Several Articles on the Defense of Marriage Act Folks Using Anti-Polygamy Laws

I am posting several articles here dealing with the same idea. In the last couple of weeks the Alliance Defense Fund and the National Organization for Marriage are fighting back against a Boston federal judges ruling on Defense of Marriage Act.
***************************************************************************
Playing the polgamy card

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogs/crawler/49920590-70/marriage-polygamy...

Salt Lake Crawler
Glen Warchol

The LDS Church has to have mixed feelings about embracing the newest card the religious right has pulled out of its sleeve to block gay marriage.
After the setback of a federal judge ruling parts of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional, Christian conservatives are arguing that heterosexual marriage is a requirement of statehood. Same-sex marriage, they say, like polygamy in 19th Century Utah, cannot be allowed by a U.S. state.

Brian Raum, a lawyer for the Alliance Defense Fund, explains:

"It was a condition of statehood that marriage be defined as one man and one woman during the polygamy battle in the 19th Century.”

Creepy Columnist Cal Thomas also weilds the new argument:

If the federal government could reject polygamy then as a means of promoting the general welfare, why can’t it block attempts to redefine marriage now?

But Candace Chellew-Hodge at Religion Dispatches calls B.S. on their reasoning:
The bottom line here is that the anti-marriage gang is up to its old tricks, trying to conflate polygamy and marriage equality to create fear and loathing of gays and lesbians. This talking point has an added twist, insinuating that any state that legalizes gay marriage could somehow be kicked out of the union because they have violated some federal law defining marriage as a requirement for statehood. Such a “litmus test” does not exist.

Maybe Constitutional scholar Mike Lee could give us the states' rights point of view on this.
***************************************************************************
http://lezgetreal.com/2010/07/fundamentalists-have-a-new-argument-about-...

07/12/10-by Bridgette P. LaVictoire

Apparently, the Alliance Defense Fund and the National Organization for Marriage have found a strong argument to push back against the recent decision by a Boston federal judge with regards to the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. Their fool proof argument is that marriage between a man and a woman is required for a state to be a state!

According to the ADF lawyer Brian Raum:

“Marriage has always been defined as one man and one woman by the federal government,” continued Raum. “In fact, it was a condition of statehood that marriage be defined as one man and one woman during the polygamy battle in the 19th Century. ADF will continue to defend marriage at the state and federal level.” (Emphasis theirs.)

Focus on the Family picked up the message with “The federal government settled the issue of marriage in the late 19th century when it refused to recognize polygamy as a condition of statehood.”

The National Organization for Marriage also crowed their victory over this “The simple fact is that the right of the federal government to define marriage for the purposes of its federal law and federal territories has been clear since the late 19th century, when Congress banned polygamy.”

Cal Thomas, one of the earliest voices of whole Conservative movement he is now desperately trying to catch back up to. He stated
“In 1878, the Supreme Court declared in Reynolds v. United States that polygamy was not protected by the Constitution.
If the federal government could reject polygamy then as a means of promoting the general welfare, why can’t it block attempts to redefine marriage now? If marriage is redefined by courts, what is to stop anyone from declaring a ‘right’ to any relationship they wish to enter and demanding ‘equal protection’ under the Constitution?”

But, like a hyper chicken, perhaps they should feel ashamed for their decision to pull these ancient laws into the argument. Of course, given that they are trying very hard to bring much more ancient laws into the daily lives of people, perhaps it is not so surprising. There is a risk with this argument, of course. What happens if they get up before the Supreme Court and they say “not only do we find same-sex marriage legal, but we find polyamorous marriages to be legal as well!” Um. . .oh crap. This constant conflation of same-sex marriage with polygamy/polyandry/polyamory creates some problems for the “traditional marriage” groups such as NOM, ADF and FotF. What happens if, when same-sex marriages are legal, people stop being afraid of polygamy.

Muslims and Mormons might end up having more than one wife!

The Federal Government did, indeed, ban bigamy back in 1862, but there was a perfectly good reason for that. It was done to prevent Utah from becoming a state. The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Law of 1862 was designed to prevent the Mormon heavy state from gaining entrance into the Union until such time as they removed polygamy from their state constitution. The law punished and prevented the practice of polygamy in the Territories of the US, it was punishable by $500 and up to five years in jail, and nullified all laws pertaining polygamy and spiritual marriage.

Additionally, the Reynolds v. the United States in 1879 and the Edmunds Act of 1882 were also intended to force polygamy into the states. The Reynolds decision stated that polygamy could not be protected as a religious right. What this all means is that states could not become states by practice- not by law- unless they excluded bigamy. This did not, however, define marriage as ‘one man, one woman.’

Perhaps that is what the Mormon fueled push against same-sex marriage is all about. Perhaps they have been planning to get all the way up to the Supreme Court and argue that same-sex marriage is illegal based upon these old laws and, maybe, just maybe, get polygamy/polyandry/polyamory legalized!

Perhaps I could then found that lesbian coven I’ve always wanted since I first heard about it on Futurama. Well, that is if these guys get to join the suit at this point. If Obama appeals it and continues his current job of not really arguing this full out, they may end up crying instead of crowing.

*****************************************************************

Cal Thomas: Polygamy precedent applies to gay marriage

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/49914799-82/marriage-law-elites-fed...

By Cal Thomas

Updated Jul 12, 2010 11:34PM
A federal judge in Boston has ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act passed by Congress (427 members voted in favor) and signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996 cannot take precedence over a Massachusetts law allowing same-sex marriage. The ruling again raises serious questions about the origin and purpose of law. But before we get to that larger question, the “logic” of Judge Joseph L. Tauro’s ruling should first be examined.

Judge Tauro’s decision flies in the face of what the federal government has claimed, and is claiming, in at least two other significant cases. In 1973, the Supreme Court struck down all state laws restricting a woman’s right to have an abortion. In its lawsuit against Arizona’s new immigration law, the Department of Justice claims federal law (which the feds are not enforcing) trumps state law.

So let’s see: State laws are fine when they promote the interests of the ruling liberal and cultural elites, but they are to be ignored, or overturned, when they do not promote the objectives of the ruling liberal and cultural elites. Is that it? How can the federal government have it both ways?

A New York Times editorial says of DOMA, “There is no rational basis for discriminating against same-sex couples.” Really? Has the newspaper forgotten the federal government’s “discrimination” against Utah when it forbade the territory from entering the Union until it outlawed polygamy?

In 1878, the Supreme Court declared in Reynolds v. United States that polygamy was not protected by the Constitution.

If the federal government could reject polygamy then as a means of promoting the general welfare, why can’t it block attempts to redefine marriage now? If marriage is redefined by courts, what is to stop anyone from declaring a “right” to any relationship they wish to enter and demanding “equal protection” under the Constitution?

Now to the larger question of law, which is also being redefined. During her confirmation hearings, Elena Kagan said she loved the law. Too bad no one asked her which law she loves and what is law’s purpose? Law is meant to conform humans to a standard that preserves the cultural and moral order. The purpose of government is to “secure” unalienable pre-existing rights about which Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence (a document Kagan dismissed as irrelevant to the Constitution, though it is the Constitution’s moral and philosophical foundation). Government is not supposed to create new rights like national health care, or same-sex marriage.

The Times editorial dismisses the overwhelming approval for DOMA as a “wedge issue” during an election year. In fact, it reflected the principled position not only of a vast majority of members of Congress, but also the position of the public, which has almost universally rejected attempts to legalize same-sex marriage.

In 2004, 11 states had ballot measures preserving marriage as between opposite sex couples. All passed. In 2008, three states had gay marriage ballot initiatives. Two passed.

In California, a measure that effectively banned same-sex marriage was approved by 400,000 votes, or 52 percent of those voting, in 2008.

Marriage redefiners demand acceptance for their position that morality, as well as right and wrong, are to be determined by polls.

If polls show the public disapproving of behavior the elites favor, the elites ignore majority opinion and seek to shove it down our throats anyway, because, you see, only they can be right.

The rest of us have the equivalent standing of 1950s segregationists. Anyone arguing for tradition is branded a bigot, a label that is supposed to end all discussion, while the labeled one is exhausted trying to prove a negative.

Judge Tauro’s ruling will likely be overturned on appeal, but that won’t stop the marriage redefiners. In a morally exhausted society, they just might succeed. Polygamists were 130 years before their time.

********************************************************************