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 ™

A 'Conservative' Shows Her Liberalism, Opposing Polygamy Rights

Date: Feb 16, 2006
Word Count: 3000 words
Cross-Reference: Debra Saunders, "same sex marriage", polygamy rights

"Conservative" columnist Debra Saunders used the same "liberal media" tactics she otherwise decried, deliberately misreported about the polygamy rights movement, embraced re-definitions of marriage, revealed her Marxist opposition to free market principles, and - just as pro-polygamists had forewarned - even supported "same sex marriage."

Pro-polygamists   have   long   pointed   out   the   numerous   hypocrisies   of   many   supposed-to-be   conservatives,   calling   such   big   government   "liberals   in   conservative   clothing"   as   "New   Liberals."     The   hypocrisies   were   becoming   so   extensive   that   pro-polygamists   had   even   forewarned   that   some   "New   Liberals"   would   eventually   even   support   "same   sex   marriage"   -   the   ultimate   hypocrisy. 
To   the   chagrin   of   true   conservatives,   a   supposed-to-be   conservative   syndicated   columnist,   Debra   Saunders,   has   already   brought   that   forewarning   to   pass. 
For   those   who   do   not   know   her,   Debra   Saunders   is   an   opinion   writer   for   the   San   Francisco   Chronicle.     Syndicated   through,   her   opinion   pieces   appear   in   several   major   U.S.   newspapers,   including   The   Washington   Times. 
On   February   16,   2005,   Debra   Saunders   even   appeared   on   the   Fox   News   Channel's   program,   "The   O'Reilly   Factor."     She   was   the   "visiting   conservative"   for   the   episode,   titled,   "Factor   Investigation:   A   No   Spin   Look   at   the   Print   Media." 
It   is   highly   significant   to   note   that   Bill   O'Reilly's   own   acts   of   "liberal   media"   tactics   had   actually   been   "outed"   that   next   day,   by   a   February   17,   2005,   op-ed   distributed   to   the   media   by,   titled,   "Conservative   Media   Acts   'Liberal'   Too"   -   but   for   a   different   reason.     Specifically,   in   the   previous   week's   February   9,   2005,   episode,   Bill   O'Reilly   knowingly   used   the   same   lopsided   tactics   about   which   he   otherwise   calls   "liberal"   as   usually   employed   by   liberal   media.     He   used   such   lopsided   anti-polygamy   propaganda   even   though   numerous   op-eds   from   had   been   distributed   to   his   show,   informing   him   of   a   true   conservative   position   and   polygamists'   pro-family   perspective.     His   "New   Liberal"   show   denied   a   true   conservative   voice   to   rebut   the   lopsided   falsehoods   made   during   the   episode. 
So,   it   subsequently   becomes   no   surprise   that   Debra   Saunders   was   the   supposed-to-be   "conservative"   guest   for   a   February   16,   2005,   appearance   on   "The   O'Reilly   Factor."     She   was   there   to   confirm   the   depth   of   liberal   lopsidedness   in   the   print   media   -   which   does,   in   fact,   exist,   of   course.     O'Reilly   was   rightly   concerned   about   the   "group   think"   mentality   arising   out   of   so   many   writers   repeating   the   same   slanted   falsehoods   and   then   afterward   the   views   become   accepted   as   if   true.     Concurring,   Saunders   pointed   out   how   such   lopsided   liberalism   then   deliberately   deceives   audiences   into   thinking   that   the   liberal   slant   of   issues   is   supposedly   true   and   factual.     She   told   O'Reilly,   "And   when   things   are   skewed,   what   happens   is   liberal   looks   like   it's   mainstream   because   so   many   of   the   columnists   are   liberal.   So   that   must   be   mainstream." 
From   that   statement,   it   is   clear   that   Saunders   fully   understands   the   deceptive   "liberal   media"   tactic   of   "group   think"   repetition   of   falsehoods   and   of   relying   on   so   many   other   like-minded   published   falsehood-tellers   to   further   spread   the   lie   as   if   it   is   truth.      
A   year   later,   when   Debra   Saunders   reacted   to   the   polygamy   rights   movement   in   an   anti-polygamy   commentary   she   wrote   for   many   news   media   souces   throughout   the   U.S.,   the   significance   of   her   admitted   knowledge   of   that   deceptive   "liberal   media"   tactic   cannot   be   understated. 
On   January   13,   2006,   the   Christian   polygamy   organization,,   had   issued   a   press   release   distributed   to   the   media,   including   Debra   Saunders.     It   was   titled,   "Government   Study   in   Canada   Recommends   De-criminalizing   Polygamy."     That   press   release   reported   how   pro-polygamists   applaud   the   study's   findings   that   laws   criminalizing   polygamy   should   be   ended   and   that   side-issues   of   abuse   must   be   appropriately   addressed   as   separate   issues.     Less   than   a   week   after   that   press   release   had   been   distributed   to   her,   Debra   Saunders   wrote   her   January   19,   2006,   column,   "A   Giant   Step   Backward   for   Women." 
Debra   Saunders   stated   that,   previously,   she   had   never   thought   the   purported   "slippery   slope   to   polygamy"   argument   by   other   supposed-to-be   conservatives   was   ever   really   valid.     But   now   things   had   changed   for   her. 
She   wrote,   "The   limit   for   marriages   would   remain   two,   I   argued.   Two   doesn't   mean   three   or   four." 
Saunders   continued,   "Wrong.   In   these   politically   correct   times,   do-gooders   expand   definitions   until   words   --   or   institutions   --   lose   all   meaning.     Marriage   can   mean   what   you   want   it   to   mean.   And   if   you   don't   prosecute   all   crimes   in   a   category,   you   can't   prosecute   one." 
Saunders's   hysteria   blinded   her   to   the   silliness   of   her   hypocrisy.     By   her   own   words,   since   "do-gooders"   expand   definitions   to   mean   what   they   want   words   to   mean,   then   logically,   "do-badders"   shrink   definitions   to   mean   what   they   want   words   to   mean.     And   likewise,   the   logic   of   Saunders's   statement   emphatically   declares   that   anyone   who   changes   definitions   -   whether   expanding   or   shrinking   -   to   mean   what   they   want   the   words   to   mean   are   the   ones   being   politically   correct.     Conservative-speak   translation:   definition-changers   are   liberals. 
Anti-polygamists   were   the   original,   politically   correct,   "do-badder"   liberals   to   use   big   socialist   government   to   make   marriage   "mean   what   they   wanted   it   to   mean."     They   sought   to   shrink   the   total   definition   of   marriage   by   trying   to   remove   polygamy   from   its   otherwise   historically   and   Biblically   proven   place   within   the   complete   definition   of   marriage.     As   polygamous   marriage   pre-dates   the   very   notion   of   government   itself,   the   very   idea   of   allowing   big   government   to   liberally   re-define   marriage   as   excluding   polygamy   is,   by   conservative   definition,   the   very   liberalism   that   specifically   prepared   the   way   -   in   the   first   place   -   for   any   subsequent   liberal   re-definitions   of   marriage   by   big   government.     Factually   speaking,   anti-polygamy   is   the   original   big   government   liberalism   that   led   to   the   imaginary   invention   of   "same   sex   marriage." 
So,   by   Saunders's   own   words,   her   anti-polygamy   support,   and   true   conservative   terms,   she   utterly   self-defined   herself   as   a   liberal.    
However,   the   contents   of   the   press   release   by   the   organization   about   the   Canadian   study   for   de-criminalizing   polygamy   was   only   the   first   half   of   what   instigated   Saunders's   changed   point   of   view.     She   was   also   responding   to   a   front-page   report   about   that   same   organization   in   the   Sunday,   December   11,   2005,   issue   of   The   Washington   Times.     In   a   special   report,   titled,   "The   Marriage   of   Many,"   Cheryl   Wetzstein,   the   national   reporter   for   family   and   welfare   issues,   reported   on   the   growing   polygamy   rights   movement. 
Wetzstein's   report   opened   with   the   following   quoted   sound-bite. 
"'Polygamy   rights   is   the   next   civil   rights   battle.'   So   goes   the   motto   of   a   Christian   pro-polygamy   organization   that   has   been   watching   the   battle   over   homosexual   'marriage'   rights   with   keen   interest.    
"'We're   coming.     We   are   next.     There's   no   doubt   about   it,   we   are   next,'   says   Mark   Henkel,   founder   of   ." 
Wetzstein   further   reported,   "Two   polygamous   families   associated   with   Mr.   Henkel's   organization   agreed   to   speak   by   telephone   with   The   Washington   Times."     She   then   reported   the   following   quotes   from   those   two   families. 
"If   polygamy   were   legal,   there   would   be   more   stable   families,   fewer   single   mothers   and   less   welfare,   says   'Poppa,'   who   lives   in   the   Pacific   Northwest   with   'Momma,'   his   wife   of   34   years,   and   'Mom,'   a   single   mother   who   joined   them   in   'marriage'   five   years   ago.    
"Contrary   to   stereotypes,   Poppa   says,   his   family   is   self-sufficient   and   active   in   their   community.   All   the   adults   work   and   share   in   household   duties   and   the   care   of   six   children.   'We   pool   our   money   and   our   resources   and   whenever   one   [adult]   has   to   take   off,   another   will   watch   the   kids,'   he   says. 
"Momma   says   she   welcomed   Mom   into   the   family   because   she   felt   compassion   for   the   37-year-old   single   mother   and   knew   'my   husband   could   take   care   of   both   of   us.' 
"'He's   always   had   more   love   than   I   could   absorb,'   Momma   says.     Good   polygamous   men,   she   adds,   'are   not   trying   to   create   a   collection   [of   wives].     They're   trying   to   make   sure   this   [single]   woman   has   a   support   mechanism   for   her   and   her   children.'"    
In   another   quote   with   the   same   family,   Wetzstein's   article   reported   "Poppa"   saying,   "Polygamy   is   family.   It's   us.   It's   a   unity   and   identity   of   a   family   group.   ...   It   is   the   ultrafamily."    
Wetzstein   also   cited   some   quotes   from   the   second   family,   who   similarly   involve   a   single   mom   and   children   joining   an   existing   family.     "'The   only   difference   between   us   and   any   other   normal   American   family...   --   it's   all   the   same,   except   it's   just   a   husband   and   a   wife   and   a   wife,'   says   the   second   'Poppa'... 
"'We're   extremely   pro-family,   we're   extremely   pro-children,'   says   Momma,   who   is   36   and   joined   Poppa,   29,   and   'Mamasita,'   28,   at   their   request   six   years   ago.    
"They   say   that   theirs   is   a   harmonious,   loving   home   --   'we're   sensitive   to   each   other,'   Mamasita   says   --   and   having   another   adult   in   the   house   has   allowed   both   women   to   share   child   care,   go   to   college   and   get   good   jobs."    
Clearly,   those   (non-Mormon)   Christian   "ultrafamilies"   succinctly   explained   how   their   form   of   consenting-adult   polygamous   families   had   afforded   them   better   opportunities   and   life   improvements   -   which   they   would   not   otherwise   have   been   able   to   obtain   individually. 
Despite   such   genuine   testimony   in   that   report,   Debra   Saunders   reacted   with   a   virtual   shriek.     In   her   January   19,   2006,   commentary,   one   particular   paragraph   exceeded   the   hysteria   of   all   of   her   other   comments,   unleashing   a   rhetorical   machine-gun   volley   of   falsehood,   propaganda,   and   outright   liberalism. 
Saunders   declared,   "The   Washington   Times   interviewed   polygamous   Mormons   who   argued   they   lead   happy,   harmonious   lives.   That   may   be,   but   the   practice   is   poison   for   cultures   at   large.   Rich   men   marry   many   wives.   Poor   men   do   not.   Women   have   few   opportunities   and   limited   rights.   It   can't   be   good   for   the   kids.   Consider   polygamy's   most   famous   son:   Osama   bin   Laden,   whose   father   sired   54   children   with   22   wives." 
Inspecting   one   statement   at   a   time,   each   comment   in   that   slanderous   paragraph   reveals   much   about   Debra   Saunders's   anti-conservative   views   and   "liberal   media"   tactics. 
Saunders   opened   it   with,   "The   Washington   Times   interviewed   polygamous   Mormons."     Not   only   is   that   statement   knowingly   false,   but   it   is   actually   part   of   a   standard   anti-polygamy   propaganda   strategy.   That   well-known   strategy   seeks   to   confuse   people   into   thinking   that   all   polygamists   everywhere   are   part   of   specific,   individual   Mormon   polygamous   groups   where   real   crimes   have   truly   occurred.     (Even   all   Mormon   polygamists   are   not   part   of   those   individual   groups,   either.)     Contrary   to   Saunders's   assertion,   though,   Wetzstein's   report   clearly   identified   the   organization   as   Christian   -   not   Mormon.     That   report   also   included   the   full   internet   web-address   of   .     The   front-page   of   that   web-site   clearly   states   that   the   organization   is   not   about   any   form   of   Mormonism   at   all.     As   such,   Saunders's   labeling   of   the   reported   Christian   polygamists   as   "Mormons"   was   more   than   a   purposeful   falsehood.     It   is   a   well-established   anti-polygamy   strategy   to   deliberately   misinform   readers,   using   the   same   kind   of     "liberal   media"   tactics   and   "group   think"   that   she   decried   on   "The   O'Reilly   Factor"   in   2005. 
Continuing   again,   but   in   more   entirety,   Saunders   wrote,   "The   Washington   Times   interviewed   polygamous   Mormons   who   argued   they   lead   happy,   harmonious   lives.   That   may   be,   but   the   practice   is   poison   for   cultures   at   large."     Passing   right   over   the   testimony   of   happy   lives   in   the   reported   Christian   polygamy   form   of   polygamy   (and   ignoring   its   extremely   positive   potential   impact   for   society)   as   actually   cited   from   Wetzstein's   report,   Saunders   instead   moved   on   to   make   inapplicable   speculation   about   "cultures   at   large."     She   neither   possesses   any   basis   in   fact   nor   has   any   empirical   evidence   with   which   to   substantiate   such   opinion,   of   course. 
In   the   next   two   sentences,   Saunders   more   fully   revealed   her   unquestionably   liberal   views.   She   wrote,   "Rich   men   marry   many   wives.   Poor   men   do   not."     In   that   one   fell   swoop,   Saunders   revealed   that   she   is   a   misogynist,   a   misoandrist,   and   a   socialist. 
To   her,   money   is   all   that   motivates   or   matters   for   marriage.     The   misogynist   Saunders   hates   women   so   passionately   that   she   thinks   all   women,   even   good   women,   are   either   so   pathetic,   so   helpless,   or   so   conniving   that   they   are   nothing   more   than   prostitutes   who   only   marry   for   money.     The   misoandrist   Saunders   loathes   men   so   much   that   she   thinks   that   all   men,   even   good   men,   only   want   to   buy   women   in   "marriage"   as   products   for   consumption.     And   the   socialist   Saunders   so   despises   laissez   faire   free   market   principles   that   her   class-envying   Marxism   disables   her   from   realizing   that   competitively   motivating   men   to   grow   up   and   mature   into   having   better   marriageable   husband-qualities   would   actually   improve   the   overall   caliber   of   husbands   for   women   all   around.     (De-criminalized   polygamy   does   not   mean   that   all   men   become   polygynous,   after   all.)     As   any   true   conservative   knows   well,   the   class-envying   opposition   to   genuinely   good,   free   market   competition   -   which   can   and   does   improve   overall   quality   -   is   firmly   grounded   in   the   anti-conservative   ideology   of   socialist   liberalism. 
Saunders   continued,   "Women   have   few   opportunities   and   limited   rights."     That   same   Washington   Times   article   clearly   disproved   that   claim.     The   two   Christian   polygamous   families   quoted   in   that   report   made   it   clear   that   their   situation   improved   the   life   and   opportunities   for   both   the   former   single   mothers   who   joined   the   polygamous   families   and   for   the   first   mothers   too.     As   the   women   had   indicated,   having   each   other   available   with   whom   to   trade   time   in   caring   for   the   children   and   for   pooling   together   their   combined   incomes   as   a   larger   family,   the   women   were   able   to   obtain   their   desired   college   educations.     Polygamy   gave   them   choices   they   would   not   otherwise   have   had.     Without   their   "ultrafamily"   and   its   dedicated   loving   support,   they   could   neither   have   afforded   nor   have   had   time   to   obtain   those   life   improvements.     As   their   lives   prove,   polygamy   actually   does   present   more   opportunities   and   rights   for   women. 
Having   no   basis   of   experience   about   polygamy,   though,   Saunders   then   made   the   outrageous   declaration,   "It   can't   be   good   for   the   kids."     Current   society,   with   its   illogical   anti-polygamy   hostility,   instead   forces   many   children   into   being   raised   by   low-paid   strangers.     It   also   pushes   many   abandoned   single   moms   into   a   "hamster   in   a   wheel"   trap   of   working   just   to   pay   for   the   daycare   -   or   they   otherwise   just   "go   on   welfare."     Yet,   Saunders's   statement   implicitly   declares   that   those   modern   societal   tragedies   must   be   "better   for   the   kids"   than   having   some   parent   always   home   by   their   own   choice   and   freedom.       Certainly,   having   a   good   father   -   one   who   actually   wants   marriage   and   fatherhood   and   who   is   not   afraid   of   such   joys   -   is   far   better   for   children   than   an   absent,   marriage-phobic   "baby's   daddy,"   as   so   rampantly   occurs   in   these   "modern"   times. 
Finally,   Saunders   ended   the   slanderous   paragraph   with   absurd   and   inflammatory   irrelevance,   "Consider   polygamy's   most   famous   son:   Osama   bin   Laden,   whose   father   sired   54   children   with   22   wives."     Using   the   same   absurd   logic,   anecdotal   examples   of   serial   killers   born   of   monogamous   parents   would   supposedly   equally   imply   that   monogamy   had   created   those   hideous   monsters,   too.     Obviously,   such   an   attempted   association   is   utterly   ridiculous   and   exceedingly   inflammatory. 
Saunders's   article   clearly   "outed"   her   propagandistic   liberalism. 
More   than   just   her   beliefs,   though,   Saunders's   tactics   also   reveal   how   much   she,   herself,   acts   like   the   very   liberal   media   she   purported   to   oppose.      
Indeed,   Debra   Saunders   is   not   unfamiliar   with   the   polygamy   rights   movement.   She   has   long   been   on   the   media   list   of     The   op-eds   and   press   releases   from   the   polygamy   rights   movement   had   been   distributed   to   her   for   some   time.     Having   such   long-term   knowledge,   she   expressly   knows   that   her   claims   about   the   more   typically   conservative   and   very   pro-family   polygamy   rights   movement   were   entirely   false. 
Even   so,   after   Saunders's   January   19,   2006,   commentary   first   appeared,   the   organization   compassionately   extended   an   act   of   goodwill   and   good   faith   to   her   by   contacting   her.     She   was   patiently   given   time   and   more   than   one   opportunity   to   correct   her   "possibly-innocent   mistakes."    
However,   she   had   exploited   the   "liberal   media"   style   of   "group   think"   of   supposed-to-be   conservative   news   sources   to   unthinkingly   duplicate   her   obvious   liberalism,   from   to   to   The   Washington   Times. 
Accordingly,   Saunders   refused   the   goodwill   from   and   was   simply   not   going   to   correct   herself   whatsoever.     She   knew   what   she   was   doing. 
Beyond   the   liberal   beliefs   and   intentional   misrepresentations,   Saunders   ultimately   took   her   "outed"   liberalism   to   the   next   level.     She   actually   embraced   "same   sex   marriage." 
This   new   profound   hypocrisy   was   not   a   surprise   to   conservative   pro-polygamists   who   had   forewarned   about   it   two   years   ago,   however.     On   May   15,   2004,   another   op-ed   which   had   been   sent   out   to   the   media   by   was   titled,   "'New   Liberal'   Hypocrisies   on   Government   Marriage."     After   proving   the   numerous   big   government   liberal   positions   of   supposed-to-be   conservatives   regarding   marriage,   identifying   those   political   hypocrites   as   "New   Liberals,"   the   op-ed   concluded   by   expressing   the   following   forewarning.     "Seeing   all   this,   true   conservatives   wonder,   'What's   the   next   hypocrisy?'     Will   'New   Liberals'   one   day   be   supporting   'same-sex   marriage'   too?" 
Debra   Saunders   is   the   first   "outed"   "New   Liberal"   to   have   brought   that   forewarned   concern   to   pass.     In   the   sentences   immediately   prior   to   her   aforementioned   slanderous   paragraph,   Saunders   actually   declared,   "Extending   marital   protections   to   same-sex   couples   bestows   equality.     Extending   protections   to   unequal   unions   protects   inequality." 
As   the   quotes   in   Wetzstein's   report   had   proved,   polygamy   empowers   women.     Women   are   empowered   to   have   greater   and   more   choices.     They   do   not   have   to   settle   for   marriage-phobic   "boys"   or   otherwise   simply   male   low-lifes.     Women   can   more   easily   have   the   choice   to   either   raise   children   themselves   or   to   pursue   career   goals   (confident   that   their   own   children   are   being   cared   for   by   family   adults).   Obviously,   any   intelligent   person   can   immediately   realize   that   modern   American   women,   if   they   do   choose   a   consenting-adult   polygamous   family,   can   easily   rally   together   to   ensure   that   their   husband   has   no   thoughts   of   somehow   oppressing   their   rights.       Anyone   who   does   not   realize   that   fact   is   someone   who   does   not   know   women!     Saunders's   absurd   straw   man   suggestion   is   simply   not   going   to   happen   in   most   cases.     Truly,   such   women   can   more   ably   ensure   that   a   good   and   pro-marriage   man   is   in   the   family   -   for   both   them   and   the   children.    
Yet   in   stark   contrast   to   all   those   advantages,   the   imagined   invention   of   "same   sex   marriage"   offers   none   of   those   empowerments   and   equality-enhancements   for   women   who   want   a   husband   or   for   children   having   good   parents   of   both   genders. 
Consequently,   while   slandering   consenting-adult,   pro-woman   polygamy   as   "unequal,"   Debra   Saunders   instead   supported   the   biological   impossibility   of   "same   sex   marriage"   as   "equality."       By   her   own   arguments,   she   is   a   "do   badder"   liberal   who   shrinks   the   actual   definition   of   marriage   to   exclude   polygamy.     And   she   is   a   "do   gooder"   liberal   who   expands   the   actual   definition   to   add   the   biological   impossibility   of   "same   sex   marriage."     Bottom   line   in   conservative   terms,   she   is   a   politically   correct   liberal   who   supports   re-defining   the   meaning   of   marriage   to   mean   whatever   she   wants   it   to   mean.     Saunders   has   hereby   supported   "same   sex   marriage." 
True   conservative   pro-polygamists   had   forewarned   that   such   new   hypocrisy   would   inevitably   happen.     "New   Liberal"   Debra   Saunders   indubitably   brought   their   forewarning   to   pass.


Bibliographic URLs: distributed articles 
Debra Saunders 
The O'Reilly Factor,2933,147839,00.html,2933,146975,00.html  
Wetzstein's report in The Washington Times 
Examples, Duplications of Saunders liberal commentary

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 ™.