Looks like the "wise latina" didn't get the memo from the White House. Still I wouldn't count on her not going along with the left wing of the court but that she dared bring up this argument is pretty amazing.
And the ultimate goal is pedophilia.
What About Polygamy?
It is illegal also. Did she really go to school? She should know that the Mormons have fought multiple times on multiple wives.
Pandora’s Box
It should be noted that Hispanics and blacks passed California’s Proposition 8. It failed with white voters.
Polygamy has been practiced by various human civilizations for hundreds of years whereas “gay marriage” has been a recent invention barely one generation old. From a legal viewpoint, it makes more sense to legalize polygamy than to invent a new definition of marriage involving same gender partners.
Okay of two sisters marry? The couple could not produce mutant kids (like incest), so why not?
So what was Olsen’s answer?
*ping*
Thoughtful comment - BUT she's innocent of elite liberal thinking - IF it's all wide open - why would 'marriage' be restricted to 'adults' or for that matter 'humans'? Elite liberals want to destroy marriage - the 'gay issue' is only step one.
Different “status”. Sotomayor is playing games to give the impression she is being thoughtful.
Why not?
Great question from Sotomayor. She also was on the right side (unlike Roberts and Alito) on the drug sniffing dog on the porch case.
I think she may have a chance to move up to 5th on my list of favorite, current Supreme Court Justices after
1) Scalia
2) Thomas
3) Alito
4) Kennedy
and before
6) Roberts
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
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?
Holland Discusses ‘Group Marriage’ as Next Step
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2999399/posts
Mmmmm, think I might wanna add a wife of two.....
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.