Next on the Progressives' Marriage Agenda: Polygamous Nuptials

JoeBtfsplk 2012/07/10 11:42:54
Add Photos & Videos
President Obama's acceptance of same-sex marriage logically applies to polygamous relationships.

President Obama appointed Chai Feldblum to be a commissioner on the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (EEOC) in March 2010; the Senate confirmed her appointment in December 2010. Her term expires July 1, 2013.

In November 2009, an American Thinker article described Feldblum as:

... perhaps the nation's leading LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) rights activist. A graduate of Harvard Law School, once Legislative Counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), she's now Professor of Law at Georgetown University. She's also a self-avowed lesbian.

In Feldblum's paper, "The Right to Define One's Own Concept of Existence: What Lawrence Can Mean for Intersex and Transgender People," published in The Georgetown Journal of Gender And The Law (Vol. VII, Number 2, Symposium 2006), she defined her views.

My own view ... is that government often appropriately legislates on a shared social vision of morality and that changing the public's moral assessment of same-sex sexual activity is thus key to achieving true equality for LGBT people. For some time, I have articulated this view as a requirement that the public must come to view homosexuality and heterosexuality as morally equivalent - that is, the public must believe that both straight sex and gay sex encompass equivalent moral "goods" ... that there is nothing inherently immoral or wrong with two people of the same gender engaging in sexual conduct. That belief of moral neutrality must then be coupled with an affirmation that government has an obligation to advance what I term "statements of moral understanding". Four of those statements are the following: it is good for human beings in society to feel safe, to feel happy, to experience and give care, and to live a life of authenticity.

In her article "Gay is Good: The Moral Case for Marriage Equality and More," printed in the Yale Journal of Law and Feminism 139 (2005), Feldblum wrote:

[A]ll of us are harmed, as members of a society seeking a common good, when society fails to acknowledge the wide array of non-marital intimate social structures that we as humans have ingeniously constructed to negotiate and make sense of the world. ... It is precisely because such an interdependent framework helps sustain an individual's sense of self and stability that the state has a moral responsibility to support such frameworks. But why should the state support just marriage partners - and not other intimate partnerships that equally support the development of the self?

Obama's recent support for same-sex marriage essentially accepts Feldblum's argument.

Since Progressives strive to continually progress, the question is: what's next on their marriage agenda?

We need look no farther than the document entitled "Beyond Same-Sex Marriage, A New Strategic Vision for All Our Families & Relationships, July 26, 2006," initially signed by over 300 LGBT activists, including Feldblum. It states:

To have our government define as 'legitimate families' only those households with couples in conjugal relationships does a tremendous disservice to the many other ways in which people actually construct their families, kinship networks, households, and relationships. For example, who among us seriously will argue that the following kinds of households are less socially, economically, and spiritually worthy?

[The ten "kinds of households" listed include "blended families" and "single parent households," plus:]

Committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner.

So, the same basic LGBT arguments in favor of same-sex marriage also seem to apply to multiple-partner relationships. Therefore, should "our government" also legitimize polygamous nuptials?

If Bill & Tom, or Jane & Judy, represent a relationship "morally equivalent" to a traditional, one-man-one-woman heterosexual marriage, then what can Progressives find fundamentally objectionable about a Bill, Tom, and Jane marriage? Or, one where Jane, Judy, Jim & Dan engage in a government-sanctioned marriage arrangement where an "interdependent framework helps sustain an individual's sense of self and stability"?

If, as Feldblum wrote, "the public must come to view homosexuality and heterosexuality as morally equivalent," then mustn't we, the public, eventually come to view homosexuality and heterosexuality existing within one "loving household," involving three or more persons, as "morally equivalent" to the traditional heterosexual relationship?

If we accept Feldblum's argument -- as the president did -- the key question is not "Why should we accept polygamous marriage?," but "Why shouldn't we?"

That's an absurd extrapolation, you say. Really?

For Progressives, the old Nike ad slogan applies: There is no finish line.

Presidential and state-level government approval of same-sex marriage is not the Progressives' finish line.

Lee Cary

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/next_on_the_progressiv...
Add a comment above

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest

  • TheCouchF*cker 2012/07/10 22:42:37 (edited)
  • JoeBtfsplk TheCouc... 2012/07/10 23:17:58
    Usually I add 'other', but I'm fed up with being PC. Deal with it.
  • FISH TheCouc... 2012/08/22 04:53:01
    Oh I see, he we go now, just go behind close doors and do what ever as long as its not a minor or forced act on an unwilling soul. Do waht if ever trips your trigger, as we all know different stroke for perverted folks. I think the majority of Americans are normal yet at this time and would rather you keep you bullcrap to your self in private and don't expect America to slap you on the back and tell you your ok, you aint but as long as you don't force your perversion on others all I can say as sinner sinner down below find the hole and go go go. Kcis sdratsab no ruoy yaw ot lleh.
  • FISH TheCouc... 2012/08/22 04:54:50
    God Help us All
  • FISH TheCouc... 2012/08/22 05:13:38
    I get what you are getting at, deep got to really read your message several times to get the full impact. I support Freedom but I stand against forcing people to accept others moral or ethical positions, in other words as long as you do not take advantage of minors or manipulate and trick others to do or be involved in questionable acts or behaviors. America its time to boycott as everyone else does the people and businesses that support the immoral agenda of hating God and Country. I have began cutting out support of high dollar clothing that is paying ridiculous dollars for celebrity ads, like Labron James and Nike, I won't even look at this product let alone buy it. The same way with TV service providers, Hollywood and the over priced over payed Actors. I believe it is wrong to be a people worshiper or idolize others, just think about it for a moment.(M.Jackson, Elvis P. Etc) Don't tell me what to eat, drink or what to drive, and I won't boss you around. Freedom of choice and if you chose wrong you pay for it ok. The Government thinks it can protect all be our conscience, Humanism doesn't work and neither does rewarding people with monthly welfare tax payer erned dollars when in fact they are able to work. We got to reestablish order before its to late.
  • FISH TheCouc... 2012/08/22 05:20:42
    Good Points made my friend
  • ProudProgressive 2012/07/10 13:37:34
    I like goats
    Time to take the meds, Joe. This one's more delusional than the last one. No one has proposed legalization of polygamy. It's just that you are such a committed homophobe that you can't take the idea of anyone forming a committed loving relationship.
  • JoeBtfsplk ProudPr... 2012/07/10 13:43:46
    You are a menace to society with your perverted interpretations of what America should become.

    I would say you should be the one applying for medication.
  • ProudPr... JoeBtfsplk 2012/07/10 14:44:25
    No one has proposed legalization of polygamy, Joe. That's what's known as a "delusion". Kind of like your constant fantasies about George Soros controlling everything in America.
  • JoeBtfsplk ProudPr... 2012/07/10 14:54:04
    can't you read pp? "Next on the Progressives' ..."

    That literally translates that it is in the works.

    Show me where I state it was 'proposed' imbecile!
  • ProudPr... JoeBtfsplk 2012/07/10 15:12:51

    "Next on the Progressives' Marriage Agenda: Polygamous Nuptials"


    There isn't any "Marriage Agenda". There is no one who is even suggesting that polygamy be legalized. IT ISN'T "IN THE WORKS".

    I'm sorry that recognizing that homosexuals have rights has driven you so far over the edge, and I'm beginning to think that you may be another Larry Craig, spending all day condemning homosexuality and spending all night in airport bathrooms trying to get "lucky", but even on the offchance that that's not the case, and you really just hate gay people, it's still disgusting and still completely contrary to everything this country stands for. Unsurprising, since EVERYTHING you say and do runs contrary to everything this country stands for, but disgusting nonetheless.
  • wolf sloan 2012/07/10 13:31:41
    I like goats
    wolf sloan
    Soon they will be pushing for the rights of inanimate objects.
  • ProudPr... wolf sloan 2012/07/10 13:38:58
    You mean, like corporations? I find it hilarious that people like Joe don't see the inherent absurdity of pushing to give rights to a fictional legal entity while at the same time pushing to deny as many rights to actual human beings as possible.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2016/02/13 06:59:05

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals