Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License

Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License (1297640)	Home · Maps · About

Home > OTChat

[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]

[1 2]

Page 1 of 2

Next Page >

(1297640)	view threaded
Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License
Posted by SLRT on Thu Jul 2 15:41:55 2015 fiogf49gjkf0d So it begins. If they sue we may have our first test case. HELENA, Mont. (AP) -- 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. Yellowstone County chief civil litigator Kevin Gillen said he is reviewing Montana's bigamy laws and expected to send a formal response to Collier by next week. "I think he deserves an answer," Gillen said, but added his review is finding that "the law simply doesn't provide for that yet." The Supreme Court's ruling on Friday made gay marriages legal nationwide. Chief Justice John Roberts said in his dissent that people in polygamous relationships could make the same legal argument that not having the opportunity to marry disrespects and subordinates them. Collier, 46, said that dissent inspired him. He owns a refrigeration business in Billings and married Victoria, 40, in 2000. He and his second wife, Christine, had a religious wedding ceremony in 2007 but did not sign a marriage license to avoid bigamy charges, he said. Collier said he is a former Mormon who was excommunicated for polygamy and now belongs to no religious organization. He said he and his wives hid their relationship for years, but became tired of hiding and went public by appearing on the reality cable television show "Sister Wives." The three have seven children of their own and from previous relationships. "My second wife Christine, who I'm not legally married to, she's put up with my crap for a lot of years. She deserves legitimacy," he said. Collier said he sent an email asking the ACLU of Montana to represent him in a possible lawsuit. ACLU legal director Jim Taylor said he has not seen the request. Taylor said he has no opinion on Collier's claims, though the Supreme Court decision on gay marriage "is about something very different." Anne Wilde, a co-founder of the polygamy advocacy organization Principle Voices located in Utah, said Collier's application is the first she's heard of in the nation, and that most polygamous families in Utah are not seeking the right to have multiple marriage licenses. "Ninety percent or more of the fundamentalist Mormons don't want it legalized, they want it decriminalized," Wilde said. A federal judge struck down parts of Utah's anti-polygamy law two years ago, saying the law violated religious freedom by prohibiting cohabitation. Bigamy is still illegal. The state has appealed the ruling, and the case is pending in the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Wilde said most polygamous families are satisfied with the judge's ruling and believe taking it further to include multiple marriage licenses would bring them under the unwanted jurisdiction of the government. But she said the Supreme Court's decision on gay marriage should strengthen their chance of winning the appeal. "We hope the Supreme Court decision will show the direction the nation is going," she said. "It's more liberal, it's more understanding about people forming the families the way they want." © 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. ----
Post a New Response

(1297653)	view threaded
Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License
Posted by 3-9* on Thu Jul 2 16:51:52 2015, in response to Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License, posted by SLRT on Thu Jul 2 15:41:55 2015.* fiogf49gjkf0d Ayup. Which way do you think it will go, if he's willing to go all the way to the SCOTUS?
Post a New Response

(1297692)	view threaded
Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License
Posted by SLRT* on Thu Jul 2 18:11:35 2015, in response to Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License, posted by 3-9 on Thu Jul 2 16:51:52 2015.* fiogf49gjkf0d Before I would hazard a guess, I would look at the reasoning of the majority in the gay marriage decision.
Post a New Response

(1297696)	view threaded
Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License
Posted by bingbong* on Thu Jul 2 18:15:25 2015, in response to Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License, posted by SLRT on Thu Jul 2 18:11:35 2015.* fiogf49gjkf0d Which applies to monogamous marriage contracts.
Post a New Response

(1297705)	view threaded
Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License
Posted by SLRT* on Thu Jul 2 19:08:06 2015, in response to Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License, posted by bingbong on Thu Jul 2 18:15:25 2015.* fiogf49gjkf0d To me, that's the most obvious point. People miss that gays were essentially asking to become part of the structure of traditional marriage. But I'm not sure people will see the fundamental qualitatiive difference between a non-conventional marriage and plural marriage. To some people it would just be more "tolerence." We're becoming a "Why Not?" culture.
Post a New Response

(1297715)	view threaded
Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License
Posted by italianstallion* on Thu Jul 2 19:49:34 2015, in response to Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License, posted by SLRT on Thu Jul 2 19:08:06 2015.* fiogf49gjkf0d The line will be drawn where it is now.
Post a New Response

(1297723)	view threaded
Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License
Posted by bingbong* on Thu Jul 2 20:15:29 2015, in response to Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License, posted by italianstallion on Thu Jul 2 19:49:34 2015.* fiogf49gjkf0d As it should be. There are statutes against bigamy on state and Federal levels.
Post a New Response

(1297728)	view threaded
Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License
Posted by SLRT* on Thu Jul 2 20:35:46 2015, in response to Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License, posted by bingbong on Thu Jul 2 20:15:29 2015.* fiogf49gjkf0d I looked for an argument in Justice Kennedy's opinion for the Court that would delineate an essential argument why homosexual monogamous marriage is a Constitutional Right but plural marriage isn't and didn't find it. The essential argument of how plural marriage is heading into was expressed by CJ Roberts in his dissent. This is what opponents of plural marriage will have to do to successfully argue against in light of Obergefell. "One immediate question invited by the majority’s position is whether States may retain the definition of marriage as a union of two people. Cf. Brown v. Buhman, 947 F. Supp. 2d 1170 (Utah 2013), appeal pending, No. 144117 (CA10). Although the majority randomly inserts the adjective “two” in various places, it offers no reason at all why the two-person element of the core definition of marriage may be preserved while the man-woman element may not. Indeed, from the standpoint of history and tradition, a leap from opposite-sex marriage to same-sex marriage is much greater than one from a two-person union to plural unions, which have deep roots in some cultures around the world. If the majority is willing to take the big leap, it is hard to see how it can say no to the shorter one. "It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage. If “[t]here is dignity in the bond between two men or two women who seek to marry and in their autonomy to make such profound choices,” ante, at 13, why would there be any less dignity in the bond between three people who, in exercising their autonomy, seek to make the profound choice to marry? If a same-sex couple has the constitutional righ to marry because their children would otherwise "suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser," ante, at 15, why wouldn’t the same reasoning apply to a family of three or more persons raising children? If not having the opportunity to marry "serves to disrespect and subordinate" gay and lesbian couples, why wouldn’t the same "imposition of this disability," ante, at 22, serve to disrespect and subordinate people who find fulfillment in polyamorous relationships? See Bennett, Polyamory: The Next Sexual Revolution? Newsweek, July 28, 2009 (estimating 500,000 polyamorous families in the United States); Li, Married Lesbian “Throuple” Expecting First Child, N. Y. Post, Apr.23, 2014; Otter, Three May Not Be a Crowd: The Case for a Constitutional Right to Plural Marriage, 64 Emory L. J.1977 (2015). "I do not mean to equate marriage between same-sex couples with plural marriages in all respects. There may well be relevant differences that compel different legal analysis. But if there are, petitioners have not pointed to any. When asked about a plural marital union at oral argument, petitioners asserted that a State "doesn’t have such an institution." Tr. of Oral Arg. on Question 2, p. 6. But that is exactly the point: the States at issue here do not have an institution of same-sex marriage, either. "Near the end of its opinion, the majority offers perhaps the clearest insight into its decision. Expanding marriage to include same-sex couples, the majority insists, would "pose no risk of harm to themselves or third parties." Ante, at 27. This argument again echoes Lochner, which relied on its assessment that "we think that a law like the one before us involves neither the safety, the morals nor the welfare of the public, and that the interest of the public is not in the slightest degree affected by such an act.” 198 U. S., at 57."
Post a New Response

(1297731)	view threaded
Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License
Posted by RockParkMan* on Thu Jul 2 20:38:22 2015, in response to Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License, posted by SLRT on Thu Jul 2 15:41:55 2015.* fiogf49gjkf0d Mormon dirtbags.
Post a New Response

(1297736)	view threaded
Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License
Posted by AlM* on Thu Jul 2 20:50:01 2015, in response to Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License, posted by SLRT on Thu Jul 2 20:35:46 2015.* fiogf49gjkf0d What you are missing is that since Bush v Gore, the Court has stopped finding good legal reasons for its decisions. Both the liberal and conservative wings are guilty. They decide what they want the answer to be and then they work out some reasoning. The Court knows the public doesn't support polygamous marriages. So they'll figure out a way to not allow them.
Post a New Response

(1297757)	view threaded
Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License
Posted by bingbong* on Thu Jul 2 21:36:41 2015, in response to Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License, posted by AlM on Thu Jul 2 20:50:01 2015.* fiogf49gjkf0d Existing law will do just fine.
Post a New Response

(1297760)	view threaded
Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License
Posted by AlM* on Thu Jul 2 21:47:41 2015, in response to Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License, posted by bingbong on Thu Jul 2 21:36:41 2015.* fiogf49gjkf0d I'm talking about how the courts will uphold existing law.
Post a New Response

(1297956)	view threaded
Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License
Posted by kew gardens teleport* on Sat Jul 4 05:57:41 2015, in response to Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License, posted by AlM on Thu Jul 2 20:50:01 2015.* fiogf49gjkf0d What you are missing is that since Bush v Gore, the Court has stopped finding good legal reasons for its decisions. I'm sure the Supreme Court made politically convenient decisions based on poor legal reasoning way before that. It's the difficulty they've wandered into by treating their own precedent as a rebuttable presumption, rather than as binding.
Post a New Response

(1297958)	view threaded
Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License
Posted by AlM* on Sat Jul 4 07:27:42 2015, in response to Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License, posted by kew gardens teleport on Sat Jul 4 05:57:41 2015.* fiogf49gjkf0d Agreed. I'm thinking of something like the Arizona case that says a referendum is legally valid even in a murky case. What will happen next time when the referendum supports a conservative cause? You may see a flip of many of the 9 votes, and the reasoning will be very twisted.
Post a New Response

(1298230)	view threaded
Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License
Posted by Nilet* on Sun Jul 5 05:07:22 2015, in response to Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License, posted by SLRT on Thu Jul 2 18:11:35 2015.* fiogf49gjkf0d I doubt reason will play a major part in it.
Post a New Response

(1298232)	view threaded
Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License
Posted by Nilet* on Sun Jul 5 05:12:41 2015, in response to Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License, posted by SLRT on Thu Jul 2 19:08:06 2015.* fiogf49gjkf0d To me, that's the most obvious point. People miss that gays were essentially asking to become part of the structure of traditional marriage. But I'm not sure people will see the fundamental qualitatiive difference between a non-conventional marriage and plural marriage. To some people it would just be more "tolerence." Except that traditional marriage was polygamous. More recent tradition held that marriage was monogamous but open— you could have one spouse but you could also have any number of affairs (at least if you were male). The notion of one-man-one-woman-fidelity-for-life is a very recent invention, and is only a "tradition" in the sense that anything commonplace when the baby boomers were growing up is now an American Tradition® the loss of which is Destroying Society™ forever. We're becoming a "Why Not?" culture. If it doesn't hurt anyone, then why not? That's exactly the culture we need to be.
Post a New Response

(1298234)	view threaded
Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License
Posted by Nilet* on Sun Jul 5 05:15:23 2015, in response to Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License, posted by bingbong on Thu Jul 2 21:36:41 2015.* fiogf49gjkf0d Except that existing law is discriminatory against people who want to get married as a group. Why does the basic logic about marriage being a private decision between consenting adults suddenly go out the window when more than two adults are involved?
Post a New Response

(1298241)	view threaded
Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License
Posted by bingbong* on Sun Jul 5 09:50:41 2015, in response to Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License, posted by Nilet on Sun Jul 5 05:15:23 2015.* fiogf49gjkf0d Problem here is that it gets real complicated once kids are involved.
Post a New Response

(1298264)	view threaded
Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License
Posted by New Flyer #857* on Sun Jul 5 14:17:53 2015, in response to Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License, posted by Nilet on Sun Jul 5 05:12:41 2015.* fiogf49gjkf0d If it doesn't hurt anyone, then why not? That approach lends itself to individualism, instrumentalism, and selfism, all illogical philosophies. These philosophies end up propagated and we and our children become enslaved by them. Any so-called happiness (really, "pleasure") that is reached is fragile and shallow because it has no logical foundation.
Post a New Response

(1298270)	view threaded
Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License
Posted by Spider-Pig* on Sun Jul 5 14:40:26 2015, in response to Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License, posted by New Flyer #857 on Sun Jul 5 14:17:53 2015.* fiogf49gjkf0d Because you say so? Why is happiness shallow if it has no logical foundation? And how are those philosophies illogical?
Post a New Response

(1298273)	view threaded
Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License
Posted by Easy* on Sun Jul 5 15:02:43 2015, in response to Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License, posted by Nilet on Sun Jul 5 05:12:41 2015.* fiogf49gjkf0d How do you decide what hurts someone? Does a man pulling his pants down and masturbating on the subway hurt anyone?
Post a New Response

(1298277)	view threaded
Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License
Posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com* on Sun Jul 5 15:25:01 2015, in response to Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License, posted by Easy on Sun Jul 5 15:02:43 2015.* fiogf49gjkf0d thats nasty easy i would get off and ride the next car
Post a New Response

(1298279)	view threaded
Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License
Posted by LuchAAA* on Sun Jul 5 15:55:04 2015, in response to Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License, posted by Nilet on Sun Jul 5 05:12:41 2015.* fiogf49gjkf0d Excellent post.
Post a New Response

(1298361)	view threaded
Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License
Posted by Nilet* on Sun Jul 5 19:43:45 2015, in response to Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License, posted by New Flyer #857 on Sun Jul 5 14:17:53 2015.* fiogf49gjkf0d Then why are you on a railfan forum? There's no "logical reason" why any of us should find railfanning fun yet we enjoy it anyway. If you think harmless actions should be restricted, then which actions and why? Dubious claims that society will be Ruined Forever® by a nonexistent slippery slope aren't really sufficient.
Post a New Response

(1298364)	view threaded
Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License
Posted by Nilet* on Sun Jul 5 19:47:30 2015, in response to Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License, posted by Easy on Sun Jul 5 15:02:43 2015.* fiogf49gjkf0d Who is the victim? How are they hurt? If you can't think of any meaningful answer to these questions or even begin to take a guess, then maybe the action should be legal. In the case of your subway masturbator, the primary victim is the woman he is doubtless sexually harassing. The secondary victims are anyone who will have to ride in that car after it's been contaminated by his "physical evidence." However, in the case of three people who want to get married, there is no victim.
Post a New Response

(1298365)	view threaded
Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License
Posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com* on Sun Jul 5 19:49:43 2015, in response to Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License, posted by Nilet on Sun Jul 5 19:47:30 2015.* fiogf49gjkf0d iawtp
Post a New Response

(1298366)	view threaded
Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License
Posted by Nilet* on Sun Jul 5 19:50:05 2015, in response to Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License, posted by bingbong on Sun Jul 5 09:50:41 2015.* fiogf49gjkf0d How so? The basic concept of raising children in a family remains more or less the same regardless of the total number of parents— if adding, say, a live-in nanny or an elderly grandmother to the household doesn't hurt the kids, I fail to see how adding a stepmother or a second father or whatever term they choose would cause any damage.
Post a New Response

(1298371)	view threaded
Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License
Posted by bingbong* on Sun Jul 5 20:11:18 2015, in response to Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License, posted by Nilet on Sun Jul 5 19:50:05 2015.* fiogf49gjkf0d Problems arise with parental responsibilities. You can't have a parent that isn't an actual parent making decisions for a child. This brings about too much opportunity for conflict, as each "wife" attempts to gain the most of the available resources for their natural child(ren). There's also the well documented abuse of children in polygamous homes, do we really need to replay all that again? And before anyone brings up Islam, yes there is some polygamy however it's limited on a basis of wealth as each wife/family has to be maintained in their own home at an economically equal level to any other. This also ensures a non parent would not be speaking for a child. Multiple wives rarely if ever meet. Often these families are in different cities if not countries.
Post a New Response

(1298411)	view threaded
Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License
Posted by 3-9* on Sun Jul 5 20:28:00 2015, in response to Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License, posted by bingbong on Sun Jul 5 09:50:41 2015.* fiogf49gjkf0d I think it'll be even more interesting if women have multiple husbands.
Post a New Response

(1298416)	view threaded
Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License
Posted by SelkirkTMO* on Sun Jul 5 20:35:09 2015, in response to Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License, posted by 3-9 on Sun Jul 5 20:28:00 2015.* fiogf49gjkf0d I think THAT'S where they'll draw that line. :)
Post a New Response

(1298417)	view threaded
Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License
Posted by bingbong* on Sun Jul 5 20:41:04 2015, in response to Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Jul 5 20:35:09 2015.* fiogf49gjkf0d That's right. This is all about controlling women.
Post a New Response

(1298420)	view threaded
Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License
Posted by Nilet* on Sun Jul 5 20:49:15 2015, in response to Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License, posted by bingbong on Sun Jul 5 20:11:18 2015.* fiogf49gjkf0d Problems arise with parental responsibilities. You can't have a parent that isn't an actual parent making decisions for a child. So no foster homes? Adoptions? Step-parents? Children raised by aunts, uncles, or grandparents? This brings about too much opportunity for conflict, as each "wife" attempts to gain the most of the available resources for their natural child(ren). Obviously, this is a purely hypothetical scenario with no meaningful basis in fact, so I'll just point out the odd assumption of one-man-several-woman and inquire as to the nature of a household with one wife and two husbands, neither of which are certain which children are biologically theirs. There's also the well documented abuse of children in polygamous homes, do we really need to replay all that again? And the well-documented abuse of children raised by two parents. And one parent. And no parents. If any kids are more likely to be abused, it's probably the ones with no parents (foster or otherwise).
Post a New Response

(1298430)	view threaded
Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License
Posted by 3-9* on Sun Jul 5 21:17:32 2015, in response to Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License, posted by bingbong on Sun Jul 5 20:41:04 2015.* fiogf49gjkf0d Maybe, but I think any (legal) body who tries to block a woman from having more than one husband is going to have the courts on them so fast they won't be able to backpedal without falling on their ass. I can envision one extreme possibility if this passes: that "marrying" will be the next step beyond "friending" in social networking, complete with pre-nup templates (not unlike software's "terms and conditions") to dissuade gold-diggers (male and female). It may become a status symbol to be married to dozens, if not hundreds, of people all over the world.
Post a New Response

(1298431)	view threaded
Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License
Posted by bingbong* on Sun Jul 5 21:27:27 2015, in response to Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License, posted by Nilet on Sun Jul 5 20:49:15 2015.* fiogf49gjkf0d There are strict rules and supervision for foster parents. Adoptive parents are parents. Relatives raising children are generally a consensual agreement with the parent. The scenario isn't as hypothetical as you may think.
Post a New Response

(1298439)	view threaded
Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License
Posted by Easy* on Sun Jul 5 21:47:24 2015, in response to Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License, posted by Nilet on Sun Jul 5 19:47:30 2015.* fiogf49gjkf0d Perhaps the only difference between someone masturbating and someone sneezing is in your mind. Who says there has to be an obvious victim? Maybe he's watching porn on a tablet? Then what?
Post a New Response

(1298441)	view threaded
Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License
Posted by Mitch45* on Sun Jul 5 21:54:27 2015, in response to Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License, posted by SLRT on Thu Jul 2 15:41:55 2015.* fiogf49gjkf0d Equality is a slippery slope. Pretty soon, everyone is going to clamor for equality, including practitioners of bestiality and members of NAMBLA.
Post a New Response

(1298443)	view threaded
Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License
Posted by SelkirkTMO* on Sun Jul 5 21:55:26 2015, in response to Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License, posted by Easy on Sun Jul 5 21:47:24 2015.* fiogf49gjkf0d In NYC, you're supposed to share. :)
Post a New Response

(1298444)	view threaded
Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License
Posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com* on Sun Jul 5 22:02:45 2015, in response to Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License, posted by Mitch45 on Sun Jul 5 21:54:27 2015.* fiogf49gjkf0d iawtp
Post a New Response

(1298453)	view threaded
Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License
Posted by Fwt9000* on Sun Jul 5 23:08:43 2015, in response to Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License, posted by Nilet on Sun Jul 5 19:47:30 2015.* fiogf49gjkf0d Awesome post!
Post a New Response

(1298454)	view threaded
Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License
Posted by Fwt9000* on Sun Jul 5 23:11:58 2015, in response to Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License, posted by bingbong on Sun Jul 5 20:11:18 2015.* fiogf49gjkf0d Why does a polygamous marriage have to be one man with multiple women? What if two bi men want to marry each other AND a woman?
Post a New Response

(1298455)	view threaded
Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License
Posted by The Silence* on Sun Jul 5 23:24:50 2015, in response to Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License, posted by bingbong on Sun Jul 5 20:41:04 2015.* fiogf49gjkf0d OK, genius, who's controlling who here? They exist, they're raising children, and yet in your mind they are somehow lesser people? If I took your words in this thread, replaced the words related to polygamy with words related to homosexuality, and then showed it to someone else, they'd probably call you a homophobe. Actually that is quite descriptive of many left leaning people I know.
Post a New Response

(1298462)	view threaded
Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License
Posted by Nilet* on Mon Jul 6 00:03:47 2015, in response to Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License, posted by bingbong on Sun Jul 5 21:27:27 2015.* fiogf49gjkf0d Adoptive parents are parents. And presumably step-parents are too in the event of divorce and remarriage. People who aren't biological parents can fill parental roles and do all the time— why does it suddenly become an issue if they're part of a polygamous marriage? The scenario isn't as hypothetical as you may think. I'm not saying it can never happen, but it's not a legitimate concern overall— two people married and raising their own biological children can and do molest said children, but such abuse does not occur with significant frequency nor does it occur because of their marriage, so to claim such marriages should be abolished is absurd.
Post a New Response

(1298466)	view threaded
Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License
Posted by Nilet* on Mon Jul 6 00:11:22 2015, in response to Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License, posted by Easy on Sun Jul 5 21:47:24 2015.* fiogf49gjkf0d Perhaps the only difference between someone masturbating and someone sneezing is in your mind. Nope. Masturbation is quite definitively a voluntary act. Sneezing is not— people have no control over it. Who says there has to be an obvious victim? The victim doesn't have to be "obvious." The victim merely has to exist in some capacity. Maybe he's watching porn on a tablet? Then what? Subway masturbation is basically always a form of sexual harassment. In any case, the secondary victims are victims too. And in your example, anyone obliged to see or hear the porn against their will would also be a victim.
Post a New Response

(1298471)	view threaded
Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License
Posted by Nilet* on Mon Jul 6 00:23:07 2015, in response to Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License, posted by Mitch45 on Sun Jul 5 21:54:27 2015.* fiogf49gjkf0d Pretty soon, everyone is going to clamor for equality, including practitioners of bestiality and members of NAMBLA. Do yourself a favour— research the concept of "consent" and how it might be relevant when things like marriage are concerned.
Post a New Response

(1298478)	view threaded
Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License
Posted by The Silence* on Mon Jul 6 00:55:38 2015, in response to Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License, posted by Mitch45 on Sun Jul 5 21:54:27 2015.* fiogf49gjkf0d what's wrong with society that Marlin Brando look-a-likes can't get married?
Post a New Response

(1298484)	view threaded
Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License
Posted by bingbong* on Mon Jul 6 06:10:24 2015, in response to Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License, posted by Mitch45 on Sun Jul 5 21:54:27 2015.* fiogf49gjkf0d Wrong. Those are already addressed in law. Same with bigamy/polagamy.
Post a New Response

(1298485)	view threaded
Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License
Posted by bingbong* on Mon Jul 6 06:23:52 2015, in response to Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License, posted by The Silence on Sun Jul 5 23:24:50 2015.* fiogf49gjkf0d Kitten, Brynn and Doll had to work with the legalities of the state to get married to each other. As being married to more than one person is not currently legal, they had to combine handfasting, legally binding documents and legal marriage. A family lawyer drew up paperwork - in terms of assets, wills and legal rights to children - to bind them all together as much as they could without an actual three way marriage. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2611020/Meet-worlds-married-lesbian-threesome-baby-make-four-July.html#ixzz3f6bVMRz7 Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter \| DailyMail on Facebook This is a contract. Not a legal marriage. Even they recognize it.
Post a New Response

(1298491)	view threaded
Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License
Posted by Mitch45* on Mon Jul 6 08:30:08 2015, in response to Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License, posted by Nilet on Mon Jul 6 00:23:07 2015.* fiogf49gjkf0d Do YOURSELf a favor and read up on the legal notion of implied consent and consent that can be determined by means other than say-so by the parties.
Post a New Response

(1298494)	view threaded
Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License
Posted by Spider-Pig* on Mon Jul 6 08:39:14 2015, in response to Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License, posted by Mitch45 on Mon Jul 6 08:30:08 2015.* fiogf49gjkf0d Animals and children are incapable of consent, implied or otherwise.
Post a New Response

(1298507)	view threaded
Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License
Posted by Mitch45* on Mon Jul 6 10:53:56 2015, in response to Re: Polygamous Montana Trio File for Wedding License, posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jul 6 08:39:14 2015.* fiogf49gjkf0d That's what you say now. Gay marriage was unthinkable 50 years ago.
Post a New Response

[1 2]
	Page 1 of 2	Next Page >

[ Return to the Message Index ]