Trentonian
By David Neese
Federal Judge Jeffrey Sutton evidently didn’t get the memo.
The all important memo is a joint product of various elitist judges, activists and editorial boards.
The memo packs an authority suggesting it might have been brought down from Mount Sinai and lugged about in an Ark of the Covenant.
According to the memo, you don’t mention polygamy and such when the topic under discussion is same-sex marriage.
Absolutely not.
Not ever.
It is forbidden.
It is not politically correct to do so
If you do so, you run the risk of … well, who knows what? Maybe of being felled on the spot by a bolt of lightning. Or at the very least of being vilified as a backwoods snake-handling fundamentalist or a homophobe dragging a red herring across the path of rational dialogue.
Judge Sutton out in Cincinnati and a fellow Sixth Circuit jurist opined, against the grain, that setting the rules for marriage falls within the jurisdiction of the states, not the federal government. So it has been through historical epoch after epoch, the two George W. Bush nominees noted. A Bill Clinton-nominated judge held to the contrary.
The 21 ruling, involving cases from four states, departs from other more fashionable court auguries. Thus it likely will bring the gay marriage issue before the (trumpet flourish here) Big Court.
In the midst of this party-pooper decision, Judge Sutton proceeded to commit his egregious, politically incorrect faux pas. He brought up the no-no of polygamy and such.
If after countless millenniums marriage can be redefined to include same-sex couplings, then why can’t it be redefined by judicial decree to include other arrangements? Why not also, besides polygamy, maybe polyandry, polyamory and what-have-you?
If, as the activist litigants argued in the Sixth Circuit case, it is “constitutionally irrational to stand by the man- woman definition of marriage” after eons, said Judge Sutton, “it must be constitutionally irrational to stand by the monogamous definition of marriage.”
Altering the definition of marriage dating to “the earliest days of human history” is better done through the democratic legislative process than through judicial fiat, he added.
Elsewhere, another federal judge already has ruled that a Utah law criminalizing polygamy violates the United States Constitution’s guarantees of freedom of association and the right to due process of law.
Polygamy, of course, has ancient roots – Abraham, Moses, Jacob. Gideon, David, Solomon, et al., not to mention Mohammad. Polygamy pressure groups are making their voices heard through organizational and legal advocacy.
So are advocates of polyamory – cohabiting arrangements involving multiple participants. Hey, the polyamorists even have their own 501(c)(3) advocacy organization to promote themselves and contest the “monocentric dominator culture.” …