John Kerry’s State Department Celebrates Sodomy. Polygamy? Eh, Not So Much …

Posted on Comments

All deviants are not created equal:

Secretary of State John Kerry announced Friday at the U.S. Embassy in London that the State Department will now recognize in its visa-processing practices same-sex marriages performed in foreign countries—saying that “as long as a marriage has been performed in a jurisdiction that recognizes it so that it is legal, then that marriage is valid under U.S. immigration laws.”
The State Department clarified to CNSNews.com on Monday that this principle does not extend to polygamous marriages, which are legal in many Muslim countries. . . .
CNSNews.com asked the State Department if it would be recognizing polygamous marriages performed in jurisdictions that recognize the legality of polygamous marriages–and if not, why not?
In response, a State Department spokesperson said: “I would point you to the Immigration and Nationality Act Section 212(a)(10)(A), which states, ‘Any immigrant who is coming to the United States to practice polygamy is inadmissible.’”
However, the State Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual describes polygamy as an “historical or religious practice” and states that it is acceptable for a would-be immigrant to the United States to believe in polygamy, advocate it, and have previously practiced it. The key issue, according to the manual, is whether the person intends to actually engage in polygamy once he arrives in the United States as an immigrant.

Disapproval of gay marriage is now “hate.” Also, logic is now “hate.”

 

 

40 comments

  1. Polygamy is coming. The left is already talking about how the acceptance of gay marriage means that straights have to stop their expectation of monogamy as part of a relationship. Once you start declaring that families “come in all shapes and sizes” It’s only a hop skip and jump over to “We can’t break up a family, no matter that they’re polygamous!”

  8. “Disapproval of gay marriage is now ‘hate.'”

    Not necessarily. I don’t think that most anti-marriage/anti-family religious conservatives hate marriages and families. It’s just that they’re obsessed with controlling who gets to have them.

  9. “Anti-marriage/anti-family religious conservatives”? Huh? Surely you jest.
    Are you part of the Amish Mafia? Just sayin’.

  10. Anyway, a big “D’err”, the writer was speculating that opposition by anyone to gay marriage was viewed as a hateful position by the left. Get with the program junior.

  12. Immigrants with multiple wives immigrate, and bring their families along – including the mothers of the man’s children. It’s not call polygamy, just a multicultural treasure.

  13. I know that. And I was agreeing that the anti-marriage/anti-family position is not necessarily hate-driven.

    When I was a kid, my pastor explained to me that interracial marriage was just wrong. I don’t think he hated black people or interracial couples. He just thought it was wrong. To his credit, unlike many on the subject of gay marriage, he felt no need to have the government enforce his position at gunpoint.

  15. I thought you were going in a different direction. We all know that to disagree with someone is not necessarily to hate them. Sorry.

  16. No problem. What you assumed was reasonable. Lots of people DO equate moral disapproval of an action with “hate” for the actor(s). While I strongly support marriage and family (including same-sex arrangements), I understand that not everyone who disagrees is a hater.

  17. … and I strongly disagree with same-sex arrangements, without judgment (reserved for God) or the stigma of hate involved.

  18. One small problem with Thomas L Knapp’s thinking. A same-sex alliance isn’t marriage, despite leftist attempts to apply the word. You know, just as homosexuality isn’t a state of gaiety, and killing unborn children isn’t simply “choice.” These are propaganda terms, the use of semantics to bias debate.

    Other than that, who could possibly disagree with him?

  19. Interesting that you’d try to drag abortion into the subject, and that you’d (incorrectly) assume a certain position on that subject on my part.

    The problem with YOUR thinking is that you’re mistaking your opinion for fact.

    That wouldn’t be a problem if you didn’t want to enforce that opinion as fact at gunpoint.

  22. Don’t jump to conclusions—I mentioned the mislabeling of abortion and homosexuality as examples not accusations.

    My point had to do with the fact that a homosexual alliance, regardless of license or churching or law, is not marriage, and calling it such won’t make it so. It’s merely an attempt to apply a euphemism, much as perverts like to refer to abuse of minors as their love of youths.

    And no, I’m not accusing you of that particular crime either, nor do I plan to threaten you at gunpoint. Don’t take things in too concrete a manner My concern is the misuse of English (by you or others) in a dishonest attempt to win an argument.

  24. You apparently have difficulty differentiating between fact and opinion. The definition of marriage doesn’t include homosexual alliances, despite the yearning of homosexuals and others to broaden it into something it has never been.
    This is something like the trend to refer to differences in opinion as “hate,” similar to Big Brother redefining war as peace.

    To illustrate, if I were to say that Thomas L. Knapp fails at semantics, that would be a fact. If I were to say, on the other hand, that Thomas L. Knapp is a doofus, this would be an opinion, though certainly close to factual.

  26. There is no “the” definition of marriage. There are a number of definitions of marriage. You have a preference as to which one should be generally accepted.

    Like everyone else, you are welcome to your preference — but a preference is an opinion, not a fact.

  27. I get quickly bored debating with someone whose response consists of little more than, “No it isn’t.” But you seem like a nice boy, so I’ll try once more.

    Lincoln (or maybe Ben Franklin or Shakespeare or Plato or Zoroaster or Oog the wise Neanderthal) once pointed out that if you call a dog’s (or a wolf’s to Oog, since dogs had yet to be invented) tail a leg, the dog (or wolf) would still have four legs, since calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it one.

    Thus with your attempt to redefine marriage. And that’s all the time I’m willing to waste on you. I don’t get paid for this, you know.

  28. And I get bored debating with someone whose argument is “I have decided that this is how it is, and that makes it a fact.”

    Like Rush Limbaugh says, words mean things. What he doesn’t say is that the meanings of words are in fact variable and debatable.

    There’s not a whole lot of debate on what “bicycle” means. Some (is a moped a bicycle or a motorcycle?), but not a lot.

    There is, and always has been, significant debate on what constitutes a “marriage” — and the modern American monogamous heterosexual love match is only one of many variants contending for inclusion under the umbrella term.

    So, you are welcome to your opinion that only marriages you like are real. But that opinion is, and will remain, merely an opinion.

Comments are closed.