The Supreme Court has ended hearing arguments on sodomite “marriage” – whether the definition of marriage should apply to same sex couples. Lawyers, who were arguing in favor of the four cases brought before the Supreme Court, were asked a question by Justice Samuel Alito that many of us asked sometime ago. What about polygamy? He questioned that if same sex marriage was sanctioned and considered a right under the Constitution, would that also apply to polygamous unions as well.
It’s a valid question as once marriage is “redefined” from the union between a man and a woman and determined the Constitution affords a right to same sex unions, it can lead to acceptance of other “unions” that have been considered against the laws of God, against the laws of nature and against the laws of man. Unfortunately, those in the presence of the justices laughed at Alito’s comment.
The Daily Caller reports:
According to the New York Times, the conservative justice offered the court a hypothetical scenario where four people – two men, two women – wanted to marry and whether it was reasonable to allow them to do so.
“They are all consenting adults. Highly educated. They are all lawyers. What would be the logic of denying them the same right?” Alito asked, which drew laughs from the court audience.
Mary Bonauto, attorney representing the plaintiffs who wish to overturn the sodomite marriage bans, stated that would not be the case as “polygamy brings up a host of ‘complicated’ issues that involve ‘consent’ and ‘coercion’.”
According to Bonauto, are we not to conclude that sodomite marriage brings up the same complicated issues of consent and coercion? Bonauto and proponents of sodomite marriage should explain how those complicated issues of consent and coercion would not be involved in sodomite “marriage.” More than likely when Bonauto cited the consent and coercion issues with polygamy, she was referring to the marrying of young girls, often teens and pre-teens, which can happen in polygamous situations. The issue with consent and coercion is present with sodomite marriage as well.
Have we not heard about the LGBT agenda to “recruit?” By recruiting, that would mean “coercion” into the sodomite lifestyle. Once the individual is coerced into the LGBT group, it should bring up the question then of consent as it refers to relationships and marriage.
Until the Netherlands decided to “accept” sodomite “marriage” in 2001, the entire world’s population throughout all the nations held that marriage was the union between a man and a woman for thousands of years. It is what the Lord commanded. Even in ancient Greece, with their dabbling in sodomy, there was no recognition of same-sex “marriage” and only the union between man and woman was considered marriage.
Here we are in the United States with nine individuals, unelected by the populace, about to decide for everyone in this nation the definition of marriage. If they decide sodomites have the protected right to “marry” under some interpreted tenet of the Constitution, these unelected justices will have changed the course of the United States that has stood for over 200 years – unchallenged. Should they decide in favor of sodomite “marriage,” it will be in opposition to the millions of faithful followers of God who may then be faced with their houses of worship being forced to perform sodomy unions, unless the States remain firm in standing on their “guaranteed republican forms of government” refusing to alter their constitutions.
With the track record of the States defying the federal government in support of the people, it is almost a certainty they will comply should the Supreme Court rule sodomite “marriage” is a protected right under the Constitution.
How many times has it been stated by one proponent or another of sodomy that “you can’t help who you love” and “you should not be punished for that by not being able to marry?” With that logic, you would have to conclude that once the definition of marriage is changed to allow same-sex unions that it would have to allow other unions as well under the “right” these individuals claim is present in the Constitution.
It would bring up the question of child marriage which is prevalent in the cult of Islam. Courts would have to decide “how young is too young” to marry since “you can’t help who you love.” Most states already have laws on the legal age of marriage; however, states have laws defining marriage as the union between a man and woman that is being challenged now. Who’s to say that would not be challenged in the future.
The other issues with redefining marriage is what about a brother who loves his sister enough to want to marry her. Far-fetched? Well, if the logic is the right for redefining marriage to include sodomy is protected in the Constitution, which that type of union is against the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God, the same argument could be made for incestuous marriage between consenting adults. Remember, “You can’t help who you love” and “you should not be punished by not being able to marry.” It is a dark road to go down. Once a vile union has been “legitimized” by government against the Laws of God and Nature, there is no limit to legitimizing other vile unions.
The bigger question is, “what non-traditional unions would not be protected as a right under the Constitution?” You can’t limit it to just one group after over-turning a Law of Nature and Nature’s God.
Using their logic and their stance that sodomy-based “marriage” does not contain complicated issues such as consent and coercion and is a protected “right,” the redefinition of marriage could expand to include unions that further defy the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God. You can conclude what those are as I refuse to give repugnant examples.
Government has no business in marriage, period, which includes the “licensing” of marriage. God has defined marriage as the union between one man and one woman – any other union is not marriage and is against the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God. To justify allowing these sodomy unions by claiming “progression of society” is a fool’s argument. Society can advance and progress through science and technology; however, society “regresses” when morality is in conflict with biblical law and the Laws of Nature.