Hello I bookmarked this site. Thanks heaps for this!… if anyone else has anything, it would be much appreciated. Great website Super Pianoforte Links http://www.en.Grand-Pianos.org Enjoy!…

November 7th, 2009 at 8:44 am, ITookTheRedPill said:

All enthusiasts for same-sex “marriage” should be called on the carpet to declare up front whether or not they support the agenda of Feldblum et al. If they don’t, they should be expected to explain, loudly and clearly, why they’re in favor of such “discrimination”, despite their supposedly deeply held liberal convictions.

And if they do, they should have to be loud and clear about that as well. No more stealth and coyness.

Obama Makes Polygamy a 21st Century Issue
by Phyllis Schlafly November 6, 2009

No sooner had we celebrated the exit of Barack Obama’s Green Jobs Czar, Van Jones, because of his Communist connections, another off-the-wall Administration embarrassment surfaced. President Obama nominated for commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) a woman who signed a radical manifesto endorsing polygamy.

We thought our nation had settled the polygamy issue a century and a half ago, but this nomination makes it a 21st century controversy. Obama’s nominee for the EEOC, a lesbian law-school professor named Chai R. Feldblum, signed a 2006 manifesto endorsing polygamous households (i.e., “in which there is more than one conjugal partner”).

This document, entitled “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage: A New Strategic Vision for All Our Families & Relationships,” argues that traditional marriage “should not be legally and economically privileged above all others.” The American people obviously think otherwise, and current laws reflect our wishes.

Feldblum is not the only pro-polygamy Obama appointee…

(hey, that rhymes, almost)

I am glad I checked back here. You went back and read through all that? Mad props for doing that.

I am just so impressed I think I’ll just pass on commenting further. Well done. Really. …and thank you for actually reading all that.

It’s a fairly respectably point for debate, but that’s taking things in quite a different direction from what Maine and other state legislatures and courts have tried to do. I think it would be perfectly logically consistent to vote in favor of that idea, but still reject the kind of gay marriage initiative that the Maine legislature proposed.

On November 5th, 2009 at 4:31 pm, zeroangel said:

I just think that they shouldn’t call it marriage for anyone. That word seems to be such a big deal, just don’t use it. Everyone (homosexual, hetero) gets a “civil union.”

And regardless of the number of indivduals in this union, right? After all, I’m sure you can agree that hopefully we can get past this narrow-minded, religion-based, discriminatory notion of unions consisting of only two persons.

What did I miss while internet-deprived in Indiana?

Searching for my Kingfish.

He should have been here for me….

Oddly, that’s both funny and a real possibility for some people (maybe not Turkey in particular). Not that they would over gay marriage, but there are people fleeing our country for various economic reasons, having to do with leftist encroachment on capitalism.

Assuming there are no more empty continents to go to, where does that leave them?

Turkey?

I guess gays will have to come up with some other way to enable themselves to feel less guilty about their lifestyle choices.

Don’t feel guilty at all as there is nothing to feel guilty for, but thanks!

But I’m just one sinner among hundreds of millions. Guilt shmuilt.

Thanks for the response. I can agree that things often must change, and generally I also agree it has been for the better. Just remember, some people will still want to choose to live where gay marriage is not allowed. Assuming there are no more empty continents to go to, where does that leave them?

Jeddite –

That’s sort of the extent of the anti-prop 8 ads in CA. As for the pro-prop 8 ads, all they had to do was replay Gavin Newsome saying (imagine a swaggering tone and condescending grin) “It’s gonna happen, whether ya like it or not!”

Apparently, just enough people decided they didn’t. If Newsome had kept his mouth shut, I think prop 8 would have lost. There were other factors, but yes, it was that close.

Yeah, it it likely to be pretty small, but does that mean we simply shouldn’t worry about it?

Also, I am not concerned about small social upheaval over the short or long term when it comes to obvious and blatant discrimination.