From the Associated Press:
A Montana man said Wednesday that he was inspired by last week’s U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage to apply for a marriage license so that he can legally wed his second wife.
Nathan Collier and his wives Victoria and Christine applied at the Yellowstone County Courthouse in Billings on Tuesday in an attempt to legitimize their polygamous marriage. Montana, like all 50 states, outlaws bigamy — holding multiple marriage licenses — but Collier said he plans to sue if the application is denied.
“It’s about marriage equality,” Collier told The Associated Press Wednesday. “You can’t have this without polygamy.”
County clerk officials initially denied Collier’s application, then said they would consult with the county attorney’s office before giving him a final answer, Collier said.
Is this the next fight?
unless he’s marrying a man, he might be out of luck. at least he’s not one of the dorks trying to marry the family pet or farm animal. there’s a difference between a valid protest and a tantrum.
seriously, this is still a nation of monogamy, regardless of the ruling. those testing the system with bestiality and polygamy should be dealt with quickly by the law. to even suggest equivalence is an insult to gay and straight marriage partners alike.
20 years ago I could have said, seriously, this is a nation of straight marriages. The thought of even considering gay marriage would have been laughed out of the court. Now, on just what basis are you arguing that polygamy is not justified? Religious? Sorry, that has been blown out of the water. What state interest is there? When this debate first started, I could see the polygamy argument coming. It is here and it will soon wind its way into the courts. Justice Roberts is finally right when he says this is the next big test.
Unfortunately, our nation is no longer a nation of laws. After the ObamaCare decision, words no longer mean what they once meant. After the gay marriage, SCOTUS has effectively redefined marriage. It will soon mean whatever someone wants it to mean.
But, have you seen one of those parades? The filth. The immorality. America is now rotting from within. Maybe its time to ban Mardi Gras.
Sturgis too.
Why can’t I marry my dog? It would save me around $10K a year in taxes if I could check the “married, filing jointly” box on my 1040. All the vet bills could now be paid via my tax-deferred health savings account (thanks Obama!) not to mention her vet insurance (that is one expensive policy). If i die, she’d be entitled to my SSI survivor’s insurance, would get a real nice insurance check and probably some of my estate as I’ve been a bit remiss about updating my will.
In a system designed to favor certain types of human activity, like our tax code is, a fundamental change on the front end derives endless, endless permutations that will take years to unravel.
If same sex marriage is a catalyst towards a simpler, less politically-engineered set of the laws that govern our daily lives, I’m all for it.
mhs, if you are a guy, I hope you are not suggesting you want to marry a male dog! That would be just weird!
If he wanted to marry a female dog, it wouldn’t be weird?
Well, not AS weird!
She’s a female yellow lab. Even if we can’t get married, she still costs me a lot less than two other cute blonde’s I’ve had in my life!
Of course this is the next step. If anyone didn’t see this coming, they were wearing blinders. Essentially as said above, words/laws can be interpreted to mean anything a person feels like they should. After all, if a man can say he really feels like a woman, he can now use the ladies’ bathroom. If a woman says she really feels like a man, she can use the men’s bathroom. A man can get on the cover of a national magazine and be deemed a hero now that he is a she. The only things that are constant it seems are that if you are a Christian with traditional Christian values, you can be labeled a bigot, racist, homophobe, etc; that only seems to be getting worse. Welcome to Obama’s fundamentally transformed USA, which is the one promise he seems to be keeping.
The marrying animal discussion needs to go away. That is just absurd.
However I can see someone wanting to marry multiple partners becoming a real issue. It is practiced all over the world and I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the people who have come to the USA from other cultures would’t like to see that policy change to something similar to what their original country has.
Take Minneapolis with it’s large islamic population. Why do we want to discriminate against their traditions just because they are not our traditions?
At some point the multiple husbands and wives thing is going to be challenged and it will look like ethnic discrimination against people of different immigration heritage.
“Why do we want to discriminate against their traditions just because they are not our traditions?” How about, why do they not accept our traditions if they want to live in America and become Americans” Why is it automatically discrimination if we want to preserve some of the traditions and heritage that have made our nation the great nation it is? Why make us the bad guys instead of asking that people assimilate into our culture if they want to be part of it? People want to come to the US because of what we are – I don’t see a lot of people immigrating to the Middle East (discounting ISIS sympathizers) or Central America or Africa or Mexico; let’s not lose what has made our country great by trying to appease every other culture and tradition in the name of tolerance.
How is it absurd? Because YOU think it is? I thought two guys or two gals getting married was absurd, but now the black robes incorrectly said it’s a constitutional right.
Have you ever heard of the slippery slope? It is legitimate to question just how far this is going to go, so don’t say that somebody claiming the right to marry their dog is absurd.
Dogs can’t consent to anything. Please. Your chicken little nonsense is tired and objectively stupid.
Let me see you jump a rottweiler! I bet he/she will let you know if it consents!
Clearly the same as consenting to a contractual relationship. Clearly.
Some of their traditions stink! Yeah, yeah, I know we had slavery in this country, but we don’t any longer; however, the honor killings, total control, and lack of freedom in a lot of Islamic traditions isn’t worth embracing, and if you are so open about embracing different cultures that throw freedom out the window, perhaps you should move somewhere that has no freedom and then let us know how you like it. Talk about a mindless argument you made.
Why can’t we marry our pets? Caligula made his horse a Roman Consul.
I’ve got a cat who should be in the legislature. He spent 3 days riding around in the engine compartment of my car before I figured out where the meowing was coming from, so he understands transportation issues. His feral wife left him for the Tom across the road and gave him full custody of their three kittens so he understands family law. And he was extremely sick and almost died so he understands healthcare. And of course, being a cat, he’s a Republican. The dogs are Democrats.
You obviously know nothing about dogs and cats! I checked with my dogs. One is too young to decide; the other is a Libertarian. She thinks Democrats are akin to communists and Republicans are following. And, BTW, she is a lot smarter than a lot of Democrats I know.
Our dogs are fairly well controlled with “free stuff” and attention. We’re pretty sure they’re Democrats.
The cats, on the other hand, tend to fend for themselves and won’t do anything on command. Anne thinks they’re Republicans, but I suspect they’ may be libertarians.
It is entirely possible that our current laws cause religious discrimination among muslims and mormons. Having multiple wives is common in many countries and has been for thousands of years. Gay marriage was not common practice anywhere until last week.
Marry women of your choice, two or three or four; but if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with them, then only one or one that your right hands possess. That will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice.” (Qur’an 4:3)
All is proceeding as foreseen… As both SC Justices Roberts and Scalia acknowledged, given the “reasoning” by the court in its decision on Obergefell v Hodges, the court is on the path to upholding the rights of polygamists.
That’s why, for the “rule of law” to REALLY be lawful, words have to mean specific things. A court whose opinions center on “silent rights, discovered by the court,” rules not on written law or the Constitution but from its members own personal beliefs. The outcome of the case is decided first, regardless of the merits of its arguements.
THIS is why, even if one supports same sex marriage, one should not celebrate the courts decision. Because, it was never about same sex marriage.
The Progressives do not care about gay rights. If you doubt that, consider how many of the left’s favorite Muslim countries have gay rights. The left fights all sorts of social and political battles not because it believes in them, but to radicalize, disrupt and take power.
The left does not care about social justice. It cares about power.
I think people should have the right to be different from one another.
America IS the right to be different, liberty, freedom, self-determination, where there’s justice for all. Right?
There IS, and should be, a difference between Public services and property and Private services and property that happen to be “open to the public.” Privately owned businesses and private organizations should be able to serve the needs of the public in the marketplace, as they see fit.
I don’t see why a store run by a Muslim can’t demand that women be covered, nor why a store run by a pious conservative Catholic can’t also insist that women cover their shoulders on property they own. Why should a butcher, a baker or a candle-stick maker NOT be allowed to serve, or not serve anyone based for whatever reason they choose, or no reason at all?
Any Right, encompasses the Right NOT to do it.
The Right to speak, enfolds the Right to remain silent.
The Right to vote, holds within the Right NOT to vote…
And Freedom of Association, which IS an enumerated Right in the Constitution, MUST also include the Right NOT to Associate.
Ultimately, and I suspect sometime soon, we’ll need to determine if we’re to remain citizens with the explicit rights granted under our Constitution or if we’re simply serfs serving the whims of our Royalty.
Nothing will change until the dictator-in-chief is replaced hopefully by a conservative in 1 1/2 years, if it’s not too late by that time. And if he isn’t replaced by a conservative, then nothing will change anyway because the Supreme Court will be packed with progressive (another word for socialist) judges who change laws as they deem fit.
Polygamy? It is only supported by about 10-15% of the public, so I doubt it. There is always a slippery slope to every argument.
And speaking of dogs. Russia, for one, treats gay people worse than dogs. Being gay can earn you a life sentence in many other countries. ISIS is throwing gay kids off of buildings week after week. (Killing straight kids too. By the dozens.) These are examples of true evil.
So what are some of you all worked up about? A couple of guys in a relationship might gain equitable treatment by our government. They might have the same tax burden as you. They might have access to government benefits that you do. Oh, the outrage of that. The Supreme Court granting me equal rights is “Evil in Black Robes”? Uh. Not to me.
At the current rate of Muslim immigration to the west, gay marriage is just a temporary condition.
You are scaring me. I have calculated the demographic trajectory. Whew. I will be ready to die by then… so its OK.
That’s assuming you’ve correctly calculated and factored in all relevant variables 😉
So long as your life goes smoothly the heck with the next generation, huh? Too many people think that way.
That is liberal thinking in a nutshell: the world of ME.
I don’t see how polygamy is any more or less offensive than gay marriage. If anything, polygamy was practiced more widely by more societies than any type of gay relations throughout history. We learned Friday that a state apparently does not have a reserved power in the Constitution to regulate marriage. Marriage certificates should be given to anyone or anything. You should be allowed to marry your pet rock if you want to. If a marriage certificate must now include sodomy, why should I defend it? As of Friday, there is nothing sacred left concerning the institution in the public realm. A real Christian marriage should be done in a church and before God and witnesses because it is a commitment that goes beyond a man and a woman while state marriage certificates should be dispersed in an automated vending machine since one cannot help who or what they love. Liberals may find that they love their chocolate bar and yet find themselves longing for another.
MHS,
Hmmm. Is this a pattern? Whether it be your blonde dog or those other two blondes, one could reach the conclusion you select based on hair color and not brains. However, you seem to have a real smart dog.
There is a lot of emotion surrounding the psychological struggles of a child.
A great support system is needed to get through the challenging
times in life and this can help you to have a much better outlook on your life.
There are many things you can begin doing now that can have a major impact on how you feel and function later.
I don’t have a problem with polygamists as long as their social security survivor benefits are spilt up among all the wives. Or the check goes to the Boss Wife (apparently that’s how these families are organized) and she distributes the funds.
Too bad it doesn’t work that way Anne. AZ stats showed the highest welfare payouts per capita in the entire state were in Colorado City, the FLDS fake town that straddles the AZ / Utah border.
That’s because the secondary wives are all unwed mothers.
I’m talking about Social Security Survivor benefits. Husband dies, only one wife gets survivor benefits. I am not clear on it but men who have been legally married for over ten years to each of several women can have each wife draw on her husband’s social security as long as she has not remarried.