On the heels of Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett using the outdated and condescending term “sexual preference” to describe queerness, lifelong bachelor Senator Lindsey Graham raised the tired spectre of polygamy to further bash marriage equality. Graham used the analogy to give Barrett a chance to outline her strategy for overturning Obergefell v. Hodges.
“So we talk a lot about laws legalizing same-sex marriage,” Graham said. “If anybody tried to change that precedent one of the things you would look at is a reliance interest that people have formed around that piece of legislation?”
“Yes,” Barrett replied.
“So, reaching a decision that the case was wrongly decided doesn’t end the debate in terms of whether or not it should be repealed. Is that correct?” Graham further questioned.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
“And there is a very rigorous process in place to overturn precedent?” Graham further pressed.
Related: Watch Amy Coney Barrett get schooled for using “offensive and outdated” term for LGBTQ people
“There is, many factors, reliance being one,” Coney Barrett replied.
“Is there any constitutional right to a polygamous relationship?” asked Graham.
“Um, let’s see,” Coney Barrett stammered. “That might be a question that could be litigated at, you know, polygamy obviously in many places is illegal, now, but that could be an issue somebody might litigate before the Court at some point.”
“Somebody might have made the argument it’s possible for three people to love each other, genuinely, and that would work this way with court if somebody wanted to make that argument, is that correct?” Graham further questioned.
“Somebody could make that argument,” Coney Barrett agreed.
The insinuation between the two appears to set up Obergefell v. Hodges as a dangerous precedent that could lead to polygamy–a tired and ridiculous argument that Republicans have used to resist marriage equality and shame LGBTQ people for decades. The conversation also sets up a certain urgency: Graham’s worries about group marriage signal a need to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges to prevent polyamory from becoming a reality in the US. Even scarier, Coney Barrett appeared to agree.
Earlier in her confirmation hearings, Coney Barrett refused to answer questions regarding her views on marriage equality. It appears Graham found a roundabout way to do it.
Good morning! @LindseyGrahamSC just conveniently followed up a question about marriage equality with a question about polygamy.
Can't believe we have to say this but we'd like to remind everyone that marriage equality ? polygamy.#SCOTUSHearings pic.twitter.com/f5kO34GCv0
— Lambda Legal (@LambdaLegal) October 14, 2020
Don't forget to share:
jayceecook
So what if polygamous marriages might one day be legal? Why is that one of the two go-to scare tactics from the people who oppose same sex marriage? So what if “three people who love each other, genuinely”, as Linds put it, want to have that relationship validated legally one day? I don’t see anything wrong with that. Let me remind folks that it’s illegal because of the same reasons same-sex marriage was illegal, the three Abrahamic cults. Except in Utah. It’s illegal, well decriminalized or something, because they wanted statehood into the USA.
Spare me the righteous indignation and fear mongering. It’s not like there is a long history of straight folks doing a world class job with monogamous, straight marriage. In fact marriage as we know today is a very modern institution. The fact that it even IS an institution is the very core of why it is such a contentious issue. Personally I would love to see it stripped of all of it’s automatically prescribed legal privileges.
Mister P
There are no good arguments against marriage equality. They need to give this up. If one doesn’t want to marry someone no one is going to force it. No one should prevent someone getting married in our society.
WashDrySpin
These Aholes are still with the fear mongering that polygamy could be next because gay marriage was approved…Graham is a closeted freak who needs to be voted out
vinnieboiblue
In their warped views, polygamy will not result from same sex marriage but religion. It was the Mormons and many middle east and African nations with different sects that practiced men having multiple wives. They used their religious beliefs as an agenda to fit their warped views. Not because of gay marriage. Amy Corny Barrett is using her personal beliefs within her answer to the Graham cracker’s question.
whatsaywhat
Ladybugs
toddlicious
Lady G needs to get her sh*t together, and ACB needs to take a seat, and NOT on the Supreme Court bench….
James
I CAN’T EVEN READ ABOUT THESE TWO LOSERS THEY ARE SO HIDEOUS. HELL WAS CREATED FOR THEM.
IndependentForever
Although I haven’t watched much of the hearings. When I have turned it on I haven’t been pleased Barrett dances around, if not flat-out evades Dems questions while at least in my opinion knew what was coming from the ‘Pukes.
Remember over the summer? The SCOTUS ruled in 2 cases, one of which benefitted the LGBTQ community. In the LGBTQ case, the vote was 6-3 with Chief Justice Roberts AND Trump appointee Gorsuch voting in our favor. In fact, Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion.
My point being, despite what President and party that President belongs to that appointed any Justice, maybe, in fact, SCOTUS Justices take their duties and stewardship to this country more seriously and maybe far more patriotically than any senator in DC today. That in fact, they possess the impartiality and courage to hand down decisions that go against their appointer and even their personal beliefs.
Ambonec
Isn’t Polygamy a vestige of the Patriarchy (multiple wives with no say)?
As harems have been passé for some time in Western Culture, why conflate that with Marriage Equality?
Someone drunk with ReligioMania is (Constitutionally) unqualified for SCOTUS.
barryaksarben
We keep hearing how all these male escorts are hired by Lindsey are going to tell all. WELL< NOW WOULD BE THE TIME TO OUT THIS HYPOCRITICAL POS. GOD, I hope Jamie beats him and sends him out of office. Of course he will be a lobbiest in record time the crooked little shit. I do hope someone has pics of this little freak wankin his little knob
Dwight
Interesting when Democrats ask she doesn’t respond to what she considers hypothetical cases yet she indulges Graham
Jim swimmer
Polygamy means not only marry several men or women in the same time but also to marry several men or women one after each other,so we can say Trump is a polygamist …So is he gay??May be…when he is a polygamist…!!
lord.krath
They aren’t wrong. If [they] defined what is not socially acceptable by religious tenets, then it follows that undoing those tenets even incrementally could lead to wider repeal of others. Of course it is all arbitrary, pure hypocrisy, or and selective values. Modern society doesn’t depend on the archaic needs for families (I.e. large families to maintain a farm, etc) As a result, they shouldn’t concern themselves with conforming to the definitions of archaic societies.
wikidBSTN
I think Queerty’s “analysis” of what the two were discussing is way off. Graham may have been raising the old polygamy canard, but Barret was merely answering his questions about precedent in a straightforward way and they do not reveal what she feels about gay marriage or polygamy in any way.
Gay Thomas
Lady G only believes in 3 different male prostitutes taking turns on her. No reason to limit her selection.
DavidIntl
I am personally not really interested in polygamy, but anyone saying that same-sex marriage could lead to its legalisation is fundamentally correct – post Obergefell, it is hard to construct a coherent argument against polygamy. So? Why should we care? If the polygamists are happy, good for them. Does not affect me in the slightest.
montegutdude
It should be readily apparent, even to the least discerning readers, that plural is not equal. The slippery slope fallacy has been disproven over and over again. Polygamists may well be able to love multiple partners simultaneously, but there’s no right to marry them all. Polygamy isn’t an orientation. That’s a preference. And until people can differentiate between those two words, claims that we’re on our way to allowing folks to marry their AR-15’s and their Trump flags (or both) will continue.
woodroad34
Notice how they conveniently forgot to mention that heterosexual marriage spawned these two miscreants?
butchqueen
WTF does Lady G know about marriage?!