About That Slippery Slope…

On Monday, The Washington Examiner posted an article about a recent court case involving New York Civil Court Judge Karen May Bacdayan. It seems that the judge has now codified the right to polygamy.

The article article reports:

The case before the court involved three men: Scott Anderson, Markyus O’Neill, and Robert Romano. Anderson and Romano had been “life partners” for 25 years, had joint bank accounts, and were named as beneficiaries on each other’s retirement accounts. The two men maintained separate apartments, however, “to provide them comfort and space.”

Enter O’Neill, who met Anderson in 2011 and moved into his rent-controlled apartment in 2012. O’Neill and Romano both knew about each other, but according to O’Neill, Romano did not like him. Romano admits that they were not friends.

Anderson apparently carried on amicable relationships with both men until he died, at which point O’Neill tried to renew Anderson’s rent-controlled lease and was denied by the landlord. The landlord then sued to evict O’Neill, who claims he is entitled to renew Anderson’s lease as a “nontraditional family member” under New York law. The landlord claims O’Neill is undeserving of that label, as Anderson was already a life partner with Romano.

Judge Bacdayan sided with O’Neill, writing, “The existence of a triad should not automatically dismiss respondent’s claim to noneviction protections.” That Romano never consented to having O’Neill join his family was unimportant to Judge Bacdayan. “Was the relationship a ‘good’ one?” Judge Bacdayan asks. “It seems equally as unimportant as considering sexual relations to delve into the level of happiness in a relationship. Is one stripped of their rights to ‘marital property’ on the basis of having a ‘bad’ marriage?”

The article concludes:

In his Obergefell v. Hodges dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts warned that recognition of same-sex marriage would inevitably lead to the recognition of plural marriages. Judge Bacdayan notes this warning in her opinion and proves him right.

Luckily, there is a conservative majority on the Supreme Court that would never redefine marriage to add polygamous unions to the list of relationships that the state must recognize.

But the Democrats want to add seats to the Supreme Court, and if they do, you can be sure they will find enough Judge Bacdayans to make their vision of the law a reality.

If  you are comfortable with polygamy becoming an acceptable way of life in America, keep electing Democrats who appoint liberal judges or keep electing liberal judges.

What’s Next?

On Friday, The Salt Lake Tribune reported that Judge Clark Waddoups has ruled that key parts of Utah’s polygamy laws are unconstitutional. The judge’s ruling essentially decriminalizes polygamy.

The article reports:

Waddoups’ ruling attacks the parts of Utah’s law making cohabitation illegal. In the introduction, Waddoups says the phrase “or cohabits with another person” is a violation of both the First and 14th amendments. Waddoups later writes that while there is no “fundamental right” to practice polygamy, the issue really comes down to “religious cohabitation.” In the 1800s — when the mainstream LDS Churh still practiced polygamy — “religious cohabitation” in Utah could have actually resulted in “multiple purportedly legal marriages.” Today, however, simply living together doesn’t amount to being “married,” Waddoups writes.

“The court finds the cohabitation prong of the Statute unconstitutional on numerous grounds and strikes it,” Waddoups later writes.

This ruling is not good news for the American family. It is a step toward recognizing polygamy as legal marriage. It is also a step toward changing the definition of marriage and family. Since the family has been the foundation  of our society, what happens when you weaken that foundation? What will be the next group of people to have their relationships declared legal marriages?

Enhanced by Zemanta