Same-Sex “Marriage” and Polygamy
January 17th, 2007 by Peter
“Legalized polygamy coming to America sometime soon?” writes TrueBlueCT in this thread. “I doubt it.”
He bases his claim on the small number of polygamists in the U.S. But according to the 2000 U.S. census only 6/10 of 1% of Connecticut households are occupied by same-sex “partners.” Yet a radical redefinition of marriage in Connecticut remains, alas, a real possibility.
The Waterbury Republican-American, in an editorial on a story first noted on FIC blog in November, offers further thoughts on the link between same-sex “marriage” and polygamy:
Reminiscent of the way the news media have covered the issue of same-sex marriage, The Washington Post sympathetically reported recently on the campaign to mainstream plural marriage: “Consciously taking tactics from the (homosexual)-rights movement, polygamists have reframed their struggle, choosing … to de-emphasize their religious beliefs and focus on their desire to live ‘in freedom’.”
That’s not the only parallel…Liberal “legal scholars,” while professing to be offended by polygamy, have begun calling for its legalization. The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2003 decision that voided laws criminalizing sodomy helped polygamists by showing justices disapproved of laws “that reach into the bedroom,” the Post reported…
Before long, polygamists will get their day in court, and if they find the right judges will prevail, thereby preempting public debate, legislative deliberation and constitutional processes. Along the way, those who object to the further deterioration of the institution of marriage will be derided as bigots and worse. And a few years out, supporters, knowing full well the damage from such momentous changes takes years to manifest, will say polygamy didn’t bring civilization crashing down.
But the damage will come, just as it did with liberalized divorce laws that have produced a multitude of broken homes, single mothers, neurotic adults and emotionally needy children, and just as same-sex unions eventually will exact their toll. Those trains have left the station. It’s not to late too cancel future departures from the norm.
You say: “But according to the 2000 U.S. census only 6/10 of 1% of Connecticut households are occupied by same-sex “partners.” Yet a radical redefinition of marriage in Connecticut remains, alas, a real possibility.”
If the number is so small, why do you care? How can such an apparently small group of people be such a massive threat to you?
The law is a very powerful and blunt instrument used to shape and reflect a culture’s values. When the State issues marriage licenses without regard to gender, it abrogates the importance of having a mommy AND a daddy for the raising of children.* The State delivers a very clear message that daddy is unimportant, mommy is unimportant, that what matters is “2” persons (or at least their income substitute).**
*And, BTW, engendering a stable society (because, that IS overwhelmingly what mommies AND daddies do) (see the rolls of the CT Juvenile Justice system as exhibit A) should be the ONLY interest of the State in issuing marriage licenses . . . not validating adult romantic feelings.
** And, And, to relate it to the topic above, if “2” is good, wouldn’t “3” be better”? Enter local, sympathetic, polygamist advocate stage left.
I like how people think that homosexuals who have no control over their sexuality because they are born that way are denied the simple right to be married. The marriage of two same sex couples that love one another has absolutely no impact on the rest of the population. The fact that there are debates surrounding these issues makes it quite clear that our population consists mainly of ignorant, small-minded people. Same sex couples pay the same taxes that everyone else pays. They work just as hard as everyone else. Who are you to deny them the same rights that you have?
Femme, you’re absolutly right. Children that live in a home with a ‘mommy’ AND a ‘daddy’ are so much better off, despite drug use, physical and mental abuse, and neglect that may ensue. As long as both sets of genitals are present and accounted for.
Oh, and don’t even get me started on those liberal whackos that try to tell me that single parent households exist and thrive without the presence of both parents.
But I digress. I’m all for making sure those uppity homos don’t get a chance to build a life together with legal stability, love, and child rearing. I mean really, same-sex households are the breeding grounds for more homos. Where do you think all of the homosexuals in this nation were raised?
Oooh, and let’s make sure to keep up the quotation marks around “Marriage” in regards to same-sex relationships. Then the obviousness of our “Aww, they think they can married too, isn’t that cute?” contempt will ring loud and clear.
Fight the good fight Femme. And good words about the law being “a very powerful and blunt instrument used to shape and reflect a culture’s values”. I also agree, since there is NOTHING in this countries legislative background that I don’t agree with. How about a Trail of Tears part 2 for gays? Then maybe the rest of us can sleep at night when all those perverts who parade around as “normal”(when they are obviously constantly thinking about molesting every child walking by and trying to convert them all) are walking to Oklahoma with HIV/AIDS infected blankets.