Next frontier? Polygamists demand multi-sex marriage

[MCWAY]

Love isn't a silly reason for a marriage. It just wasn't the DRIVING FORCE or ultimate rationale for marriage. Back in the day, it was financial security and family. As a verse to a well-known song goes, "Your love give me such a thrill; but your love DON'T PAY MY BILLS!!"

Part of the reason that divorce is so high is that the foolish promotion of romantic love, as being the foundation and be-all-to-end-all of marriage.

[Deicide]

Love isn't a silly reason for a marriage. It just wasn't the DRIVING FORCE or ultimate rationale for marriage. Back in the day, it was financial security and family. As a verse to a well-known song goes, "Your love give me such a thrill; but your love DON'T PAY MY BILLS!!"

Part of the reason that divorce is so high is that the foolish promotion of romantic love, as being the foundation and be-all-to-end-all of marriage.

I agree. Why bother getting married these days in the first place? You can have a family and all the other things traditionally associated with marriage without the headaches without getting married.

[MCWAY]

I agree. Why bother getting married these days in the first place? You can have a family and all the other things traditionally associated with marriage without the headaches without getting married.

What "headaches" other than the two that seem to scare you to death: Responsibility and Accountability?

[Deicide]

What "headaches" other than the two that seem to scare you to death: Responsibility and Accountability?

No, massive financial losses, disruptive, nearly unbearable emotional pain and an inability to live life in a normal fashion.

[MCWAY]

No, massive financial losses, disruptive, nearly unbearable emotional pain and an inability to live life in a normal fashion.

As I said, responsibility and accountabilty!!!

[Deicide]

As I said, responsibility and accountabilty!!!

 

Sometimes I think you basically have a good heart and then when I see shit like that I think you are an arsehole. I guess people who think genocide is ok must by default be arseholes.

Two friends of mine: both their wives cheated on them, despite this the wives got the kids, they have to fork over 60% of their assets over to the wives and can barely see their kids because their girl ex-wives are a bunch of evil, self-centred bitches. They both are in emotional turmoil for the loss of their children and their wives cheating on them. These are good, hard working men. Loyal to a fault, great friends and great fathers. You call that responsibility and accountablity? You are smoking crack arsehole. They did their best and their girl wives and the system fucked them. I don't want to or need to deal with shit like that. Hopefully your wife pull the same shit on you and you can eat your bs about 'accountability and responsibility'.

[MCWAY]

Sometimes I think you basically have a good heart and then when I see shit like that I think you are an arsehole. I guess people who think genocide is ok must by default be arseholes.

Two friends of mine: both their wives cheated on them, despite this the wives got the kids, they have to fork over 60% of their assets over to the wives and can barely see their kids because their #### ex-wives are a bunch of evil, self-centred bitches. They both are in emotional turmoil for the loss of their children and their wives cheating on them. These are good, hard working men. Loyal to a fault, great friends and great fathers. You call that responsibility and accountablity? You are smoking crack arsehole. They did their best and their #### wives and the system fucked them. I don't want to or need to deal with shit like that. Hopefully your wife pull the same shit on you and you can eat your bs about 'accountability and responsibility'.

I've seen guys screw over women, too: Beat on them, cheat on them, treat them like garbage....AND snatch the kids away, despite all of that, leaving them with next to nothing.

What's your point?

Once again, when you can't make a decent argument, you resort to wishing ill on me, like the immature brat that you tend to at times.

I also know of women who did dirt on their husbands....SO WHAT? I certainly didn't let that stop me from getting married. If anything, it made me take a good long look at myself and choices I was making with regards to women.

As a result, I reduced the risk of ending up with such a shrew and instead have a lovely woman, whom I am proud to call my wife.

[Deicide]

I've seen guys screw over women, too: Beat on them, cheat on them, treat them like garbage....AND snatch the kids away, despite all of that, leaving them with next to nothing.

What's your point?

Once again, when you can't make a decent argument, you resort to wishing ill on me, like the immature brat that you tend to at times.

I also know of women who did dirt on their husbands....SO WHAT? I certainly didn't let that stop me from getting married. If anything, it made me take a good long look at myself and choices I was making with regards to women.

As a result, I reduced the risk of ending up with such a shrew and instead have a lovely woman, whom I am proud to call my wife.

Because you insult my friends who are reponsible hard working people with comments like that, implying that they deserved what they got; they didn't. You don't know them and have no basis for judging them. What's more, what is the problem with having a family and relationship without being married? There is none.

[MCWAY]

Because you insult my friends who are reponsible hard working people with comments like that, implying that they deserved what they got; they didn't. You don't know them and have no basis for judging them. What's more, what is the problem with having a family and relationship without being married? There is none.

First of all, genius, I didn't insult your friends. In fact, my comments weren't even aimed at your friends (who weren't even in the picture, until you brought them up).

My comments were aimed at one person: YOU!!, based on YOUR statements and your statements alone.

Marriage carries with it FAR more responsibility and accountablity, than merely shacking up. That is the part that scares you most. Based on YOUR comments (not the scenarios of your friends or acquaintances), the message seems to be that, if anyone is going to be the "evil, self-centered *#)!#", it's going to be you.

[Deicide]

First of all, genius, I didn't insult your friends. In fact, my comments weren't even aimed at your friends (who weren't even in the picture, until you brought them up).

My comments were aimed at one person: YOU!!, based on YOUR statements and your statements alone.

Marriage carries with it FAR more responsibility and accountablity, than merely shacking up. That is the part that scares you most. Based on YOUR comments (not the scenarios of your friends or acquaintances), the message seems to be that, if anyone is going to be the "evil, self-centered *#)!#", it's going to be you.

There is nothing that says you have to be married to have a committed responsible relationship. That is a fact.

[OzmO]

I was going to say that I agree not every popular vote is the right vote, but I'm not so sure.  I don't agree with every vote, but every vote represents what society or a particularly community wants.  From that standpoint, it's "right."  I may not agree with what society or the legislature has decided, but at the end of the day votes are what largely determine right and wrong. 

We have plenty of laws that tell us how to live our lives, including seat belt, helmet, cell phone while driving  , etc.  I wouldn't call them useless.  Some may be more unenforceable than others, but they all serve a purpose (and not necessarily one you or I agree with).   

For example, our legislature recently overwhelmingly approved a bill making credit history the same as race, religion, gender, etc. for purposes of employment discrimination.  We’ll be the first country in the nation to do this if it survives a veto.  Governor will hopefully veto, but I think that bill is ridiculous.  But it may be the law and what our community wants (based on the votes). 

I don't think the "majority" vote always makes it right.  It may be a voice of what the majority wants, but that doesn't make it right.  What do you think the majority wanted in 1830 in Alabama regarding slavery?

What is this thing about credit history?  They want to make credit history a non factor for employers when hiring people? So in others words they can't pull a credit report on them?

[MCWAY]

There is nothing that says you have to be married to have a committed responsible relationship. That is a fact.

As is your reticence to marriage being based on your current phobia of committment and responsibility, i.e. you want the option of simply hauling tail, leaving your "baby mama" high and dry, while you are off the hook.

[OzmO]

As is your reticence to marriage being based on your current phobia of committment and responsibility, i.e. you want the option of simply hauling tail, leaving your "baby mama" high and dry, while you are off the hook.

I haven't been following your conversation in detail, but shucking your responsibility as a parent is about the scummiest thing a person can do. 

Marriage is not a bad thing.  In many cases it's keeps a couple trying longer on their relationship/marriage because of the "piece of paper" and their vows.   Many times couples work through it and stay together when they otherwise wouldn't.  Their children appreciate it and are taught the value of responsibility and commitment as well as many other benefits.

Marriage is a good thing, it preserves the family unit which is one of the pillars of this country.

[Deicide]

I haven't been following your conversation in detail, but shucking your responsibility as a parent is about the scummiest thing a person can do. 

Marriage is not a bad thing.  In many cases it's keeps a couple trying longer on their relationship/marriage because of the "piece of paper" and their vows.   Many times couples work through it and stay together when they otherwise wouldn't.  Their children appreciate it and are taught the value of responsibility and commitment as well as many other benefits.

Marriage is a good thing, it preserves the family unit which is one of the pillars of this country.

Nonetheless, it is not necessary to get married in order to have a family or a relationship.

[Dos Equis]

I don't think the "majority" vote always makes it right.  It may be a voice of what the majority wants, but that doesn't make it right.  What do you think the majority wanted in 1830 in Alabama regarding slavery?

What is this thing about credit history?  They want to make credit history a non factor for employers when hiring people? So in others words they can't pull a credit report on them?

Maybe I'm not using the word "right" in the proper context.  I'm not trying to say a vote = a morally correct outcome.  I'm only trying to say the vote represents what the community wants, and that what society considers right and wrong is generally contained in our laws, which are the result of votes.  

The credit history bill is just dumb.  Yes it prevents employers from checking a prospective employee's credit history before a conditional offer of employment has been made, with some exceptions (banks, managers, and supervisors).  It puts credit history in the same category as gender, pregnancy, marital status, etc.  Employers can do a post-offer check, but it must be related to the job.    

[OzmO]

Maybe I'm not using the word "right" in the proper context.  I'm not trying to say a vote = a morally correct outcome.  I'm only trying to say the vote represents what the community wants, and that what society considers right and wrong is generally contained in our laws, which are the result of votes.  

  

Generally, but not always.  I agree. 

The credit history bill is just dumb.  Yes it prevents employers from checking a prospective employee's credit history before a conditional offer of employment has been made, with some exceptions (banks, managers, and supervisors).  It puts credit history in the same category as gender, pregnancy, marital status, etc.  Employers can do a post-offer check, but it must be related to the job.

As a employer i can see the value of reading some one's credit history and using the information for decide whether or not I wan them.  As a prospective employee i see it as a invasion of privacy unless the information directly relates to their job.

[Dos Equis]

Generally, but not always.  I agree. 

As a employer i can see the value of reading some one's credit history and using the information for decide whether or not I wan them.  As a prospective employee i see it as a invasion of privacy unless the information directly relates to their job.

I think it demeans the other "protected classes."  It's also a potential nightmare for employers.  I think it actually hurts employees because an employer cannot ask for explanations during an interview.  Also, fiscal responsibility is arguably related to pretty much every job. 

[MCWAY]

I haven't been following your conversation in detail, but shucking your responsibility as a parent is about the scummiest thing a person can do. 

Marriage is not a bad thing.  In many cases it's keeps a couple trying longer on their relationship/marriage because of the "piece of paper" and their vows.   Many times couples work through it and stay together when they otherwise wouldn't.  Their children appreciate it and are taught the value of responsibility and commitment as well as many other benefits.

My point exactly!! As bad as divorce is these days, couples who are married tend to stick it out more than those who are just shacking up, which is the crux of my criticism to Deicide's comments.

From what I've gathered, he basically wants to be able to flee, with little or no responsibility (especially on the financial end) to his "baby mama", and by extension, his child.

[Dos Equis]

Just around the corner. 

Slate Embraces Slippery Slope: Legalize Polygamy Too
‘Fight doesn’t end with same-sex marriage.’
Published: 4/16/2013 
Subscribe to Kristine MarshBy Kristine Marsh

Gay marriage advocates have frequently scoffed at conservatives like Rush Limbaugh and Rick Santorum who say legalizing same-sex marriage will lead to the classification of other relationships as “marriage,” such as multiple spouses, incest and bestiality. Now some on the left are happily gliding down the “slippery slope.” 

Slate’s April 15th article called “Legalize polygamy: Marriage equality for all,” proposes—you guessed it—legalized polygamy. The article’s author, Jillian Keenan, stated that the problems with polygamy from certain fundamentalist Mormon circles can easily be resolved with legalizing those families. Using examples of coercion and abuse, Keenan rationalized that legalizing polygamy will allow children and women to report to the police when problems occur, instead of staying in hiding because of their illegal lifestyles. 

As with drugs or prostitution, this strain of liberal though holds that if we legalize something that is inherently harmful or risky, it will somehow become safer. But there is a reason some behaviors are proscribed by law: they aren’t healthy for society or individuals. That doesn’t seem to matter to Keenan, who claimed that whether or not these marriages are healthy “should have no bearing on the legal process.” 

Keenan then appealed to religious freedom, arguing the rights of fundamentalist LDS members and Muslim families with multiple wives as being protected in the Constitution in the same way that same sex partners should be. Finally, Keenan invoked feminism, saying that if a woman “wants to marry a man with three other wives, that’s her damn choice.” 

What’s scariest though, is Keenan’s view of marriage in general: (hint: it’s a lot like liberals view of the Constitution). “The definition of marriage is plastic,” she wrote. “Just like heterosexual marriage is no better or worse than homosexual marriage, marriage between two consenting adults is not inherently more or less “correct” than marriage among three (or four, or six) consenting adults.” 

So marriage is a living, changing institution, subject to the fickle whims present culture. It is whatever liberals like Keenan says it is at any given moment. 

She ended with a rallying cry, “So let’s fight for marriage equality until it extends to every same-sex couple in the United States—and then let’s keep fighting. We’re not done yet.”

At least Keenan is honest about what she wants. If you’re objective is the bottom, you may as well own the slippery slope.

http://www.mrc.org/articles/slate-embraces-slippery-slope-legalize-polygamy-too

[drkaje]

I'll be curious to see how a judge assigns assets and child support the first time a polygamist's wife wants divorce in a community property state.

[Dos Equis]

ABC Preaches the 'Gospel of Polyamory' and the Saving Power of Threesomes
By Scott Whitlock | November 27, 2013

Moving past gay marriage, ABC News on Monday pushed the "gospel" of polyamory, having multiple romantic and sexual partners in an open relationship. Co-anchor Dan Harris hyped, "More couples opting to become triples or fourples. Live-in lovers spicing up the marital bed, even helping raise the children." [See video below. MP3 audio here.]

Harris opened the segment by lecturing, "Just for a minute, let's do a thought experiment. Let's set aside all of the emotion and consider whether the evangelists for open marriage might have a point." Reporter Nick Watt profiled Michael, Kamela and Rachel, a threesome "couple" that has sex with numerous people, all while raising a child. Watt described, "They're spreading the gospel of polyamory, hoping to speed up societal acceptance of this kind of set-up."

Watt could only manage the most meager criticism of polyamory. Talking to sexual psychologist Karen Stewart, he offered, "Watching your spouse having sex with somebody else is not really my bag, I've got to say."

Talking to the three sex partners, he admitted, "If my wife saw my face light up when I looked at another woman, she'd be pissed."

But mostly he offered little in the way of an opposing position. The psychologist Stewart mildly agreed that seeing her spouse have sex with other people didn't sound appealing.

This isn't the first time ABC has promoted polyamory. On January 4, 2012 Good Morning America touted the sex games of a "modern" family who date within their "species."

A partial transcript of the November 25 Nightline segment is below:

11:35

DAN HARRIS Is this the end of marriage as we know it? More couples opting to become triples or fourples. Live in lovers spicing up the marital bed, even helping raise the children. Could your marriage survive this?

...

12:52

HARRIS: Just for a minute, let's do a thought experiment. Let's set aside all of the emotion and consider whether the evangelists for open marriage might have a point. Most marriages in America do end in divorce so maybe adding other lovers to the mix could improve the odds. To test this extremely controversial theory, we went into the home of what is known as a polyamorous family.

NICK WATT: Yep. There are three in that bed and the little one says --

MICHAEL: Are you happy you came over? 'Cause we just wanted to see you more.

WATT: Michael is married to that woman.

KAMELA DEVI: When you called me and you're like we're in Jamaica and I was like oh, I miss you guys.

WATT: They have been happily married for 12 years but Michael went away on vacation, ten day Caribbean cruise, with the other lady on the left. Twenty-seven-year-old Rachel, his live in girlfriend. This loving trio are what's called polyamorous.

...

WATT: If my wife saw my face light up when I looked at another woman, she'd be pissed.

DEVI: She's probably threatened that you'd leave her for that other woman and if you're monogamous, that's your only option, right?

WATT: Crazy Californians, I hear you mutter. Maybe not. This kind of relationship is becoming increasingly common.

KAREN STEWART (psychologist specializing in sex therapy): The divorce rate in the united states is over 50%. People are not as faithful.

WATT: Really?

STEWART: Absolutely. Because the world has become a much smaller space. We can seek out connections. There is dating sites on every street corner. You can go anywhere to meet somebody new.

WATT: More open relationships might be a modern way to make it work.

...

WATT: Is this in our future? Societal acceptance of something other than monogamy?

STEWART: Polyamory is not about being swingers. It's about creating love and lasting relationships.

WATT: Taking aside the whole robes and lotions kind of, you know, side of things, I mean, everyday life?

DEVI: We share life together. I've got a son. It takes a village to raise a child and it feels really good to have that kind of support.

...

STEWART: When he goes to school in ten years, when he brings dates home, this is probably going to be a little complicated for him and I'm not sure if the parents are thinking down the road about that.

WATT: Watching your spouse having sex with somebody else is not really my bag, I've got to say.

...

WATT: They're spreading the gospel of polyamory, hoping to speed up societal acceptance of this kind of set-up.

DEVI: I really think that society in ten years is going to be, like, this is a new paradigm.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2013/11/27/abc-preaches-gospel-polyamory-touts-saving-power-threesomes#ixzz2mL2gBysN

[Dos Equis]

Confusion. 

NORTH DAKOTA TO LET MAN IN SAME-SEX MARRIAGE WED WOMAN, TOO
by FRANCES MARTEL 
16 Dec 2013

North Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem filed a legal opinion last week confirming that the state does not recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages, allowing a man married to another man to come to North Dakota and marry a woman without divorcing his husband.

While many wildly speculated that the legalization of same-sex marriage could lead to polygamy, they probably never thought it would be like this. Presented with a legal hypothetical, Attorney General Stenehjem answered three questions: whether someone in a same-sex marriage in another state can also receive a marriage license to someone of the opposite sex in North Dakota, whether they can file legal documents as "Single" when they possess a same-sex marriage license in another state, and whether this would open the individual up for prosecution under another state's bigamy laws. The Attorney General's response can be read in full PDF form here.

The answer to all these questions, essentially, is that a person can legally possess two marriage licenses in North Dakota, because a same-sex marriage license is not recognized. The Attorney General did not comment on whether such a situation would lead to a bigamy charge in another state, suggesting it was "inappropriate" to comment on laws outside of North Dakota.

North Dakota's constitution prohibits same-sex marriage since the state voted to amend it in 2004, and the state has an additional statute prohibiting same-sex unions from valid recognition. Marriages performed outside of the state are also recognized in North Dakota only when they do not violate the laws of North Dakota, which would already invalidate same-sex marriages, but the statute goes further to explicitly cite the illegitimacy of same-sex marriages in that state.

In addition to state laws permitting this activity, the Attorney General cites one of the few provisions in the Defense of Marriage Act still standing after this summer's Supreme Court decision: no state can be made to respect a same-sex marriage license from another state.

North Dakota's strict laws against same-sex unions had previously led to tax issues, as well, with the state requesting that anyone holding a same-sex marriage license in another state file their taxes as a single person, essentially eliminating the tax benefits that come with a marriage. Without even looking at the moral implications of forcing a couple with a legal marriage license to declare themselves single, this clearly looks like a recipe for tax code disaster. This opinion in particular, which allows a heterosexual union even when there previously exists a homosexual one, creates a situation in which three individuals are bound and three individuals are filing as married to each other. Because of the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause, the heterosexual union from North Dakota would have to be recognized in some form in the state that provided the same-sex marriage license--whether recognized as a criminal, bigamous act or as a legal license that yields tax credits.

The opinion also creates the most explicit conflict between states on gay marriage yet. It pits North Dakota against states like New York, Massachusetts, and Hawaii that now have to choose between violating the Full Faith and Credit Clause, and upholding a marriage license they issued or acknowledging North Dakota's intransigence and violating the state's standards on gay rights. The legal opinion's uncanny timing also pairs it in headlines with the easing of polygamy laws in Utah, and provides a stark contrast between what self-proclaimed polygamists want from their government and what the individual wishing to marry twice in this case does.

The "Sister Wives" family that won the Utah suit only have one marriage license among them, and do not wish to receive any more. The man in the North Dakota case wants two marriage licenses, and the right to proclaim himself single on legal documents until he receives his second. The latter creates the bigger problem, because the parties in the case want further government involvement in their lives--not to get the government out of their lives--and this forces state governments to turn on each other.

The good news for all involved is that a case in which a man wants to marry a woman after having married a man is a genuinely unusual one, reading almost as a thought experiment designed to challenge law students on how to apply the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit and Comity Clauses. But there is at least one case--that which inspired this legal opinion, and will provide much to talk about in upcoming months, when the individuals that inspired the opinion will likely receive their marriage license.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/12/16/North-Dakota-Allows-Man-In-Same-Sex-Marriage-To-Also-Marry-Woman

[temple_of_dis]

Not surprised. 

QUEERLY BELOVED
Next frontier? Polygamists demand multi-sex marriage
Activists: New Hampshire plan embeds bigotry into state law
Posted: June 05, 2009
10:30 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

A polygamy advocacy organization says the New Hampshire law that is intended to assure "equal access to marriage" for all instead specifically embeds in state statutes bigotry against polygamists.

New Hampshire's capitol

According to a statement posted on the Pro-Polygamy website, when on Wednesday New Hampshire "became the sixth U.S. State to codify the legal construction of same sex marriage," it was hailed by homosexuals as a "civil rights victory."

"Declaring that the new law advances fairness and equality for all, they proclaimed that New Hampshire had supposedly 'ended discrimination' for everyone," the statement said.

"But the law did no such thing. Rather, it intentionally 'discriminates' against consenting adult polygamists – indeed, on purpose," the organization said.

The fact that polygamists, and indeed those with other sexual proclivities, would use the same "civil rights" and "equality" arguments forwarded by homosexuals seeking "marriage" rights has been predicted for years.

"Polygamists, and those who have a polygamous 'orientation,' have been 'singled out' by these provisions for much more severe treatment than merely denial of favored status... The court's disposition today suggests that these provisions are unconstitutional; and that polygamy must be permitted in these states... – unless, of course, polygamists for some reason have fewer constitutional rights than homosexuals," Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in 1996.

That came in a U.S. Supreme Court opinion quashing the decision of Colorado voters who decided there should be a constitutional provision providing, "No Protected Status Based on Homosexual, Lesbian, or Bisexual Orientation."

The court majority there decided Colorado voters were guilty of "impermissible targeting" of a "class" of people.

Learn how homosexuality has been sold to America. Get "The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom"

Scalia noted that the same arguments being applied to homosexuals as a class also could be applied to polygamists. Then in 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down state laws forbidding homosexuality. The Lawrence vs. Texas case established a "right to privacy" for consenting adults.

Once again dissenting, Scalia wrote, "State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of [a] validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today's decision…"

"This effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation," Scalia wrote.

WND founder and editor Joseph Farah, who has been writing commentary on social issues for years, also cited the 2003 Lawrence ruling in writing:

"To say laws about private sexual conduct are unconstitutional, the court, in effect, opened a sexual Pandora's box," he said. "If there is a constitutional right to have homosexual sex, how can one deny there is a constitutional right to group sex? How can one deny there is a constitutional right to consensual incest? How can one deny there is a right to have sex with animals? How can one deny there is a constitutional right to polygamy?

"You can't. There is no difference," he wrote.

His conclusion was that the court was wrong: "There is no constitutional right to homosexual sex – or any other kind of sex for that matter. The word sex doesn't appear in the Constitution."

The issue came up again only a year ago, when the California state Supreme Court ruled the state could not deny the designation of "marriaged" to homosexual couples. That court opinion was tossed out last November by a vote of the people, who defined "marriage" as being between one man and one woman.

In a dissent to that court opinion, Associate Justice Marvin R. Baxter cited similar concerns.

"The majority … simply does not have the right to erase, then recast, the age-old definition of marriage, as virtually all societies have understood it, in order to satisfy its own contemporary notions of equality and justice. The California Constitution says nothing about the rights of same-sex couples to marry. On the contrary, as the majority concedes, our original Constitution, effective from the moment of statehood, evidenced an assumption that marriage was between partners of the opposite sex," Baxter wrote at the time.

Then he issued a warning:

"Who can say that, in 10, 15, or 20 years, an activist court might not rely on the majority's analysis to conclude, on the basis of a perceived evolution in community values, that the laws prohibiting polygamous and incestuous marriages were no longer constitutionally justified?"

According to the activist Pro-Polygamy, the New Hampshire plan specifically includes discrimination in its wording. It was the sixth state to "act" on homosexual marriage. Several states have voted it in through the legislative process and in several other states officials have simply imposed same-sex "marriage" plans on residents following court opinions, even though state laws have even yet to be changed.

The polygamy activists said the new law now affirms the "right" of two individuals to marry.

"However, the new law then took the matter further, with intentional 'discrimination.' The new [law] now ends with a newly added anti-polygamy provision," the group said, citing the new statement: "No person shall be allowed to be married to more than one person at any given time."

"Same sex marriage supporters had intentionally changed the combined anti-incest and anti-gay-marriage ban into a combined anti-incest and anti-polygamy ban instead. They intentionally re-directed the law to purposely 'discriminate' against consenting adult polygamists - the clearly known bigotry of equating consenting adult polygamy with the biological dysfunction of incest," the group said.

"After purposely 'discriminating' against consenting adult polygamists, the new law startlingly then allows for under-aged heterosexual marriage while it bans under-aged same sex marriage," the group said.

The state now limits heterosexual marriages to boys 14 and girls 13 and older. But those same-sex "marriages" are limited to those 18 and over.

"In truth, therefore, New Hampshire's new gay marriage law does not end 'discrimination' at all. It absolutely does not provide 'equal access to marriage' for all. Rather, New Hampshire's new same sex marriage law intentionally 'discriminates' against consenting adult polygamists," the report said.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=100287

Getbig keeps me informed like no other site can.

[Dos Equis]

Marriage died in 2013
By Dr. Keith Ablow
Published December 31, 2013
FoxNews.com

More than a year ago, when states began to legalize gay marriage, I argued that polygamy would be the natural result.  If love between humans of legal age is the only condition required to have the state issue a marriage license, then it is irrational to assert that two men or two women can have such feelings for one another, while three women and a man, or two men and a woman, cannot. 

I have met would-be polygamists who cohabitate as groups and I can tell you that they seemed to be very committed to one another, to be very intimate and to be “in love.”

Gay rights groups criticized me for suggesting that their bid for marriage rights would lead to polygamy being green-lighted. 

Marriage is over. It is, officially, judicially, a joke.

I received threats of being raped and being killed from gay people who didn’t like the point I was making and seemed to think I should be brutalized or die for it. 

Well, now U.S. District Court Judge Clark Waddoups has found parts of Utah’s anti-bigamy law unconstitutional.  His ruling comes in a case brought by Kody Brown and his four wives, who are featured in the reality TV show, “Sister Wives.” 

I believe the U.S. Supreme Court will uphold that finding, if Utah challenges it.

As I predicted, this will officially make marriage the Wild West, in which groups of people can assert that they are married and should have all the benefits of that status, including family health plans and the right to file taxes as married people. 

It will also, eventually, lead to test cases in which a few unusual sisters and brothers insist that they can marry, because they are in love and promise not to procreate, but, instead, to use donor eggs or sperm.
And, I predict, the courts will agree with them. 

Given this dissolution of support for society’s vested interest in providing children with a mother and father they can point to with certainty, in households where both genders are equally represented, it is very clear that government should get out of issuing marriage licenses, entirely. 

People who wish to create special partnerships of the heart and home should sign prenuptial contracts with one another and then exchange vows at their churches or temples or in front of gatherings of family or special friends. 

No different status or privilege should flow to married people, whatsoever.  All individuals who earn income should file taxes, separately.

The truth is that government never had a defensible role in marriage.  It should always have been the exclusive domain of the individuals and institutions that choose to recognize such interpersonal unions. 

Churches should be allowed to define marriage as they wish and offer marriage certificates only to those who comply with their definitions.  Temples, just the same. Communes can do it, for all I care. Any organization, in fact, should be able to award the status to anyone they like.  But, states and the federal government should have no part in it, whatsoever.

Only child support should be mandatory, because the state has a legitimate interest in ensuring that minors not be without financial resources.

Marriage is over. 

It was always at least a little funny that a huge percentage of people swore to stay together until death, then divorced and remarried. 

But, now, it is, officially, judicially, a joke. 

If two men can marry, and three men can marry, and five women and a man can marry, and three men and two women can marry, then marriage has no meaning. 

It’s over. Go get rings, go get lawyers, go rent a nice hall, but City Hall should bow out.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/12/31/marriage-died-in-2013/?intcmp=obnetwork

[bears]

he's absolutely right.