The White House today slammed the door on a question that had been prepared for the daily news briefing on the fairness of New Hampshire’s new law dispensing the designation of “married” to same-sex couples.

Sixty-four reporters attended the briefing, but White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs and Obama Budget Director Peter Orzag only recognized 15 of them, all in the first three rows of the briefing room.

Those 15 were allowed to ask 84 questions, including 15 from ABC, eight from Fox, seven from Helen Thomas, six each from CNN and the Wall Street Journal, five each from CBS TV, CBS radio, NBC and NPR, and four each from AP, New York Times and Washington Times.

Les Kinsolving, WND’s correspondent at the White House and one of the most senior reporters on the White House detail, had been prepared to ask a question related to the president’s June 1 proclamation that said, “I call upon the America people to promote equal rights for all, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.”

The question was: “What is the president’s reaction to the statement that ‘New Hampshire’s new same-sex marriage law does not provide equal access to marriage for all because it discriminates against polygamist consenting adults,’ from Mark Henkel, national polygamy advocate.”

New Hampshire’s capitol

WND had reported when the Pro-Polygamy website commented on the issue.

“Declaring that the new law advances fairness and equality for all, they proclaimed that New Hampshire had supposedly ‘ended discrimination’ for everyone,” the statement said.

“But the law did no such thing. Rather, it intentionally ‘discriminates’ against consenting adult polygamists – indeed, on purpose,” the organization said.

The fact that polygamists, and indeed those with other sexual proclivities, would use the same “civil rights” and “equality” arguments forwarded by homosexuals seeking “marriage” rights has been predicted for years.

“Polygamists, and those who have a polygamous ‘orientation,’ have been ‘singled out’ by these provisions for much more severe treatment than merely denial of favored status… The court’s disposition today suggests that these provisions are unconstitutional; and that polygamy must be permitted in these states … unless, of course, polygamists for some reason have fewer constitutional rights than homosexuals,” Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in 1996.

That came in a U.S. Supreme Court opinion quashing the decision of Colorado voters who decided there should be a constitutional provision providing, “No Protected Status Based on Homosexual, Lesbian, or Bisexual Orientation.”

The court majority there decided Colorado voters were guilty of “impermissible targeting” of a “class” of people.

Learn how homosexuality has been sold to America. Get “The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom”

Scalia noted that the same arguments being applied to homosexuals as a class also could be applied to polygamists. Then in 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down state laws forbidding homosexuality. The Lawrence vs. Texas case established a “right to privacy” for consenting adults.

Once again dissenting, Scalia wrote, “State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of [a] validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision…”

“This effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation,” Scalia wrote.

WND founder and editor Joseph Farah, who has been writing commentary on social issues for years, also cited the 2003 Lawrence ruling in writing:

“To say laws about private sexual conduct are unconstitutional, the court, in effect, opened a sexual Pandora’s box,” he said. “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,” he wrote.

His conclusion was that the court was wrong: “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 issue came up again only a year ago, when the California state Supreme Court ruled the state could not deny the designation of “marriage” to homosexual couples. That court opinion was tossed out last November by a vote of the people, who defined “marriage” as being between one man and one woman.

In a dissent to that court opinion, Associate Justice Marvin R. Baxter cited similar concerns.

“The majority … simply does not have the right to erase, then recast, the age-old definition of marriage, as virtually all societies have understood it, in order to satisfy its own contemporary notions of equality and justice. The California Constitution says nothing about the rights of same-sex couples to marry. On the contrary, as the majority concedes, our original Constitution, effective from the moment of statehood, evidenced an assumption that marriage was between partners of the opposite sex,” Baxter wrote at the time.

Then he issued a warning:

“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?”

According to the activist Pro-Polygamy, the New Hampshire plan specifically includes discrimination in its wording. It was the sixth state to “act” on homosexual marriage. Several states have voted it in through the legislative process and in several other states officials have simply imposed same-sex “marriage” plans on residents following court opinions, even though state laws have even yet to be changed.

The polygamy activists said the new law now affirms the “right” of two individuals to marry.

“However, the new law then took the matter further, with intentional ‘discrimination.’ The new [law] now ends with a newly added anti-polygamy provision,” the group said, citing the new statement: “No person shall be allowed to be married to more than one person at any given time.”

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.