On its journey from the House to the Senate, the Democrats’ same-sex marriage measure had a curious development: people actually began reading the law. When they did, an unsettling realization struck them: polygamy was not expressly forbidden in the Torah. The more liberal senators argued that it was only a “drafting error.” But when a New York court acknowledged polyamory late last month, it wasn’t a “drafting mistake.” How long will it be until the side that wants “love” to be the foundation of every relationship follows suit?
Trial court Judge Karen May Bacdayan’s ruling ought to have made the top page of the newspaper. After all, she stated in her September verdict that “the problem with [prior same-sex marriage rulings] is that they acknowledge only two-person partnerships,” thereby endorsing polyamorous unions.
The case’s central conflict was an apartment and was brought on by the passing of a renter who had a gay spouse living somewhere else. Because they were not married, the landlords claimed that the guy he did live with had no right to request a lease renewal. The judge decided to hold a hearing on whether all three of them were intimately linked when the roommate protested, saying he was a “non-traditional family member.”
The two same-sex union instances mentioned by Bacdayan, Obergefell v. Hodges and Braschi v. Stahl in New York, both confine their holdings to two-person unions. Although she acknowledges that their choices were “revolutionary,” she also notes that they “still conformed to the majoritarian, social perspective that only two individuals may have a family-like connection.” In other words, “protection is only available to those who are ‘dedicated’ in a fashion determined by certain conventional elements.” She believes that Braschi and Obergefell “opened [the] door for examination of alternative relationship constructions — and perhaps the moment has arrived,” the judge underlined.
Bacdayan cited Chief Justice John Roberts’ 2015 dissent as evidence that the Supreme Court had foreseen this day. The majority, according to Roberts, “randomly inserts the adjective ‘two’ in various places, but it presents absolutely no justification why the two-person aspect of the basic definition of marriage may be kept while the man-woman element may not… Why wouldn’t the same imposition of this impairment serve to disdain and subordinate those who find joy in polyamorous relationships if not having the option to marry serves to disrespect and subordinate homosexual and lesbian couples?
According to Bacdayan, only “implicit majoritarian animus” would restrict the meaning of commitment to two persons. “Why does the connection need to have a ‘exclusivity’ quality to it?” Why, yes. If marriage is not exclusive, what is it?
Them Before Us creator Katy Faust is happy to explain why society has been so focused on valuing man-woman marriage up until this point. She told The Washington Stand that “every unique iteration of the contemporary family infringes on the rights and well-being of children in a novel way.” “Same-sex marriage prevented kids from having a close bond with their parents.
Children must coexist in living quarters with an unrelated, frequently changing cast of adults, according to polyamory. This home arrangement deprives children of the stability they want for a fulfilling existence and increases their risk of abuse and neglect, far from just having “more adults to adore them.” The fact that children need, deserve, and have a right to having their own married mother and father live with them and love them every day does not alter no matter how “tolerant” and “progressive” society gets.
When Democrats attempted to sexualize the military 20 years ago, the media laughed off the conservative movement’s worries about the precarious position. Now, over two decades later, it tragically demonstrates we were correct, with American parents engaged in a life-or-death battle over transgenderism and courts opening the door for “plural marriage.” The LGBT community fought against every societal convention; it was never about marriage.
In 2003, the late Justice Antonin Scalia predicted that state laws prohibiting “bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution… adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity” would eventually be repealed since they were “based on moral decisions.” People at the time believed he was being theatrical. even exaggerating But they no longer believe that. According to Gallup research, an astounding 23% of Americans in 2022 believe polygamy is “morally acceptable” – more than treble the percentage from when Scalia raised the issue, which was just 7%.
Why not, then? If a relationship is only defined by “love” and “consent,” advocates of incest, pedophilia, and group marriage may follow the LGBT playbook all the way to legitimacy. Right after Obergefell, in 2015, Fredrik DeBoer questioned how his liberal friends could deny numerous partners the legal protections that marriage provides: “If my liberal friends respect the validity of free people who want to create love unions with several partners?”
Since then, Massachusetts and California cities have implemented the recommendations of an American Psychological Association task team to offer “consensual non-monogamy” protected legal status. At this point, the concept is reportedly so uncontroversial that the whole House of Representatives didn’t bother to include a ban on polygamy in the only significant piece of marriage legislation since the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. Was that genuinely an honest error, or was the Left just caught? In a Democratic Party focused on sexual anarchy, it can be difficult to discern.
In any case, Mary Beth Waddell of the Family Research Council argues that it is all the more important that “senators must not be rushed into a cloture vote on the so-called Respect Marriage Act and must read the final bill text for themselves to ensure that there are no ‘drafting errors’ or ‘unintended consequences’ regarding religious freedom. 47 House Republicans voted in favor of polygamy ahead of time due to a hurried vote and reliance on talking points.
RELATED ARTICLES
- Israeli Rabbi Calls to Genocide Gaza, Says Torah Demands Killing Babies
- Canada Borderline Bans Christianity, Outlaws Reading Aloud From Bible in Public
- California BANS 'In-Home Bible Studies' after Banning Church Singing, are these the End Times?
- Jewish Doctor Infects AIPAC, CPAC and possibly entire US Senate and House with Coronavirus, Media Covers it Up
- Texas Trio Couple Arrested Over Blowing Drugs Into their Baby's Face to Pacify Her Cries
Loading ...
