That could apply to any woman living with a man to whom she is not legally married.<quoted text>
Since civil law doesn't recognize their "spiritual" marriages, it's an apt description.
con·cu·bine (link: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/concub... )
1. a woman who cohabits with a man to whom she is not legally married, especially one regarded as socially or sexually subservient; mistress.
There's also this:2.(among polygamous peoples) a secondary wife, usually of inferior rank.
Adulteress, mistress and fornicator could also apply.
(Spiritual wifery) Spiritual wifery is a term first used in America by the Immortalists in and near the Blackstone Valley of Rhode Island and Massachusetts in the 1740s....
"Gays" are a modern Western invention. Same sex sexual behavior, and people who engage in such, are not new. Please do not interject in to the past modern concepts which are alien to previous places, and times.That gays have almost universally been discriminated against and precluded from marrying across time and cultures
Good point, all "gays" , individual men and women, should have the same fundamental right to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, valid in all fifty states.in no way justifies continuing to violate their fundamental rights.
No....not even close. Although there are scattered historical examples of recognized same sex unions, the idea of a "same sex marriage" is a virtual modern western invention based on sexual identity politics. The idea of a "homosexual", or "heterosexual" sexual identity is relatively new, the words themselves were only coined in the late 19th century, and early 29th century, respectively. Apparently most of human societies throughout history felt no need to establish such identities.No, it was banned, generality as a result of religious beliefs imposed via state mandate. Which, by the way is now constitutionally prohibited and thus the slow but sure continuing dismantlement of this institutionalized discrimination that's existed for centuries.
I know you're smarter than that. Wining the lawsuit is the first step, although it might be said years from now, legal SSM, and the DOMA ruling paced the way. Once the lawsuit is own, it open the door to further litigation.When do yo or any polygamist plan to start that process? What the Brown's have asked for as relief in their lawsuit is to strike down the provisions of Utah's anti-bigamy law that criminalize cohabitation among consenting adults and referring to oneself as married in the absence of a civil marriage license, not the provision that bars and criminalizes multiple simultaneous civil marriage licenses and multiple marriage partners. Doesn't look like the Brown's want to be your poster children.
Seriously...why do you or any other SSM advocates care if polygamy is legalized, or even some form of incestuous marriage is? Are you going to argue against it? SSM open the door to this path, where it leads, nobody knows. So stop whining about polygamy....I think you're afraid it will crash the Big Fat Gay Wedding.Perhaps because they realize you don't really give a f*ck about their "plight' since you don't really support legalized polygamy.