United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Polygamist who appeared on Sister Wives applies for a license to marry his second wife in wake of Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage
Source:
Daily Mail UK
URL Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art ... o-applies-wedding-license.html
Published: Jul 6, 2015
Author: AP and Daily Mail reporters
Post Date: 2015-07-06 15:48:02 by redleghunter
Keywords: None
Views: 4351
Comments: 59
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 said Wednesday. 'You can't have this without polygamy.' Collier and his second wife were met with confusion when they went to the Yellowstone County court house on Tuesday to fill out the application. 'So, are you legally married, you didn't get divorced?' one clerk asked, when he saw that Collier marked 'not applicable' on a question asking the dissolution date of his previous marriage. Collier responded that he was indeed still married and trying to marry for a second time. 'We'll have to deny that, let me go grab the other supervisor real quick so I can get confirmation but as far as I'm aware you can't be married to two people at the same time,' another clerk said. 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.' 'All we want is legal legitimacy. We aren't asking anybody for anything else. We just want to give our marriage and our family the legitimacy that it deserves,' Nathan Collier said. In a Facebook post on Wednesday, Nathan Collier said he had yet to hear an answer from the county attorney on their decision to grant or deny the marriage license. However, he says that he has told through 'other sources' that the attorney general's office is considering charging him for bigamy. 'I knew the risks I faced when I asked the State to grant legal legitimacy to my family, and I accepted those risks. 'I only ask that if their intent is to lock me in a cage (and we wonder why they keep asking for more money to expand the jails?!?!?) over my family dynamic, contact me privately and I will walk in your front door. 'I have no reason to run or hide. Please, don't kick my door in and shoot my dogs,' Collier wrote. Collier goes on to say that he is 'saddened' that his family faces such challenges in the 'land of the free'. 'You can believe that the entire nation is and will be watching your choices and actions. There is no honor in destroying functional families,' Collier added. 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. Poster Comment: Seems to look like a "happy, loving, healthy" family...I mean who are we to judge if they all really love each other....The wise Latina wants to know...
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-19) not displayed.
.
.
.
#20. To: Pericles, SOSO, misterwhite (#14)
I can understand why you wouldn't think so, but I do not see why the logic of the court does not extent to trios or quartets. I provide an extensive quote of the reasoning of the majority and a few snippet quotes at the end to illustrate the problem. Note the majority opinion at 11 relates, "The Court again applied this principle in Turner v. Safley, 482 U. S. 78, 95 (1987), which held the right to marry was abridged by regulations limiting the privilege of prison inmates to marry." Now picture cellmates/lifers exercising their fundamental right to marry. Good luck to the wardens. From the majority opinion Syllabus at 2: (synopsis of holding) (1) The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs. See, e.g., Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438, 453; Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 484–486. Courts must exercise reasoned judgment in identifying interests of the person so fundamental that the State must accord them its respect. History and tradition guide and discipline the inquiry but do not set its outer boundaries. When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution’s central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed. Applying these tenets, the Court has long held the right to marry is protected by the Constitution. From the majority opinion of Justice Kennedy at 10-15: (all emphasis as in original) Under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, no State shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The fundamental liberties protected by this Clause include most of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. See Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145, 147-149 (1968). In addition these liberties extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices that define personal identity and beliefs. See, e.g., Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438, 453 (1972); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 484-486 (1965). The identification and protection of fundamental rights is an enduring part of the judicial duty to interpret the Constitution. That responsibility, however, "has not been reduced to any formula." Poe v. Ullman, 367 U. S. 497, 542 (1961) (Harlan, J., dissenting). Rather, it requires courts to exercise reasoned judgment in identifying interests of the person so fundamental that the State must accord them its respect. See ibid. That process is guided by many of the same considerations relevant to analysis of other constitutional provisions that set forth broad principles rather than specific requirements. History and tradi- 11 tion guide and discipline this inquiry but do not set its outer boundaries. See Lawrence, supra, at 572. That method respects our history and learns from it without allowing the past alone to rule the present. The nature of injustice is that we may not always see it in our own times. The generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions, and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning. When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution's central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed. Applying these established tenets, the Court has long held the right to marry is protected by the Constitution. In Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, 12 (1967), which invalidated bans on interracial unions, a unanimous Court held marriage is "one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men." The Court reaffirmed that holding in Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U. S. 374, 384 (1978), which held the right to marry was burdened by a law prohibiting fathers who were behind on child support from marrying. The Court again applied this principle in Turner v. Safley, 482 U. S. 78, 95 (1987), which held the right to marry was abridged by regulations limiting the privilege of prison inmates to marry. Over time and in other contexts, the Court has reiterated that the right to marry is fundamental under the Due Process Clause. See, e.g., M. L. B. v. S. L. J. , 519 U. S. 102, 116 (1996); Cleveland Bd. of Ed. v. LaFleur, 414 U. S. 632, 639-640 (1974); Griswold, supra, at 486; Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U. S. 535, 541 (1942); Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390, 399 (1923). It cannot be denied that this Court's cases describing the right to marry presumed a relationship involving opposite-sex partners. The Court, like many institutions, 12 has made assumptions defined by the world and time of which it is a part. This was evident in Baker v. Nelson, 409 U. S. 810, a one-line summary decision issued in 1972, holding the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage did not present a substantial federal question. Still, there are other, more instructive precedents. This Court's cases have expressed constitutional principles of broader reach. In defining the right to marry these cases have identified essential attributes of that right based in history, tradition, and other constitutional liberties inherent in this intimate bond. See, e.g., Lawrence, 539 U. S., at 574; Turner, supra, at 95; Zablocki, supra, at 384; Loving, supra, at 12; Griswold, supra, at 486. And in assessing whether the force and rationale of its cases apply to same-sex couples, the Court must respect the basic reasons why the right to marry has been long protected. See, e.g., Eisenstadt, supra, at 453-454; Poe, supra, at 542-553 (Harlan, J., dissenting). This analysis compels the conclusion that same-sex couples may exercise the right to marry. The four principles and traditions to be discussed demonstrate that the reasons marriage is fundamental under the Constitution apply with equal force to same-sex couples. A first premise of the Court's relevant precedents is that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy. This abiding connection between marriage and liberty is why Loving invalidated interracial marriage bans under the Due Process Clause. See 388 U. S., at 12; see also Zablocki, supra, at 384 (observing Loving held "the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals"). Like choices concerning contraception, family relationships, procreation, and childrearing, all of which are protected by the Constitution, decisions concerning marriage are among the most intimate that an individual can make. See Lawrence, supra, at 574. Indeed, the Court has noted it would 13 be contradictory "to recognize a right of privacy with respect to other matters of family life and not with respect to the decision to enter the relationship that is the foundation of the family in our society." Zablocki, supra, at 386. Choices about marriage shape an individual's destiny. As the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has explained, because "it fulfils yearnings for security, safe haven, and connection that express our common humanity, civil marriage is an esteemed institution, and the decision whether and whom to marry is among life's momentous acts of self-definition." Goodridge, 440 Mass., at 322, 798 N. E. 2d, at 955. The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality. This is true for all persons, whatever their sexual orientation. See Windsor, 570 U. S., at_-_(slip op., at 22-23). There is dignity in the bond between two men or two women who seek to marry and in their autonomy to make such profound choices. Cf. Loving, supra, at 12 ("[T]he freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State"). A second principle in this Court's jurisprudence is that the right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals. This point was central to Griswold v. Connecticut, which held the Constitution protects the right of married couples to use contraception. 381 U. S., at 485. Suggesting that marriage is a right "older than the Bill of Rights," Griswold described marriage this way: "Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social 14 projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions. " Id., at 486. And in Turner, the Court again acknowledged the intimate association protected by this right, holding prisoners could not be denied the right to marry because their committed relationships satisfied the basic reasons why marriage is a fundamental right. See 482 U. S., at 95-96. The right to marry thus dignifies couples who "wish to define themselves by their commitment to each other." Windsor, supra, at_(slip op., at 14). Marriage responds to the universal fear that a lonely person might call out only to find no one there. It offers the hope of companionship and understanding and assurance that while both still live there will be someone to care for the other. As this Court held in Lawrence, same-sex couples have the same right as opposite-sex couples to enjoy intimate association. Lawrence invalidated laws that made same-sex intimacy a criminal act. And it acknowledged that "[w]hen sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring." 539 U. S., at 567. But while Lawrence confirmed a dimension of freedom that allows individuals to engage in intimate association without criminal liability, it does not follow that freedom stops there. Outlaw to outcast may be a step forward, but it does not achieve the full promise of liberty. A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education. See Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510 (1925); Meyer, 262 U. S., at 399. The Court has recognized these connections by describing the varied rights as a unified whole: "[T]he right to 'marry, establish a home and bring up children' is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause." Zablocki, 434 U. S., at 384 15 (quoting Meyer, supra, at 399). Under the laws of the several States, some of marriage's protections for children and families are material. But marriage also confers more profound benefits. By giving recognition and legal structure to their parents' relationship, marriage allows children "to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives." Windsor, supra, at_(slip op., at 23). Marriage also affords the permanency and stability important to children's best interests. See Brief for Scholars of the Constitutional Rights of Children as Amici Curiae 22-27. As all parties agree, many same-sex couples provide loving and nurturing homes to their children, whether biological or adopted. And hundreds of thousands of children are presently being raised by such couples. See Brief for Gary J. Gates as Amicus Curiae 4. Most States have allowed gays and lesbians to adopt, either as individuals or as couples, and many adopted and foster children have same-sex parents, see id., at 5. This provides powerful confirmation from the law itself that gays and lesbians can create loving, supportive families. Excluding same-sex couples from marriage thus conflicts with a central premise of the right to marry. Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, their children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated through no fault of their own to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue here thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples. See Windsor, supra, at_(slip op., at 23). At 13: "The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality. This is true for all persons, whatever their sexual orientation." Isn't this equally true for trios as couples? At 14: "As this Court held in Lawrence, same-sex couples have the same right as opposite-sex couples to enjoy intimate association. Lawrence invalidated laws that made same-sex intimacy a criminal act. And it acknowledged that "[w]hen sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring." Does a trio not have sexuality that finds overt expression in intimate conduct with one another? At 14: "A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education." Is this something exclusive to couples?
I think they would hold that the State has a paramount interest in not licensing close relatives.
It's here, it's there, it's somewhere. Those penumbras will get ya every time. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 128 (1973) The principal thrust of appellant's attack on the Texas statutes is that they improperly invade a right, said to be possessed by the pregnant woman, to choose to terminate her pregnancy. Appellant would discover this right in the concept of personal "liberty" embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause; or in personal, marital, familial, and sexual privacy said to be protected by the Bill of Rights or its penumbras, see Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972); id., at 460 (WHITE, J., concurring in result); or among those rights reserved to the people by the Ninth Amendment, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S., at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring).
You forget who you are talking to, he's just like Mikey. “Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
So two sisters can now marry? And two brothers as well? I think they would hold that the State has a paramount interest in not licensing close relatives. Why if, as in a gay marriage, no procreation is possible ? What would be the compelling interest to prevent two sisters or two brothers from marrying? потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
I question that photo. Most men have HUGE problems with just on wife. This guy can't perform anymore than any of us.
Why if, as in a gay marriage, no procreation is possible ? What would be the compelling interest to prevent two sisters or two brothers from marrying? SOSO, Nolu is citing legal opinions - agree or disagree. In response you should use legal theories to contrast or agree. Also, you should be sophisticated enough to understand that explaining a court decision is not the same as agreeing with it.
I'm surpised that you can still write after the ass wiping you received on this thread.
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
I believe that this will ultimately be looked upon as an exercise of due process of contractual law. Since the marriage license is generally viewed as a consensual contract between mutual parties to join together, the number if parties involved may cease to not matter. Yes, the quoted paragraph was talking about trade, but that is what all contracts are, a trade of something each party finds value in. Since marriage is a trade of value, the courts will continue to find that anything truly goes, as long as everything is "mutually consensual". As far as gay marriage being a fundamental right, I saw many times that being the question, but not the clear answer. Those justices dance around the term like dancers on hot coal, never once lingering long enough for the words to really burn them.
And will show just how bad some kids are screwed up because of their idiot parents and dumbazz teachers. Woohoo I can't wait till it starts... NOT!!! “Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
He forgot to mention humans and their pets. “Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
Generally, men want twice as much sex as women do. So I see no reason why he couldn't perform well enough to keep two women satisfied sexually.
Not at all. Marriage as a means of encouraging procreation is out. Couples who are known to be infertile or past the age of reproduction are given marriage licenses all the time. The state would have no compelling interest in letting them have the same thousand or so rights attached to marriage. Yet this was what swayed Anthony Kennedy. That and the supposed shame of children having two gay parents who couldn't marry. Kennedy mentions these elements prominently in his opinion. And polygamists do have a lot of children (who are being denied rights and dignity like the kids of gay marriages were). Unlike sodomy marriage, there is a long history of legal polygamy around the world. Kennedy was always a ringer for gay rights if you know his personal history. It isn't certain he will be willing to go as far for polygamy but it wouldn't surprise me. It would be far more consistent with his recent ruling.
Nonsense. Don't believe what Kennedy rights he is a liar. He was persuaded by something that he likes putting in his ass.
A concise explanation for Kennedy's jurisprudence. : )
Meanwhile, in Ubermensch Transhumanist/Postgenderist neo-reality frankenland... "Biological Babies For Same-Sex Parents a Possibility After Stem Cell Breakthrough"
Every culture I can think of that allows polygamy is also afflicted with tribal fracturization.
If, one day, society decides that killing an unborn baby is murder, what happens to that right, found "in the concept of personal 'liberty' embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause"? Poof! Disappears as though it never existed. Just like that, the "right" is gone. Kinda scary that a constitutionally protected right can be removed so easily. Or, the court declares that the woman's right to liberty trumps the child's right to life. Leading to the inevitable right of society's financial liberty over the right of the aged to medical care. Now, had the court declared that abortion was not a constitutionally protected right and that the matter should be left to each state to legalize or not, then there'd be no constitutional conflict.
That's the way it used to be. But now according to the U.S. Supreme Court, "F**k the state". People have a constitutionally protected right to marry. It's there, somewhere, in the U.S. Constitution that THIS court managed to find. Neither the state nor the citizens of the states have anything to say about it.
What is magical about the number 2? Nothing. It's purely a cultural artifact, just like the insistence on heterosexuality. It's not even a requirement of Biblical Judaism. Polygamy is a very ancient and widely practiced marital norm. The only reason it is banned is religious and cultural preference in the West. As such, the denial of polygamous marriage denies Muslims and Yemenite Jews in particular their right to the equal protection of their religion under the law, by specifically enforcing the Christian marriage norm and denying the Muslim and Yemenite Jewish right to practice their religion. It is unconstitutional to use the law to enforce one religious norm at the expense of other people's religious norms. It is the establishment of religion and the denial of equal protection to Islam and some forms of Judaism. Therefore, if we were a principled nation of laws, polygamy would have to be permitted to those religions that practice it. But of course we are a nation of men and ruled by the opinions of men of money and power, so trying to argue legal principles as though they really existed and as though we were actually governed by them is a fool's errand.
I disagree. A contract binds the parties who sign the contract and no one else. A marriage license is recognized by society.
There isn't. All of Israel, the "Chosen People" of Scripture, are descended from three plural marriages. Lamech took two wives, and Naamah was the daughter of one of those wives. She was the wife of Noah, and grandmother of all of mankind. Abraham had two wives early: Hagar (an Egyptian slave) and Sarai. His second child, through Sarah, was Isaac, who was the father of Jacob (who is also called "Israel"). Ishmael was his eldest son, through Hagar, and he became the father of the Arab nations. Jacob, "Israel", had two wives: Leah and Rachel, and all of the tribes of Israel are descended from the offspring of that polygamous union. Polygamy is still practiced by Yemenite Jews, and is nowhere forbidden by the Torah or the rest of the Old Testament. Nor is it actually prohibited by the New Testament either. Jesus forbade DIVORCE, he never mentioned plural marriage. (By Jesus' time, Israel had been under Greek or Roman rule for 350 years, and the Western pagan cultural norm was monogamy. Monogamy does not come into our cultura from Judaeo-Christianity but rather, precedes it. Greek, Roman and Germanic pagans were monogamous.} Polygamy is a cultural feature of "peoples of the river plains" (Nile Valley, Mesopotamia, Chinese Rivers, Indian rivers). Monogamy is a feature of the "peoples of the forest" (Western Europeans and North American Indians). This is why the Mormon innovation of plural marriage was so disturbing: the Scripture actually supports the Mormon position, but Western culture, all the way back to pre-Christian pagan times, really abhors polygamy. Monogamy is a feature of Western paganism that precedes Christianity, and the monogamous norm was established in the Mediterranean by pagan Greek and Roman conquest, not by either Chriatianity, Judaism OR Islam. Monogamy entered into Christianity not through the Jews or by anything Jesus or Paul or Peter or any of the Apostles said, but through the fact that most Christians were Greco Roman pagan converts, and the revulsion of "Eastern" polygamy among the Greco-Roman pagans was profound. Greeks and Romans and Germanics had one wife. They raped slaves and screwed prostitutes also, but they didn't marry them. So, should US Constitutional law enforce the norms of Greco-Roman paganism over the norms of Abraham, Isaac and Moses, or over the norms of Mohammed, or over the norms of Confucius or the East? Why? On what principled basis? "We don't like it?" Well, that seems to be the basis of all of our laws, in truth. What 5 Supremes likes is what the Constitution says. There is, however, no PRINCIPLED argument against polygamy in America, at least for those for whom polygamy is a religious norm. Note that Jewish Christians could lawfully practice polygamy under Scripture. Our monogamy laws come from Jupiter Capitolinus and the jealously of his wife Juno, not from Jesus Christ. Really.
It was a common American Indian custom as well. Christianity does teach marriage is a one man and woman coupling but does not in any way claim that polygamy is evil. How can it?
Perhaps it has little to do with the man and the women are happy sharing the same man? Who knows? Solomom was said to have over 500 wives and concubines. Figuring there are only 365 days in the year... But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead.--1 Corinthians 15:20-21
Depends on which Indians we're talking about. It wasn't common among the Three Fires People of the Great Lakes. May have been common among the river people. I don't know about them.
Jesus cited Genesis, and said that it is two becoming one flesh, for life. He was emphasizing the indissolubility of marriage. YHWH teaches that the man who deflowers the virgin has married her - and is responsible for her. And that's the way God made women to think too, when you drill down into it. They never forget their first. We've gone far off the reservation. For my part, I simply don't care what people do, as long as they don't do it in the street and disturb the horses. Back in the 80s I didn't care whether or not there were gays in the military, and I still don't. In my experience, the men who are most adamantly and vocally aggressive about homosexuality are repressing it in themselves. Of course I never say that, because I really don't like to fight with people. I just don't care, and I don't particularly like it that other people care. Likewise, I don't care about heterosexuals having sex outside of wedlock. I find adultery a whole lot more offensive than fornication, because of the violation of trust. And I observe that my value judgments on these things are quite a bit different from God's, so I don't propose to replace God's laws with my own views. Still, when it comes to politics, I don't care that gays can marry. I care about the murdering of babies, because THAT is important. I see Christians pretending that guys buggering is as or more important than babies being murdered, and I shake my head and think: we're really sunk - our ability to see what is important is THAT BAD, and therefore no real alliance is possible, and the babies are just going to keep on dying. And then I shrug my shoulders about that too, because - guess what - I'M not killing them, and I can't DO anything about it, so it's one more thing not to drive myself nuts over. The most important thing to ME is finding a healthy diet and keeping my family reasonably on track towards a good life. All of the rest of this political jibber-jabber is fun, but there is such chaos and disorder among people that finding any sort of permanent alliance is impossible. Even with SEXUAL ties, 50% of marriages fail, so how in the hell are mere POLITICAL allegiances going to hold?
Christianity is also about what the church teaches in the name of Jesus. Jesus turned over his church to his disciples and their policies guide the church. With that said, polygamy is not the bogie man that it is made out to be in this culture. It is seen as something foreign and primitive though by our Western standards.
True. Which is why Christianity has at times departed very far from God and perpetrated horrible evils, serving Satan in the name of Christ. It's unfortunate, but men want what they want, they have free will, and they do as they please. Christianity has been a bulwark against some of that, but it has been hijacked by Satan many times to perpetrate some of the most heinous evils in history. What happened in Rouen marketplace is emblematic of the problem, and it is an intractable one. The gates of Hell may not ultimately prevail against the Church, but Satan has certainly grabbed the controls from time to time and used the Church to do great evil that stands there as a warning, alongside all of the good, that one cannot COMPLETELY trust even the Church and clergy, one must STILL balance what the Church says against what God has said. And vice versa. Our Western Standards are pretty bad. The very heartstone of them is the notion of personal liberty over convention, and that has found its fullest and clearest expression in personal sexual liberty, since that specific liberty has been the one that has been most consistently and severely repressed by nearly all cultures in all times. The natural offshoot of sexual liberty is abortion, collapsed birth rates, collapsed marriage rates, soaring divorced rates and AIDS and mental health epidemics (including drug and alcohol addiction, most cases of which have sexual dysfunction and relationship pain as the core of their motivation). Of course, traditional societies were not happy either. Death by stoning is just as horrible as death by AIDS. Christian religion was largely abandoned by the West because of the Sexual Revolution (for religion can compromise itself with empire and capitalism and slavery, but cannot compromise itself with free sexuality) and is a spent force on account of it. Muslim religion thrives in an environment of sexual repression because it is only really repressive of women, and it approves of physical violence, which therefore relies upon the innate physical strength superiority of men to retain a structure in which women are held in sexual subjection but in which men are in many ways sexually freer than Christians. (The ability to marry four wives, the ability to divorce unilaterally by a few words while retaining all of the property, the ability to fornicate with unbelievers, even to rape them (of either sex) as a right of conquest, and the ability to engage in widely tolerated homoerotic behavior in private as a natural corrollary of the unavailability of women. Islamic culture was always viewed by the Christian West (and East) as degraded by sensuousness. This is why Islam has not died off in the Sexual Revolution in the same way that Christianity has. Hinduism, with its kama sutra and mystical (and relaxed) vision of sexuality could thrive in the post-Sexual Revolution West, but it doesn't because it's pointless. People who gave up Christian mysticism, which has the feel of truth within it, are not going to go jump into what looks and feels and sounds like a bunch of ancient pagan nonsense. Post-Christians mostly become secular scientific types. They don't reach for Eastern Philosophy. Judaism is too small to mention.
I believe your point is well taken. I just suppose they would wordsmith the issue in some manner. Where there is a will, there is a way, like a penalty is really a tax, and state means federal. Mainly it will just lack popular support. In the same manner, they will likely engage in their custom of seeing how many angels they can stand on the head of a pin while inventing their justification for denying plural marriage. I do not expect the court to approve plural marriage, but their logic in Obergefell would appear to apply. When the time comes, they will creatively carve out a plural marriage exception.
I agree and I believe that the federal court should have ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. For this reason, I find advocating a SCOTUS holding that all abortions are illegal is also unwarranted. Whatever side of the issue one is on, I believe it should have been determined as a political issue by the state legislatures. If a national consensus could be reached, it could be federalized with a constitutional amendment. This is a problem with the Living Constitution, one that morphs according to the prevailing political climate. I doubt that the Framers made the amendment process difficult with a view toward SCOTUS more easily amending the Constitution via creative interpretation.
Well, they do seem to be able to rule on the "principled" basis of "We like it," so "We don't like it" might also be rationalized. It needs a name like Manifest Dignity, or a Progressive Imperative, or something.
Sibling marriage is unlawful in most, if not all, jurisdictions. I know some exceptions were carved out when the couple, when marrying, did not know they were siblings, being separated very early. I doubt SCOTUS will sprinkle any of their magic legal pixie dust on the marriage of youthful siblings. They need not make logical sense, they just need to say no. Perhaps they can say it wouldn't be dignified.
There is nothing dignified about any sex act. Even so, I don't think the Court will go so far as you think. What about situations with half-brothers and/or half-sisters? What if two gay half-brothers want to marry? Or two half-sisters? What if two half-brothers got married and their two half-sisters got married and they were all willing to have children together? In a country of 350M, sooner or later some Kardashian attention whores will end up dragging cases like this before the Court, just to get their 15 minutes of fame.
In other words SCOTUS is now full of sh*t and is no longer an impartial, honest broker (if it ever was). Also lest there was doubt up to now the Consitution isn't worth the paper that it is written on and can be bent all out of shape with impunity by popular will.
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
As a Christian, you are all for this nouveaux publick sex stuff, correct?
No marriage as stated by Jesus Christ is one man with one woman.
But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead.--1 Corinthians 15:20-21
Well, whether stated by JC or Buddah or whomever, no man can handle more than one wife. Try it and see.
You think the court will approve sibling or plural marriage?? I have opined they will find a way not to do so. See my #48 and #51. I have no idea what you mean by how far I think the Court is willing to go, or on what. Marriage is not a sex act.
Well, the members are all political appointees. For justices who espouse the Living Constitution, the meaning of the language morphs into their opinion. Wartime has produced the worst, most outrageous opinions.
That's up for argument. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
I don't think the due process clause can apply to polygamists but what do you think Nolu? Again, taking into account on what the ruling actually said rather than what anti-gay marriage activists like myself wish it said.
(b) The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex. Pp. 10–27.
III
#21. To: SOSO, Pericles (#10)
So two sisters can now marry? And two brothers as well?
#22. To: misterwhite (#17)
Now, where the court found this "fundamental right" to begin with remains a mystery. The 9th amendment? The "pursuit of happiness"?
V
#23. To: Liberator (#8)
Sorry. It doesn't take a lawyer, legal analyst, constitution, OR SC Judge to tell us what common sense, nature, and 5,000 years of civilization has already told us.
#24. To: nolu chan, Pericles (#21)
#25. To: redleghunter (#0)
Seems to look like a "happy, loving, healthy" family...I mean who are we to judge if they all really love each other.
#26. To: SOSO, nolu chan (#24)
So two sisters can now marry? And two brothers as well? I think they would hold that the State has a paramount interest in not licensing close relatives.
#27. To: Pericles (#26)
#28. To: Pericles, nolo chan (#14)
I don't think the due process clause can apply to polygamists but what do you think Nolu?
Justice Rufus Peckham (1809–1873), writing for the Court in Allgeyer , favorably cited Bradley’s dissent in Slaughter-house. He also quoted Justice John Marshall Harlan’s majority opinion in Powell . Though Powell upheld restrictions on the sale of margarine, Harlan recognized a Fourteenth Amendment right to “enjoyment upon terms of equality with all others in similar circumstances of the privilege of pursuing [an ordinary calling or trade, and of acquiring, holding and selling property], as an essential part of [the] rights of liberty and property.” Neither of these previous opinions had suggested that the Constitution protects a general right to liberty of contract, but Peckham’s opinion in Allgeyer firmly established liberty of contract as a right protected by the F ourteenth Amendment’s due process clause.
(Emphasis mine) www.law.gmu.edu/assets/fi...eedom%20of%20Contract.pdf
#29. To: Liberator (#4)
TLC’s sick entry -- 'All that Jazz' -- centers around a 14-year-old named Jazz Jennings, who decided at a very young age that he was a girl. Jazz’s parents supported that change, letting him live as a girl from the age of five and giving him hormone treatment from the age of 11 to stop his adolescent development. (Wow, that’s great parenting!) The show focuses on “the typical teen experiences, including dating, sleepovers and high school.”
#30. To: nolu chan, redleghunter, Liberator (#13)
If “[t]here is dignity in the bond between two men or two women who seek to marry and in their autonomy to make such profound choices,”
#31. To: buckeroo (#25)
I question that photo. Most men have HUGE problems with just on wife. This guy can't perform anymore than any of us.
#32. To: nolu chan (#21)
I think they would hold that the State has a paramount interest in not licensing close relatives.
#33. To: TooConservative (#32)
Yet this was what swayed Anthony Kennedy.
#34. To: A K A Stone (#33)
He was persuaded by something that he likes putting in his ass.
#35. To: SOSO (#24)
Why if, as in a gay marriage, no procreation is possible ?
#36. To: TooConservative (#32)
And polygamists do have a lot of children
#37. To: nolu chan (#22)
#38. To: nolu chan (#21)
"I think they would hold that the State has a paramount interest in not licensing close relatives."
#39. To: Pericles (#3)
#40. To: TheFireBert (#28)
"I believe that this will ultimately be looked upon as an exercise of due process of contractual law."
#41. To: nolu chan (#13)
(Edited)
If “[t]here is dignity in the bond between two men or two women who seek to marry and in their autonomy to make such profound choices,” ante, at 13, why would there be any less dignity in the bond between three people who, in exercising their autonomy, seek to make the profound choice to marry?
#42. To: Vicomte13 (#39)
Polygamy is a very ancient and widely practiced marital norm. The only reason it is banned is religious and cultural preference in the West. As such, the denial of polygamous marriage denies Muslims and Yemenite Jews in particular their right to the equal protection of their religion under the law, by specifically enforcing the Christian marriage norm and denying the Muslim and Yemenite Jewish right to practice their religion.
#43. To: buckeroo (#25)
Most men have HUGE problems with just on wife. This guy can't perform anymore than any of us.
#44. To: Pericles (#42)
It was a common American Indian custom as well.
#45. To: Pericles (#42)
Christianity does teach marriage is a one man and woman coupling
#46. To: Vicomte13 (#45)
Christianity does teach marriage is a one man and woman coupling Jesus cited Genesis, and said that it is two becoming one flesh, for life. He was emphasizing the indissolubility of marriage.
#47. To: Pericles (#46)
Christianity is also about what the church teaches in the name of Jesus.
#48. To: SOSO (#24)
Why if, as in a gay marriage, no procreation is possible ? What would be the compelling interest to prevent two sisters or two brothers from marrying?
#49. To: misterwhite (#37)
Now, had the court declared that abortion was not a constitutionally protected right and that the matter should be left to each state to legalize or not, then there'd be no constitutional conflict.
#50. To: Vicomte13 (#41)
So, should US Constitutional law enforce the norms of Greco-Roman paganism over the norms of Abraham, Isaac and Moses, or over the norms of Mohammed, or over the norms of Confucius or the East? Why? On what principled basis? "We don't like it?"
#51. To: TooConservative (#32)
Couples who are known to be infertile or past the age of reproduction are given marriage licenses all the time.
#52. To: nolu chan (#51)
(Edited)
I doubt SCOTUS will sprinkle any of their magic legal pixie dust on the marriage of youthful siblings. They need not make logical sense, they just need to say no. Perhaps they can say it wouldn't be dignified.
#53. To: nolu chan (#48)
#54. To: redleghunter (#43)
Solomom was said to have over 500 wives and concubines.
#55. To: buckeroo (#54)
#56. To: redleghunter (#55)
#57. To: TooConservative (#52)
Even so, I don't think the Court will go so far as you think.
#58. To: SOSO (#53)
In other words SCOTUS is now full of sh*t and is no longer an impartial, honest broker (if it ever was).
#59. To: nolu chan (#58)
Wartime has produced the worst, most outrageous opinions.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]