• Source: YouTube
  • Watch: Lindsey Graham Asks Loretta Lynch To Explain How Gay Marriage Could Be Legal But Not Polygamy

    In a very embarrassing discussion, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham tries to understand how same-sex marriage could be legal but not polygamy.

    Newly re-elected U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham introduced an embarrassing examination into the Senate confirmation hearing of Loretta Lynch for Attorney General this afternoon. The senior Republican senator from South Carolina asked Lynch, who will replace Eric Holder if confirmed, to explain why same-sex marriage could be legal but not polygamy.

    Sen. Graham's questioning revealed extreme ignorance about a wide variety of issues, including his claim that the U.S. Supreme Court may soon take up same-sex marriage, as the Court has already scheduled four cases to be heard in April. 

    UPDATE: Breaking: Republican War Hawk Lindsey Graham Forms 2016 Presidential Exploratory Committee

    Graham also wrongly claimed that marriage between one man and one woman is "clearly the law of the land," which it is not. At least three dozen states have extended marriage to same-sex couples (37 if and when Alabama's stay is removed or expires), and the U.S. government recognizes sam-sex marriages in states where it is legal or where a federal judge has struck down a ban.

    "What legal rationale would be in play that would prohibit polygamy?," Graham asked, should the Supreme Court rule same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. "Could you try to articulate how one could be banned under the Constitution and the other not?," he added.

    Senator Graham is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution.

    Lynch, currently the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, found an elegant but firm way to not answer the questions.

    Watch:

     

    Image via YouTube

    Get weekly news & updates
    Subscribe
    Support our work DONATE



    Register to VOTE

    Showing 20 comments

    Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.

    • commented 2015-01-31 22:44:20 -0500
      Miss Graham needs to have three seats and a rum & coke and a good piece of trade off of Jack’d :-)

    • commented 2015-01-29 17:47:57 -0500
      1+1=3? That is his argument.

    • commented 2015-01-29 17:21:44 -0500
      While he’s still a complete and utter nincompoop, you’re misinterpreting one small thing in what he said. He was saying that, if the Supreme Court ruled in favor of gay marriage, gay marriage would be the law of the land. He’s acknowledging that, barring an amendment, what the Supreme Court says is the law of the land. He says enough stupid crap that we don’t need to further distort what he says, it just undermines our arguments.

    • commented 2015-01-29 08:10:59 -0500
      That phoney REMAINING “slippery slope strategy” that Antigays keep trying to insist is real, is 100% nonsense, and useless as a rational basis for valid lawmaking in America under The U. S. Constitution, yet we hear it time and again, ad nauseum (for real):

      Gutted Herring #1- ON ANIMALS MARRYING PEOPLE:

      Marriage requires informed consent which animals, mute inanimate objects, and children do not legally possess. So no marriage.

      The antigays who rely on this comparison would be hard pressed to make the direct comparison they are peddling as valid, since not one of them can look at a gay married couple, and tell us which of the 2 in the couple represents “the human” and which of the 2 in the couple represents the “animal/child/tree”.

      …And once they’ve figured out which is which, they are CORDIALLY invited to try undertaking this same comparison under oath in a court of federal law!

      (…and let’s see if they don’t get sanctioned for contempt!!)

      Gutted Herring #2- ON SIBLINGS MARRYING SIBLINGS

      The only government purpose of recognizing marriages, is to officially consolidate 2 unrelated law-abiding households into a single family unit.

      Oh, but look again to see why this red-herring was dried up and gray before it even got out of its antigay agenda box!:

      Siblings are already considered ‘family’ from the day they were born; therefore any further recognition of their family status is purely redundant, and specifically not required, as these folks are born with the classification of being “recognized family members”.

      Which is precisely why no one is seeing additional sibling marriage rights talked about by anyone but inhumane antigays with a bizarre grudge they have yet to explain to anyone coherently.

      Gutted Herring #3- THE PHONY POLYGAMY BOOGEYMAN:

      Straight polygamists may already marry the law-abiding oppsex partner of their choice, albeit one at a time. Divorce law nevertheless, still allows each of them to divorce, and then marry the next oppsex partner from their list of oppsex choices, and do it again and again, as often as they please, with nary a peep out of any “marriage protectors” (rolled eyes) or any family law regulations trying to stop them.

      Fact of the matter: oppsex polygamists aren’t complaining much, because they already have equal marriage rights. They know it. Everyone knows it.

      Ironically, a straight spouse-abusers may marry a 4th time, even if they are doing time for mortally injuring a 1st, 2nd or 3rd wife/husband, so long as both partners are straight. (note: the notoriously patricidal Melendez brothers as well as the LA Nightstalker, all “married” their oppsex partners WHILE IN JAIL FOR MURDER. Charles Manson, most recently…?)

      In stark contrast, Antigays say LGBT couple never should be able to marry.

      To “Protect the sanctity of marriage”.

      All of the above red-herrings are example of pure animus based, antigay incoherence; every red-herring they ever thought they had, are but fishbone and bacteria anymore, and every attempt to invoke them to deny gays equal rights, using family law as an excuse, is an illegal and automatic **fail***

      Justice and Equality for All.

      So simple. No herrings required.

    • commented 2015-01-29 05:20:46 -0500
      Marc, I think you might be think of incestuous relationships.

    • commented 2015-01-29 02:22:27 -0500
      Did you skip biology, you f*cking idiot. "Inbreeding results in homozygosity, which can increase the chances of offspring being affected by recessive or deleterious traits. This generally leads to a decreased biological fitness of an entire population (called inbreeding depression), which is its ability to survive and reproduce. That’s the diff, dumbass!

    • commented 2015-01-29 00:57:25 -0500
      What level of irony does it speak to that, at 5:03 in to the video (after I restarted from the beginning) I was just starting to have a puff from my pipe?
      Oh and, Graham’s an ass.

    • commented 2015-01-28 22:29:33 -0500
      Well then, it’s a good thing thar they will never get 67 votes to pass an amendment like that. I don’t even think they would be able to get every Republican to vote for that.

    • commented 2015-01-28 22:10:37 -0500
      I’m in no way a fan of Lindsay Graham, but he’s not saying that marriage being between a man and a woman is the law of the land. He’s talking about a theoretical ruling from the Supreme Court prohibiting states from saying that. He’s saying that ruling would be the law of the land in that situation, in that hypothetical future. He’s conceding that if the court rules for gay marriage, it will be the law of the land. (Thus the “unless there’s a constitutional amendment to change it” immediately after that.)

      He’s just using sloppy grammar. (And you the author are using sloppy listening.)

    • commented 2015-01-28 21:41:08 -0500
      She really couldn’t bring herself to answer that 2 isn’t the same as 3 or more? What a pathetic answer.

    • commented 2015-01-28 20:24:21 -0500
      Brianna Amore:
      Polygamy is a practice, not an orientation.

    • commented 2015-01-28 18:35:05 -0500
      Let me know as soon as polygamy is considered a sexual orientation (rolls eyes).

    • commented 2015-01-28 18:22:58 -0500
      Go directly to the YouTube Link and it’s Lindsay Graham’s channel. What a dumb ass question to even ask and what a class act response without missing a beat on her part.

    • commented 2015-01-28 17:22:50 -0500
      She’s good.

    • commented 2015-01-28 16:23:47 -0500
      These remarks are both antiquated and ludicrous, yet not long ago the very notion of gay marriage was inconceivable if not downright frightening. By 1970 as gay rights became more vocal, pamphlets were produced filled with dire warnings of the dangers of homosexuality and the “coming revolution” invading the mainstream. For a look at one such homophobic comic entitled gay Blade published in 1972 that predicted an ominous future filled with gasp…gay marriage, visit http://wp.me/p2qifI-1Cp

    • commented 2015-01-28 16:18:36 -0500
      Smack him down!!!!

    • commented 2015-01-28 16:16:17 -0500
      Lets review. Bible quoters (like Graham shown here) like to use the bible to support their argument. They think the bible proves that marriage is between a man and a woman. But polygamy is actually represented as normal in the bible. But they don’t want polygamy. That would be fun to watch their brains explode.

    • commented 2015-01-28 15:16:27 -0500
      Surely Sen. Graham wouldn’t want uniformed opinion would he? That would be just wrong. insert sarcasm here

    • commented 2015-01-28 14:50:19 -0500
      Ha!

    • commented 2015-01-28 14:46:07 -0500
      A man and a woman is “Clearly the law of the land”? It is not, otherwise, it would not be unconstitutional.

    Your rights, your movement.
    Join today:
    Your rights, your movement.
    Join today: