Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

meegbear

(25,438 posts)
Fri Jan 30, 2015, 08:26 AM Jan 2015

The Rude Pundit - In Brief: No, Lindsey Graham, You Can't Marry Multiple Partners

Jesus Christ, the Rude Pundit is sick and tired of this lame fucking argument against same-sex marriage. It's been around for years and trotted every fucking time someone on the right needs to make some faux profound point about allowing two dudes or two chicks to marry. In its most recent form, Sen. Lindsey Graham asked Attorney General nominee Loretta Lynch to weigh in on the issue at her hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday.

After pointing out that the nation has been "rasslin'" with this issue (make your own Lindsey Graham rasslin' joke), he said, "If the Supreme Court rules that same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional, it violates the constitution for a state to try to limit marriage between a man and a woman, that’s clearly the law of the land unless there’s a constitutional amendment to change it, what legal rationale will be in play that would prohibit polygamy?" Then he rephrased the question: "What’s the legal difference between a ban on same-sex marriage being unconstitutional but a ban on polygamy being constitutional? Could you try to articulate how one could be banned under the constitution and the other not?"

While Lynch punted on it, let the Rude Pundit tell you exactly and easily why it's a stupid-ass rhetorical device that doesn't deserve any rasslin' at all.

You tell people they have rights protected and guaranteed by the Constitution. The way that's supposed to work is that rights are for all adults (yes, there are narrow exceptions, but those have to do with actions that strip one of rights that one did actually have). Limitations on rights have to be for everyone or you are not equally applying the law, which you're supposed to do. If you allow two consenting adults to get married and receive benefits from the government for marriage, then you fucking need to let any two consenting adults get married. This is why courts have almost all said, "Yeah, you don't have any fucking reason to stop those two guys from gettin' hitched. So let 'em."

Now, as for polygamy (or bestiality or whatever other kink someone wants to throw in), the law is clear: No one can engage in it. A man can't marry two or more women; a woman can't marry two or more women; etc. It doesn't matter if the parties involved are gay or straight or bi. If you said that only left-handed people can have polygamous marriages and no one else could (not righties or the ambidextrous), then that'd be using the law to discriminate. Nobody can get polygamied (or whatever the word is).

That is equal application of the law. It's applied universally. You can't marry your dog. You can't marry a baby. You can't marry a toaster. Nobody can, legally.

Use that the next time some grandstanding drama queen wants to pretend she has something important to say.

http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2015/01/in-brief-no-lindsey-graham-you-cant.html

24 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Rude Pundit - In Brief: No, Lindsey Graham, You Can't Marry Multiple Partners (Original Post) meegbear Jan 2015 OP
Funny how the anti-gay idiots always bring up bestiality hobbit709 Jan 2015 #1
"....what is going on in the dark corners of their little minds." sarge43 Jan 2015 #3
Exactly. hobbit709 Jan 2015 #4
Or it's the first thing they think of underpants Jan 2015 #5
Lindsey Graham really is a little dumb fuck. Enthusiast Jan 2015 #2
If I said that Madmiddle Jan 2015 #10
No they wouldn't. He clearly is a little dumb fuck. Enthusiast Jan 2015 #14
Is Lindsey going into dementia? Frustratedlady Jan 2015 #6
That's a framing very frequently employed by the right against marriage equality. It is offensive Bluenorthwest Jan 2015 #8
Fox told him he has a chance to be President, his head is once again swollen with self love. Fred Sanders Jan 2015 #9
He was thinking Madmiddle Jan 2015 #12
Lynch was unable to defend my rights when asked, and she also sneered at the will of the voters Bluenorthwest Jan 2015 #7
Agreed. LuvNewcastle Jan 2015 #15
Lindsey Graham the "drama queen" Martin Eden Jan 2015 #11
Personally I find it revolting when it's used as a 'Just as bad as' comparison JackInGreen Jan 2015 #13
I can see how that would be offensive. LuvNewcastle Jan 2015 #20
Corporations, on the other hand..... Mustellus Jan 2015 #16
Just imagine......... RoverSuswade Jan 2015 #17
Why can't I marry Koch Industries? Rozlee Jan 2015 #18
Oh well because libodem Jan 2015 #22
Lindsey Graham used the word "rasslin" for wrestling? yellowcanine Jan 2015 #19
Oh, Lindsay libodem Jan 2015 #21
It's not honest confusion, so arguing is a waste of breath struggle4progress Jan 2015 #23
Seems to me that the best answer to LuvNewcastle Jan 2015 #24

hobbit709

(41,694 posts)
1. Funny how the anti-gay idiots always bring up bestiality
Fri Jan 30, 2015, 08:32 AM
Jan 2015

No one else does, so what is going on in the dark corners of their little minds.

sarge43

(28,942 posts)
3. "....what is going on in the dark corners of their little minds."
Fri Jan 30, 2015, 09:11 AM
Jan 2015

Let's not go there. Way too early in the morning

However, when the idiots are accusing someone of something, they're into it or at least like to be into it. They love to project.

underpants

(182,868 posts)
5. Or it's the first thing they think of
Fri Jan 30, 2015, 09:21 AM
Jan 2015

"Let's see" says Mr. Conservative, " two people not of the opposite sex .... Oh! I've got it! It's like having sex with an animal!"

Frustratedlady

(16,254 posts)
6. Is Lindsey going into dementia?
Fri Jan 30, 2015, 09:23 AM
Jan 2015

He's coming up with some pretty bizarre scenarios, not to mention his recent scare tactics on most any subject. If not dementia, is he becoming more and more paranoid? Strange.

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
8. That's a framing very frequently employed by the right against marriage equality. It is offensive
Fri Jan 30, 2015, 09:54 AM
Jan 2015

but far from bizarre for a Republican to ask it, more like highly typical and predictable. To pretend this is somehow new, that's also sort of offensive.
The following links all discuss that particular foul concept:

From 2006, Krauthammer saying 'polygamy':
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2006/03/dont_do_unto_others.html

From 2012, quotes Pat Robertson, make the arguments Lynch could not:
http://www.minnpost.com/community-voices/2012/10/marriage-equality-not-slippery-slope

2012 again, Rick Santorum the featured artist:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eliyahu-federman/gay-marriage-polygamy-incest_b_1261374.html

2013, Ted Olson answers Sotomayor's questions about marriage laws, polygamy etc
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ted-olson-prohibiting-polygamy-not-prohibiting-same-sex-marriage

Fred Sanders

(23,946 posts)
9. Fox told him he has a chance to be President, his head is once again swollen with self love.
Fri Jan 30, 2015, 10:05 AM
Jan 2015

Fox is telling the same thing to lots of Republicans as they line up entries to the Fox GOP Presidental nominee sweepstakes.

The whole system is corrupt, top to bottom, and with Citizen's United nuking the fiance laws and remaing unfixed, it will only get worse.

Pretending to love the rule of law while permitting the election finance landscape to be lawless reveals the depth of this hypocrisy.

Citizens, Unite. Or else.

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
7. Lynch was unable to defend my rights when asked, and she also sneered at the will of the voters
Fri Jan 30, 2015, 09:45 AM
Jan 2015

of my State on cannabis. She might as well be Lindsey Graham. If the Rude Pundit can answer it, and I can answer it then why can't we have a nominee who does not 'punt' on human rights?
A nominee who can't cope with a predicable stupid question from a Republican is not a good nominee. 'Gays? Let me get back to you on them, but let me repeat that I oppose the will of the voters of Oregon, Colorado and Washington and intend to impose my personal views upon them'

LuvNewcastle

(16,855 posts)
15. Agreed.
Fri Jan 30, 2015, 10:57 AM
Jan 2015

I'll say it again, Americans like people with principles. The only reason Republicans get so many votes is because they take a stand. People tell me that at least they know what Republicans stand for. On some of our most important issues, Lynch either has the wrong answer or she refuses to answer because she doesn't want to take a stand.

The President needs to do better than this. He probably won't, though, because he wants GOP support for the TPP. He doesn't want a fight, but that's the only way we'll get a decent AG. If he would choose a strong liberal candidate who was sharp enough to give it right back to the Republicans, I believe the public would support him. You can't win if you don't try.

Martin Eden

(12,875 posts)
11. Lindsey Graham the "drama queen"
Fri Jan 30, 2015, 10:30 AM
Jan 2015

He's kinda queeny all the way around, and has always struck me as the sort who would personally benefit from gay marriage if he wasn't such an uptight rightwing asshole who would rather make everyone else adhere to "conservative" dogma than promote the free pursuit of happiness (including for himself).

But, of course, rightwing assholes are happiest when they make others suffer.

JackInGreen

(2,975 posts)
13. Personally I find it revolting when it's used as a 'Just as bad as' comparison
Fri Jan 30, 2015, 10:39 AM
Jan 2015

I'm polyamorous. I married my wife, I can't marry any of the others, nor can she. That we're consistently used as a 'THIS IS JUST AS BAD AS' is nauseating.

LuvNewcastle

(16,855 posts)
20. I can see how that would be offensive.
Fri Jan 30, 2015, 11:15 AM
Jan 2015

Just letting you know that not everyone thinks you're immoral. Some people still believe that what consenting adults do is their business.

Mustellus

(328 posts)
16. Corporations, on the other hand.....
Fri Jan 30, 2015, 11:04 AM
Jan 2015

.... are people, and therefore two corporations can get married.

That is, when corporations figure out how to have sex, so the union can be consummated.

RoverSuswade

(641 posts)
17. Just imagine.........
Fri Jan 30, 2015, 11:07 AM
Jan 2015

.....if the senator from South Carolina was STEVEN COLBERT instead of Linseed Graham.

Rozlee

(2,529 posts)
18. Why can't I marry Koch Industries?
Fri Jan 30, 2015, 11:07 AM
Jan 2015

I mean, they're a person. It might not want to marry me, but there should be ways around that for the clever female (or male). Didn't some chick write a book once about how to marry a millionaire? Someone should write one about how to marry a corporation. It's a stretch of the imagination how conservatives allow corporations and undifferentiated cells the benefit of personhood, but don't allow the same benefits to LGBT individuals.

libodem

(19,288 posts)
22. Oh well because
Fri Jan 30, 2015, 11:26 AM
Jan 2015

You wouldn't sell your soul for money because you are a good and decent Democrat.
Otherwise, move over, let me get in line.

yellowcanine

(35,701 posts)
19. Lindsey Graham used the word "rasslin" for wrestling?
Fri Jan 30, 2015, 11:08 AM
Jan 2015

Is he trying out for Duck Dynasty?

Lindsey has a JD degree and walks around in tailored suits and we are supposed to think he is just a good ole boy from South Carolina?

libodem

(19,288 posts)
21. Oh, Lindsay
Fri Jan 30, 2015, 11:21 AM
Jan 2015

Stop it. You are making a fool of yourself.

I've been watching, no relishing, my rare opportunities to watch some cable programming. One of the shows my friend tevos for us is....ta da.....Sister Wives. I freaking love it. I crave modern anthropology. It's almost as gratifying as, My big fat American Gypsy Wedding. 'Independence'' includes the pursuit of effing happiness, in your own unique individual way. We are not a cookie cutter society. We are not a religious government but a secular instrument of freedom.

Leave people alone.

Someone will out you, for your hypocrisy one day, my precious Southern Belle.

struggle4progress

(118,330 posts)
23. It's not honest confusion, so arguing is a waste of breath
Fri Jan 30, 2015, 11:50 AM
Jan 2015

Yeah, If the Supreme Court rules that same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional, it violates the constitution for a state to try to limit marriage between a man and a woman, that’s clearly the law of the land unless there’s a constitutional amendment to change it, what legal rationale will be in play that would prohibit polygamy? sure looks like a question about the law, but it's really not even a question: it's really just some game of innuendo disguised as a question

It might be material for a good comedy short:

"Hi, honey! I just married these two girls, so you have somebody to help you with the housework!"
"Oh, thank you, dear! And I just married this boy, so you have a drinking buddy!"

LuvNewcastle

(16,855 posts)
24. Seems to me that the best answer to
Fri Jan 30, 2015, 01:12 PM
Jan 2015

that question would be that straight marriage is what led to all of this. If we had just never allowed those men and women to get married in the first place, we wouldn't even be having this problem. Should people be forbidden to join with others and violate their selfhood? If you let people join others, it will inevitably lead to the whole human race marrying itself and getting naked and jumping into one big old pile.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The Rude Pundit - In Brie...