Posted on 08/24/2015 2:42:31 PM PDT by fwdude
NEW YORK (Christian Examiner) – For years, Christians and social conservatives warned that if same-sex marriage were legalized, there would be no logical reason not also to allow polygamous or polyamorous relationships.
A University of Chicago assistant law professor is now acknowledging: They were right.
Writing in The New York Times July 21, William Baude said Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges laid the groundwork for further expanding the legal definition of marriage – even if Kennedy and supporters of gay marriage deny it.
"If there is no magic power in opposite sexes when it comes to marriage, is there any magic power in the number two?" Baude asked. "[T]he issue was hard to discuss candidly while same-sex marriage was still pending, because both sides knew that association with plural marriage, a more unpopular cause, could have stymied progress for gay rights.
(Excerpt) Read more at christianexaminer.com ...
In most states you can already marry a minor, with parental consent. Why do you think there was such a push to allow gay men to adopt? There WILL be cases where a gay man marries the young boy of a gay couple.
Controls that affect us is something to fight to win. As to what others do, let God sort that out.
I forgot to add, I won’t obey their mandates on my behavior regardless of the consequences.
Nossir. The goal is, little 8-year-old Jimmy gets married to 55-year-old Victor.
Well, for 5 years anyways. After that, an annulment, and on to little 8-year-old Tommy.
Indeed. Seconded.
Good to know, and you are joined by many others of conscience.
I just get tired of supposed Christians telling us that we cannot pass laws telling others how they must conduct themselves. That’s what laws DO, and unless we want lawlessness, we do approve of laws affecting others.
Least of all the advocates of the change. In fact, they will dishonestly claim that they were NEVER against the resulting destination.
Leftists have very short, insect-like memories. Or amnesia.
Well a society has a right to define itself. That’s why it’s called a “culture war”.
Unfortunately the freaks are winning.
I’ve noticed that when they absolutely have to cover a controversial subject that is obviously going to generate heat against the NYT agenda, they either allow no comments or cut them off much quicker than usual.
When government defines who is married and who is not, and when it will officiate a marriage, then it not only “is in the marriage business” but it has seized control over the marriage business, especially when it then enforces its requirement to have a government-issued license to marry.
I would be happy if all that government did for marriage was serve as a recorder after-the-fact, such as the current office of Recorder of Deeds.
Asserting that marriage is a public matter does not make it so. Even today, some couples will present themselves to a government official to be married in a “civil ceremony” and there is no requirement to announce it to the public.
“Jennifer Aniston And Justin Theroux Marry In Private Ceremony At Their Bel Air Home”
http://www.hngn.com/articles/116657/20150806/jennifer-aniston-justin-theroux-marry.htm
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.