Posted on 11/22/2025 6:42:10 PM PST by ebb tide
Moreover, to confront the steep demographic decline and the growing Islamization of the continent, bureaucrats—especially the more progressive ones, though not only them—must reckon with internal consensus. While New York celebrates the election of Mayor Zohran Mamdani (cringe: barely a month ago the grand funeral ceremony of Charlie Kirk took place, praising the most conservative America with unprecedented attendance), the European Court of Human Rights must now rule on polygamy.
Let’s proceed step by step. Khaled al-Anesi is a Yemeni lawyer who, after the Arab Spring, was granted asylum in the Netherlands. He went there together with one of his wives and their eight children, following the rules of family reunification. Later, he requested the reunification of five other children, born to his two other wives, since in Yemen polygamy is recognized as a male right derived from Sharia, Islamic law. However, he could not request reunification with his two wives, because in the Netherlands polygamy is prohibited.
It is the first time that the European Court has agreed to rule on a case of polygamy, and it is clearly a sign of the times, a warning not only for Europe but for the entire West.
Unexpectedly for the Yemeni lawyer, the Netherlands rejected the request for reunification with his five children, precisely because polygamy is illegal and the boys already enjoy good living standards in Turkey, where they currently live together with their mothers. However, the Dutch authorities suggested that al-Anesi divorce his two remaining wives in order to “circumvent” the issue and still achieve the desired outcome. Al-Anesi, however, refused to pursue this course, considering it immoral.
Therefore, he decided to sue the Netherlands before the European Court of Human Rights for violating his right to family life. It is the first time that the European Court has agreed to rule on a case of polygamy, and it is clearly a sign of the times, a warning not only for Europe but for the entire West.
As highlighted by analyst Grégor Puppinck of the European Centre for Law & Justice, this legal case, while not directly challenging the ban on polygamy, nevertheless weakens it by contesting the refusal to allow the children to join their parents on the basis of that very ban. Once again, we witness the old and familiar technique of the Overton window.
Puppinck notes that this proceeding highlights three serious limitations. First, the human rights system—at least as it currently stands—can be exploited and circumvented at will, even at the suggestion of the very authorities who are supposed to be its guarantors.
Second, the human rights system is blind to the ingratitude of the applicant. Although the Netherlands—read: Dutch taxpayers—welcomed him, provided financial support, and allowed al-Anasi to reunite with one of his three wives and their children, he now demands to bring over additional family members, thereby undermining the ban on polygamy and attacking those who helped him.
The European human rights system, of Enlightenment origin (and not Christian, as is often claimed), is based on the Masonic assumption that man is the bearer of dignity and therefore of infinite rights, and thus the individual need not confront a natural law that precedes his very existence and limits his claims.
Puppinck rightly points out that the underlying problem is ideological. The European human rights system, of Enlightenment origin (and not Christian, as is often claimed), is based on the Masonic assumption that man is the bearer of dignity and therefore of infinite rights, and thus the individual need not confront a natural law that precedes his very existence and limits his claims.
“If I like something, then it is my right to obtain it.”
Third, precisely because of this last flawed ideological assumption, the Court is unable to explain the Dutch ban on polygamy. If traditions and morality are merely cultural constructs, why cling to a single model of monogamous and heterosexual family? The European Union is therefore incapable of defending not only the natural family between man and woman, but even monogamy itself as the foundational cell of society.
In the Netherlands, polygamy is prohibited, but having multiple consensual relationships at the same time does not constitute a crime. It is a private choice, protected by individual freedom. These are the so-called polyamorous relationships, which are not limited to polygyny or polyandry, but include arrangements in which several men and several women share the same partners, often living together. The Netherlands, in fact, allows civil unions between multiple people. The first national union among three partners was celebrated in September 2005. What, then, prevents al-Anasi’s polygyny from being reinterpreted in light of Dutch legislation as a form of polyamorous relationship?
Europe, which today judges polygamy, should first judge itself: whether it is still the daughter of Athens, Rome, and Jerusalem, or whether it has now become a secularized appendage of authoritarian, collectivist, and Muslim Asia. On this answer depends not only the future of the European Union, but the survival of the entire West as a civilization.
A curious coincidence: the Vatican has announced, for the end of November, the publication of a new doctrinal document prepared—alas—by Cardinal Fernandez, precisely on the theme of polygamy and marriage. It is expected to reaffirm the value of Christian marriage in its uniqueness and indissolubility (sic!), in response to numerous requests from the African episcopate, which, for obvious reasons, must deal daily with the reality of polygamy—quite different from LGBT issues!
It is not uncommon for Catholics to ask their religious authorities for permission to marry other women: just as the ancient Israelites, fascinated by the religious practices of surrounding peoples, asked the prophets and kings for permission to adopt them, so many African Catholics would like to adopt the polygyny practiced by Muslims, who are, of course, far more numerous on the African continent. The text will be entitled “We Two: In Praise of Monogamy. Doctrinal Note on the Value of Marriage, of Exclusive Communion, and of Mutual Belonging.”
The truth, now evident even to those who pretend not to see it, is that the Vatican finds itself under the control of Brussels. The recent “moral openings”—the theory of infinite human dignity, benevolence toward the LGBT agenda, the absolute condemnation of the death penalty—coincide perfectly with the ideological lines of the European Union. They are not the result of an alleged theological evolution, but of political and cultural pressure exerted by a system that does not tolerate the existence of an alternative moral authority.
Technocratic, secularized, and collectivist Europe cannot bear that the Vatican still speaks of objective truths, of natural law, of moral limits that precede the State.
Technocratic, secularized, and collectivist Europe cannot bear that the Vatican still speaks of objective truths, of natural law, of moral limits that precede the State. For Brussels, man is the measure of himself, a bundle of desires to be satisfied and a cog in the proper functioning of the Super-State, not a creature made in the image of God. Whoever dares to remind otherwise—that freedom is not arbitrariness, but adherence to the Good—immediately becomes a foreign body, an obstacle to be neutralized. This is why the Church, today more than ever, walks a fine line: on the one hand, it tries to remain faithful to the Gospel; on the other, it seeks not to be accused of “backwardness” or “discrimination” by the champions of the new religion of infinite human rights.
Now we await the verdict of the Strasbourg Court on polygamy. If the Court opens even the slightest breach, it will not be merely a legal case: it will be the legitimization of an anthropological model opposed to the Christian one. And the day Brussels should establish moral parity between monogamous marriage and polygamy—or between the natural family and polyamory—the Vatican will be called to choose: remain faithful to Christ or once again bow to the imperative of European compatibility.
For in the end, the question is only one, terribly simple: when the European Union declares that polygamy too is a “human right,” will Rome continue to say “no” with the same pride? Or will it prefer to remain silent—in the name of peace, tolerance, and dialogue—and thus, little by little, renounce its mission of light in the world, as has already happened in other cases?
Humanism Barf Alert
Islam is already calling the shots and murdering at will. These clowns are dead men walking.
Polygamy would solve a LOT of issues.
all the women chasing the few millionaires that are 6’ + can all share a man and have a ton of kids with him, which will solve the population decline issue.
The only downside is all the poor short guys will never get a girl then, and might get angry
Which, until relatively recently in Human History (as the genetic analysis of fossil human bones shows), was the norm.
Regards,
“...The only downside is all the poor short guys will never get a girl then, and might get angry...”
That’s why, historically, the answer was to shove all those angry poor guys into the infantry, and then send them off to war.
Just going back to the roots of the Bible. Abraham, Jacob, David and many others had multiple wives. It’s interesting how people pick and choose what beliefs in the Bible to support. Maybe the Bible is too big to live by for most Christians.
Suppose a pimp wants to open up a chain of brothels. It’s probably a lot more efficient if he marries each of his girls and uses other benefits of employment laws, prenups, religion, etc in order to maximize his profits and have a revolving door for the girls. This is a what legalized polygamy could do.
I oppose the legalization of polygamy. It’s truly one of the twin relics of barbarianism and should have no place in civilized society.
God never gave His stamp of approval to it. He allowed it because He was dealing with imperfect humans. But there are plenty of examples where this came back and bit them.
I would think if people want to live that way, they will live that way.
I have always believed that the state should not be designating who is “married” or not. I’ve also believed that if you want to live in a construct that does to work in our legal system, you go to a lawyer and make up the proper documents that give the partners the rights they desire.
Personally, I cannot imagine having more than one wife. Honestly, I don’t think I could find another woman who would be able to live with my current wife and me. So, the entire discussion is purely academic.
That Ipso Facto occurs now already,but to give it permisson,
opens a large door...
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.