“In the end we will have so remake society, it will have to adjust to us, because it will seem absurd not to. And the only weapon they have against us is fundamentalist religion, in its crudest and rather brutal form. And of course just the general constancy and general panic and fear of anything different. If you change the society and culture, the politics will follow.” Andrew Sullivan, gay rights activist
Jillian Keenan posted an article on Slate that simplifies the homosexual agenda as nothing more than the warm-up act to an even more shocking agenda.
According to Keenan the “fight doesn’t end with same-sex marriage. We need to legalize polygamy, too” because it is the “constitutional, feminist, sex-positive choice that will protect, empower, and strengthen women, children and families.”
By legalizing consensual adult polygamy, it would make rape and child abuse easier to combat since “responsible plural families” could “emerge from the shadows” and allow “authorities to zero in on the criminals who remain there.”
Legalized polygamy shows “women the respect” they deserve. Once legalized, women will have the ability to “really” make their choices. “If a woman wants to marry a man, that’s great. If she wants to marry another woman, that’s great too. If she wants to marry a hipster, well—I suppose that’s the price of freedom. And if she wants to marry a man with three other wives, that’s her damn choice.”
Keenan goes on to say that “ALL marriages deserve access to the support and resources they need to build happy, healthy lives, regardless of how many partners are involved” and arguments about whether a woman’s “consensual sexual and romantic choices are healthy should have no legal bearing.”
Keenan says that the definition of marriage is plastic and just like traditional marriage, is no better or worse than same-sex marriage and marriage between two consenting adults is not inherently more or less correct than marriage among three, four, or even consenting adults. She ends her argument for polygamy by saying that “freedom has no value unless it extends to even the smallest and most marginalized groups among us.”
That rather leaves the “marginalized” door wide open doesn’t it?
In all polygamous cultures on the planet, women have an extremely low status in society. Women in these cultures are under the thumbs of their husbands, fathers, or brothers with few, if any rights. In Muslim countries, women are virtual prisoners of their family compounds and are obligated to marry, at times, against their will.
The legalities of polygamy would be too complex for the legal system to address. If we allow one man to have numerous wives, then women will demand the right to numerous husbands. There would have to be new divorce laws, inheritance laws, child custody, immigration, adoption laws, to name a few. What would it do to our tax code?
If the Supreme Court redefines marriage to include same-sex marriage, how could we logically or legally deny advocates of polygamy and polyamory, their right to redefine marriage once again? James Arlandson at the American Thinker asks, if we did deny advocates would we then be called “polyphobes.”
Once again, I have to ask – where do we draw the line? And if the Supreme Court redefines marriage – can we even draw a line?
