General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMontana Trio Applying for Marriage License
Last edited Thu Jul 2, 2015, 04:38 PM - Edit history (1)
Well, that didn't take long at all. I'm game. Let them have at it!
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/polygamous-montana-trio-applies-for-wedding-license/
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 before giving him a final answer, Collier said.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
kelly1mm
(4,734 posts)NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Just no.
The cultural evolution from polygamy towards monogamy has not been a bad one.
demmiblue
(36,875 posts)
TampaAnimusVortex
(785 posts)Here, I'll replace the link with some other site to appease those so offended.
demmiblue
(36,875 posts)Are you an avid fan of reason.com?
Is your name Warren Jeffs?
TampaAnimusVortex
(785 posts)I did get locked recently. I was debating some issue and probably got a bit more insulting than I should have. We all have those days I'm guessing. 
demmiblue
(36,875 posts)Also, look into the sources of the articles you post.
And, to think a little deeper into issues other than, 'fuck yeah'.
Just a few suggestions.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)assembled by rightwing fundyclowns
TampaAnimusVortex
(785 posts)And like I said, I'm all for them being free to get married if they want.
I see their support in this statement:
Troublingly, those opponents usually lumped in plural marriage, at its heart an arrangement between consenting adults, and activities that aren't about consenting adults, like pedophilia and bestiality.
They are making the distinction between voluntary arrangements and those that are abusive.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)in reality, same-sex marriage is so much like heterosexual marriage that there was no possible justification for it, other than dislike of GLBT people
The state can regulate marriage in a sensible and rational manner. Same-sex marriage failed that test.
Institutionalized monogamy passes that test easily.
Same-sex marriage and heterosexual marriage are virtually identical--they are the same behavior and rules and rights.
They are completely different than any scheme of poly marriage would be.
TampaAnimusVortex
(785 posts)They want to voluntarily form a union just like couples. I fail to see the distinction on why it's ok to stop 3 people from a voluntary arrangement, but its not ok to stop some variation of 2 people.
Sounds like conservative grasping at tradition. I could care less what they do.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)of commitments and obligations.
institutionalized monogamy is the foundation of marriage in the US, from a legal perspective.
poly marriage would require destroying that system and completely rewriting the tax code as well as many, many, many different laws.
simply not worth it to satisfy mental masturbation by libertarians
TampaAnimusVortex
(785 posts)institutionalized monogamy is the foundation of marriage in the US
and that argument has been used before.
Christianity is the foundation of society in the US
or
Man/Women marriage is the foundation of marriage in the US
etc...
Just saying so doesn't imply much.
That said, I'm not really interested in trying to change your mind. You go right on ahead wanting to prevent voluntary interactions and I'll go on supporting them. Good day.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)have no more than one spouse.
it is not equipped to deal with the alternative.
the absence of poly marriage is ergo a foundational, core assumption of our legal approach to marriage.
two guys getting married doesn't change that core. the heterosexual couples still have the same obligations and rights and relationship as before.
allowing poly marriage radically transforms the legal status of every heterosexual, and same sex marriage, in the country.
to indulge a few fundamentalist clowns living in the mountains and glibertarians is nowhere near the incentive to do that.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)for explaining that for those that don't seem to get it. Fuck, my head is about to explode.
cwydro
(51,308 posts)Hopefully this will get juried also.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)Yep, dickheads.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)
oldandhappy
(6,719 posts)
onethatcares
(16,178 posts)None of my biz either.
If they are consenting adults I don't give a rats patootie if they are three wives and two husbands or whatever. Main thing, none of the bestiality or pedophilia applies to a marriage situation.
it's gonna muck up the divorce proceedings if anyone wants out but hey, that's life.
prayin4rain
(2,065 posts)This is ridiculous. The marriage micro structure has a legitimate purpose and is rooted in tradition and law. The government cannot discriminate on those wishing to enter into a marriage micro structure based upon sex, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. The government can refuse to change the long standing micro structure and not recognize whatever other micro structure arrangements people make up. You can tell everyone at the bar that you have five wives, but your employer is not obligated to put all five wives on your insurance, the government will not pay SS benefits to all five wives, etc.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)If one of the partners wanted out of the marriage it would be very very messy. How do you determine who owns what? Someone would likely get screwed.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)which on dissolution also have to deal with dividing up assets and liabilities.
What is/are the State's interest in licensing marriage? If it is neat and tidy dissolution, it seems that organizational structures for marriage could be chartered to guide that so that persons have protections that insure fair treatment.
If I had a clear understanding of the State's interest in marriage it would be possible to consider if and how plural marriage might work for and/or against the interest of the State in licensing such marriages.
I don't claim to clearly understand the State's interest in marriage. But, those interests seem to be about how the State recognizes marriage's influence on public and private promises and obligations and engage taxation and access to public services.
Questions about joint property, parental responsibilities and rights would be made across more people. Yet, these things already do exist for people who despite the nation's traditions of monogamy actually practice plural marriage as a series of one monogamous relationship at at time, and who accumulate on-going responsibilities and rights across relationships with multiple partners.
And I can see how questions about means testing for eligibility and allocations of public service/assistance/tax benefits would need to be made across more people, but I don't see a significant change in character of the state's interest.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)I think it would be messier that you think. What if a man were married to two women and he had a child with one of them and an agreement was made that the other (the non-parent) would also serve as a guardian. In the event of no legal written document it becomes a pretty messy legal case. If a house that was bought jointly between three people and some years later one of the three was suddenly excluded for some reason or another (the relationship soured) the question would arise to how the other person would be compensated. Would they be required to sell the house if they could not come up with the money to compensate the other person?
In my view it has nothing to do with the state's interest, but how would all parties involved be protected. The comparison of a business partnership is not the same since personal feelings are involved. It is also not the same as gay marriage, which is the argument this guy is trying to use.
Also keep in mind that in order for Utah to get admitted as a state, the practice of polygamy had to be ended:
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)document it becomes a pretty messy legal case.
Yes it would. But that doesn't have to be the case, and the creation of the charter under which plural marriages could be licensed could/should have requirements that the legal written document exists.
I see a parallel between business and marriage in this respect. For many years partnerships were a pattern in small business, but partnerships create havoc upon dissolution and limited liabilities companies were chartered and have been used in all 6 of the states I've lived in as an adult.
Similar structures could be created for plural marriage that allow the agreeable partners to go forward together (and that could be same sex partners) while the disaffected person is removed from the continuing union.
I don't see Utah's 130 year old constitution a problem. I don't think of the federal or state constitutions as unchangeable. State constitutions get amended and new ones are written. The US constitution is regularly amended.
The only problem I see for Utah is that church beliefs have been structured to shun/banish people who practice plural marriage. There would likely be a need for a prophet to hear the will of god re another article being written into the LDS Doctrine and Covenants.
Getting into specific questions without any legal structures sort of dooms all discussion.
Orrex
(63,220 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)I could care less if 50 people marry each other. No big deal to me. I am pretty liberal though.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)People need to cut the crap with all the other marriage variations just to oppose this ruling. Its really f-ing childish and I'm sick of it.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)Everyone else is just making a joke of it.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)Of course a big chunk want further equality. Why are you putting equality to bed. We're not done yet.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)it allows people to degrade it.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)
ileus
(15,396 posts)I don't see a problem here.
rock
(13,218 posts)What group would we be trying to equalize with? (That is what group already, under the law, allows multiple spouses?)
Ilsa
(61,697 posts)
n2doc
(47,953 posts)linuxman
(2,337 posts)I wish them all the best.
Some of those arguing against these folks are using the same exact arguments the right wing has been using against same-sex marriage for years. Very telling.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)You know, the one the right wing used for years to delegitimize samesex marriage.
Polygamy is a failure. It was very rightly abandoned. Marriage equality means equality inside monogamy.
Yes, yes, and the righties tell us that marriage is between men and women.
Why is your definition any more valid? Marriage is about people who love each other joining together in a union. Who are you to tell someone they can't love two people? There is legal, historical, and cultural precedent for it. Some people love more than one person. Get over it. It's 2015.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)That's why it was virtually all-but abandoned in the West.
The right worked to delegitimize samesex marriage by comparing it to polygamy. Polygamy is a failure as an institution.
Sorry, not getting fooled by this nonsense again.
linuxman
(2,337 posts)How many 1:1 marriages are abusive? How many 1:1 marriages have problems? How is it a failure, other than in the sense that it was outlawed, thus preventing people who love each other from living happily together in a multi-person partnership?
All but abandoned? Why? Because most people don't marry multiple persons? Newsflash: The number of same sex marriages in the west is minuscule compared to "Traditional" marriage.
Let me guess, it would somehow "cheapen" "real" marriages or something? I've heard it all. You have no rational explanation for why it shouldn't be allowed, just bigotry for what you personally have no utility for. That's a shitty reason to deny a right to others who aren't like you.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)You guys tried this with the "transracial" nonsense. You fell for a stupid rightwing meme then, and you're falling for one now.
There's a wealth of literature on the effects of polygamous relationships on spouses, children, and societies as a whole, and they're pretty damn clear it's a terrible institution.
You're not the tip of the spear of a new social movement. You're being played. It's 2015. Polygamy is a failure. Deal with it.
linuxman
(2,337 posts)Every argument you make is literally interchangeable with every argument I've read against same-sex marrige. Bad for kids? check. Bad for society? check. Bad for spouses? check. Every last argument has been played out.
Bigotry usually stems from a personal inability to empathize with and understand others. The good news is, that means there is hope for you one day. People change.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)
Yes, I'm the real bigot here. Whatever you say.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)interracial marriage. Wow it never ends, doesn't matter what particular group I guess. People always find someone to hate.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)If you don't consider that religious and conservative opposition to samesex marriage was based on fascist adherence to gender roles, some out-of-context Bible verses, and outright hatred of LGBT people dating back centuries, and was based on what might happen...
...and objections to polygamy are based on sociological studies about polygamy as it has existed and as it currently exists and come from objections to reinforcing gender roles.
But yeah, I guess if you don't do any critical thinking on the subject at all, the arguments are the same. 
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Rightwing nonsense about samesex marriage came from fictitious homophobic fears of child molestation, "divine judgment", and the fallacious idea there can be no morality outside of religion.
Studies of polygamy past and present show that children perform worse in schools than children from monogamous households, spouses are psychologically damaged by the inequality of the relationship, and polygamy leads to increased intrasexual competition among males.
The government has the right to not recognize social structures that are detrimental to society or an unnecessary burden. They had absolutely no such case with interracial and samesex marriage, but they absolutely have one with polygamy.
romanic
(2,841 posts)These so-called "social liberals" jump at any chance to help out the "new oppressed" group of the month to buy liberal cred. Last month it was the transracial morons, now it's the poly-swingers. Them equating gay marriage to harems are showing their true colors; they're no different than conservatives.
xfundy
(5,105 posts)They've been claiming for years this would be "the next thing on the slippery slope," and I know some here might be shocked, but they often lie to scare the populace.
But the Mormons are based on polygamy, so why should anyone be surprised? Mitt Romney's probably getting off on this idea.
DeadLetterOffice
(1,352 posts)Why the hell does anyone get to care who or how many someone else marries? If everyone is COMPETENT, OF AGE, & CONSENTING, how is it anyone's business but theirs?
