Feldblum.....
Posted on 11/03/2009 6:08:26 AM PST by Kaslin
No sooner had we celebrated the exit of Barack Obama's green jobs czar, Van Jones, because of his Communist connections, another off-the-wall administration embarrassment surfaced. President Obama nominated for commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) a woman who signed a radical manifesto endorsing polygamy.
We thought our nation had settled the polygamy issue a century and a half ago, but this nomination makes it a 21st century controversy. Obama's nominee for the EEOC, a lesbian law-school professor named Chai R. Feldblum, signed a 2006 manifesto endorsing polygamous households (i.e., "in which there is more than one conjugal partner").
This document, titled "Beyond Same-Sex Marriage: A New Strategic Vision for All Our Families & Relationships," argues that traditional marriage "should not be legally and economically privileged above all others." The American people obviously think otherwise, and current laws reflect our wishes.
Feldblum is not the only pro-polygamy Obama appointee. His regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein, wrote a book in 2008 called "Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth and Happiness," in which he urged that "the word marriage would no longer appear in any laws, and marriage licenses would no longer be offered or recognized by any level of government."
Sunstein argues that traditional marriage discriminates against single people by imposing "serious economic and material disadvantages." He asks, "Why not leave people's relationships to their own choices, subject to the judgments of private organizations, religious and otherwise?"
Sunstein also suggests "routine removal" of human organs because "the state owns the rights to body parts of people who are dead or in certain hopeless conditions, and it can remove their organs without asking anyone's permission."
The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was passed in 1996 by overwhelming majorities in Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has identified more than 1,000 federal laws that are based on the traditional definition of marriage, including the tax laws that permit married couples the advantage of filing joint income tax returns and the Social Security benefits awarded to fulltime homemakers, both very popular federal laws.
The peculiar push to recognize polygamy as just another variety of marriage is a predictable and logical corollary of the political movement to recognize same-sex marriage. If our government cannot define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, it follows that there can be no law against the union of a man and several women.
For years, polygamy, even though it is totally demeaning to women, has been embraced by the powerful American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Polygamy is one of the many controversial issues that were not raised during ACLU lawyer Ruth Bader Ginsburg's so-friendly Supreme Court confirmation hearings.
The ACLU's feminist president, Nadine Strossen, stated in a speech at Yale University in June 2005 that the ACLU defends "the right of individuals to engage in polygamy." On Oct. 15, 2006, in a high-profile debate against Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, Strossen stated that the ACLU supports the right to polygamy.
Speaking to the Federalist Society on Nov. 18, 2006, the ACLU's executive director, Anthony Romero, confirmed his organization's support of polygamy.
The massive immigration that the United States has accepted in recent years includes large numbers of immigrants from Third World countries that approve of polygamy as well as marriage to children and to close relatives. We wonder if polygamists have been admitted to the United States and if they are continuing these customs in U.S. neighborhoods.
Attacks on the traditional legal definition of marriage come from the gay lobby seeking social recognition of their lifestyle, from the anti-marriage feminists and from some libertarians who believe marriage should be merely a private affair, none of the government's business. These libertarians want to deny government the right to define marriage, set its standards or issue marriage licenses.
Government now has and should have a very important role in defining who may get a license to marry. In America, it is and should be a criminal offense to marry more than one person at a time, or marry a child or a close relative, even though such practices are common in some foreign countries.
In socialist Canada, which has already approved same-sex marriage, polygamy has suddenly become a live issue. British Columbia's Supreme Court is now being asked to decide if polygamy should remain illegal.
We may have to depend on the Republican Party to maintain government's proper role in defining and protecting traditional marriage. The very first platform adopted by the Republican Party, in 1856, condemned polygamy and slavery as the "twin relics of barbarism," and the 2008 Republican platform calls for "a constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage as a union of a man and a woman, so that judges cannot make other arrangements equivalent to it."
Sheep around the country are cowering in fear.
“in which there is more than one conjugal partner”). ............................. Crap, this now? I’m going to miss out? But then again, how many mother in laws could I handle at once? I guess one is enough.
Yeah, so? What’s the big deal? We’ve come to expect this sort of thing. I see nothing here move on. Call me when he appoints someone who advocates burning our flag, subverting the military, subverts Israel, subverts patriot causes. Oh wait, I guess he’s already got those covered too.
This is truly frightening.
A special zoo will have to be built to house the kooks and weirdos from this administration.
This is how a lot of Frica functions.... if you are a Muslim.
You see, you can take the boy from the farm abut you cannot take the farm outta da boy.
Religion. Politics. Crime. Mores.
BOBS
Hey, I’m still waiting on that pony he promised! I just know we would be soulmates and I demand a legal marriage between us.
How long has Valerie been grooming this latest dingbat? Good grief, when you think he can’t have worse comrades, he trumps it.
Is there no perversion or distortion of the normal these people won’t embrace? An administration of pervs.
Heterosexuals still get married?
I thought only the faggots wanted to get married.
Frica = Africa, the most backwards, screwed up, corrupt, continent in the WORLD.
There ain’t no valley low enough for these weirdo’s.
With this Admin, there is no shortage of nutjobs.
Either marriage is defined as one man and one woman (Gen 2:24) or it has no definition and anything goes.
Easy - marry your mother-in-law - her mother is probably dead ... if not, marry her too.
That must be because of European colonization... /sarc
Yep, and I fear we’ve already traveling too far down that road that the word has become meaningless.
Feldblum.....
well... Here is my opinion on this.
You can’t say it’s OK for two homo’s to marry and at the same time say it is not OK for 3 hetrosexual Christians to marry.
why not just create a civil union law that include gays, pets, multiple partners, incest into it. If individuals wants to be together and want hospital visit rights, inheritance etc, who cares. Have it all covered under one law
Hmm...good point
bump
These radicals are sick, Godless bastards.
So how many wives can one have? Will it be 4 as in Islamic Law? What is the position of the ACLU 4 or 15?
With all due respect, Mrs. Schlafly, your party could care less about its history or its platform.
“While working from 1988-1990[11] as Legislative Counsel to the AIDS Project of the American Civil Liberties Union,”
Libs DO believe that they have the wisdom and all the information necessary to make cultural policy changes like this without repercussions - if they even CONSIDER the repercussions,
so they think that they are able to define marriage as “two people” in place of “one man, one woman” and have it “stick”.
They don’t believe in objective truth, so obviously there are no objective standards (given from God).
We, however, know that there is one definition - God’s.
And if you deny the legitimacy of that definition, then there is NO definition.
“Whadaya say girls? Are we all gonna get married?
“All of us? But that’s bigamy!”
“Yes, and it’s big-a-me too.”
Why not?
Or that a mother may marry her daughter a father may marry his son. Once you blur those lines there is no going back. You can not discriminate against any group if marriage is redefined. Can you imagine how this will effect entitlement programs? Survivors benefits? Federal retirements? Tax Laws?
If I married my widowed mother I would avoid the whole inheritance tax on her demise. THAT’S where they will draw the line.
The next question would then be “If you can’t marry your mother, can you marry your father?”.
“Why not?”
You can not discriminate against one group. If homos are allowed, then the meaning of marriage will be redefined. You must accommodate all classes of beliefs to marry.
I don’t see any restrictions if this keeps heading the way it is going. Except where incestuous children could possibly be conceived. Other than that. All bets are off.
If you allow two homosexuals to marry, then, of course, you have to allow polygamy because you are discriminating against the bisexuals.....It is all to destroy Christianity and the family unit.....
Of the three major religions, Christianity, Jews and muslims - one, muslims believe in multiple wifes (polygamy) and, discriminate against gays.
Under Islam, a man can have up to four wives at a time.
I can't but maybe someone else will test this. If this new WH appointee has her way, you won't even have to wait for dear ol' dad to be a widower. Make it a three-way marriage with ma, pa and yourself.
Hey! What's to stop whole families from marrying one another? No inheritance taxes and no testifying against one another in court. Perfect for today's Tony Soprano culture.
LOL
Um..will this work for women also? Not, marrying the mother in law, but having several husbands?
I think most of us ladies could use a few. Maybe then the bedroom would get painted, the toilet would stop constantly running..and the clogged gutters will stop making Niagara Falls when it rains. And just think..all of those extra pay checks!!!
Kidding. One husband is more than enough, for any woman. Besides, they probably wont give multiple remotes when buying a tv.
If this had happened in 1945, Bill Clinton's parents would have been legally married. (Bill Clinton's putative father had not bothered to divorce his previous wife when he "married" Bill's mother.)
Is there a reliable Field Guide somewhere to all the exotic Obama KooKoo Birds?
Or the other way around.
Keyboard Coffee Cleanup!!
Those would be cases of the Bible RECORDING incidents of polygamy.
It’s not sanctioned or encouraged at all.
The law against adultery, and Jesus’ further explanation of it, is clear.
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.