Skip to comments.
ACLU Now Defends Polygamy, Further Eroding Traditional Marriage
Agape Press ^
| 6/24/05
| James L. Lambert
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).
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: aclu; antifamily; homosexualagenda; homosexualmarriage; leftistagenda; polygamy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160, 161-180, 181-200, 201-213 next last
Comment #161 Removed by Moderator
Comment #162 Removed by Moderator
Comment #163 Removed by Moderator
Comment #164 Removed by Moderator
To: LibertarianInExile
"So end no-fault divorce."
Good idea.
"That has nothing to do with polygamy."
It does in that both legitimize a man shuffling one woman aside for another. (What it allows women to do is a separate subject.)
"In both cases, the extent of the penalty to the male is a fine."
No, in a healthy society such a man is refused a divorce.
"But in a polygamous society, that would seem not to be the case, dad would still be living with the kids and subject to their daily demands."
Ain't no way a man is meeting the needs of 18 kids by three different wives as well as he can meet the needs of six kids by one wife.
"I don't know whether a 'healthy monogamous society' is worth defending, if what we live in is one of those."
Of course we don't. We live in a society with no legal institution of marriage. We live in a society of instantly dissoluble temporary co-habitation contracts. If anyone is really married in our society, that is a matter of a covenant between them and God, and not a matter of anything that could be called a legal marriage.
"And what is this 'buy-a-wife' crap? When did society start selling its women again?"
If we go to polygamy, can that be far behind?
165
posted on
06/26/2005 7:16:20 AM PDT
by
dsc
To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
The girl with the eyes is HOT!
To: LibertarianInExile
167
posted on
06/26/2005 7:51:05 AM PDT
by
MortMan
(Mostly Harmless)
To: calenel
I guess the point is that seemingly arbitrary standards become traditions. Some traditions advance society, some impede it. Measure the achievements of societies that conform to monotheistic standards against those that don't.
I agree that setting the standards on alcohol use are too stringent, and that they undermine the law. But liberals argued for these after they'd dismantled other strictures.
As far as who gets their nookie, and when, and with how many, I consider it irrelevant. What I oppose is the dismantling of the legal concept of marriage as an arrangement between one man and one woman, which is basically construed to protect their children and manage the distribution of property.
That is, from when we had property. Now you want to see arbitrary? Stick around...
168
posted on
06/26/2005 7:51:46 AM PDT
by
tsomer
To: wagglebee
169
posted on
06/26/2005 8:52:19 AM PDT
by
GOPJ
To: GOPJ
Some people are born liking cats...Sorry, liking cats is deviant behavior.
170
posted on
06/26/2005 8:56:10 AM PDT
by
LearnsFromMistakes
(We know the right things to do, why don't we just do them?)
To: Age of Reason
In fact, some women would probably find it comforting that there are other women in the household to chat with.
LOL That's why God made telephones. Be honest, you're engaging in pure projection - it is the husband who would find it comforting for his wife to have someone else in the household to chat with, relieving him of the burdensome chore of listening to someone other than himself. Don't get me wrong, I love my husband but I truly believe men have a lead wall between their skull and their brain. :)
171
posted on
06/26/2005 9:23:25 AM PDT
by
byablue
(Do not let the fear of striking out hold you back - Babe Ruth)
To: LearnsFromMistakes
I'm a dog person...
Sorry, liking cats is deviant behavior.
172
posted on
06/26/2005 9:33:59 AM PDT
by
GOPJ
To: byablue
relieving him of the burdensome chore of listening to someone other than himself. Naah. It's just listening to her that's a burden. I mean how many micro-facets of someone else's existence can you be interested in if you don't need to trade off for listening to your own micro-facets?
To: Age of Reason
If a society led by men seems odd, that is only because modern men have not been brought up to lead, but have instead been brainwashed to share leadership with women.
To a point, I agree with that statement. However, men cannot absolve themselves of complicity when to a great extent centuries of their "leadership" focused on their own self-interests and categorized women as possessions, which is a glaring characteristic of polygamy - you can have as many wives as you can "financially afford." Frankly, if men object to the attitudes and actions of women today, they have only themselves to blame. It is simply the result of centuries of mistreatment, in many cases abominably using God as the justification - treated as property, a non-person under the law, traded like cattle, executed for a baby's gender, persecuted and murdered for being victims of rape and, currently in the news, cases like Mukhtaran, given as settlement of legal disputes. I am a Christian but there are times when I see religious men preach "love thy neighbor as thyself" but fail to comprehend the application of that to even one wife. Yet, they are quick as a cat to jump on a perverse interpretation of "head of the household" because that justifies, in their own minds, their self-centered "leadership."
That same concept of leadership existed between King George and the colonists, which prompted a Revolution.
174
posted on
06/26/2005 10:01:40 AM PDT
by
byablue
(Do not let the fear of striking out hold you back - Babe Ruth)
To: papertyger
trade off for listening to your own micro-facets?
ROFL - men have multiple facets??????????
175
posted on
06/26/2005 10:06:36 AM PDT
by
byablue
(Do not let the fear of striking out hold you back - Babe Ruth)
To: wagglebee
What exactly does ACLU mean?
Is it their domain to protect our property rights?
176
posted on
06/26/2005 10:10:57 AM PDT
by
jos65
To: Motherbear
It's sad how some "conservatives" seem to be perfectly willing to against 2000 years of Western social tradition. Monogamous marriage is the institution which made Western civilization possible.
To: Age of Reason
But I do believe the birthrate is much higher in so-called retrograde societies than in our "advanced" society, which has a birthrate below replacement level. And so the "retrograde" society seems more vital.
I remember you specifically railing against overpopulation on FR. And now all of a sudden YOU are complaining about low birthrates?
To: jos65
What exactly does ACLU mean?
Anti-American Constitutional Liberties Underminers
But their members want the public to believe they are the American Civil Liberties Union.
179
posted on
06/26/2005 10:53:09 AM PDT
by
byablue
(Do not let the fear of striking out hold you back - Babe Ruth)
Comment #180 Removed by Moderator
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160, 161-180, 181-200, 201-213 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson