Attorney General nominee Loretta Lynch is lying, and if she’s not, her unwillingness to answer the question about the legalization of polygamy (and maybe incestuous marriages) in light of the legalization of same-sex marriage should be enough to disqualify her from the position.
Anybody in her high level legal profession who has not considered the logical application of same-sex marriage as it relates to polygamy and incestuous marriages after Justice Antonin Scalia made the following comment in his dissenting opinion in Lawrence v. Texas (2003) is out of touch (or lying):
“The Texas statute undeniably seeks to further the belief of its citizens that certain forms of sexual behavior are ‘immoral and unacceptable,’ . . . the same interest furthered by criminal laws against fornication, bigamy, adultery, adult incest, bestiality, and obscenity. . . . This effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation. If, as the Court asserts, the promotion of majoritarian sexual morality is not even a legitimate state interest, none of the above-mentioned laws can survive rational-basis review.”
Pro-homosexual advocates hated Justice Scalia’s impenetrable legal logic because they knew it was true and were incensed that someone would actually make the case that once same-sexuality and later same-sex marriage were legalized, there was no longer any moral or legal break on other forms of sexual practices and relationships, including bestiality. Think I’m exaggerating? Take a look at this.
They had to deny the connection because to get the law passed, but once passed Pandora’s Box would be open with no way to shut it.
Some have argued that legalizing same-sex sexuality and same-sex marriage is about privacy and not about homosexuality. I beg to differ. As we’ve seen around the country, people who object to same-sex marriages are hauled before legal tribunals and fined for refusing to serve the very public practices of homosexuals.
The thing of it is, homosexuality is not a private matter as Billy Crystal made clear, Gay Pride parades where firemen are forced to participate, and same-sex weddings where bakers are forced to make cakes for the immoral and irrational marriages.
South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham asked Loretta Lynch the following logical question during her confirmation hearing:
“If the Supreme Court rules that same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional — that it violates the Constitution 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 would be in play that would prohibit polygamy?”
It was a simple question that required a simple answer. She refused to answer it on the following claim: “I have not been involved in the argument or the analysis of the cases that have gone before the Supreme Court.”
Surely she knew of the argument even if she had not been involved in the argument. I wasn’t involved in the argument and yet I am familiar with it and I have an opinion about it. She must have some opinion on the subject.
The Senate should send her home to study the issue. When she completes the assignment, the hearing will continue.