He stole my question from a thread yesterday:
How many people should be allowed to marry each other and why?
I may sue.
There it is. Alito has made it clear that ruling in favor of gay marriage is effectively a ruling in favor of poly.
I guess we’ll see what comes next.
Shalom!
Or marrying a goat or with a child?
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
Why doesn’t Justice Alito explain that, since the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect gay marriage, the states are free to make laws which discriminate against constitutionally unprotected gay marriage?
Justice Alito should also explain to Ms Bonauto that since the states have never delegated to the Supreme Court, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to define marriage, Ms Bonauto needs to do the following if she really wants gay marriage to be a constitutionally enumerated right.
She needs to work with state and federal lawmakers to propose a gay marriage amendment to the Constitution to the states. And if the states should choose to ratify the amendment then gay marriage will be a constitutionally enumerated right and Ms Bonauto will be a hero.
Note that seemingly deceptive justices like Justice Alito probably wouldn’t be on the bench if state lawmakers hadn’t ratified the ill-conceived 17th Amendment, foolishly giving up the voices of state lawmakers in Congress by doing so.
LOL
Bonauto must be tired or have some illness. That response is stupendously, stoopet and priceless.
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?
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 there 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 —
Isn’t someone usually being coerced in a marriage anyway?
And if you don’t know the answer.......it’s usually you.
“why four people of opposite sexes could not marry,”
I thought there were only two sexes, Male and Female.
Are queers a different sex than normal people?
Eunich’s like the Obama could be considered a different
sex I guess.
Once a marriage is legally defined as being anything other than one man and one woman, there does not exist any legal framework to deny any other combination of genders, persons, and species from entering into a “marriage”.
That is because the standard for having a marriage becomes whatever someone define as love or what makes them happy.
Who can define that for another person?
One the legal standard of one man and one woman equals a marriage is breached, there can be no standard. Every possible standard, ie a marriage is only between two people, two humans, etc, can be successfully challenged and overturned.
This is the red line that society cannot cross without irreversible and unintended consequences.
And it is not up to 3% of the population to dictate to the rest of us what our standard of marriage is to be.
Considering that polygamy is already legal in many parts of the world (mostly Islamic countries), polygamists would be in a FAR stronger position to argue that “two person marriage” is discriminatory, especially if their polygamous marriage was already recognized in their country of origin.