WASHINGTON — During Tuesday’s oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Samuel Alito questioned an attorney if multiple consenting adults should be allowed to “marry” if those of the same gender are granted the same recognition.
“Suppose we rule in your favor in this case and then after that, a group consisting of two men and two women apply for a marriage license. Would there be any ground for denying them a license?” he asked.
“I believe so, your honor,” replied attorney Mary Bonauto, who represented a homosexual man in Michigan.
“What would be the reason?” Alito inquired.
She said that the arrangement might not fall within the definition of marriage and that it might be “disruptive” to families.
“One [reason] is whether the state would even say that that is such a thing as a marriage,” Bonauto stated. “But then beyond that, there are definitely going to be concerns about coercion and consent and disrupting family relationships when you start talking about multiple persons.”
Alito then provided a hypothetical scenario of consenting adults.
“[T]hese are 4 people, 2 men and 2 women, it’s not–it’s not the sort of polygamous relationship, polygamous marriages that existed in other societies and still exist in some societies today. And let’s say they’re all consenting adults, highly educated. They’re all lawyers,” he said, evoking laughter. “What would be the ground under the logic of the decision you would like us to hand down in this case?”
“What would be the logic of denying them the same right?” Alito asked.
Bonauto replied that she believes that marriage should be kept within two people.
“Number one, I assume the states would rush in and say that when you’re talking about multiple people joining into a relationship, that that is not the same thing that we’ve had in marriage, which is on the mutual support and consent of two people,” she stated.
“I assume there’d be lots of family disruption issues, setting aside issues of coercion and consent and so on that just don’t apply here, when we’re talking about two consenting adults who want to make that mutual commitment for as long as they shall be,” Bonauto added when she continued to be questioned.
As previously reported, some have stated that mankind has made up its own rules along the way in regard to marriage in an attempt to legitimize and justify what a particular person wants. Since homosexuals have stated that marriage should be defined as the union of two people who have feelings for each other, regardless of gender, where does the rule about two people come from?
“If a gay activist says, ‘But marriage is the loving, long-term commitment of two people,’ the answer is simple: ‘Says who? That’s just your new definition. Where did you get the idea it was two people if not from its historic, natural meaning?’” Dr. Michael Brown wrote for Charisma News earlier this year regarding the Thailand “marriage” of three men. “And so, if I’m ‘bigoted’ because I don’t recognize same-sex ‘marriage,’ then gay activists (and their allies) are just as ‘bigoted’ if they don’t recognize three men (or women) ‘marrying.’”