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 ...
Everybody seems to be missing the real question, what is the definition of marriage? It can’t mean anything, otherwise it means nothing. You should be able to write down a specific definition of what marriage is (and why).
Different forms of “marriage” have different consequences, so it just depends on what your standard is. It *used* to be a very high standard based on Judeo-Christian ethics. This is where the conflict really lies, our laws were always aligned with these ethics. As the atheists try to remove this traditional ethics basis from forming law we’ll continue to have chaos and contradictions in proposed changes.
I suppose my only hope is that the output of this experiment is the realization that the Judeo-Christian ethics model is the only one that works....although it’s going to be painful getting there.
Everybody seems to be missing the real question, what is the definition of marriage? It can’t mean anything, otherwise it means nothing. You should be able to write down a specific definition of what marriage is (and why).
Different forms of “marriage” have different consequences, so it just depends on what your standard is. It *used* to be a very high standard based on Judeo-Christian ethics. This is where the conflict really lies, our laws were always aligned with these ethics. As the atheists try to remove this traditional ethics basis from forming law we’ll continue to have chaos and contradictions in proposed changes.
I suppose my only hope is that the output of this experiment is the realization that the Judeo-Christian ethics model is the only one that works....although it’s going to be painful getting there.
communists and liberaltarians have en wanting this for some time
When she said that she thinks illegals have a right to American jobs, someone should have asked, “Under your Justice Department, what laws will I be allowed to break with impunity, or even be rewarded for breaking?”
I’d like to know why the feds ignore their own laws like drugs in states an immigration while not defending DOMA.
I don’t think we can stop the far left fringe from forcing anything-goes “marriage” on America, although perhaps we can push back once it causes problems. What they cannot do is force us to pretend that gay “marriage” and polygamy have anything to do with real marriage beyond the free stuff that people are hoping will come with this fictional but legal status.
AND any pedophile can demand the same rights by invoking the mantra of the LGBLSMFT crowd” it is my sexual orientation”
Is Trey Gowdy going to get to ask any questions? Sure hope so.
>>Is it now a pre-requisite that one be an Affirmative Action Black person in order to be Attorney General of the U.S.?
Once an office has been held by a black, putting a white person in would be RAY-CESS!
Leni
Well, I’m not pro-polygamy, and while I agree with the moral decay of America, remember the Patriarchs in the Bible (Abraham, Jacob, Moses and many others) had more than one wife. So, apparently it was o.k. with God at one time.
I thought the same thing. She didn’t take the bait because she didn’t have an answer.
Sorry; I don’t know.
Leni
They should have followed that up though and let up until they got an answer.
The tables have only turned because the left have been promoting it and the republicans as well as many of voters will not speak up to their neighbors, friends and family.
Just saw this. You can check it out; I’m at work and can’t do so right now. Apparently the hearings are on C-SPAN.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3251905/posts
Since there is no test or requirement of sexual activity in a marriage, there is no reason why fathers and sons, or mothers and grand-daughters, or even fathers and daughters should be prohibited from marrying each other, given the new elastic understanding of marriage.
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.