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).
I repeat the questions I asked earlier, which you answered with irrelevant asides and personal attacks:
If [you are raising your daughters right], what are you worried about? They wouldn't have to be married to such people, and I'm sure they wouldn't be. Or is it that you assume your daughters are that naive and stupid enough to be fooled?
"[Polgamy and divorce relate] in that both legitimize a man shuffling one woman aside for another. (What it allows women to do is a separate subject.)"
---I would hazard a guess that a legal marriage under most versions of polygamy does not accrue much right to females. However, I would also bet that any legalization of polygamy in the U.S. would be a different kettle of fish. It's irrelevant anyway--it's not going to happen, judicially or otherwise.
"No, in a healthy society such a man is refused a divorce."
---Are there any healthy societies, then?
"Ain't no way a man is meeting the needs of 18 kids by three different wives as well as he can meet the needs of six kids by one wife."
---Ain't no way a welfare case is meeting the needs of even one kid, yet society has seen fit to let them breed and be serial monogamists as they wish.
"Of course we don't. We live in a society with no legal institution of marriage. We live in a society of instantly dissoluble temporary co-habitation contracts. If anyone is really married in our society, that is a matter of a covenant between them and God, and not a matter of anything that could be called a legal marriage."
---That is exactly the way I feel about the subject. This is why I am all for a further debauchery of the notion of legal marriage, which I think needs to be done away with as a term of respect in this country and frankly needs to be done away with anyway. Government recognition of religion only results in what we have today, state interference in that. Do we really believe that government has encouraged a societal good by recognizing marriage? It certainly doesn't look that way to me.
Motherbear and I oppose legal polygamy in America because it would hurt our children and our children's children. We and others like us will use the processes of democracy to preserve the decencies we love and to suppress the social forces of dissolution.
None but tyrants would impose legal polygamy on a society that overwhelmingly opposes it. Of course, as we see, there is no shortage of tyrants.
Fashioning "a decent society" is certainly a matter of moral perspective, and one we probably agree on morality-wise. I don't want my kids hanging out in Hugh Hefner's neighborhood because kids are not ready for adult behavior or the consequences thereof. That's why parents keep an eye on their kids, to help them know what to do when they are ready to judge for themselves.
On the other hand, I don't feel I should have any say on what Hugh does in his home, or what my kids do after they leave my home. Obviously, you disagree and think it's important to regulate what people do in and outside of their homes insofar as the legal status of their spouse is concerned. Never mind that the only difference in the legal status is who can be a current WIFE, not current floozy, so your 'upholding decency' argument really holds no water. What you want is to uphold your version of morality in LAW, never mind the actual negative social consequences of that illegality or its inability to effect any positive change towards your perception of good. You prefer the spirit of the law to its reality. And what you consider a factor in 'dissolution' has been a part of many stable societies for hundreds of years. People weren't rioting in Utah before polygamy was banned there, either.
I doubt you would be making that 'none but tyrants' speech if King George or Congress imposed a BAN on gay civil unions, which arguably have the support of a majority in the U.S. So your demagoguery about tyranny falls flat. You USE the processes of democracy--but you don't believe in that institution, and if you had your way, there would be a tyranny of the righteous, whatever your definition of that is. I don't think any judge should make the law here either, ma'am, but if they did, it would be expanding people's freedom to associate as they see fit, not restricting it. And expanding freedom is rarely a bad thing.
Some people say,"Ah, but marriage is much more than a contract." Yes, it is; but it is treated as if it were much less.
You say, "Obviously, you ... think it's important to regulate what people do in and outside of their homes insofar as the legal status of their spouse is concerned. Of course I do. Marriage law ALWAYS regulates the legal status of putative spouses. That what it's there for. It's illegal to marry a person of the same sex, or a blood relative within certain degrees of consanguinity, or a child, or any person with the intention to deceive or otherwise work some fraud (e.g. in order to change their immigration status.) It is illegal to be married to two persons at the same time.
This is because marriage is NOT just a private personal relationship. It brings in many public aspects having to do with property, inheritance, taxation, insurance, and all the many aspects of child-begetting, child-raising, and child custody when there is fertility involved.
People may think their amours are terribly personal and private, but the very existence of the institution of marriage indicates that there are public interests which can sometimes trump private choices.
Any 2, 3, 4, 6, 20 or 100 friends can form a club, convent, monastery, wicca coven or polygamous patriarchal commune; they can regulate their sexual (or celibate) commitments to each other, and their degree of economic interdependence, by appropriate contract law; and I'll not presume to interfere.
But I think it's improper to call that "marriage," and I'm willing to back up the West's 2-millennia-old one man/one woman definition by law. Those who disagree are equally free to persuade us to deform the definition to accommodate some or all of the groupings listed above.
But their chances of succeeding in this persuasion are about nil, and they know it. They've done the math. They don't have the votes. That's why they're directing their "Long March" through the courts, not the legislatures.
This is dishonest and undemocratic. We don't have to tolerate it.
"It's been argued by you and others that legalized polygamy would be better than random adultery, but I don't see why we have to tolerate either. Certainly adultery can be punished (and deterred) by divorce; but I would favor even greater penalties for adultery (including fines and imprisonment: let judge and jury decide how much or how little) because it is a violation of the marriage covenant, according to which the spouses have freely and publicly agreed to be sexually faithful to each other."
Here we completely agree. I think you should be able to contract for marriage and have it mean something, too. I think a breach of a marriage contract ought to carry penalties, just as you do.
I just happen to believe that the restrictions on who can make such a contract ought not be limited the way you'd prefer. And I think you'll find that the legal status of who has a right to contract is fairly open.
Marriage only "brings in public aspects having to do with property, inheritance, taxation, insurance, and all the many aspects of child-begetting, child-raising, and child custody when there is fertility involved" because government is now involved in all those things. What did we do before government dealt with them on the basis of legally registered marriage? Let people deal with them as they would. It is difficult to argue that the results were worse then than they are now.
"What you want is to uphold your version of morality in LAW"
Once again, all law and government are nothing more or less than the codification of the moral vision of those who make the laws.
Mrs. Don-o is every bit as entitled to lobby and vote for the sorts of laws she wants as everyone else.
"never mind the actual negative social consequences of that illegality or its inability to effect any positive change towards your perception of good."
The problem with that argument is that history has repeatedly demonstrated the positive effects of traditional morality and the ability of laws that support it to effect positive change. That much is simply not a matter of opinion, but fact repeatedly proved.
"The problem with that argument is that history has repeatedly demonstrated the positive effects of traditional morality"
No argument up to here...
"and the ability of laws that support it to effect positive change. That much is simply not a matter of opinion, but fact repeatedly proved."
Traditionally, women weren't even able to determine who they would marry. Is this the 'traditional morality' you espouse? Merely asserting that 'it isn't a matter of opinion' doesn't make it a fact. Were your assertion true, that laws supporting 'traditional morality' do effect positive change, Islamic countries would LEAD the West. There is no more representative class of countries legislating the "traditional morality" of the world, whence myriad abominations were damned by death sentences and women were kept barefoot and ignorant. Argue your point with a mullah, and you'll learn your thesis has nothing backing it up beyond your faith in its veracity and your evident belief that 'traditional morality' started after the feminist movement was launched.
"Traditionally, women weren't even able to determine who they would marry."
There's much more myth than truth to that. Further, it also applied to men. In any case, the matter of the parents' authority in selecting childrens' spouses is not a matter of morality, but of social custom.
"Merely asserting that 'it isn't a matter of opinion' doesn't make it a fact."
No, but a good, long look at history does.
"Were your assertion true, that laws supporting 'traditional morality' do effect positive change, Islamic countries would LEAD the West."
Buncombe. That illogic is so full of holes you could drive a Volkswagen through it without ever hitting a fact.
One logical fallacy in which you're engaging is to pretend that any social custom surviving from antiquity is an essential component of traditional morality. Another is ignoring the 2,000 years since Christianty surged out of the Levant. And a third is assuming that the positive effects of laws codifying traditional morality would override every other historical and geographical consideration. I could go on, but why bother?
"There is no more representative class of countries legislating the "traditional morality" of the world"
That is as ridiculous as leftists calling Bush a fascist. Christendom has been at war with Islam more or less continuously since the 7th century, and the differences between Islamic extremism and traditional morality within the context of Western Civilization are vast.
"your evident belief that 'traditional morality' started after the feminist movement was launched."
I remember a couple of decades before the feminist movement was launched. I remember when traditional morality still reigned in America. And for those reasons, I am able to distinguish between traditional morality and the boogeymen you're trotting out.
That didn't take long. This was inevitable, since polygamy is less unnatural than homosexual "marriage." But there's no logical limit to the destruction of marriage since we've accepted the principle that "marriage is what we say it is."
I remember when Western women stayed at home and raised their kids, too. But that doesn't mean that's traditional morality everywhere, or even in the West, anymore. What you and I were raised to think is the norm isn't reality. I wouldn't want polygamy for my kids because I have no faith that it's a stable family group, and I don't think it'd be a good thing for my property values if a polygamist family moved in next door.
But the same arguments were made in favor of segregation. And I don't see how a social structure that doesn't harm me should be banned or limited by law, especially when the huge arsenal of evidence against it boils down to 'Well, the traditional morality that was adopted by Christianity after the Romans took over Christianity says so.'
I don't think kids should get to sass their elders back and I should be able to beat them if they do, and the traditional morality that was adopted by Christianity after the Romans took over agrees there, too. But the law doesn't agree with me any more, because judges say it doesn't. And it won't agree with you on polygamy for long if the lawyers are on the case, especially with this SCOTUS.
That's too bad, because societal upheaval like that ought to be by law, not by a jackass judge creating it.
It was landmark U.S. Supreme Court precedent Reynolds v. United States in 1878 that made "separation of church and state" a dubiously legitimate point of case law, but more importantly; it confirmed the Constitutionality in statutory regulation of marriage practices.
Congress, state legislatures and public referenda have statutorily determined polygamous, pederast, homosexual, and incestuous marriages are unlawful. No Constitutional Amendment restricting marriage is required to regulate "practice" according to the Reynolds decision.
Marriage is a religious "rite," not a civil "right;" a secular standard of human reproductive biology united with the Judaic Adam and Eve model of monogamy in creationist belief. Two homosexuals cannot be "monogamous" because the word denotes a biological procreation they are not capable of together; human reproductive biology is an obvious secular standard.
"…In our opinion, the statute immediately under consideration is within the legislative power of Congress. It is constitutional and valid as prescribing a rule of action for all those residing in the Territories, and in places over which the United States have exclusive control... Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices... So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed..."[Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 8 Otto 145, 24 L. Ed. 244 (1878).]
See also:
Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States, 136 U.S. 1, 10 S.Ct. 792, 34 L. Ed. 478 (1890). Revised as 140 U.S. 665, 11 S.Ct. 884, 35 L. Ed. 592 (1891).
Strossen has no intention of supporting polygyny or polyandry, it would overturn their beloved "separation of church and state" decision. She was just lying to hopefully get support for homosexual monogamous marriages. They would have no problem stabbing the idiot polygamy advocates in the back once they get what they want.
Furthermore, I don't think by some of the comments I have seen or heard anywhere that people are capable of discerning by the foggiest notion what is at stake with this.
It was landmark U.S. Supreme Court precedent Reynolds v. United States in 1878 that made "separation of church and state" a dubiously legitimate point of case law, but more importantly; it confirmed the Constitutionality in statutory regulation of marriage practices.
Congress, state legislatures and public referenda have statutorily determined polygamous, pederast, homosexual, and incestuous marriages are unlawful. No Constitutional Amendment restricting marriage is required to regulate "practice" according to the Reynolds decision.
Marriage is a religious "rite," not a civil "right;" a secular standard of human reproductive biology united with the Judaic Adam and Eve model of monogamy in creationist belief. Two homosexuals cannot be "monogamous" because the word denotes a biological procreation they are not capable of together; human reproductive biology is an obvious secular standard.
"…In our opinion, the statute immediately under consideration is within the legislative power of Congress. It is constitutional and valid as prescribing a rule of action for all those residing in the Territories, and in places over which the United States have exclusive control... Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices... So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed..."[Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 8 Otto 145, 24 L. Ed. 244 (1878).]
See also:
Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States, 136 U.S. 1, 10 S.Ct. 792, 34 L. Ed. 478 (1890). Revised as 140 U.S. 665, 11 S.Ct. 884, 35 L. Ed. 592 (1891).
Strossen has no intention of supporting polygyny or polyandry, it would overturn their beloved "separation of church and state" decision. She was just lying to hopefully get support for homosexual monogamous marriages. They would have no problem stabbing the idiot polygamy advocates in the back once they get what they want.
Furthermore, I don't think by some of the comments I have seen or heard anywhere that people are capable of discerning by the foggiest notion what is at stake with this, especially so-called "Libertarians."
You have the essence of the truth...
Who is he that is not of woman born?
Surely, the angel they must serve would have told them that they were born of woman...
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.