(LifeSiteNews) — If you want to know what the Guardian thinks of “polyamory” – that is, a group of people living promiscuously together – the lede of their May 3 report “Polyamorous Americans are celebrating new laws establishing their ‘inherent worth and dignity’” makes it crystal clear.

“Amy Nash-Kille knows that not everyone would choose a polyamorous family like hers. But she called it the ‘greatest blessing’ of her life,” the Guardian reported solemnly. “Nash-Kille said she has spent the last 17 years in a committed relationship with ‘two gentle, loving men,’ sharing the costs and responsibilities of raising four kids.”

As I noted in this space last month, the press is pushing polyamory as the next stage in the sexual revolution. Legal barriers to every imaginable form of sexual behavior and expression have already been torn down; now, activists wish to enshrine each of these behaviors into law as “protected classes” to endow them with formal (and thus, moral) recognition and, conversely, ban all forms of discrimination against these behaviors.

READ: Synod report suggests homosexual ‘relationships’ may not be sinful

The case that is consistently being made is the same case that was made for same-sex “marriage” and the rest of the LGBT agenda: legal protection must be extended to polyamory because otherwise those involved will become victims of discrimination. Amy – she of the two male partners – told the Guardian that she has had to hide her “family arrangement” from her graduate school adviser, co-workers, and even (gasp!) her hairdresser.

Notice here that why Amy is hiding her sexual behavior is not detailed. In all likelihood, it is because plenty of people see it as promiscuity or polygamy, and although promiscuity doesn’t attract a lot of judgment these days, polygamy does. Amy’s behavior is legal, but she doesn’t want to hide it anymore. As such, she would like formal recognition of her relationship. Again, with formal recognition comes the ability to condemn those who oppose these relationships as discriminators. It’s the LGBT playbook all over again.

“In March, the city became the largest in the U.S. to pass an ordinance protecting polyamorous people and multipartnered households from discrimination in housing, jobs and public accommodation,” reported the Guardian. “For Nash-Kille and her partners, it was ‘one of the greatest relief moments of our lives.’”

“People are still going to judge what they don’t understand,” said Nash-Kille, who told her story to the Guardian and in city council testimony. But the new law, she said over email, “is helping to establish the inherent worth and dignity of people who have unusual family configurations when considered by society at large.”

The framing here is key. Nobody said that Amy and her partners do not have “inherent worth and dignity.” They do. They are people, and all people have inherent worth and dignity. What Amy is saying is that in order for her inherent worth and dignity to be recognized, her sexual behaviors have to be recognized and endorsed. She is saying that people judge her sexual arrangement because “they don’t understand.” In fact, promiscuity is boringly easy to understand. People oppose it for moral reasons, not a lack of understanding. But with these polemics, the polyamorist crusade is gaining traction:

Portland’s ordinance is the latest in a recent wave of cities including West Hollywood and Olympia, Washington’s capital city, extending civil rights protections to those in nontraditional family or romantic arrangements. Eight cities across Massachusetts and the west coast now have some form of legal recognition of polyamorous relationships.

Taken together, the efforts signal the emergence of a stigmatized group as a political constituency, as well as a challenge to the legal dominance of the traditional nuclear family – which has become the exception rather than the rule.

READ: Peak woke DEI? ‘Transgender’ black male with quadriplegic cerebral palsy makes MET Gala debut

Notice that a few people living together and having sex is now a “stigmatized group” that – and this is the important bit – poses a “challenge to the legal dominance of the traditional nuclear family.” This is about further conforming society to the sexual revolution and eliminating the natural family as a basis for society. Amy isn’t asking not to be “stigmatized.” She’s asking for the next step in the revolution.

The next step, of course, will be custody battles that involve sexual partners from polyamorous relationships fighting for access to children that have no biological relationship to them. “Dr Elisabeth Sheff, a sociologist who’s long studied consensual nonmonogamy, said she’s seen ‘significant judicial bias’ against polyamorous people who are assumed to be inadequate parents during custody fights,” the Guardian noted.

To translate: there is a judicial bias that recognizes biological parenthood as inherently significant. But as “family” has been legally redefined, the parent-child relationship is being legally redefined, as well.

Skylar Cruz, a “33-year-old transgender programmer” who has “been in a polyamorous relationship for about a year after she and her male partner of six years added a trans woman to their relationship,” celebrated the ordinance, stating that: “I feel like we’re at a crossroads in a lot of our political values here in the U.S. And we ultimately have to decide whether or not people are worth protecting for being different. As somebody who is very different, I can’t opt out of being different at this point.”

READ: Top LGBT ‘pride’ organizer found guilty of human trafficking in Canada

It must be repeated: nobody is saying that Skylar Cruz does not deserve protection. Cruz, like every other human being, deserves protection because every human being has inherent worth and dignity. What Cruz is actually saying is that the only “protection” that polyamorists deem sufficient is state protection for their behavior.

Indeed, Diana Adams, an attorney with the Chosen Family Law Center, stated that “their bigger goal isn’t marriage for polyamorous people, but ‘unbundling’ rights and benefits tied up in institutions that favor people in traditional relationships, including taxes, health insurance benefits and hospital visitation.” Brett Chamberlin of the Organization for Polyamory and Ethical Non-monogamy stated that they are organizing into “a movement,” with ordinances being spearheaded in Seattle, Eugene, and Astoria (Michigan).

Those who opposed same-sex “marriage” predicted all of this. Those who advocated for it denied it would ever happen. They were lying, and here we are.