In a surprising twist, some of America's most prominent and controversial Democratic women appear to have a rather fluid interpretation of matrimony.
While the progressive camp often seems to disdain the institution, they seem to find it appealing under certain circumstances, especially when it serves their personal interests and financial gains.
Minnesota Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar, a native of Somalia, was first in the spotlight. She has been accused of falsely presenting her brother as her husband in a scheme to expedite his immigration process. "The Congresswoman chose to follow campaign finance laws," her legal counsel stated, defending her actions.
Following Omar, New York Democratic Attorney General Letitia James found herself under scrutiny for real estate activities that allegedly included listing herself as her fathers wife for mortgage purposes. The month of July ended with a report from the bipartisan House Ethics Committee on New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortezs attendance at the 2021 Met Gala. The report highlighted her appearance in a provocative Tax the Rich designer gown, accompanied by a man who is not her spouse by any standard definition.
According to the Western Journal, the committee report revealed that Ocasio-Cortez, a democratic socialist from New York City, accepted a complimentary ticket for her then-boyfriend, now-fianc Riley Roberts. The status of their relationship seems to fluctuate depending on the paperwork she's completing. This is more than just a typical liberal scheme.
The report pointed out that the congressional ethics rules at the time permitted House members to accept free attendance at such events only for themselves and either a spouse or dependent child. The House Ethics Manual defines spouse as someone to whom you are legally married, a definition that most Americans would likely understand without needing clarification.
However, the effectiveness of these guidelines hinges on lawmakers' willingness to accept the manuals definitions, which Ocasio-Cortez did not. Her legal counsel argued that the term spouse has various meanings under different sets of law applicable to the Congresswomans actions.
Under campaign finance laws, a person in a committed relationship with the candidate, sharing a household and mutual responsibility for each others welfare or living expenses, is treated as the equivalent of the candidates spouse.
The committee disagreed with this interpretation, stating that if there was uncertainty about which guidance applied, counsel or the congresswoman should have sought advice from the Committee. The report accused Ocasio-Cortez of failing to ask a question because she had already decided on the answer she wanted, disregarding the actual rules.
This disregard for rules and precedents, even the definitions of words, is a recurring pattern among Democrats in the 21st century. They seem to be used only as far as they advance Democratic desires. This was evident in the nomination of now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, where an unexpected accusation with little credibility and even less evidence forced the Senate Judiciary Committee to reopen its hearings.
Democrats appear to believe in nothing beyond their own agenda, whether personal or political. This includes the concept of marriage, a legally defined relationship between two consenting adults under American law, and a sacred institution to major denominations of Christianity, Jews, and Muslims.
Omar and James maintain their innocence regarding the accusations of manipulating the definition of spouse for their personal or financial gains. However, the cases against them seem strong. Ocasio-Cortez, on the other hand, has admitted to her actions but argues that the relevant rule did not apply because she simply didn't want it to.
The 10-member ethics committee, equally divided between Republican and Democratic members, was unanimous in its report. The only consolation for Ocasio-Cortez and her followers is that the report concluded that her violations were not knowing and willful. However, this seems more like a concession to get the committee Democrats to agree with what is otherwise a harsh document.
The committee's punishment was to order Ocasio-Cortez to pay $250, the estimated cost of the meal her then-boyfriend consumed at the event. This is a mockery considering individual tickets for the event were sold for $35,000 each.
Democratic policies generally hold marriage in low regard, viewing it as a rite of passage on the path to gay rights or a cure for loneliness, rather than the foundational religious rite of human society to produce children.
The cases of Omar, James, and Ocasio-Cortez, while varying in their degrees of proof, all point to the same conclusion: Liberals love marriage, but for all the wrong reasons, and they have little regard for the truth.
Login