Phyllis Schlafly
Obama Makes Polygamy a 21st-Century Issue

SHARE THIS:
Share

No sooner had we celebrated the exit of Barack Obama's green jobs czar, Van Jones, because of his Communist connections, another off-the-wall administration embarrassment surfaced. President Obama nominated for commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) a woman who signed a radical manifesto endorsing polygamy.

Arguing
with Idiots By Glenn Beck

We thought our nation had settled the polygamy issue a century and a half ago, but this nomination makes it a 21st century controversy. Obama's nominee for the EEOC, a lesbian law-school professor named Chai R. Feldblum, signed a 2006 manifesto endorsing polygamous households (i.e., "in which there is more than one conjugal partner").

This document, titled "Beyond Same-Sex Marriage: A New Strategic Vision for All Our Families & Relationships," argues that traditional marriage "should not be legally and economically privileged above all others." The American people obviously think otherwise, and current laws reflect our wishes.

Feldblum is not the only pro-polygamy Obama appointee. His regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein, wrote a book in 2008 called "Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth and Happiness," in which he urged that "the word marriage would no longer appear in any laws, and marriage licenses would no longer be offered or recognized by any level of government."

Sunstein argues that traditional marriage discriminates against single people by imposing "serious economic and material disadvantages." He asks, "Why not leave people's relationships to their own choices, subject to the judgments of private organizations, religious and otherwise?"

Sunstein also suggests "routine removal" of human organs because "the state owns the rights to body parts of people who are dead or in certain hopeless conditions, and it can remove their organs without asking anyone's permission."

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was passed in 1996 by overwhelming majorities in Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has identified more than 1,000 federal laws that are based on the traditional definition of marriage, including the tax laws that permit married couples the advantage of filing joint income tax returns and the Social Security benefits awarded to fulltime homemakers, both very popular federal laws.

The peculiar push to recognize polygamy as just another variety of marriage is a predictable and logical corollary of the political movement to recognize same-sex marriage.

Phyllis Schlafly's Biography

Phyllis Schlafly is a national leader of the pro-family movement, a nationally syndicated columnist and author of Feminist Fantasies.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Phyllis Schlafly‘s column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.

Join the Debate
190 Comments So Far
« Previous12345678Next »
David Wrote: Nov 08, 2009 4:38 AM
I tend to agree with Feldblum. If we removed all references to marital status from federal and state laws, we could then stop all the purely semantic squabbling about whether a civil union is the same as a marriage, whether marriage is for opposite-sex couples only, and how many partners one can have. Gay couples who want religious ceremonies can already have them if they want, so let's just give "marriage" back to the churches. Consider everyone single for purposes of inheritance, taxes, immigration, adoption, Social Security and all other areas of the law that favor married people.

Marriage is no longer necessary for establishing paternity, and the courts settle custody and property questions whether couples are married or not. Let the clergy decide who can be married in the eyes of the church. In the law, everyone would be equal.

As for polygamy, that door is already open — we just call it adultery. Even though a person can be legally married to only one mate, there are no laws against adultery (except in military justice) and nothing to prevent a person from living with, and bedding with, as many people as he or she wants. Polygamy is not often prosecuted because only one “wife” is actually the legal spouse. Unless there’s welfare fraud or a wife who has been coerced or is under age, there’s no crime.

Through the ages various societies have more often accepted polygamy than required monogamy. (Solomon was said to have 700 wives and 300 concubines.) Marriage “norms” have included arranged marriages, “purchased” wives, child marriages, forced marriages of widows to their brothers-in law — and, yes, same-sex marriages in medieval Japan and China, and among native tribes in Africa and the Americas. There is really no such thing as "traditional" marriage.
Kevlar Wrote: Nov 06, 2009 4:48 PM

in Maine have attempted to use government to force their
way into a straight celebration. Now they're upset
that the straights used government to kick them out.

Jews don't ask for a Jew friendly Christmas or Easter.
They've got their own celebrations and institutions.

In light of the Maine vote, isn't it time for adults
with homosexuality to concoct their own celebration.
The homosexuals I know are very bright and creative.
Let us now create a word for man/man commitment.
And a word for woman/woman commitment.
Like always, in Maine, marriage is a multi-gender endeavor.

I am unaware of any regular people demanding entrance to a homosexual organization or institution. Why do folks with homosexuality so frantically desire the approval of the straights?
Why do they lack self confidence on such a grand scale?
Imagine Christians demanding a Christian Hanukkah party. Wouldn't that be pathetic?
What's wrong with this element of the homosexual community? Why are they so pathetic?
cbd1138 Wrote: Nov 05, 2009 2:38 PM
Bob - We can disagree on that, that's totally cool and I think nothing less of you for it. People should be able to civilly disagree. thanks Bob.

Mother - Wrong era? Free love was not a primary tenet of communism in the Soviet Union, and had nothing to do with it's collapse. In fact free love was as or even more prevalent in some of western Europe than in the USSR.
I myself do not support hippie love.
Kevlar Wrote: Nov 04, 2009 8:56 PM
"It is none of the government's or anyone else's business who marries who and how many they marry."

Homosexuals are using governmental power to insert themselves into a straight institution.
They are in fact seeking justification and legitimization from the straights.
They're feelings should not be hurt when the regular folks use the government evict them from their institution.
clandan Wrote: Nov 04, 2009 5:47 PM
clandan Wrote: Nov 04, 2009 5:33 PM
Mother of 4 said "What we call "race" -- which has no firm biological or genetic basis -- is a matter of mere surface characteristics. Sex is a matter of fundamental differences in biology. Not mere anatomy either, but the even deeper differences in the genetic code."

Interestingly, since mapping the human genome, there has been no "race" gene found...just variations as Mother of 4 pointed out.

And as far as I am aware, no homosexual gene either. Biologically, there is still XX and XY, and "innies" and "outies"(majority of the time)with rare anomolies on occasion. If one were a proponent of evolution, then you'd need one of each sex to continue the species, regardless of the whole religion thing.

I agree with Mother of 4 on her stated positions though.....Mother of 5
Mother of 4 Wrote: Nov 04, 2009 4:54 PM
Thank you very much.

I have considered having my own blog, but am uncertain if the effect on my family would be worth it.
Mother of 4 Wrote: Nov 04, 2009 4:49 PM
Go back and read my initial posts, "What is marriage for?"

Marriage is not a mere private contract which affects no one but the signers. Marriage is a public institution, recognized as such by governments throughout history and which has a profound effect on the structure of human society.

As the primary means by which property and culture are transmitted from one generation to the next it is not something to be lightly trifled with. Examples of what happens when marriage collapses can be found both in history and in the current day.

Can you agree that America's inner cities -- crime-ridden, gang-ridden, drug-ridden, and infested with irresponsible people who depend wholly on the government for their support and the support of their children are far from being idyllic bastions of freedom and unfettered human rights?

The fight to preserve marriage is nothing less than the fight to preserve civilization itself. And the fight to preserve civilization is the fight to preserve freedom because anarchy and chaos -- where the strongest rule and the weaker serve the ruler -- is the most repressive situation of all.
Wrote: Nov 04, 2009 3:17 PM
"It is none of the government's or anyone else's business who marries who and how many they marry."

-- Sorry, bub. You're wrong.

Marriage is no mere personal decision along the lines of what color car you'll buy or whether you prefer Mexican or Italian for dinner.

It's a social institution as much as it is a private covenant. With regard to the latter, society owes the individuals a certain degree of privacy. As concerns the former, the individuals owe society a measure of accountability.

Nobody gets to make up his or her own rules for participating in the institution.

In a healthy society, individuals recognize the function and authority of the wider community, and their place within it, and act accordingly.

In this case, the community comprises a majority that continues to recognize historical, foundational views of sexual behavior and the traditional mores of its proper expression.

So it's very much "anyone else's business." Only sociopaths and narcissists deny it.

You say:
"If some want to marry more than one person, fine. That's freedom."

-- No, that's license.

We're done with the polyamorous practices of ancient kings and patriarchs, though not with the sexual distinctives inherent in nature: male-female expression.

You:
"So long as it is not forced on anybody, the government has no right to deny people the right to do this."

-- But it does have the right to enforce standards and norms.

You:
"The issue as hand is whether or not the state has a right to condemn or condone certain voluntary behaviors. According to the constitution, it does not."

-- But it does bear the responsibilty to oversee domestic tranquility on behalf of those with no desire to see an anarchic world of "anything goes" conduct and "unions."

You:
"It's a free country. Let's act like it."

-- No, let's act like adults.
mendicus Wrote: Nov 04, 2009 2:53 PM
You really do need a much broader reach than commenting on others' columns. It's clear you're versed in law, history, science and ethics, and you stand both tenaciously and eloquently by well founded conservative principles. Get yourself out there. I don't know how, just do it.
Jack Wrote: Nov 04, 2009 1:33 PM
Again with the moral crusading. Gay marriage was already addressed by someone else earlier and now it's polygamy. Somehow this is another great evil that must be stamped out, but the same issue is at hand here as it is with gay marriage.

It is none of the government's or anyone else's business who marries who and how many they marry. If some want to marry more than one person, fine. That's freedom. So long as it is not forced on anybody, the government has no right to deny people the right to do this. Just becuase some people see it as a harm to children and women isn't enough. The issue as hand is whether or not the state has a right to condemn or condone certain voluntary behaviors. According to the constitution, it does not.

Now do I like polygamy? Personally, I don't think I could handle more than one wife. But if someone thinks they can, why not? Let them try. It's a free country. Let's act like it.
Cambermeister Wrote: Nov 04, 2009 10:49 AM
Do not be upset about Maine.
The homosexuals of Washington
State are going to have their
own celebration now.
Let the baseball kids do their
thing in Maine, California etc.
Soccer players can be cool if
they'd stop wishing the baseball
players would invite them.
Cambermeister Wrote: Nov 04, 2009 10:48 AM
if you are seeking to participate in a straight created institution, you are in fact seeking justification and legitimization from the straights.
You're like a little soccer player that's upset because he wasn't invited to the baseball party.
Have a soccer party Jeffrey. Soccer players are cool too.
Cambermeister Wrote: Nov 04, 2009 10:47 AM
"A few more court cases and same-sex marriage will be legal in most states, then all 50."

Jeffrey, it is statements like this that make your kind look hysterical. If Michigan will follow the lead of Washington State and New Jersey you'll have what you seek.
The Maine example should teach you something.

31 to Zero Jeffrey. Maybe it's time for a new gameplan.
Mother of 4 Wrote: Nov 04, 2009 10:44 AM
You're in the wrong era.

The problem with social collapse in the USSR came early in its existence when "free love" was among the communist principles.

The leaders changed policies rapidly after the effects were felt.
ProudScot Wrote: Nov 04, 2009 10:30 AM
Fro many years the gay marraige rights people have scoffed indignantly at the protestors who claimed that once gay marraige was legalized that the door would be opened to even more 'diversity' in marraige. gay righters claimed that those who were against it were ridiculous to think that polygamy or whatever would be the next step and so on. After all, they said, gay marraige is just about two people who love each other and aren't hurting anyone.



Interesting that here we are, so quickly, at the point where polygamy and other instuitutions will logically use the same arguments to demand legalization of their own 'diverse' type of marraige. Only now it will be: 'we're just 3, or 4 or 5, people who love each and aren't hurting anyone.' They will use the same arguments that the gay rights people use.

Whats next? men wanting to marry their sisters?and why not? 'ts just two people'...or possibly two same gender siblings wanting to marry each other...'hey are two consenting adults who love each other'...somewhere down the road, someone is going to love their german shepard so much that they will want to marry them, after all they love each other and animals have rights too.

If there is no foundation of your morality then a free for all will result as people will use these arguments to do whatever they want.

The decline and fall of Rome...
Wrote: Nov 04, 2009 9:22 AM
The "long arm of the law" will reach you, too.

The very same judicial activists behind whose “legal protections” you hide to deny the people’s rights, to protect your predatory aggressions and to annul the referenda we “keep voting” on will later be turning on you and yours — IN DUE TIME.

You can be sure.

It is inevitable, because it is the nature of the beast, Jeffrey-boy.

“Hate crimes”? You huns are the masters.

He who digs a pit will himself fall into it. He who builds a gallows will himself swing from it.

You are digging your own graves, Jeff. You can’t see that.

The very same coward political hacks who mollycoddle you while they sell us and our children out to your every whimper are running scared now.

See the results of these elections and tremble. Tremble much.

They, like you, talk big, but they, like you, are scared to death. And rightly so: They know they are dead wrong in everything, just as you are, and you know it equally well.

Those "judges" and politicians are all thieves and liars like you and yours, Jeff.

But the voters are ANGRY.

The winds of change, Jeffrey.

You are correct about this one thing, though, Jeff:

ALL IN DUE TIME, NEPHEW. ALL IN DUE TIME.

“In due time their foot shall slip …”
Jeffrey Wrote: Nov 04, 2009 8:45 AM
The long arm of the law is more powerful than the short fuse of conservatives. A few more court cases and same-sex marriage will be legal in most states, then all 50. People can keep voting to discriminate against gay people but the growing body of legal protections, such as recent hate crimes legislation, combined with the US Constitution’s 14th Amendment Equal Protection guarantee, will fix things in due time.
Cambermeister Wrote: Nov 04, 2009 2:57 AM
have attempted to use government to force their
way into a straight celebration. Now they're upset
that the straights used government to kick them out.
Jews don't ask for a Jew friendly Christmas or Easter.
They've got their own celebrations and institutions.
In light of the Maine vote, isn't it time for adults
with homosexuality to concoct their own celebration.
The homosexuals I know are very bright and creative.
Let us now create a word for man/man commitment.
And a word for woman/woman commitment.
Like always, in Maine, marriage is a multi-gender endeavor.
Cambermeister Wrote: Nov 04, 2009 1:37 AM
For popular approval of man/man marriage, better that 50% caucasian non-baptist protestantism is a necessity.

If same-sex marriage can't win in Maine, it cannot win anywhere.

Perhaps it is time for folks with homosexuality to create their own celebration. Why the obsession with straight approval?
Bad Albino Bob Wrote: Nov 04, 2009 12:24 AM
After an early lead by the pro-gay marriage forces who outspent the other side almost 2-1, the pro-traditional marriage side is winning by about 52 to 47. The rural precincts are overwhelming the earlier returns from Portland and the south coast. The fat lady hasn't sung yet, but she's warming up. We'll see for sure tomorrow.
Does Mohammed Shiite In The Woods? Wrote: Nov 03, 2009 10:43 PM


NBC's "The Biggest Loser" is at the White House tonight. This is not a joke.

about 2 hours ago from web
jaketapper
Jake Tapper
Bad Albino Bob Wrote: Nov 03, 2009 9:20 PM
Two out of two is a very bad record. I don't think heterosexual marriages in his family have the same one hundred per cent failure rate, do you?
Bad Albino Bob Wrote: Nov 03, 2009 9:16 PM
Betty Wrote: Nov 03, 2009 9:15 PM
Roy
Location: WV
Reply # 5
Date: Nov 3, 2009 - 8:10 PM EST Jeffery has a RIGHT to be WRONG!!
I have personal knowledge of two such marriages (by way of Hawaii, I recall) in my extended Family.. Neither lasted six months..Hard to second-guess GOD onthis matter..CHEERS

*************************

Hmmmm.....lots of heterosexual marriages last less than 6 months. What do you attribute that
to?
« Previous12345678Next »