[Click to enlarge] "Polyamorous [multiple-partner] relationships among gay people ... have long existed," says the leading homosexual magazine, The Advocate. So isn't it strange that "gay" advocates routinely dismiss the idea that changing the traditional definition of marriage will open the door to polygamy?

No Surprise: Sen. Barack Obama (D) has come out against the federal Marriage Protection Amendment--for all the wrong reasons.

Sen. Dick Durbin (right) betrays the heartland when it comes to voting on homosexuality and abortion. Durbin received a 100% scorecard rating from the radical homosexual D.C. lobby group Human Rights Campaign.

While it may be inconceivable for many to imagine America treating churches that oppose gay "marriage" the same as racists who opposed interracial marriage in the 1960s, just consider the fate of the Boy Scouts.
--Douglas W. Kmiec, professor of constitutional law at Pepperdine University School of Law [Click here to read full article below]

---

When Pete Chvany feels like kissing his partner Alan Hamilton on the front lawn of their home in Somerville, Mass., he doesn't really care what the neighbors think. And he doesn't mind if Hamilton then gives a kiss to his wife of 22 years, Pepper Greene, or to Hamilton's other male partner, Woody Glenn.

"Anyone who's watching is getting an eyeful," says Chvany, who has been involved in the polyamorous relationship for nine years. "We are out to people in our neighborhood. In effect, Alan has three partners, and we are all his family."

The quartet are among an unknown number of people in the gay and lesbian population who are in a relationship with more than one partner, something of a queer version of HBO's new hit drama series Big Love, in which one man has three wives who all live on the same property and vie for his time and attention. As Big Love brings the issue of polygamy back into the American conversation, polyamorous relationships among gay people (which have long existed) have also become the subject of much debate.
--excerpted from article "Big Gay Love," in the homosexual magazine The Advocate, June 6, 2006

" Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."

The first sentence simply states that marriage in the United States consists of the union of one man and one woman.

The second sentence ensures that states can determine the allocation of the benefits associated with marriage.

Marriage Amendment has no impact at all on benefits offered by private businesses and corporations.

People have a right to live as they choose, but no one has the right to redefine marriage for our entire society.

The "benefits" of marriage should be kept solely within marriage; that's what we're fighting to preserve. Government- or corporate-sponsored "domestic partnerships," whether "gay" or "straight," undermine the real deal--marriage.

Massachusetts -- May 17, 2004: After a ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, the state begins issuing marriage licenses to homosexual couples. This leads directly to schools openly promoting homosexuality and to Catholic Charities being forced to stop placing children for adoptions.

In 2004, the mayors of several cities, beginning with San Francisco, issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples (Sandoval County, New Mexico; New Paltz, New York, and Multnomah County, Oregon). State courts rule those "marriages" invalid, but appeals are pending.

Nebraska -- May 21, 2005: A federal judge overturns the state's constitutional marriage amendment, which had been enacted by a ballot vote of 70 percent.

California -- September 6, 2005: The legislature becomes the first in the nation to pass a law mandating legalization of homosexual "marriages." Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) vetoes the bill, but proponents say they'll be back.

Connecticut -- October, 2005: Connecticut becomes the sixth state (after California, Hawaii, New Jersey, Massachusetts and Vermont) to offer some form of legal recognition to homosexual couples.

Maryland -- January 20, 2006: A Baltimore City Circuit Court judge strikes down the state marriage law, and then stays her order pending appeal.

Georgia -- May 16, 2006: A county judge overturns the state marriage protection amendment enacted in 2004 by a 76-percent ballot vote.

Utah -- May 16, 2006: The state Supreme Court upholds the bigamy conviction of a former police officer, Rodney Holm. He had challenged the marriage law after being convicted in 2002 upon his third "marriage." Chief Justice Christine Durham dissents, saying the state law violates the "privacy of intimate, personal relationships" and religious freedom.

Washington -- The state Supreme Court will rule soon on a challenge to that state's marriage law, as will the high court in New Jersey. Both courts are dominated by liberals. Unlike Massachusetts, neither Washington nor New Jersey has a law barring marriages to out-of-state couples whose own states do not recognize "gay" marriage. Thus, if either state begins issuing marriage licenses to couples from the other 49 states, the recipients will return to their own states and file lawsuits challenging not only their state laws but the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). (Congress passed DOMA in 1996 defining marriage for all purposes as only the union of one man and one woman, and affirming that states may reject claims against their marriage laws that do not conform to their stated public policy.) On February 4, CWA filed an amicus brief in the Washington Supreme Court urging the court to reverse a trial court decision permitting same-sex "marriage."

Lawsuits filed by homosexual activists seeking to overturn state marriage laws are pending in 10 states: California, Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, Maryland, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma and Washington. [Here in Illinois, the "gay marriage" lawsuites have not yet been filed, but homosexual militants have "demanded" marriage licences despite our state's clear law defining marriage as between a man and a woman.]