Posted on 06/24/2005 8:00:10 PM PDT by wagglebee
(AgapePress) - In comments at an Ivy League school, the president of the American Civil Liberties Union has indicated that among the "fundamental rights" of people is the right to polygamous relationships -- and that the ACLU has defended and will continue to defend that right.
In a little-reported speech offered at Yale University earlier this year, ACLU president Nadine Strossen stated that her organization has "defended the right of individuals to engage in polygamy." Yale Daily News says Strossen was responding to a "student's question about gay marriage, bigamy, and polygamy." She continued, saying that her legal organization "defend[s] the freedom of choice for mature, consenting individuals," making the ACLU "the guardian of liberty ... defend[ing] the fundamental rights of all people."
The ACLU's newly revealed defense of polygamy may weaken the pro-homosexual argument for changing the traditional definition of marriage. Proponents of same-sex "marriage" have long insisted that their effort to include homosexual couples in that definition would only be that. However, conservative and traditional marriage advocates predict "other shoes will drop" if homosexual marriage is legalized -- perhaps including attempts to legalize polygamy and to changed current legal definitions of child-adult relationships.
Crawford Broadcasting radio talk-show host Paul McGuire concurs. He says in his opinion, the ACLU "has declared legal war on the traditional family."
"Now the ACLU is defending polygamy," he continues, in response to Strossen's comments. "You know, there are male and female lawyers who wake up in the morning and are actually proud of being ACLU lawyers. But I think the majority of Americans view ACLU lawyers as people who hate America and who want to destroy all Judeo-Christian values and beliefs."
McGuire summarizes by saying that Strossen's organization seems "to only defend things that tear down the fabric of society."
National Review correspondent Ramesh Ponnuru provides some additional insight. "It could be that the ACLU has defended a right for people to set up households in this way without necessarily fighting for governmental recognition of polygamous 'marriages,'" he says.
"Even if so," Ponnuru concludes, "it is hard to see how the ACLU, on its own principles, could stop short of demanding a change to the marriage laws to allow for polygamy."
Strossen has been president of the ACLU since 1991. She is also an acting professor of law at New York Law School and the author of the book, Defending Pornography: Free Speech, Sex & the Fight for Women's Rights (Scriber).
All the time. Search google news or even just FR:
I certainly agree about standards. But I wouldn't call standards like blood alcohol or consent arbitrary; they are the result of accumulated experience (history) as well as scientific study.
We have systematically studied and quantified the effect blood alcohol level has on reflexes. That's easy to do. Then correlate the data with probability of past mayhem where the driver had drunk, and after allowances for socially responsible drinkers (there may actually be a human gene for wanting a buzz) you can set a workable boundary.
It's harder to do this for cultural mores and proscriptions. We say the child abuse is universally despised.But we've never really studied the issue in any laboratory, remote from cultural influences to verify the claim. We'd probably need a distant planet to colonize for that purpose.
There may be a universal innate reaction we call guilt. But to assume that this guilt is sufficient to control behaviors we now disapprove of now, is wrong. The cannibal who refuses to eat the missionary probably feels guilt.
So, in this realm we only have the wisdom of accumulated experience, as shown by history.
We look at societies that define marriage as between one man and one woman, and compare its achievements--material and psychological with those of societies diverging from this standard. The original decisions that defined this arrangement may have been arbitrary, "King So&So proclaims..." and so on. But experience has shown it is the best and surest way to widespread contentment.
This is what I mean by my moral argument. If we remove this side of the equation, the foundation of all we have is undercut. We've begun to allow gay partnering to be defined as 'marriage' and entitled it to all the societal obligations and protections accruing to it. As the result of this, we're now obliged to debate the propriety of polygamy. If we concede even one inch of this debate, we'll certainly find ourselves defending our revulsion of child abuse.
"Ye shall know them by their fruit"
Of course, the cat can file for divorce. Then (s)he'll take the whole kit and kaboodle!
Nah - cat's tongus are too rough!
That's what it is, now, but that's going to have to change.
After all, it's a serious infringement on the rights of children.
I'm sure that the American Psychological Association is producing a study right now to confirm this.
That's what they did to normalize homosexuality.
no
Who DIDN"T see this coming? How many times have opponants of same sex coupling sited this very thing.
I pray someday, people will heed our warnings, instead of the old "that will never happen" BS.
As traditional marriages go, polygamy is one of the oldest.
Polygamy means more than one wife. The other combinations you mention are not covered by that word.
I do NOT support the legalization of polygamy whatsoever. Just saying that biologically it is not in the same league as "gay" marriage.
Wrong. Think Adam and Eve. Polygamy didn't creep in until later through the evil lineage of Cain.
by O'rya Hyde-Keller
June 25 - July 1, 2003
When Beth Niernberg began to search for a mohel to perform her second son's bris, she braced herself for a strange reaction. The Jewish circumcision ceremony has to be performed eight days after birth, so she didn't have time to track down someone who had dealt with gay and lesbian families before. The mohel she found was "not exactly young and hip," she says. But when she explained to him that her son Nicholas would live in a household with Beth, a Jewish lesbian, his two non-Jewish gay dads, and their other son Zander, the old mohel didn't skip a beat. "Great," he said. "I can add this to my résumé. Co-parenting. Is there a hyphen in that?"
In her late twenties, Beth decided she was ready to have kids. She met Phillip Hernandez and discovered that he and his partner, James Slayton, longed to have children, too. They joked about doing it together, and one day the conversation turned serious. The three drew up a formal agreement that was not legally binding but would serve as a framework for this family for the next 18-plus years. They now have two sons, 3 1/2-year-old Zander and 17-month-old Nicholas, and another son on the way. The boys are each biologically related to one of their dads, but Beth thinks the distinction isn't important and balks when people ask her to clarify.
Part of their agreement was that the three would live together and find a house with enough space to accommodate a future partner for Beth. She would stay home and take care of the children while Phil and Jim, both psychiatrists, would continue to work, providing most of the financial support. "The idea of finishing a master's, working full-time, and having a baby did not exactly appeal to me," says Beth. They didn't want a day care baby. "So it made sense for me to stay home and for us to find a way to live together."
I said "one of the oldest" not "the oldest."
They aren't doing a very good job of it in Utah. Everytime there is a prosecution of a polygamist in Utah I've never heard a peep from the ACLU. No briefs filed, no amiecus curei (sp?) , no friend of the court--NOTHING.
Do you think they're just blowin' smoke?................NAH!
What a surprise!! NOT!! The "2 dads" are both psychiatrists!
LOL A kindred spirit! I could pass my days reading, writing, and trolling the flea markets. Where do we sign up!
Incrementalism... They've got to get the same-sex marriage thing settled before they rattle us with the polygamy thing... They don't want to give us too much ammo for our slippery slope arguments...
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.