Posted on 03/27/2013 1:11:54 PM PDT by Maelstorm
Justice Sonia Sotomayor was questioning former U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson, a pro-gay marriage Republican. She brought up a very interesting question during the exchange: If gay marriage is legal, what about polygamy?
Sotomayor asked, "If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what state restrictions could ever exist?" before referencing "polygamy and incest among adults," as reported by Matt Canham of the Salt Lake Tribune. The argument is an illustration of a broader issue about the culture of American society. To agree that gay marriage is indeed protected by the "equal protection" clause in the Constitution, wouldn't the same apply for all consenting adult relationships?
Justice Sonia Sotomayor's thought-provoking question was echoed by Bishop Harry Jackson, a minister at Hope Christian Church in Beltsville, Md. He believes that "the real issue is the religious liberty issue and the issue of whether we can practice marriage as we believe it on an ongoing basis," and further stated that if same-sex marriage "is allowed to be mandated by fiat...then, right behind it, polygamy and many other forms of marriage will automatically sweep the land within just a matter of a few years." Advocates of legalizing gay marriage, as opposed to offering a compromise of "civil unions," which they argue is no different than "separate but equal" should consider this question.
Recently, President Obama's "Organizing for Action" tweeted a quote from the president, whose position on this has "evolved" in a big way from 2008, when he stated, "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage." The tweet quoted the President as saying: "Every single American deserves to be treated equally in the eyes of the law," followed by the hashtag #MarriageEquality. If this is true, than America should do away with programs like affirmative action, which do not treat everyone "equally". Additionally, if this is true, than loving polygamous families should be allowed to get married.
Utterly absurd as proved by your single, quirky, unproven, and linkless example. Don't even try including Boswell's myth of Saints Sergius and Bacchus.
You are right. It's going to get worse.
I see where you're coming from, but my understanding is that soliciting is what is illegal, not the act of prostitution itself. Still, the principle holds true.
Yup...
America has not learned it's lesson yet...
Haggai 1:5-11
5 Now this is what the Lord Almighty says:
“Give careful thought to your ways. 6 You have planted much, but harvested little. You eat, but never have enough. You drink, but never have your fill. You put on clothes, but are not warm. You earn wages, only to put them in a purse with holes in it.”
7 This is what the Lord Almighty says:
“Give careful thought to your ways. 8 Go up into the mountains and bring down timber and build my house, so that I may take pleasure in it and be honored,” says the Lord. 9 “You expected much, but see, it turned out to be little. What you brought home, I blew away. Why?” declares the Lord Almighty. “Because of my house, which remains a ruin, while each of you is busy with your own house. 10 Therefore, because of you the heavens have withheld their dew and the earth its crops. 11 I called for a drought on the fields and the mountains, on the grain, the new wine, the olive oil and everything else the ground produces, on people and livestock, and on all the labor of your hands.”
2 Chronicles 7:14
If my people, who are called by my name,
shall humble themselves,
and pray, and seek my face,
and turn from their wicked ways; ,
then will I hear from heaven,
and will forgive their sin,
and will heal their land.
Yes, it would have to be anything goes. This is indeed a Pandora’s box as someone posted up the thread.
Thanks for bothering to respond to an idiot on my behalf. JFYI, I don’t waste my time with such as it only encourages them and their idiocy speaks for itself.
He’s a troll who just joined up yesterday. Take care.
And ironically it was the massive turnout of blacks and Hispanics supporting Obama that drove the voting. Interesting how these things pan out...
2. What practical and legal restraints would their be on the enterprising business which arranged marriages of thousands of parties, so that these parties could receive some benefit of marriage? I buy heath insurance. You pay me a few bucks. We marry. You get health insurance on my family plan.
I think the theory is the debauchery will cause such chaos, Americans -- in their usual, unthinking way -- will want a quick fix. And sometime in the next several decades, they may view sharia as the way to provide that fix.
America would be more likely to turn to a 3rd Great Awakening than some foreign cult.
Polygamy?
What about unions between humans and animals? Are not animals just as capable of “loving” each other and people as humans?
Since people seem to no longer care about the ability to actually procreate in family units it is something of a cultural misnomer that they should care about marriage at all.
After all why should two or more people who can’t ever reproduce with each other care about an expensive and burdensome contract(union) that they will never have any children to need?
Unforutnatly due to this cultural misnomer regarding the nature and propose of marriage, the actual institution among those operating under this misnomer does not really exist. They feel they are bound by law and God to each-other for their own mutual pleasure.
But there is no need for that binding for sodomy(in the case of gays), for there can never be any children to result from that act. The same goes Zoophilia(Sex between man and animal), and ever other form of non-procreative sex.
So why on earth should any of theses pairs or groups desire the burdens of said legal & religious union? To those of us who know the parties informed the answer is entirely due to the cultural misnomer that has become of marriage.
It is an unfortunate fate that such a ancient and essencal institution as marriage should be dethroned by such a commonly pointless lie. But this is a process that has been in the workings in the west for more than 50 years, the results of which are already abundantly clear. In the legacy of high divorce rate, and broken families.
The federal court can enforce this lie thus helping to cement the word marriage in the the annals of inevitable ill-relevancy, or they can remind us that this union has a point, and should not be entered into with out that point in mind.
Unfortunately, now that BO has come out foursquare in favor of gay marriage, his groupies are going to just get obediently in line.
“Polygamy has been practiced by various human civilizations for hundreds of years whereas “gay marriage” has been a recent invention barely one generation old. From a legal viewpoint, it makes more sense to legalize polygamy than to invent a new definition of marriage involving same gender partners.”
Correct.
It’s also correct that the arguments being made for gay marriage - ‘Equality means you can marry who you want’ - are clearly arguments that lead to affirmation of not just polygamy but incestuous relationships, all outlawed in state law. Gay marriage will inevitably lead to these being tested in courts.
Even this lib justice is smart enough to realize that SSM opens a pandora’s box in the courts. I dont think the Supremes will want to declare SSM a right. They better not, it makes a mockery of the Constitution to rule so.
“Why shouldn’t I be able to marry my sister? I love her, well not in “that way,” but who is to say this is wrong? Besides, I have economic resources she needs. It’s all good. /s”
I know you have the sarc tag, but I was thinking ... for elderly siblings, between the companionship and the tax/inheritance benefits, it probably would be appealling for a lot of elderly siblings.
Remember, with SSM, the idea of marriage because you can procreate is out the window - so why restrict it to sexually active partners? Could be *any* two people.
“There are a lot of “marriage equality” postings on Facebook”
Just tell them that it is interesting that they are for polygamy and if they say know call them anti-poly bigot and poly-phobe.
Exactly my point. Basically there is no reason that any two people can’t marry for any reason once you take the gender restrictions away. In fact, using the arguments currently presented, there is no reason to restrict group marriages either.
The ultimate goal is a pansexuality, in which the perverts can have sex with anyone or anything, including your 13-month-old baby or your cat. These people are at Satan’s call.
I think it’s a reasonable assumption. If, for example, Christians were prohibited by law from partaking in the Lord’s Supper, we would surely still do it secretly, and as soon as the law allowed, we’d do it openly again. I see no reason why the Mormons wouldn’t do the same with one of their religious practices.
“then the only link between law and morals is based on political power.”
Very true. Another consequence of that is those who are in the minority will be more likely to disobey the laws, since they won’t recognize them as fair laws, but simply impositions to be dispensed with when it is convenient.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.