ACLU Now Defends Polygamy, Further Eroding Traditional Marriage

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

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Nadine Strossen is lying about her lies...

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 most people are capable of discerning by the foggiest notion what is at stake with this.

You do get it...

[tsomer]

'"Measure the achievements of societies that conform to monotheistic standards against those that don't."'

Whoops. I meant to refer to monogamy. I didn't mean to wander into a discussion of religion. Brain slip. Actually I think it was because my wife was nagging me at the time.

I agree with you about the Romans, who celebrated monogamy as a civic virtue

I'm glad you see serious problems with polygamy. Serious problems. And I don't care what kind of arguments anyone wants to bring to this fight as long as they fight on our side. My argument is that permitting polygamy in any form will destroy our society. That same permissiveness will erode what remains of our standards towards pedophilia. I think you're wrong about the universality of our disgust at pedophilia. It was and remains widespread. I submit there is no innate biological predisposition, or that if there is, it is very weak and prone to failure. Our rejection of it stems from our understanding that it is exploitive and debased. Our revulsion is moral.

We despise exploitation though exploitation is an innate human tendency. We reject pedophilia because we've been taught, inculcated with the belief that it degrades. Likewise our rejection of polygamy: it degrades its adherents, undermines the social assumption of equality before God and the law, and so on. Permit one; open a door to the other.

[LexBaird]

she is termed a "putative" spouse

Is that derived from Spanish? (he asked innocently)

[GOPJ]

bump

[LexBaird]

If they ain't man enough to earn a wife in the free market, we must have woman redistribution?

So, in your Age of Reason, women are commodities? How long before the 35% of Mateless just shoot the top 5% and take the women? Looking at China, we may find out within a generation.

[GOPJ]

bump

[spacewarp]

There was a wierd discussion about that topic last year. Someone mentioned it on the local radio where I was on contract and it became the buzz around town for a while.

I said something to my wife about it in passing when I came home for the weekend.

She looked up at me and said, without skipping a beat "OVER MY DEAD BODY!!!" And then realized what she'd just said and broke up laughing.

Paul

[calenel]

"I agree with you about the Romans, who celebrated monogamy as a civic virtue"

Generally. Polygamy was also tolerated.

"My argument is that permitting polygamy in any form will destroy our society."

I think our society is more resilient, so I don't agree with you here.

"That same permissiveness will erode what remains of our standards towards pedophilia."

I disagree with this as well. The two are completely unrelated and only attempts to obfuscate bring them together. Polygamists do not, as a rule, have wives that are biologically incapable of reproduction due to immaturity. But if you want to make polygamy look bad to people who might otherwise choose not to intervene in what is nominally an activity between consenting adults, throw in some pedophilia or statutory rape and you've got game. And don't even start on the age of consent or arranged marriages arguments. I've already illustrated the subjectivity of the AOC argument and I broadly condemn arranged marriages including monogamous ones.

"I think you're wrong about the universality of our disgust at pedophilia."

Well, then, we'll just have to disagree. I think that only the mentally deranged would look at immature persons with sexual interest. If the liberal scumbags didn't coddle them there would be a lot less of it. Recidivism approaches 100% and if you can't rehabilitate them, why are they back on the street? Children are a protected class, and the rape of a child is a compund transgression.

"We reject pedophilia because we've been taught, inculcated with the belief that it degrades."

Degradation is minor compared to the other harm it does to the victim. But the strongest reaction I see is the outrage and fury directed at the perpetrator, especially if it is a repeat offense.

"Likewise our rejection of polygamy: it degrades its adherents, undermines the social assumption of equality before God and the law, and so on."

Therein lies the flaw in your argument. With pedophilia the distinction is quite clear: you have a perpetrator and a victim. With polygamy you cannot make that distinction - many of the victims are only victims in the eyes of outsiders. With pedophilia, the vast majority of victims view themselves as such. With polygamy, the presumptive victims are often perfectly content, even though they are aware of the views and practices of outsiders.

"Permit one; open a door to the other."

You still have not proven this. I maintain that there is no definitive relationship between polygamy and pedophilia.

[Age of Reason]

I remember you specifically railing against overpopulation on FR. And now all of a sudden YOU are complaining about low birthrates?

Should we ever make our society a healthy one again, our birthrate will go back up.

Then we'll have trouble enough finding room for our own people, without the additional problem of making room for decades of massive immigration and their reproduction, too.

[Age of Reason]

it is the husband who would find it comforting for his wife to have someone else in the household to chat with, relieving him of the burdensome chore of listening to someone other than himself.

That's another good point in favor of polygamy.

[Age of Reason]

And polygamy also benefits women.

Think of how hard it is for many women to find a good man.

So hard that many must settle for men who cannot hold a job, men who take drugs, men who beat them, men who cheat on them, men who abandon them and their children---

Were polygamy made legal, then many of those women would be able to have a high quality husband--and good father to their children.

[Age of Reason]

On second thought more than one adult woman in the house with the power of speech could be worse for the man.

My father's mother lived with us when I grew up.

which eventually resulted in two kitchens.

And everyday when my father came home, my mother and grandmother raced to be the first to meet him at the door to complain about the other.

The complaining went on through dinner and until my grandmother finally went early to bed.

I think my father kind of enjoyed it, though.

Still more fun than living alone.

[byablue]

LOL - I can imagine - you're right about living alone - I think our young people would fare much better with more extended family involvement - unless they drive each other CRAZY - there was more of that involvement before the invention of airplane travel and I think it made for a more solid family structure. But I still don't like the idea of polygamy. I'm not even going to mention it to my husband - Lord knows how he'll react - may even join ACLU! :)