Constitutional Attorney Sees Polygamy As Next Stage Of Sexual Revolution

Traditional Values Coalition ^ | October 5, 2004 | Louis P. Sheldon

[The Loan Arranger]

Washington, DC –Jonathan Turley, a constitutional scholar at George Washington Law School has just penned what is a clear sign that our nation is not on a slippery slope toward sexual degradation and moral decline—rather our country is on a rocket-propelled missile into social chaos.

Turley argued in Monday’s issue of USA Today that polygamy is the next logical step in the goal of social activists to overturn any remaining barriers to the redefining of marriage. Turley says he detests the idea of polygamy but he has put forth the legal arguments for its legalization.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, in his dissent in the Lawrence v. Texas case that legalized sodomy said that this decision would be used in the future to legalize polygamy and other forms of sexual license. His predictions are coming true.

Oddly enough, Turley is arguing that the “right” to polygamy is a religious issue—one based in the history of the Mormon Church and its experience with polygamy until Utah’s leaders agreed to ban polygamy before becoming a state.

Polygamy and homosexual marriage, however, are not the only looming threats to traditional marriage. Homosexual activists and their libertine heterosexual allies are also pushing for the legalization of polyamory—or group sexual arrangements disguised as “marriage.”

[goldstategop]

Why the heck not? What goes on in the bedroom between consenting adults is no one else's business.

[chemical_boy]

Than after that it will be NAMBLA's turn

[goldstategop]

I'm afraid you're right. Why stop with adult humans? Every one knows children and animals have sexual lives. <sarcasm

[kb2614]

It's a Brave New World!!!

Soma for the masses!!!

[jazzlite]

"Why the heck not? What goes on in the bedroom between consenting adults is no one else's business."

No one stops people from having orgies. It is when people try to force the institutional acceptance of those orgies by the state and the culture which brings the chaos and the problem. Institutionalized hedonism has never worked and will never work. Sexual titillation, like drug addiction, can never be satisfied. Once, the next level is experienced to the point of boredom, everything will be racheted up a notch to the next level of decadence. If people want to covertly participate in decadence which brings great harm, let them, but let decent society function to keep us all surviving and in the process protect our innocent little children and women as safe from rape as possible. If our society removes the taboo on certain sexual practices which go further against the traditional family, we will soon see sex being forced on people without their consent.

[SittinYonder]

The battle over traditional marriage is, in fact, a battle to preserve our civilization from tumbling into the ash heap of history—as many civilizations have gone before

I think this is very true, although I believe you can take many elements of the left's agenda and substitute it for "traditional marriage" and get the same result. So much of what the leftists want leads us to the same conclusion, and I believe if they win one major victory the game is as good as up.

[Tristram Shandy]

Deut. 21:15 "If a man has two wives, one beloved and one hated, and they have children, one may not favor the beloved wife's children over the other wife's children." There's nothing untraditional about polygamy. (The question of why any sane man would inflict this on himself should be reserved for another thread.)

Clearly, as with all issues great and small, the government must be given absolute power to adjudicate.

[ventana]

Well that was overturned by Christ, that is until Martin Luther. V's wife.

[tkathy]

Polygamy would be a disaster for any country that chooses to legalize it. Institutionalized abuse. A step back into the stone age.

[xzins]

If marriage can mean anything at all, then it means absolutely nothing at all.

That group of 100 over there....they're married. And there's coming and going and lawsuits and kids and welfare programs and child care credits and disease.

[Arkie2]

I suggest you read "Under the Banner of Heaven" before you accept that these relationships would be harmless.

[goldstategop]

I don't accept the morality of these new relationships. All I am observing is that if the Left has its the way, the sky's the limit in organizing social relationships.

[varon]

Why the heck not? What goes on in the bedroom between consenting adults is no one else's business.

Yes and another upcoming turn of events will be redefining 'adult'!

[Gritty]

(from the article)

Historian J.D. Unwin, writing in his 1934 book, Sex and Culture, surveyed the destruction of 86 different cultures throughout history. He discovered something very shocking: Every society that rejected monogamy in marriage and pre-marital chastity, did not last longer than a generation afterward.

This is a startling statement. It's not only polyamory, Mormons and homosexuals who are being "discriminated against", but Muslims - who are allowed 4 wives at a time (and can divorce them at will). It is they who will next be clamoring for "equal rights" in alliance with the usual sodomites and assorted orgyists who see society in no other terms than a venue for getting sex, obtaining power and flouting libertine lifestyles.

[tom h]

Of course, it hasn't had any impact on Muslim countries.

[/sarcasm]

[TMSuchman]

The way I see it we are going the way of the old Roman Empire, they rotted from the inside till they were over run by a stronger outside force.

[fporretto]

I can't imagine what the fuss is about. Polygamy isn't coming; it's already here. Consider these facts:

1. Under current family law, if a man lives with a woman for an extended period of time, a Family Court judge is free to decide that he owes her all the traditional obligations of marriage, most notably alimony and support for her children, even though they never married.
2. That child support is not conditional on him being the provable or admitted bio-father of the child.
3. Men have been adjudged by courts in several states to have forfeited their houses to their unmarried bed partners, on exactly the same logic (or lack thereof) that produced points 1 and 2 above.
4. Despite these things, men, including men who've been savaged by such "palimony" judgments, routinely go looking for new lovers -- without "divorcing" their former mates.

The cases alluded to above exhibit all the legal consequences of marriage and marital dissolution, but without the formalities of divorce. Sure sounds like polygamy to me. Serial bigamy, anyway.

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit Eternity Road:
http://www.eternityroad.info

[Mogollon]

Muslims believe in polygamy too. Wouldn't want to discriminate against the 'religion of peace'.