How Gay Marriage Paves The Way For Legal Polygamy

TheWeek.com:

The Supreme Court's landmark decision that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right brought out an avalanche of commentary about the possibility of polygamy. Indeed, a Montana threesome is already suing for the right to marry.

This shouldn't be surprising. But what is surprising is just how weak the arguments against legal polygamy are. They rely on class and religious prejudices, as well as on rationales that were deemed illegitimate when launched at same-sex couples.

Jonathan Rauch, who did more than almost anyone else to mainstream the cause of same-sex marriage, finds the argument for polygamy an unfortunate distraction. Rauch's main argument is that polygamy will hurt the ability of low-status men to marry, thereby limiting marriage opportunities rather than broadening them:

Opposing the legalization of plural marriage should not be my burden, because gay marriage and polygamy are opposites, not equivalents. By allowing high-status men to hoard wives at the expense of lower-status men, polygamy withdraws the opportunity to marry from people who now have it; same-sex marriage, by contrast, extends the opportunity to marry to people who now lack it. [Politico]

Rauch is blurring two meanings of the word opportunity. One concerns a legal matter, and the other a social barrier. Rauch equates the "right to marry" with "the right to somewhat equitable marriage prospects," which are different things. Instead of a right to marry the person you want regardless of whether you are both of the same sex, Rauch posits the idea of a government that regulates a market in spouses to make it more congenial to the men with the worst prospects.

Rauch is on logical thin ice when he says that legal polygamy will withdraw opportunities for marriage. He writes, "This competitive, zero-sum dynamic sets off a competition among high-status men to hoard marriage opportunities, which leaves lower-status men out in the cold." In fact, it could be stated the opposite way. Laws against polygamy exclude the possibility of women marrying high-status men just because they are married, pushing those women toward marriages with marginal low-status men, which present trends tell us they do not want.

The truth is that a plaintiff who wants to be the third wife of Brad Pitt does not have her marriage prospects meaningfully expanded by monogamous marriage laws. "No, your love cannot be recognized by the state, in the interests of jobless schlubs," the judge would say, if he's following Rauch's line of reasoning. And if you think about it, laws making space for polygamy would offer a dramatic increase in the number of possible marriages.

Rauch also says that polygamous marriages do not grow out of an innate quality like heterosexuality or homosexuality. Does he not realize that this reads the "B" out of LGBT? It implies that bisexual identity is unworthy of expressing itself in concurrent loving relationships recognized by the state. Also, there are religious groups in this country that do sanction polygamy. Is he for denying their free exercise of religion?

What's most surprising is that Rauch does not recognize how much he recycles the arguments of same-sex marriage opponents in his own arguments against polygamy. He cites studies showing increased social disorder among polygamous groups. When aimed at gay men's promiscuity or suicide rates, these studies were dismissed by Rauch and others as evidence of legal and social discrimination, not of some inherent immorality or dysfunction.

In this way, he becomes like the recent immigrant who argues for closing the border. Sorry, consent is the measure for me. Discrimination for thee.

RELATED:  Why Obergefell Is Unlikely to Lead to Polygamy

Illegal Immigrant Deported Five Times Who Shot Woman: I Came Back To San Francisco Because It Was A Sanctuary City

HotAir.com:

A horrifying lesson in incentives for which there’s plenty of blame to go around. Blame for San Francisco, of course, because it’s a sanctuary city where local PD won’t ask residents about their immigration status. Blame for ICE, who handed Sanchez over to San Francisco police to face a drug charge knowing full well the city wouldn’t hand him back later because of its “sanctuary” status. And blame, of course, for our fearless ruling class, whose fecklessness on border security presented ICE with a choice of either sending Sanchez to San Francisco and knowing he’d soon be back on America’s streets or returning him to Mexico … knowing he’d soon be back on America’s streets.

Nothing will change, no matter what Trump tells you. Just understand that if you’re moving to a major American city whose government is dominated by big blue, odds are it’s a sanctuary city too.

From gay marriage to illegal immigration to the huge rise in urban crime, Barack Obama's 'complicit' in a lot of things...too bad it's too few that see it.

RELATED: O’Reilly Pins San Francisco Woman’s Death on Mayor; Obama ‘Complicit’

Gotcha! Chris Matthews Pictured Marching for Hillary In July 4 Parade

NewsBusters.org:

Jamie Dupree sent this fascinating tweet on Saturday, a picture of MSNBC Hardball host Chris Matthews marching in a suburban DC parade next to a Hillary Clinton for President banner.

Those MSNBC folks have a natural talent for appearing to be all wrapped up in partisan Democratic politics. Could this just be Chris talking to a suburban friend? Even if so, he doesn't seem troubled by the possibility of a photo like this.

Matthews has also been quite friendly toward Hillary on MSNBC, naturally. On Wednesday's Hardball, he touted her e-mail shredding scandal might help: "the unintended consequences, maybe the e-mails will end up helping her but I can't believe anybody will vote against her because of the e-mail issues. There are larger issues in the world."

New York Times reporter Michael Schmidt was also on that wavelength: "Did it take a mistake of e-mails to learn more about her and to have an insight into who she is? Because if you read them, I find her fairly compelling."

RELATED:  Hillary Wins Again: It’ll take more than these emails to knock Clinton out.

Mr. Sulu (aka George Takei) Apologizes for ‘Ad Hominem and Uncivil’ Blackface Comment About Clarence Thomas

Mediaite.com:

Star Trek actor George Takei came under some pretty heavy fire this week when he called Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas “a clown in blackface.” Takei was clearly upset with Thomas for his vote against gay marriage when the highest court in the land ruled to uphold it nationwide, and he called Thomas “a disgrace to America” who doesn’t belong on the court.

Takei made the controversial remark in speaking of Thomas’ dissent about slavery and “dignity.” Yesterday he doubled down and insisted his remarks were not racist, but lots of people (including some liberal commentators) gave Takei flak for making a racist remark, regardless of intent.

Well, this afternoon, Takei posted a lengthy apology on Facebook completely walking back his comments about Thomas and saying he understands now his words weren’t “carefully considered.”

Here’s Takei’s full apology:

On the eve of this Independence Day, I have a renewed sense of what this country stands for, and how I personally could help achieve it. The promise of equality and freedom is one that all of us have to work for, at all times. I know this as a survivor of the Japanese American internment, which each day drives me only to strive harder to help fulfill that promise for future generations.

I recently was asked by a reporter about Justice Clarence Thomas’s dissent in the marriage equality cases, in which he wrote words that really got under my skin, by suggesting that the government cannot take away human dignity through slavery, or though internment. In my mind that suggested that this meant he felt the government therefore shouldn’t be held accountable, or should do nothing in the face of gross violations of dignity. When asked by a reporter about the opinion, I was still seething, and I referred to him as a “clown in blackface” to suggest that he had abdicated and abandoned his heritage. This was not intended to be racist, but rather to evoke a history of racism in the theatrical arts. While I continue to vehemently disagree with Justice Thomas, the words I chose, said in the heat of anger, were not carefully considered.

I am reminded, especially on this July 4th holiday, that though we have the freedom to speak our minds, we must use that freedom judiciously. Each of us, as humans, have hot-button topics that can set-us off, and Justice Thomas had hit mine, that is clear. But my choice of words was regrettable, not because I do not believe Justice Thomas is deeply wrong, but because they were ad hominem and uncivil, and for that I am sorry.

I often ask fans to keep the level of discourse on this page and in comments high, and to remember that we all love this country and for what it stands for, even if we often disagree passionately about how to achieve those goals. I did not live up to my own high standards in this instance.

I hope all of you have a wonderful, safe and joyously free July 4t, the first where all married couples in the U.S. can enjoy the full liberties of matrimony equally. It is truly a blessing to be an American today.

The angriest winner.

RELATED:  George Takei: Clarence Thomas a ‘Clown in Blackface’

Polygamous Montana Trio Applies for Wedding License

AP.com:

A Montana man said Wednesday that he was inspired by last week's U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage to apply for a marriage license so that he can legally wed his second wife.

Nathan Collier and his wives Victoria and Christine applied at the Yellowstone County Courthouse in Billings on Tuesday in an attempt to legitimize their polygamous marriage. Montana, like all 50 states, outlaws bigamy — holding multiple marriage licenses — but Collier said he plans to sue if the application is denied.

"It's about marriage equality," Collier told The Associated Press Wednesday. "You can't have this without polygamy."

County clerk officials initially denied Collier's application, then said they would consult with the county attorney's office before giving him a final answer, Collier said.

Yellowstone County chief civil litigator Kevin Gillen said he is reviewing Montana's bigamy laws and expected to send a formal response to Collier by next week.

"I think he deserves an answer," Gillen said, but added his review is finding that "the law simply doesn't provide for that yet."

The Supreme Court's ruling on Friday made gay marriages legal nationwide. Chief Justice John Roberts said in his dissent that people in polygamous relationships could make the same legal argument that not having the opportunity to marry disrespects and subordinates them.

Conservatives been saw this coming and it's funny how the same lying, hypocritical liberals claiming 'love is love' and "marriage equality" for the past decade or so to make their case for 'gay marriage', now want to say that these 3 consenting adults who love each other and simply want to get 'married' as well, can't do the same because...well they say so. Hopefully, if these three are serious about their "right" to be married, than this case will make things really interesting.

RELATED: The Case for Polygamy Begins; The Case for the Single Life Needed Too

The Episcopal Church Voted to Allow Gay Marriages

Mediaite.com:

Yesterday, the Episcopal Church voted to allow their clergy to perform same-sex marriages in the church, but it didn’t come without a heated debate.

ADVERTISEMENT

It ended in a compromise that has both the liberal and conservative wings of the church slightly unsatisfied, but the bottom line is that a church has stated, explicitly, that it will allow same-sex marriages to be performed with its full blessing. It’s a triumph of the First Amendment, even as the term “religious freedom” because a buzzword for conservatives to mask discrimination against the LGBT community: the Episcopal Church choosing on its own to debate and hold a vote, and then compromise on an agreement, is the truest expression of religious freedom.

Of course, it’s not an across-the-board, mandatory order for all clergy to perform same-sex marriages even if they don’t want to. If a city’s diocese doesn’t want to allow the marriages, they can opt out. Further, if a bishop doesn’t want the ceremonies, he could forbid his clergy from performing them. This is where the liberal Episcopalian bishops bristled, basically saying that if the church is going to give its blessing to same-sex marriages, the whole entire church should follow suit. The conservatives who wanted the opt out were thankful for the compromise, but those clergy who don’t want to perform ceremonies had to pass a couple on to someone who would accommodate them. 

Same-sex marriages can take place in the Episcopal Church — in the churches that elect to allow them — on November 1. 

No surprise here. Starting with their acceptance of gay priests some years ago, no religion has become more liberal than the Episcopalian church--any wonder their losing longtime members in record fashion.

RELATED: A New Exodus? Americans are Exiting Liberal Churches

Hillary Clinton Has Raised $45 Million in Just 3 Months

ABCNews.com:

Since launching her campaign, Hillary Clinton has been on a frenzied, money-raising spree -- and it looks like it paid off. 

The Democratic presidential candidate has raised more than $45 million in donations in just the first three months of her campaign alone, according to a Clinton campaign official familiar with the campaign’s second-quarter FEC filings. 

This impressive number is nearly half of the campaign’s goal to raise $100 million by the end of the year. 

Clinton’s campaign did not provide the official filings, which will be made available to the public in two weeks, but if their number holds true, the campaign says it would break the record for the most primary money raised by a candidate during the first quarter in the race.

RELATED: Terrific: Attorney In Charge of Releasing Lois Lerner "Lost" Emails Now In Charge of Hillary Clinton's Emails

Mike Huckabee: Comparing Gay Rights to Civil Rights an ‘Insult to African-Americans’

Mediaite.com:

In the days since Friday’s momentous Supreme Court ruling, Mike Huckabee has staked out his position as the Republican presidential candidate least likely to ever accept the reality of marriage equality as a fundamental right in America. And in a radio interview on Tuesday, Huckabee ratcheted up his outrage once more.

ADVERTISEMENT

Taking on those who would “equate same-sex marriage to a civil right,” Huckabee said, “First of all, what an insult to African-Americans, who were hosed in the street, who were beaten, who were truly discriminated against with separate restrooms, separate drinking fountains, separate entrances.”

“That was true discrimination and it was horrible,” the candidate continued. “It’s hard to say that the redefinition of marriage is on the same basis as was racial discrimination throughout our history.” 

Huckabee’s statements recall an argument put forward by fellow Republican candidate Ben Carson last month during an interview with Fox News’ Bret Baier. In an attempt to justify his controversial comments about men coming out of prison gay, Carson said he was “a little bit irritated” that CNN’s Chris Cuomo was “equating” gay rights with civil rights. “Because quite frankly, I didn’t remember any times when there were signs up that says, you know, ‘everybody else here and gay people have to drink at this fountain,'” he said on Fox.

I've been saying this for years. A shame on Black Americans idiots like Beyonce who turn their back on our ancestors and have been duped into aligning themselves with Godless, white liberals who've used the civil rights struggle of the 60's to foster and grow their own morally bankrupt agenda.

RELATED: Gay marriage fight turns to clerks who refuse licenses

The Need For Religious Freedom Acts In All 50 States

Townhall.com:

“I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools. By imposing its own views on the entire country, the majority facilitates the marginalization of the many Americans who have traditional ideas.” – Justice Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court decision that forced gay marriage on the country 

The dilemma Christians and conservatives face after the Supreme Court's made-up-from-whole-cloth-instead-of-the-Constitution ruling on gay marriage is one that Machiavelli described over 500 years ago.

“And what physicians say about disease is applicable here: that at the beginning a disease is easy to cure but difficult to diagnose; but as time passes, not having been treated or recognized at the outset, it becomes easy to diagnose but difficult to cure. The same thing occurs in affairs of state; for by recognizing from afar the diseases that are spreading in the state (which is a gift given only to a prudent ruler), they can be cured quickly; but when they are not recognized and are left to grow to the extent that everyone recognizes them, there is no longer any cure.” 

Too many conservatives have refused to stand up on social issues and have thus allowed liberals to make their case in a vacuum. Too many churches have decided they’d rather keep their heads down than stand up for Christian beliefs. Too many Republicans have played by Marquis of Queensbury rules when it comes to Supreme Court justices while Democrats have played to win. You’ll note that liberal judges always, always, always vote liberally on key issues, regardless of the law, while some “conservative” justices like John Roberts and Anthony “Captain Coin Flip” Kennedy move to the left, even if they have to defy the Constitution to do it. 

Of course, all of that is water under the bridge and the majority of states in the country, which didn’t vote for gay marriage, have had it thrust upon them unwillingly by tyrants in black robes. 

As a response to this, some Republicans have called for term limits for the Supreme Court. Ted Cruz has called for justices to have to face the voters every 8 years. Scott Walker has called for a constitutional amendment to roll back the Supreme Court’s decision.

---------------------------------

We should be pushing for religious freedom acts in all 50 states. Thirty one states currently have at least SOME RELIGIOUS PROTECTIONS. That needs to become an issue in EVERY state because this ruling means the Left is about to start engaging in open warfare on Christians. 

They’re going to go after the tax status of Christian churches. They’re going to try to get Christians fired from their jobs. They’re going to try to censor Christians at best and define parts of Christian doctrine as hate speech at worst. They’re going to try to use the government to put Christians who refuse to sin by working on gay marriages out of business. 

Since when do Christians lose their First Amendment rights if they start a business? Since when does “freedom of religion” only apply as long as you don’t own a bakery or take wedding photos? This is a country founded on religious freedom and those rights don’t cease the moment someone walks out of the church doors. 

We need these laws to keep Christians from being persecuted. The anti-Christian Left can get awfully loud, but polls consistently show that the American people agree by large margins that Christians shouldn’t be legally penalized for refusing to cater gay weddings.

This idea sounds more reasonable as well as practical, but it's naive to think the Godless Left would want to compromise...even after they've won.

RELATED: The Hidden Message of Same-Sex Marriage

Chelsea Clinton Paid Over $1,000 a Minute to Appear at a College

Townhall.com:

After discovering that Hillary Clinton charges exorbitant amounts to appear at events (actual quote: "Yikes!"), administrators from the University of Missouri at Kansas City decided to go with a slightly cheaper member of the Clinton family to headline their lunchtime gala for the opening of a women's hall of fame: Chelsea. Chelsea, a relative bargain at $65,000 compared to her mother's fee of $275,000, spoke for a whole 10 minutes, did a moderated Q&A for 20 minutes, and took pictures with VIPs for a half hour.

$65,000/60 = $1,083.33. Chelsea Clinton was paid over a thousand dollars per minute. 

The event raised $38,500, but organizers claim fundraising was not the goal of the event. 

While a spokesperson for Chelsea stated that the money went to the Clinton Foundation, there is apparently no reference to this in any email communication between UMKC and Chelsea's representatives nor was there any reference to this in the contract for the speech.

Is it really a question why college costs are skyrocketing?

Scandal after scandal after scandal with the Clinton's and people in this country are still dumb enough to want to vote for them come 2016. Shm.

RELATED: Records show Clinton withheld emails about oil, terrorism