ðə kˈoːɹt ɹᵻdʒˈɛktᵻd kˈænənz ˈɑːɹɡjuːmənt, hˈoʊldɪŋ ðˈæt "sˈiː ˈɑːmpækts fɔːɹ sˈɛkʃuːəl nˈɑːnˌɪntɚkˈoːɹs, ˈiːzili mˌeɪd ænd ˈiːzili bɹˈoʊkən, wˌɛn ðə pɹˈaɪɚ mˈæɹɪdʒ ɹᵻlˈeɪʃənz kəntˈɪnjuː tʊ ɛɡzˈɪst, wɪððɪ ˌɑːkjʊpˈeɪʃən ʌvðə sˈeɪm hˈaʊs ænd tˈeɪbəl ænd ðə kˈiːpɪŋ ˌʌp ʌvðə sˈeɪm fˈæmɪli jˈuːnɪɾi, ɪz nˌɑːɾə lˈɔːfəl sˈʌbstɪtˌuːt fɚðə mənˈɑːɡɐməs fˈæmɪli wˌɪtʃ ɐlˈoʊn ðə stˈætʃuːt tˈɑːlɚɹˌeɪts.
The Court rejected Cannon's argument, holding that "[c]ompacts for sexual non-intercourse, easily made and easily broken, when the prior marriage relations continue to exist, with the occupation of the same house and table and the keeping up of the same family unity, is not a lawful substitute for the monogamous family which alone the statute tolerates.