Posted on 10/07/2022 8:38:17 AM PDT by Jan_Sobieski
A funny thing happened to the Democrats' same-sex marriage bill on its trip from the House to the Senate: people actually started reading the legislation. When they did, an uncomfortable reality set in -- nothing in the text explicitly outlawed polygamy. It was just a "drafting error," the more liberal senators claimed. But it wasn't a "drafting error" when a New York judge recognized polyamory late last month. How much longer until the party who wants "love" to be the legal basis for every relationship follows suit?
The decision by trial court judge Karen May Bacdayan should have been frontpage news. After all, she essentially gave New York's blessing to polyamorous unions in her September decision, declaring that "... the problem with [previous same-sex marriage rulings] is that they recognize only two-person relationships."
At the heart of the case was an apartment dispute, triggered when a tenant, who had a gay spouse living elsewhere, died. The landlords argued that the man he did live with didn't have a right to renew the lease because the two weren't married. When the roommate objected, arguing that he was a "non-traditional family member," the judge decided to hold a hearing on whether all three were romantically involved…
(Excerpt) Read more at prophecynewswatch.com ...
They would cycle at the same time too. Maybe they would kill each other. Buy life insurance on them.
I notice now I can no longer find that cartoon with the gay couple throwing the bouquet with the Polygamists and Pedos fighting over it.
There were five common law requirements for people to get married:
1. Of legal age
2. Of proper mental capacity
3. Opposite sexes
4. Not too closely related
5. Not already married
While the first two have to do with the ability to consent and thus aren’t applicable (which is also why bestiality *probably* isn’t at the bottom of this slippery slope either as animals can’t consent), as long as “love is love” there is no logical way to distinguish the last three.
I lost a friend pointing this out who told me that I was comparing his sexuality to incest. I was only pointing out the logical inconsistency. And if you go back to well I don’t want polygamy (#5) or incest (#4) because I don’t like it or that’s not what marriage is, well you’ve walked back into the argument for #3.
Don’t be silly. The “Party of Democracy” doesn’t want to allow the people to vote on these things. They prefer to find a Communist judge to impose it on us by decree.
It’s already here, for certain favored groups who can have up to 4 “wives.” We will be on the hook for the expenses that that entails.
“They allow 8 year old girls to marry middle age men in Yemen.”
And the US allows those ‘couples’ to immigrate to the US.
“Many famous people live in threesome arrangements in secret.”
Hugh Hefner and Charlie Sheen did it right out in the open and no one called the police on them or even whined about it in the media.
The destruction of the American family continues by those in trusted positions of power and authority. Following their attempt on legalizing polygamy, I would not at all be surprised that legalization of pedophilia (pardon, “minor-attracted adults” in the disgusting parlance of our time) is the subject of the next attack on the American family.
When does that matter? Even Califreakia voted down same sex marriage initially and the courts just overruled.
maybe this will get marriage back on track /s
I suppose you could marry sisters...or brothers...or brothers and sisters...
Every liberal man needs several ditsy liberal wives. Perhaps their suicide rate would go up.
44 years here. My wife is dealing with T1 diabetes and beat breast cancer. The first female in her line to live past age 59 going back 6 generations. Perhaps we smoked out the hidden killer in her lineage.
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.