Gay-marriage advocate fesses up: Polygamy and incest okay, too

The elephant in the room just came out of the closet.

When the Supreme Court made gay marriage legal at the federal level in June, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that the sole purpose of the Defense of Marriage Act was to “disparage and injure” gays who wished to have their marriages blessed by the law.

polygamyBut that decision also opened the door wide to incest and polygamy, writes Boston College Law School Professor Kent Greenfield in “The Slippery Slope to Polygamy and Incest” in the latest issue of the American Prospect.

You might think from the title there’s any argument against it. There isn’t

“You know those opponents of marriage equality who said government approval of same-sex marriage might erode bans on polygamous and incestuous marriages? They’re right,” Greenfield notes approvingly (though it might have been a little more useful for him and his ilk to be as honest a year ago).

“As a matter of constitutional rationale, there is indeed a slippery slope between recognizing same-sex marriages and allowing marriages among more than two people and between consenting adults who are related.

“If we don’t want to go there, we need to come up with distinctions that we have not yet articulated well …”

“What it boils down to is that when the government wants to exclude groups from something important like marriage, it has to show good reasons for the exclusion … And prejudice – simply thinking ‘icky’ – doesn’t count as a reason.”

Greenfield then manfully tries to list all potential objections to marriages between one man and numerous women, marriages between fathers and daughters, mothers and sons, siblings, to find some reason liberals could be comfortable with for the law to tell two brothers they can’t be conjoined in marital bliss. (You know, something other than “icky” ).

He comes up with … nothing

And admits as much.

“If these distinctions do not hold water, we have two options,” Greenfield writes. “We can continue to search for differences that make sense as a matter of constitutional principle. Or we can fess up. We can admit our arguments in favor of marriage equality inexorably lead us to a broader battle in favor of allowing people to define their marriages, and their families, by their own lights.”

Note the wording.

People don’t “fess up” when they’ve been honest. They don’t “fess up” when they’ve been forthcoming.

They “fess up” when they’re lying or hiding something, as the left must always do when it’s trying to get normal, sane people to agree with it. As it has done throughout the gay-marriage debate.

And Greenfield has just fessed up to the truth.

This isn’t some fringe publication — some crackpot rant from North American Man-Boy Love Association. This is the American Prospect, a magazine with Democrat Establishment roots so deep it’s is all but an official organ of the most liberal wing of the Democrat Party.

Greenfield is only writing what top Democrats are already thinking, just not saying in public — not even on MSNBC.

Is Justice Kennedy a subscriber?

Joe Saunders

Joe Saunders, a 25-year newspaper veteran, is a staff writer and editor for BizPac Review who lives in Tallahassee and covers capital and Florida politics. Email Joe at [email protected].

Comments

Latest Articles