Any grouping of persons can now be “married”
If you had to choose one as being more natural, polygamy is more natural than homosexual “marriage.”
I though the laws against incest were to prevent mental and other abnormalities. Does incest apply to male/male and female/female “marriage” where there are no offspring? If not brothers and sisters, fathers and sons, and mothers and daughters should be able to “marry.”
Nor can I.
Then there is sex with animals. Is that next?
This whole thing is a slippery slope. With this bunch of perverts on the court they will be able to that in the Constitution as well.
Hamilton, Jefferson, Franklin, et.al, are rolling in their graves.
We will not likely allow polygamy again in the USA. The Mormons learned their lesson (Utah didn’t become a state until 1896, only after the LDS church finally banned ploygamy), and even the LGBT community is queasy about the whole idea.
Our pastor advised us that when debating people about homosexual marriage, etc, we simply respond with a question, “What makes anything right or wrong?”
Funny how the homosexuals think that marriage between them is beautiful but any other form is bad.
Don’t they know it’s all about love? That’s all we’ve been hearing about this week.
So why not love between one man and many women? Or love between and adult and a child? Or love between brother and sister.
Why should they be denied the same love?
Orgies married for the night.. or even a week.. any gender, species or mechanical design..
Child rearing as the benchmark reason for marriage is no longer considered an acceptable premise for upholding the, “tradition”.
In the world of single parent, “families” to which we have devolved, it is obvious that the Mom and Dad model which served so well for thousands of years is an anachronism.
The government will fund the child in the, “It takes a village” model through taxation and both marriage and parenting will be relegated to the past.
The slope is much more slippery than the USSC has considered.