Marriage: Polygamy ACLU, while removing Christianity from public square, pushing "Gay marriage," now pushes for polygamy too

In the USA, the same old outfit that brawt us so many reductions in liberties, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), is at it again. These are the guys who try to stop every Christmas manifestation in public spaces, no matter what the composition of the community is in religious preference or the personal self-identifications of its citizens. Any howler or gaggle can stop the installation of a Nativity creche, any public Cross can be brawt, any plague honouring the foundation of American legal roots in the Ten Commandments from the Hebew Bible, any public prayer at a town council can be challenged in court because of the "sensitivities" of some minority no matter how small, according to the practice of ACLU. It has an anti-Christian agenda, but it doesn't target public expression of minority religions with the same zeal and aplomb.

After many battles to redefine the meaning at law of marriage (1woman1man, promised intention of permanence, promised exclusivity to only the one partner), common law and codified law alike in our jurisprudential tradition, now ACLU has joined to its constant attacks upon marriage, its new program in support of polygamy. The president of ACLU, Nadine Strossen claimed polygamy is a "fundamental right." Stop. Note that Strossen is not claiming polygamy is a constitutional right; rather, the alien concept of a right more fundamental than one established in the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution is being appealed - and it is not "natural law" (a concept of certain branches of Catholic philosophy, now adopted by some Protestants). Nor is it an appeal from what's codified to some earlier acknowledged legal source of the Western and Hebrew traditions - namely, Scripture. Nor is it an appeal to the customary law rooted in the tribal practices of Brits before Christianity, or Native American tribes before the British Common Law came to this continent with white settlers. Rather, these "fundamental rights" are rooted elsewhere that rarely explains itself; it is a rhetorical appeal, not an explanation we get for the claims of these revisionists of very meaning of the foundations of Western legal conceptualization.

The Yale Daily News, student run newspaper at Yale University, reported Strossen's remarks, which WorldNetDaily passes on:

The ACLU chief said her organization defends "the freedom of choice for mature, consenting individuals," making it "the guardian of liberty ... defend[ing] the fundamental rights of all people."

Some opponents of same-sex marriage -- including, notably, Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa. -- have argued that its acceptance will create a slipperly slope, leading to the sanctioning of other types of relationships, including polygamy.

Santorum was correct about the American situation. And also in Canada, where the courts have taken away the power of the electorate to determine such matters, falsely reading into the Charter of Rights when the separation of the Canadian legal system from the British occurred (altho in English-speaking Canada, the common law tradition still has some force), falsely reading into the Charter the right to "Gay marriage" on the basis of a specious and false doctrine of equality, the polygamists have now come forward to claim their "fundamental rights" ACLU-style as well. And the Canadian polygamists will probably be supported by all the "Gay marriage" forces as well. And the Canadian courts as well, which are steeped in ACLU-type jurisprudence doctrine. Obviously as well, all is not well.

No one should be deceived by the little charade going on in regard to the the Supreme Court of Canada. Paul Martin promised to have an open process of appointing Supreme Court judges (the process could hardly be conducted by the Canadian Senate, as in the US, because the entirety of the Canadian Senate is appointed by the Prime Minister); but the deceit of Martin and his Minister of Injustice, Irwin Cottler, quickly became obvious when they appointed two new judges and had a mockery of plubic involvement that involved a presentation, rather than a hearing where the appointments were scrutinized with questions by someone other than the governments' own minions. So, to the Court, Martin/Cottler elevated judges already known for their alignment with the demotion of the traditional legal definition of marriage. Then they petitioned the court they had just stacked, for a ruling on whether Federal approval of "Gay marriage" was okay (since the Supreme Courts of several provinces and territories had already ruled in favour in their jurisdictions with no provincial parliamentary votes). The Canadian Supreme Court, canny old wags that they be, shocked Martin by saying Parliament had to decide the matter for itself. Only afterward, could a wrong decision by Parliament be contested before the illustrious Supremes, and thus only afterward could the Supreme Court take on the issue to over-rule parliament, and only then could it fill in the dots and fulfill the task for which it was stacked in the first place.

Hey, everybody, polygamy is on its way to legitimation in Canada. But maybe not in the USA.

In the US, ACLU will get the run of its polygamous life. A whole new constellation of organizations voicing the legal concerns of the disenfranchised in the country, have arisen, mostly from within the Christian communities. Perhaps now the foremost of these organizations, fiting to maintain a balance against the encroachments of judicial activism and ACLU's brand of fundamentalism that favours the exploitation of women and children thru polygamy, is the ADF, the Alliance Defense Fund. Canada seems to have no lawyer group commensurate to ADF.

Alliance Defense Fund - some cases won as reported by National Public Radio