Monday, July 01, 2013

Redefining Marriage Opens A Big Can Of Worms

Last week, the Supreme Court made decisions on California's Prop 8 and the Bill Clinton-signed into law Defense of Marriage Act that endanger what has been, for thousands of years, the traditional view of marriage as "one man and one woman."

In my view, this decision is damaging for the rights of the voters of California, who had their legitimate vote overturned by radical justices and a liberal attorney generals who refused to defend the will of the people because the proposition violated his personal beliefs (and yet libs lecture conservative Christians to separate their personal views from the law?).

Justice Anthony Kennedy, in making the claim that Prop 8 and DOMA were initiated because of a bias against homosexuals should, in my mind, be disqualified in a sane world from serving as a justice. What reasoning does he base that decision on?

Nevertheless, this decision is now opening up a can of worms that goes beyond homosexuals ability to marry someone of the same sex (Legal Insurrection).
Long ago, and far away, we predicted that once the legal standard for equal protection of the law as to marriage became  ”love”  and consenting adults, without regard to gender, there would be no rational basis upon which to limit the number to two:
That is the argument put forth by Prof. Martha Nussbaum, “Polygamy would have to be permitted”:

Now, via BuzzFeed, Polygamists are emboldened to speak of their love and demand legal rights in the wake of the Supreme Court’s DOMA decision, Polygamists Celebrate Supreme Court’s Marriage Rulings:
The Supreme Court’s rulings in favor of same-sex marriage Wednesday were greeted with excitement by polygamists across the country, who viewed the gay rights victory as a crucial step toward the country’s inevitable acceptance of plural marriage. 
Anne Wilde, a vocal advocate for polygamist rights who practiced the lifestyle herself until her husband died in 2003, praised the court’s decision as a sign that society’s stringent attachment to traditional “family values” is evolving. 
“I was very glad… The nuclear family, with a dad and a mom and two or three kids, is not the majority anymore,” said Wilde. “Now it’s grandparents taking care of kids, single parents, gay parents. I think people are more and more understanding that as consenting adults, we should be able to raise a family however we choose.” 
“We’re very happy with it,” said Joe Darger, a Utah-based polygamist who has three wives. “I think [the court] has taken a step in correcting some inequality, and that’s certainly something that’s going to trickle down and impact us.” 
Noting that the court found the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional because the law denied marriage rights to a specific class of people, Darger said, “Our very existence has been classified as criminal… and I think the government needs to now recognize that we have a right to live free as much as anyone else.” … 
But polygamists in the United States, where bigamy is a crime, have taken cues from the marriage equality movement, and the few public champions of the lifestyle have deliberately positioned themselves as libertarian-minded gay rights advocates as well. Following gay rights activists’ lead, polygamist families — like the Browns, with their TLC reality show Sister Wives, and the Dargers, who came out with a book last year — have come forward to convince the American public that their lifestyle can be wholesome and normal. 
The key difference in their missions, Wilde said, is that “gays want legal marriage and polygamists don’t” — they just want their lifestyle to be decriminalized.
Matt Lewis notes:
After all, why shouldn’t marriage equality apply to them, too? 
The arguments are essentially the same. For example, Sen. Al Franken recently issued a statement saying, “Our country is starting to understand that it’s not about what a family looks like: it’s about their love and commitment to one another.” Polygamists couldn’t agree more.
If you have to redefine the definition of marriage for one group, you have to redefine it for all.

By the way, the government shouldn't be in the business of defining and redefining what marriage is and isn't. Why? Because marriage has already been defined thousands of years ago by a Being much more supreme than any court, congress, or president.

MORE:

The Blaze: Lesbian Activist's Surprisingly Candid Speech: Gay Marriage Fight Is A "Lie" To Destroy Marriage

Dana Loesch at RedState: The Argument For “Marriage Equality” Is Not A Conservative One


No comments: