Polygamous Montana trio applies for wedding license for husband and his two "wives"

[Iceweasel]

So what? They would be a very small minority of the entire population. You act as if, if this was made legal, suddenly everyone would choose a polygamous/polyandrous marriage, and that is just not the case.

I didn't make that argument at all. If there's a financial benefit there's going to be more than a tiny minority. So you're OK with polygamy then?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Although 90% of you RWnuts won't, you should read this for a legal opinion against polygamy,

especially because it makes a good case for why the liberal judges on the court might very well vote against it.

Should Polygamy Be Permitted in the United States Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities

 

[NYcarbineer]

Are you aware that polygamous marriage can be made legal at the state level?

And recognized elsewhere? Nope. But the Supremes are now deciding state law. Polygamy will make it to them and it will be interesting what argument they can use against it.

The Courts have always decided state law when state laws have been challenged.

 

[bripat9643]

To quote Jon Stewart:

People are born homosexual, they are not born polygamous

Sure they are. Every guy on the planet would love to have his own harem.

Why not?

As long as we are pretending "marriage" means something other than what it means, why not extend it further?

Once you throw out the actual definition, you have no standards by which to define it. What excuse can you come up with to stop at any particular point?

Actually, though rare, a few more societies in history have defined "marriage" as between a man and multiple wives, than have defined it as between two men or two women.

And remember, it only takes one state (or locality) to allow polygamous marriage, then the 14th amendment kicks in and all states must allow it, according to the Supreme Court.

The race to the bottom has started.

------------------------------------------------

Polygamous Montana trio applies for wedding license - Yahoo News

Polygamous Montana trio applies for wedding license

Associated Press
By MATT VOLZ
47 minutes ago

HELENA, Mont. (AP) — A Montana man has applied for a marriage license so he can legally wed his second wife.

Nathan Collier of Billings said Wednesday that last week's U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage inspired him to try to force the acceptance of polygamous marriages.

He says he'll sue the state if his application is rejected.

Collier says Yellowstone County Courthouse officials initially denied the application Tuesday. When he told officials he planned to sue, they said they would consult with the county attorney before giving him a final answer.

whats the point of getting married at this point? dont most of them eventually wind up in divorce? we may as well rent out a spouse till we get sick of them, either that or just take them to the wal-mart return counter and exchange them for an inflatable doll or manican.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

 

[bripat9643]

This decision didn't reverse anything. All it did was extend legal monogamy to same sex couples.

Then it can be extended further. There's no reason to limit it to two people, you nor anyone else has ever offered a reason.

It was the COURT that decided to give same sex couples equal marriage rights. Why can't you people understand that?

We allowed women to vote,and then we lowered the voting age to 18. That hasn't ended up with 10 year olds voting.

Yes, it was the COURT. That isn't in question. If two brothers can't marry then your use of the term "equal rights" is purely political. What has any of that got to do with voting rights? You are spinning all over the place to avoid the question. Why can't three people marry? Why are they unequal to two men? You have no answer.

Have 2 brothers challenged the ban on their marrying? Has that been to the Court?

Three does not equal two, to answer your other stupid question.

And a two males do not equal a male and a female, dumbass.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

 

[bripat9643]

Seems odd

Polygamy is practiced primarily by Mormons in this country
Mormons helped lead the political fight against Same Sex Marriage (See Prop 8)

Yet, Homosexuals are now being blamed for polygamy

Idiot, they HAD NO CASE, until the USSC opened that door. Now there is now reasonable legal argument against it.

As stated before after you quoted the ignorant statement by John Stewart, polygamy is more a biologically sound relationship for males than monogamy.

Marriage between 1 man and 1 women kept that in check, now there is no argument.

Congrats SSM advocates, you opened that door and it will not be closed

You people are depressingly stupid. If the polygamists claim equal protection, they will claim it against monogamy, not against same sex monogamy.

btw, the polygamists went to Court over this in the 19th century. Are you blaming that on gay marriage too?

Your stupidity isn't my problem, why would that be depressing? Your excuse is "it's against the law". Too dense to understand homosexual marriage was against the law but now isn't. so why not include three people that love each other. Hint: it would require changing the law like gay marriage. There must be a coloring book version online for you.

Interracial marriage was against the law. Is that what led to same sex marriage being made legal...legalizing interracial marriage?

No,that's just the excuse lying dumfuck like you use to defend gay marriage.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

 

[hangover]

i have already submitted an application to marry the 30ft tall palm tree in my front lawn.

Splinter dick.

 

[bripat9643]

How many states currently have legally recognized polygamy?

That's the weakest argument ever made

Are you really that stupid?

Pop's "logic". Two gay people can legally marry so now three of more straight people can. Pop, there are only two blanks for names on the license, which can now be Adam and Steve. That's as far as it goes currently.

You are an idiot. Forms are easily changed.

What could be a more idiotic argument than claiming we can't change the forms?

It's frikken unbelievable how stupid these queers are.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

 

[bripat9643]

How many states currently have legally recognized polygamy?

That's the weakest argument ever made

Are you really that stupid?

Are you aware that polygamous marriage can be made legal at the state level?

Utah already tried that, dumbass.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

 

[hangover]

This decision didn't reverse anything. All it did was extend legal monogamy to same sex couples.

Then it can be extended further. There's no reason to limit it to two people, you nor anyone else has ever offered a reason.

It was the COURT that decided to give same sex couples equal marriage rights. Why can't you people understand that?

We allowed women to vote,and then we lowered the voting age to 18. That hasn't ended up with 10 year olds voting.

Yes, it was the COURT. That isn't in question. If two brothers can't marry then your use of the term "equal rights" is purely political. What has any of that got to do with voting rights? You are spinning all over the place to avoid the question. Why can't three people marry? Why are they unequal to two men? You have no answer.

Have 2 brothers challenged the ban on their marrying? Has that been to the Court?

Three does not equal two, to answer your other stupid question.

And a two males do not equal a male and a female, dumbass.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Why are you so against gays being miserable in marriage, like you obviously are in yours? You are one miserable puppy.

 

[ChrisL]

So what? They would be a very small minority of the entire population. You act as if, if this was made legal, suddenly everyone would choose a polygamous/polyandrous marriage, and that is just not the case.

I didn't make that argument at all. If there's a financial benefit there's going to be more than a tiny minority. So you're OK with polygamy then?

Sure, didn't you read my posts about it? Wanna be my Friday guy?

 

[rightwinger]

Seems odd

Polygamy is practiced primarily by Mormons in this country
Mormons helped lead the political fight against Same Sex Marriage (See Prop 8)

Yet, Homosexuals are now being blamed for polygamy

Idiot, they HAD NO CASE, until the USSC opened that door. Now there is now reasonable legal argument against it.

As stated before after you quoted the ignorant statement by John Stewart, polygamy is more a biologically sound relationship for males than monogamy.

Marriage between 1 man and 1 women kept that in check, now there is no argument.

Congrats SSM advocates, you opened that door and it will not be closed

You mean they had no case until Loving v Virginia 50 years ago or the 14th Amendment 150 years ago

For some reason that groundbreaking case did not immediately result in same sex marriage or polygamy

News flash, males married females.

News flash....not any more. They can marry the person they love now

 

[Pop23]

Seems odd

Polygamy is practiced primarily by Mormons in this country
Mormons helped lead the political fight against Same Sex Marriage (See Prop 8)

Yet, Homosexuals are now being blamed for polygamy

Idiot, they HAD NO CASE, until the USSC opened that door. Now there is now reasonable legal argument against it.

As stated before after you quoted the ignorant statement by John Stewart, polygamy is more a biologically sound relationship for males than monogamy.

Marriage between 1 man and 1 women kept that in check, now there is no argument.

Congrats SSM advocates, you opened that door and it will not be closed

You mean they had no case until Loving v Virginia 50 years ago or the 14th Amendment 150 years ago

For some reason that groundbreaking case did not immediately result in same sex marriage or polygamy

News flash, males married females.

News flash....not any more. They can marry the person they love now

You noticed I used past tense, right?

 

[Iceweasel]

So what? They would be a very small minority of the entire population. You act as if, if this was made legal, suddenly everyone would choose a polygamous/polyandrous marriage, and that is just not the case.

I didn't make that argument at all. If there's a financial benefit there's going to be more than a tiny minority. So you're OK with polygamy then?

Sure, didn't you read my posts about it? Wanna be my Friday guy?

If you'll be my Friday gal. So if we got married I could marry someone else, right? You'd be the main squeeze of course.

 

[Iceweasel]

Are you aware that polygamous marriage can be made legal at the state level?

And recognized elsewhere? Nope. But the Supremes are now deciding state law. Polygamy will make it to them and it will be interesting what argument they can use against it.

The Courts have always decided state law when state laws have been challenged.

That wasn't the question.

 

[francoHFW]

OP- Rejected.

 

[ChrisL]

So what? They would be a very small minority of the entire population. You act as if, if this was made legal, suddenly everyone would choose a polygamous/polyandrous marriage, and that is just not the case.

I didn't make that argument at all. If there's a financial benefit there's going to be more than a tiny minority. So you're OK with polygamy then?

Sure, didn't you read my posts about it? Wanna be my Friday guy?

If you'll be my Friday gal. So if we got married I could marry someone else, right? You'd be the main squeeze of course.

I'll bet you say that to ALL the other wives too! Lol! All kidding aside though, for myself personally, I would not want to be in such a relationship ever. That doesn't mean I apply my personal wishes to everyone else though. If other people want that kind of relationship, that's fine with me!

 

[Plasmaball]

Why not?

As long as we are pretending "marriage" means something other than what it means, why not extend it further?

Once you throw out the actual definition, you have no standards by which to define it. What excuse can you come up with to stop at any particular point?

Actually, though rare, a few more societies in history have defined "marriage" as between a man and multiple wives, than have defined it as between two men or two women.

And remember, it only takes one state (or locality) to allow polygamous marriage, then the 14th amendment kicks in and all states must allow it, according to the Supreme Court.

The race to the bottom has started.

------------------------------------------------

Polygamous Montana trio applies for wedding license - Yahoo News

Polygamous Montana trio applies for wedding license

Associated Press
By MATT VOLZ
47 minutes ago

HELENA, Mont. (AP) — A Montana man has applied for a marriage license so he can legally wed his second wife.

Nathan Collier of Billings said Wednesday that last week's U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage inspired him to try to force the acceptance of polygamous marriages.

He says he'll sue the state if his application is rejected.

Collier says Yellowstone County Courthouse officials initially denied the application Tuesday. When he told officials he planned to sue, they said they would consult with the county attorney before giving him a final answer.

Why would he think gay marriage has anything to do with him and his women?

Are you really going to play deaf, dumb and stupid? The issue has been discussed in this forum for years. Every argument used to justify so-called "gay marriage" can also be used to justify polygamy.

and? nobody is forcing you to gave two wives or be gay married. of course why anyone would want to with you is beyond me.

That's the kind of low-brow argument I expect from your ilk. Are you saying you support polygamy? You queers can't seem to make up your mind as to whether you support polygamy or whether the recent ruling on gay marriage won't have any affect on it.

ive always been for it, because im not a raging pussy who's feelings are constantly hurt because they cant handle people being adults.
In the end you lost because you are a loser. im sure you are used to it by now.

 

[Plasmaball]

Why not?

As long as we are pretending "marriage" means something other than what it means, why not extend it further?

Once you throw out the actual definition, you have no standards by which to define it. What excuse can you come up with to stop at any particular point?

Actually, though rare, a few more societies in history have defined "marriage" as between a man and multiple wives, than have defined it as between two men or two women.

And remember, it only takes one state (or locality) to allow polygamous marriage, then the 14th amendment kicks in and all states must allow it, according to the Supreme Court.

The race to the bottom has started.

------------------------------------------------

Polygamous Montana trio applies for wedding license - Yahoo News

Polygamous Montana trio applies for wedding license

Associated Press
By MATT VOLZ
47 minutes ago

HELENA, Mont. (AP) — A Montana man has applied for a marriage license so he can legally wed his second wife.

Nathan Collier of Billings said Wednesday that last week's U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage inspired him to try to force the acceptance of polygamous marriages.

He says he'll sue the state if his application is rejected.

Collier says Yellowstone County Courthouse officials initially denied the application Tuesday. When he told officials he planned to sue, they said they would consult with the county attorney before giving him a final answer.

Why would he think gay marriage has anything to do with him and his women?

Are you really going to play deaf, dumb and stupid? The issue has been discussed in this forum for years. Every argument used to justify so-called "gay marriage" can also be used to justify polygamy.

and? nobody is forcing you to gave two wives or be gay married. of course why anyone would want to with you is beyond me.

That's the kind of low-brow argument I expect from your ilk. Are you saying you support polygamy? You queers can't seem to make up your mind as to whether you support polygamy or whether the recent ruling on gay marriage won't have any affect on it.

Now that unloading your load into a rectum is of equal legal value as hetro intercourse (which creates life), anything is possible.

waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

 

[boilermaker55]

Why is this of a concern to you. Is he trying to take your wife/gf. Is he marrying your sister or someone!?

Why not?

As long as we are pretending "marriage" means something other than what it means, why not extend it further?

Once you throw out the actual definition, you have no standards by which to define it. What excuse can you come up with to stop at any particular point?

Actually, though rare, a few more societies in history have defined "marriage" as between a man and multiple wives, than have defined it as between two men or two women.

And remember, it only takes one state (or locality) to allow polygamous marriage, then the 14th amendment kicks in and all states must allow it, according to the Supreme Court.

The race to the bottom has started.

------------------------------------------------

Polygamous Montana trio applies for wedding license - Yahoo News

Polygamous Montana trio applies for wedding license

Associated Press
By MATT VOLZ
47 minutes ago

HELENA, Mont. (AP) — A Montana man has applied for a marriage license so he can legally wed his second wife.

Nathan Collier of Billings said Wednesday that last week's U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage inspired him to try to force the acceptance of polygamous marriages.

He says he'll sue the state if his application is rejected.

Collier says Yellowstone County Courthouse officials initially denied the application Tuesday. When he told officials he planned to sue, they said they would consult with the county attorney before giving him a final answer.