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 )
Because the government wants to encourage marriage - which is why married couples get tax breaks and benefits that singles do not.
I have no moral issue with polygamy.
It is, above all, a legal matter that directly impacts matters pertinent to the State.
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.
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...
Did the formal, legal opinion state that two individuals of the same gender can marry (which would seem to still allow polygamy to be outlawed) or were laws that define marriage as between one man and one woman outlawed (which would seem to open the door for marriage among than one man and more than one man or woman (or vice versa)) to be legal?
I had been thinking the ruling might open the door to legal polygamy.
If this guy is stupid enough to want 2 women nagging him for the rest of his days that should be his call.
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