Page 1 of 1

Polygamous Montana trio applies for wedding license

Posted: Thu Jul 02, 2015 4:10 pm
by liberty
Why not, whom does it harm?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/polyga ... ?ocid=iehp
Polygamous Montana trio applies for wedding license

Associated Press
By MATT VOLZ, Associated Press14 hrs ago
SHARE TWEET EMAIL
© Via Facebook at http://aka.ms/Co1qs2 Nathan Collier is shown in the profile photo from his Facebook page.
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.
Yellowstone County chief civil litigator Kevin Gillen said he is reviewing Montana's bigamy laws and expected to send a formal response to Collier by next week.
"I think he deserves an answer," Gillen said, but added his review is finding that "the law simply doesn't provide for that yet."
The Supreme Court's ruling on Friday made gay marriages legal nationwide. Chief Justice John Roberts said in his dissent that people in polygamous relationships could make the same legal argument that not having the opportunity to marry disrespects and subordinates them.
Collier, 46, said that dissent inspired him. He owns a refrigeration business in Billings and married Victoria, 40, in 2000. He and his second wife, Christine, had a religious wedding ceremony in 2007 but did not sign a marriage license to avoid bigamy charges, he said.
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.
Collier said he sent an email asking the ACLU of Montana to represent him in a possible lawsuit. ACLU legal director Jim Taylor said he has not seen the request.
Taylor said he has no opinion on Collier's claims, though the Supreme Court decision on gay marriage "is about something very different."
Anne Wilde, a co-founder of the polygamy advocacy organization Principle Voices located in Utah, said Collier's application is the first she's heard of in the nation, and that most polygamous families in Utah are not seeking the right to have multiple marriage licenses.
"Ninety percent or more of the fundamentalist Mormons don't want it legalized, they want it decriminalized," Wilde said.
A federal judge struck down parts of Utah's anti-polygamy law two years ago, saying the law violated religious freedom by prohibiting cohabitation. Bigamy is still illegal.
The state has appealed the ruling, and the case is pending in the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Wilde said most polygamous families are satisfied with the judge's ruling and believe taking it further to include multiple marriage licenses would bring them under the unwanted jurisdiction of the government.
But she said the Supreme Court's decision on gay marriage should strengthen their chance of winning the appeal.
"We hope the Supreme Court decision will show the direction the nation is going," she said. "It's more liberal, it's more understanding about people forming the families the way they want."

Re: Polygamous Montana trio applies for wedding license

Posted: Thu Jul 02, 2015 5:35 pm
by oldr_n_wsr
You knew this was coming.

Re: Polygamous Montana trio applies for wedding license

Posted: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:26 pm
by liberty
oldr_n_wsr wrote:You knew this was coming.
Yes, the same logic applies. Polygamy does have positive benefit of for society. The only reason anyone would oppose it, other that misguided religious reasons, is bigotry. There is no verse in the Bible that prohibits polygamy. The reason we have monogamy today is that we inherited as a tradition form the ancient Romans.

Re: Polygamous Montana trio applies for wedding license

Posted: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:39 pm
by wesw
pass.....

Re: Polygamous Montana trio applies for wedding license

Posted: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:47 pm
by Sue U
Although this has been explained to you repeatedly over the last three years (at least), lib, you are apparently unable to retain even the basics. Maybe if I put it in large bold font you might get it: Prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gender has absolutely nothing to do with any claimed "right" to polygamy:
liberty wrote:Well then Sue, tell me why not, why should women be denied the support of sister wives and a man be denied multiple wives? What is wrong with it other than you are prejudice against it for some personal reason?
Sue U wrote:For starters:
Scooter wrote:Legal recognition of plural marriages would give rise to a plethora of complications not present in marriages between two people only. For starters, determining who is married to whom - is one person married to all of the others, or is everyone married to everyone else, or some hybrid thereof? Are children born into the marriage automatically the legal children of all of the adults in the marriage, or do the non-biological parents have to adopt them? Is there any limit on the number of spouses that one person can claim as dependents for purposes of taxation, social assistance, employer-paid health benefits, etc.? What would happen if one spouse were to engage in physical violence with another? Would one or the other, or both, have to be removed from the family home, to the detriment of their relationships with all of the others? There are ten distinct relationships in a marriage of four people. That carries with it at least ten times the risk of a marital breakdown, in which case the state will have to use its power as arbiter. What would a marital breakdown mean? Does the desire of a single member of the marriage to leave it mean the marital bonds among all the others are dissolved, or not? Who would be responsible for financially supporting whom? Who would be responsible for paying child support, and for which children? These are questions for which it would be impossible to impose uniform answers to every plural marriage and which would therefore make it impossible to formulate a coherent body of family law.
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=5457&p=66308&hilit ... %2A#p66308

Moreover, because marriage is a status created by the state, the test of Constitutional conformance is whether the law involves invidious discrimination. If you can identify the improper discriminatory effect (race, religion, sex) of a law restricting marriage to two people, you might be on to something.

The question is not whether states should allow plural marriage; it is whether it would be unconstitutional to prohibit it. If a state figured out a way to make it workable, there is nothing that would prevent the state from sanctioning plural marriages. However, if a state simply restricts marriage to two persons, there is no recognized constitutional basis to invalidate that law.