Well, this was quick (via Twitchy)
(ABC News) 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.”
At this point, I’d love to hear the argument against this from the Same Sex Marriage Social Justice Warriors, who told us that legalizing gay marriage would not lead to polygamy. One of the “excuses” is that love is not really love when the contract is between more than 2 people, because the entire contract must be changed!!!!!!!!!!!! Or something. Expect all sorts of machinations and juking and jiving from SSM SJWs, at least those who told us this would not happen.
Collier has “married” Christine in a religious ceremony, but they have not signed any official government documents, in order to avoid bigamy charges.
Collier said he is a former Mormon who was excommunicated for polygamy and now belongs to no religious organization. He said he and his wives hid their relationship for years, but became tired of hiding and went public by appearing on the reality cable television show “Sister Wives.”
The three have seven children of their own and from previous relationships.
“My second wife Christine, who I’m not legally married to, she’s put up with my crap for a lot of years. She deserves legitimacy,” he said.
Hey, love is love is love. Equality. We can’t stand against that, can we? Collier has attempted to contact the ACLU, which, so far, has failed to respond. You’d think they’d be all for this. They’ve come out in favor of polygamy before. Will they stand up for it now? Of course, they’ve also said that legalizing SSM would not lead to plural marriages.
More: Jazz Shaw catches an interesting argument from Cathy Young at Time
In a free society, the private sexual choices of adults should not be criminalized. But they are not automatically entitled to cultural approval or societal support systems.
Jazz notes
My, my my… that sounds awfully familiar. Where might I have possibly heard it before? Could it be some argument about how Christians really aren’t concerned about what gays do in the privacy of their bedrooms, but they just don’t want them redefining the concept of marriage?
Funny how SSM SJWs are doing all they can to avoid that slippery slope.
Crossed at Right Wing News.
Maybe they can make the argument that it violates their religious freedom since the Bible is all about polygamy.
They can take their case to the Supreme Court. I suspect the Supreme Court would say that laws limiting marriage rights to two living adult humans would be seen as Constitutional.
Man and woman. Yes
Woman and woman. Yes
Man and man. Yes
Woman and horse. No
Woman and child. No
Man and rubber doll. No
Man and man and woman. No
Woman and dog and woman. No
Man and car. No
Woman and corpse. No
Mormons and muslims both have had long time deeply held religious views that allow multiple wives.
Of course BoTH religions might be considered rather CONSERVATIVE in all other matters. In view of the Supremes conservative majority saying that in some cases deeply held religious views should allow Americans to opt out of laws they don’t agree with, why not this one ?
And when “they” said that legalizing SSM that it would not lead to polygamy, well that was before conservatives said that it was OK to opt out of laws that are in conflict with deeply held religious views.
Both Indonesia and the Philippines have gorgeous muslim girls. round trip to the P.I. is about 800$
Why Jeffrey, if society cannot restrict marriage to one man and one woman, why do you believe it can legitimately restrict marriage to only two people?
Then again, I noticed that while, in your list, you said:
but excluded the more common form of polygamy, man and woman and woman. :)
Why, I have to ask, do your arguments for recognizing homosexual unions as legal marriages not also apply to polygamous unions? After all, polygamy has a long history, and has been accepted by many cultures, something that was never true of homosexual arrangements until the past 15 years.
The Chief Justice, in his dissent, noted that the arguments made by the proponents of homosexual “marriage” would be indistinguishable from those for legalizing polygamous ones.
However, I suspect that there won’t be nearly the support for legalizing polygamy, because American women would see this as a real threat to themselves.
I suspect the Supreme Court would say that laws limiting marriage rights to two living adult humans would be seen as Constitutional.
For what rational, Jeff? You attempt to obfuscate by throwing “Man and man and woman. No” in between humans and animals, but you fail to say what the problem is with having a plural marriage. Is not love love? Should there not be equality between several people who love each other and voluntarily want to be joined under the law?
You have a rather bigoted viewpoint, Jeff.
As for John, well, he’s just being John.
I didn’t argue one way or the other concerning polygamy (because I don’t really care). I was giving my opinion regarding the likely response of the Supreme Court. Perhaps the conservatives on the court would find a Constitutional right to polygamy. Perhaps societal norms will change in 20 or 50 years making polygamy palatable to Americans. But by all means, sue for your right to marry another man and woman or two more men or two more women. I don’t care, but will accept the Supreme Court’s decision. And I won’t deprive you and yours of a cake in celebration of your wedded bliss.