In 2015, when a Supreme Court majority ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that “state bans on same-sex marriage and on recognizing same-sex marriages duly performed in other jurisdictions are unconstitutional under the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution,” I wrote that the high court had an obligation to tell us if there were any standards left when it comes to human relations.
If it could come up with one, I wanted to know on what that standard was based? I predicted that having abandoned a constitutional standard, a millennia of tradition, sociological evidence, even the scriptural definition of marriage and family, that others who operated outside tradition would be next in line to demand their “rights.”
It took just seven years for that prophecy to come true.
A New York judge has now ruled that in a tenancy case, “it’s possible for two men to both claim partnerships with a third man—and that the man whose relationship is being questioned should have a chance to prove his claim in court.” Thereby opening up the possibility of recognizing polyamorous relationships, entitling them to protections under the law.
Reading the opinion written by Judge Karen May Bacdayan offers more proof that the slippery slope characterizing modern culture has evolved into a mudslide.
Bacdayan appears to have based her ruling not on an immutable standard, but on her personal beliefs, writing: “What was ‘normal’ or ‘nontraditional’ … is not a barometer for what is normal or nontraditional now.”
Notice the quotes the judge puts around the first reference to normal and traditional, indicating a prejudice against what was once considered normal and traditional. Can anyone claim anything is normal in 2022 without being assaulted on social media and to one’s face by the “woke” crowd?
She continued by saying that “the definition of ‘family’ has morphed considerably.” Indeed it has, and not to the benefit of many individuals, their children, and society.
The “reasoning” behind Bacdayan’s ruling ought to stun most rational people. She writes that “many articles have been written about multi-person relationships in recent years, revealing a preference that for some has long been known.”
So, according to Bacdayan, it appears that creating “many articles” is the way to justify any relationship or behavior.
There were “many articles” written in defense of slavery and denying women the right to vote. Had Bacdayan’s philosophy been applied, these and other injustices might never have been rectified. There were many articles written in defense of unborn human life, but it took 50 years and more than 60 million aborted babies for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Where will this decision on polyamorous relationships lead?
In 2015, YouGov found that 25% of those polled said they believed polyamory to be “morally acceptable.” A 2020 YouGov poll found that “one-third (32%) of U.S. adults say that their ideal relationship is non-monogamous to some degree.” According to what definition of morality?
The two-parent, male-female home has been the bedrock of societies. Some traditions have lasted because they work. When social mores are individually rejected, school shootings, street violence, and anti-American ideology can be the result.
Ancient Rome and other licentious societies collapsed from within because of their indifference to moral restraints. What makes Americans think we can avoid a similar fate?
We are committing cultural suicide, and few want to risk the criticism that comes from standing against the tide. We “invent ways of doing evil,” the Apostle Paul wrote.
If a judge and a growing number of Americans no longer recognize what many consider immorality, then immorality wins.
Originally published by Tribune Content Agency
The Daily Signal publishes a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Heritage Foundation.
Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email letters@DailySignal.com and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state.