Helping the Media & Information-gatherers by providing
news, reports, and insights from the pro-polygamy view.

Click to order DVD
Order Your Pro-Polygamy Passport ™

'New Liberal' Hypocrisies on Government Marriage

Date: May 15, 2004
Word Count: 800 words
Cross-Reference: "New Liberals", Federal Marriage Amendment, "Same-Sex Marriage"

"New Liberals" abandon their conservative principles, pushing for the Federal Marriage Amendment.

Ever   since   the   Summer   of   2003,   many   conservatives   abandoned   their   principles   of   constitutionally   limited   government   and   individual   freedom.     They   metamorphosed   into   "New   Liberals,"   pushing   hard   for   a   Federal   Marriage   Amendment.     In   the   process   of   their   conversion,   they   began   committing   hypocrisy   after   hypocrisy   --   to   the   chagrin   of   true   conservatives.    
Such   "New   Liberalism"   began   solidifying   after   the   U.S.   Supreme   Court   had   decided   the   Lawrence   v.   Texas   case   on   June   26,   2003.     The   Court   decided   that   a   State   may   not   violate   the   "right   to   privacy"   of   consenting-adults   from   doing   that   which   other   consenting-adults   are   not   also   disallowed. 
Subsequently,   "New   Liberals"   became   absolute   big   government   advocates   when   the   Massachusetts   State   Supreme   Judicial   Court   decided   the   Goodridge   v.   Department   of   Public   Health   case   on   November   18,   2003.     In   that   case,   the   Massachusetts   Court   determined   that   limitations   in   their   State's   government   marriage   laws   were   not   allowable   because   of   their   State's   constitutional   requirement   for   equality   under   the   law   for   all   individuals. 
After   Lawrence   v.   Texas,   the   "New   Liberals"   argued   for   "States'   rights,"   claiming   that   the   Court   had   therewith   violated   Texas's   right   to   make   its   own   laws   over   the   individuals.     That   was   a   backward   use   of   the   normally   conservative   position   of   defending   the   Tenth   Amendment,   however.     Such   an   argument   was   actually   taking   the   liberal   position   of   defending   big   government   power   over   the   rights   of   the   individuals. 
But   such   hypocrisy   regarding   the   "States'   rights"   argument   did   not   stop   there. 
When   another   State,   Massachusetts,   through   its   own   Court,   later   decided   the   Goodridge   case,     the   "New   Liberals"   abandoned   the   "States'   rights"   argument   altogether.     They   called   for   the   Federal   Marriage   Amendment   even   that   much   more   vehemently   to   deny   any   notion   of   "States'   rights."    
And   that,   too,   was   not   their   only   liberal   hypocrisy   regarding   the   Tenth   Amendment   (from   which   comes     the   "States'   rights"   argument). 
Immediately   after   Lawrence   v.   Texas,   "New   Liberals"   cried   out   that   the   "right   to   privacy"   is   not   explicitly   written   in   the   Constitution.     Again,   they   misapplied   the   Tenth   Amendment,   trying   to   suggest   that   the   Court   has   no   authority   to   rule   on   that   matter. 
The   Ninth   Amendment   answers   that   absurd   argument.     Specifically,   individuals'   rights   do   not   have   to   be   so   constitutionally   codified.     Besides,   the   last   clause   of   the   Tenth   Amendment   clearly   says,   "or   to   the   people,"   meaning   the   rights   of   the   individuals. 
Ironically,   though,   "marriage"   is   not   in   the   Constitution   either.     The   Tenth   Amendment   establishes   that   government,   constitutionally,   has   no   authority   to   be   involved   in   marriage   whatsoever.     After   all,   government   marriage   wields   big   government   power   and   involvement   over   any   individual   rights.     But   "New   Liberals"   obviously   ignore   the   Tenth   Amendment   when   it   comes   to   government   marriage. 
Nevertheless,   they   accused   the   Courts   in   2003   of   being   run   by   "liberal   activist   judges,"   even   as   such   "New   Liberals"   rely   upon   a   liberal   1878   precedent   to   support   big   government   marriage   involvement. 
The   1878   Supreme   Court   was   seemingly   run   by   "liberal   activist   judges."     Reynolds   v.   United   States   addressed   one   anti-polygamy   statute,   applicable   only   to   non-State   territories   where   the   federal   government   had   exclusive   jurisdiction.     However,   those   "liberal   activist   judges"   quite   liberally   expanded   that   issue   to   ultimately   concoct   a   nationwide   "government   involvement   in   marriage"   precedent. 
Beyond   non-State   U.S.   territories,   that   concoction   violates   the   Tenth   Amendment   because   "marriage"   is   not   in   the   Constitution.     As   such,   "New   Liberals,"   themselves,   rely   upon   "liberal   activist   judges"   who   decided   that   anti-polygamy   case   which   unconstitutionally   established   big   government   involvement   in   marriage. 
Many   other   hypocrisies   abound   too. 
When   the   2003   Supreme   Court   decided   the   Lawrence   v.   Texas   case,   their   decision   referenced   other   countries.     "New   Liberals"   said   that   that   "usurped   American   sovereignty."     But   "New   Liberals"   base   their   support   of   liberal   big   government   involvement   in   marriage   specifically   because   of   the   aforementioned   Reynolds   v.   United   States   case.     That   1878   Court's   decision   did   exactly   the   same   thing,   openly   deferring   to   the   histories   and   laws   of   foreign   governments. 
Many   "New   Liberals"   idolatrously   assert   that   big   socialist   government   must   "protect   the   sanctity   of   marriage."     But   not   one   man   in   the   Bible   was   ever   married   "by   government."     And   numerous   Biblical   heroes   had   wholly-sanctified   marriages   to   more   than   one   woman   --   including   Israel,   David,   and   Moses.       "New   Liberals"   thus   turn   to   the   false   god   of   big   socialist   government   to   supposedly   "protect"   something   which   the   Bible   never   once   used   (i.e.,   government   marriage)   and   to   define   doctrine   in   a   way   which   the   Bible   never   defined   it   (i.e.,   "one   man,   one   woman"). 
"New   Liberals"   used   to   decry   what   they   rightly   called   "special   rights,"   sought   by   homosexual   activists.     But   now,   they   promote   the   Federal   Marriage   Amendment   to   codify   "special   rights"   for   themselves,   for   supposedly-monogamous   "one   man,   one   woman"   government   marriages. 
O   the   hypocrisies! 
The   true   conservative   position   removes   the   false   god   of   big   socialist   government   from   marriage.     That   would   obviously   prevent   legalized   "same-sex   marriage"   from   even   being   possible.    
But   "New   Liberals"   are   directly   empowering   the   very   things   which   conservatives   oppose. 
Seeing   all   this,   true   conservatives   wonder,   "What's   the   next   hypocrisy?"     Will   "New   Liberals"   one   day   be   supporting   "same-sex   marriage"   too? 


Click to order DVD

Latest Headlines

From the Archives of
Pro-Polygamy Articles

2017 Aug 19
Pro-Polygamists Celebrate 17th Annual 'Polygamy Day'
On August 19, 2017, UCAPs (unrelated consenting adult polygamy supporters) are noting and celebrating "Polygamy Day 17" – the seventeenth year of annual Polygamy Day ® celebrations.  

2017 Aug 07
Finding Polygamists 'Guilty of Polygamy' Pushes Canada Backwards
After anti-polygamy law deemed "constitutional" to criminalize in Canada, one lone judge finds two leaders of Bountiful group "guilty of polygamy," even as case involved only adult women and no other real crimes.

2017 Jun 25
Pro-Polygamists Glad that Fugitive Lyle Jeffs was Caught
"It's like déjà vu all over again." Mark Henkel, National Polygamy Advocate and founder of the organization, responds to the news and is available to media for comment.

2017 Feb 01
Supreme Court Declined to Hear 'Sister Wives' Polygamy case
SCOTUS denied even hearing the Brown v. Buhman petition, letting the appeals court's reversal stand, not even hearing any of the pro-polygamy merits, and bringing the whole issue back to the status quo.

Read More
From the Archives of
Pro-Polygamy Articles


Media or Pro-Polygamists

© Copyright 2003 - 2018       ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
"" is an exclusive legal Trademark of ™.