Dr. Paul A. Ibbetson

If you want to see another blatant example of social activism at the expense of traditional marriage, go no further than The Learning Channel (TLC). Part of TLC’s knowledge-enhancing program lineup is the show featuring polygamist Kody Brown and his ever-growing, Utah-based harem of “Sister Wives.” The show is spun as a unique look at a non-traditional family that faces the same struggles as regular folks and manages to make it through life with strong bonds of love and respect. That sounds really nice doesn’t it? The truth of this dysfunctional group and their attempts at TV stardom are much darker, and much more dangerous to traditional American culture.

Researching the Kody Brown clan forced me to delve into the TV program. From doing so I discovered that Kody Brown, a sales and advertising agent, married his first wife Meri conventionally in 1990. Since then, Brown has been collecting and impregnating additional concubines, like Janelle, Christine and Robyn, at a consistent rate. Brown’s women take on his last name, bear his offspring, and work to pay for the cost of the polygamist lifestyle. The show, Sister Wives, despite being given a positive spin, still highlights the cult-like mentality of polygamy groups.

Kody Brown emanates a shyster vibe that is common with manipulators found in cult settings. He preaches to his bedroom cohorts that they are each individually special and respected while at the same time adding new women to his brothel. Even during the two seasons of Sister Wives so far, Kody Brown has decided that three special wives is just not enough, and has added another woman to his collection. What we have here is one serious jive turkey in Kody Brown running some even more serious jive of some impressionable women. However, if we look at Sister Wives more critically, we can access Brown and the layers of hypocrisy in this show more adequately.

Brown’s jive is more clearly seen as a constant manipulation of the women he exploits. Within the Brown polygamy system, he alone receives the carnal benefit of a sexual smorgasbord of duped female lovers, while the women do nothing more than bear and raise his children and sell jelly at the airport. This is truly cult-like activity. It is doubtful that Kody Brown’s cherub-like smile would withstand a request from his stable to bring another man into the love circle. I suspect that would spoil the “specialness” of these marriages.

The next example of hypocrisy that screams to be addressed is the fact that this cult is not behind bars. Utah has anti-polygamy laws and this faction has more than written their confession to the crime of polygamy on national television. Where is the law here? One cult leader, four wives, sixteen children and no legal accountability.

Brent Bozell in NewsBusters adequately shows that Kody Brown and his Sister Wives wish to push polygamy into the mainstream culture and are willing to flout the laws of the land to do so. For them, breaking down traditional marriage is more than potentially circumventing the law; it is an attempt to be accepted into a culture that has traditionally been bound by biblical values on the subject. Sister Wives is nothing less than a counterculture advocacy program that undermines biblical values and promotes sexual perversion.

Lastly, and probably the largest example of hypocrisy is that TLC allows itself to be the vehicle for the dissemination, and the accomplice in the crime of polygamy. There is no rational spin that can be forwarded that will decrease their culpability in this attempt to lead the American culture astray on the values of marriage.

Traditional marriage is the cornerstone of America. The guidelines to this institution are firmly and clearly laid out within God’s law and are in clear opposition to the Sister Wife lifestyle. To deviate from the cornerstone from which American life springs forth is to guarantee social calamity, suffering and pain. It matters not whether the merchants of deviance wish to push gay marriage, adultery, polygamy or any other cleverly altered variation of this kind. We would be wise to fight it, we would be just to defeat it, and we would be blessed to teach our children to do the same.

As reported by Johanna Kaiser in the Associated Press, the city of Cambridge, Massachusetts, has decided to pull $33,000 in city funds to pay stipends to city employees who are currently in a homosexual marriage. The rationale behind the redistribution of funds is said to be a defrayment for federal taxes that married homosexual couples employed by the city must pay on the value of their health benefits. Unlike traditional married couples, homosexual city employees who have been designated as “married” in the gay-marriage-friendly state of Massachusetts, do not qualify for standard spousal tax deferrals. The city of Cambridge will be the first community to advance gay marriage from simple legal recognition to financial reward. Who will pay for this liberal social experiment? Mostly the funds will come from heterosexuals.

That’s the truth. Homosexuals are but a fraction of the population even in the most liberal wacky blue states and cities in the country. The city of Cambridge will divert money to give tax breaks to 22 homosexual public employees. So there will be 22 happy gay workers for the city and the people of Cambridge will inevitably absorb the $33,000 loss by paying a little more for city services. Of course that will have to be paid every year. Also, since this is such a great deal for homosexual couples, more will surely join this grand little experiment. Here is a chance to create even more happy gay city employees, but that also means more costs will be handed down to the heterosexual majority of Cambridge citizens. Hmm, I wonder if there will be any downsides to continually raising costs of city services to offset tax stipends to promote gay marriage. The other option is to simply reduce services. That means fewer potholes get filled and high-demand services such as police overtime are less available. In reality, over time the people of Cambridge will get both — higher costs and fewer services, all in the name of legitimizing deviant behavior. Will this eventually create a divide between the city planners and the local populace of this city?

Some will say, “Well that is what the people of Cambridge, Massachusetts, want. After all, Massachusetts was the first state in the U.S. to legalize marriage for gay couples, right?” Yes they certainly did, but are they ready to put their money where their morals are? We are not talking about federal grants or other subsidies that extract tax dollars from people in other parts of America who very well may not agree with the gay-ifying of marriage in this country. In this case, we are talking about good old blue state Massachusetts’ liberal cash. Just how far will northeast blue-state liberals go to promote the gay agenda when the cost goes beyond liberal theories wrapped in moral relativism and ends up in their pocketbook? I would guess not as far as even the most deluded liberal would assume.

As a matter of fact, I would say that if you offered the citizens of Cambridge the ability to individually vote with anonymity, the overall majority would side with keeping more of their cash, rather than reallocating their money for tax breaks for homosexual couples that wish to be considered married. The relevancy of the heterosexual majority, even in this crazy state, would become very relevant once again. If Cambridge’s misguided city plan were to stay in effect for 10 years, it would most certainly end up being rejected by its own people. Why? Because while central planners like those in Cambridge wish to be cutting-edge on moral deprivation initiatives, in the end they will inevitably want federal dollars to do it. In other words, they will want traditional America to help fund their little Sodom and Gomorrah and will not wish to take full financial responsibility for their own actions. I say what is created in Cambridge, Massachusetts, is their own social, spiritual and financial burden to bear. Let them reap the whirlwind of their own misguided municipal and state decisions.

Bumper stickers — we see them every day in almost every form. Sit for a few minutes at a stoplight and you literally see almost every form of human expression slapped across the chrome, and more often plastic bumpers of the vehicles of this nation. The political season is without a doubt a bumper sticker bonanza for the dealers of these sticky examples of free speech. There is almost an endless variety of quips, jabs and simply political low blows that can be affixed conveniently to the backside of your conveyance for other drivers to view in the wake of daily travels. With such awesome sticker possibilities, the question is whether or not we should reflect on the responsibility that comes with politicizing our street-bound chariots.

Like the division between the tattooed and the non-tattooed, car owners have customarily broken up into separate camps of those that believe that their car’s body should remain wholly “clean” and those that have the inclination towards “illustration.” Common aversions to bumper stickers range from concerns over loss of paint during removal to the notion that stickers simply take away from the vehicle’s original beauty. Despite these arguments, many of the most loyal non-bumper-sticker advocates will break their own non-bumper-sticker pledges during this political season and add support for their personal candidate by way of the rump of their righteous ride. I would speak to all those across this spectrum with a few political protocol suggestions for the 2012 presidential race in the name of bumper sticker sanity.

First, remove all past Election Day stickers. Nothing says “denial” more than an old, crinkled, half-biodegraded “John Kerry 2004″ bumper sticker. We have all seen the equivalent before, even on the most beautiful of vehicles, and we have all done the same thing: grunt with displeasure, shake our heads in sadness and die a little inside. Remember, you may be in a wreck while on the road, and removing an ancient, long-dead political sticker might help you avoid unnecessary dementia testing while at the hospital. The potential upsides are just too many to ignore.

Second, one political sticker on your car states your case; twenty stickers says you’re imbalanced. Also, the nature of your sticker says more about you, the vehicle owner, than your political affiliation. As a former police officer who made hundreds of car stops, I’ve seen that bumper stickers often say a lot about the character of the individual behind the wheel. Just like bumper stickers that say, “I love weed,” and “Got Magic Mushrooms?” might not enhance the quality of an interaction with the police, overly vulgar, aggressive and stupid political stickers say something about you. Remember, your mom might have to borrow that car.

Lastly, political bumper stickers have a lifespan that ends on election night: win, lose or draw. This can be hard to swallow for those that have a bumper sticker of a winning candidate now being displayed in all its post-election glory. Trust me, that sticker and your candidate will never look better than it did in that single moment in time. Take a picture, and start applying soap and water. The validity of this thinking is seen every day in the tattered Obama ’08 stickers still adorned among the declining faithful of the liberal political motorcade. It’s sad to see and makes many wonder, which has fallen apart worse, the Obama bumper stickers or the Obama presidency?

If a person’s home is their castle then their vehicle is not far removed. Show it some respect this political season. Just as importantly, show some respect to all of humanity in your review mirror, be responsible for yourself and be kind to your vehicle’s backside.