• Text smaller
  • Text bigger

White House press secretary Jay Carney is having nothing to do with questions about polygamy, even though as president, Barack Obama has done more to advance the cause of alternative sexual lifestyles in the United States than any other president.

His Department of Justice has decided not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which currently is the law of the land. Obama has declared special days and events to recognize alternative sexual lifestyles. He’s appointed probably more individuals choosing those lifestyles to public office than any other president. He’s allowed homosexuals to serve openly in the U.S. military. And the list goes on.

But at today’s daily news briefing at the White House, Carney simply skipped over a question from Les Kinsolving, WND’s correspondent at the White House, about polygamy.

Carney declined to recognize Kinsolving, but Kinsolving inserted a question into the dialogue anyway, much as reporters shout questions to politicians when they are within earshot.

“How does the president stand on polygamy?” Kinsolving asked as Carney was closing his remarks about the”targeted killings policy” Obama uses as part of his national security effort.

Carney’s response was to call on another reporter.

“How does he stand on polygamy? Could you answer that question,” came the followup from Kinsolving.

Carney repeated the other reporter’s name: “Kristen.”

“So you want to dodge that issue,” was the comment that followed, according to the White House transcript of the exchange.

The questions from Kinsolving followed shortly after two consecutive reporters had raised the issue of the same-sex “marriage” plank in the platform for the Democratic Party this year.

Kinsolving had wanted to follow up with a question about Time magazine’s extensive current article about polygamy, titled “I Do, I Do, I Do, I Do” and featuring the story of Alina, Valeria and Vicki, the “three wives of Joe Darger” in Utah.

The article portrays polygamy as having a “rising cultural profile.”

The report suggests that the “once-secretive plural families” are beginning to fight for recognition, much as homosexuals have done over the past decades.

The article quotes former presidential hopeful Rick Santorum saying, “If you think it’s OK for two men to marry, then you have to differentiate with me as to why it’s not OK for three.”

The concept already has gained traction in other parts of the world, specifically Canada, which is further along in the campaign for lifestyles with sexual alternatives. There, polygamists went to court to claim rights based on the fact the nation already recognized same-sex couples.

And even though it was declared by the Republican Party in 1854 as one of the “twin relics of barbarism,” along with slavery, there’s been a resurgence of accepting attitudes.

In fact, when the California Supreme Court ruled in 2010 in favor of homosexual marriage, a case now being forwarded to the U.S. Supreme Court, one dissenting justice warned that it would be logical to expect support for polygamy soon would follow.

And a recent WND/Wenzel Poll, conducted exclusively for WND by the public-opinion research and media consulting company Wenzel Strategies, indicates there is a surprisingly high level of support developing across the U.S.

A full 22 percent of the respondents said there was no legal justification for denying polygamy, based on the fact that legislation and judicial decisions have affirmed the validity of same-sex “marriage” for homosexuals.

Another 18.7 percent were uncertain.

Further, 18 percent of the respondents said there was no moral justification for denying polygamy, and 14.5 percent were uncertain.

The scientific telephone survey has a margin of error of 3.72 percentage points.

While only 6.1 percent said polygamy is a “preferred” lifestyle, another 15.9 percent said it is an “equally valid lifestyle.” Across America, that would mean tens of millions accept the idea.

“When the concept of polygamy was introduced to the respondent, one in five Americans said they saw it as either a preferred lifestyle or an equally acceptable lifestyle,” said Fritz Wenzel in his analysis of the results.

“About this same percentage said they saw no legal or moral justification for prohibiting the practice. While there was significant objection to this practice on moral grounds by conservatives, about one in five respondents across the philosophical spectrum said that, given legal rulings paving the way for gay marriage, they could not object to similar legal findings on polygamy.”

The move had been predicted in 2010 by California Supreme Court Justice Marvin Baxter, but he estimated the time frame would be 10 to 20 years.

His dissent came in the high court’s opinion that created same-sex marriage in California. The decision just months later was overturned by voters who once again passed an amendment to define marriage in the state Constitution as a relationship between one man and one woman.

The vote set up a federal court lawsuit that resulted in a homosexual judge declaring that the amendment to limit marriage was unconstitutional.

The ruling from “gay” judge Vaughn Walker, who stood to benefit from his own court decision, is being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Baxter warned in the state court ruling, “The bans on incestuous and polygamous marriages are ancient and deeprooted, and, as the majority suggests, they are supported by strong considerations of social policy.”

He continued: “Our society abhors such relationships, and the notion that our laws could not forever prohibit them seems preposterous. Yet here, the majority overturns, in abrupt fashion, an initiative statute confirming the equally deeprooted assumption that marriage is a union of partners of the opposite sex. The majority does so by relying on its own assessment of contemporary community values, and by inserting in our Constitution an expanded definition of the right to marry that contravenes express statutory law.”

He warned: “Who can say that, in 10, 15 or 20 years, an activist court might not rely on the majority’s analysis to conclude, on the basis of a perceived evolution in community values, that the laws prohibiting polygamous and incestuous marriages were no longer constitutionally justified?”

The issue of polygamy resurfaced recently in Utah, where a federal judge ruled there is enough evidence to allow a polygamous family – made famous by a television show – to sue over the state’s bigamy law.

It was reported U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups dismissed Utah’s governor and attorney general from the case but allowed the suit to proceed against Utah County Attorney Jeffrey Buhman. The AG had threatened to prosecute Kody Brown and his four wives – Meri, Janelle, Christine and Robyn – after the TLC show “Sister Wives” debuted in September 2010.

The family alleges the bigamy prohibition violates its constitutional rights to due process, equal protection, free exercise of religion, free speech and freedom of association.

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.