Pro-Polygamy.com ™

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

Click to order DVD
image
Order Your Pro-Polygamy Passport ™

'No Special Rights' for those who Choose 'One Man, One Woman'

Date: Sep 20, 2005
Word Count: 850 words
Cross-Reference: "No special rights", "gay rights", marriage amendment, "one man, one woman"


As the gay rights debate changed in 2003, many supposed-to-be conservatives stopped saying, No special rights - as they instead started demanding their own special rights liberalism.

"No   special   rights"   used   to   be   the   battle   cry   of   all   conservatives.     But   as   the   "gay   rights"   debate   changed   in   2003,   many   supposed-to-be   conservatives   stopped   declaring   "no   special   rights."     Instead,   they   started   demanding   their   own   "special   rights." 
 
In   the   1990s,   the   "gay   rights"   debate   at   the   time   revolved   around   the   creation   of   new   "anti-discrimination"   laws,   designed   with   the   claimed   intent   to   protect   homosexuals   from   discrimination.     After   the   combination   of   U.S.   Supreme   Court   decisions   Romer   v.   Evans   (1996)   and   Lawrence   v.   Texas   (2003)   with   the   subsequent   Massachusetts   State   Supreme   Judicial   Court's   Goodridge   decision   (2003),   the   "gay   rights"   debate   then   evolved   to   "same   sex   marriage."     And   that   changed   everything. 
 
Previously,   during   the   1990s   debate   about   "anti-discrimination"   laws,   conservatives   decried   those   new   laws   as   creating   "special   rights"   for   homosexuals. 
 
Summarizing   that   1990s   debate,   Joseph   Farah   of   WorldNetDaily.com   authored   an   article   in   2000,   titled,   "Special   rights   for   homosexuals."     And   when   conservative   American   Values   president,   Gary   Bauer,   ran   for   U.S.   President,   the   "Strengthen   The   Family"   section   of   his   2000   campaign   literature   expressly   declared   his   opposition   to   "'special   rights'   legislation." 
 
The   underlying   foundation   of   the   "no   special   rights"   argument   always   pertained   to   the   issue   being   a   matter   of   "choice."     Homosexuals   and   their   liberal   supporters,   contrariwise,   claimed   that   they   were   only   asking   for   "equal   rights"   because   homosexuals   are   purportedly   "born   that   way"   -   comparing   it   to   how   victims   of   racism   are   undeniably   born   with   their   skin   color.     Conservatives   responded   by   arguing   the   "no   special   rights"   position,   stating   that   homosexuals   simply   choose   to   "practice"   their   homosexual   relationships.    
 
The   conservative   argument   declares   that,   as   much   as   homosexuals   might   choose   to   "practice"   such   chosen   behavior   and   relationships,   they   can   equally   choose   to   not   "practice"   such   things   too.     Because   "choice"   is   at   issue,   they   argued,   there   should   be   "no   special   rights." 
 
On   April   24,   2000,   the   Family   Research   Council   (FRC)   posted   an   article   affirming   that   view.     It   was   titled,   "The   Gay   Gene:   Going,   Going...Gone."      
 
The   teaser-summary   of   that   article   explained,   "Using   'biology'   as   a   stamp   of   legitimacy,   homosexual   activists   have   pushed   for   special   rights,   from   sex-partner   subsidies   to   'gay   marriage'   to   adoption.   There   is   no   scientific   evidence   to   support   such   claims,   and   it   is   wrong   and   dangerously   misleading   to   say   that   people   are   born   homosexual   and   cannot   change." 
 
Further   verifying   that   point,   the   FRC.org   web-site   then   described   the   article's   author,   Yvette   C.   Schneider,   as   "a   former   lesbian   who   is   now   married." 
 
Two   months   later,   in   June   2000,   a   staff   writer,   Trudy   Chun,   at   Concerned   Women   for   America,   wrote   a   similar   bibliographed   essay,   titled,   "Born   &   Bred:   The   Debate   Over   the   Cause   of   Homosexuality."     It   was   subsequently   updated   five   years   later   on   April   5,   2005,   by   Robert   H.   Knight,   who   re-titled   it,   "Born   or   Bred?   Science   Does   Not   Support   the   Claim   That   Homosexuality   Is   Genetic."      
 
Undoubtedly,   conservatives   openly   continued   that   position   about   choice   over   genetics   -   even   after   the   key   court   decisions   in   2003.     But   those   same   supposed-to-be   conservatives   also   changed   course   as   a   result   of   those   decisions. 
 
Romer   v.   Evans   (1996)   had   set   the   precedent   that   laws   may   not   make   an   "impermissible   targeting"   against   any   classes   of   people,   such   as   homosexuals.     Lawrence   v.   Texas   (2003)   had   set   the   precedent   that   laws   may   not   violate   the   "right   to   privacy"   of   freely-consenting   adults   in   their   choosing   to   do   things   which   others   are   not   also   disallowed. 
 
Later   that   year,   on   November   18,   2003,   the   Massachusetts   State   Supreme   Judicial   Court   decided   the   Goodridge   case.     That   state   court   determined   that   laws   denying   big   government   marriage   to   homosexuals   violated   the   Massachusetts   State   constitution. 
 
Instantaneously,   the   homosexual   debate   fully   transformed   from   being   about   "anti-discrimination"   to   being   about   "gay   marriage."     Not   only   did   those   court   decisions   change   the   debate,   but   they   also   changed   many   conservatives   into   "New   Liberals"   as   they   called   for   a   marriage   amendment   to   constitutionalize   "special   rights"   for   those   who   choose   to   "practice"   "one   man,   one   woman"   "government   marriages."     Not   only   did   they   demand   their   own   "special   rights   legislation,"   but   they   actually   wanted   that   marital   socialism   to   be   codified   in   the   U.S.   Constitution. 
 
However,   just   as   the   conservative   argument   had   previously   explained   how   homosexuals   merely   choose   their   relationships,   the   same   argument   equally   applies   to   those   who   choose   their   "one   man,   one   woman"   relationships.     Either   way,   it   is   a   choice   to   "practice"   or   not   to   "practice"   that   form   of   relationship.     And   there   is   certainly   no   genetic   basis   which   biologically   "requires"   anyone   to   "practice"   a   "one   man,   one   woman"   relationship.     Just   as   individuals   have   free   will   to   choose   to   "practice"   a   "one   man,   one   woman"   relationship,   they   equally   have   as   much   free   will   to   choose   to   not   "practice"   it   too   -   whether   celibacy   or   polygamy. 
 
Thus,   directly   betraying   the   "no   special   rights"   argument   during   the   "anti-discrimination"   debate   back   in   the   1990s,   those   same   supposed-to-be   conservatives   were   later   calling   for   their   own   "special   rights"   in   the   "same   sex   marriage"   debate   from   2003   onward. 
 
But   true   conservatism   rejects   such   profound   hypocrisy   and   big   government   liberalism. 
 
For   true   conservatives,   including   pro-polygamists,   the   argument   is   unchanged   -   regardless   of   the   debate.     Just   as   there   should   be   "no   special   rights"   liberalism   for   those   who   choose   "same   sex   marriage,"   there   should   also   be   "no   special   rights"   liberalism   for   those   who   choose   "one   man,   one   woman." 


###


Bibliographic URLs:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=14989 
 
 
http://www.amvalues.org 
PFD file: http://www.4president.org/brochures/garybauer2000.pdf 
 
 
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS00D2 
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS00D2&v=PRINT 
Date found at: http://www.frc.org/itemtype.cfm?it=IS&row=21 
 
 
http://www.cultureandfamily.org/articledisplay.asp?id=5458&department=CFI&categoryid=papers 
PDF file: http://www.cwfa.org/images/content/bornorbred.pdf 
 
 
http://www.pro-polygamy.com/articles.php?news=0004 
http://www.pro-polygamy.com/articles.php?news=0012 
http://www.pro-polygamy.com/articles.php?news=0008 




image
image
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 dj vu all over again." Mark Henkel, National Polygamy Advocate and founder of the TruthBearer.org 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

Subscribe

Media or Pro-Polygamists

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