Supreme Court Equal Marriage Ruling Should Include Polygamy, Montana Man Argues

[Teh One Who Knocks]

By Jordan Smith - Opposing Views


http://i.imgur.com/bl3A9yr.jpg

A Montana man is threatening to sue the state if it rejects an application for the right to legally marry his second wife.

Nathan Collier handed in his application at Yellowstone County Courthouse on Tuesday along with his second wife, Christine. They had a wedding ceremony in 2007 but did not sign a marriage document. Nathan married his first wife, Victoria, in 2000.

“It’s about marriage equality,” Nathan said to The Associated Press. “You can’t have this without polygamy.”

Initially, officials tried to reject the application outright.

“We'll have to deny that ... as far as I'm aware you can't be married to two people at the same time,” a clerk said, according to MTN News.

The potential lawsuit prompted officials at the courthouse to advise Collier that they would consult the state’s Attorney General’s office before providing him with a final decision.

“We just want to add legal legitimacy to an already happy, strong, loving family,” Nathan said afterwards.

An official decision on the application is yet to be made.

“It's two distinct marriages, it's two distinct unions, and for us to come together and create family, what's wrong with that?” Christine said. “I don't understand why it's looked upon and frowned upon as being obscene.”

Anne Wilde, co-founder of the Utah-based polygamy advocacy group Principle Voices, said that Collier’s application was the first of its kind to her knowledge.

“We hope the Supreme Court decision will show the direction the nation is going,” Wilde told The Associated Press. “It’s more liberal, it’s more understanding about people forming the families the way they want.”

She noted that many polygamous families in Utah were not so keen on the idea of legalization.

“Ninety percent or more of the fundamentalist Mormons don’t want it legalized; they want it decriminalized,” she said.

Nathan has reportedly requested representation from the Montana division of the American Civil Liberties Union.

“We just want to give our marriage and our family the legitimacy that it deserves,” Nathan told MTN News.

[DemonGeminiX]

Here we go...

[RBP]

Here we go...

Yep, surprised it took this long. I don't see how they can say no to this now.

[PorkChopSandwiches]

Soon I will be able to marry my horse

[RBP]

Soon I will be able to marry my horse

I read that as hoes. I was like, what's stopping you? :lol:

[Goofy]

http://i.imgur.com/LcidTb6.jpg

[redred]

Soon I will be able to marry my horse

bronies :roll:

[PorkChopSandwiches]

:lol:

[PorkChopSandwiches]

http://i.imgur.com/LcidTb6.jpg

They really just need to stop telling consenting adults what they can and cant do.

[RBP]

They really just need to stop telling consenting adults what they can and cant do.

Okay, so what's your fix?

[PorkChopSandwiches]

The fix is have the government stop telling consenting adults what they can and cant do, including prostitution..

[Hal-9000]

Why not pass a law that says polygamy is illegal? Marry who you want, one at a time.

[PorkChopSandwiches]

Its is a law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_polygamy#North_America

[Hal-9000]

So then what is this guy's damage? All 50 states say it's illegal.

[DemonGeminiX]

So then what is this guy's damage? All 50 states say it's illegal.

At one point not too long ago, all 50 states said the same thing about gay marriage too.

[Hal-9000]

So he's trying to equate the right to marry one person, with his perceived right to marry 1000 people.

okaaaaaaay

[RBP]

So he's trying to equate the right to marry one person, with his perceived right to marry 1000 people.

okaaaaaaay

The right to marry is a fundamental right, apparently. Who are you to deny that?

[RBP]

The fix is have the government stop telling consenting adults what they can and cant do, including prostitution..

I hear that including Rand and :fbd:, but it doesn't make sense. The issue isn't about "doing what you want" it's about the associated contractual benefits and obligations under law, including benefits, transfer of wealth, common property, taxes, and health decisions. Now if you are saying the solution is to eliminate all contractual and legal items tied to marriage, that's a very different discussion.

I have no idea what the prostitution parallel might be. Lost me there.

[Hal-9000]

The right to marry is a fundamental right, apparently. Who are you to deny that?

yes but comparing the who to the amount of....is fundamentally comparing apples to bananas...erm...oranges

[DemonGeminiX]

So he's trying to equate the right to marry one person, with his perceived right to marry 1000 people.

okaaaaaaay

I could be wrong about this, but not too long ago, I believe being gay was considered to be worse than polygamy.


The right to marry is a fundamental right, apparently. Who are you to deny that?

Yeah, but it's not a right that can be granted by the federal government. The institution of marriage predates all current world governments by about 3000 years, and for the vast majority of those 3000 or so years, marriage was defined as the lifelong union of one man and one woman. Who the hell is the government, and/or the Supreme Court, to redefine it for a minority population?

[RBP]

Yeah, but it's not a right that can be granted by the federal government. The institution of marriage predates all current world governments by about 3000 years, and for the vast majority of those 3000 or so years, marriage was defined as the lifelong union of one man and one woman. Who the hell is the government, and/or the Supreme Court, to redefine it for a minority population?

But it is a right granted by government. It may have whatever roots, but it is still granted by government. I really don't understand the argument, other than a historical perspective on what governments have historically done.

[DemonGeminiX]

Do you agree that governments should be small and not intrude on people's lives (for the most part)?

[RBP]

Do you agree that governments should be small and not intrude on people's lives (for the most part)?
Yes I do. Sigh. Please read my response to Porky first before continuing.

[DemonGeminiX]

Yeah I don't know how the prostitution angle factors into this either. Give me a little time, I have to rethink what I was trying to get across. I don't think the idea in my head is within the same vein of your argument.

This might take a while. :lol:

[RBP]

Take your time. :lol:

[PorkChopSandwiches]

The prostitution part was just the point that consenting adults should be able to do what they like. So if someone wants 3 wives and the wives are ok with it then why does the government need to be involved. Nobody is being harmed in the situation.

I understand the contract and money part, so I guess they could also all just start a company and be equal owners, pool all the money and property into that and in effect have a similar outcome.

Marriage didn't start out as contract law and polygamy has been around longer then the USA

[RBP]

The prostitution part was just the point that consenting adults should be able to do what they like. So if someone wants 3 wives and the wives are ok with it then why does the government need to be involved. Nobody is being harmed in the situation.

I understand the contract and money part, so I guess they could also all just start a company and be equal owners, pool all the money and property into that and in effect have a similar outcome.

Marriage didn't start out as contract law and polygamy has been around longer then the USA

Said different ways, I think we agree. If you aren't going to use the historical context, then there is no definition, so everyone can define it as they will. I am okay with that argument in theory.

The practicality is the entire legal environment would have to change. Simple example, the SCOTUS decision will add a large number of people to benefit coverages. A lot will also lose coverage because there is now no reason to provide "domestic partner" coverage for those who do. Do insurers now offer coverage to 5 polygamist wives? Maybe. If there are 5 wives and an end-of-life decision needs to be made, is it a simple majority vote? :dunno:

Where we probably agree the most is all of the things that are automatic for marriage should be easily available to anyone. I am single. I should be able to easily and inexpensively designate whoever I want for whatever I want.

In fact, even if I was married, maybe I should be able to. I might not trust my wife to make medical decisions. Should I need her to consent to beneficiary changes for my 401(k)? If I choose to spite the bitch and cut her out, should I be able to?

I am just saying it's complicated.

[PorkChopSandwiches]

Sounds like we are ultimately on the same page.
On the other point I have setup a trust that outlines all my wishes upon my death. You can legally say who gets your shit...of course this is also in theory.
I see your points about the socialist benefit part, but we are giving that shitty away at this point to illegals , so we should be covering the legals at that point. :twisted:

[perrhaps]

Polygamy? Who wants to be nagged in stereo?