Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Tuesday, November 03, 2009
Phyllis Schlafly :: Townhall.com Columnist
Obama Makes Polygamy a 21st-Century Issue
by Phyllis Schlafly
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Are you concerned about new terror threats in the wake of the Christmas attempted attack?


The ACLU's feminist president, Nadine Strossen, stated in a speech at Yale University in June 2005 that the ACLU defends "the right of individuals to engage in polygamy." On Oct. 15, 2006, in a high-profile debate against Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, Strossen stated that the ACLU supports the right to polygamy.

Speaking to the Federalist Society on Nov. 18, 2006, the ACLU's executive director, Anthony Romero, confirmed his organization's support of polygamy.

The massive immigration that the United States has accepted in recent years includes large numbers of immigrants from Third World countries that approve of polygamy as well as marriage to children and to close relatives. We wonder if polygamists have been admitted to the United States and if they are continuing these customs in U.S. neighborhoods.

Attacks on the traditional legal definition of marriage come from the gay lobby seeking social recognition of their lifestyle, from the anti-marriage feminists and from some libertarians who believe marriage should be merely a private affair, none of the government's business. These libertarians want to deny government the right to define marriage, set its standards or issue marriage licenses.

Government now has and should have a very important role in defining who may get a license to marry. In America, it is and should be a criminal offense to marry more than one person at a time, or marry a child or a close relative, even though such practices are common in some foreign countries.

In socialist Canada, which has already approved same-sex marriage, polygamy has suddenly become a live issue. British Columbia's Supreme Court is now being asked to decide if polygamy should remain illegal.

We may have to depend on the Republican Party to maintain government's proper role in defining and protecting traditional marriage. The very first platform adopted by the Republican Party, in 1856, condemned polygamy and slavery as the "twin relics of barbarism," and the 2008 Republican platform calls for "a constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage as a union of a man and a woman, so that judges cannot make other arrangements equivalent to it."

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | < Previous
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

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.

Feldblum is right
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.

And so the homosexuals

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?
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.