Short takes for February 2 2004

• A married Utah couple wants to add another wife to the mix. Their lawsuit says that Utah’s constitutional ban on polygamy violates their constitutional rights. As a fine column in the Jan. 20 (t1:place>Ft. Worth) Star-Telegram asks, “Why not?” Remind yourself and those around you that the Supreme Court of the United States majority opinion scoffed at the idea that their June 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision (overturning a Texas anti sodomy law) would open the door for other “private” activities formerly deemed unlawful. You’ll see more of this, because they were wrong.

• A Plano meeting of Episcopalians was the first step in forming a “protest network.” The protest, of course, is related to the appointment of a homosexual bishop. It is significant that they did not say “reform” since their polity makes this very difficult. One reporter suggested that the group will not leave the church because congregations that depart will be forced to cede their land to the denomination upon doing so. Read our set of stories on ecclesiology in this issue if you haven’t. This stuff matters.

• President Bush said encouraging things about marriage during his State of the Union address. I agree with ERLC’s Richard Land in wishing that he had taken the next step in supporting a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage from our runaway judiciary. I believe the President will support a marriage amendment eventually. His statements thus far express agreement in principle but do not go far enough in proposing a remedy. None of his likely opponents in the 2004 presidential campaign have even approached his level of support.