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
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.
“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.