Skip to content

#WhatTheFutureHolds: Brazil Is The New California [Updated Below]

29 August 2012 @ 11:38

Brazil may still be a Second World nation, but it’s at the top of that hierarchy these days. The world has certainly changed much in my lifetime. Used to be societal trends would get started in California. Now, I guess, they’re so bankrupt that their trend-setting has been outsourced to Brazil…

Over at NRO, Charles C.W. Cooke quotes from a BBC report:

A notary in the Brazilian state of Sao Paulo has sparked controversy by accepting a civil union between three people.

Public Notary Claudia do Nascimento Domingues has said the man and two women should be entitled to family rights. She says there is nothing in law to prevent such an arrangement.

But the move has angered some religious groups, while one lawyer described it as “absurd and totally illegal”.

Ms Domingues, who is based in the Sao Paulo city of Tupa, said the move reflected the fact that the idea of a “family” had changed.

“We are only recognising what has always existed. We are not inventing anything.”

“For better or worse, it doesn’t matter, but what we considered a family before isn’t necessarily what we would consider a family today.”

There is opposition from those who are in a desperate struggle to preserve Judeo-Christian mores:

…lawyer Regina Beatriz Tavares da Silva told the BBC it was “absurd and totally illegal”, and “something completely unacceptable which goes against Brazilian values and morals”. Ms da Silva, who is president of the Commission for the Rights of the Family within the Institute of Lawyers, says the union will not be allowed to remain in place.

Some religious groups have also voiced criticism of the move.

While Ms Domingues has approved the union, it is not clear whether courts, service providers and private companies such as health insurance providers will accept the ruling.

Of course, the happy triumvirate will take this to court, so all it will take are a few judges of a Leftist and lawless [but, I repeat myself] bent for a newer new definition of marriage to become the law of Brazil.

And then, of course, some lawless Justice Of The Peace or Town Clerk here in Leftist-Controlled America will do it and the same process will start-up.

And, of course, if the matter gets to The Supreme Court, those Justices who think we should use other nation’s laws in making decisions will seek to open marriage [pun intended] to this newest new definition of it.

Mr. Cooke comments:

Don’t worry, Winston. We’ve always been at war with Eastasia.

So…would those who think three people ‘marrying’ is a good thing reply: ‘Tripleplusgood’?

Mr. Scalia commented [back in 2003]:

…State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s [Lawrence v. Texas] decision; the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding. See ante, at 11 (noting “an emerging awareness that liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex” (emphasis added)). The impossibility of distinguishing homosexuality from other traditional “morals” offenses is precisely why Bowers rejected the rational-basis challenge. “The law,” it said, “is constantly based on notions of morality, and if all laws representing essentially moral choices are to be invalidated under the Due Process Clause, the courts will be very busy indeed.” 478 U.S., at 196.

The Leftist goal of tearing down Western Civilization proceeds apace, aided by Fellow Travellers, Dupes on the Left and Useful Idiots on the Right whose desire to be seen as compassionate outweighs any Morality they claim to believe.

Could This Be One Explanation?

UPDATE at 2017…

Jeff Goldstein [who links this post — thanks] weighs-in with some spot-on analysis over at his joint.  A highlight:

…The libertarian part of me doesn’t much care about such living arrangements, save the effects they may have on law and the tax code. While another part of me worries about, yes, the children — and about the political aspects of such attempts to deconstruct the traditional family structure (which, as many same sex marriage activists have admitted, is the very reason for their campaign; they wish to deconstruct traditional society, not find acceptance within it — which is why they demand “tolerance” go but one way).

All of which is a long way of saying that it looks like we’ve finally “reasoned” ourselves out of the very structures that have produced for us stability and prosperity, once coupled with free market capitalism and individual freedom. Which, like the traditional family unit, are also being pressured into submission by the leftist mores that demand a kind of egalitarian relativism.

It’s all part of the Leftist scheme to sow Chaos, so that our Society, our Culture, as well as our Economy collapse, and on the rubble of which they intend to rebuild the world in the image they have concocted in the sterile laboratories of their minds.

  1. theebl permalink
    29 August 2012 @ 12:31 12:31

    Do you have pictures?

  2. 29 August 2012 @ 12:33 12:33

    There’s more historical basis for polygamy than for same-sex unions being called “marriage”. Heck, it’s biblical. Jacob had two wives, Solomon had hundreds. Even the New Testament doesn’t say that polygamy should be illegal; it just says that the leaders in the church should have one wife.

    So predicting that redefining marriage away from “one man and one woman” would allow “one man and multiple women” is a no-brainer.

  3. theebl permalink
    29 August 2012 @ 18:25 18:25

    I joke about the pictures. But males think polygamy sounds awesome till you see it in practice and find out that if you take the problems with a one on one marriage and multiply them by the number of new wives. So why not one wife and multiple males?

    This is why l like defining marriage to be left to the citizens and not to judges.

  4. redc1c4 permalink
    29 August 2012 @ 19:25 19:25

    polygamy is when a man has too many wives.

    monogamy is when a man has too many wives.

    a man is not complete until he is married. then he’s finished.

    why do husbands die before their wives?
    because they can.

  5. M. Thompson permalink
    29 August 2012 @ 22:59 22:59

    The penalty for bigamy is two mothers-in-law. Really, this just ain’t right.

    Next thing you know, it’s going to be some real perv and a farm animal . . .

    • 29 August 2012 @ 23:19 23:19

      That’s what Justice Scalia predicted and he’s been right so far.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: