ACLU Now Defends Polygamy, Further Eroding Traditional Marriage

Agape Press ^ | 6/24/05 | James L. Lambert

[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).

[tsomer]

So what's wrong with pedophilia if you're okay with polygamy?

[paudio]

How about incest? A relationship between brother/sister (well, the list can be expanded to brother/brother, sister/sister, Ma/son(s), Pa/son(s), Ma/daughter(s), Pa/daughter(s), and so on)? If the argument against incest is simply for health reasons (the offspring may have certain disease), I think it's not enough. Afterall, in this country, they can be aborted if the doctor says there's something wrong with the baby.

[byablue]

It is the natural way of things for a successful man to have more than one mate.

From which cave have you recently emerged?

[Age of Reason]

He can "marry" as many as he wants.

I'm talking about marry--not "marry."

A good woman would only giver herself to a man who is legally obligated.

[gusopol3]

kept Utah out of the US for a decade or so.

[Torie]

I am not OK with legal polygamy, since that involves legal marriage, rather than sex acts. Sex acts with by adults with minors are per se without deemed without adult consent by the minor, and thus are a crime everywhere. Adult consent matters in the law when it comes to sex, and should. Surely you know this.

[Fred Nerks]

NADINE STROSSEN
The Pornography Industry's Wet Dream
By Diana E. H. Russell


(snip)

---

How many ACLU lawyers does it take to screw over women harmed by porn? Try this one.

Nadine Strossen's OBJECTIVE in Defending Pornography is to destroy the reputation and achievements of the feminist movement against pornography. To this end, she dishes up the same tired old caricature of us as anti-sex prudes, pro-censorship, and in collusion with the right wing.

Not until the very last chapter does Strossen address the scientific evidence on the harmful effects of pornography, and her discussion of that evidence is a sham. Most of the key researchers on the relationship between pornography and violence against women (Neil Malamuth, James Check, Dolf Zillman, Bryant Jennings, myself) do not rate a single mention in her book.

I confronted Strossen on National Public Radio in February about the gaping holes in her review of the scientific literature. Her disingenuous defense was that she had relied on a short book -- which she described as the best source on the subject -- by her nonacademic pal, anti-censorship advocate Marcia Pally, founder and president of Feminists for Free Expression and a columnist for Penthouse. Pally concluded that (surprise! surprise!) "no credible evidence substantiates a clear causal connection between any type of sexually explicit material and any sexist or violent behavior."

http://www.dianarussell.com/Strossen.html

[inquest]

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

I wonder how long this has been their official position, and why they didn't advertise it earlier. I wonder also what other positions they have or are thinking of adopting in the future, but don't wish to tell us about just yet.

[Age of Reason]

From which cave have you recently emerged?

The "cave" that is the deep yearnings of human nature, bred into man through the generations via natural selection.

I am proud of my caveman heritage.

[Torie]

Legalized polygamy will not help matters. Then there are government sanctioned benefits attending same, which will increase the incidence of same. Follow the money.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

ROFLMAO

Haven't you heard the news? We should be groomed to like it.

Nice guys huh?

[tortoise]

I have far less objection (none, actually) to polygamy than to gay marriage in principle. While European culture has been largely monogamous for the last several centuries, it was not always the case and a number of extremely modern and successful non-European societies are still polygamous, though they usually keep it out of sight and out of mind.

There have been plenty of prosperous and successful polygamous societies, and there is nothing specific about them that I can reasonably object to. However, I've never heard of a successful society based on gay marriage, for obvious reasons.

[Gator113]

Imagine the possibilities:

4 men "married" to each other.

One guy and three gals.

"Two gals and one guy.

Four gals.

Two men and one boy.

Three men and one horse.

It will eventually come to this."


You forgot ducks, sea mammals and the dead.

[Conservatrix]

Indeed.
What about Ovine-Americans, Equine-Americans and Homonid-Americans? I am sure they are seeking their rights also.

[Conservatrix]

Ah yes, the dead.

Necrophilic-Americans....

[tortoise]

Except that then there are a surplus of males without available women, which is not good for society.

One could also look at it on the flipside: Males who are successful members of society will out-breed the losers by a significant margin, improving the gene pool over the long-term. It allows women to upgrade the genes of their offspring in a fashion that would not be as easy if society enforced a one-to-one mapping. Classic sexual selection, Animal Planet style. Of course, you would probably have to legalize prostitution as a practical matter for some semblance of equilibrium.

[strategofr]

"Polygamy is really not illegal,"

Wrong, polygamy is illegal. That's why the Mormon Church changed their doctrine and denounced polygamy decades ago, which used to be one of the main principles or their religion.

Polygamy is defined as multiple marriage. It is not only defined by sex.

[ancient_geezer]

He can "marry" as many as he wants. That is not a crime.

Tory, 50 states have statutes against bigamy. In most of them it is a felony.

Multiple girl friends you can generally get away with, multiple licensed marriages are another game altogether.

[Polybius]

Polygamy is really not illegal,......... If a guy can round up three adult women who live in his house to service him, that is not a crime - anywhere.

As long as he doesn't marry them. They change after marriage.

Having more than one wife violates the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause of the Eighth Amendment.

[upchuck]

And the tilt of the slippery slope is increased.