I’ve written a lot over the years about the LGBT agenda and their culture war against America, a war that has experienced a great many victories in redefining heterosexual and gender norms in order to “normalize” homosexuality and transgenderism. Based on that success, the LGBT army launched new battles to normalize polyamory and pedophilia in an attempt to make polyamorous relationships acceptable — including multi-partner “marriages” — and redefine pedophilia as an unchangeable “sexual orientation” that you’re born with.
In his dissenting opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges that opened the floodgates to same-sex marriage and launched the LGBT agenda into the stratosphere, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts issued this warning: “It is striking how much the majority’s reasoning [in support of same-sex marriage] would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage.”
Roberts’ opinion was quickly seized upon by several parties who used the Obergefell decision as evidence that polyamory and polygamy should be legalized. One well-known case involved Kody Brown, the star the reality-TV series “Sister Wives.”
Brown filed an appeal in response to a Utah appeal to reinstate a ban on polygamy after a federal judge had decriminalized plural marriage in the state. Brown and his four “wives” originally challenged the Utah’s ban on polygamy in July 2011, charging that it violates their rights to privacy and religious freedom.
In a statement on the Brown family appeal, the family’s attorney didn’t reference privacy and religious freedom; instead, he cited Obergefell v. Hodges to argue that states can no longer cite codes to halt polygamists from marrying:
“From the rejection of morality legislation in ‘Lawrence’ (a case that Justice Antonin Scalia warned would end laws dealing with morality) to the expansion of the protections of liberty interests in Obergefell, it is clear that states can no longer use criminal codes to coerce or punish those who choose to live in consensual but unpopular unions.”
Over the years that have passed since Obergefell, attempts to legitimize polyamory have failed because no legal precedent on the issue had been established. Unfortunately, there’s a change blowing in the wind.
In July last year, the Somerville, MA city council voted unanimously to redefine what constitutes a family by granting polyamorous relationships the same legal recognition given to married couples. According to Councilor Lance Davis, who helped draft the ordinance:
“I don’t think it’s the place of the government to tell people what is or is not a family.
“Defining families is something that historically we’ve gotten quite wrong as a society, and we ought not to continue to try and undertake to do so.”
If the “not the government’s place” mantra sounds familiar, it’s because it’s the same pro-LGBT rhetoric used for many years that eventually led to the Obergefell same-sex marriage decision and the rest of the LGBT agenda.
The polyamory train is picking up steam thanks to another city in Massachusetts, the state considered the birthplace of the same-sex marriage movement (Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health in 2003) that led to Obergefell. Fun fact: Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusetts at the time.
The city of Cambridge, Massachusetts, has become the second municipality in America to legalize domestic partnerships between three or more people. The Cambridge City Council approved an ordinance earlier this week amending city statute removing the requirement that domestic partnerships be limited to two partners.
In an official statement from the newly formed Polyamory Legal Advocacy Coalition (PLAC) — yes, that’s a real thing — we learn that “the [Cambridge] ordinance was developed with detailed input from the [coalition], and is the first of what advocates hope will be a wave of legal recognition for polyamorous families and relationships in 2021.”
Language in the ordinance declares that a domestic partnership “means the entity formed by two or more persons” who are not related and file a registration declaring that they’re “in a relationship of mutual support, caring and commitment and intend to remain in such a relationship,” are “not in a domestic partnership with others outside this partnership,” and “consider themselves to be a family.” (emphasis mine)
Interestingly, the ordinance also removes the requirement that all individuals in a domestic partnership reside together. Hey, why not make it easy to create “partnerships” with an unlimited number of people?
Ironically, LGBT extremists say they don’t believe that it’s government’s place to tell them what defines a marriage or a family, yet polyamory ordinances like the two in Massachusetts does exactly that — only from a pro-LGBT point-of-view.
The “If you don’t believe in same-sex marriage, don’t have one” crowd is already using a similar argument in defense of polyamorous relationships as they fight to make polyamory an equal rights issue, and these precedent-setting ordinances are a vital step in favor of creating creating a constitutionally protected right to polyamorous relationships and the permanent destruction of the institution of marriage.
Any doubt about the destruction of marriage as the ultimate goal is easily erased by this quote from Masha Gessen (a lesbian activist and journalist):
“The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist.
“I have three kids who have five parents, more or less, and I don’t see why they shouldn’t have five parents legally… I met my new partner, and she had just had a baby, and that baby’s biological father is my brother, and my daughter’s biological father is a man who lives in Russia, and my adopted son also considers him his father. So the five parents break down into two groups of three… And really, I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality, and I don’t think that’s compatible with the institution of marriage.” (emphasis mine)
Let me remind you that the institution of marriage won’t be the only casualty in the LGBT culture war; the First Amendment will also become passé. Already, government-mandated acceptance of same-sex marriage and transgenderism has resulted in the loss of our God-given right to religious liberty.
The Democrat-controlled House just passed — for a second time — the so-called “Equality Act,” a bill that openly targets religious liberty for elimination and codifies the LGBT agenda via a revision to the Civil Rights Act. In the words of Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), the legislation was needed because “Religion is no excuse for discrimination when it comes to sexual orientation or gender identity.”
When the Equality Act was passed for the first time in 2019, Republicans responded with a “conservative” alternative (Fairness For All Act), a bill they claimed would protect religious liberty while still amending the Civil Rights Act.
Last year, the Supreme Court, led by Neil Gorsuch, made amending the Civil Rights Act a mute point when he joined the majority in a 6-3 decision (Bostock v. Clayton County) that found a never-existed-before inalienable right to transgenderism in Title VII of the Act while providing no protections for religious liberty.
The evolution from ignoring things done “between two consenting adults in private” to government-enforced mandatory acceptance of sexual deviancy has been occurring for decades, and the casualties left in the rubble of this persistent march toward Sodom have continued to pile up as the religious liberty rights of Americans are systematically destroyed.
Just as we knew would would happen following the Obergefell decision.
David Leach is the owner of the Strident Conservative. He holds people of every political stripe accountable for their failure to uphold conservative values, and he promotes those values instead of political parties.
Follow the Strident Conservative on Twitter and Facebook.
Subscribe to receive podcasts of his daily two-minute radio feature: iTunes | Stitcher | Tune In | RSS
