Below is my column in the Washington Post (Sunday) on our recent victory in the Sister Wives case. The column looks at the most significant aspect of the case — the rejection of morality codes that once controlled across the country in prohibiting everything from homosexuality to adultery to fornication. These morality laws were upheld in the decision in Reynolds in 1876 in a polygamy case out of Utah. The Brown decision returned us to the same question involving the same issue in the same state. Some 136 years later however the answer from this federal court was very different. We are a different country today and, despite what one hears from politicians like Rick Santorum, I believe that we are a better country today.
There does seem to be confusion about the ruling with some saying that polygamy is still not legal after the opinion. That is simply wrong. Polygamy is not the same a bigamy. One is the crime defined under cohabitation statutes of living as a plural family or with a person married to another person. The other is the crime of having two or more marriage licenses. The latter has nothing to do with the structure of your family and has almost exclusively involved people who hold themselves out (falsely) as monogamous. We always argued that the state could prosecute people who obtained more than one marriage license. Bigamy has not been an offense committed by polygamists who traditionally have one official marriage license and multiple spiritual licenses. Indeed, the law targeted polygamy with the cohabitation provision precisely because there is a difference between the two. The state fought for years to preserve this law because it reached beyond simple bigamy. Before this opinion, it was a crime for polygamists to live, as do the Browns, in a plural family. After the opinion, it is legal. This is precisely what occurred in Lawrence v. Texas where homosexual unions were a crime but then became legal when the Texas law was struck down. This decision legalizes tens of thousands of polygamous families who will no longer been viewed as criminal enterprises. They will be allowed to be open plural families. They are now legal relationships. Legality of polygamy is entirely different from recognition of plural marriages just as the legality of homosexual relations is different from the recognition of same-sex marriage.
There is also a lack of knowledge about the existence of such laws outside of Utah. This law does exist outside of Utah. Indeed, the very same language is found in the Canadian cohabitation law. I was called as a legal expert in the recent challenge to that law. However, the Canadian Supreme Court in British Columbia upheld the law. Putting these distinctions aside, the thrust of this article is how this decision is part of a larger trend toward the repeal or the striking down of morality codes, including the rejection of a cohabitation law in Virginia this year.
——————————————-
The decision this month by a federal court striking down the criminalization of polygamy in Utah was met with a mix of rejoicing and rage. What was an emancipating decision for thousands of plural families was denounced as the final descent into a moral abyss by others.
Former senator Rick Santorum was among the social conservatives trying to claim the moral high ground. He tweeted on Sunday: “Some times I hate it when what I predict comes true” — referring to his 2003 claim that legalizing “consensual sex within your home” would lead to the legalization of polygamy and “undermine the fabric of our society.” (On Wednesday, with no apparent sense of self-contradiction, he expressed outrage over the removal of a Nativity scene at a South Carolina military base, tweeting: “Our Constitution protects free exercise of religion. No govt entity/official has the right to limit that.”)It’s true that the Utah ruling is one of the latest examples of a national trend away from laws that impose a moral code. There is a difference, however, between the demise of morality laws and the demise of morality. This distinction appears to escape social conservatives nostalgic for a time when the government dictated whom you could live with or sleep with. But the rejection of moral codes is no more a rejection of morality than the rejection of speech codes is a rejection of free speech. Our morality laws are falling, and we are a better nation for it.
In the Utah case, I was the lead counsel for the Browns, the polygamous family featured in the TLC reality program “Sister Wives.” They are members of the Apostolic United Brethren Church, and they have one marriage license and three “spiritual” marriages among them. After the first episode of “Sister Wives” aired, state prosecutors threatened to bring charges under a Utah law that made it a crime when a married person “purports to marry another person or cohabits with another person.” The Browns were under investigation for two years and were publicly called felons before they took prosecutors to court in a challenge to the constitutionality of the law.
The case was never about the recognition of multiple marriages or the acceptance of the religious values underlying this plural family. It was about the right of consenting adults to make decisions for themselves and their families. Judge Clark Waddoups, a conservative George W. Bush appointee,ruled that the criminalization of cohabitation clearly violated the due process clause and the free exercise clause of the United States Constitution.
In doing so, he departed from the prevailing precedent: the Supreme Court’s opinion inReynolds v. United States , which upheld a ban on polygamy in 1879. Waddoups wrote that courts today are “less inclined to allow majoritarian coercion of unpopular or disliked minority groups, especially when blatant racism . . . religious prejudice, or some other constitutionally suspect motivation, can be discovered behind such legislation.”
Indeed, in Reynolds, religious and racial prejudice were vividly on display. The court unleashed a tirade of indignation and condemnation, stating, “Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe, and, until the establishment of the Mormon Church, was almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and of African people.” Just a few years later, the Supreme Court also upheld the criminalization of mixed-race relations in Pace v. Alabama .
The idea that polygamy was a “barbarous practice” and contrary to democratic principles drove the demand in the late 1880s and ’90s that Utah outlaw it as a condition of statehood. And in Mormon Church v. United States (1890), the Supreme Court labeled polygamy as “abhorrent to the sentiments and feelings of the civilized world.”
The stigma attached to polygamy continued to distort legal analysis into this century. As recently as 2006, Utah Justice Ronald Nehring began his opinion in a ruling upholding the criminalization of polygamy by lamenting, “No matter how widely known the natural wonders of Utah may become, no matter the extent that our citizens earn acclaim for their achievements, in the public mind Utah will forever be shackled to the practice of polygamy.” Nehring frankly admitted that this hostility “has been present in my consciousness, and I suspect has been a brooding presence . . . in the minds of my colleagues, from the moment we opened the parties’ briefs.” Rather than overcome that prejudice, Nehring not only yielded to it but warned any Utah judge of the peril of being the first to recognize the rights of polygamists: “I have not been alone in speculating what the consequences might be were the highest court in the State of Utah the first in the nation to proclaim that polygamy enjoys constitutional protection.”
Well, it wasn’t. A federal judge in Utah assumed that burden. Gov. Gary Herbert objected to the court making “decisions on social issues.” (He has not yet announced an appeal.) Waddoups, however, was not dictating a decision on a social issue but rather saying that governments could not impose a single version of morality. He limited prosecution under Utah’s anti-polygamy law to cases of bigamy, where someone acquires more than one marriage license — which is an offense more common to monogamous couples, who care about state recognition, than polygamists, who care about spiritual recognition.
Across the country, the era of morality codes is coming to an inglorious end. This year, the Supreme Court struck down part of the Defense of Marriage Act barring the federal recognition of same-sex marriage. And this week, the New Mexico Supreme Court and another federal judge in Utah struck down the ban on same-sex marriage in those states — bringing the number to 18 states (plus the District of Columbia) where same-sex couples can marry. Meanwhile, Virginia recently repealed its 1877 cohabitation law and Colorado replealed a criminal adultery law from the 1850s — both relics of a time when states used their criminal codes to force citizens to comply with the religious values of their neighbors.
Most states have wisely turned away from absurd laws criminalizing masturbation and fornication. Obscenity laws have also been curtailed by the Supreme Court in deference to the First Amendment.
Still rightly on the books are laws against bestiality, which involves an obvious lack of consent as well as manifest harm. Likewise, incest bans are based on claims of medical, not moral, harm.
Once any crimes or abuses are stripped away in cases like the Browns’, what remains is religious animus. Yet, polygamy is widely practiced around the world by millions of families and was condoned by every major religion — from Judaism to Christianity to Islam — at one time. While plural families are called polygamists in our popular lexicon, “polygamy” actually refers to a broad array of plural relationships, from polygyny (one husband and multiple wives, like the Browns) to polyandry (a single wife and multiple husbands) to polyamory (couples who reject the exclusivity of sexual relations). The vast majority of these families are based on consenting relations among adults without abusive or criminal histories.
Critics often ignore these other plural relationships (and even polygynists like the Browns) in favor of a stereotype of “compound polygamists,” living in remote walled communities where women appear captive and molestation flourishes. It is Warren Jeffs, not Kody Brown, whom critics want to invoke in debating decriminalization — a sinister figure in a secluded compound where women wear prairie outfits and hairdos from the 19th century.
Obviously, there will always be abusers like Jeffs among polygamists — just as there are abusers among monogamists. However, it is no more persuasive to criminalize all plural relationships because of a small number of abusive individuals than it would be logical to outlaw monogamy based on the convicted spouse- and child-abusers in conventional marriages.
One of the great ironies about the focus on compound polygamists is the circular logic of criminalization. The government first declared polygamists felons and then pointed to their hiding as evidence of their guilt. But decriminalization will allow these families to be plural, open and law-abiding as they reintegrate into society.
In truth, 19th-century Americans were no more moral than we are today. It simply appeared that way with the imposition of official morals, including (as Santorum recalls so fondly) being told whom we could love in our own homes. It is not a single moral voice that is heard today but a chorus of voices. Each speaks to its own values but joins around a common article of faith: the belief that morality is better left to parents than to politicians.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and lead counsel in the “Sister Wives” polygamy case.
Washington Post (Sunday) December 22, 2013
Bron: There is a free market in Somalia, many parts of South America, many parts of Africa, many parts of the Middle East. Northern Pakistan is a free market, parts of Afghanistan are free markets. Zero government regulation of trade, period. No taxes. Plenty of mercenaries you can hire to protect your transactions and enforce your contracts. Good luck.
Tony C:
“Free Markets don’t work. They fail. That is the fact.”
WTF? Where is there a free market that has failed? I thought you and others said they have never existed? So how can they fail?
How can something that has never existed fail? There hasnt been a free market in this country, I think the 19th century was pretty free, since the creation of the fed and the passage of the income tax amendment. Top that off with 10’s of thousands of pages of regulations and where is there a free market?
I love the way Gene H and Tony C. just constantly criticize, what they just can’t seem to grasp. They can’t understand how people can associate and do great things without being forced to do so. Perhaps they were unloved as children and just don’t understand the concept. That when people voluntarily do things, they want to do it and therefore do a better job. That people who are forced to do things aren’t happy (themselves and/or slaves) and generally will do a horrible job at whatever they do. That when people work together without being forced or coerced, their creativity, integrity and productivity increase. Human nature is a wonderful thing, not one to be used as pieces of meat, under the treat of force and coercion by a corrupt ruling class, who steals from their labor, in the name of the public good. This is really the system they embrace, one where everyone tries to line up at the public treasury and fight over who gets what and how much. Theft, conflict, compromise, corruption, coercion, collusion, fraud and framing innocent people are all proven and prosecuted elements of the social compact they adore.
They just can’t fathom a society were people work together without being threatened by force and coercion on a constant basis yet as they watch the initiation of force and coercion, do they not see that it has bankrupted and impoverished the lower classes, much more now than every before in our history. That is because we have the greatest level of socialism ever, and yet they do not see the causation and instead blame capitalism, that which does not even exist in today Amerika. Many many other people here in the US and around the world understand what the libertarians are saying and as each year goes by, even more are joining the ranks of those in favor of true capitalism.
Wake up boys. There really can be a better world.
Oky1: I don’t watch videos, thanks anyway.
DavidM:
Gender diversity, I am all for that. I practice it myself, have been for the last 26 years. The children appreciate that I do too.
vive le difference is my motto.
By the way, my wife could never lift 100 lbs on the best day of her life. I used to do it all the time.
TonyC,
Thanks for the diet/exercise post.
I’ll likely argue against your “The beauty of European Socialism” later at some point, but now.
Here’s a repost of a video I put up the other day:
**Many here are still unsure of what has/is happening to the sovereignty of the USA, I couldn’t more strongly suggest they review this video as the same that is happening to Europe is already happening here today & is being written into law in every state! **
Skip says: these are the thoughts of hundreds, perhaps thousands of economists from around the world.
Quantity is not quality, Skip. 99.9% of the world population used to think the world was flat. And the center of the universe. That the moon shone with its own light. They were wrong. 200 years ago scientists thought the Sun was burning a fuel like any other fire, and confidently computed it would have to run out of fuel within 5000 years. They were wrong.
Economists are not even scientists, you can quote thousands if you want, but if you trace those thousands of arguments back to their source, you aren’t going to find thousands of theorists that all came to the same conclusion by different paths. You are going to find a small handful of theorists that everybody is quoting. A small handful of theorists that are wrong, because they willfully ignore the evidence to the contrary.
Free Markets don’t work. They fail. That is the fact.
David,
Your comment has been removed for revealing personal information I did not give you permission to share. That is a banning offense.
Gene H wrote: “Your comment has been removed for revealing personal information I did not give you permission to share. That is a banning offense.”
Go ahead and treat me like Ed Snowden, but I shared nothing that you have not made public already.
You really are incapable of thinking in anything but absolutes, aren’t you Skipples. I don’t use the word “cure” because that is the language of utopians such as yourself. I use the word “mitigate”, which means “make (something bad) less severe, serious, or painful”. Utopia is not possible.
I’m also not surprised these “aren’t your original thoughts”. Thinking well and for yourself isn’t your strong suit and that much is manifest by your comments. But as they say in programming circles, garbage in garbage out. See, that’s what is frustrating about Bron. He actually can think well when he applies himself, but he often (but not always) insists on a diet of intellectual garbage and candy just like you do. And David sells intellectual garbage and candy so there you have it.
Also, Austrian School economists are to economics what ancient astronaut theorists are to SETI. A million of them could tell me I’m wrong and it would mean precisely nothing. They practice political polemic disguised as economics, but it is not really economics at all.
Again, since you’re hard of understanding, I require no force against others to make them change their minds. The ideas themselves and the arguments behind them will either persuade them or they won’t. That you personally are not persuaded means absolutely nothing in the bigger picture. Someone out there is persuaded. Which is fine. All I can do is show the foot of the path. Just as there is a difference between knowing the path and walking the path, no one can walk that path for another. It is a trip they make themselves. I don’t force anyone to change their mind.
They do it themselves.
Or they don’t.
Sic transit gloria mundi.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/dont-feed-the-libertarian-trolls-rebutted.html
Skip says: How many people would you like to see on food stamps before you realize you socials compact concept is not working?
All of them. At least, anybody that wants to apply for them, I would seriously consider 1500 calories worth of nutrition a day a birthright of every citizen.
Tony C wrote: “I would seriously consider 1500 calories worth of nutrition a day a birthright of every citizen.”
Then I surmise that you reject the aphorism:: “He who does not work, neither shall he eat.”
If so, this is kind of interesting, because even the socialist Lenin advocated for this principle.
Skip says: ou two live in the delusional world where our political leaders and Judges are saints and angels,
Actually I think they are scum, Skip. I think our political ranks are filled with sociopaths and even a handful of psychopaths. Seriously. I think the majority of national level politicians (and even major city politicians) are hopelessly corrupt, self-serving thieves. I really mean that.
Oky1:
“Maybe Gene will explain to us as a liberal today seems to mean to many that they are authoritarian socialist like TonyC.”
I have been saying that for years.
The Utah law is silly in some ways, because say a guy is married legally to one woman in the state of Utah.
While married he cohabits with another woman, but does not have sex with that other woman, nevertheless, he is guilty of the felony of bigamy (not adultery because there was no sex).
If he does not cohabit with her, but does have sex with her, he is only guilty of a misdemeanor (adultery).
Dale 1, December 22, 2013 at 8:05 pm
Dredd,
Notice how davidm2575 also observes that that the meaning of bigamy has been changed by our esteemed professor. davidm2575 quotes the OED. I now use wiktionary which squares with my recollection of Websters, etc. OED apparently defines bigamy as having two and no more plural marriages, one man and two women or one woman and two men. But Jonathan’s usage, even if modern, departs from the traditional meaning.
=====================
I noticed the tag-teams on this thread, but the fact that you are commenting as part of a tag team does not change reality.
Marriage is a state issue.
Thus in the present case it concerns Utah state law as it intersects with American Constitutional Rights.
Here are the relevant Utah statutes at issue:
The Utah state law outlaws consensual sex between adults as did Texas law which was struck down in Lawrence v Texas.
Under the Utah statute, polygamy is merely bigamy on steroids.
The Deseret News is more articulate and discerning than the legislators were, distinguishing bigamy from polygamy due to the religious nature of the latter in the present case.
Nevertheless, when a man with a state granted marriage, including a license, does a “spiritual marriage” (two wives) even though he does not ask for another state license, or when he merely cohabits with another woman besides his state-legal wife, that man and that second woman violate the Utah law of bigamy, fornication, and adultery.
When he thereafter adds another spiritual wife (now three wives) or cohabits with a third woman, he also commits bigamy, fornication, and adultery according to the same law.
That is why I quoted the Utah “Deseret News” for a definition of bigamy and polygamy – a state specific focus by newspaper people in that state who can discern one set of factual events from another.
It is bad nomenclature to have a word that means so many things (bigamy = fornication, adultery, and polygamy).
Skip says: Many believe exercise is important but do no know the reasons why
I am not among them. My wife and I lift weights together for an hour once a week. I walk the dog three miles a day. I wouldn’t believe your “friend.”
Your PhD friend is wrong, too. What is his PhD in, medieval studies? Your arteries are not clogged by “arterial fat” that can be burned, fatty acids contribute to plaque buildup that is not reduced by exercise or burning body fat at all. Even fighting fit Marines at the peak of health and that get tons of exercise are building up plaques in their arteries, as studied extensively by autopsy of those fallen in battle. Soldiers as young as 18 can have significant arterial plaque.
For example, see Jim Fixx, one of the most celebrated marathoners in decades. from the link, “On July 20, 1984, Fixx died at age 52 of a fulminant heart attack, after his daily run on Vermont Route 15 in Hardwick. The autopsy revealed that atherosclerosis had blocked one coronary artery 95%, a second 85%, and a third 70%.”
Working your lungs does not make your lungs stronger or more efficient. Working your heart does extremely little for your heart; the primary benefit of aerobic exercise is improving the efficiency of the muscles in burning oxygen. Our hearts are already being exercised 24 hours a day, so even long term exercise in workouts that increases the heart rate significantly for a short periods of time typically improves heart function itself by less than 3%.
My friend has a PhD in both Chinese Herbal and Alternative Medicine. He was talking about fasting that burns fat in the arteries first. That’s right I forgot Tony you know everything as do all your resources. Remember that it took the allopathic community until the mid 1980s to accept the fact that peptic ulcers were caused by a simple bacteria.
It wasn’t until the mid-1980s that Warren and Marshall finally succeeded in convincing the medical community about the relationship between H. pylori and the formation of ulcers. As you will see, this was no simple task. It took much determination, hard work, and some rather unorthodox methods to accomplish this feat. Dr. Warren, a pathologist in Western Australia, first noticed Helicobacter organisms on his birthday in June of 1979. By this time technical advances in medicine had changed the way that diseases were diagnosed. The widespread availability of the fiberoptic endoscope, an instrument inserted into the stomach via the mouth, allowed physicians to collect high quality tissue specimens that they could examine microscopically. This greatly increased the ability of pathologists to view the fine details of tissue specimens. While examining a biopsy specimen of tissue taken from a person with chronic gastritis (inflammation of the stomach lining), Dr. Warren noticed fine, blue lines on the surface of the mucosa, the cells lining the stomach, in areas that were clearly damaged and inflamed. At higher magnification, he observed what appeared to be numerous small bacteria,
Skipples,
You still don’t grasp that there in nothing unethical about limiting absolute rights in exchange for mutual benefit, but that is the nature of the social compact. I’m sure glad that someone like yourself, generally unable to put together any cogent line of thought and often not even a complete or sensible sentence, have figured out that the basis for modern legal studies and all those who’ve been studying the subject for the last 300 years have it all wrong and you’ve got the right answer. I anxiously await the entire field of the study of jurisprudence to bow down before you. I suspect I’ll be waiting until the eventual entropic death of the universe.
And no. I have stated many times that communism fails and why it fails. I’ve also shown many examples where forms of socialism work and to a far greater functionality in the service of the social compact than other systems (Norway and Denmark to name just two). That it upsets you that communism fails for a very similar although slightly different cause rooted in the same error – not realistically accounting for human nature – just burns you up apparently. Oh well. That’s what happens when you think you understand what you are talking about and you don’t. You build sand castles instead of cogent arguments.
I also understand what impact size has on government. It is you that don’t understand no matter how many times you insist that you do or how many times it is explained to you. I also don’t care that “many people” choose to define something wrongly. That still makes them . . . wait for it . . . wrong.
Just like you.
Skip: You just can’t grasp the concept that government on it’s economic foundations is perfectly ethical. It creates an environment in which you have Rights that are protected by mutual consent, it defends that environment, and charges you a fee for your fair share of the cost of that environment, which is defined by how much that environment benefits you, in terms of making profits.
You cannot grasp that, because you are greedy and petty. No offense, that is just the facts. You are not forced to pay taxes: Just stop using our infrastructure to make money, and your taxes will disappear. In fact, because of what we believe are your Rights as a human being, we will make you a net beneficiary and keep you fed and alive.
If you don’t like that arrangement, you are even free to leave. Walk across the border to Mexico and don’t look back. It will be exciting, you will have a chance to learn a new language, and meet new and interesting people with some new free market propositions for you to consider.
Nobody forces you to stay, nobody forces you to even work. I have a sister that would rather live in a drainage ditch than work (literally), despite forever having a room and board in my mother’s house (but my sister also doesn’t like the rules, like doing her own dishes). My sister doesn’t owe any taxes at all. Ever. Legally. Even under the table she never earns enough that she would have owed a penny. You can do the same! I know it is an aspirational goal, it will take a certain amount of dedication and sacrifice, but you don’t have to pay taxes!
Which means, the social compact, which you can escape at any time, actually is voluntary; it is just like your phone contract, take it or leave it. There is no negotiation, but at any moment you can stop earning or walk into Mexico or the Canadian wilderness or start swimming for International waters and live free, little bird, for the rest of your life. Minus the many years the social compact is adding to that life.
Tony C. and Gene H. You two live in the delusional world where our political leaders and Judges are saints and angels, setting up and maintaining a social compact that affords mutual benefits to all. What a bunch of hogwash and you see how that’s been working for the majority and for our economic system over the last several decades.
How many people would you like to see on food stamps before you realize you socials compact concept is not working? Would another 50 million be enough for you, or are you waiting for another round of food lines and rationing.
Oh, yea Gene we can cure all the problems with even more taxation and regulations and of course, with campaign reform. The problem is Genie, the politicians you trust have been saying this for 45 years and instead of improving it’s getting worse.
Capitalism saved the world from the corruption of the authoritarian rule by the monarchs and you idiots are throwing it way on socialist myths. Even your greatest examples Norway, is fraught with social and economic problems even with being a tiny country with one of the greatest resource to populations ratios. Capitalism is the art of finding what people need and providing it for them at a price they will by it for. How hard is that to understand.
What you may not understand is that these are not my original thoughts, these are the thoughts of hundreds, perhaps thousands of economists from around the world.
Keep trying to use force against people into excepting your socialistic BS because, as you will see, socialism and communism fail and the they fail for pretty much the same reasons.
Gene: My own diet, which maintains approximately military weight (despite a pretty sedentary life style), is about 12,000 calories a week. I have four days of 1200 calories, to which I have long become accustomed. Friday night through Saturday night I eat what I want, eat out, and consume approximately my weight in ice cream while watching movies.
I also have 12 days in the year that I am off; six of them between Halloween and New Year’s day, so this morning I am 9.5 pounds over my pre-holiday weight!
But no worries, it will all be gone before my next physical in April.
“My own diet, which maintains approximately military weight (despite a pretty sedentary life style), is about 12,000 calories a week. I have four days of 1200 calories, to which I have long become accustomed.”
Tony,
You’re right one of the tricks is regularity. In 1970 I lived for 8 mos. on a diet that consisted of the following:
Breakfast: 2 slices of white toast with butter. Orange Juice and coffee.
Dinner: 1 pound broiled Rib Steak w/o bone on a garlic bagel. That was pretty much it with only two or three days of exception. I went from 245 to 175 and maintained myself at that weight for ten years pretty much eating what I wanted to. Of course I was much younger than, far more active and did 100 situps and 100 pushups each and every day. :).
Tony,
I’ve got a buddy who is a trainer and nutritionalist (mostly MMA clients) and what you say comports to his experience that the most successful regimens include a version of what he calls “an eat what you want day/meal”. It just can’t be every or even most days.
Gene and Tony, Many believe exercise is important but do no know the reasons why except, that you burn more energy. That’s not the real reasons you need to exercise.
According to a friend, the lymph glands are like check valves, it they are not manipulated by exercise, they do not push the fluids around you system. You heart is worked harder as are you’re lungs, etc. What’s the old saying, if you don’t use it, you loose it. Mow the grass, trim the bushes etc. Manual labor is good exercise.
There is some evidence that periodic fasting is very good for both the heart and arteries, as the fat in the arteries, according to a PhD friend, burns first before the body burns it’s other stored fats. Just be careful as toxins are going to be set loose and need to be excreted. Things such as wheat grass, spinach and other vegie’s high in chlorophyll, he says, can be juiced to solve the ill felling from toxins, some suffer when fasting. Hence, the term a juice fast.
I don’t exercise much I’m to busy blogging. I hit some golf balls at the range and play as much as possible, work in the yard and have sex as much as possible. It beats the hell out of going to the smelly gym.
Also, we read and understand your posts.
That is why we know they are based in ignorance.