Brigham Young and his wives would be happy-but not Orrin Hatch

[LiviaOlivia]

<snip>

MONDAY October 27, 2003
Hatch still has plenty on his plate

By Christopher Smith
The Salt Lake Tribune

WASHINGTON -- A Supreme Court decision that tossed a Texas law banning consensual sodomy by homosexuals may also invalidate Utah's constitutional ban on polygamy and other state laws prohibiting incest and bigamy, says Sen. Orrin Hatch.
"The legal argument is there," the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman says of the precedent the high court set in a June ruling that the antisodomy statute unconstitutionally infringed on individual rights. "The current Supreme Court ruled that whether a majority of the public opposes a particular practice as immoral, it's not sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting that practice."
Just as troubling to Utah's senior senator is the ruling's potential to legalize same-sex marriage.
"I'm always concerned when the Supreme Court creates new rights out of thin air that are not in the Constitution," the Utah Republican said in a recent interview. "I believe God sanctioned a marriage between a man and a woman and this court decision is being interpreted by some to fly in the face of that."

<snip>


http://www.sltrib.com/2003/oct/10272003/utah/105888.asp


I pray for this man's retirement daily.

[foo_bar]

1. I tried reading it twice

Is Salt Lake Tribune a high school?

"At the same time his tolerance for partisanship declined, the spasms of pain..."

[LiviaOlivia]

4. The subject

of this article will always be more worthy of criticism

in any event.

[liberalmuse]

2. I wonder what his male lovers...

think of his statements? Effing hypocrite! He is an embarrassment, and I even said so to a co-worker today. Luckily, the wingnut was out of the room.

[pasadenaboy]

3. Down the Hatch!

Hey dumbass senator,

The state can control sexual acts involving those who can't consent (children, severly retarded, animals, etc). The state can define legal contracts, so it can define marriage as being between non related men and women. It can't make it illegal to sleep with as many or whatever people of whatever sex you want. However, it can make it illegal for you to enter a civil marriage contract between them.

Why is that so hard to understand?