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 )
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.