6.27.2005

Lifesite: Your daily dose of stupidity

So, I decided to pay a visit to our friends at Lifesite, because I thought they would have some wonderfully ridiculous responses to the Supreme’s decision on the Ten Commandments. No such luck. But I did manage to find something even better:

ACLU Now Defends Polygamy, Further Eroding Traditional Marriage
(AgapePress) - In comments at an Ivy League school, the president of the American Civil Liberties Union has indicated that among the "fundamental rights" of people is the right to polygamous relationships -- and that the ACLU has defended and will continue to defend that right.

In a little-reported speech offered at Yale University earlier this year, ACLU president Nadine Strossen stated that her organization has "defended the right of individuals to engage in polygamy." Yale Daily News says Strossen was responding to a "student's question about gay marriage, bigamy, and polygamy." She continued, saying that her legal organization "defend[s] the freedom of choice for mature, consenting individuals," making the ACLU "the guardian of liberty ... defend[ing] the fundamental rights of all people."

Crawford Broadcasting radio talk-show host Paul McGuire concurs. He says in his opinion, the ACLU "has declared legal war on the traditional family."

Wow. McGuire’s comments are pretty damning since we all know that radio talk-show hosts are the official arbiters of culture and civilization. But, let’s play for a second, shall we? Because the right has a really convenient definition of traditional marriage/family, meaning they define it as whatever they want marriage to look like, history be damned. But since the only convincing arguments (for me, anyway) against marriage equality are religious ones*, let’s look at what the Bible has to say about polygamy:

• Exodus 21:10 (New International Version)
  10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights
  
• 1 Kings 11:3 (New International Version)
  3 He (Solomon) had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines...
  
• 2 Chronicles 11:21 (New International Version)
  21 Rehoboam loved Maacah daughter of Absalom more than any of his other wives and concubines. In all, he had eighteen wives and sixty concubines, twenty-eight sons and sixty daughters.
  
• Deuteronomy 21:15 (New International Version)
  15 If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love…
  

Yes, I realize that all of the above are from the Old Testament, but I was Catholic once, and even I remember that Jesus said "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law (the Old Testament) or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law (the Old Testament) until everything is accomplished. (Matthew 5:17-18)" That means that Jesus tacitly approved of polygamy.

In fact, it wasn’t until Reynolds v United States in 1878 that polygamy was outlawed in the US. So, the concept of marriage as being solely between one man and one woman is a rather recent development.

Let’s get back to the article, though:

"Now the ACLU is defending polygamy," he continues, in response to Strossen's comments. "You know, there are male and female lawyers who wake up in the morning and are actually proud of being ACLU lawyers. But I think the majority of Americans view ACLU lawyers as people who hate America and who want to destroy all Judeo-Christian values and beliefs."

Given the above passages from the Bible, it would appear as if the ACLU is doing a better job of defending certain "Judeo-Christian values and beliefs" than McGuire and his ilk.

And, you know what, I’m really fucking tired of people smearing the ACLU. It reminds me of that scene in that horrible movie, The American President, where stupid Senator Richard Dreyfuss calls President Michael Douglas out for being a member of the ACLU, and he replies by saying "For the record: Yes, I am a card-carrying member of the A.C.L.U. But the more important question is why aren't you, Bob? This is an organization whose sole purpose is to defend the Bill of Rights, so it naturally begs the question: Why would a senator, his party's most powerful spokesman and a candidate for President, choose to reject upholding the Constitution?" (Thank you, wikipedia). That was the only decent bit of dialogue in that entire god-forsaken movie, and damn if it isn’t right on.
-----------------
* That said, because the only reasons are religious, they're moot. Read the Establishment Clause, people.

annamaria at 2:35 PM

3 spoke

3 Comments

at Monday, June 27, 2005 9:19:00 PM  Tom said...

I'm with Jen...it wasn't that god forsaken...not to mention, even if you didn't like the movie, you have to appreciate its offspring. If it wasn't for the American President we would've never had the West Wing. Not only did the TV show use half of the cast from the American President, but most of its set pieces too. I'm just saying...even if the instant results weren't great...the end result more than makes up for it.

 

at Tuesday, June 28, 2005 10:49:00 AM  Kurt said...

This from a left-leaning, evangelical Protestant (Prebyterian, if that makes any difference):
The law should reflect common values of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It should protect the people from those who would seek to do harm to another, and it should govern our general conduct with one another.
The law should not seek to shape our moral behavior beyond keeping us within the bounds of civility. If you want to be a dope smoking fallout boy, knock yourself out. But don't expect the goverment to support you or provide unlimited healthcare for you when you are at the end of that journey. And don't get behind the wheel, then you are putting others at risk.
Personal morality is always going to be personal and no amount of laws will change a person's inner self. That will be between them and their God.
As to Christianity and the Law, this should be what forms our doctorinal approach:
36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'[b] 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[c] 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
If Christians were to examine this closely, how could we be spewing such hateful ideas about gays, Muslims, different races or any other group? No one is perfect and everyone is our neighbor. I am called to love everyone the way they are loved by God (yes, God even loves Osama bin Laden).
It'll all get sorted out in the end. Thanks for your posts, they are always provocative.

 

at Tuesday, June 28, 2005 11:13:00 AM  annamaria said...

Kurt said:

"No one is perfect and everyone is our neighbor. I am called to love everyone the way they are loved by God"

As a atheist, even I can get behind that statement. I have no problem whatsoever with faith and spirituality--if you believe in a deity (or deities), and that belief gives you solace and guidance, who am I to judge? But that's the main problem I have with political Christianity; far too many of its adherents assume that their faith gives them the imprimatur to judge others.

Thank you for the compliments, by the way. And thank you for frequently reminding me that not all evangelicals are immune to reason! That is one issue where I am glad to be proven wrong.

 

Post a Comment