FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
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.
That’s serial polygamy, they want traditional one groom, three brides polygamy.
Do you really want three mothers-in-law? Yeesh...
I’d like to be able to disagree but I think you are right but there are several goals.
1. The primary one is to further deconstruct the idea of family so to make it meaningless and especially suppress any picture that does not equate homosexual partnerships with heterosexual partnerships. If you remember the whole feminist attack on the patriarchy this is an extension of the same thing. The feminists created chaos in the 60s through degenerating the idea of the classy chaste woman and proper sexual behavior. This is just the next step in that goal.
2. Grow government necessity in promoting same sex unions and ridiculing and criminalizing traditional notions of sex and marriage through political correctness edicts and intimidation.
3. Next phase which we already are seeing with the new letter on the LGBT-Q. The q for questioning is to accomplish the next phase which is radical suppression of gender and the encouragement of an androgynous approach to sexuality and sexual orientation. We will see more of the little boys dressed, more sex ed encouraging the idea of same sex experimentation through public schools and the suppression of any criticism through the implementation of pro gay “anti-bullying” edicts and mandatory sex ed programs.
4. The next phase would begin decriminalizing and norming of pedophilia and other deviances. Ask a leftist about the dwarf chimpanzees which seem to be their model of a sex crazed non violent society.
The ultimate goals of course are to deconstruct the role of men. Homosexuality does this by encouraging a feminized shrunken version of maleness as a preferable model or an ego driven vain version that is vastly more promiscuous with a disregard for their offspring. Deconstruct the role of women encouraging them to reject men altogether or have an adversarial relationship with men if they do marry. This accomplishes a couple things it guarantees that most children will be born to lower classes that are easier to manipulate and that those who are the best educated and most successful act as money sinks whose primary purpose is to transfer wealth to a central government power structure. The deconstruction of family is the ultimate goal which also leads to the deconstruction of religion and all traditional structures including ideas of patriotism. As the role of family shrinks and government dependence grows the government power structure grows and then the final phase and goal is set into play which will begin with international tax laws and international redistribution of resources.
The thing to keep in mind is that these people have a world view that is completely hostile to the idea of traditional America and Traditional America stands in the way of the transformation of not just the US but the entire world.
Gays are a tool to leave the average citizen too confused, sex blinded, entertainment distracted, to resist with the only God they answer to being the Central Government and their own egos.
How many wives did King Solomon have?
Is it not true that Muslim men can have up to four wives?
Yes but you can marry the Gibson guitar with no strings attached. (’. Might be easier on you when consummating the marriage.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
My dad has one as well. What a work of art they were/are.
..........rim shot
There are a lot of “marriage equality” postings on Facebook. I’m in favor of freedom and the constitution. Equality of all things and results is not what the constitution guarantees. I’m not a Constitutional lawyer. I do know that the Declaration of Independence is not part of the Constitution. I think it should be but we’ve never done that.
So, if we are not guaranteed equality of results in the Constitution, where do we look for it as a controlling rule of life? I don’t. I don’t expect to be able to play in the NBA. I don’t even expect to be chosen as a judge based upon my gender.
So what does this have to do with the “marriage equality” movement? First of all, everyone has the right to marry right now. He or she can marry any person of the opposite sex if he or she is old enough. So we restrict that right in that in this county a 45 year old man cannot marry an 11 year old girl. In some countries that does happen. So the government has this role, to regulate marriage. At present, no one is agitating for the right for a person to marry two people at once. A decision was made over a century ago that this was not good for our culture.
Until the last few years, everyone assumed that only men married women and vice versa. Why the change?
Two people of the same sex can give sexual pleasure to each other. That is no longer a crime in this country. They can enter into contracts which require certain behavior in the event of a split. Even Kansas has held that these contracts are binding. They can name each other in wills. Most corporations allow “domestic partners” to be named as beneficiaries in health and life insurance and on pensions and 401[k]s. These provisions allow both same sex and opposite sex partners to care for the other.
I mentioned that the government had the right to regulate marriage as seen in the approach to child brides and multiple wifes (or husbands). What other role or power does our government have?
We go back to the Constitution at this point. Our government in its founding document gave away a lot of power. One of the huge chunks of power it gave away was in the first amendment. I’ll start with freedom of speech. People are being shouted down if they have reservations about “gay marriage.” They are called bigots, homophobes, hate mongers. They are being fired, marginalized, and generally discriminated against. This is not the American way. In that same amendment, we are promised freedom of religion. My faith says that homosexual sex is morally disordered. I’m not ready to throw out over 2000 years of Church dogma and tradition for the politically correct flavor of the month. I have this right, in the Constitution, to disagree and vocalize about it. My Church has the right to refuse to do same sex commitment ceremonies or “marriages.” But that’s what is coming next because another role of government is to enforce. We are possibly one or two generations away from priests being imprisoned for refusing to marry two women. Do we want that society? So before we all start jumping up and down about how progressive and cool we are, think it through. What is to be gained and what lost by this exercise? Who is being helped and who is being harmed?
Wish mine looked that good
Sharia dictates that homosexuals be killed. Pedophilia is totally fine as Muhammad (the perfect man) consummated his marriage with Aisha “his favorite wife” at age 9 after marrying her at 6.
Holland Discusses ‘Group Marriage’ as Next Step
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2999399/posts
Among the “great” civilizations only polygyny has ever been practiced.
0bama didn't assume office for the purpose of bettering America.. He took office to CHANGE it. This is treason.
Mmmmm, think I might wanna add a wife of two.....
You’ve got Scalia ranked too high.
What is there, apart from my aunt's consent, to prevent me?
Civilized society is being broken down. There will be group marriages with food stamps and drug stamps provided by the communist dictatorship. The food shelves will be mostly empty and the drugs will be fake pills. People will live in garbage dumps, prostituting their children for rat meat and industrial strength alcohol.
Then the few survivors will drag their knuckles to the caves and marriage will be a club to the head.
Who cannot see this coming?
| First-cousin marriage | |
| Allowed with restrictions or exceptions | |
| Banned with exceptions1 | |
| Statute bans first-cousin marriage1 | |
| Criminal offense1 |
1Certain states may recognize marriages performed elsewhere.
I sense a set-up. Prior to the decision on Obamacare, numerous cogent arguments against it were made. Then Roberts crapped the bed.
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.