July 2, 201511 yr 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. Collier married his first wife, Victoria, in 2000. He and his second wife, Christine, had a religious wedding ceremony in 2007 but didn’t sign a marriage license. The trio recently has appeared on the reality cable television show “Sister Wives.”
July 2, 201511 yr Author Wow, I sure was reaching when I said that the SCOTUS's decision would open the door for all types of marriage...
July 2, 201511 yr Wow, I sure was reaching when I said that the SCOTUS's decision would open the door for all types of marriage... Won't happen. The court has broadened the definition to be sure, but that guy can sue all he wants, there's no way any Court of Appeals judge is going to tell a state or federal government to extend benefits and recognition to multiple spouses.
July 2, 201511 yr Imagine the fraud and abuse if polygamy were fully legalized. The concern over 'benefits' is why the laws should not reference spouses or married people. I keep asking - is a married person legally different than a non-married person? Is a 'marriage' a separate, legal entity in the eyes of man-made positive law in the states or federal or local level? And it seems the answer seems to be yes - but just not sure how that happens - legally.
July 2, 201511 yr Won't happen. The court has broadened the definition to be sure, but that guy can sue all he wants, there's no way any Court of Appeals judge is going to tell a state or federal government to extend benefits and recognition to multiple spouses. The same thing was said about same sex marriage 10 years ago.
July 2, 201511 yr Various benefits would have to be adjusted but it can happen. SS for instance, would be easy enough to simply divide the spouse benefit among multiple people. Health insurance would simply require additional premiums. Not a big barrier.
July 2, 201511 yr Completely in the minority here, but I have no issue with it. If consenting adults, and they clearly are, want to have multiple spouses, more power to them. It's not for me, but that doesn't make it wrong.
July 2, 201511 yr Completely in the minority here, but I have no issue with it. If consenting adults, and they clearly are, want to have multiple spouses, more power to them. It's not for me, but that doesn't make it wrong. Agree. Not sure what people's objections center around. I couldn't do it, one is more than enough.
July 2, 201511 yr Abraham, Solomon, David, Jacob. Just saying..... :laugh: This... You would think the Biblical argument would be pro-polygamy.
July 2, 201511 yr I've never understood why polygamy was illegal. Isn't it really just between the parties and their church? If I want to be married to 10 women and my church supports it why does the government care? As far as tax benefits the man and only one of 10 women would be able to file as "married".
July 2, 201511 yr Agree. Not sure what people's objections center around. I couldn't do it, one is more than enough. No kidding. Why in the hell would you want to do this?
July 2, 201511 yr I've never understood why polygamy was illegal. Isn't it really just between the parties and their church? If I want to be married to 10 women and my church supports it why does the government care? Historically, you can certainly see a decline in polygamy as Christian marriage became the standard practice. While this is a genuine reason, I think sociological factors come into play that ultimately become good public policy reasons why the current court will never really hear out polygamy cases. Not one single liberal democracy on the planet has legalized polygamy. Not one. This isn't an accident. Polygamy, in its historical form, is the hoarding of wives by wealthy and powerful men. As such, if a powerful man took a second wife, then there was one less woman available for a lesser powerful man to marry leaving him at significant disadvantage with fewer or no children and without the other historical benefits of marriage (whether that be in dowry or in simple assistance in maintaining a household). The spread of monogamous relationships essentially democratized marriage without people even knowing it. If a man could only have one wife, women could not be bound in groups to the most powerful man allowing more plentiful marriage, intermarriage between groups, more dowries and more families. Legal proscription against more than one wife = more perspective wives available for everyone else. It's also not a great situation for women historically, as it puts them in competition with other women and in a situation which has usually made them mere objects in orbit around the man to which they are bound. The rise of state-enforced monogamy coincides with the rise of increasingly egalitarian societies, a reduction in the concept of women as chattel, and actually reduces violence and crime that stemmed from competition for scarce... uh... "marital resources". In the end, there are a million reasons outside mere legality as to why polygamy poses massive problems and why the courts won't recognize it, but I'm just going to leave this map here that illustrates which countries ban polygamy and which ones allow it. You tell me where the good places to live are.
July 2, 201511 yr I love how everyone just assumes a polygamous relationship is always a man with multiple wives. It's just as possible that a woman could have multiple husbands.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.