Lawyer Advocate of Same Sex Marriage Admits It Opens Door to Polygamy and Incest
Greenfield leaves little doubt, as evident in the manner of his discussion, that he sees the weakness of the arguments and doubts their effectiveness in holding back the ultimate effect which was unleashed by the Windsor opinion
The Law Professor began the article with this assessment: "It's been a few weeks since the victories in the marriage cases at the Supreme Court, and maybe it's time for the political left to own up to something. You know those opponents of marriage equality who said government approval of same-sex marriage might erode bans on polygamous and incestuous marriages? They're right. As a matter of constitutional rationale, there is indeed a slippery slope between recognizing same-sex marriages and allowing marriages among more than two people and between consenting adults who are related. If we don't want to go there, we need to come up with distinctions that we have not yet articulated well."
CHESAPEAKE, VA (Catholic Online) - In an honest and potentially explosive article written for the American Prospect, a self identifying liberal/progressive left wing magazine, Boston College Law Professor Kent Greenfield told the truth that many Cultural Revolutionaries behind the movement to change the definition of marriage have tried to deny. The article is entitled The Slippery Slope to Polygamy and Incest and can be read here.
The Law Professor began the article with this assessment: "It's been a few weeks since the victories in the marriage cases at the Supreme Court, and maybe it's time for the political left to own up to something. You know those opponents of marriage equality who said government approval of same-sex marriage might erode bans on polygamous and incestuous marriages?"
"They're right. As a matter of constitutional rationale, there is indeed a slippery slope between recognizing same-sex marriages and allowing marriages among more than two people and between consenting adults who are related. If we don't want to go there, we need to come up with distinctions that we have not yet articulated well."
Now, let me explain the importance of this admission. Law Professor Greenfield supported the radical restructuring of the definition of marriage affirmed in the US Supreme Court's recent Windsor decision. He supported using the power of the State to enforce a moral and legal equivalency between homosexual and lesbian partnerships and marriage between a man and a woman.
People who defended marriage against the Homosexual Equivalency movement prior to Justice Kennedy's indecipherable and horrid opinion in the Supreme Court Windsor opinion were accused of being alarmist, or even homophobic. Now, one of the architects of the Cultural Revolution acknowledges they were actually giving an accurate assessment.
Greenfield continued: "The arguments supporters of same-sex marriage have made in court do not sufficiently distinguish marriage for lesbians and gay men from other possible claimants to the marriage right. If marriage is about the ability to define one's own family, what's the argument against allowing brothers and sisters (or first cousins) to wed?"
"If liberty protects, as Kennedy wrote ten years ago in Lawrence v. Texas, the case striking down Texas's anti-sodomy law, the "right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life," why can't people in polyamorous relationships claim that right as well? If it's wrong to exclude groups because of prejudice, are we sure the uneasiness most of us feel about those who love more than one, or love one of their own, shouldn't count as prejudice?"
The activist Law professor addressed some possible arguments which might prevent the ultimate outcome of this recent Supreme Court precedent opening the door to polygamy, incestuous marriages and other such relationship configurations. This very danger was occasioned by the manufacture of a new right to marry bestowed upon lesbians and homosexuals by the US Supreme Court.
He suggested that these arguments be developed by the Left in order to attempt to distinguish homosexual and lesbian 'marriages' from these other couplings. In short, to attempt to prevent the opening to polygamy and incestuous marriages. They include what he calls 'ickiness', the potential injury to children and the argument that incestuous relationships and polygamy are coercive and a matter of choice - not genetically programmed as he apparently believes homosexuality and lesbianism are.
However, Greenfield leaves little doubt, as evident in the manner of his discussion, that he sees the weakness of the arguments and doubts their effectiveness in holding back the ultimate effect which was unleashed by the Windsor opinion and the activist strategy in its wake - to compel every State to recognize same sex marriage. He concludes with this stark opinion:
"If these distinctions do not hold water, we have two options. We can continue to search for differences that make sense as a matter of constitutional principle. Or we can fess up. We can admit our arguments in favor of marriage equality inexorably lead us to a broader battle in favor of allowing people to define their marriages, and their families, by their own lights."
Justice Kennedy unleashed a whirlwind which threatens the common good of society. How tragic it is that a Catholic who is on the highest bench has paved the way to legal, social, moral and cultural anarchy. Of Course, he tipped his hand as a relativist in his opinions in Casey and Lawrence v Texas by opining that "at the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."
That now often quoted gnostic statement is simply metaphysical nonsense. Some of the Justices of the Supreme Court have apparently decided they are the new alchemists of our age. They claim they can change the structure of reality with the stroke of their judicial pen. They no longer even pretend to rely on precedent, let alone the Natural Moral Law. They have decided the law is what they say it is, following the path of the legal positivists.
They are wrong, even if they presently weild a lot of temporal power. Marriage and family have been inscribed by the Divine Architect into the order of creation. Marriage is ontologically between one man and one woman, ordered toward the union of the spouses, open to children and formative of family. Family is the first vital cell of society; the first church, first school, first hospital, first economy, first government and first mediating institution of our social order.
Marriage as existing solely between one man and one woman was not an idea manufactured by the Christian Church. It precedes Christianity. Though affirmed, fulfilled, and elevated by Christian teaching, the truth that marriage can exist only between one man and one woman is not based on religion or revelation alone, but on the Natural Moral Law, written on the human heart and discernible through the exercise of reason. The future of a free and healthy society passes through marriage and the family.
This claim of the existence of such a Natural Moral Law is the ground upon which every great civilization has been built. It is the source of every authentic human and civil rights movement. This Natural Moral Law gives us the norms we need to build truly human and humane societies and govern ourselves. It should also inform our positive law or we will become lawless and devolve into anarchy.
The precedent established in the Windsor opinion, as this proponent of the Cultural Revolution now admit, leaves no room for any limitation on what can constitute a marriage under its rationale (or lack thereof to be more accurate). The Supreme Court had no authority to redefine marriage. It acted beyond its proper constitutional role and contrary to the Natural Moral Law which transcends religions, culture, and time.
Experience and history have shown us that if the government redefines marriage to grant a legal equivalency to same-sex couples, that same government will enforce such an action with the police power of the State. This will bring about an inevitable collision with religious freedom and conscience rights. It has already begun.
The fact that this Law Professor proponent of the Cultural Revolution admits the implications of the Supreme Court Windsor ruling only makes the necessity of a unified response by the defenders of real marriage, between one man and one woman, all the more urgent and clear.
© 2014 - Distributed by THE NEWS CONSORTIUM
Pope Francis Prayer Intentions for March 2014
Respect for Women: That all cultures may respect the rights and dignity of women.
Vocations: That many young people may accept the Lordís invitation to consecrate their lives to proclaiming the Gospel.
Rate This Article
Leave a Comment
More U.S. News
- Fr. Paul Schenck: The New Eugenics, 'Better Babies' and the Dangers of Biotechnology
- Interview With Cardinal SeŠn Patrick O'Malley Gives Insights into the Heart of Pope Francis
- Deal W. Hudson: Why Social Conservatives Should Become Cultural Conservatives
- CORPORATE SPY: Engineering consultant accused of stealing secrets from DuPont for Chinese
- 24th season of Defending Life Premiered March 5th on EWTN
- Justina Pelletier: Massachusetts DCF Running for Cover Under Legal and Media Pressure
- Matt C. Abbott On a New Book, The Seven Big Myths About Marriage
- Deal Hudson on Culture and the Death of God
- 'Ag gag' bill passes in Idaho; filming at farms now prohibited
- Fr. Paul Schenck: Finding Living Faith on Catechetical Sunday
- The Movie Yellow: Incest as 'Normal' and Cassavates's Slides Into the World of Woes
- The Chicago School Teachers Strike Reveals the Need For School Choice
- The Sexual Barbarians and the Dissolution of Culture
- The Happy Priest Challenges Us to Ask: Who is Jesus to Me?
- Michael Coren on Canadian Public Schools: Teachers, leave those kids alone
- We Cannot Ignore Our Consciences: Cardinal Dolan On Religious Liberty
- In the Face of Danger, Successor of Peter Travels to Lebanon as a Messenger of Peace
- Reflections on the Dignity and Vocation of Women: Who or What?