Rather than just come out and object to today’s Supreme Court decision affirming the right of same sex marriage, Fox News host Martha MacCallum fear mongered that it will lead to future perversions.
On the phone with colleague Greta Van Susteren, MacCallum said, “We’re just trying to think of the ramifications, when a precedent is set, what it means down the road.”
Right, just thinking of the awful things that might happen in the future, as opposed to the actual happiness the ruling brings right now.
MACCALLUM: So suppose three people, say, “We want to be a marriage, we’re three people and we love each other and we want to be a marriage.” What’s to prevent that under this?
Van Susteren replied, “I don’t know that there is.” But she pointed out that cultures evolve and change. “I’m not saying we’re going to have what you hypothesize,” Van Susteren told MacCallum, “But what the court does, it attempts to look at, you know, case by case, whatever comes before it. “
Whatever you think of today’s Supreme Court decision affirming the right of same sex marriage, the decision was pretty clear it applied to two people. From what The Washington Post called a key paragraph in the ruling:
This analysis compels the conclusion that same-sex couples may exercise the right to marry. The four principles and traditions to be discussed demonstrate that the reasons marriage is fundamental under the Constitution apply with equal force to same-sex couples. (my emphases)
Watch the concern trolling below, from today’s America’s Newsroom, via Media Matters.
The 21st Century Fox Human Resource department says the company will provide “benefits to married spouses, regardless of gender, as well as same-sex partners.”
That little information you won’t hear from the Foxies. We intend to tell all the masses through all means of communications.
RUN! HIDE! OMG, the end of the world is near.
Such a complete buffoon. Thank you fox, for bringing “stupid” out of the closet for all the other stupids to gather around.
Allowing three people to marry actually has Biblical precedent in the story of Jacob. Granted, he was tricked into marrying the first woman, but he ended up marrying the second woman anyway—because he wanted her that much. Why should the courts deny that “tradition”—especially since there’s nothing in the Bible that actually described a “God-ordained marriage?” And with RFRA, why can’t more than 2 people get married? You know, because it’s a “deeply held religious belief.”
