• Text smaller
  • Text bigger

Did any homosexuals ever go to jail for committing same-sex marriage?

Of course not.

That’s part of the absurdity of the same-sex marriage argument that laws defining marriage violate equal protection laws. They do not. Anyone in the United States who wants to get married to a member of the opposite sex has an equal right and equal protection to do just that.

But do you know there are people in prison in the United States today for practicing polygamy?

Some of them, in fact, have been incarcerated for a very long time.

Take the case of Tom Green, for instance.

He’s a Utah man with five wives who served six years in prison for his crime.

Now, I don’t like what Tom Green did. I don’t approve of it. But what can a U.S. Supreme Court majority that says banning same-sex marriage is a violation of the equal protection clause of the Constitution say to Tom Green and other proponents and practitioners of polygamy?

In other words, what is the argument against polygamy in 2013?

I haven’t heard one from any proponent of same-sex marriage in a long time. When I debated same-sex marriage proponents years ago, one of them suggested to me there just wasn’t any demand for polygamy. I found that response shocking. The truth is that there is far more demand for polygamy in the United States and worldwide than there is for same-sex marriage. It’s not even close.

So why is one “lifestyle” affirmed by the popular culture, the political class and the judiciary and the other is ignored – even to the point of jailing those who dare to practice it?

This is not a rhetorical question.

I really want an answer from someone who believes the right, just, moral course of action is to redefine marriage as an institution between any two people, regardless of their sex.

It’s a question that deserves an answer as we march, without thought, into a brave new world of sexual revolution, casting aside 6,000 years of human tradition inspired by God’s law and an institution that has formed the cornerstone of civilization.

What do the same-sex marriage advocates say when polygamists use their argument to make the case for their lifestyle?

Why are they mute?

Why do they evade the question?

Why do same-sex marriage advocates claim homosexuals have the power to redefine marriage in their image but polygamists do not?

And what about the sexual consent laws that lengthened Tom Green’s sentence?

Aren’t they on the way out, too. In fact, some states have already lowered the age of consent to 13. And aren’t such laws just archaic hand-me-downs from an earlier era of outdated religious scruples?

This is the trouble you have when unelected men and women in black robes think they are wiser than the people – wiser than the legislatures that are specifically charged with making laws in our republican system of limited, representative government.

Once again, the U.S. Supreme Court determined, by a 5-4 vote, that we don’t live under the rule of law in America. Instead, we have a “living Constitution” that can only be interpreted by the all-knowing, all-seeing, semi-divine arbiters of right and wrong. It determined that lawmakers and representative government are irrelevant.

Not only that, but the majority opinion actually determined that anyone who disagrees with the ruling is a bigot.

It should have been no surprise. The author of that opinion, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, wrote a similar majority ruling 10 years ago to the day, striking down Texas’ sodomy laws because they demean “the lives of homosexual persons.”

“The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime,” he wrote.

Again, what about polygamists?

Why is it that their lifestyle can be demeaned?

If there is a constitutional right to have homosexual sex, how can one deny there is a constitutional right to group sex? How can one deny there is a constitutional right to consensual incest? How can one deny there is a right to have sex with animals? How can one deny there is a constitutional right to polygamy?

You can’t. There is no difference. And that’s why there is no constitutional right to homosexual sex – or any other kind of sex for that matter. The word sex doesn’t appear in the Constitution. The word marriage does not appear in the Constitution. It is a subject not addressed – which is, under the Constitution, precisely why it is a matter left to the various states.

But that’s not the way it will be in America in the future. As of last month, we have a new reigning Politburo governing all of America. We have nine infallible, lifetime, unaccountable rulers who know better than the people, better than the states, better than the legislators.

 

Receive Joseph Farah's daily commentaries in your email

BONUS: By signing up for Joseph Farah’s alerts, you will also be signed up for news and special offers from WND via email.
  • Where we will email your daily updates
  • A valid zip code or postal code is required
  • Click the button below to sign up for Joseph Farah's daily commentaries by email, and keep up to date with special offers from WND. You may change your email preferences at any time.

 

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