Big Labor for Big Love?

big_love_chain

Big Labor Out in Force to Overturn the Will of Californians….

FOR BIG LOVE

In a move that threatens to undermine marriage as an institution, more than 50 influential labor unions signed on to an amicus brief urging the California Supreme Court to overturn the people’s vote on Proposition 8 and tear down social constraints on marriage.

Combined, the labor organizations say they represent 2 million California workers, but don’t be fooled by the numbers.  No union ever takes a vote when it comes to politics, regardless, they are a force to be reckoned with.

The question is, why?  What is the motive?

“If a simple majority of voters can take away one fundamental right, it can take away another,” the unions argue in the brief. “If it can deprive one class of citizens of their rights, it can deprive another class too. Today it is gays and lesbians who are singled out. Tomorrow it could be trade unionists.”  –From the Sacramento Bee

Trade unionists??

That’s their story and they’re sticking with it, but on the flip side of the argument, see a realistic view of what is in store!  Today homosexual “marriage”, tomorrow bisexual marriage, triad marriage and group marriage!

We need look no further than our enlightened European friends across the sea—

In Europe marriage constraints were torn down nearly ten years ago to include any two consenting adults, regardless of gender, leaving the door wide open for any number of alternative marriage arrangements.

In 2005, the first group marriages began.

bigamie

First Trio “Married” in The Netherlands

“I love both Bianca and Mirjam, so I am marrying them both,” Victor said. He had previously been married to Bianca. Two and a half years ago they met Mirjam Geven through an internet chatbox. Eight weeks later Mirjam deserted her husband and came to live with Victor and Bianca. After Mirjam’s divorce the threesome decided to marry.

The De Bruijns’ triple union caused a sensation in the Netherlands, drawing coverage from television, radio, and the press. With TV cameras and reporters crowding in, the wedding celebration turned into something of a media circus. Halfway through the festivities, the trio had to appoint one of their guests as a press liaison. The local paper ran several stories on the triple marriage, one devoted entirely to the media madhouse.

News of the Dutch three-way wedding filtered into the United States through a September 26 report by Paul Belien, on his Brussels Journal website. The story spread through the conservative side of the Internet like wildfire, raising a chorus of “I told you so’s” from bloggers who’d long warned of a slippery slope from gay marriage to polygamy.

Meanwhile, gay marriage advocates scrambled to put out the fire. M.V. Lee Badgett, an economist at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and research director of the Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies, told a sympathetic website, “This [Brussels Journal] article is ridiculous. Don’t be fooled–Dutch law does not allow polygamy.” Badgett suggested that Paul Belien had deliberately mistranslated the Dutch word for “cohabitation contract” as “civil union,” or even “marriage,” so as to leave the false impression that the triple union had more legal weight than it did. Prominent gay-marriage advocate Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, offered up a detailed legal account of Dutch cohabitation contracts, treating them as a matter of minor significance, in no way comparable to state-recognized registered partnerships.

In short, while the Dutch triple wedding set the conservative blogosphere ablaze with warnings, same-sex marriage advocates dismissed the story as a silly stunt with absolutely no implications for the gay marriage debate. And how did America’s mainstream media adjudicate the radically different responses of same-sex marriage advocates and opponents to events in the Netherlands? By ignoring the entire affair.

Yet there is a story here. And it’s bigger than even those chortling conservative websites claim. While Victor, Bianca, and Mirjam are joined by a private cohabitation contract rather than a state-registered partnership or a full-fledged marriage, their union has already made serious legal, political, and cultural waves in the Netherlands. To observers on both sides of the Dutch gay marriage debate, the De Bruijns’ triple wedding is an unmistakable step down the road to legalized group marriage.

Why stop at only three?

Serge Régnier had been married to his wife Christine for four years when Christine’s unmarried sister Karine moved in with the couple. Karine wanted children, and after discussing the matter with her sister and brother-in-law, it was agreed that Serge would father children with Karine and live with the women as a threesome. Into this ménage à trois came Judith, a childhood sweetheart of Serge. Serge had told Christine when he married her that, if she were ever available, Judith would have to be welcomed into their house. When Judith divorced her first husband and showed up on the Régniers’ doorstep, all agreed to admit her. The result is one husband, three wives, and 30 children, with several more children hoped for by the wives. Serge is unemployed, and the entire family is supported by government subsidies. The women say there is no jealousy among them and they would even welcome a fourth wife if she was “nice.”

“If a simple majority of voters can take away one fundamental right, it can take away another,” the unions argue in the brief. “If it can deprive one class of citizens of their rights, it can deprive another class too. Today it is gays and lesbians who are singled out. Tomorrow it could be trade unionists.”

The Yes on 8 campaign has said the courts should not overturn the will of the people.  Labor unions of all groups ought to know the importance of the will of the people in keeping government in check.

Polyamory vs. trade unionists?  I’ll risk the loss of these vote negating trade unionists any day.

—-Beetle Blogger

Advertisements

17 Comments

  1. rubyeliot said,

    January 16, 2009 at 4:04 am

    This is a great post, especially after the discussion on the smokerphobia thread. thanks bb!

  2. January 16, 2009 at 8:01 am

    This is so weird I had to laugh. That guy looks like Dr Evil. Why would you want to have two wives telling you what to do?

    So this is an example of what happens when a nation changes the definition of marriage to include same sex couples. Already the concept of marriage is changing, it just doesn’t have the esteem and respect any more when you look at Dr Evil and his wives.

  3. Therese said,

    January 16, 2009 at 8:14 am

    The mind boggles at the thought of this. I certainly wouldn’t want to share my husband with another women.

  4. Delirious said,

    January 16, 2009 at 10:01 am

    Wow, this is scary. So basically what the unions are saying is that no human should be deprived of any right, no matter the impact on society. One shudders to think what type of people will be lined up next to preserve their “rights”.

  5. beetlebabee said,

    January 16, 2009 at 11:04 am

    Unfaithful men in the U.S. do it all the time, but they call it “infidelity” not “marriage”.

  6. { Lisa } said,

    January 16, 2009 at 12:07 pm

    Theresa,

    I think that any women that is wiling to share her husband has some emoyional problems, same as women who put up with abuse.

    Delirious,

    It is definatley a matter to shudder for. I know what kinds will be coming, pedophiles, fathers wanting to marry their daughters, rapists wanting to marry thier victims, freaks wanting to marry animals or babies I mean its endless!!

  7. Euripides said,

    January 16, 2009 at 1:10 pm

    I have my doubts that the unions will have any weight in the California courts. There’s no argument they can come up with that would alter what Jerry Brown has already blown.

    Dr. Evil – LOL. I’m sure the three of them deserve each other.

  8. Raytmimer said,

    January 16, 2009 at 1:17 pm

    We’ve been sliding down this particular slope ever since the pill and the sexual revolution. That is when sex became untied from responsibility and family and moved into self gratification and recreation. This is all part of that slippery slope.

    The amazing thing is that at each step down the slope, people still say, Nah, there’s no slope…..

  9. mommycatz said,

    January 16, 2009 at 1:44 pm

    it is definitely a slope, i agree. I can’t do anything about those other countries dragging themselves into the gutter. But I can focus on what’s going on here, where I can vote, and lobby, and protest. The US needs to be more careful and quit trying to follow after self destructive whims while trampling crucial building blocks of society- like marriage and family- that have been here since the beginning of time. Since the beginning we have always been the nation that, for the most part, has been different, that has upheld good values. It should stay that way, and it will as long as good people are willing to stand firm and say ‘No!’ to the small but loud (and really obnoxious!) crowd of those who would see us fail. We are the majority, we stood up in November, and we should stay standing.

    there. i’m getting off the soap-box. :)

  10. rubyeliot said,

    January 16, 2009 at 4:40 pm

    great comment mommycatz

  11. Raytmimer said,

    January 16, 2009 at 7:11 pm

    Woah. Ok, this is way out there. Way, way out there. Sure, MAYBE it won’t go that far, but why wouldn’t it? There’s nothing standing in the way once morality is safely out of the picture.

  12. Heather said,

    January 16, 2009 at 9:32 pm

    Good post. I think we do need to look at what is happening in the Netherlands because that IS what will happen here if we allow same sex marriage.

  13. Raytmimer said,

    January 16, 2009 at 9:35 pm

    I know we’re great and all, but I don’t think Americans are really smarter or better than Europeans really. What else would stand in the way?

  14. January 20, 2009 at 4:46 am

    60 years ago, the Communists stated openly that they were going to destroy America in subversive ways, including the “demoralization” of America. Since Socialism and Communism are two faces of the same being (Marxism), it should not come as a surprise that unionists (Socialist front organizations) should be supporting the demoralization of America, and the undermining of her laws. Make no mistake, they have no fear of attacks against trade unionists. They are the same people who have been behind the whole gay marriage issue from the beginning. Marxism only succeeds when you can cause divisions between groups of people. Look at the highest-positioned Socialist in America today: Obama. He succeeded because the Democrat Party (controlled by Socialists) convinced illegals that Republicans hated them, convinced Blacks that Whites are all racists, convinced the poor that the rich have more than they deserve, etc.

    I apologize for the political nature of this comment, but you have to start seeing this thing from the bigger perspective. If you want to truly have your eyes opened, read The Naked Communist, by W. Cleon Skousen.

  15. January 20, 2009 at 5:30 am

    BTW, I did a post on this –and it goes much further into detail– several months ago:

    Here Come The Brides, and Grooms, and Uh… Others

    Copycat! (J/K!)

    Actually, mine is a commentary on the original article by Stanley Kurtz (who blew the lid on Obama’s relationship with Bill Ayers). Full props to the man who did the research.

    Read this article! There is a mass of “relationships” that are waiting to thrust themselves on our societies as soon as gay marriage is allowed. The laws allowing one will allow the others. It was planned that way.

  16. Greg said,

    January 27, 2009 at 4:25 am

    Mr. Kearney has a good point. The Hegelian dialectic employed by each group belie a common ideology. We were warned about recent events by those who had the foresight to see what would happen if these groups were allowed to operate legally within the United States. For just one example, see the book Prophets, Principles and National Survival.

    Thanks for pointing out this important story.

  17. May 1, 2011 at 4:09 pm

    […] “Big Labor for Big Love”. 16 January 2009. Beetle Blogger. 27 January 2009.↩ […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: