[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Pro-homosexual marriage attorney Mary Bonauto, slipped up and admitted that marriage is a states’ rights issue while being questioned by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito on Tuesday during oral arguments on whether the U.S. Constitution somehow guarantees homosexuals to change the time-honored meaning of marriage.[/vc_column_text][banner300 banner=”5517620b381df”][vc_column_text]Justice Alito asked about an extremely likely future scenario in which four attorneys, two men and two women, wanted to marry and why, if the definition of marriage is changed for homosexuals, then wouldn’t it be discriminatory to not allow polygamists to legally as well.
The U.S. Constitution doesn’t mention marriage or homosexuality. However, progressive liberal Democrats like to invent new amendments out of thin air in order to legislate their immorality on the majority of the country.
The Tenth Amendment clearly states in language so pure than only a leftist can’t understand it:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the state, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”
Bonauto gave a garbled, incoherent and illogical answer that somehow state’s rights would apply if four consenting adults wanted to marry, but wouldn’t if two people wanted to change the definition of marriage. Bonauto basically destroyed a key tenant of the homosexual agenda’s argument that unnatural gay marriage is a human right that would supersede the Tenth Amendment.
Here’s how the conversation went, via CNS News:
Justice Samuel Alito: 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?
Mary Bonauto: I believe so, Your Honor.
Alito: What would be the reason?
Bonauto: There’d be two. One is whether the State would even say that that is such a thing as a marriage, 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. But I want to also just go back to the wait and see question for a moment, if I may. Because—
Justice Antonin Scalia: Well, I didn’t understand your answer.
Alito: Yes. I hope you will come back to mine. If you want to go back to the earlier one –
Bonauto: No, no.
Alito: — then you can come back to mine.
Bonauto: Well, that’s what — I mean, that is — I mean, the State –
Alito: Well, what if there’s no — these 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. What would be the ground under–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?
Bonauto: 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. Setting that aside, even assuming it is within the fundamental right –
Alito: But–well, I don’t know what kind of a distinction that is because a marriage between two people of the same sex is not something that we have had before, recognizing that is a substantial break. Maybe it’s a good one. So this is no — why is that a greater break?
Bonauto: The question is one of–again, assuming it’s within the fundamental right, the question then becomes one of justification. And I assume that the States would come in and they would say that there are concerns about consent and coercion. If there’s a divorce from the second wife, does that mean the fourth wife has access to the child of the second wife? There are issues around who is it that makes the medical decisions, you know, in the time of crisis. 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. So that’s my answer on that.
Bonauto’s argument doesn’t hold water, and she likely knows it. Attorneys would gladly welcome all the extra business such an arrangement would provide. She cannot make the moral argument that changing the definition of marriage for some people is okay, but changing it for others should be prohibited.[/vc_column_text][banner300 banner=”553157113d3ff”][vc_column_text]RELATED: Justice Scalia Just Stumped a Pro-Homosexual Marriage Attorney With This Question…
Failing to get Americans on board in changing the time-honored definition of marriage at the ballot boxes, progressives have turned to the court system, using leftist judges to force the change down American’s throats.