Saturday, July 29, 2006

It's Official: Polygamy* next after gay 'marriage'

Not that I was terribly original, of course, but I have made the argument that once one insisted on a "right" to gay "marriage," there appears no reasonable barrier to polygamy--or, for that matter, incestuous unions (the latter, especially, since we long since gave up--as a society--on the intrinsic link between marriage and procreation).

"Oh, how silly!" "You're just being alarmist!" came the responses.

Well, those folks who cannot abide not being "cutting edge" have -- shall we say -- "come out of the closet" on this one.

Here is a statement issued in -- where else? -- San Francisco. Found on its laundry-list are:

* "a new vision for securing governmental and private institutional recognition of diverse kinds of partnerships, households, kinship relationships and families." (Emphasis added.)

* "(Same-sex marriage) is a limited goal..." admitted the author of the statement.

* The statement lists relationships and households that would not benefit from marriage, including senior citizens living together, people in polyamorous relationships, single-parent families, extended families and gay or lesbian couples who raise children with other couples, among others. (Emphasis added.)

"But I'm sure they're just fringy wackos"--well, that goes without saying; but they appear to be from the "mainstream" of fringy wackoism, as it were: Current and former leaders of national gay rights organizations, such as the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, signed the 25-page statement, along with the likes of scholar Cornel West, Ms. Magazine founder Gloria Steinem, essayist Barbara Ehrenreich and novelist Armistead Maupin.

After all, it is to such luminaries that Justice Anthony Kennedy seems to turn for "Deep Thoughts," when contemplating the Constitution bores him.

Biretta tip: The Cafeteria is Closed.

(* I suppose one could say, "hey--it's not polygamy but polyamory!" Okay--you got me.)

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

These grotesque attempts to legitimise bizarre and doomed relationships founded in psychosis rather than self-described "freedom" are yet one more expression of a rampant epidemic of self-hatred.
Growing segments of our society are losing it mentally and instead of helping them, misled (or stupid) leaders are abetting them in their self destructive ways. Why, oh why can't
people of faith become a stronger presence in the Sick Society? So many churches are concentrating all their energy on social justice. The mentally ill need help badly. If we don't help them, they'll bring down our whole culture.

Orange_Cross said...

I think we'd be better off subsidizing more loving relationships, regardless of the sexual oreinatation of adults, than devoting so many resources to killing people abroad.
Of course there's no objection to the Catholics doing as they please as far as marriages go. You're not obligated to perform services for couples that you don't want to, are you (I mean couples who violate the Catholic standard for marriage (whatever it is))? In the reciprocal sense I think some of your so called "marriages" might deserve some attention from the state, how can we trust an organization that refuses to admit that the use of deadly force implies the intent to kill and furthermore doesn't discriminate between the innocent and guilty in matters of war.
Feel free to quibble, the Lord knows.

averagedrinker said...

the idea of marriage sucks...especially for me those having the time of my life dating guys from webdate*com. i can't see myself married in the next 5 years--yet.

Father Martin Fox said...

Tim:

I am glad you comment, and hope you will continue -- but I find your comment about priests of the Archdiocese, and the late Cardinal, going too far. As you can well appreciate, that is an extremely serious allegation, not to be made lightly -- and I am not interested in having a discussion here over the merits of such an accusation.

I would appreciate it if you were to revise your remarks -- I think you could do that by removing that post, and reposting.

Anna said...

If polygamy is legalized (which I hope that it never is), will social services go after abusive ones?

I've read enough people who have left Mormonism, and been involved with polygamy to know that in many, if not all cases, there is some abuse present.

Tim Lang said...

Father Fox,

Please remove any part of my post you believe to be offensive. I would prefer that only the last paragraph (regarding Bernardin) be removed since that is the part you mention.

I have tried to remove it but I cannot figure out how to edit it after it has been previewed and posted.

If it is necessary to remove the whole post please do so.

Thanks

Father Martin Fox said...

Tim Lang said, earlier:

"Essayist Barbara Ehrenreich was REQUIRED reading for ALL students at Kettering ARCHBISHOP ALTER High School in the Archdiocese of Cincinnati last year.

Not because of her Marxist views or her complete, non compromising support of abortion anytime, anywhere. (she has bragged about two of hers) but because the proudly divorced, self avowed socialist wants the minumum wage increased."

At his request, I saved and reposted this part of his earlier post.