Posted on 07/05/2015 3:06:04 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The Supreme Court’s decision to legalize same-sex marriage across the country is the end of the legal discussion on the topic, at least for now. It isn’t, however, the end of the discussion on marriage.
Justice Anthony Kennedy’s opinion rests on four principles, which according to him “demonstrate that the reasons marriage is fundamental under the Constitution apply with equal force to same-sex couples.” His first and third principles raise some intriguing possibilities, and his fourth principle opens the floodgates to a world of fun.
The first premise of this Court’s relevant precedents is that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy.
The concept of personal autonomy is the foundation of the Supreme Court’s concept of the right to privacy. The right to privacy protects a person’s freedom to choose to enter into certain acts and experiences, specifically those having to do with sex, reproduction and family. It has expanded into a liberty protected by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.
Almost all the court opinions developing this liberty stem from cases involving sex, reproductive rights and marriage. The most famous among them are Griswold v. Connecticut, which in 1965 first recognized a right to privacy within marriage and struck down laws banning contraception; Roe v. Wade – enough said; and Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down anti-sodomy laws.
Kennedy reiterates the fundamental importance of personal autonomy with regard to marriage, emphasizing that marriage itself is fundamental with his second principle.
A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education. …
(Excerpt) Read more at commdiginews.com ...
Why not communal marriages where the are numerous husbands and wives? These people love each other. If one get social security, shouldn’t they all?
Don’t forget the necropheliacs. They have feelings too. Part of homosexual pathology is that they crave the attention that they were deprived of as children. They won the argument - End of story. Not quite. They will come up with further demands in order to prolong their 15 minutes of fame. See you at the necrophilia pride parade.
They want pedophilia and they will get it. Adult perverts are already are grooming the children for molestation in the public schools. They are following the book.
Now they just need Hillary’s “rights of the child” to make their own sexual decisions with whomever they “choose” without parental or government interference.
The next step is to sue all religious organizations into bankruptcy.
Simple solution: the government should figure out benefits to acceptable unions, but marriages can be the province of churches and they can define what each church will accept, or won’t accept. Never shall the twain meet.
Or said another way, the State can join people for benefits, but the State doesn’t even talk about marriage.
Yes, exactly. Where people internalize God’s Law and God’s love, the only role for government will be for administrative matters. But humanity in this present age does not have that desire and so we must have governments that can only threaten death, making this age “the administration of death” twice over.
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
– John Adams
If people can government themselves, there is no need for an external force to perform that function. Contrariwise, if they cannot or will not govern themselves, then what? Somalia or South Chicago comes to mind.
“Why not polygamy?”
Well, why not? I’ve long noted that this society has long been accepting of polygamy within selected contexts:
1. Charlie Sheen openly living with multiple women.
2. Hugh Hefner doing the same.
3. Endless numbers of men engaging in serial polygamy where they marry, divorce, and marry again.
4. A significant enough number of urban men impregnating multiple women that MTV gave them their own TV program.
5. The long standing stereotype of the wealthy businessman or actor with a wife at home and a mistress on the side. Arnold Schwarzzzzzendoofus comes to mind, too.
So all of this is just fine with America but let a man commit to two women and their children and it’s okay to submit them to our requisite Two Minutes of Hate every day?
Seems to me that a poly family of a man and two women is a lot more “normal” to me than two men adopting a little boy and raising him to be a pervert just like his dear old dads.
Age of consent next, to 11 then nine...
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.