ACLU Now Defends Polygamy, Further Eroding Traditional Marriage

Agape Press ^ | 6/24/05 | James L. Lambert

[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).

[cookcounty]

If she didn't understand that the constitution means what it says. how can she be "qualified?"

[virgil]

Entering into a marriage with one person while legally married to another is called bigamy. Never heard about it ever becoming legal

[wagglebee]

There's nothing in the Constitution that says a nominee must understand it (although it's a good idea), it says "advice and consent."

[MHGinTN]

That freak also believes the 'age of consent' should be lowered to twelve ... 12 ... so the number of child molestors would be reduced.

[Torie]

Maybe, the idea of actually pulling a marriage license when you are already married. I don't know. When was the last time it was prosecuted?

[wagglebee]

Here's more on Ginsburg.
http://www.nationalreview.com/benchmemos/063778.asp

[MHGinTN]

I can hear the NOW hags already ... "But that's not fair! We have equal rights, don't we? You want to oppress us!"

[Zack Nguyen]

It is the natural way of things for a successful man to have more than one mate...If a society tries to repress that tendency, it finds its way out anyway in the form of infidelity.

LOL! Are you serious? So if a guy commits adultery, its really just a repressed desire to have more than one wife!? I think its a repressed desire to have sex, without the brains or moral boundary to do what is right.

[JCEccles]

Pedophilia is a crime everywhere in the US, and most other places.

As were homosexual acts not so very long ago.

Legalize one perversion, the rest follow as a matter of course.

Consent is actually a pretty weak basis for making pedophilia illegal. Pedophiles are already marshaling historical examples and modern studies (one coauthored by professors from Cornell and Georgetown) to refute the argument that children do not have sufficient self-awareness to truly consent to having sex with adults.

The nub of the problem is sex divorced from its purpose, which is the perpetuation of mankind. Homosexual acts, pedophilia, and bestiality are not suited to this purpose; sex is and can only be mere self-indulgence in these instances.

Polygamy presents a different set of problems.

[pcottraux]

As if homosexual pedophilia rape wasn't enough.

[snarks_when_bored]

How about 'phydeaux'? Make you feel better?

Nope. A dog is a dog is a dog, and a dog by any other name would smell as sweaty.

[JCEccles]

It's called the Slick Willie Clinton defense.

"Mah genes made me do it."

[wagglebee]

Remember, back when Ginsburg was confirmed, there had never been a filibuster of this type of a judicial nominee.

[byablue]

"no credible evidence substantiates a clear causal connection between any type of sexually explicit material and any sexist or violent behavior."

But why mommy?
Because I said so, that's why
lol

[Mrs. Don-o]

A little thought experiment:

Assuming that the number of women and men is roughly equal, then:

If the top (richest + most attractive) 5% of the men have 4 wives each, they're shall we say "monopolizing" 20% of the women.

Then if the next 20% of the men have 2 wives each, that's another 40% of the women.

Then the next 40% of the men have one wife each, that's another 40% of the women.

That leaves 35% of the men with no prospect of ever marrying and having families.

That's a social problem I'd like to never have to face. Since probably 90% of the people in the United States are against legalized polygamy (a figure I pulled out of thin air)---isn't that reason enough to stop it?

Or are we obliged to submit as a society to every social experiment which somebody out there finds interesting?

[byablue]

Nice guys huh?

Veddy nice indeed. I think multiple husbands would be the way to go - live-in gardener, mechanic, a/c repairman, chef, pooper-scooper, doctor, the possibilities are endless - save a bundle!

[Torie]

Ya, maybe now, with viagra. Plus ca change, plus ca meme chose change.

[calenel]

The definition of pedophilia is somewhat arbitrary, as evidenced by its variation across the several States (using age of consent as an indicator).

In WV the age of consent used to be 12 (maybe still is, dunno). In MA it is one age and in NH it is another. And it isn't necessarily an absolute age, sometimes it is relative age that makes it a crime (two 13 year old kids can have sex with (legal) impunity, but for a 17 year old and a 14 year old is a crime, and the 17 year old can't even neck with an 18 year old).

Who is to say when someone is old enough? So we must have some arbitrary standards, the same way we have arbitrary standards for blood alcohol and safe speed limits.

I disagree with your so-called 'moral argument.' The vast majority of people are revolted by the idea of true pedophilia (as opposed to relationships crossing arbitrary age boundaries where the age differential is not unusual) and view pedophiles as 'sick' while the same is not true of someone dating multiple members of the opposite sex (playing the field, sowing wild oats, not 'going steady') however intimate and durable their relationships.

When I was 16 I was propositioned by a 12 year old and I politely refused. It was not a crime in the country we were in, but outside my personal morality for multiple reasons including her absolute age and physical maturity and also our social relationship. I think she was curious and didn't really understand what she was offering (although the offer was clear). But I viewed it as wrong then and still do. When I was 25 I was dating a 19 year old. A larger age difference, yet a perfectly acceptable relationship. Suppose I had met the same woman 5 years earlier. Would a relationship have been wrong? It surely would have been illegal. And in between 16 and 25 I dated some number of women, with varying degrees of exclusivity, sometimes several concurrently or sometimes only one and never sought to hide the fact from anyone.

So, we have arbitrary definitions for the age of consent but there is an almost universal acknowledgment that there should be rules to determine when a person is adult enough to decide for them self, but no such acknowledgment of rules regarding how many concurrent relationships one may have.