Posted on 01/29/2015 6:46:13 AM PST by Din Maker
During Loretta Lynch's confirmation hearing Wednesday, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) tried to take the attorney general nominee down the slippery-slope argument often made against the marriage equality movement by inquiring what the legal difference is between marriage of same-sex couples and that of three or more people.
'What is the legal difference between a state -- a ban on same-sex marriage being unconstitutional but a ban on polygamy being constitutional?" he inquired at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. "Could you try to articulate how one could be banned under the Constitution and the other not?"
Lynch, who is the current U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, didn't take the bait. She cited her inexperience in dealing with cases of precedent on the matter, and promised to "look forward to continuing the discussions with you."
(Excerpt) Read more at huffingtonpost.com ...
Translation: Gotta check with the boss.
see my tagline. I have been waiting for years for someone to get some guts and raise this issue.
Muslims can have 4 wives, Mormons can marry as many, why not? The whole marriage issue has been redefined now because of the homosexuals and the ignorant who keep saying Govt has no place in marriage and so what if they marry
My thoughts too.
She has just admitted she is inexperienced and therefore she should be dropped from contention.
Anarchists , ocmmunists and liberaltarians would have no problem with polygamy, incest and getting rid of the age of consent
Gay marriage is the first step. They will eventually do away with all marriage restrictions.
GREAT Question.
Moral Absolutes Ping!
Freepmail Responsibility2nd or wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list. FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search [ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
Once you:
- Have an empty stomach and
- Are not drinking anything and
- Are not using a work computer
Google polyamory. That’s next.
After that, it’ll be incest, children, animals and inanimate objects (I only wish I was kidding).
Once those come to pass, the institution of marriage will be destroyed for good. Marriages will be made and divorces will happen at light speed with no consequences.
Well, with one consequence: If you’re a white man divorcing a wife you’ll still be expected to pay alimony. That will NEVER go away.
The French have a law on the books since early 1800s. A guy happens to die and he was engaged to marry....but hasn’t married yet...well, the gal can register a marriage with the dead guy if his parents will consent. At some point in the 1990s...the law was used and approved by a judge for some gal. I don’t know the number of occasions that it’s been used over the past two-hundred years....but it makes for an interesting situation.
Not a bimbo for sure.
She’s a slick snake like )bama. Able to slither out of a question.
She’s )bama with a ‘p’.
Next, that Jeffers sicko will be let out of prison so he can go on with his way of life.
Now that they’re working on lowering the age of consent and also working to legitimize the acknowledgement of children’s sexuality no matter the age through means such as the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, I predict that pedophile marriage will also one day be acceptable and legal. I’d say within 20 years. Anyone opposed will be deemed an anachronistic bigot.
Among Native American tribes, the corresponding number of participants rose to as high as 40%. And we weren't nearly as kind as the Mormons in taking care of the widows. Basically, if she was able to work and contribute to the tribe, someone might marry her or the tribe would allow her to stay on, but her status was very low. If not, then the typical matter of disposal was to take her to an isolated camp and abandon her, sometimes with other sickly or infirm members of the tribe.
It isn't something the multiculturalists like to publicize, but it is the sad truth.
Nope - no exception there.
Their position is "Any two people who love each other should be allowed to marry."
Then, when they start to backpedal, point out that there are already lots of restrictions on real marriages, too ... not related, not already married, and so on. One of those restrictions just happens to be "Male and female, one each".
I worked with a gay guy who listed a one night stand as his domestic partner, thus allowing the one night stand to get insurance and all other company sponsored benefits, because ‘he felt sorry for him’.
Why not beastiality too? Incest? Moral relativism has no bounds.
Threesome marriages, in my humble opinion....will be a regular thing by 2030.
in addition to this discussion “ did you know that marriage used to be just between a man and a woman” as if it’s some archaic remnant of the past..
next up...same question with “incest” and “bestiality” in place of “polygamy”
Both are wrong and evil. Those that think otherwise have been brainwashed and fallen in line with political correctness. America has descended from a position of moral decency to the depths of moral bankruptcy. Sadly, not many seem to care.
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.