Politico Immediately Primes the Pump for Polygamy

With homosexuality normalized, protected with extra punishment, and now dictated by judicial fiat to usurp marriage as a moral institution, the next horizon for the SJWs is, as some have predicted, polygamy. According to the Leftists on SCOTUS, its all about love and not wanting to be lonely. The obvious solution to loneliness is marriage in the eyes of the state. The Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution is no barrier to Leftist "feelies" and feelguud legislation by the court. Most of the declared SCOTUS feelguuds would apply also to anybody who loves anybody else, regardless of the quantities or genders involved, and maybe regardless of whether "anybody else" is even human. I fully expect a group wedding between a large consortium of SJWs and Gaia, with tax breaks for all. But for now, it's just polygamy:

"It’s Time to Legalize Polygamy

Why group marriage is the next horizon of social liberalism.

"Welcome to the exciting new world of the slippery slope. With the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling this Friday legalizing same sex marriage in all 50 states, social liberalism has achieved one of its central goals. A right seemingly unthinkable two decades ago has now been broadly applied to a whole new class of citizens. Following on the rejection of interracial marriage bans in the 20th Century, the Supreme Court decision clearly shows that marriage should be a broadly applicable right—one that forces the government to recognize, as Friday’s decision said, a private couple’s “love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family."

With the removal of morality, common sense as well as any constitutional restrictions on the SCOTUS justices, there is no longer any limitation at all, outside of whatever the justices create for the Law Of The Land. The "love" argument should apply equally to all, shouldn't it? If you claim "love", then you qualify... to marry your brother and grandma and her goat, with marriage privileges all around.

The "love" argument can easily be combined with the "tolerance" argument in order to weaponize this type of slogan-lawmaking against dissent. It's already got a fair grip, and it won't take much to turn "free exercise of religion" into "free exercise of love and tolerance of all prior abominations without exception, or else: hate crime". And that's already underway on large portions of the web, with dissent by the justices not approving the gay's judicial legislation being labelled as hate criminals:

"Justice Scalia Is a Homophobe

By BARNEY FRANK

June 26, 2015"

The execrable Barny Frank is a perfect example of homosexual egregiousness, scofflaw attitudes, and intolerance. And he is always in the vanguard of desecration and destruction which homosexual activists and the "progressive" Left wish upon the USA. It should not be mistaken that they are in the business of advancing freedoms; they are in the business of tearing down uncomfortable civilized behavior restrictions which they don't like, in order to allow and even ennoble destructive behaviors which they do like. They see themselves as elite iconoclasts. All that needs be done is to redefine the ignoble behaviors as normal yet noble, and dissenters as ignoble X-ophobes (suddenly "mentally disordered" without any logic to, or recourse in, their Class designation). This is cynically done in order to both eviscerate dissent and to reverse the charge of mental illness which actually applies to the deviant behaviors of homosexuals and not to heterosexuals (or those who defend heterosexuality as normal).

I think this war is not over; it is just heating up. Whites, heterosexuals, Christians and conservatives, as well as logic and morality have been under attack from the Obama administration and SCOTUS for a long time, and all their targets have tolerated it... so far. We'll see where it goes from here.

Gays Lose Eliteness

Historic Day for Gays, but Twinge of Loss for an Outsider Culture

"But even many who raced to the altar say they feel loss amid the celebrations, a bittersweet sense that there was something valuable about the creativity and grit with which gay people responded to stigma and persecution.

For decades, they built sanctuaries of their own: neighborhoods and vacation retreats where they could escape after workdays in the closet; bookstores where young people could find their true selves and one another. Symbols like the rainbow flag expressed joy and collective defiance, a response to disapproving families, laws that could lead to arrests for having sex and the presumption that to be lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender was shameful.

Lisa Kron, who wrote the book and lyrics for "Fun Home," which features a young lesbian girl. “The thing I miss is the specialness of being gay,” Ms. Kron said. Credit Walter McBride/Getty Images

“The thing I miss is the specialness of being gay,” said Lisa Kron, who wrote the book and lyrics for “Fun Home,” a Broadway musical with a showstopping number sung by a young girl captivated by her first glimpse of a butch woman. “Because the traditional paths were closed, there was a consciousness to our lives, a necessary invention to the way we were going to celebrate and mark family and mark connection. That felt magical and beautiful.”

Ms. Kron is 54, and her sentiments seem to resonate among gay people of her generation and older. “People are missing a sense of community, a sense of sharing,” said Eric Marcus, 56, the author of “Making Gay History.”

“There is something wonderful about being part of an oppressed community,” Mr. Marcus said. But he warned against too much nostalgia. The most vocal gay rights activists may have celebrated being outsiders, but the vast majority of gay people just wanted “what everyone else had,” he said — the ability to fall in love, have families, pursue their careers and “just live their lives.”"

It's an interesting dilemma for homosexuals: getting what you demand vs. losing your Victimhood and Messiah status when you do get what you demand. Homosexuals will need something else to replace the loss of the special Class War designation which has defined them. They will have to either find a different Victimhood status to bestow upon themselves, or possibly create more hate crimes to prove that their old Victimhood status is still intact.

The loss of Victimhood represents a return from rebellion and distinction, back to non-differentiation: non-eliteness. How will homosexuals choose to rebel now? I suspect that many will discover that they are suddenly straight, now that there's no rebellious advantage to being homosexual, no specific Class separation to shove in people's faces. But many others will need an all-new rebellion in order to differentiate themselves from cis-sane people.

States Must Stop All Contact With Marriage... But It Won't Help

The proper response to this absurd court dictate is to remove all state statutes referring to marriage. This includes taxes. There should be no differentiation between humans as individuals, except as acknowledgement as citizens of certain zones - cities, counties, states, country - who abide by the laws of those zones. There should be no marriage permits, marriage certificates, marriage records, except for census (and I'm not sure that the national census should be allowed anymore, given its abuse by Obama, but that's trivial).

But here's what would happen: The federal response would be to create a national marriage certificate, which would be required in order to get some sort of monetary benefit (paid for by tax payers of the future, of course). Probably a tax "deferment" fiat, just like the deportation deferments being created by presidential fiat.

The next response should come from states' attorneys, who reject federal dictates under the constituional protection of the tenth amendment. When the US Supreme Court then rejects the tenth amendment, the country will know what is next, and the second civil war will begin in order to restore constitutional government.

In my opinion, after much blood, that will fail but internal control will be sketchy until troops are stationed virtually everywhere. Except the borders, of course. In the meantime, China will expand unexpectedly right up to the US borders, and finding the US to be incredibly weak, will finally act toward a world government.

But wait. That would be a slippery slope scenario. There is no slippery slope, just ask any SJW. For example, there is no slippery slope to increased racial tension because we elected a half-black twice (that would be the same as electing a full-black once, right?). So all we need to do is focus on eliminating whites (ask any black panther). Another example is the sexual freedom that exists in the USA (except on government controlled campuses, of course, where men are suspects because of their cis-cender, and guilty of rape if they actually do have sex). So the only slope is the SJW slope toward total freedom from absolutely all traditional, rational restrictions which might exist in a rational, civilized society (a rational civilization would recognize and treat all mental disorders, instead of institutionalizing them).

There is no longer anyplace globally to go where insanity is not the rule. There is no New World, no wilderness, no new continent, no safe harbor for sane people. The entire planet is now owned and controlled, and those in control are either communist, Communist (capital C), or proto-communist (or some form of Islamic Terrorist dictatorship) . Without forcible revolution and forcible control for maintaining actual constitutional government, the world dictatorship (Global Union of Socialist States) is inevitable. By eliminating all traditional morality, inevitability of SJW amorality and immorality is created and guaranteed.

The Brave New World has started in SCOTUS. Here's the indicator:

Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Couples Have Right To Marry Nationwide

"“No union is more profound than marriage,” Kennedy wrote, joined by the court’s four more liberal justices.

“From their beginning to their most recent page, the annals of human history reveal the transcendent importance of marriage. The lifelong union of a man and a woman always has promised nobility and dignity to all persons, without regard to their station in life. Marriage is sacred to those who live by their religions and offers unique fulfillment to those who find meaning in the secular realm. Its dynamic allows two people to find a life that could not be found alone, for a marriage becomes greater than just the two persons. Rising from the most basic human needs, marriage is essential to our most profound hopes and aspirations,” Kennedy wrote."

Note the personal philosophy and then note the lack of reference to any mention of the US Constitution, and especially lack of mention of any restrictions on the federal government. It is now presupposed that the federal government may interfere in any and all parts of life, without any nasty constitutional impediments to their dictates. That is the definition of dictatorship.

SCOTUS *hearts* Gays

By removing any residual morality from the concept of marriage, the US Supreme Court has rendered the union meaningless from a moral standpoint. So any other meaning which marriage might have is also to be designated by the government, probably solely by SCOTUS which now is the ultimate legislative body, from which there is no further recourse.

The concept of marriage is now fungible and can be expanded by minority forcings. What it will come to include is anyone's guess at this point, but it is certain that future challenges from other quarters of disorders will occur. And if equality is, well, equal, then all disorders must be treated equally to have access to marriage. Given equal treatment in SCOTUS, then, (and that is certainly not certain) they all can have access to marriage, they just must wait their turn.

In today's circus there is no traditional institution (such as truth, free speech, tenth amendment rights) which is not an abomination in line for abolition by moral, iconoclastic, crusaders for perversion rather than rationality. There are no "good" traditions and there are no "bad" perversions. It is not necessary to accept a concept of Satan in order to observe that there is a definite difference between what is good and what is evil, and that today's cultural drivers are not interested in anything which can be considered "good" by anyone but themselves.

The cultural acceptance of behavior A became demonized in a huge marketing campaign which was outlined in specific documents. Cultural behavior A became so demonized that a general silencing of morals and moral speech regarding behavior A became the norm. Behavior B, on the other hand, was first designated Victimhood status, then became the icon of acceptable and "moral" behavior. In little more than a decade, behavior B - the antithesis of behavior A - replaced behavior A. Replacing behavior A is not simple, though, and merely demonizing it is not sufficient. With behavior B in full control, those preferring behavior A are to be punished, and as severely as possible under current standards.

But current standards of punishment must change, also. They are insufficient to meet the needs for cultural control which are necessary to maintain behavior B as a permanent replacement for behavior A. So punishment standards must evolve to a new level, level B, also.

It never stops in the totalitarian world. Utopia is always in danger from incompatible thought. So in universal utopia, only utopians are to be allowed. The ratchet works in only one direction.

Death of Monogamy

WashPost Promotes the 'Evolution' of 'Forsaking Monogamy'

"Washington Post reporter Caitlin Dewey’s beat is the Internet. But her big piece on the front page of Wednesday’s Style section is about something broader: “Forsaking monogamy: The evolution of relationships has made affairs less clandestine and less combustive. And of course there are Web sites to help match tryst-seekers.”

This being the Post, there is no space for critics of the "evolution" of online adultery Web sites or their users. Dewey promoted the “non-monogamous dating site Open Minded,” where her married female subject, Jessie, advertised, “I’m into building deep and loving relationships that add to the joy and aliveness of being human.” She talked her husband into “ethical non-monogamy.”

The Post also used the term “monogamish,” the cutesy term of radical gay sex columnist Dan Savage to describe the married-but-cheating lifestyle.

The online headline was “Are new dating apps killing monogamy? Or has it always been dead?” Dewey pushed (B). Or monogamy is an old “agricultural” tradition that’s fading away in the modern age. Adultery is the new mainstream, according to Open Minded founder Brandon Wade:

Open Minded is a new kind of dating site for a newly mainstream lifestyle: one in which couples form very real attachments, just not exclusively with each other. He expects swingers, polysexuals and experimental 20-somethings to use his site. But he guesses that most of his 70,000 users are people like Jessie: Those in committed, conventional relationships, who realize that, statistically speaking, few modern couples stay with a single person their whole lives.

“If you look at marriage, it developed as a survival strategy and a means of raising kids,” Wade said. “But relationships are no longer a necessary component of life. People have careers and other interests — they can survive without them.”

That’s not wrong, says Helen Fisher, a biological anthropologist and one of the world’s leading relationship researchers. In the caveman days, humans teamed up in non-exclusive pairs to protect their children. Later, as people learned to plant crops and settle in one place, marriage became a way for men to guarantee kids, and for women — who couldn’t push heavy plows or carry loads of crops to market — to eat and keep a roof over their heads....

In fact, given the history and prevalence of non-monogamous relationships throughout cultures, it’s not scientifically correct to say the human species mates or pairs for life. Dogs mate for life. Beavers mate for life. Humans have one-night stands, paramours and a 50 percent divorce rate.

Fisher dubs it a “dual reproductive strategy”: We’re biologically programmed to form pair-bonds, yes, but some people — many people — are also programmed to seek out variety.

So, if you stay true to your spouse, you’re more like a dog or a beaver than a human. To the Post, this is about empowering the ladies, not the men..."

The destruction of monogamy began in the '70s with no-fault divorce which allowed people to marry with the knowledge that they could get out without too much trouble. Marriage went from irrevokable to revokable overnight, and has been losing ground as a viable institution ever since. The main problem is that government got involved, and removed the institution from a religious contract basis to a purely legal basis. Possibly there should be two separately understood institutions, legal marriage for governmental purposes (regulation of first cousins, taxes, visitation and inheritance), and the different but equal institution of matrimony, which is a three way contract with a deity.

Fallout For the Left From Bruce Jenner's Transition

Christians don't hate homosexuals, transexuals, etc., etc. It is a Leftist LIE that Christians hate homosexuals, a lie which is necessary to the AtheoLeftist narrative. The issue of homosexuality is a political issue, driven by the Leftist Will To Power. It is true that many, probably even most, Christians view homosexual activities as immoral. But it is also true that under the Christian worldview, that issue is between the individual and God. Not between Christian "jihadists" and the sexcapade community. What Christians - some Christians anyway - oppose is the theft of the religious aspect of marriage, where the three-way contract is no longer between two individuals and their deity, it is now between two individuals (for the time-being) and the state. This entirely destroys the concept of "holy matrimony".

The problem arises purely because the state has co-opted the definition and control of marriage improperly. There is no exception to the tenth amendment of the U.S. Constitution which allows the federal government to do that. In a properly interpreted Constitutional society, marriage would be purely a three-way contract between two people and their deity. There is no need for government intervention in that process. It is that un-Constitutional government intervention in that contract which creates issues that should not be issues.

There should be no federal discrimination in favor of (or against*) people who are "legally" married, as marriage has traditionally been known and defined. No tax reductions, no hospital benefits, no inheritance benefits outside of a legal will. There are legal mechanisms which can do all that without any reference to, or position on, religious three-way marriage.

Marriage should be a religious contract. Nothing more. Nothing less. In order to create marriage benefits outside of the religious contract, the government has opened for itself the extra-Constitutional fundamental right to define marriage as something else, something that is not the original contract, something that confers rights and benefits not intended for or by the original three-way contract. The third party is now the government which through the court system gives itself omnipotence in defining the terms and principles of the institution of marriage.

If LGBTQSLKNDKICAEB's, or groups of people, or a person or persons and a bridge, animal or pickup truck, want a legal union, then there should be separate contractual understandings which are outside of the religious three-way contract called "holy matrimony". Whether these are called civil unions or even civil or secular marriage, or something else entirely is a pointless argument.

People who are joined in holy matrimony, i.e. in the three-way union of religious marriage, should have to get a separate civil/secular union/marriage contract as well as the religious marriage contract. That would divorce the religious union from the secular, and all the government intervention would intercede, not with religious marriage, but with the secular contract.

Government intervention in the religious three-way contract is constitutionally prohibited, but that is ignored by the Left, as are any Constitutional restrictions to their hegemonic drive to eradicate religion from western societies using the national government as a proprietary weapon of the Left.

I support secular contracts, including for LGBTQSLKNDKICAEB's. I do not support calling such contracts "marriage" because that confuses the secular use of the term with "holy matrimony", which secular contracts are not, unless some sort of new, faux but harmless otherwise, religion opts to do such marriages and call them "holy". That issue is one which exists now, outside of the presumptive omnipotence of the government. It should be obvious that Christians recognize the existence of faux religions, just as they recognize secular contracts, and so long as those do not interfere in the affairs of Christians, for the most part, they co-exist.

Bruce Jenner's situation is not related to marriage; it is related to the Left's conception of Christianity and its principles, attitudes and morality, which the Left cannot comprehend. The Left cannot comprehend much of anything outside the Leftist narrative; that narrative defines them and their thought processes completely. And that is the definition of bigotry and closed-mindedness to the point of blind-belief and anti-rationalism.


NOTE:
*The US government discriminates against married couples by providing financial support to "single mothers" which is not available to marrieds, and that encourages co-habitation as well as unmarried, one-parent households purely for the financial benefits. I know this happens; it happens to people I know.

Actual Polygamy In North Dakota

A man in North Dakota can have both a husband and a wife, so long as the husband was obtained by marriage in another state. There is truly nothing too absurd to actually happen these days.

That Was Quick

Polygamy cannot be discriminated against under the US District Court ruling in Utah.

But there is no slippery slope, you say. Keep saying that, if it makes you feel better.

In a game-changer for the legal fight over same-sex marriage that gives credence to opponents’ “slippery slope” arguments, a federal judge has now ruled that the legal reasoning for same-sex marriage means that laws against polygamy are likewise unconstitutional.

Choice: In Marriage Too

It didn’t take all that long for the slope to slip to this:

Legalize Polygamy: No I’m Not Kidding:

“Here’s the thing: As women, we really can make our own choices. We just might choose things people don’t like. If a woman wants to marry a man, that’s great. If she wants to marry another woman, that’s great too. If she wants to marry a hipster, well—I suppose that’s the price of freedom.

And if she wants to marry a man with three other wives, that’s her damn choice.”
[Emphsis added]

You just have to love the Left’s euphemistic term, “Choice”, originally as a substitute for the more accurate term, “kill your progeny”. The concept of “Choice” works for all sorts of other things too, when taken to its Reductio Ad Absurdum conclusion. A woman can “choose” all sorts of things with her private body and her private emotional state and her private whatever. So in terms of fairness, so can a man (well, maybe not white men). But if a woman wants to marry her cat, her hamster, all her first cousins, and all her neighbors on both sides of the street… that’s her damn choice.

"All marriages deserve access to the support and resources they need to build happy, healthy lives, regardless of how many partners are involved. Arguments about whether a woman’s consensual sexual and romantic choices are “healthy” should have no bearing on the legal process. And while polygamy remains illegal, women who choose this lifestyle don’t have access to the protections and benefits that legal marriage provides."

And that settles it. Or does it? Here’s the money quote:

“The definition of marriage is plastic. Just like heterosexual marriage is no better or worse than homosexual marriage, marriage between two consenting adults is not inherently more or less “correct” than marriage among three (or four, or six) consenting adults. Though polygamists are a minority—a tiny minority, in fact—freedom has no value unless it extends to even the smallest and most marginalized groups among us. So let’s fight for marriage equality until it extends to every same-sex couple in the United States—and then let’s keep fighting. We’re not done yet.”
[Emphasis added]

Yes, all of a sudden the definition of marriage is definitely plastic. In fact, marriage should be extended to a person who wants to marry herself. And maybe her mother. And daughter. (But not her father, if he is white). Definitely plastic, which means that the definition has no meaning at all, since a definition which has no differentiation is no longer a definition. And how can pedophiles be discriminated against if there is no differentiation in the definition of marriage? Fair is fair. If there is to be no discrimination in the definition of marriage, then you cannot draw lines which discriminate, just not against you and your damn choice. That's - you know this - intolerant.