- Joined
- Jul 25, 2014
- Messages
- 9,869
- Reaction score
- 3,495
- Location
- Los Angeles area
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Scalia says in the dissent that the ruling paves the way for polygamy to become legal. he's correct. when the liberal justices are done the word "marriage" will be so different as to be unrecognizable to it's original definition. and once polygamy is added, what's next? can't wait to find out.
I don't see what basis will remain for applying the consanguinity requirements of state marriage laws to homosexual partners. The traditional concern about an increased risk of genetic defects in offspring no longer is in play. Why should the right to marry each other granted to two homosexual second cousins, for example, and yet denied to them just because they are first cousins? What sense will there be in continuing to prevent two sisters, or a father and son, from marrying each other, forcing them to conduct their homosexual liaisons in secret? Why should they have to hide their love from the world, just because it is different?
Soon it will be time for an Ozzie and Harriet show for today, featuring the wholesome, all-American homosexual, incestuous, polygamous family. Just imagine the possibilities, especially when they interacted with their equally progressive neighbors and friends! "Rick, I hope you have a good time on your date with Cindy and her mom and brother!" "Oh, thanks, Pop--I will. We're going to the malt shop, and then we'll probably play a little strip poker." Even the family dog would take on a new and unusual significance, whenever it appeared in an episode.
Last edited: