Next frontier? Polygamists demand multi-sex marriage

[bears]

I thought i was being practical here.

Same-sex marriage is practical. If they get divorced, someone dies etc its still 2 people.

If a man has 5 wifes and gets a divorce with one or more who gets what then? = A mess.

which is exactly why the author believes that government should no longer have anything to do with marriage.  those polygamists you're so casually dismissing as ridiculous are people too.  they believe that their marriage to multiple people is just as sacred as any heterosexual or homosexual marriage.  In fact, a good number of them ridicule monogamy and call it something akin to slavery.  the homosexual community likes to accuse conservatives as "hateful" because of the line they draw in the sand as to what marriage should be.  But what they so conveniently ignore is that their line in the sand is considered just as hateful......just by a different group of people.

[RRKore]

Up next: Child marriage, bestiality and state sanctioned necrophilia= Constitutional 

No, next will be marrying a computer operating system, a la the academy award nominated movie "Her". 

(Which I just downloaded and will watch sometime today.)

[Dos Equis]

Be careful what you wish for.

Pro Gay Marriage Clarence Page: Polygamy a 'Legitimate' Issue Cited by Opponents
By Jack Coleman
June 30, 2015

Something you'll seldom see if the left's jingoistic victory dance over the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage is any indication -- supporters of same-sex marriage acknowledging that opponents express valid criticism that can't be ignored.

A seldom-seen example of this was on display during The McLaughlin Group over the weekend as expressed by Chicago Tribune columnist Clarence Page.

On the same show that Page attempted to pull off this improbable balancing act, fellow liberal Eleanor Clift predictably labeled concerns about legalized polygamy as "bizarre" --

PAGE: What astounds me is, you know, five, 10 years ago I would have said, in fact I wrote I didn't expect to see gay marriage legalized in my lifetime. Look what's happened in the last decade! It's astounding.

MODERATOR JOHN MCLAUGHLIN: What did you write?

PAGE: Well, just the fact that while I personally favor it, I don't expect the country to swing that way ...

Yes -- "swing that way." His words, not mine. Anyhoo ...

PAGE: ... but I think that's very significant, though, the fact is that this court is really following the national lead. They see, although at least the majority of this court sees that the country's attitudes have changed and are in the process of changing. And that's why while I'm concerned as Eleanor is about backlash like what we saw with Roe v. Wade, I think the Roe v. Wade decision back there in '72 (more accurately, January 1973) was a much more abrupt and shock to the system for the country nationwide, whereas I think the country's much more ready for this.

Minutes later, McLaughlin asked whether polygamy was likely in the aftermath of SCOTUS's ruling on same-sex marriage, and Page's surprising candor followed --

MCLAUGHLIN: Do you think polygamy is next in line for legitimation or polyamory?

PUBLISHER MORT ZUCKERMAN: Well, on one level I hope so because I would like to live long enough to see that happen. (laughter all around). That would add a lot to my life is all I can say. I think that would be quite an interesting thing.

PAGE: That's a legitimate argument. I mean, Scalia brought that up, way back over a dozen years ago with the Texas gay co-habitation case.

CLIFT: Judge Alito in his questioning, because they've been playing the oral arguments, I mean, he said what if two men and two women came, could they get together? And he also suggested, what if they were all lawyers? Does that make them a natural grouping? I mean, it was rather bizarre!

Lighten up, Elly, you sound so 20th century! Haven't she gotten word yet that marriage is now defined as what anyone says it is, given their mood at the moment? I've waited for a single proponent of same-sex marriage to enunciate a coherent definition of marriage in lieu of the one that has held sway around the world for millennia, that not incidentally coincides with the union necessary for procreation, and there's little doubt I'll continue to wait in vain.

Typical of the bluster from the left since the SCOTUS ruling, Clift misrepresented Alito's argument while conspicuously steering clear of challenging its merit (in contrast to Page, whose honesty was refreshing). Alito's reference to the hypothetical foursome he cited as lawyers -- in a courtroom filled with them --  was clearly in jest. Evidence of this can be gleaned from the hearty laughter exhibited by those in attendance. (Objection! Overruled.)

And just as Clift couldn't muster an argument against it, Mary Bonauto, the lawyer advocating for same-sex marriage before the court, did hardly any better. As for those four lawyers cited in Alito's hypothetical (15:45 into the oral arguments for this exchange) --

ALITO: Under the logic of the decision you would like us to hand down in this decision, what would be the logic of denying them the same right?

BONAUTO: Number one, I assume the States would rush in and say that when you're talking about multiple people joining into a relationship, that that is not the same thing that we've had in marriage, which is one the mutual support and consent of two people. ...

ALITO: I don't know what kind of distinction that is because marriage between two people of the same sex is not something that we have had before. Recognizing that is a substantial break. Maybe it's a good one. ... So, why is that a greater break?

BONAUTO: ... Assuming it's within the fundamental right, the question then becomes one of justification. And I assume that the States would come in and say that there are concerns about consent and coercion. If there's a divorce from the second wife, does that mean the fourth wife has access to the child of the second wife? There are issues of who is it that makes the medical decisions, you know, in the time of crisis.

Does that mean the same-sex spouse of a previously divorced and now openly gay man has access to the children in his gay spouse's previous heterosexual marriage? Decisions on medical care in a crisis are resolved, regardless of the sexuality of those involved, marital status, or the head count, through health care proxy or power of attorney.

Those four attorneys, all past child-bearing age and with no interest in adoption, stating under oath that their actions are consensual -- so much for issues of consent, coercion and disruption to the young'uns.

A remarkable admission from Bonauto, lifted nearly intact from opponents of gay marriage -- "That is not the same thing that we've had in marriage." And what bracing chutzpah for her to seek the demise of any future role for the states in defining marriage, with the federal definition as decreed by the court trumping all others, while she simultaneously cites an activist role by the states in preventing polygamy.

Just a matter of time before supporters of same-sex marriage tire of painting themselves into this corner and admit what all rational adults already know whether they admit it or not -- legitimizing same-sex marriage removes any legal basis for preventing polygamy. It's the proponents' Achilles heel and they know it, which is why we'll eventually see the spectacle of them trumpeting polygamy and ardently denying that they ever thought otherwise.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jack-coleman/2015/06/30/pro-gay-marriage-clarence-page-polygamy-legitimate-issue-cited#sthash.SBGEDmIf.dpuf

[Straw Man]

Fundies should be happy

Now you have a new cause to piss and moan about

BTW - no shortage of polygamy in the bible...you know the book fundies believe is  the "word of god"

[Dos Equis]

It’s Time to Legalize Polygamy
Why group marriage is the next horizon of social liberalism.
By FREDRIK DEBOER
June 26, 2015



Welcome to the exciting new world of the slippery slope. With the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling this Friday legalizing same sex marriage in all 50 states, social liberalism has achieved one of its central goals. A right seemingly unthinkable two decades ago has now been broadly applied to a whole new class of citizens. Following on the rejection of interracial marriage bans in the 20th Century, the Supreme Court decision clearly shows that marriage should be a broadly applicable right—one that forces the government to recognize, as Friday’s decision said, a private couple’s “love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family.”

The question presents itself: Where does the next advance come? The answer is going to make nearly everyone uncomfortable: Now that we’ve defined that love and devotion and family isn’t driven by gender alone, why should it be limited to just two individuals? The most natural advance next for marriage lies in legalized polygamy—yet many of the same people who pressed for marriage equality for gay couples oppose it.

This is not an abstract issue. In Chief Justice John Roberts’ dissenting opinion, he remarks, “It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage.” As is often the case with critics of polygamy, he neglects to mention why this is a fate to be feared. Polygamy today stands as a taboo just as strong as same-sex marriage was several decades ago—it’s effectively only discussed as outdated jokes about Utah and Mormons, who banned the practice over 120 years ago.

Yet the moral reasoning behind society’s rejection of polygamy remains just as uncomfortable and legally weak as same-sex marriage opposition was until recently.

That’s one reason why progressives who reject the case for legal polygamy often don’t really appear to have their hearts in it. They seem uncomfortable voicing their objections, clearly unused to being in the position of rejecting the appeals of those who would codify non-traditional relationships in law. They are, without exception, accepting of the right of consenting adults to engage in whatever sexual and romantic relationships they choose, but oppose the formal, legal recognition of those relationships. They’re trapped, I suspect, in prior opposition that they voiced from a standpoint of political pragmatism in order to advance the cause of gay marriage.

In doing so, they do real harm to real people. Marriage is not just a formal codification of informal relationships. It’s also a defensive system designed to protect the interests of people whose material, economic and emotional security depends on the marriage in question. If my liberal friends recognize the legitimacy of free people who choose to form romantic partnerships with multiple partners, how can they deny them the right to the legal protections marriage affords?

Polyamory is a fact. People are living in group relationships today. The question is not whether they will continue on in those relationships. The question is whether we will grant to them the same basic recognition we grant to other adults: that love makes marriage, and that the right to marry is exactly that, a right.

Why the opposition, from those who have no interest in preserving “traditional marriage” or forbidding polyamorous relationships? I think the answer has to do with political momentum, with a kind of ad hoc-rejection of polygamy as necessary political concession. And in time, I think it will change.

The marriage equality movement has been both the best and worst thing that could happen for legally sanctioned polygamy. The best, because that movement has required a sustained and effective assault on “traditional marriage” arguments that reflected no particular point of view other than that marriage should stay the same because it’s always been the same. In particular, the notion that procreation and child-rearing are the natural justification for marriage has been dealt a terminal injury. We don’t, after all, ban marriage for those who can’t conceive, or annul marriages that don’t result in children, or make couples pinkie swear that they’ll have kids not too long after they get married. We have insisted instead that the institution exists to enshrine in law a special kind of long-term commitment, and to extend certain essential logistical and legal benefits to those who make that commitment. And rightly so.

But the marriage equality movement has been curiously hostile to polygamy, and for a particularly unsatisfying reason: short-term political need. Many conservative opponents of marriage equality have made the slippery slope argument, insisting that same-sex marriages would lead inevitably to further redefinition of what marriage is and means. See, for example, Rick Santorum’s infamous “man on dog” comments, in which he equated the desire of two adult men or women to be married with bestiality. Polygamy has frequently been a part of these slippery slope arguments. Typical of such arguments, the reasons why marriage between more than two partners would be destructive were taken as a given. Many proponents of marriage equality, I’m sorry to say, went along with this evidence-free indictment of polygamous matrimony. They choose to side-step the issue by insisting that gay marriage wouldn’t lead to polygamy. That legally sanctioned polygamy was a fate worth fearing went without saying.

To be clear: our lack of legal recognition of group marriages is not the fault of the marriage equality movement. Rather, it’s that the tactics of that movement have made getting to serious discussions of legalized polygamy harder. I say that while recognizing the unprecedented and necessary success of those tactics. I understand the political pragmatism in wanting to hold the line—to not be perceived to be slipping down the slope. To advocate for polygamy during the marriage equality fight may have seemed to confirm the socially conservative narrative, that gay marriage augured a wholesale collapse in traditional values. But times have changed; while work remains to be done, the immediate danger to marriage equality has passed. In 2005, a denial of the right to group marriage stemming from political pragmatism made at least some sense. In 2015, after this ruling, it no longer does.

While important legal and practical questions remain unresolved, with the Supreme Court’s ruling and broad public support, marriage equality is here to stay. Soon, it will be time to turn the attention of social liberalism to the next horizon. Given that many of us have argued, to great effect, that deference to tradition is not a legitimate reason to restrict marriage rights to groups that want them, the next step seems clear. We should turn our efforts towards the legal recognition of marriages between more than two partners. It’s time to legalize polygamy.

***

Conventional arguments against polygamy fall apart with even a little examination. Appeals to traditional marriage, and the notion that child rearing is the only legitimate justification of legal marriage, have now, I hope, been exposed and discarded by all progressive people. What’s left is a series of jerry-rigged arguments that reflect no coherent moral vision of what marriage is for, and which frequently function as criticisms of traditional marriage as well.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/gay-marriage-decision-polygamy-119469.html#ixzz3eqweV2fB

[240 is Back]

LOL @ getbig.

"Most of my polygamist friends think this is ridiculous". 

[Dos Equis]

'Sister Wives' guests ask judge to strike down bigamy laws
Matt Volz, The Associated Press
August 28, 2015

(Photo: Courtesy of Nathan Collier)

HELENA, Mont. — A Montana man is asking a federal judge to strike down the state's bigamy laws so he can marry a second wife.

Nathan Collier, his legal wife Victoria and his common-law wife Christine filed a lawsuit Thursday in U.S. District Court in Billings, Mont. They cite the U.S. Supreme Court's June ruling allowing gay marriage and reference biblical figures with multiple wives in their argument that the state is unconstitutionally preventing them from legitimizing their polygamous relationship.

Nathan Collier, 46, said he's fighting for marriage equality for polygamy.

"I'm fighting for my family's right to exist as a family," he said. "I can't imagine a greater cause to fight for."

He said he is a former Mormon who was excommunicated for polygamy and now has no religious affiliation. He and his family made their relationship public by appearing on the reality TV show Sister Wives in January.

Nathan and Victoria Collier, 40, married 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.

“My second wife, Christine ... deserves legitimacy.”
Nathan Collier, Billings, Mont.
Combined, the trio have eight children from their present and past relationships.

"My second wife, Christine, who I'm not legally married to, she's put up with my crap for a lot of years," Nathan Collier said. "She deserves legitimacy."

Montana, like all 50 states, outlaws bigamy — holding multiple marriage licenses. But the Supreme Court's chief justice, John Roberts, said in his dissent of the same-sex marriage ruling that people in polygamous relationships could make the same legal argument that not having the opportunity to marry disrespects and subordinates them.

After the Supreme Court's ruling in June, Yellowstone County officials denied Nathan and Christine Collier's request for a license.

State laws that forbid a man from marrying more than one woman denies them their constitutionally guaranteed rights to equal protection, due process, free speech, freedom of religion and freedom of association, the Colliers' lawsuit said.

Nathan Collier said he wants a judge to prevent the state from enforcing those laws against consenting men and women in "plural relationships."

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Billings. It names Montana Attorney General Tim Fox, Gov. Steve Bullock, Yellowstone County Attorney Scott Twito and Yellowstone County District Court Clerk Kristie Lee Boelter as defendants.

All of the defendants declined to comment on the suit.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/08/28/polygamists-montana-bigamy/71279960/

[Dos Equis]

NYC judge rules polyamorous unions entitled to same legal protections as 2-person relationships
By Julia Musto , Fox News
October 8, 2022
https://nypost.com/2022/10/08/nyc-judge-rules-in-favor-of-polyamorous-relationships/

[Humble Narcissist]

'Sister Wives' guests ask judge to strike down bigamy laws
Matt Volz, The Associated Press
August 28, 2015

(Photo: Courtesy of Nathan Collier)

HELENA, Mont. — A Montana man is asking a federal judge to strike down the state's bigamy laws so he can marry a second wife.

Nathan Collier, his legal wife Victoria and his common-law wife Christine filed a lawsuit Thursday in U.S. District Court in Billings, Mont. They cite the U.S. Supreme Court's June ruling allowing gay marriage and reference biblical figures with multiple wives in their argument that the state is unconstitutionally preventing them from legitimizing their polygamous relationship.

Nathan Collier, 46, said he's fighting for marriage equality for polygamy.

"I'm fighting for my family's right to exist as a family," he said. "I can't imagine a greater cause to fight for."

He said he is a former Mormon who was excommunicated for polygamy and now has no religious affiliation. He and his family made their relationship public by appearing on the reality TV show Sister Wives in January.

Nathan and Victoria Collier, 40, married 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.

“My second wife, Christine ... deserves legitimacy.”
Nathan Collier, Billings, Mont.
Combined, the trio have eight children from their present and past relationships.

"My second wife, Christine, who I'm not legally married to, she's put up with my crap for a lot of years," Nathan Collier said. "She deserves legitimacy."

Montana, like all 50 states, outlaws bigamy — holding multiple marriage licenses. But the Supreme Court's chief justice, John Roberts, said in his dissent of the same-sex marriage ruling that people in polygamous relationships could make the same legal argument that not having the opportunity to marry disrespects and subordinates them.

After the Supreme Court's ruling in June, Yellowstone County officials denied Nathan and Christine Collier's request for a license.

State laws that forbid a man from marrying more than one woman denies them their constitutionally guaranteed rights to equal protection, due process, free speech, freedom of religion and freedom of association, the Colliers' lawsuit said.

Nathan Collier said he wants a judge to prevent the state from enforcing those laws against consenting men and women in "plural relationships."

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Billings. It names Montana Attorney General Tim Fox, Gov. Steve Bullock, Yellowstone County Attorney Scott Twito and Yellowstone County District Court Clerk Kristie Lee Boelter as defendants.

All of the defendants declined to comment on the suit.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/08/28/polygamists-montana-bigamy/71279960/

Wives look the same. If I had multiple wives I'd want a blonde, a brunette and a ginger.