The Obama administration doesn't believe in letting consentual adults live their sexual lives the way they want
Let me get this right. The Obama administration does everything that they can to push gay marriage and gay rights, but somehow they want to go after polygamists and make their lives difficult. What is the difference whether consenting adults are homosexuals or polygamists? Over much more of human history polygamy was many, many, many more times the normal state for humans. Would the Obama administration have ever brought such a suit against a town filled with a lot of homosexuals? From the Associated Press:
The U.S. Justice Department has sued two polygamous towns along the Utah-Arizona border, claiming religious discrimination against non-sect members.
The federal civil rights lawsuit was filed Thursday against the towns of Hildale, Utah, and Colorado City, Ariz.
Most residents in both towns are members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, run by the group's jailed leader Warren Jeffs. . . .
The lawsuit comes after Legislatures in Utah and Arizona failed to pass bills to abolish the local police department for the communities. . . .
Labels: discrimination, Obama
posted by John Lott at 5:37 PM
1 Comments:
Polygamists do not constitute a large enough voting block to make it worthwhile to pander to them.
Also, polygamy has not been subjected to the media hype that homosexuality has. We have had gay rights, lifestyles, and gay culture rammed down our throats by the so called 'main stream media' for a very long time now which has resulted in what we are seeing in this particular case.
Polygamy involves hetero relationships. If we look at the history of liberals, we see the attacks on marriage and men. In order to obtain welfare checks, the man must not be in the picture. Child support laws are destroying fathers everywhere. Fatherless children are more prone to commit crime, yet that is ignored in the left's quest for more power. A simple pattern that keeps repeating itself.
Religious freedom... Subject to interpretation by the left, not the right. Congress is not allowed to outlaw religious expession or freedom to worship, yet they do it all the time. A child cannot say 'Grace' in a school cafeteria, yet that same child can promote LGBT rights in the classroom that others find highly offensive, and contrary to their personal beliefs.
So much for equal protection under the law.
Post a Comment
<< Home