Posted on 06/29/2015 12:32:57 PM PDT by Kaslin
well the ruling from the so called judges stated that the homosexual sham falls under the equal protection, thus it can mean now polygamy.
in trying to make sense of it all .... it makes no sense at all .... twin peaks? and two erected fingers in the air!?!
Great way for a frat or sorority house to get gov’t freebies.
I want to marry my Corvette.
Don’t tell me I can’t/.
Have you proposed to Girls Generation, yet?
next question to be considered by the supremes shall be ... When did you consider yourself a ‘family’?
I think I read there is already a case headed for SCOTUS.
Polygamy is currently illegal in the United States. On December 13, 2013, a federal judge, spurred by the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups,[137] struck down the parts of Utah’s bigamy law that criminalized cohabitation,[138] while also acknowledging that the state may still enforce bans on having multiple marriage licenses.[138]
In the U.S., the Libertarian Party supports complete decriminalization of polygamy as part of a general belief that the government should not regulate marriages.[139] Individualist feminism and advocates such as Wendy McElroy and journalist Jillian Keenan also support the freedom for adults to voluntarily enter polygamous marriages.[140][141]
In an October 2004 op-ed for USA Today, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley “argued that, as a simple matter of equal treatment under law, polygamy ought to be legal. Acknowledging that underage girls are sometimes coerced into polygamous marriages, Turley replied that banning polygamy is no more a solution to child abuse than banning marriage would be a solution to spousal abuse.”[142]
In January 2015, Pastor Neil Patrick Carrick of Detroit Michigan brought a case Carrick v. Snyder against Michigan that the states ban of polygamy violates the Free Exercise and Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.[143][144]
There is another, more “conservative” case for polygamy, too: “By legitimizing polygamy and allowing its practitioners to join mainstream society, we can monitor and regulate the practice, thereby reducing any problems. On Big Love, for example, one polygamous wife won’t visit a hospital for fear of alerting the authorities. Legalize polygamy, the argument goes, and marriage and divorce law will protect polygamous wives, instead of scaring them into hiding.”[142]
Stanley Kurtz, a fellow at the Hudson Institute, however, lamented the modern arguments made by intellectuals calling for de-criminalizing polygamy. Kurtz concluded, “Marriage, as its ultramodern critics would like to say, is indeed about choosing one’s partner, and about freedom in a society that values freedom. But that’s not the only thing it is about. As the Supreme Court justices who unanimously decided Reynolds in 1878 understood, marriage is also about sustaining the conditions in which freedom can thrive. Polygamy in all its forms is a recipe for social structures that inhibit and ultimately undermine social freedom and democracy. A hard-won lesson of Western history is that genuine democratic self-rule begins at the hearth of the monogamous family.”[142]
“What, therefore, God has joined together, let no man separate.”
How many wives has Rush had?
The Constitution.... “IS”....whatever “5 people” think it “IS” at any point in time!
That’s what this ruling has proven!
Libs may claim the gay marriage question did not open the door to polygamy, but it most certainly does.
#1: The Gay ruling removes any deference to religious tradition.
#2: The Gay ruling removes any deference to civic tradition.
#3: The Gay ruling pays no deference to the Natural law that says gay relationships are not favored by nature because they cannot be self sustaining (they cannot self-reproduce)... and polygamy can!
Simply put, what legal claim can be made against polygamy that was not rendered moot by SCOTUS last week?
I argued that some will want incestuous marriage next. An acquaintance told me that won’t happen because “everyone knows it is wrong.”
I replied, “Who are you to determine what is wrong?”
I disagree with Rush on one key point. Marriage hasn’t been “redefined” at all. It has been rendered completely meaningless, from a legal standpoint.
Just because you may have fallen short in living up to an ideal or standard in your own life does not mean that you cannot still support and defend that ideal and standard. And doing so does not make you a hypocrite. If it did, no human could ever talk about living a holy life, since we have all fallen short of that standard...
A platonic “incestuous marriage” actually makes a lot of sense as an estate-planning measure to avoid paying estate taxes.
Now if Rush was holding himself up as an example of what God intended marriage to be, THAT would be hypocritical.
One at a time.
You could at least have chosen a non-Government Motors spouse.................
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.