Posted on 01/29/2005 9:24:35 PM PST by huac
"Strossen told the group of students that the ACLU has "defended the right for individuals to engage in polygamy" and that her organization will continue defending "the freedom of choice for mature, consenting adults," according to YaleDailyNews.com."
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
In answer to a student's question about homosexual and polygamous marriage, Strossen told the group of students that the ACLU has "defended the right for individuals to engage in polygamy" and that her organization will continue defending "the freedom of choice for mature, consenting adults," according to YaleDailyNews.com.
It's no surprise that America's largest so-called civil-liberties union is planning to take the next logical step in their quest to obliterate traditional marriage. Americans were promised that challenges to the definition of marriage would end after the legalization of homosexual unions. Liberal pundits derided the notion that marriage between same-sex individuals would pave the way for legalized bigamy and polygamy down the road.
But that's exactly what's happening.
We're already seeing the manifestations in Canada. With legislation legalizing same-sex marriage slated to be introduced and passed in Parliament over the coming weeks, the Canadian federal government is growingly concerned about the possibility of legal challenges by polygamists. A government agency called the Status of Women Canada is conducting a study into the legal and cultural implications of polygamous marriage in hopes of arming the government against legal contentions that polygamy is a religious right under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Canadian Justice Minister Irwin Cotler attempted to allay fears on Thursday over the legalization of polygamy in Canada by saying that there is no connection "between the issue of polygamy and the issue of same-sex marriage" and that "same-sex marriage is constitutional and valid" while "polygamy is a criminal offense."
But how long will it remain that way? The jurisprudence currently used by both American and Canadian courts sets no boundaries on the definition of marriage, and Minister Cotler is only fooling himself if he believes otherwise.
For example, one rationale given by the Supreme Court of Canada for their affirmation of homosexual marriage is that any opposite-sex requirement for the institution of marriage violates the equality guarantee in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which states, "Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination."
But why, under such judicial rationale, should the equality guarantee only apply to heterosexual and homosexual individuals? If legal recognition for same-sex marriage flows from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by way of so-called progressive interpretation, why should bigamists and polygamists be excluded? Wouldn't that comprise an unconstitutional abridgement of their state-given rights?
Similarly, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled that a denial of marriage to same-sex couples "constitutes a categorical restriction of a fundamental right." The court added that such a restriction "creates a straightforward case of discrimination that disqualifies an entire group of our citizens and their families from participation in an institution of paramount legal and social importance."
If denial of marriage to homosexual couples is inherently discriminatory and prevents citizens from enjoying society's greatest institution, the court has no judicial leg to stand on when it comes to restricting access to marriage for bigamists, polygamists or anyone else. That's why even slightly changing the core definition of marriage obliterates the definition altogether. If marriage isn't solely defined as the union of one man and one woman, then what is its definition?
That question raises profound constitutional issues. Is marriage a civil institution defined by government, or a religious institution defined by God and simply recognized by government? The first philosophy sets mankind as the final arbiter of law and opens the doorway to illogical relativism; the second acknowledges a Creator God who has revealed Himself to mankind and establishes government to reflect laws and unalienable rights. Thomas Jefferson reflects this in the Declaration of Independence by stating that all men "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" and that "Governments are instituted among Men" to secure these God-given rights.
That view is quickly disregarded by America's liberal elite. In the judicial viewpoint of our courts and the twisted logic of our civil-liberties organizations, marriage is a man-made institution open to whatever interpretation is needed at a particular point in history. That's why legal recognition for polygamy, bestiality and a host of other deviant lifestyles will inevitably come our way.
Once the door is opened a crack, it will soon be opened all the way.
David N. Bass is a 19-year-old Christian homeschool graduate who writes for World Newspaper Publishing and is a regular columnist at AmericanDaily.com, IntellectualConservative.com and RenewAmerica.us. While attending college, he interns at a pro-family public-policy organization. Bass is currently working on his first novel.
Yippee! Pets are next! But only if they are consenting
I've always wanted to marry my coffee maker.
I'll get in line and see when my ticket comes up.
Women who want to marry their kitchen appliances, UNITE!
Gotta love it. Keep going ACLU and you will eventually run yourself and your philosophies over the edge. Can't hurt the Conservative cause either!
No laws , no limits , everything and anything goes is not freedom at all but rather anarchy .
i dated a pig , does that count ?
Most of the people who are for polygamy look like they couldn't even get one freakin DATE.
"I've always wanted to marry my coffee maker."
First, we want you to know that we don't judge your decision and in fact will do all we can to validate you decision. The important thing is that the coffee maker consents to this union. If it does, I hope you are very happy together.
Most men, including myself, can barely handle one wife, much less two. A man with more than one wife has got to be nuts.
I think the dead are next
You'll have to ask the ACLU. They seem to have all the answers.
/sarcasm
Consent is the issue. Was the pig validated by this interaction? Was there any issues of workplace propriety, vis-a-vis employee/employer relationships? If you put lipstick on a pig, is it still a just a pig?
Per the ACLU's Ms. Strossen: "the freedom of choice for mature, consenting adults,"
Mature adults do not engage in either homosexual acts nor in polygamy. Immature, perpetual adolescents, however, may do just that.
So true! Watched a whole show about polygamists last week. All the men are butt-ugly and the women are just as bad. One guy had two wives and brought in a third who had a very manly mustache.
I don't mind Polygamy, but who wants to marry a parrot?
Islam allows Polygamy. So, they may be able to push this one. I'd like to see if they're willing to push Incest, though. I don't see any difference between polygamy and incest. People may raise biological issue as the risk of children have hereditary disease, but with current technology, it can be detect, and abort.
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.