And now Polygamy...

[twowheeladdict]

http://news.yahoo.com/polygamous-montana-trio-applies-wedding-license-193205283.html

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.

[gPink]

http://news.yahoo.com/polygamous-montana-trio-applies-wedding-license-193205283.html

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.

If they don't have a gov contract it can't be called a marriage just a threesome.

[BruceR]

Yep, once you erase the line it's tough to say where to re-draw it.  This was expected, although a bit quicker than I anticipated.

[B.D.F.]

Wow, not me- I did NOT see this one coming at all. But you are right, now that the door has been kicked ajar, how much wider can it be opened? And honestly, I cannot think of any constitutional reason why three (or more) people could not be married? The suit should use the same argument too- fourteenth amendment, ....equal protection under the law.

Brian

Yep, once you erase the line it's tough to say where to re-draw it.  This was expected, although a bit quicker than I anticipated.

[T Cro ®]

... now that the door has been kicked ajar, how much wider can it be opened?

People should be very wary of demanding that the government allow this or ban that.... The screen door may indeed start to swing in the direction that equates to a loss of personal freedoms....

[Classvino]

Wow, not me- I did NOT see this one coming at all. But you are right, now that the door has been kicked ajar, how much wider can it be opened? And honestly, I cannot think of any constitutional reason why three (or more) people could not be married? The suit should use the same argument too- fourteenth amendment, ....equal protection under the law.

Brian

What happens when a hippie commune (do they exist anymore?) applies for a "Group" license?

Jamie

[VirginiaJim]

Fun?

[Mettler1]

  So if I divorce  3 women and 2 men do I have to pay alimony to all of them?? 

[VirginiaJim]

Yes.  Fair is fair..

[connie_rider]

Yep, once you erase the line it's tough to say where to re-draw it.  This was expected, although a bit quicker than I anticipated.

Oh, fun!
Next; are we going to legalize animal marriage?   

Ohh, "Fluffy",,,     

      (Yes, I know I'm a sick man)
 But my point is, de-draw the line or erase it?
          Where are we headed?

Ride safe, Ted

[stevewfl]

I don't want a 1st "wife", WTF are guys thinking wanting multiples 

[B.D.F.]

Two women, three men; five women, two men and so forth. Then you come along and ruin the whole thing by going too far Ted..... sheep! Why I don't think they even allow that in TX.... anymore. 

Animal marriage won't be a problem, fundamental part of the law has regard to the term 'soul', which only humans are viewed to have. Same thing would apply to necrophiliacs looking for a marriage license I suspect- one o' dem has no 'soul'.

But I do have to wonder about polygamy- if all parties wanted to get married, would not the same argument about gay marriage apply? Sure it seem ridiculous at first thought but then again, gay marriage would have been a ridiculous thought 40 or more years ago also.

How does that Chinese curse go....'May you live in interesting times.'.

Brian

Oh, fun!
Next; are we going to legalize animal marriage?   

Ohh, Sheeeeeeeep!     

      (Yes, I know I'm a sick man)
 But my point is, de-draw the line or erase it?
          Where are we headed?

Ride safe, Ted

[gPink]

People should be very wary of demanding that the government allow this or ban that.... The screen door may indeed start to swing in the direction that equates to a loss of personal freedoms....

That horse has already left the barn....

[Deziner]

I think PETA will get in the way of people getting married to animals. I suppose those couples will have to "live in sin" without "equal protection under the law "

[connie_rider]

Yea, I know, I crossed the line. Sorry about that, I got carried away....
(I went back and fixed it)..

But my point stands. 
Is it even possible to re-draw the line?
Or, has it been erased?

Ride safe, Ted

[Deziner]

I think it is more semantics than anything else. The term "Marriage" goes back thousands of years and it was a religious ceremony because churches were equipped to keep accurate records. And then one day, Lawyers got involved. That's when things got complicated. Then the Government got involved. And let's throw pride into the mix. No wonder it's a mess.

It seems to me that contracts and powers of attorney could solve these problems. The terms "husband" and "wife" carry with them a sense of "ownership" and "obligation" unseen in other types of partnerships. Wedding vows used to be pretty much carved in stone, not so much anymore. The vows only count until Judges and Lawyers say that they don't. What a mess.

[Stasch]

The terms "husband" and "wife" carry with them a sense of "ownership" and "obligation" unseen in other types of partnerships.

Its supposed to represent 'commitment'.

Someone has to take care of the resulting children, who will in turn take care of all of us later.

We're already under quite a financial burden for that now.  Necessary but heavy.

If a 'vow' can be undone, its not a vow.

Language and meaning of words is important.  Constant redefinitions muddy the water.

Yea, I know, I crossed the line. Sorry about that, I got carried away....
(I went back and fixed it)..

But my point stands. 
Is it even possible to re-draw the line?
Or, has it been erased?

Nope.  Pandora's box applies here my friend.

[Stasch]

Summary of some of the objections here:
http://www.zggtr.org/index.php?topic=19736


'that'll never happen here'

'you're really stretching there'

'you can't use the 'slippery slope' argument' . . . .


Here we are a day later. 

Its becoming reality, fast.  It all up for grabs and we ain't seen nothin' yet.  Buckle up.

[B.D.F.]

Well, I do think there will be some limitations: marriage will be limited to humans. Brothers and sisters (and any immediate family members (Easy Boys! Not THOSE members!) and all forms of incestuous marriage would also be rejected due to 'immediate and severe harm' as the litmus test (deformed offspring). Otherwise, I really cannot see why there would be a legal, constitutional standing to limiting marriage to two people. ??

This really is an interesting development. But all of this is making me feel..... boring somehow. I only have one spouse, and she is a female, and always was a female, and I am a male, and always was a male. I have only ever had one spouse. Hmmmm, maybe we are doing something wrong? <limited smiley here>

And I do not think you went too far Ted- Gene Wilder did it long ago....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B94lP-fZyLk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQk_52bnp9k

Brian

Yea, I know, I crossed the line. Sorry about that, I got carried away....
(I went back and fixed it)..

But my point stands. 
Is it even possible to re-draw the line?
Or, has it been erased?

Ride safe, Ted

[Rhino]

I read somewhere that some pedophiles are now looking for equal treatment using the same argument. That would certainly be a RED line for me. I really don't care who you marry but do not mess with one of my grandkids.