Homosexuals Want to Limit Marriage Now That They Got Their Way


Now that homosexuals got their legal wish in having the Supreme Court force same-sex marriage on all 50 states, these same homosexuals now want to limit that extended right to polygamists. What hypocrites!

At the same time, homosexuals want to silence anybody who uses their God-given and constitutional freedoms to speak against judicial tyranny and the Gaystapo who were never content on just securing same-sex marriage rights. Their goal, like the Nazis and Communists before them, was to criminalize Divine law, thus giving them the freedom to live a guiltfree lifestyle.

The following is from Salon staff writer Mary Elizabeth Williams’s article “No, ‘Sister Wives’ family, polygamy is not the new marriage equality fight”:

“If you want to argue that polygamy and marriage equality are the same thing, well, they’re not. If you want respect for how consenting adults arrange their households, though, you’ve got it. That does not however mean that because one group that has fought for friggin’ decades for basic recognition and respect finally has achieved something, that every fringe group — and yeah, sister wife families, you are fringe — gets a piece of the action too. And if you’re looking for evidence that America is now going all polygamy, all the time, I’d question whether one family that had a brief recent moment on cable TV is really going to build your case.”

Now that homosexuals have secured their right to marry, they want to deny other “consenting adults” the right to “arrange their households” in a similar way. Given the way the majority of the Supreme Court justices ruled, there is no moral or constitutional argument against any kind of marriage.

Apparently Ms Williams is not familiar with American history. Long before homosexuals were trying to secure their fictional marital rights, polygamists were working for “basic recognition” for their marital rights. “Friggin’ decades” does not compare to nearly 175 years of polygamists who have fought for their marriage rights.

Calling polygamists part of a marriage “fringe” is laughable given that at least the sexual relationships produce children.

There was also an American-born religion that had polygamy as one of its fundamental doctrines. The courts ruled that Utah had to give up the legalization of polygamy if it wanted to enter the union. In 1856, “the Republican National Platform Committee paired polygamy with slavery when it declared it the ‘duty of Congress to prohibit in the territories those twin relics of barbarism — polygamy and slavery.’” Utah would not become a state until 1890.

As recently as 2004, the courts ruled that Utah’s polygamy ban remained constitutional.

The following is a list of Supreme Court polygamy cases from the 19th and 20th centuries:

20th century

  • Chatwin v. United States, 326 S.455 (1946) — underaged polygamous marriage with consent not prosecutable under the Federal Kidnapping Act
  • Cleveland v. United States, 329 S.14 (1946) — polygamous marriage an “immoral purpose” under the Mann Act
  • Musser v. Utah, 333 S.95 (1948) — polygamy not religious free speech
  • In re Black, 3 Utah 2d 315 (1955) [283 P.2d 887] — raising children in a polygamist household is evidence of child neglect; the state can remove and retain custody of children while their parents unlawful cohabitation continues
  • Potter v. Murray City, 760 F.2d 1065 (10th Cir. 1985) — “the State is justified, by a compelling interest, in upholding and enforcing its ban on plural marriage”
  • Barlow v. Blackburn, 165 Ariz. 351, 356, 798 P.2d 1360, 1365 (App.1990) — “Barlow’s practice of polygamy justif[ies] revoking or suspending his peace officer certification” as “Arizona’s constitutional prohibition against polygamy is valid” and “Arizona’s compelling state interest […] justifies an infringement upon Barlow’s religiously-motivated conduct”
  • In re Adoption of W.A.T.(aka Johanson v. Fischer), 808 P.2d 1083 (Utah 1991) — “no legitimate basis for the courts to disqualify all bigamists (polygamists) as potential adopters”
  • Barlow v. Evans, 993 F.Supp. 1390 (D.Utah 1997) — Fair Housing Act prohibition of religious discrimination does not provide protection for polygamists.
Previous Rainbows, Lightning, and Droughts: What About These Signs?
Next Are Public Schools ‘Birth Profiling’ Your Kids?

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

Trending Now on Godfather Politics