When it comes to marriage, the Democratic Party’s radical social engineering doesn’t stop at all-out support of same-sex marriage. The Democratic National Committee platform entitled “Freedom to Marry” reads:
“We support the right of all families to have equal respect, responsibilities, and protections under the law. We support marriage equality and support the movement to secure equal treatment under law for same-sex couples. We also support the freedom of churches and religious entities to decide how to administer marriage as a religious sacrament without government interference.”
The second paragraph opposes the Defense of Marriage Act and state constitutional amendments defining marriage as the union between one man and one woman.
The deliberate focus on homosexual marriage distracts the reader from the real implications of this policy. “We support the right of all families,” the platform writers say. What constitutes a family? They do not say.
Proud polygamist Kody Brown with his four wives and 16 children famously featured on the reality TV show “Sister Wives,” argues they are a family. Mr. Brown has filed a lawsuit challenging anti-polygamy laws in the same way that same-sex couples went after sodomy laws in the famous Lawrence v. Texas Supreme Court decision, which opened the door to same-sex “marriage.”
The liberal radicals who control the Democratic Party apparently support the polygamist on his claim. After all, his marriage doesn’t affect others, right? All the sentimentalism they have brought into the homosexual marriage debate applies to polygamous relationships as well.
Support for open-ended “marriage equality” traps the DNC in its own “progressivism.” The radicals have thrown so much mud at the traditional values that built our nation that they have lost all ground on which to stand to demand limits on other types of relationships.
The relationship involves three professionals in their 30s — one man and two women — who, the reporter says, live together, love one another as equals and are like any other nonmarried cohabiting couple — except they are three.
This happened even though Brazilian law defines marriage as a union between two people. Again, having sanctioned homoxexual relationships left the Brazilians, as we are seeing here in the United States, with no moral ground on which to reject polygamy.
Why stop there? We have reached a point where in a recent interview, an accomplished American filmmaker felt it acceptable to express his approval of incest. The Huffington Post headline says it all: “Nick Cassavetes Says Incest Isn’t A Big Deal, Compares It To Gay Marriage & Asks ‘Who Gives A Damn?’ “
Mr. Cassavetes said, “Love who you want. Isn’t that what we say? Gay marriage — love who you want? If it’s your brother or sister it’s superweird, but if you look at it, you’re not hurting anybody except every single person who freaks out because you’re in love with one another.” His new movie, “Yellow,” revolves around a character named Mary who visits her brother in prison and has a “love affair” with him, according to The Wrap.
As lewd and offensive as his comments are, “Who cares?” is a legitimate question. The radicals directing the Democratic Party do not, according to their own platform. Yet we must care. The moral decay they continue to promote will have real consequences for our children and our freedoms.
Our right to religious freedom suffers most. Notice that the platform says it “supports the freedom of churches and religious entities to decide how to administer marriage as a religious sacrament.” This language is troubling on many fronts. It talks about “how” but not “if” a church or religious institution will have the right to administer marriage contrary to government policy. The radicals are also clever enough to qualify it as a “religious sacrament.” Does that mean they could lose the power of the state to administer legally binding marriages?
As you know, it is not just about the administration of marriage, but it is about counseling, church facilities and many other religious liberty issues. It is about the religious liberty of every individual, not just churches and institutions and pastors.
Simply put, the religious liberty language in the platform means nothing. It leaves the door wide open for government-sponsored religious discrimination.
Yet those who sympathize with this worldview continue to sell the idea that this will have no detrimental effect on our country. We know better. We cannot expect to continue to receive the blessings of the past when we continue to turn against the policies that brought those blessings in the first place.
Mario Diaz is legal counsel for Concerned Women for America.
By Andrew P. Napolitano
The president's men trash the Constitution to pursue antagonists