Posted on 06/26/2015 9:51:32 AM PDT by C19fan
What would have ever given Roberts that idea?
That’s a lot of gauzy schmaltz for a High Court decision, even by the more relaxed standards of the summing-up paragraphs in a majority opinion. The striking thing about Kennedy’s ruling isn’t that he came down the way he did, which was a mortal lock, but that he didn’t concern himself with trying to narrow the reasoning to meet the core objection of SSM opponents, that there’s no way to get traction on this slippery slope. “That would have been beyond the scope of the decision,” Kennedy fans will say; polygamy wasn’t at issue here so he had no business addressing it. True — he had no business addressing it explicitly. But he could have added language that he knew would be pointed back to later when polygamy inevitably lands before the Court. “Unlike some forms of marital relationships, a marriage of two members of the same sex is a partnership of equals” — something like that, or rhetoric about how other forms of marriage might be exploitative by their very nature. Anything to signal to polygamists that if they try to make their play at the Court anytime soon, they may not like which way Kennedy goes on that.
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
I agree. That's why more "plural marriages" like this lesbian "throuple" would have to occur before the push for legal polygamy becomes ubiquitous.
My worst fear is that, now, the federal government and courts will force churches to marry same sex couples or whoever the government sees fit. To me, marriage has always been a religious institution that the government has slowly crept in and took over. If their church allows it, people can “marry” their dog or dolphin for all I care; but once the government starts dictating to me and my church who to marry, once people start suing churches on the pretense of “violating their civil right” as they sue bakeries and photographers, that marks yet another encroachment on our religious liberty—in which case, by that time, there may be none; because the government would have dictated what it is you can and cannot believe in.
Then what happens when two or three divorce. Is he paying child support on 4,5, 6 or more kids?
What a mess. Forget Viagra. Men need the opposite. A pill to destroy their sex drive so they can think with their brains and stop putting themselves in these nightmare situations.
Oh Lord, I can only imagine what the congress-critters are going to do to the tax code to support those exemptions.
I think I’m going to formally marry my firearms. I can do that now. So what if they are inanimate objects. So what if it is a form of bigamy. Anything goes.. Then, I’ll file for public assistance and take tax deductions to fund the ammo for my gun wives. And, I’ll create a special gun carrying unicorn love flag for them and hijack a word like, say...”blessed” that describes our special relationship.
I once worked with a Pakistani Muslim who told me that “My religion does allow a man to have up to four wives. Though a fellow would have to be pretty much insane to actually try it.”
Well, no limits were put on abortion in roe v wade, and so you can murder the innocent baby all the way up 9 months. In order to put limits the court would have had to come up with good reasons for those limits. Since they don’t have any good reasons they just ignored it.
How about being able to marry 500 ‘immigrants’ at the same time so immigrants don’t have to ‘wait in line’...
It might not be in the Constitution, but it damn sure would please the elites. The courts can help the elites...
Of course the immigration problem’s going to end soon... as the country becomes one more hellhole run by elites. Soon more people will want to leave than to come here.
Then the next step:
Democrat will finally build that fence. They’ll build it to keep us in just like they did in East Germany. If we try to escape they’ll shoot us. It’s gonna be so much fun.
I want to marry YOUR recliner and YOUR refrigerator as well!
oh lets not pretend to be alarmed.......we have been slaughtering over 1000 babies before they are born EVERY WEEK, FOR THE PAST 40 YEARS. This is just a small clod of dirt thrown onto a 40 year old grave.
Boy, THERE'S A FIRST.
And of course the economic ramifications of polygamy will be huge. When one spouse dies, all the survivors will be entitled to survivors’ benefits...heck, when bestiality is legal, even dogs, horses, chickens can collect.
Yep
“Just who is being persecuted?
I was being sarcastic.
If marriage isn’t between one man and one woman, it is
ANYTHING
and
NOTHING
Exactly what should have been shouted from the roof tops ever since this debate was started by the gaystapo. Unfortunately, the GOP is an accommodation party and not an opposition party to this madness.
“we have been slaughtering over 1000 babies before they are born EVERY WEEK, FOR THE PAST 40 YEARS.”
I’m kind of surprised that things aren’t much farther along than ‘gay marriage,’ considering.
Freegards
There is no argument against polygamy now. What? Gays are going to get all “Conservative” all of a sudden on this?
Going to get me three or four husbands and two more wives. Should take some of the pressure off with all the work around here. They all have to be excellent fundraisers, gardeners, salespeople and maintenance. Best part is I won’t have to hire them as they are my spouses. Hallelujah!
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.