The Talk Show American

THE TALK SHOW AMERICAN: Polygamy rights:The next civil-rights battle

Monday, December 12, 2005

Polygamy rights:The next civil-rights battle

'We're coming. We are next. There's no doubt about it'

"Polygamy rights is the next civil rights battle." So goes the motto of a Christian pro-polygamy organization that has been watching the battle over homosexual "marriage" rights with keen interest.
"We're coming. We are next. There's no doubt about it, we are next," says Mark Henkel, founder of www.TruthBearer.org.
Traditional values groups often argue that legalizing same-sex "marriage" is a "slippery slope" -- that if marriage is redefined to allow homosexuals to "wed," it will be further redefined to allow other unions, including polygamous ones.
Homosexual rights leaders and their allies insist that the "slippery slope" argument is a rhetorical dodge. It's a "scare tactic," says Freedom to Marry founder
Evan Wolfson.
"What homosexuals are asking for is the right to marry, not anybody they love, but somebody they love, which is not at all the same thing," Brookings Institution scholar Jonathan Rauch has written.
South Dakota lawmakers this year proposed the first constitutional marriage amendment that specifically outlaws unions of "two or more" persons.
The measure's author, South Dakota state Rep. Elizabeth Kraus, said the ban on polygamy is intentional.
After Canada legalized same-sex "marriage," its government "launched a study to look at the ramifications of polygamy," Mrs. Kraus said. "Once you open the marriage door to anyone other than one man or one woman, you haven't begun to slide down the slippery slope. You've already hit rock bottom."
Voters will decide on the measure next November.
Also this year, a New Jersey appellate court expressed concerns about a right to polygamy in its 2-1 rejection of same-sex "marriage."
"The same form of constitutional attack that plaintiffs mount against statutes limiting the institution of marriage to members of the opposite sex also could be made against statutes prohibiting polygamy," New Jersey Appellate Judges Stephen Skillman and Anthony J. Parrillo said in their ruling in Lewis v. Harris.
"Indeed, there is arguably a stronger foundation for challenging statutes prohibiting polygamy than statutes limiting marriage to members of the opposite sex" because unlike homosexual "marriage," polygamy has been and still is condoned by many religions and societies, they wrote.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

To whom it may concern,
I realise how controversial this topic may be to the public at large, but let's not forget how in the old testament many of the biblical forfathers had many wives and children as well.
Only as recent as a couple of thousand years has the tide turned against polygamy.
My wife and I both have been happily married now for over 12 years and still very much in love, as recent as 5 years ago we decided that we both could accept another woman into our marriage that would share not only us in the bedroom but share in everyday responsibility's of the house and bill's as well as the upbringing of our children.
Some say this to be an immoral act upon society's moral structure, explain to me how this is even a possibility.
If three consenting adult's decide to live together in a respectable and loving environment, how is it going to hurt first of all the children or society in any way.
In my view's we live in a country that no longer excercises nor protects the right's or freedoms of it's civilians in any way.
We should take note that instead of focusing on moral issues that hinder same sex couples from adopting children into loving homes or allowing families to love each other in the form of polygamy in a country that sports the highest divorce rate because of infidelity, maybe by allowing laws to pass that will make things easier on something harmless like same sex marriages and polygamy, why not look into reducing crime on the streets including drugs.
Heck some states have legalized marjuana for medical reasons and i'm sure new crimes have sprouted from that, why not focus on that.

Post a Comment