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 Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)

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 [View all]

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