Editor’s note: The influential American Law Institute has issued a report calling for courts to ignore traditional marriage-based concerns when adjudicating family disputes. For instance, the ALI says a person’s homosexuality should be irrelevant in custody decisions and that unmarried and homosexual couples should be treated exactly the same as married couples in divorce or alimony settlements. “Even before its formal publication, the report had been cited in more than 100 law review articles and two dozen court decisions, according to researchers at Brigham Young University,” the Associated Press reported. Here is CWA Chief Counsel Jan LaRue’s take on it.
The legal philosophy of the American Law Institute (ALI) continues to be heavily influenced by the perverse work of discredited sex researcher Alfred C. Kinsey. When his first book was published in 1948, the ALI used it to influence state legislatures to weaken criminal laws with respect to sex crimes, including sex crimes against children. This became the foundation for decriminalizing “consenting adult” conduct. Thus, many states decriminalized consenting adult sodomy, based largely on the foundation of a crackpot sexual deviant. Anyone doubting that should read Dr. Judith Reisman’s book, Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences (Crestwood, Kentucky: The Institute for Media Education, 1998, 2000) and James Jones’ biography, Alfred C. Kinsey: A Public/Private Life (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1997).
Law is supposed to express a collective morality. The fact that some couples shack up may be reality, but that doesn’t mean the majority of Americans believe such relationships should have the rights, benefits, approval and legitimacy of legal recognition.
The ALI study also concludes that if a spouse has committed adultery, it should not affect a judge’s decision about alimony or marital property. This means the innocent party is treated no differently from the one who broke the marriage vows. It also says that “a parent’s sexual orientation should not be a factor in decisions on child custody, and that domestic partnerships should be treated like marriage in many important respects.” This philosophy is void of traditional moral considerations or expression. It provides no legitimate and forceful argument against group marriage, bigamy, homosexual adultery, bestiality or pedophilia.
Instead of recognizing that children are best served in an intact family with a mom and dad, the study urges legal recognition of a “de facto parent,” such as “the lesbian partner of a child’s biological mother.”
Although the authors claim that the ALI “does not encourage domestic partnership or cohabitation as an alternative to marriage,” this study aids the strategy to legalize same-sex “marriage.” Advocates of same-sex “marriage” can’t get a state legislature to do that so they accomplish it bit by bit, getting the benefits of marriage granted to civil unions. Once that is accomplished in full, the argument against same-sex “marriage” becomes impotent.
Where do you draw the line in defining such vague terms as “intimate relationship” and “significant period of time”? Some people change their “significant others” as often as they change their bed sheets. If intimacy means having sex, the definition can include one-night stands.
There’s also a very telling comment about something else driving this report, i.e., “redistribute income and wealth.” This is another icon of the liberal legal establishment.