Tag Archives: Gay Marriage

Congratulations Polygamists, Pederasts, Oedipalists, et al.: Your Case is Made, the Precedent is Set! Call the Wedding Planner!

By Gary P Jackson

In what is certainly the most egregious example of judicial overreach in our nation’s history, the Supreme Court created a “right” that has never before existed. [every state in the USA, and most countries, have put numerous restrictions on who may, or may not marry, and for good reason] By declaring marriage a “right,” The Court opened the door, not only for gay marriage, but for any and all unions that were heretofore unthinkable, and totally unacceptable.

Not since Dred Scott, which essentially said Negroes were not human, but mere property …. farm implements if you will …. and thus, had no constitutional rights whatsoever, and Roe v Wade, which was ACTUALLY about the right to privacy, but was interpreted as creating a “right” to slaughter an innocent child and call it a “choice” [which has led to the slaughter of at least 80 MILLION innocent children, including over 20 MILLION black babies, since 1973] has The Court got it so wrong, and the potential damage to civilized society so great.

As it did in Thursday’s ObamaCare [SCOTUScare?] ruling, The Court has essentially rendered the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution, and the concept of state’s rights, null and void.

Full disclosure before we go any further. While I’m not exactly what you’d call an “enthusiastic supporter” of gay marriage, I have absolutely ZERO problem with allowing gays to marry IF it had been done legally, and with the blessing of the American people, not through judicial fiat and activism. In other words, a constitutional amendment that would forever define marriage.

Look for an upcoming post outlining a constitutional amendment that could, and would, satisfy most Americans and ease their legitimate fears of being persecuted for their religious beliefs, while still allowing gay marriage.

In the headline I mention polygamy, the act of marrying more than one person at the same time, and living in a plural relationship, not to be confused with bigamy, being married to more than one person, usually without the other participants’ knowledge of that fact. [though laws against this may be voided as well] I also mention pedophilia, and incestuous relationships. Many will scoff, but the fact is, the happy-happy, rainbows and unicorns, let’s all sing Kumbaya wording in Justice Kennedy’s majority ruling opens up marriage to include any paring, or combination of parings, one can think up. Wanna marry your pet goat? OK. How about your color TV or your toaster? Sure, why not! [you can thank Frank Zappa and Joe’s Garage for that imagery!]

Don’t laugh, in other countries, run by lunatics, people have been allowed to marry trees, cars, and other random things. Nothing like the government indulging the mentally ill!

And yes, the United States is run by lunatics too. The inmates have taken over the asylum!

Here’s the thing, the arguments used to claim gay marriage was a “right,” based on the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, can be used by ANYONE in a relationship that, until now, has been illegal, or otherwise forbidden by civilized societies.

Don’t laugh! People seem to want to laugh at and ridicule those who talk about “slippery slopes” and the “law of unintended consequences ,” but in most cases, we are usually right on the money. Sometimes it takes years to be proven right, other times we see it almost immediately!

For example …. Friday, while the Court ruling was still sinking in for most people, the left wing website Politico published an opinion piece by Fredrik Deboer entitled: It’s Time to Legalize Polygamy Why group marriage is the next horizon of social liberalism.

Welcome to the exciting new world of the slippery slope. With the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling this Friday legalizing same sex marriage in all 50 states, social liberalism has achieved one of its central goals. A right seemingly unthinkable two decades ago has now been broadly applied to a whole new class of citizens. Following on the rejection of interracial marriage bans in the 20th Century, the Supreme Court decision clearly shows that marriage should be a broadly applicable right—one that forces the government to recognize, as Friday’s decision said, a private couple’s “love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family.

The question presents itself: Where does the next advance come? The answer is going to make nearly everyone uncomfortable: Now that we’ve defined that love and devotion and family isn’t driven by gender alone, why should it be limited to just two individuals? The most natural advance next for marriage lies in legalized polygamy—yet many of the same people who pressed for marriage equality for gay couples oppose it.

This is not an abstract issue. In Chief Justice John Roberts’ dissenting opinion, he remarks, “It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage.” As is often the case with critics of polygamy, he neglects to mention why this is a fate to be feared. Polygamy today stands as a taboo just as strong as same-sex marriage was several decades ago—it’s effectively only discussed as outdated jokes about Utah and Mormons, who banned the practice over 120 years ago.

Yet the moral reasoning behind society’s rejection of polygamy remains just as uncomfortable and legally weak as same-sex marriage opposition was until recently.

That’s one reason why progressives who reject the case for legal polygamy often don’t really appear to have their hearts in it. They seem uncomfortable voicing their objections, clearly unused to being in the position of rejecting the appeals of those who would codify non-traditional relationships in law. They are, without exception, accepting of the right of consenting adults to engage in whatever sexual and romantic relationships they choose, but oppose the formal, legal recognition of those relationships. They’re trapped, I suspect, in prior opposition that they voiced from a standpoint of political pragmatism in order to advance the cause of gay marriage.

In doing so, they do real harm to real people. Marriage is not just a formal codification of informal relationships. It’s also a defensive system designed to protect the interests of people whose material, economic and emotional security depends on the marriage in question. If my liberal friends recognize the legitimacy of free people who choose to form romantic partnerships with multiple partners, how can they deny them the right to the legal protections marriage affords?
Polyamory is a fact. People are living in group relationships today. The question is not whether they will continue on in those relationships. The question is whether we will grant to them the same basic recognition we grant to other adults: that love makes marriage, and that the right to marry is exactly that, a right.

Why the opposition, from those who have no interest in preserving “traditional marriage” or forbidding polyamorous relationships? I think the answer has to do with political momentum, with a kind of ad hoc-rejection of polygamy as necessary political concession. And in time, I think it will change.

The marriage equality movement has been both the best and worst thing that could happen for legally sanctioned polygamy. The best, because that movement has required a sustained and effective assault on “traditional marriage” arguments that reflected no particular point of view other than that marriage should stay the same because it’s always been the same. In particular, the notion that procreation and child-rearing are the natural justification for marriage has been dealt a terminal injury. We don’t, after all, ban marriage for those who can’t conceive, or annul marriages that don’t result in children, or make couples pinkie swear that they’ll have kids not too long after they get married. We have insisted instead that the institution exists to enshrine in law a special kind of long-term commitment, and to extend certain essential logistical and legal benefits to those who make that commitment. And rightly so.

But the marriage equality movement has been curiously hostile to polygamy, and for a particularly unsatisfying reason: short-term political need. Many conservative opponents of marriage equality have made the slippery slope argument, insisting that same-sex marriages would lead inevitably to further redefinition of what marriage is and means. See, for example, Rick Santorum’s infamous “man on dog” comments, in which he equated the desire of two adult men or women to be married with bestiality. Polygamy has frequently been a part of these slippery slope arguments. Typical of such arguments, the reasons why marriage between more than two partners would be destructive were taken as a given. Many proponents of marriage equality, I’m sorry to say, went along with this evidence-free indictment of polygamous matrimony. They choose to side-step the issue by insisting that gay marriage wouldn’t lead to polygamy. That legally sanctioned polygamy was a fate worth fearing went without saying.

To be clear: our lack of legal recognition of group marriages is not the fault of the marriage equality movement. Rather, it’s that the tactics of that movement have made getting to serious discussions of legalized polygamy harder. I say that while recognizing the unprecedented and necessary success of those tactics. I understand the political pragmatism in wanting to hold the line—to not be perceived to be slipping down the slope. To advocate for polygamy during the marriage equality fight may have seemed to confirm the socially conservative narrative, that gay marriage augured a wholesale collapse in traditional values. But times have changed; while work remains to be done, the immediate danger to marriage equality has passed. In 2005, a denial of the right to group marriage stemming from political pragmatism made at least some sense. In 2015, after this ruling, it no longer does.

While important legal and practical questions remain unresolved, with the Supreme Court’s ruling and broad public support, marriage equality is here to stay. Soon, it will be time to turn the attention of social liberalism to the next horizon. Given that many of us have argued, to great effect, that deference to tradition is not a legitimate reason to restrict marriage rights to groups that want them, the next step seems clear. We should turn our efforts towards the legal recognition of marriages between more than two partners. It’s time to legalize polygamy.

***

Conventional arguments against polygamy fall apart with even a little examination. Appeals to traditional marriage, and the notion that child rearing is the only legitimate justification of legal marriage, have now, I hope, been exposed and discarded by all progressive people. What’s left is a series of jerry-rigged arguments that reflect no coherent moral vision of what marriage is for, and which frequently function as criticisms of traditional marriage as well.

This is, sad to say, an incredibly well thought out argument, and one that can be made without the necessity of another court battle. Again, the precedent is set, not only for polygamy, but absolutely ANY relationship and union that has formerly been considered taboo and forbidden. Welcome to the brave new world where court rulings are based on feelings, rather than the Constitution, and common sense!

Let’s visit what Chief Justice Roberts wrote in dissent of the ruling, that strongly warns the ruling opens the door for polygamy: [emphasis mine]

Although the majority randomly inserts the adjective “two” in various places, it offers no reason at all why the two-person element of the core definition of marriage may be preserved while the man-woman element may not. Indeed, from the standpoint of history and tradition, a leap from opposite-sex marriage to same-sex marriage is much greater than one from a two-person union to plural unions, which have deep roots in some cultures around the world. If the majority is willing to take the big leap, it is hard to see how it can say no to the shorter one.

It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage. If “[t]here is dignity in the bond between two men or two women who seek to marry and in their autonomy to make such profound choices,” ante, at 13, why would there be any less dignity in the bond between three people who, in exercising their autonomy, seek to make the profound choice to marry? If a same-sex couple has the constitutional right to marry because their children would otherwise “suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser,” ante, at 15, why wouldn’t the same reasoning apply to a family of three or more persons raising children? If not having the opportunity to marry “serves to disrespect and subordinate” gay and lesbian couples, why wouldn’t the same “imposition of this disability,” ante, at 22, serve to disrespect and subordinate people who find fulfillment in polyamorous relationships? See Bennett, Polyamory: The Next Sexual Revolution? Newsweek, July 28, 2009 (estimating 500,000 polyamorous families in the United States); Li, Married Lesbian “Throuple” Expecting First Child, N. Y. Post, Apr. 23, 2014; Otter, Three May Not Be a Crowd: The Case for a Constitutional Right to Plural Marriage, 64 Emory L. J. 1977 (2015).

I do not mean to equate marriage between same-sex couples with plural marriages in all respects. There may well be relevant differences that compel different legal analysis. But if there are, petitioners have not pointed to any. When asked about a plural marital union at oral argument, petitioners asserted that a State “doesn’t have such an institution.” Tr. of Oral Arg. on Question 2, p. 6. But that is exactly the point: the States at issue here do not have an institution of same-sex marriage, either.

Think this is no big deal?

In September of 2014 a German ethics committee ruled that INCEST is a “fundamental right“: [emphasis mine]

Incest a ‘fundamental right‘, German committee says

Anti-incest laws in Germany could be scrapped after a government-backed group said relationships between brothers and sisters should be legal

Laws banning incest between brothers and sisters in Germany could be scrapped after a government ethics committee said the they were an unacceptable intrusion into the right to sexual self-determination.

Criminal law is not the appropriate means to preserve a social taboo,” the German Ethics Council said in a statement. “The fundamental right of adult siblings to sexual self-determination is to be weighed more heavily than the abstract idea of protection of the family.

Their intervention follows a notorious case in which a brother and sister living as partners in Saxony had four children together. The couple had been raised separately and only met when the brother, identified only as Patrick S, was an adult, and his sister Susan K was 16.

Patrick S was sentenced to more than three years in prison for incest and the couple have since failed in their bid to have the guilty verdict overturned by the European Court of Human Rights.

The family was forced to live apart after the courts ruled that there was a duty to protect their children from the consequences of their relationship.

Two of the couple’s children are disabled, and it is believed that incest carries a higher risk of resulting in children with genetic abnormalities.

But the Ethics Council dismissed that argument, on the basis that other genetically affected couples are not banned from having children.

The Council said it based its recommendation on extensive research, in which it found many incestuous couples are forced to live in secret.

In one case, it found a woman was being blackmailed by her father and ex-husband, who threatened to depive her of access to her children unless she ended a new relationship with her half-brother.

Incest remains illegal in the UK and most European countries, although France abolished its incest laws under Napoleon I and there has been growing debate over the taboo in Germany.

Around two to four per cent of Germans have had “incestuous experiences”, according to an estimate by the Max Planck Institute.

But a spokeswoman for Angela Merkel’s ruling Christian Democrats indicated the government was unlikely to adopt the Ethics Council’s recommendations.

The abolition of the offense of incest between siblings would be the wrong signal,” said Elisabeth Winkelmeier-Becker, legal policy spokeswoman for the party’s group in parliament.

Eliminating the threat of punishment against incestuous acts within families would run counter to the protection of undisturbed development for children.

It’s not speculation that incestuous sexual relationships can lead to disability and abnormalities among children. Not just physical deformities, but mental deformities as well. Inbreeding was once the “in thing” among European royalty. Study up on the Hapsburg family. Aggressive inbreeding among this royal family led to a distinctive deformity of both the lips and jaws of their offspring, that still exist today. Inbreeding has effected the British Royals as well.

Included in the above article are links to these equally disturbing articles:

Marriage between uncle and niece is ruled legal by New York Court
29 Oct 2014

Australian judge says incest may no longer be a taboo

10 Jul 2014

Father wanted over Australia’s worst incest case ‘hiding in UK’
30 Jun 2014

Switzerland considers repealing incest laws
13 Dec 2010

For those of you of the more libertarian bent, who are wondering why such a fuss, study up on the fall of ancient Greece and ancient Rome. Two civilizations that gave the world many great things and concepts, that crashed and burned because of their “if it feels good, do it” attitudes. These two great civilizations were destroyed by liberalism, of the sort America, and civilization, battles today.

Civilized societies have certain rules, norms, and taboos for a reason. These aren’t concepts that are willy-nilly and created on a whim. The need for these rules has been proven valid through thousands of years of human history.

America is the greatest civilization the world has ever known, but I’m afraid it is no match for the evil that is liberalism.

The slope is well greased, and we are about to slip down it at warp speed.

The American Experiment …. it was fun while it lasted.

12 Comments

Filed under In The News, Politics

President Obama: Distractor-in-Chief

by Whitney Pitcher

Last week, President Obama issued an executive order that would prevent deportation of illegal immigrants under the age of 30. Not only is this a grasp of unconstitutional power, it is a politically motivated, not a pure policy motivated decision. In the first nearly two years of his presidency, President Obama had a Democratically controlled House and a filabuster proof Senate until early 2010. He had every opportunity to push through immigration reform, but didn’t. Now, he has chosen to circumvent Congress and legislate from the executive branch in order to pander to a voting bloc. However, it is more than just pandering; it is distraction, just has been nearly every politically motivated decision he has made. While the economy remains in the toilet, people become distracted by President Obama’s newest shiny voting bloc du jour. It has become a pattern–both for the President and those of us who vehemently oppose his policies and approach.

Class warfare has been a part of President Obama’s rhetoric throughout his political career. However, it has ramped up as the election has drawn nearer. There was his “Kansas speech” which focused on income inequality and the rich paying their “fair share”, but nothing in his speech provided economic empowerment for the middle class he purports to stand with. Instead, he aimed to breed envy by pitting the wealthy against the middle class. Just as in his proposed “Buffet rule”, there was nothing that lowered Buffet’s secretaries taxes, only ideas that would raise Buffet’s taxes, which does extremely little for denting the deficit. While President Obama attempted to divide Americans into classes–a distraction–there was still nothing that would have provided more job opportunities, empowered the middle class by allowing them to keep more of what they earn, nor reduced the deficit. It was yet another political distraction.

Earlier this year, President Obama pounced on a poorly worded comment from Rush Limbaugh to fabricate a political meme of a Republican “war on women” when Republicans advocated for religious freedom for Catholic employers. Instead of focusing on economic empowerment of women by aiming to improve the economy, he again aimed to distract by turning those who supported contraceptive mandates against those who did not.He tried (and failed) to show how his policies would support women through the character of “Julia”, who really wasn’t economically empowered, but instead was government dependent. Meanwhile, the economy still suffered, and President Obama continued to try to distract using divisive issues.

He has done this with other demographic groups as well.  Obama has flip flopped on his views on gay marriage throughout his political career, yet at a time when 1 in 6 of his big donors are gay and following a mistimed statement by VP Biden, he felt the need to “evolve” yet again.  Again, another attempt to distract from a poor economy and pander to a voting bloc. He continues to push for student loan rate reductions in order to distract from a poor economy and pander to young voters. However, the rate reduction would only reduce monthly payments by an average of  just $7 a month. Also, with a poor economy, what jobs will these graduates have the opportunity to apply for or receive? Again, distraction.

President Obama promised to cut the deficit in half during his first term has instead increased the deficit dramatically. Also, as I noted in a previous post at Breitbart:

Additionally, his $862 billion stimulus package passed in January of 2009, which his administration claimed would prevent unemployment from going over 8%, has left a record of  39 straight months of unemployment over 8% in its wake. Fifty-six percent of likely voters want Obamacare—the President’s signature piece of legislation—repealed. Solyndra? Lightsquared?
Both are now bankrupt companies with campaign donor ties to President
Obama that received either loads of taxpayer dollars or preferential
treatment from the Obama administration. Fast and Furious?
A gun walking scheme that has left a border patrol agent dead, more
than a thousand guns missing, and the Obama administration culpable.

All of those issues are just a small sampling of his administration’s failures. It isn’t any wonder that he wants to distract and pander. He has lost an advantage is those voting blocs he won in 2008. He wants to distract and divide because if the electorate is focused on our differences, then we can’t be focused on the poor economy and unethical government that affect us all.  The socially charged issues the President brings up are indeed important, but they are a solely political means to an electoral end for this President. Distraction. With any policy, the policy itself must be the ends, not the means for for political expediency. The economy is bad for both citizens and illegal immigrants,rich or middle class, Catholic and non-Catholic, male and female, recent graduate or non-recent graduate, married or single, gay or straight. Don’t buy into the the divisive distraction.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Mitt Romney, The Father Of Gay Marriage In America, By Illegal Executive Fiat

By Gary P Jackson

This isn’t about gay marriage, it’s about Mitt Romney’s complete and total lack of respect for the Rule of Law.

We all know Mitt Romney is the father of socialized medicine in America, and one of two people in the Republic with a socialist plan named after them, the other being Barack Obama.

Well, it seems that’s not the only usurpation this Big Government extremist has visited on the people of Massachusetts, and the nation as a whole. You see Romney illegally FORCED gay marriage on the people of the Bay State, even after the state’s Supreme Court banned the practice.

Ann Barnhardt discusses this illegal situation as well as more despicable acts by Romney here.

Bryan Fischer has written this:

Former Massachusetts’ governor Mitt Romney announced his official intention to run for the presidency this week.

His candidacy has one potentially insurmountable problem: America has same-sex marriage because of Mitt Romney.

This is just one of several huge vulnerabilities Mitt Romney has as he tries to convince the members of his own party that he is conservative enough to claim the Republican mantle for 2012. His flip-flops on abortion, RomneyCare in Massachusetts.

But same-sex marriage is the biggie. The first domino to fall in the crusade to give marital recognition to same sex unions fell in Massachusetts, and it fell because then-governor Romney pushed it over.

While the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court declared that Massachusetts’ marriage law was unconstitutional in the summer of 2003, the Court explicitly declared that the original law, which does not authorize same-sex marriage, was left intact. “Here, no one argues that striking down the marriage laws is an appropriate form of relief.

The court acknowledged that the original law, left intact by its ruling, banned homosexual marriages and gave the legislature 180 days to “take such action as it may deem appropriate.” The legislature did precisely nothing.

Gov. Romney, acting on his own, ordered town clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples on May 17, 2004, in contravention of Massachusetts state law and under threat of termination.

Gov. Romney in essence told these town clerks that if they did not break the law, he would fire them.

Town clerks meekly complied, and became lawbreakers in the process. Massachusetts state marriage law is quite explicit: “Whoever, not being duly authorized by the laws of the commonwealth undertakes to join persons in marriage therein shall be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or both.”

Re-read that carefully. Town clerks must be “authorized by the laws of the commonwealth” to issue marriage licenses. They are not allowed to do so under the authorization of the Supreme Judicial Court or the governor. The “laws of the commonwealth” to this day do not authorize the granting of same-sex marriage licenses.

Massachusetts state marriage law has never been changed. Same-sex marriage is still illegal in the Bay State.

So the bottom line here is that Gov. Romney broke state law and ordered his town clerks to do the same.

After Gov. Romney legalized same-sex marriage by fiat in a burst of executive branch activism, Connecticut’s Supreme Court followed suit in 2008 and Iowa’s Supreme Court in 2009. Same-sex marriage was not legalized through the legislative process anywhere in the United States until Vermont’s legislature overrode a gubernatorial veto in April of 2009.

There are just two states now, New Hampshire being the other, where the elected representatives of the people have solemnized same-sex partnerships. In every other case, same-sex marriage has been forced down the throats of residents by an activist judiciary or, in the case of Massachusetts, by an activist governor imposing an activist ruling on his own citizens.

For time and eternity, Mitt Romney will go down in history as the man who abused the power of his office to give the United States homosexual matrimony.

For most social conservatives, this will simply be a breach too far.

For the record, I think marriage should be between one man and one woman. With that said, I also believe in States Rights. If a state, through LEGAL legislative process, wants to have gay marriage, then fine. This doesn’t effect me, as I don’t live in such a state. As long as it’s done legally, then no one has any ground to stand on.

Here’s the problem though. Mitt Romney didn’t do it legally. In fact, he defied his state’s Supreme Court and shoved this unwanted law down the people of Massachusetts throat’s. This puts Mitt Romney in the same box with Marxist radical Barack Obama, who thinks the Rule of Law doesn’t apply to him either. This makes Mitt Romney, like Obama, an incredibly dangerous man who has no respect for the Constitution, or Separation of Powers.

As reported above, thanks to Mitt Romney’s radical activism, extremists in other states have been emboldened to by-pass the legislative process, and through judicial fiat, created  a process that allows gay marriage. Had Romney not acted illegally, and gotten away with it, would these other states have been so bold?

Gay marriage is the first issue visited on the Republic by Mitt Romney, the second being RomneyCare, a TOTAL usurpation of individual Liberty and Freedom. In fact, one of the most egregious acts of tyranny visited on mankind in the past century. Worse, RomneyCare embolden the Marxist democrats in the Obama regime to go for their own version. RomneyCare was the blueprint for ObamaCare.

With Romney, one quickly sees a pattern of a dictator, not a public servant. Romney had absolutely NO PROBLEM stripping away Liberty and Freedom from every single Massachusetts resident “for the greater good.” Forcing every Massachusetts resident to buy something, just because they are alive and living there. This goes against absolutely EVERYTHING this nation was founded on.

Romney also had no problem forcing gay marriage on the people of the Bay State for support from activist groups. The man sold out his people for a few pieces of silver. 

Mitt Romney is just as dangerous as Barack Obama and can never be allowed to have the power of elected office again. The man has no respect for the Rule of Law or the First Principles our nation was founded on.

This nation must reject Mitt Romney, and all those like him. There is no place for men like him in our political system.

If we continue to elect men like Mitt Romney, our Republic will not survive.

24 Comments

Filed under In The News, Politics