Posted on 04/29/2015 2:19:55 PM PDT by Jan_Sobieski
In the oral arguments presented yesterday in the Supreme Court on the question of whether the U.S. Constitution guarantees two people of the same sex the right to marry one another, Justice Samuel Alito asked whetherif two of the same sex have a right to marrywhy not four people of opposite sexes.
Would there be any ground for denying them a license? Alito asked. Let's say they're all consenting adults, highly educated. They're all lawyers, he said.
Alito posed the question to Mary L. Bonauto, a lawyer who was presenting the court with arguments on behalf of clients seeking to establish a right to same-sex marriage. Bonauto expressed the view that states cannot prohibit two people of the same-sex from marrying but can prohibit four people of different sexes from marrying. Here is an excerpt from the argument:
Justice Samuel Alito: Suppose we rule in your favor in this case and then after that, a group consisting of two men and two women apply for a marriage license. Would there be any ground for denying them a license?
Mary Bonauto: I believe so, Your Honor.
Alito: What would be the reason?
Bonauto: There'd be two. One is whether the State would even say that that is such a thing as a marriage, but then beyond that, there are definitely going to be concerns about coercion and consent and disrupting family relationships when you start talking about multiple persons. But I want to also just go back to the wait and see question for a moment, if I may. Because...
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
I want to marry my children on my death bed, and screw the IRS out of the inheritance taxes.
[[She seemed to say that states would rush in to show a compelling interest against 3 or 4-party marriages.]]
She went further by saying basically that because there would be so many people that disputes would arise as to who gets what I n the marriage, and she says that it would cause cases of coercion with one person or two forcing the other to do something against their will- basically-
It’s an asinine argument/answer- the first part of her answer is a LIE- states would NOT rush in now that DEVIANT sexual practices are now legal and rewarded with marriage- once you allow one DEVIANT lifestyle marriage, you then MUST allow all- you can NOT legislate4 from the bench and pick and choose which of the sexually deviant lifestyles you like and don’t like- These DEVIANT sexual acts of all kinds have been determined to be immoral and DEVIANT for a long long time now- and to now come along and say that one or two or several aren’t deviant is to declare from the bench that we the people don’t have a right to label something immoral that has been called immoral since the beginning of time
Her second part to her answer is just asinine- like coercion doesn’t happen in marriages with two people? Like squabbles don’t already happen? NEITHER of these explanations are relevant
This whole issues boils down to this basic question “Is Homosexual sex an unnatural act? If yes, then it is an immoral act, and immoral acts can not be allowed in marriage- period- IF you allow one immoral unnatural sexual persuasion, then you MUST allow them all
Alito tried to get the lawyer to explain why she would pick and choose which unnatural act should be allowed, and she danced all around the issue giving asinine ‘answers’
[[As long as it arbitrary marry yourself ]]
Are you kidding me? I can’t stand myself- I’d be cosntnatly fighting with myself If I had to marry myself-
It would be a good start?
You should feel free in your case to marry your alternate self. An alternate is sorta like the profiles and avatars folks use on dating sites.
I want to marry the Queen of Hearts, and a perfect Key West sunset.
Good point!
The lawyer in favor of same-sex marriage knew should would be asked a question like Justice Alito’s concerning a marriage of four lawyers. She had months to prepare for it — and yet her answer was extremely unconvincing if not actually incoherent.
So where does that leave the liberal Justices, who will have to address the same slippery-slope issue in their written opinions if they rule in favor of same-sex marriage?
It’s one thing to be a mere lawyer speaking on behalf of a client. But Supreme Court justices are required to protect the American legal system instead of knowingly destroying it by setting precedents like legalized same-sex marriage that could easily lead to four-member marriages and beyond until the whole concept of marriage becomes a mockery.
So the question is, how shameless will the liberal Justices be in their decisions? And if they choose to destroy the institution of marriage, how absurd will the convolutions be in their written arguments as they attempt to defend the indefensible?
1. One human (presumed) male;
2. One human (presumed) female;
3. Of a certain age;
4. Not of a certain level of familial relationship.
If "love is all you need" then none of the other limitations should be applicable either. You should be able to marry your 12 year old sister and her little dog too based on the same arguments made in favor of gay marriage.
Brian May of Queen who wrote a good many of their songs is not gay.
They’ll never let four lawyers marry. The divorce proceedings would tie up the entire court system for a thousand years.
I’ve seen a lamp or two in my time that I’ve wanted to marry. And, lest anyone misconstrue, I’m not talking about lamps that have human figures as part of their design. Although I dare say some might find those quite fetching.
Justice Samuel Alito: Suppose we rule in your favor in this case and then after that, a group consisting of two men and two women apply for a marriage license. Would there be any ground for denying them a license? Mary Bonauto: I believe so, Your Honor. Alito: What would be the reason? Bonauto: There'd be two. One is whether the State would even say that that is such a thing as a marriage, but then beyond that, there are definitely going to be concerns about coercion and consent and disrupting family relationships when you start talking about multiple persons. But I want to also just go back to the wait and see question for a moment, if I may. Because Justice Antonin Scalia: Well, I didn't understand your answer. Alito: Yes. I hope you will come back to mine. If you want to go back to the earlier one Bonauto: No, no. Alito: -- then you can come back to mine. Bonauto: Well, that's what -- I mean, that is -- I mean, the State Alito: Well, what if there's no -- these are 4 people, 2 men and 2 women, it's not--it's not the sort of polygamous relationship, polygamous marriages that existed in other societies and still exist in some societies today. And let's say they're all consenting adults, highly educated. They're all lawyers. What would be the ground under--under the logic of the decision you would like us to hand down in this case? What would be the logic of denying them the same right?
Bonauto: Number one, I assume the States would rush in and say that when you're talking about multiple people joining into a relationship, that that is not the same thing that we've had in marriage, which is on the mutual support and consent of two people. Setting that aside, even assuming it is within the fundamental right Alito: But--well, I don't know what kind of a distinction that is because a marriage between two people of the same sex is not something that we have had before, recognizing that is a substantial break. Maybe it's a good one. So this is no -- why is that a greater break? Bonauto: The question is one of--again, assuming it's within the fundamental right, the question then becomes one of justification. And I assume that the States would come in and they would say that there are concerns about consent and coercion. If there's a divorce from the second wife, does that mean the fourth wife has access to the child of the second wife? There are issues around who is it that makes the medical decisions, you know, in the time of crisis. I assume there'd be lots of family disruption issues, setting aside issues of coercion and consent and so on that just don't apply here, when we're talking about two consenting adults who want to make that mutual commitment for as long as they shall be. So that's my answer on that.
Yup.
Didn’t Charlton Heston say, in THE WAR LORD that he had been married to “that cold wife” (his sword) for many years?
Didn’t Richard the Lionhearted, in C B DeMille’s THE CRUSADES send his sword to be proxy for himself at his wedding as he had other matters to attend to? His wife then took the sword to bed with her that night but kept Richard out.
Why can’t a man marry a sword, or rifle? Am I a “bigamist if I have too many “cold wives”?
Remember what farming and ranching used to be called? Animal Husbandry. Is it now a perversion?
Why not a whole law school class? That’d be chaotic with everybody talking at once. It would sound like O’Reilly.
That’s why she was running away from Alito’s question. Because there is no answer. Polygamy will follow same sex marriage as sure as the four lawyers will chase the ambulance.
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.