June 18, 2013 | 98 comments
June 13, 2013 | 54 comments
June 11, 2013 | 215 comments
June 6, 2013 | 91 comments
June 4, 2013 | 55 comments
A White House/gay boycott and the abolition of marriage: Will Jill Biden go out with me?
(Page 3 of 6)
Which is to say, marriage between one man and one woman.
Thereby opening the legal floodgates to legalizing polygamy, polyamory (group marriage) and any and all other combinations that cross the human imagination. Or, as Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in his Lawrence v. Texas sexual liberty case dissent: “bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality and obscenity.”
And in the unlikely combination of current political figures Obama, Biden and North Carolina’s now infamous ex-Senator John Edwards lie stark, sharply personal reminders of the perils political and cultural for both candidates and American society itself.
Let’s start first with the issue that so infuriates same-sex marriage advocates. That would be the “slippery slope” idea that recognition of anything other than one-man, one-woman marriage, heretofore the gold standard of Western Civilization’s stability, inevitably will open the door legally to all manner of other marital combos.
All the way back in August of 2003, Stanley Kurtz, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, did an extensive examination of what was ahead if what is now the Obama-Biden position in fact became the law of the land. The proximate cause of Kurtz’s piece was the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas, a case revolving around sexual liberty. Wrote Kurtz in the Weekly Standard (bold emphasis mine):
Among the likeliest effects of gay marriage is to take us down a slippery slope to legalized polygamy and “polyamory” (group marriage). Marriage will be transformed into a variety of relationship contracts, linking two, three, or more individuals (however weakly and temporarily) in every conceivable combination of male and female. A scare scenario? Hardly. The bottom of this slope is visible from where we stand. Advocacy of legalized polygamy is growing. A network of grass-roots organizations seeking legal recognition for group marriage already exists. The cause of legalized group marriage is championed by a powerful faction of family law specialists. Influential legal bodies in both the United States and Canada have presented radical programs of marital reform. Some of these quasi-governmental proposals go so far as to suggest the abolition of marriage. The ideas behind this movement have already achieved surprising influence with a prominent American politician.
(Note: The “American politician” in question was former Vice President Al Gore, who with wife Tipper had written a 2002 book called Joined at the Heart, which redefined a “family” as not one of blood or law but just “joined at the heart.” Mr. Gore and Mrs. Gore, it should be noted, announced in June 2010 that their 40-year marriage was ending in divorce, their hearts apparently un-joined.)
Just as Kurtz predicted, with same-sex marriage making rapid progress (legalized already in some states, under consideration in others), the push for legalizing polygamy has gained speed, both legally and culturally.
On the legal front, here is George Washington law professor Jonathan Turley making the case for legalizing polygamy in the pages of — where else? — the same-sex marriage supporting pages of the New York Times. Turley is not writing here in some abstruse academic sense. He is in fact the lawyer representing a polygamist man named Kody Brown — and Brown’s four wives and sixteen children. The objective is to overturn Utah’s laws making polygamy illegal.
The Browns may be familiar to you as they are the stars of a TLC cable channel show called Sister Wives. You can see them in this clip at YouTube that was uploaded by — drum roll please — the Ellen show. Yes, that would be Ellen DeGeneres, the famously gay comedienne who is herself married to her lesbian lover in precisely the kind of relationship President Obama and Vice President Biden are lionizing. If there is any doubt of the cultural campaign now underway to make polygamy acceptable and of the implicit connection between the same-sex marriage movement and the ultimate abolition of marriage itself, this one clip should erase those doubts. That’s before, of course, one even gets to the HBO show Big Love that starred Bill Paxton as a polygamist with a collection of wives.
Turley’s article, “One Big, Happy Polygamous Family,” describes the Brown marriages in question this way:
One of the marriages is legal and the others are what the family calls “spiritual.” They are not asking for the state to recognize their marriages. They are simply asking for the state to leave them alone.
He goes on to say (with bold print for emphasis mine):
While widely disliked, if not despised, polygamy is just one form among the many types of plural relationships in our society. It is widely accepted that a person can have multiple partners and have children with such partners. But the minute that person expresses a spiritual commitment and “cohabits” with those partners, it is considered a crime.
We should fight for privacy as an inclusive concept, benefiting everyone in the same way. Regardless of whether it is a gay or plural relationship, the struggle and the issue remains the same: the right to live your life according to your own values and faith.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?