On its way from the House to the Senate the Democrats’ same-sex marriage bill experienced an unusual occurrence: people began reading it. When they did they were confronted with an unsettling reality: nothing in the text explicitly prohibited polygamy.
The more liberal senators claimed it was simply a “drafting error.” When a New York judge recognized polyamory late last month it was not a “drafting error.” How long will it be before the party who wants “love” to be the legal basis for all relationships follows suit?
Trial court Judge Karen May Bacdayan’s decision should have made front-page news. After all in her September decision she essentially gave New York’s blessing to polyamorous unions declaring that “… the problem with [previous same-sex marriage rulings] is that they recognize only two-person relationships.”
The case revolved around an apartment dispute that arose after the death of a tenant who had a gay spouse living elsewhere. The landlords claimed that because the two were not married the man he did live with had no right to renew the lease. When the roommate objected claiming to be a “non-traditional family member ” the judge agreed to hold a hearing to determine whether all three were romantically involved.
Bacdayan cited two same-sex union cases Braschi v. Stahl in New York and Obergefell v. Hodges in the United States Supreme Court explaining that both major rulings “limit their holdings to two-person relationships.”
She acknowledges that those decisions were “revolutionary ” but they “still adhered to the majoritarian societal view that only two people can have a family-like relationship.” To put it another way “only people who are ‘committed’ in a way defined by certain traditional factors qualify for protection…”
Braschi and Obergefell in her opinion “opened the door for consideration of other relational constructs—and perhaps ” the judge insisted “the time has arrived.”
The Supreme Court had predicted this day would come according to Bacdayan citing Chief Justice John Roberts’ 2015 dissent who at the time had written:
“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… 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… serve to disrespect and subordinate people who find fulfillment in polyamorous relationships?”
Bacdayan argued that only “implicit majoritarian animus” would limit the definition of commitment to two people. “Why does the relationship have to be characterized by ‘exclusivity?’” Why indeed? Maybe because God created man and woman in His own image male and female created he them and marriage is exclusive to one male and one female only?
Katy Faust founder of Them Before Us is happy to explain why society has been so intent on prioritizing man-woman marriage until now. She told The Washington Stand:
“Every novel iteration of modern family infringes on the rights and well-being of children in a novel way.”
Now nearly two decades later with American and European parents fighting for their lives over transgenderism and judges paving the way for “plural marriage ” it appears that we were correct. The LGBT struggle was never about marriage; it was about challenging every social norm.
Back 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 be repealed. People thought he was being dramatic at the time.
So why not? If “love” and “consent” are all that is required to define a relationship then leftists can redefine and legitimize all sorts of relationships including incest and pedophilia.
In the only major piece of marriage legislation since the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act the entire House of Representatives did not bother to include a prohibition on polygamy. Was it an honest mistake or did the Left get caught? In a Democratic Party bent on sexual anarchy it’s difficult to tell. It is time to see the Conservative Movement re-building its roots.
Polygamy according to the Left is not the next legitimization. But who could possibly believe them?
They initially stated that they simply wanted to “live and let live.” They later stated that they only desired legal benefits and not marriage. When Democrats won the right to marry in the courts they vowed not to impose it on the states. After forcing it on the states they claimed it would not result in religious persecution. You can’t open a newspaper these days without coming across a lawsuit involving Christian business owners Christian teachers Christian schools and Christian adoption agencies all of whom are fighting for their lives in this brave new world of “tolerance.”
It seems we are living in a world that is constructing its policies on the shifting sands of society and if we are not careful the end result will be a world that we will not recognize.Phalloplasty: where women can become men by growing their own penis then attaching it to themselves via surgery.