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 ...
When anything goes, then ANYTHING goes. When everything is right/ok, then nothing is wrong. Democrats have no conscience.
No doubt. Every legal argument in favor of gay marriage would apply equally to polygamy. Even incest in the case of same sex relatives or relatives who can't procreate.
I heard the answers this Obama lap[female]dog was giving...
She was being intentionally obtuse to avoid the obvious hypocrisy of what she will do under Obama.
“Should John Mitchell have been in charge of the Watergate investigation?”
“I thought that case was already settled.”
She’s already disqualified herself from the post with her statement in support of obola’s immigration actions. Why are we still talking with this socialist POS?
Lynch says Obama is not violating the Constitution with his sweeping executive orders that make new law or when he refuses to enforce the law, as his oath of office requires. Why are the Republicans even considering this Obama lackey for AG? Have they learned nothing from Eric The Red’s term as AG? Blacks will lie for Obama, period. It is dangerous to designate the office of AG as a Blacks Only post.
I think that Graham’s goal is gay Polygamy.
An idea that old Light in the Loafers finds appealing.
I think the only thing holding back widespread polygamy demands (at least as vocal as the gays that is) is the fact that it’s still not quite PC enough. One guy gets 10 women? How mysogynisitic is that! (That, I’m sure, is the “feminist” position)
Now if women start forming their own harems with willing men, then the issue will become something to demand, “for equal rights” don’tcha know.
Yes, it’s not a danger because the radical left has some kind of problem with other non-traditional “marriages”, no they have a problem with polygamy because it’s not the woman who gets 10 husbands. Yes it’s that simple.
Is it now a pre-requisite that one be an Affirmative Action Black person in order to be Attorney General of the U.S.?
Polygamy has the advantage that it is openly practiced in much of the world (primarily among Muslims) and has historically existed since the dawn of time.
Unlike recognition of gay marriage.
Every legal argument in favor of gay marriage would apply equally to polygamy.
The logic used to advocate for gay marriage can - and will - be applied to every sexual pairing, tripling or grouping of any man, woman, child, animal or inanimate object.
We have an interesting episode that has developed in Germany. Various asylum seekers come and go. So, one day, there’s this guy from Iraq who shows up with two wives....asking the Germans for asylum for himself and wife one, and wife two.
A court had to get involved, and eventually wrote a legal paper that said....for the time being, wife one and two could be issued visas with the husband. They simply noted, later on...an assessment ought to occur over the legality of benefits by the German system (this was not the question posed so they couldn’t go too far on a legal opinion). That was 2003. So, presently in Germany....two wives are legal, if the marriage occurred in a Muslim country.
Looking at Polygamy...I’d say that the door is wide open now and only a matter of time. Find one state where marijuana is legal....get it on the ballot, and it’s fifty-fifty odds that it’ll pass. Once accepted in one state...the rest will be challenged day after day. Threesome marriages, in my humble opinion....will be a regular thing by 2030.
The question here is....what’s next after that?
"Ehhhhhhhhhhh.....shall we vote?"
Well, who else would implement the de facto reparations of “social justice” (ie, “get YT”) if not an AABP?
‘Inexperience’ IS the qualifier for “O” appointees! :)
Well, well. Not a fan of Lindsey Graham, but credit where credit is due. It is a legitimate question, and she didn’t answer it, because she has no answer.
> Gays... Mormons... Polygamy....
Realize that opening the marriage contract and license to polygamy opens it up for intentions other than the traditional motivations of marital love, family, children, etc.....
The marriage contract and license now becomes available to multiple parties having other motivations, such as financial, taxation, and entry to contracts with third parties.
For example, if my contract with Danny’s Donuts allows anybody in my family to get the Danny Donut Family Discount, I will happily become civilly married to 10,000 persons, at a $1 each fee for me, where these 10,000 persons do so because they now receive a $2 discount at Danny’s Donuts.
If my health insurance covers my spouse and also my spouses, I will glady marry my adult children, both male and female, and other person for whom I care, so that they also can receive coverage as my spouse.
And for a fee, I will marry 100,000 unknown neighbors. I get a few bucks from each. They get coverage as my spouse.
Marriage now becomes not a contract of love and family and child-rearing, but a business arrangement.
All from a misinterpretation of equal protection law and its application to state licensing.
In the end will they be forced to allow someone to marry themselves?
How could they discriminate against the bipolar?
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.
