Silhouette
Gold Member
- Jul 15, 2013
- 25,815
- 1,938
- 265
- Thread starter
- #101
From this link: Supreme Court Justice Shuts Down Gay Marriage Lawyer With One PERFECT Question
Justice Samuel Alito raised a revealing question to attorney Mary Bonauto, who was arguing in favor of same-sex marriage before the justices.
Bonauto argued before the court that homosexuals are being denied their constitutional rights to equal protection and due process under the law by not being permitted to marry in all the states.
Justice Alito turned the tables on Bonauto, asking if the court rules in her clients’ favor and overturns state laws defining marriage as between one man and one woman, how can others who believe they are not being treated equally by the current definition realistically be denied. He offered the example of polygamy.
Bonauto responded that the law could keep the definition as being only between two people, because there is usually some form of coercion in polygamist relationships.
Alito:
Well, what if…these are four people, two men and two women… And let’s say they’re all consenting adults, highly educated. They’re all lawyers. What would be the ground under – under the logic of the decision you would like us to hand down in this case – what would be the logic of denying them the same right?
Bonauto responded:
Number one, I assume the states would rush in and say that when you’re talking about multiple people joining into a relationship, that that is not the same thing that we’ve had in marriage, which is on the mutual support and consent of two people…
And that is where Alito revealed her contradiction:
But, well, I don’t know what kind of a distinction that is because a marriage between two people of the same sex is not something that we have had before.
*******
So the LGBT advocate was saying "states would rush in and shut down plural marriages, even while consenting happy adults were involved, because its been traditional that marriage is only between two people."
Then judge Alito responded "yes, but gay marriage is not something that's been traditional either".
The essence of the gay marriage advocate's argument was that "polygamy is new and icky to society". And so is gay marriage...worse even than polylgamy. Because polygamy at least gives children in the home both a vital mother and father. Gay marriage is the complete undoing of the reasons marriage came about in the first place: to keep a mother and father in the home with children.
What? Maybe because the Brown family if UT/NV are waiting until after the next election to appeal to the SCOTUS. I believe they are democrats. They've been waiting a long time to get their case up there.
You're saying this new in the game, just months out from June's decision "since no polygamists have brought a case before SCOTUS yet, it will never happen."
Well THERE'S something you can hang your hat on !
Justice Samuel Alito raised a revealing question to attorney Mary Bonauto, who was arguing in favor of same-sex marriage before the justices.
Bonauto argued before the court that homosexuals are being denied their constitutional rights to equal protection and due process under the law by not being permitted to marry in all the states.
Justice Alito turned the tables on Bonauto, asking if the court rules in her clients’ favor and overturns state laws defining marriage as between one man and one woman, how can others who believe they are not being treated equally by the current definition realistically be denied. He offered the example of polygamy.
Bonauto responded that the law could keep the definition as being only between two people, because there is usually some form of coercion in polygamist relationships.
Alito:
Well, what if…these are four people, two men and two women… And let’s say they’re all consenting adults, highly educated. They’re all lawyers. What would be the ground under – under the logic of the decision you would like us to hand down in this case – what would be the logic of denying them the same right?
Bonauto responded:
Number one, I assume the states would rush in and say that when you’re talking about multiple people joining into a relationship, that that is not the same thing that we’ve had in marriage, which is on the mutual support and consent of two people…
And that is where Alito revealed her contradiction:
But, well, I don’t know what kind of a distinction that is because a marriage between two people of the same sex is not something that we have had before.
*******
So the LGBT advocate was saying "states would rush in and shut down plural marriages, even while consenting happy adults were involved, because its been traditional that marriage is only between two people."
Then judge Alito responded "yes, but gay marriage is not something that's been traditional either".
The essence of the gay marriage advocate's argument was that "polygamy is new and icky to society". And so is gay marriage...worse even than polylgamy. Because polygamy at least gives children in the home both a vital mother and father. Gay marriage is the complete undoing of the reasons marriage came about in the first place: to keep a mother and father in the home with children.
If gay marriage makes polygamy legal.....why then would hasn't gay marriage ever made polygamy legal?
What? Maybe because the Brown family if UT/NV are waiting until after the next election to appeal to the SCOTUS. I believe they are democrats. They've been waiting a long time to get their case up there.
You're saying this new in the game, just months out from June's decision "since no polygamists have brought a case before SCOTUS yet, it will never happen."
Well THERE'S something you can hang your hat on !