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.
As the wag said, Bigamy is one wife too many. In many cases, monogamy is the same.
How would you rank them? What do you take issue with about Scalia?
Someone else pointed out a few days ago on another thread that if the definition of marriage is thrown wide open, a wealthy individual could potentially “marry” his children and avoid estate taxes. The commenter also commented that if this became a common practice, the Democrats would start pushing to return marriage to the “one man, one woman” definition.
This already exists in Shi’a Islam; they allow the arrangement of “temporary marriages” ranging in duration from one hour to 99 years.
The Comanche, for instance, moved from being a backwater tribe who couldn't do anything well, circa 1650, into being the dominant tribe in what roughly covers 2/3rds of west Texas, western Oklahoma and Kansas, large swaths of northern Mexico plus 2/3rds of eastern New Mexico and Colorado for the next two centuries.
They were avid polygamists as were most Native American tribes who lost a large part of their male population through constant warfare. It was a matter of necessity more than sexual gratification.
The Comanche were not very nice, to say the least, but most of the American southwest belongs to us and not Mexico because they kept the Spanish at bay for more than 150 years.
All of the generations of Jewish patriarchs from Abraham through Solomon's sons were also polygamists and the Bible isn't really clear on when the practice ended.
Not that I'm advocating it, just pointing out the the "wise Latina" at least has the sense to question where this grand experiment with marriage is going to end.
I'm sure democrats support incest. By the same logic they support 'gay marriage': somewhere there's a young man who remembers 'always' being turned on by his mother - from the time he was very young... he was 'born that way'... which is the only standard of truth dems acknowledge. We can call him Oedipus for short...
Anyhow what they would do is just raise taxes on the rich who might use such a tactic... and keep the incest.
Sotomayor (with all my prayers) may end up being the left’s David Souter.
Keep hoping. She has played you and millions others. How much do want to bet she will vote pro-gay on this
For the amount of money you spent on that baby, we’ll have to give you the right to call it a marriage.
People lived in the same villages for gneration after generation. There simply was not anyone else available as marriage partners.
I beleive the biblical account of Mary and Joseph proves that they were cousins as well. All of the begets in the book of Matthew are to show that Jesus would have had an unbroken line of inheritance to Israel's King David were it not under Roman occupation at the time.
Interestly, my wife and I are 12th cousins-- not through shared Cherokee ancestry (who don't have good written records before the 1780s) but through different children of an early Rhode Island colonist named Rev. John Crandall. Most people with early colonial ancestry are, to one degree or another, related.
Precisely. She will vote pro-gay on this decision. Why wouldn't she? For today's Supreme Court the law and Constitution are irrelevant on this one.
I recall an article a while back that a Democrat in California wanted gays to register (ostensibly to be protected). I believe that is a move to ease the identification and elimination of them after their useful idiot purpose has been filled and Obamas’ Sharia has taken hold.
Bump
“You should know that the Mormons have not practiced polygamy for over 100 years, and it is an excommunicate-able offense.”
It was only banned in the LDS church in response to state pressure, so if that pressure was removed, do you really believe that they would not resume the practice?
End of the world.
“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?”
Yup, that’s why I’m already knitting my “marriage sack”, to be prepared for the future.
While many will say Oh, Allowing Gays to get married won't cause planes to fall from the sky, don't be such a drama queen!
It's not about Gays or really even marriage,(although doing this is a great way to lose even more of G-d's blessing) it's about massing more and more regulating power.
So they can grow the government, to regulate more, to tax more, to spend more.
So in the end your prophecy will come to pass.
And When people have nothing left and have to put their convictions to the test. This silly liberal games will stop.
Right now we live in a "So you think you can dance with the stars?" FantasyLand.
But when you don't know where your next meal is coming from, you aren't in the mood to listen about Homosexual "rights".
It’s probably only a matter of time before multiple marriages are endorsed by the left in order to skate around immigration laws: Country X has 10 million adults who want to immigrate to the US. American Liberal Y colludes with those 10 million to bring them here by collecting their signatures and marrying them. Viola, now they can come over unopposed.
Hello cousin. All four grandparents of John Crandall’s second wife Hannah Gaylord were my ancestors.
Polygamy’s already a done deal, since muslims do it. Count on it, what the Mormons couldn’t accomplish despite a lot of fight, the muslims will have without breaking a sweat.
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.