RECENT  POSTS:  » AP report: FDA to recommend end on gay blood ban! (*UPDATED with big restriction) » Video: Another ad reflects changing (already changed?) 'Tide' » Anti-gay NOM compares its discriminatory cause to baby Jesus's early infant care » SCOTUS to begin new year by pondering outdated inequality » Video: TLC to air show about humans' ability to suppress truth in name of religion » AFA, LaBarbera think being publicly pro-gay is still a liability; how quaint » Video: Blended family with lesbian moms heads Tylenol holiday ad » NOM's new conspiracy theory: Census Bureau making changes to hide marriage equality's ill effects » Video: Voices from our pro-equality future (present?) » Anti-gay orgs continue to offend children of single parents, gay parents, more  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

11/13/2012

FRC Senior Fellow vs. traditional religious marriage

by Jeremy Hooper

In a new column where he tries to scare Americans by laying the "slippery slope" toward polygamy at the feet of those who are advocating for the wholly unrelated notion of marriage equality for two (and only two) same-gender adults, the Family Research Council's Ken Klukowski unwittingly makes our case, not his own. Here's the pertinent snip:

The United Nations recognizes 192 nations around the world. More than a quarter of them—roughly 50 countries—have legal polygamy. Marriage of one man with multiple women is expressly approved by the second-largest religion on earth, and as such is legal in Muslim nations all over the planet.

One estimate is that there are 600,000 polygamists in the United States today. While some of those are fundamentalist offshoots of Mormonism (which abandoned the practice of polygamy in the 1890s), many or most are ordinary Muslims who were legally married in their country of origin. The U.S. and the American state in which they live simply recognizes only one wife in each marriage.

Polygamy has been practiced for thousands of years and today is prevalent in the aforementioned countries. More than that, it enjoys official religious approval from a faith that has been around since 605 A.D. and is found in every nation on earth. This is not some fringe movement or even a social oddity; it’s mainstream in dozens of countries.
FULL:
WHAT'S NEXT FOR MARRIAGE AFTER TUESDAY'S VOTE? [Bretibart]

So wait a minute—Klukowski is making a case around a religious-based concept that is traditional, popular, and even demanded by a vast body of this world's faithful? And that's supposed to be on us, the team that is seeking civil policy that is detached from "traditional" religious arguments? No way, my Bible-based buddy! I'm not going to let you put that on me or any of my pro-equality peeps!

The Family Research Council makes every one of its "traditional" arguments from the tenets of its own organizational faith. What the hell gives them the right to impose their view onto the populace of this supposedly church/state-separated nation and then turn around and use another religious-based notion as some sort of next step danger for which we gay folk must answer?! Polygyny's commonality is rooted in godly books (all godly books, btw), not in Lawrence vs. Texas or the Goodridge decision! If FRC truly wanted to revert to "biblical marriage," as they frequently claim, polygyny would be but one of many "traditional" notions with which they would have to contend. They are the ones writing rhetorical checks that their own faith-based talking points can't cash. We are the ones demanding that our civil policy be steeped in sound constitutional arguments, not any one faith's particular vision of what makes a marriage moral.

The legalization of poly unions is not the modern civil marriage equality movement's fight. Neither is the bent of the "slippery slope."

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails