Operation Marriage Chaos: Woman "Married" to Berlin Wall for 29 Years (5/30/2008)
Posted on 09/30/2009 1:35:51 PM PDT by Dumb_Ox
A law professor nominated by President Obama to become a commissioner for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was a signatory to a radical 2006 manifesto which endorsed polygamous households and argued traditional marriage should not be privileged “above all others.”
Georgetown University Law Center professor Chai R. Feldblum, nominated as a commissioner for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), is listed as a signatory to the July 26, 2006 manifesto “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage: A New Strategic Vision for All Our Families & Relationships.”
The manifesto’s signatories said they proposed a “new vision” for governmental and private recognition of “diverse kinds” of partnerships, households and families. They said they hoped to “move beyond the narrow confines of marriage politics” in the U.S.
Describing various kinds of households as no less socially, economically, and spiritually worthy than other relationships, the Beyond Marriage manifesto listed “committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner.”
Same-sex marriage, the manifesto said, should be “just one option on a menu of choices that people have about the way they construct their lives.”
“Marriage is not the only worthy form of family or relationship, and it should not be legally and economically privileged above all others,” the manifesto continued. “While we honor those for whom marriage is the most meaningful personal – for some, also a deeply spiritual – choice, we believe that many other kinds of kinship relationship, households, and families must also be accorded recognition.”
The manifesto listed as one of its principles “freedom from a narrow definition of our sexual lives and gender choices, identities, and expression.”
It also charged that the political right enforces “narrow, heterosexist definitions of marriage.”
Other signatories of the Beyond Marriage manifesto included activists, academics, writers, artists, and clergy. The prominent names listed include Ms. Magazine founder Gloria Steinem, New York Times writer Barbara Ehrenreich, Catholic feminist theologian Mary E. Hunt, Tikkun Magazine editor Rabbi Michael Lerner, philosopher Judith Butler and Princeton University professor Cornel West.
President Barack Obama announced Feldblum’s nomination in a Sept. 14 statement, saying she and nominees to other agencies bring “a dedication and expertise in their fields that will serve this administration and the American people well.”
“As we work to advance equal rights, keep our nation safe and put our country back on a path to prosperity, I look forward to working with these fine individuals in the months and years ahead," the president said.
The White House’s statement noted that Feldblum has taught at the Georgetown University Law Center since 1991 and founded a program there to train students to become legislative lawyers. She also clerked for Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun and helped draft the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
“She has also worked on advancing lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights and has been a leading expert on the Employment Nondiscrimination Act,” the White House’s Sept. 14 statement said.
The Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA) would create a federal ban on workplace discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.
The EEOC is tasked with the enforcement of federal anti-discrimination law in the workplace. If confirmed, Feldblum would become one of five EEOC commissioners, who each serve a term of five years.
Feldblum’s nomination was sent to the U.S. Senate on Sept. 15.
First Kevin Jennings, now this. If conservatives can't thwart this pederast/polygamist/polyamorist foothold, we're in trouble.
Those who can’t do, teach and then become a Obama Czar
ping!
Did anyone here think they’d stop once they have homosexual marriage in place? Polygamy, man-boy love, woman-girl love, NAMBLA, transgender partnerships, etc. will be the new frontiers.
Well Barack Obama’s father was either a bigamist or a polygamist. his marriage to Obama’s mother was invalid in America.
Can I form a loving bond and household with a young tortoise? Can I then claim head-of-household if a baby tortoise comes along? Will Obamacare cover the tortoise? Can my tortoise continue to collect survivor benefits from SocSec and other pension plans after I am dead?
the culture war is afoot.
And now they can send it back. "Next."
I think I have a monogamist’s body trapped outside a polygamist’s mind.
No problem. Under this idiot Chai (isn’t that a tea?), you could marry yourself. Twice. But the subsequent divorce will be a bitch.
Operation Marriage Chaos: Woman "Married" to Berlin Wall for 29 Years (5/30/2008)
The name is Chai R. Or ChaiR
Most of the laws passed recently to defend traditional one-man-one-woman marriages, ironically would not prevent transgendered marriages.
So long as one of the partners is legally recognized as a man and one is legally recognized as a woman they could get married.
Conservatives need to stop being prudish about this and pass more specific laws that will make it impossible for freaks to undermine marriage. The only people who should be allowed to be married are those that were born a specific sex, are that same sex at the day of marriage, and agree to remain that sex throughout the marriage.
I offer an alternate solution...keep the government out of all relationships involving CONSENTING ADULTS.. keep the bans on children, animals, or household objects etc.... but why do you need gov’t approval to have a relationship? Flame on.. but really.... the government was supposed to mint money, maintain a standing army and maintain roadways.. flame away.
The governments of the U.S. historically prosecuted adultery and bigamy and almost never recognized divorce. Though the federal and state govts were less involved until Mormon polygamy became an issue, the libertarian take on marriage is a novel one and largely alien to American history.
How about we handle this the American way?
If freaks want to get married, THEN IT'S NONE OF YOUR DAMNED BUSINESS.
The solution is for governments to get out of the marriage business.
to become a commissioner for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
slavery is common to U.S. history too..doesn’t mean we should do it.. I find it interesting that the ONLY things the U.S. gov’t was meant to do, has become a “libertarian” viewpoint.
I suppose its a matter of how much government intervention one wants in one’s life... frankly, I don’t think I need their permission to validate a relationship between myself and other consenting adults. It’s between me and my God, and as long as He’s good with it, its no one else’s business.
What? 19th century marriage law is hardly the equivalent of slavery. And the federal constitution largely assumed common law's approach to marriage, so I think my point still stands.
In the short term, getting government out of marriage would require lots of government action. Do you really think divorce lawyers will just go away? Marriage or "partnerships" would still rely on government enforcement of contracts and government definition of what contracts are legally binding. Suppose I marry someone and initially we both don't believe divorce should be a legal option under our private contract. Does that contract apply if I change my mind later? If not, government is involved in that marriage.
Anyway, conservatives at this point are in favor of far less government action than radicals like Feldblum, who might force everyone to recognize polygamy. Both conservatives and libertarians should work together to keep them out of the government bureaucracy, when reducing it isn't a political option.
My point being, that just because something has “always been done that way” doesn’t make it a good idea. I don’t believe everyone should be forced to recognize anything, and no, the gov’ts not just going away any faster than the divorce racket is. I’m just saying personally, I don’t view what should be a personal commitment of the heart, as a legal contract. Same reason I think its unfair to penalize one partner for the other partner’s bad credit rating which can happen even if someone is repsonsible. (There’s another thing to abolish..credit bureaus).
Have you noticed that the redefinition of marriage and relationships has correlated with the expansion of the government and the welfare state? There are reasons to think there is a connection. (See profam.org for more)
I’m just saying personally, I don’t view what should be a personal commitment of the heart, as a legal contract.
To a point, I agree. In my view, marriage should be more like a mutual military or religious oath than like a legal contract.
But I don't really see marriage as a "personal commitment of the heart." It is a public relationship with major social impact.
The relationship between a man and a woman naturally begets children. That commitment benefits from legal backing. Think how many marriages are in your own ancestors' backgrounds. What would have happened if legal marriage had been abolished?
As for the credit rating of a partner (that's newspeak for "spouse" or "spouse substitute"), if a spouse acquires assets in a union why not debts?
I just don't see how your view of marriage is realistic at all. The conservative position has the benefit of tested experience. The radical position, like Feldblum's, only has the benefit of increased political power for the sexual liberation movement and increased social and legal chaos for the rest of us.
marriages like any other relationships don’t always beget children. But all children need to be taken care of, regardless of the marital status of the parents.
And as far as “acquiring assets” I don’t believe in community property attained just by joining a relationship..what’s mine is mine, what’s yours is yours, and stuff we buy together..if you guys wanna fight about that, go to civil court.
If there are arguments over custody and visitation, that is a separate issue. as I stated I am dealing with just the issue of marriage and divorce which to me, should need no government blessing either way. If you want to be together, be together, if you want to go your separate ways, go your separate ways. Only go to the courts for dividing up things acquired together during the relationship or for children’s issues.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.