Wasn't this possibility discussed on BBI i/c/w the gay marriage decision?
HELENA, Mont. — 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.
Link - (
New Window )
I mean until we impose our societal morals.
which are somewhat random and arbitrary.
Because unlike men, women know their limitations. Trying to run one man's life for him is hard enough.
Quote:
why is a religious/cultural institution a matter of federal law?
It is, above all, a legal matter that directly impacts matters pertinent to the State.
what are the pertinent matters? not being a smartass. I understand the old argument of the govt wanting a stable society for raising families etc, but that IMO is antiquated. I can't remember anyone saying "well I won't get a divorce because of the gov't".
Quote:
have demonstrated negative consequences for women - the analogy breaks down there.
And to society in general. Creates large groups of young men who have little chance of finding a mate, and young sexually frustrated men tend to be more prone to violence.
For a libertarian, odd that you think this, probably profoundly dated analysis should be a good reason for the Govt. to control sexuality and commitment amongst consenting adults.
Yet such women get married, have kids, and vote. I'm not for polygamy, but for consistency's sake, it should be legalized.
Quote:
In comment 12353848 Rob in CT/NYC said:
Quote:
have demonstrated negative consequences for women - the analogy breaks down there.
And to society in general. Creates large groups of young men who have little chance of finding a mate, and young sexually frustrated men tend to be more prone to violence.
Well they could choose each other as mates...
It works in Jail and in British boarding schools.
Sheep and children will happen under yet another well crafted narrative of equity, fairness, and freedom of choice.
Imagine the fight for his SS if they all split and he dies;" we need more government to handle these cases".
Quote:
have demonstrated negative consequences for women - the analogy breaks down there.
And to society in general. Creates large groups of young men who have little chance of finding a mate, and young sexually frustrated men tend to be more prone to violence.
It also creates a family unit that has a greater potential of not being sustainable from a financial or social prospective. Inability to care for all children thereby putting burden on society as a whole.
Quote:
multiple wives and never a woman with multiple husbands?
Because unlike men, women know their limitations. Trying to run one man's life for him is hard enough.
Or maybe it's because she'd be worn out making all those sandwiches.
Link - ( New Window )
Sheep and children will happen under yet another well crafted narrative of equity, fairness, and freedom of choice.
Imagine the fight for his SS if they all split and he dies;" we need more government to handle these cases".
HA! Using the logic of the Roberts court it's inevitable.
old man : 3:20 pm : link : reply
I believe it was yesterday a Mexican village mayor married an alligator, and the villagers cheered.
Sheep and children will happen under yet another well crafted narrative of equity, fairness, and freedom of choice.
Imagine the fight for his SS if they all split and he dies;" we need more government to handle these cases".
What the fuck does a Mexican village and their reptiles have to do with the situations here?
What the fuck do sheep and children have to do with one another in the above parable?
What the fuck is Social Security being blathered about?
Just What - The- Fuck????
as of now .
a marriage is essentially a legal contract between 2 people
are you denying someone equal protection under the law because
this contract is limited to 2 people.
I am sure there are other laws on the books in the US where there is limit to the number of people can enter into a legal contract
For Example
US law limits a company that is not public to 2000 shareholders .
You could be the 2001 shareholder and sue that your 14 amendment rights have been violated but I am sure the courts have probably had this type of lawsuit and have settle the law .. that is ok to limit the amount of people in a contract.
Although neither would apply to me, I actually wouldn't object to legalization of either. Wouldn't vote for, wouldn't vote against.
Quote:
have demonstrated negative consequences for women - the analogy breaks down there.
And to society in general. Creates large groups of young men who have little chance of finding a mate, and young sexually frustrated men tend to be more prone to violence.
This.
Polygamy has this proven social downside, so the government has a legitimate interest in outlawing it.
Case in point: China's history of devaluing women, combined with its one-child policy, resulted in lots of newborn girls being given up for adoption or killed. As a result there is a population imbalance in China: Women are just over 48% of the population there. Men are just under 52%. Total population: 1.357 billion. That means there about 50 million more men than women. Unmarried/unmated men are a lot more likely to do things like get in fights, become criminals, and become violent activists. The Chinese government has a problem on its hand on account of that, and they know it. Unless they let women have multiple husbands.
China doesn't have polygamy anymore, but in countries that do, it's observably bad for social stability when rich men can accrue multiple wives and poor men can't get any.
I think these "religious liberty" laws, intended to make it safe to discriminate against gays, are going to pave the way for a religious-based challenge to anti-polygamy laws. I think that will be a big headache for a lot of people.
because wouldn't same sex marriages (if they slant toward one gender or the other) cause the exact same phenomenon?
because it is so much easier to find women who want to be married so badly that they will accept the "sharing" of their partner than it is to find equally eager men.
Is it sexist for me to say that?
everything is different there, some of it via Quran interpretation where here we allegedly try and keep religion out of it.
How have same sex societies prevailed?
You can find examples either way
Technically, in light of the recent SCOTUS decision, don't you need to specify "heterosexual polygamous relationships" to make that argument? I presume 3 women (or 3 men) who want to get married as a group wouldn't have the same negative consequences.
And I'm not sure the "incest" argument holds water anymore - at least if the "marriage" isn't a heterosexual marriage. My wife's two sisters lived together for 40 years. Why shouldn't they be allowed to marry and benefit from all the financial and other advantages of marriage? Marriage certainly can no longer be defined as being for the primary purpose of procreation. So incest laws must fall by the wayside so long as the people getting married are of the same sex.
Dubai is on my list of places to visit.
Quote:
have demonstrated negative consequences for women - the analogy breaks down there.
Technically, in light of the recent SCOTUS decision, don't you need to specify "heterosexual polygamous relationships" to make that argument? I presume 3 women (or 3 men) who want to get married as a group wouldn't have the same negative consequences.
And I'm not sure the "incest" argument holds water anymore - at least if the "marriage" isn't a heterosexual marriage. My wife's two sisters lived together for 40 years. Why shouldn't they be allowed to marry and benefit from all the financial and other advantages of marriage? Marriage certainly can no longer be defined as being for the primary purpose of procreation. So incest laws must fall by the wayside so long as the people getting married are of the same sex.
Are the sisters twins? Because you know, that could be somewhat hot.
Quote:
In comment 12353830 GiantsLaw said:
Quote:
why is a religious/cultural institution a matter of federal law?
It is, above all, a legal matter that directly impacts matters pertinent to the State.
what are the pertinent matters? not being a smartass. I understand the old argument of the govt wanting a stable society for raising families etc, but that IMO is antiquated. I can't remember anyone saying "well I won't get a divorce because of the gov't".
No problem. Here's one example that can lead you to more info by searching on the topic.
There are 1,138 benefits, rights, and protections provided on the basis of marital status in Federal law. Until gay marriage was legalized on a national basis, gay couples were denied these benefits, rights, and protections.
Marriage is a secular legal contract that also has some connections to various religions as a ceremony within that set of beliefs. But it isn't the religious ceremony that confers legality and the rights, benefits, and responsibilities covered by secular law.
They couldn't hold a candle to the Denisovans.
Quote:
Wonder how it would be handled if they were still around.
They couldn't hold a candle to the Denisovans.
Quote:
multiple wives and never a woman with multiple husbands?
Because unlike men, women know their limitations. Trying to run one man's life for him is hard enough.
HA! I was going to say much the same thing.
Just one thing, the 'tax breaks' for married people only works if one spouse doesn't work or makes a small salary. Other wise it is known as 'the marriage penalty'.
Quote:
In comment 12353848 Rob in CT/NYC said:
Quote:
have demonstrated negative consequences for women - the analogy breaks down there.
And to society in general. Creates large groups of young men who have little chance of finding a mate, and young sexually frustrated men tend to be more prone to violence.
It also creates a family unit that has a greater potential of not being sustainable from a financial or social prospective. Inability to care for all children thereby putting burden on society as a whole.
Yeah, but we pretty much have that now without the legal marriage aspect. In fact, it could make it easier to hold a legal husband financially responsible for all of his children from different mothers than just a random guy.
Quote:
In comment 12353848 Rob in CT/NYC said:
Quote:
have demonstrated negative consequences for women - the analogy breaks down there.
And to society in general. Creates large groups of young men who have little chance of finding a mate, and young sexually frustrated men tend to be more prone to violence.
It also creates a family unit that has a greater potential of not being sustainable from a financial or social prospective. Inability to care for all children thereby putting burden on society as a whole.
Like single patents? Oh but that's different because….. Adding the societal burden works many ways.
But marriage is a legal framework that outlines the rights and responsibilities each married person has with and for the other. Once you add more people to the group it changes things quite a bit.
Gay marriage is pretty much the same thing as marriage. It's just instead of a dude and a lady you have two dudes or two ladies. Otherwise it works almost exactly the same.
Plural marriage is a very different thing than regular marriage. It requires a whole different set of laws and regulations.
Quote:
In comment 12354067 Big Al said:
Quote:
Wonder how it would be handled if they were still around.
They couldn't hold a candle to the Denisovans.
You must be into Asian women.
I can't afford to be picky.