ADVERTISEMENT

Well that didn't take long

Bartdog

Seminole Insider
Gold Member
Mar 30, 2002
21,674
1,326
853
Jax
HELENA, Mont. — 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 told The Associated Press Wednesday. "You can't have this without polygamy."
 
He's right. No reason consenting adults shouldn't have as many spouses as they like.

When I started reading, I thought this was going to be about a man wanting to marry an animal or a shoe though. Color me disappointed it was just boring ol polygamy.

Tax deductions is the way to go.
 
He's right. No reason consenting adults shouldn't have as many spouses as they like.

When I started reading, I thought this was going to be about a man wanting to marry an animal or a shoe though. Color me disappointed it was just boring ol polygamy.
Give it time
 
Give it time
That would easily be thrown out as consent can not be given by the other. An argument that is always used but is over the top exaggeration. Polygamy should be legal though now with this. Otherwise discriminating against a bisexual that loves a man and woman equally.
 
That would easily be thrown out as consent can not be given by the other. An argument that is always used but is over the top exaggeration. Polygamy should be legal though now with this. Otherwise discriminating against a bisexual that loves a man and woman equally.

Yes, who will be the first bi-sexual legal polygamists? Also could get pretty complicated as the number of consenting legally married parties increases.
 
Polygamy should not be legal because of the insurance issues and potential complexity of tax rules, inheritance and so on.
 
We just want to be a pain like legalizing gays being married. My forever fiance and I are not married, we should be able to claim each other for taxes or health benefits after ten years. Gays can now get benefits. But just because we choose to live together forever without officially getting married, why not give us benefits too!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
We just want to be a pain like legalizing gays being married. My forever fiance and I are not married, we should be able to claim each other for taxes or health benefits after ten years. Gays can now get benefits. But just because we choose to live together forever without officially getting married, why not give us benefits too!

Sorry, brother. You are not part of any politically-attractive or politically-dangerous group. All of this nonsense unfolds SOLELY because politicians are pandering to voting blocks. Once the pandering reaches a sufficient intensity or duration, the underlying subject matter may then be deemed by 5 dorks on SCOTUS to be a "constitutional right." Folks in your situation generate no traction with politicians, and they can tell you to pound sand without appearing insensitive, non-inclusive, bigoted, etc. (and without risking non-retention).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: wdnole
Sorry, brother. You are not part of any politically-attractive or politically-dangerous group. All of this nonsense unfolds SOLELY because politicians are pandering to voting blocks. Once the pandering reaches a sufficient intensity or duration, the underlying subject matter may then be deemed by 5 dorks on SCOTUS to be a "constitutional right." Folks in your situation generate no traction with politicians, and they can tell you to pound sand without appearing insensitive, non-inclusive, bigoted, etc. (and without risking non-retention).
Or just tell you to get married and then divorced if things don't work out.

Many companies including mine offered benefits to people in your situation prior to this ruling anyway, so they could cover same sex couples that were not allowed to marry in yhe state they resided. In doing so it covered heterosexual couples that were not married. Now I am not sure what kind of proof they asked to be provided.
 
Why would any man want to deal with two wives?

And there is the heart of the issue right there. The man should have to undergo psychiatric evaluation.

Anyone remember the Jerry Springer episode where the farmer wanted to marry his cow? He brought her on the show with a dress. LOL
 
We just want to be a pain like legalizing gays being married. My forever fiance and I are not married, we should be able to claim each other for taxes or health benefits after ten years. Gays can now get benefits. But just because we choose to live together forever without officially getting married, why not give us benefits too!

I think you guys deserve the same rights as the marrieds. But you don't have to be a jerk to the rest of the people you mentioned who have no hand in denying you those rights
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: dmm5157 and fsuksig
And there is the heart of the issue right there. The man should have to undergo psychiatric evaluation.

Anyone remember the Jerry Springer episode where the farmer wanted to marry his cow? He brought her on the show with a dress. LOL


"Moo," means,"No." - A PSA from the University of Florida Campus Police Department.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TexSkills
Yes, who will be the first bi-sexual legal polygamists? Also could get pretty complicated as the number of consenting legally married parties increases.

I wonder when someone will do it for a tax benefit or to get a bunch of foreigners into the country simultaneously by marriage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bartdog
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT