Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

Caine · Jul 2, 2015

jmotivator said:
You seem to have missed the point of the SCOTUS decision in hilarious fashion. The lazy as ess Gay-Marriage lobby fought against the idea of a majority rule on the definition of marriage and in favor of marriage as a right. You have no control over the definition of marriage at this point. If the majority of the country is against polygamy then tough ess. "Love Wins".

Nobody has to fight for their rights anymore, the SCOTUS made marriage a right so the majority can no longer define what marriage is.

Marriage is a right now. You can't refuse it to anyone. Welcome to the crap storm.

What business do we have in limiting the freedom of the minority at the behest of the majority?

More and more I think Conservatives are for **** canning the republic and starting a pure Democracy. "Mob Rule" is okay when the majority agree with a Conservative principle...... The same applies when it is a liberal principle, then the liberals are okay with "Mob Rule".

Which is why we need the republic, and not democracy, more and more.

Caine · Jul 2, 2015

Taylor said:
Nor does the government prohibit the free exercise of religion.

Typically, the government can't force people to abandon their constitutional rights as a condition of employment.

When the right is a "religious right" to discriminate, and it is their job to provide a service to ALL the people... then yes.

Religion is between the worshiper and their deity..... they have no right to refuse government services to those who don't fall in line with their religions principles.

Caine · Jul 2, 2015

jmotivator said:
The problem is that if polygamy becomes common then there will suddenly be an ever growing group of people for whom even one marriage partner is unavailable.

Oh well.........

You do not have a "right" to a partner.

Taylor · Jul 2, 2015

Hicup said:
The answer when closely examining marriage in practice, is that, marriage isn't a fundamental right, or at least it isn't acting like one. It's a civil matter, like all other civil matters, and has long been established that civil matters are the property of the several states, even civil domestic matters. Justice Ginsberg herself made this claim nary a few short years ago, but ignored it, several days ago when joining the majority.

Normally when you think of fundamental rights, you think of something that is protected at the very highest level from government interference; suddenly we have a fundamental right that requires -demands - government intrusion. Who knows when they'll discover that next fundamental right to government hidden somewhere in the text?

Caine · Jul 2, 2015

MrT said:
By not being an actual polygamist family. For example, you could theoretically have numerous individuals (because if you accept a 3 person marriage, then there are no arguments which I can imagine for limiting the number at 3) who obtain marital licenses to each other, but live in different cities or states. These individuals are not living together nor are they even forming a family unit in order to provide benefits to society.

The same applies to situations of immigration. You could get one legalized individual to apply for a marital license with numerous illegal immigrants under the auspices of a polygamous marriage even though there is no intent to ever form a polygamous family unit.

All examples of things that occur with monogamous relationships as well.

Not a reason to deny Polygamy.

Erod · Jul 2, 2015

Caine said:
But, in the eyes of the law it is.

And that is what the constitution considers.....

And the freedoms of the Constitution put no restrictions on "legal marriage" of any kind. So if we're going to go down this road, then everyone should be free to marry any which way they choose.

jmotivator · Jul 2, 2015

MrT said:
By not being an actual polygamist family. For example, you could theoretically have numerous individuals (because if you accept a 3 person marriage, then there are no arguments which I can imagine for limiting the number at 3) who obtain marital licenses to each other, but live in different cities or states. These individuals are not living together nor are they even forming a family unit in order to provide benefits to society.

The same applies to situations of immigration. You could get one legalized individual to apply for a marital license with numerous illegal immigrants under the auspices of a polygamous marriage even though there is no intent to ever form a polygamous family unit.

You have to be actually married. There is no more fraud potential than in any other marriage.

johndylan1 · Jul 2, 2015

PerfectStorm said:
Polygamous Montana trio applies for wedding license

Can't see how this can be stopped.

Although I'm a Texan, I grew up in Montana. Many of my compadres from back home are not happy that this is coming from Montana.... based on Kennedy's opinion there is no stopping it. Because of the social impact, this ruling will go down as one of the worst rulings of all time.

Caine · Jul 2, 2015

Dittohead not! said:
So, is the community property in a three way marriage 1/2 husband and 1/2 wives, or is it 1/3 each? There is no precedent for that issue.

We've done **** without precedent before.....

And we can do it again.....

jmotivator · Jul 2, 2015

Caine said:
What business do we have in limiting the freedom of the minority at the behest of the majority?

More and more I think Conservatives are for **** canning the republic and starting a pure Democracy. "Mob Rule" is okay when the majority agree with a Conservative principle...... The same applies when it is a liberal principle, then the liberals are okay with "Mob Rule".

Which is why we need the republic, and not democracy, more and more.

Your previous argument was that majority opinion would keep polygamy legalization from happening. So it seems YOU are the one calling for pure democracy.

jmotivator · Jul 2, 2015

Caine said:
Oh well.........

You do not have a "right" to a partner.

Where does the SCOTUS decision make such a limitation to this new "right"?

Caine · Jul 2, 2015

Dittohead not! said:
Yes, it would. It's also an example of many issues that would arise from polygamy.

So... because issues may arise out of it.....is that enough reason to deny it?

If that were true....we would have never expanded west...... "uncharted territory" and all that.....

Moot · Jul 2, 2015

Caine said:
The gays will be the ones to be discriminated against....... as this legislation is clearly a result of the gay marriage debate, and the striking down of our state's laws refusing legal marriage recognition to same sex couples.

You clearly didn't understand my comments, as I was saying that the amount of gay people in the state is not a reason to allow discrimination just because they may be few in number.

The few in number magistrates, however, will create a situation in which, under this "religious freedom" bull**** law, allows for a greater number of same sex couples to be discriminated against because if the one magistrate available claims this "deeply held religious belief", same sex couples are now denied access to marriage.

Ahh, I see what you're trying to say now and I think it fair to say that we pretty much agree. I don't know how the final outcome of these religious freedom laws will pan out, but I don't think the public is going to stand for government employees discriminating against certain groups of society. Those days are numbered....and so perhaps what we're witnesses now is just the last death throws of anti-SSM crowd.

Caine · Jul 2, 2015

iguanaman said:
I find it quite amusing that homophobes seem to think the polygamy and SSM are related. The truth is that polgamy is only legal in muslim countries that deny gays even basic rights. So the truth is the legalization of SSM makes polygamy even less likely to accepted. None of the 21 countries that have endorsed SSM have allowed polygamy too. The idea that we will be the 1st is laughable.

I am no homophobe, as I support same sex marriage fully.

I also support polygamy..

Can you provide a reason why polygamy should be unlawful?

Caine · Jul 2, 2015

Taylor said:
No - you see, buildings don't have constitutional rights, people do - which explains the presence of crosses and stars dangling from chains around the necks of government employees inside government buildings and on the court house lawn.

Thankfully we have rule of law that protects our rights from the "FIRE THEM!" mobs wielding torches and pitchforks that would see those rights stripped away...

So then you support the rights of District, Superior, Appellate, and Supreme court judges to base their decision of law on their religious beliefs?

Moot · Jul 2, 2015

Caine said:
I am no homophobe, as I support same sex marriage fully.

I also support polygamy..

Can you provide a reason why polygamy should be unlawful?

Mormon missionaries used to get run out of town because men thought they were trying to steal their wives and daughters. And...sometimes they did.

Caine · Jul 2, 2015

Erod said:
And the freedoms of the Constitution put no restrictions on "legal marriage" of any kind. So if we're going to go down this road, then everyone should be free to marry any which way they choose.

As marriage is recognized under law as a contract.... the only restriction should be "of legal age" and "of sound mind".

Caine · Jul 2, 2015

jmotivator said:
Your previous argument was that majority opinion would keep polygamy legalization from happening. So it seems YOU are the one calling for pure democracy.

Quote me on that.... Because I don't recall having ever said it.

How long ago was this exactly??

johndylan1 · Jul 2, 2015

akrunner88 said:
Well unlike gay marriage, which is supported by the majority of Americans and most Americans know a gay person, polygamy is a uniquely conservative Christian issue.

Along with incestuous relationships, and relations between humans and animals, these are unique family set-ups that mostly apply to conservatives in the "car on the lawn states." Most Americans don't know on a personal level incestuous or polygamous couples, therefore the fight for their rights won't be in the forefront of American politics.

Since it is a uniquely conservative issue and phenomenon, conservatives will have to chalk up the arguments for pro-incest and pro-polygamous marriages. You can start with the OT, which is a unique selling point among our nations most religious and might win you sympathy in the courts.

Not only is this post offensive, its content is very poorly informed. The ignorance by which you paint a broad brush of disparaging remarks upon an entire community is quite distressing, reminiscent of the way blacks were treated in the Jim Crow south. This undoubtedly is the most bigoted post I have read on these forums.

Let me see if I can make this a little more clear. 1. You do not know biblical interpretation, or you would never write such a post, therefore you should steer clear. 2. "car on the lawn states"? What the hell is that? I can only guess you must be sheltered in the city with no diversity in your understanding outside of your little bubble, especially concerning of rural folks, maybe you should expand your geographic and social knowlege.

Taylor · Jul 2, 2015

Caine said:
When the right is a "religious right" to discriminate, and it is their job to provide a service to ALL the people... then yes.

There is no religious right to discriminate. There is a right to free exercise that the government cannot require you to abandon as a condition of employment *unless* it is the only way they can reasonably fulfill their state interest in issuing licences/performing marriages or whatever. It is not mandatory that I "serve all the people" simply because I work in the county clerk's office, however, that could be an indirect effect of being the sole employee of an office that must "serve all the people."

Caine · Jul 2, 2015

jmotivator said:
Where does the SCOTUS decision make such a limitation to this new "right"?

A "right" to a partner would imply that you have the right to marry someone, even if they do not desire it. That is infringing upon the other person's rights.

If a man cannot find a willing partner, oh freaking well. Happens now without polygamy, and thus is no reason to keep it from being legal.

A SCOTUS does not have to make a decision on something this obvious.

Go back and read your own post that I responded to.... I think you aren't taking my words into context as a reply to your own.

Erod · Jul 2, 2015

Caine said:
As marriage is recognized under law as a contract.... the only restriction should be "of legal age" and "of sound mind".

It's going to get creative no doubt. So if a woman with six husbands has a kid, will it have seven hyphenated last names?

The definition of marriage, family, etc, is going to get wacky. The family tree is going to look like a tumbleweed.

Caine · Jul 2, 2015

Taylor said:
There is no religious right to discriminate. There is a right to free exercise that the government cannot require you to abandon as a condition of employment *unless* it is the only way they can reasonably fulfill their state interest in issuing licences/performing marriages or whatever. It is not mandatory that I "serve all the people" simply because I work in the county clerk's office, however, that could be an indirect effect of being the sole employee of an office that must "serve all the people."

So then, by that, you agree that people OUTSIDE of the government should have the right to refuse service to blacks based on "religious freedom" ??

Caine · Jul 2, 2015

Erod said:
It's going to get creative no doubt. So if a woman with six husbands has a kid, will it have seven hyphenated last names?

The definition of marriage, family, etc, is going to get wacky. The family tree is going to look like a tumbleweed.

The name change isn't a requirement even today. And children typically take whichever last name the parents decide to put on the birth certificate.

And that is WITHOUT polygamy. Another issue that is not really an issue specific to polygamy.

Also, as long as it is not YOUR family tree..... what business is it of yours?

johndylan1 · Jul 2, 2015

Caine said:
Oh well.........

You do not have a "right" to a partner.

Um, now you kinda do. Kennedy said the marriage is fundamental to a persons dignity and therefore marriage is a right. Can you have that with no partner?

Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

Caine

Caine

Caine

Taylor

Caine

Erod

jmotivator

Computer Gaming Nerd

johndylan1

Caine

jmotivator

Computer Gaming Nerd

jmotivator

Computer Gaming Nerd

Caine

Moot

Caine

Caine

Moot

Caine

Caine

johndylan1

Taylor

Caine

Erod

Caine

Caine

johndylan1

Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

Computer Gaming Nerd

Computer Gaming Nerd

Computer Gaming Nerd

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency