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).
"The nub of the problem is sex divorced from its purpose, which is the perpetuation of mankind."
So it is okay to have (heterosexual) sex with someone if they are capable of bearing a child (or fathering one)? Regardless of age? And as they are capable of procreation, it is not to be considered pedophilia?
Like, who didn't see this coming?
Don't post it when they support adult sex with minors. It's only a matter of time, right after dogs, cats, donkeys, cows, manitees... you name it.
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?
Here's a couple that have managed to make the news for their notoriety.
Luis Gonzalez convicted in Sacremento California 2002, even without proof of a legal marriage.
Tom Green, in Provo Utah, 2001 was all over the news as I remember, mainly because of the age of some of the "wives" involved.
Generaly such cases are accompanied by fraudulent representations to one or more of the "wives" which provide the basis of criminal intent required in prosecuting it as a felony.
IC.
Moral Absolutes + Homosexual Agenda Ping.
A two-fer, with interesting discussion already in place. Logically, polygamy has more going for it than same sex "marriage", since at least the relationships in polygamy are still with a man and a woman (at a time) and the children each have a mother and a father still. Not that I'm advocating it!
The ACLU is evil; always has been, and still is. The ACLU would lose much of its power if OUR tax money didn't support it.
Freepmail me if you want on/off this pinglist.
"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."
Here is a little irony: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob (name changed to Israel), Moses. King David, King Solomon, etc. were ALL polygamists and yet they are highly revered still today. Anybody see any inconsistencies on this?
(Please note: I definitely am NOT advocating the legalization of polygamy today, and the ACLU drives me nuts; I'm just pointing out an historical fact that people in the Judeo/Christian tradition of today typically fail to acknowledge when abhoring polygamy).
:)
Didn't everyone pooh pooh Santorum when he warned this was coming down the pike?
Historically polygamy (man and more than one wife) has been practiced by many cultures. Sodomy on the other hand is considered unacceptable. I find many liberal females are uncomfortable with polygamy. Many of the married one will not be happy if their husband shows up with another woman and declares her to be his second wife. Let the ACLU legalize it, and you will see many liberal females question their own support for the liberal agenda.
So?
If they ain't man enough to earn a wife in the free market, we must have woman redistribution?
Most cultures, I think.
So sex by an adult male with a nubile minor female is OK, because it has the potential to procreate is the malem in se? I don't think so. I think the issue of mature consent is where the rubber meets the road. The matter of procreation is a deflection from the matter of abuse, and sex without the potential of procreation need not be a matter of abuse. I think you have your moral boxes all mixed up. But then, I don't think sex is all about procreation. In fact, amazingly enough, humans are not really totally wired that way. The desire for sex is not limited to when the female is in "heat" in either gender.
I can literally marry my money.
*pats the stacks of bills* Soon, sweetheart, soon...We shall bide our time, and then the whole world shall be forced to accept our love! Or rather, my inordinate preoccupation with greenbacks...Which is just as acceptable as any other kind of love. ;) Marry your car! Marry your kid! Why bother with distinctions at all?
Don't forget one to massage your shoulders, one for the feet, another to fan you and another to feed you ice cream bon bons.
If any of them complain tell them to be happy they have brother husbands to help with the yardwork.
Yeah. The OT prophets are not revered for their polygamy. They were not reconciled to God until they repented of their culturally approved sins.
Actually those kids have a single mother and a biological donor who shows up once a week or so in order to get laid.
Let's just call this what it is: amoral men looking for promiscuity with society's approval.
I think people should be free to enter into polygmus(sp) relationships as they please. Freedom is freedom, whether we consider it wacky or weird or what. Problems arising from freedom can be blamed on socialism - government benefits for marriage, government certificates for marraige, entitlemnt programs and child welfare programs etc...
If government didn't define marrage and let the people define it then we wouldn't have any of these problems. IMGO
If I recall the government sent the troopos in against the mormons and threw a bunch of them in jail and prevented them from voting and all kinds of tyranny took place out there.
Frank Zappa used to have that song about Pinky, the blow-up doll... that would blur distinctions...
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.