Thursday, April 30, 2015

Justice Alito: "Can 4 Lawyers Marry One Another?"

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF

Justice Samuel Alito asked the obvious question Tuesday in the highest Court in the land, exposing the moral insanity of the case which seeks to redefine marriage.

"If two of the same sex have a right to marry---why not 4 people of the opposite sexes?"

He said, "Let's say they're all consenting adults, highly educated. They're all lawyers."

Mary L. Bonauto is the lawyer representing those who seek to redefine the institution of marriage.

Her response was stunning. And revealing. And confused.

The confusing responses in the courtroom from those seeking to redefine marriage reflects the confusion in our culture.

However, a group of prominent Christian leaders are not confused, nor timid. They have sent a document to the Supreme Court representing a promise, not a threat.

It reads in part, "We respectfully warn the Supreme Court not to cross that line. We stand united in defense of marriage. Make no mistake about our resolve."

Should the Court seek to redefine marriage, "We will not obey," the document reads.

Out of confusion, clarity and conviction is emerging.

The conversation between Justice Alito and lawyer Bonauto went like this:

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.

Justice Roberts told Bonauto her clients were not trying to "join" marriage in a legal sense as they allege, they are trying to "redefine" the institution.

Justice Kennedy noted that the institution of marriage being defined as the union of a man and a woman has been around for "millennia" and "it''s very difficult for the court to say, oh well, we---we know better."

Justice Scalia said, "You're asking us to decide it for this society when no society until 2001 ever had it."

Their ruling is expected in June.

A number of Christian leaders have signed a "Pledge in Solidarity to Defend Marriage."

The statement has been sent to the Supreme Court. Among other things it says very clearly, "We will Not Obey."

The document is both forthright and clear. It reminds the Court of the names of some of the business people who are being taken down because of their practice of biblical beliefs.

It is also blunt, but respectful. It says, "While there are many things we can endure, redefining marriage is so fundamental to the natural order and the common good that this is a line we must draw and one we cannot and will not cross."

News stories are reporting that the list of signers are a "who's who of religious leaders," with Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, Jerry Johnson (President of the National Religious Broadcasters), Pastor John Hagee, Franklin Graham, James Dobson and others signing The Pledge.

I would consider myself among the "others" who were asked to sign. I too have signed The Pledge.

We are now asking millions of Americans to join us in signing it.

Attorney Matt Staver, one of the co-authors of the document, along with Catholic Deacon Keith Fournier, says, "We're sending a warning to the Supreme Court and frankly any court that crosses the line on the issue of marriage."

Staver says, "We are calling on people to not recognize the legitimacy of that ruling because it's not grounded in the Rule of Law. They need to resist that ruling in every way possible. In a peaceful way---they need to resist it as much as Martin Luther King Jr. resisted unjust laws in his time."

Staver says, "We have no choice. We cannot compromise our clear biblical convictions, our religious convictions."

I, personally, don't know what the ramifications of taking this stand might be; however, I have no choice.

I do know the abuses of religious freedom, the outright attacks on biblical values, principles and those who hold them, and the arrogance of the secular activists who seek to uproot these values from our culture and the government agencies who enable them, is creating an awakening among all Americans, and an urgency among biblical Christians.

I'm reminded that it was in the throes of opposition and persecution the disciples acknowledged the attacks against Christ Himself and the early Christians by the ruling authorities and consenting, misinformed citizens, who prayerfully said:

"Now Lord, look on their threats, and grant to your servants that with all boldness they may speak Your Word" (Acts 4:29).

Be Bold.