pre-wedding day intimacy. It seems to be the same
case with polygyny and Biblical concubinage. Do you practice/believe
in polygyny or Bibilical concubinage? Have it and do so privately and
very discreetly before God. Happy is the one who does not condemn
one's self in what he approves in the liberty of Christ. But one who
practices/believes in polygyny or Biblical concubinage with doubts
about its rightness is condemned because one does not practice it out
of conviction from the Spirit and the Word that it is right. Polygyny
and Biblical concubinage is indeed pure, but it is evil to practice it if
your practice of it stumbles, offends, grieves or weakens your brethren
in Christ>77 . [Footnote: >76 (Rom 14:22,23). >77 (Rom. 14; 1
Cor. 8 & 10)]

Foreign Christian polygynists visiting Western monogamous societies

encounter a special challenge. Spiritual and Godly Christians would
be able to handle it well and in the Lord, but the unsaved, the carnal,
the Spiritual milk drinkers, the legalists, the ignorant, and those weak
of conscience would all have varying problems with a Christian
polygynist and his wives visiting their Western/Occidental church>78
. The visiting Christian polygynist should do all within his power to
not let his liberty hinder the effectiveness of his testimony and witness
to these people, if they would be willing to receive it. [Footnote:
>78 (1 Cor. 8 & 10; Rom. 14 & 15)]
Hopefully mercy and compassion would move the Christian polygynist
to not flaunt his polygyny in the face of such "Christians" even though
they are so unlike Christ. Mercy would move the polygynist to not lay
a heavier burden on the weak than they can bear, not wanting their
liberty to cause their weak-in-faith brethren to fall into sin.
Compassion would move the polygynists to be sensitive to the
weakness and doubts of the weak saints. Obviously the polygynist
would not be an official leader in the church and would not be visiting
local churches as a leader/elder/deacon/ bishop/ overseer/etc.>79 .

Ideally the local saints would be bearing the fruits of the Spirit and
receive such foreign visitors with mercy and compassion. If they
agreed and were able>80 for a short while to be separated, the
polygynist could visit the Western church bringing one or none of his
wives so as to reduce the controversy. The same would be true of a
polygynist wife visiting the West without her husband, under the rule
of 1 Cor. 7:4,5. [Footnote: >79 (1 Tim. 3 and Ti. 1). >80 (1 Cor.
7:5)]
*** 1 CORINTH. 7:4 The wife has not authority over her own body, but
the husband: in like manner also the husband has not authority over
his own body, but the wife. 5 Defraud not one another, unless, it may
be, by consent for a time, that ye may devote yourselves to prayer,
and again be together, that Satan tempt you not because of your
incontinency.”

What about the situation where you have done your very
best to discretely keep your polygyny as a private and personal matter
between you, those directly involved
and in accord with you, and God, yet God commands you to unite with
a mate in such a manner that the practice of the polygyny is almost
impossible to keep private and personal between you and God?

This is a special problem for those who come into polygyny in

obedience to God's command to marry ---
***Dt. 25:5 ¶ If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have
no son, the wife of the dead shall not marry a stranger abroad: her
husband’s brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him as wife,
and perform the duty of a husband’s brother unto her.
***1 Tim 5:14 I will therefore that the younger [widows] marry, bear
children, rule the house, give no occasion to the adversary in respect
of reproach.
***1Cor7: 8 But I say to the unmarried and to the widows, It is good for
them that they remain [unmarried] even as I. 9 But if they have not
control over themselves, they should marry; for it is better to marry
than to burn.

Couple these commands and principles dealing with

one who has come under command to marry, couple
them with these commands and principles of compassionate
intervention, and you could land up with a very complicated and
difficult situation.
Consider these paraphrased-for-application passages.

End of Part three of four

PART FOUR OF FOUR

What about the situation where you have done your very
best to discretely keep your polygyny as a private and personal matter
between you, those directly involved
and in accord with you, and God, yet God commands you to unite with
a mate in such a manner that the practice of the polygyny is almost
impossible to keep private and personal between you and God?

This is a special problem for those who come into polygyny in

obedience to God's command to marry ---
***Dt. 25:5 ¶ If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have
no son, the wife of the dead shall not marry a stranger abroad: her
husband’s brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him as wife,
and perform the duty of a husband’s brother unto her.
***1 Tim 5:14 I will therefore that the younger [widows] marry, bear
children, rule the house, give no occasion to the adversary in respect
of reproach.
***1Cor7: 8 But I say to the unmarried and to the widows, It is good for
them that they remain [unmarried] even as I. 9 But if they have not
control over themselves, they should marry; for it is better to marry
than to burn.

Couple these commands and principles dealing with

one who has come under command to marry, couple
them with these commands and principles of compassionate
intervention, and you could land up with a very complicated and
difficult situation.
Consider these paraphrased-for-application passages.
From De 15:7 , 8 : If there be amongst you >>>>an unmarried person
or widow under command to marry<<<, any one of thy brethren in
one of thy gates, . . . , thou shalt not harden thy heart, nor shut thy
hand from >>>the unmarried one or widow under command to marry
and in need of marriage<<<; but thou shalt open thy hand bountifully
unto him, and shalt certainly >>>find the marital solution<<< on
pledge what is sufficient for >>>their marital need>>>, in marriage
which he/she lacketh.

From De 15:11: For the >>>maritally<<< needy shall never cease

from within the land; therefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt
open thy hand bountifully unto thy brother >>>of sister<<< , to thy
poor and to >>>those in need of marriage<<< , in thy land.

From Isa 58:7 - 10: Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry >>>for
marriage<<<, and that thou bring to thy house the >>>maritally<<<
needy wanderers; when thou seest the >>>maritally<<< naked, that
thou >>>maritally<<< cover him; and that thou hide not thyself from
thine own flesh? . . . Then shalt thou call, and Jehovah will answer;
thou shalt cry, and he will say, Here I am. If thou take away from the
midst of thee the yoke, the putting forth of the finger and the unjust
speech, and thou proffer thy soul to the >>>maritally<<< hungry,
and satisfy the >>>maritally<<< afflicted soul: then shall thy light
rise in the darkness, and thine obscurity be as midday;

From1 John 3:17, 18: But whoso may have the world’s substance, and
see his brother >>>or sister<<< having >>>marital<<< need, and
shut up his/her compassion from him/her >>>so that he/she does
nothing effective about the perceived marital need<<<, how abides
the love of God in him? Children, let us not love with word, nor with
tongue, but in deed and in truth.

The compassionate intervener in these passages could be a single

sister in Christ who sees her brother in Christ under command in Christ
to marry
because of his burning struggle to sexually control himself and so gives
herself to him in marriage to meet his need. The compassionate
intervener in these passages could be a single or a married man who
sees an unmarried woman or widow under command to marry and
follows the Lord's compassion in his heart and meets that perceived
marital need when no one else will do it. In such a case where one was
maritally content and another's marital need came to him /her and
he/she responded in effective compassion to meet the marital need of
the other, the compassion and the need and the meeting of that need
must still be done in harmony with and according to the stated Romans
13 need to submit to and live in peace with the authorities when
possible in and by Jesus; and the stated Romans 14 need to have your
polygynous freedom privately and discretely before God and others so
as not to stumble, grieve and/or offend into sin the weak-in-faith
monogynous brethren.

Again it seems to me that the answer is in 1 Cor 10:13-23 as seen in

this its paraphrase for application:
¶ All things are lawful, but all are not profitable; all things are lawful,
but all do not edify. Let no one seek his own advantage, but that of the
other.
>>>Practice every form of Biblical marriage<<<, making no inquiry
for conscience sake.
26 For the earth is the Lord’s and its fulness.
27 But if any one of the unbelievers invite you, and ye are minded to
go, >>>practice your form of Biblical marriage<<<, making no inquiry
for conscience sake. But if any one say to you, ">>>Your marriage is
contrary to the law of man and/or God in my opinion and belief<<<,
do not >>>practice your controversial marriage before him/her<<<,
for his sake that pointed it out, and conscience sake;
but conscience, I mean, not thine own, but that of the other: for why is
my liberty >>>to practice polygyny<<< judged by another's
conscience?
If *I* partake >>>in Biblical polygyny<<< with thanksgiving, why am
I spoken evil of for what *I* give thanks for? Whether therefore you
>>>are celibate, monogynous or polygynous<<<, or whatever ye do,
do all things to God’s glory. Give no occasion to stumbling, whether to
Jews, or Greeks, >>>to the celibate or the monogynous<<< nor the
assembly of God. Even as *I* also please all in all things >>>including
my marriage<<<; not seeking my own profit, but that of the many,
that they may be saved.
From Romans 14: 22 Do you have a conviction from the Word of God?
Have it to yourself privately and discretely before God. Happy is the
one who does not condemn himself in the polygyny he/she allows.
23 But he that doubts the rightness of Biblical polygyny, if he becomes
polygynous, is condemned; because his polygyny does not originate in
a conviction from the Word of God; but whatever form of marriage is
not based on a conviction from the Word of God is sin.

Help!!!!!!!!!!!!! How do I do this?????????

Jas 1:5 But if any one of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who
gives to all freely and reproaches not, and it shall be given to him:
2 Tim 3:16 Every scripture is divinely inspired, and profitable for
teaching, for conviction, for correction, for instruction in righteousness;
17 that the man of God may be complete, fully fitted to every good
work.
INCLUDING THE GOOD WORK OF GODLY BUT CONTROVERSIAL
MARRIAGES.

#6. MORE POLYGYNOUS UNION/BONDING COVENANTS/CONTRACTS

(Adapted from Divorce & Polygyny) APPENDIX THREE: Marriage by
covenant. If you have decided that Mat. 5:33-37, James 4:13-17 and
James 5;12 don't allow you to use the traditional wedding vows and
covenants because they involve swearing and/or oaths (SEE
PromisesOathsSwearingCovenants.html in the Files section of this
group or at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PolyPolygamyPolygnyNJesus/files/) and
you are considering a polygynously covenanted relationship, then you
might be interested in using and adapting the following to your own
needs. Also these covenants are suitable for legal weddings, common
law weddings, covenanting in concubinage, and sublegal polygynous
union events. Make sure that you carefully avoid violating any
Federal, state or local laws in the event of a polygynous covenant
ceremony. Jail is a lousy honeymoon.

****A UNION/COVENANTAFFIRMATION**********
•(Your name), will you have this (man, woman) to be your (Chosen
One, Desire, Leader, Embracer, Blessing, Delight, Gift from God, Soul-
Love, Love Friend, lover, intimate companion, Bundle of Myrhh,
Beloved, Completer, Complement, Helper, Chosen One, Delight, Desire,
Blessing, Dove, Love Sister, Private Garden, Sealed Fountain, Blessed
Ravisher, etc.) and will you , before God and these witnesses, solemnly
affirm and declare your intentions and expectations in this union to
(him, her), in all honor and love, in all service and duty, in all faith and
tenderness, to live with (him, her), to comfort, keep (him/her), and
cherish (him/her), according to the ordinance of God, in the holy bond
of our covenanted intimacy? (Answer, "I do" or "Yes").

• I, (your name), take you, (the other's name), to be my own (Chosen

One, Desire, Leader, Embracer, Blessing, Delight, Gift from God, Soul-
Love, Love Friend, lover, intimate companion, Bundle of Myrhh,
Beloved, Completer, Complement, Helper, Chosen One, Delight, Desire,
Blessing, Dove, Love Sister, Private Garden, Sealed Fountain, Blessed
Ravisher, etc.); and I do solemnly affirm and declare before God and
these witnesses that I intend and expect to be your own loving and
faithful (mate, lover, intimate companion, beloved, etc.) to love and to
cherish each other; in plenty and in want; in joy and grief; in health
and infirmity; as long as we both shall live. All that I own and have is
now ours.

•We accept our responsibility to be sexually faithful to each other,

keeping our sexual activity within the bonded and covenanted
relationships that make up our family.

•In token of our solemn affirmations and declarations, with this token I
become your own (Chosen One, Desire, Leader, Embracer, Blessing,
Delight, Gift from God, Soul-Love, Love Friend, lover, intimate
companion, Bundle of Myrhh, Beloved, Completer, Complement,
Helper, Chosen One, Delight, Desire, Blessing, Dove, Love Sister,
Private Garden, Sealed Fountain, Blessed Ravisher, etc.); in the name
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit who lives and
abides in us. Amen (both repeat in unison)

•I now pronounce you one, bound and covenanted together for life
before God and these witnesses. Do you have something to declare to
us?

• (in unison) We covenant before God and all of you present, that we
are bound together to be one flesh in the Lord until death part us. We
covenant before God that it is our responsibility to compassionately
cherish each other according to His Word, the Holy Bible, to His glory
and honor. Pray for us. _________________________
The Couple's Signatures and Date Witnessed by The Father, King
Jesus, and the Holy Spirit ______________________________
Date

ANOTHER UNION/BONDING AFFIRMATION/COVENANT

• _________, do you accept and acknowledge _______ as your own

sealed (Chosen One, Desire, Leader, Embracer, Blessing, Delight, Gift
from God, Soul-Love, Love Friend, lover, intimate companion, Bundle
of Myrhh, Beloved, etc.)? Yes, I do!
• Do you accept your responsibility to be faithful to him, in all virtue
and honor, in all duty and service, in all faithfulness and tenderness,
to live with him and compassionately cherish him according to the
Word of God, in the holy bond of these your covenants? Yes, I do!

• Do you accept your responsibility to be faithful to him, not having

any other lover, not leaving him for another lover; and not dismissing,
releasing or repudiating him as your own (mate, lover, intimate
companion, beloved, etc.)? Yes, I do!

• Do you accept your responsibility to not separate from him, be

separated from him, leave him, or put yourself apart from him unless
it is to be alone and celibate with the hope reconciliation? Yes, I do!

• Do you leave your parents and loyally bond with him to be one in
this your union, submitting to each other in reverence to God? Yes, I
do!

• ______, do you commit yourself to _______ with all your heart, to

follow _______'s lead, as unto the Lord, in all matters showing honor
and respect? Yes, I do!

•______, do you accept and acknowledge _______ as your own sealed

( Completer, Complement, Helper, Chosen One, Delight, Desire,
Blessing, Dove, Love Sister, Private Garden, Sealed Fountain, Blessed
Ravisher, lover, intimate companion, beloved, etc.)? Yes/I do!

• Do you accept your responsibility to be faithful to her, in all virtue

and honor, in all duty and service, in all faithfulness and tenderness,
to live with her and compassionately cherish her according to the
Word of God, in the holy bond of these your covenants? Yes/I do!

• Do you accept your responsibility to be faithful to her, not leaving

her for another lover; not sending or puting her away, not maritally
dismissing , releasing or repudiating her? Yes, I do!

• Do you accept your responsibility to be faithful to her, not

separating yourself from her, not allowing yourselves to be separated,
not leaving or depart from her, not putting her apart from you? Yes, I
do!

• Do you accept your responsibility to be faithful to her, not sending

her away, not asking her to go away or leave, not releasing her from
your covenants or leaving her? Yes, I do!
• Do you accept your responsibility to be sexually faithful to her,
keeping your sexual activity within the bonded and covenanted
relationships that make up your family?

• Do you leave your parents and loyally bond with her to be one in
the union of these covenants, submitting to each other in reverence to
God? Yes/I do!

• _____, do you commit yourself to her with all your heart to live
wisely with her; respectfully, compassionately and sacrificially
cherishing her, feeding her the Word, taking care of her and leading
her by your example? Yes/I do!

•With God's enabling and leading it is our solemn desire and intent to
+ lovingly cherish each other in good times and bad times +
unselfishly cherish each other in all conditions and under all
circumstances + sincerely show honor and respect always to each
other + keep our covenanted union pure, free from adultery and
fornication + do everything in our power to be to each other what each
of us needs SO HELP US GOD!

•I, __________, make a covenant with you, __________, this day. I take
you as my own sealed (Chosen One, Desire, Leader, Embracer,
Blessing, Delight, Gift from God, Soul-Love, Love Friend, lover, intimate
companion, Bundle of Myrhh, Beloved, etc.) before God and these
witnesses. I acknowledge my fervent desire and responsibility to
faithfully cherish you as my own sealed (Chosen One, Desire, Leader,
Embracer, Blessing, Delight, Gift from God, Soul-Love, Love Friend,
lover, intimate companion, Bundle of Myrhh, Beloved, etc.), to love
you and honor you in plenty and in want, in joy and in sorrow, in
sickness and in health, all the days of my life. I make this covenant,
not boasting of or counting on my own ability to keep it, but trusting in
God for His Spirit's enabling and motivating, and His gift of length of
days to honor Him in the keeping of this covenant.

•I, _________, make a covenant with you, __________, this day. I take
you as my own sealed ( Completer, Complement, Helper, Chosen One,
Delight, Desire, Blessing, Dove, Love Sister, Private Garden, Sealed
Fountain, Blessed Ravisher, lover, intimate companion, beloved, etc.)
before God and these witnesses. I acknowledge my fervent desire and
responsibility to faithfully cherish you as my own ( Completer,
Complement, Helper, Chosen One, Delight, Desire, Blessing, Dove,
Love Sister, Private Garden, Sealed Fountain, Blessed Ravisher, lover,
intimate companion, beloved, etc.), to love you and honor you in
plenty and in want, in joy and in sorrow, in sickness and in health, all
the days of my life. I make this covenant not boasting of or trusting in
my own ability to keep it, but trusting in God for His Spirit's enabling
and motivating, and His gift of length of days to honor Him in the
keeping of this covenant.

_______________________________
The Couple's Signatures and Date Witnessed by The Father, King
Jesus, and the Holy Spirit
______________________________
Date

THE SONG OF SOLOMON

```[ The Shulamite to her friends]
**(1:2.) He should kiss me with the kisses of his mouth!

```[The Shulamite to Solomon, in the hearing of her friends]

**For your [sexual] loving is better than wine. (3.) Your ointments smell
sweetly;
Your name is an ointment poured forth:
Therefore do the [marriage-age] virgins love you. (4.) Lead, drawing
me along!

```[Her friends , the Daughters of Jerusalem ]

**--We will run after you!

```[The Shulamite to her friends ]

**The king has brought me into his chambers---

```[Her friends, the Daughters of Jerusalem to Solomon; or

Solomon's
concubines/wives to him]
**-We will be glad and rejoice in you,
We will remember your [sexual] loving more than wine.

```[ The Shulamite to the king ]

**They love you uprightly.

```[The King about his Black Shulamite]

6:8 There [are] sixty queens, and eighty concubines, and virgins
without number. 9 But My dove, My undefiled is one [alone]. She [is]
the [only] one of her mother. She [is] the choice of her who bore her.
The daughters saw [her] and blessed her; the [other] queens and the
concubines [of the king] saw her, and they praised her.

Elkanah21stCent@aol.com, http://polyamory.meetup.com/389/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Poly_Polygamy_Polygny_And_Jesus
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OrthodoxBiblicalMarriagePolygamy
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PolyPolygamyPolygnyNJesus
http://groups.google.com/group/BiblicalChristianPolygamyPolygyny
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OrthodoxBiblicalMarriagePolygamy2
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LynnAndLossRecovery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PolyOption4ChristiansWithSTDs/ -
http://community.eons.com/groups/group/women-sharing-one-man-
maritally
http://groups.myspace.com/BiblicalChristianPoly
http://en.groups.zorpia.com/group/biblical_polygamy_polygyny
http://www.flickr.com/groups/christian_polygyny/ - - - 39
http://www.flickr.com/groups/christian_polygamy/ - - - 48
http://www.flickr.com/groups/christianpoly/ - - - small poly group for
those who need privacy in their poly - request membership at
elkanahtyler@gmail.com
http://polygynouschristians.multiply.com/
http://biblicalpolygamy.multiply.com/