Democrats for Polygamy*

Here are some recent comments from prominent Democrats in support of polygamy*

Joe Biden: “Look, I just think that the good news is that as more and more Americans come to understand what this is all about, it’s a simple proposition: Who do you love? Who do you love? And will you be loyal to the person you love? And that’s what people are finding out, is what all marriages at their root are about, whether they’re marriages of lesbians or gay men or heterosexuals.”

President Obama: Second Inaugural Address “Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law — for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well.”

Sen. Chuck Shumer (D-NY): “Equality is something that has always been a hallmark of America and no group should be deprived it. Marriage equality is no different and it’s time for our nation to recognize that.” 

Ron Wyden (D-OR): “One of the fundamental principles on which our nation was built is the freedom to enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Constitution doesn’t give Congress or the states the power to specifically exclude an individual or group of individuals from the enjoyment of life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. But this legislation [DOMA] would.”

Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT): “I don’t believe the federal government should be getting involved in people’s private lives. Adults should be free to choose who they spend their lives with a committed relationship.”

Sen. Joe Donnelly (D-IN): “I voted to repeal ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ and was an original supporter of the bill that would make it illegal to discriminate against someone in the workplace because of their sexual orientation. It is also for that reason that I oppose amending either Indiana’s or our nation’s constitution to enshrine in those documents an ‘us’ and a ‘them,’ instead of a ‘we,’ With the recent Supreme Court arguments and accompanying public discussion of same-sex marriage, I have been thinking about my past positions and votes. In doing so, I have concluded that the right thing to do is to support marriage equality for all.”

Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE): “As our society has changed and evolved, so too has the public’s opinion on gay marriage – and so has mine. I pray every day for God to grant me the wisdom to do what is right. Through my prayers and conversations with my family and countless friends and Delawareans, I’ve been reminded of the power of one of my core values: the Golden Rule. It calls on us to treat others as we want to be treated. That means, to me, that all Americans ultimately should be free to marry the people they love and intend to share their lives with, regardless of their sexual orientation, and that’s why today, after a great deal of soul searching, I’m endorsing marriage equality.”

Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL): “It is generally accepted in American law and U.S. society today ‘… that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.’ I believe that. The civil rights and responsibilities for one must pertain to all.  Thus, to discriminate against one class and not another is wrong for me.”

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) [“evolving”]: “We have so many issues in this country to focus on that worry us, that I question why there is such focus on the simple right of people to love whom they will.”

Sen. Kay Hagan (D-NC): “I know all our families do not look alike. We all want the same thing for our families. We want happiness; we want health, prosperity, a bright future for our children and grandchildren. After conversations I’ve had with family members, with people I go to church with and with North Carolinians from all walks of life, I’ve come to my own personal conclusion that we should not tell people who they can love, or who they can marry. It’s time to move forward with this issue.”

Jon Tester (D-MT): “Montanans believe in the right to make a good life for their families. How they define a family should be their business and their business alone. I’m proud to support marriage equality because no one should be able to tell a Montanan or any American who they can love and who they can marry.”

Claire McCaskill (D-MO): “I have come to the conclusion that our government should not limit the right to marry based on who you love. While churches should never be required to conduct marriages outside of their religious beliefs, neither should the government tell people who they have a right to marry.”

Al Franken (D-MN): “Our country is beginning to understand that it’s not about what a family looks like: it’s about their love and commitment to one another. I hope the Supreme Court takes that into consideration.”

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA):  “I believe all people, regardless of sexual orientation, should be guaranteed the full rights to the legal benefits and responsibilities of marriage under the Constitution.”

Mark Udall (D-CO): “I think most Americans would agree people should be treated equally and everyone ought to be able to pursue a fulfilling life with the ones they love.” 

 * If you didn’t read all the way down here that is on you.  These are statements are for same-sex “marriage” not polygamy – but can you tell the difference?  Will a court?

Around the time I first started at FRC a younger colleague of mine appeared on MTV on the issue of marriage.  At one point in the conversation after the interview my colleague brought up the “slippery slope argument,” basically that if you change the definition of marriage to allow two men to marry – what is the difference of allowing three or four men or women?  The interviewer, to his credit (though it was off camera), asked what is so wrong with that, allowing anyone to marry whomever they love?  A few years later an attorney from Human Rights Campaign told me the same thing following a debate (after denying it on camera.)

When Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia dissented in Lawrence v. Texas, the 2003 decision that struck down state sodomy laws and had its tenth anniversary yesterday, he argued that the “legal” reasoning the majority held in the case implies that state laws against bigamy, same-sex “marriage,” adult incest, prostitution, adultery, bestiality and obscenity all should be struck down as well, for the legal basis for all those laws was the same for sodomy.  At the time liberals went after Justice Scalia with a vengeance.  However, less then 7 years later, Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling in Perry v. Schwarzenegger used the logic found within Justice Scalia’s dissent to support same-sex marriage and finding California’s Proposition 8 unconstitutional.

Current judicial reasoning has decided the people and the legislatures aren’t as “evolved” as they are, so they will tell them what to do.  Since the Lawrence case various law suits have been brought using the ruling on issues ranging from same-sex “marriage,” pedastry and polygamy.  Liberals, apparently thinking they have gained enough ground, are also moving away from being so offended at such comparisons, and that is worrying some not so liberal supporters of same-sex “marriage.”

San Francisco Gate columnist and supporter of same-sex “marriage” Debra Saunders once wrote on how polygamy advocates in Canada are using the same arguments for homosexual “marriage” to overturn polygamy laws in the Great White North.  In the case Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor who has filed similar affidavits in the United States in support of same-sex “marriage,” filed an affidavit arguing that polygamy “is a civil rights issue deserving the same protections afforded to homosexuals and other minority groups.”  This argument apparently upsets Ms. Saunders, saying allowing polygamous marriages will be akin to committing “cultural suicide.”  Similar statements on homosexual “marriage” would receive condemnation from many who agree with Ms. Saunders, yet she offers no real explanation why if you allow one such radical change you shouldn’t allow another. (FYI CATO’s David Boaz went ballistic when Charles Krauthammer merely pointed out allowing homosexuals to marry each other is a “radical redefinition of marriage.”)

Another columnist, Examiner writer (and supporter of same-sex “marriage”) B.K. Bergman, is a little more consistent when he says he sees little problem with allowing for polygamy and sees it as the next (un)natural step.

When asked about the issue of polygamy – the Obama Administration refused to answer.