The Citizen Link article is in response to an July 3rd Op-Ed in the New York Times by Stanford Law Prof. Ralph Richard Banks. In the article, Professor Banks states that as society evolves in its interpretation of what is morally right and morally wrong, that laws which criminalize things like polygamy and incest will slowly fall. Citizen Link, unsurprisingly uses this one op-ed, as well as today's lawsuit, to write about how "redefining" marriage to include same-sex couples has opened the door to these other types of marriages. They state,
Oh no, the evil polygamists are coming!! But really, to argue that the United States will legalize polygamous marriages because its currently being argued in the Canadian Court system (specifically the B.C. Court), is an act of unbelievable ignorance. Do they not realize that Canada has a completely different legal culture, set of precedent, as well as "Bill of Rights" called the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. To extrapolate that something will happen in the U.S. because it has happened in another legal system vastly simplifies the argument and is not beneficial to a reasonable and educated discussion of the issue.He says that we won’t see incestuous and polygamous marriages in the U.S. “anytime soon.” However, that disclaimer must be read in the context that even 10 years ago most people would not have predicted that we would see same-sex marriage “anytime soon.” And activist groups are simply waiting for the right timing. For at least two decades now, the ACLU’s official policy position has been that prohibiting polygamy is unconstitutional.If you need further proof of the shaky legal ground that same-sex marriage creates, look to Canada, where same-sex marriage was legalized a few years ago. The polygamy legalization battle is already raging in its courts.
The very existence of the NYT opinion piece may rile gay activists, however, whose major (and patently defective) talking point thus far in criticizing Prop 8 and other marriage amendments is that they “single out” gays for discrimination. For the public relations game behind same-sex marriage to succeed, the ad nauseum accusations of “hater” and “bigot” and “homophobe” require there to be a single “victim” group – homosexuals – not whole groups of differently situated marriage-seekers. Once people understand that polygamy, and incestuous, polyamorous (group marriage) and under-age relationships, among others, are also excluded by a traditional marriage legal scheme, the gay victimhood public relations effort will unravel.Actually, bans on gay marriage DO specifically discriminate against gays and lesbians in a particular way that polygamous and incest bans regarding marriage do not. Those who want the ability to marry multiple partners or their family members are not denied such a license based upon their sexual orientation; something which gays and lesbians are denied. Though I favor the government allowing the former marriages, polygamous/incestuous marriages are completely different than same-sex ones; they cannot be compared no matter how hard you might try to do so.
The state’s recognition and regulation of marriage is not about rewarding every adult desire for any relationship under the sun, it’s about preserving an institution that for millennia has proven to be the best foundation for a society to continue to thrive.What Citizen Link fails to realize, is that the institution of polygamy is far older the "traditional" institution of one-man and one-woman marriage. Additionally, according to their "inerrant" scriptures as well, incestuous relationships were common in Genesis. But regardless, in that last sentence they - in so many words - stated that homosexual relationships are inferior to heterosexual ones. Why am I not surprised, for every time they open their mouths - in the name of love - they attempt to denigrate and disparage our marriages and relationships. They much have an inferiority complex themselves.