Marriage Laws And The Distinctions Without Difference ……


I haven’t wrote much about the SCOTUS decision to allow gay marriages.  I may in the future, but, I won’t make it a cornerstone.

But, I do have this to say ……..

So, there’s this …..

Polygamous Montana trio file for wedding license

HELENA, Mont. (AP) — 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.”

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. ……

You can read the rest at the link, but, I would point readers to these excerpts …..

“My second wife Christine, who I’m not legally married to, she’s put up with my crap for a lot of years. She deserves legitimacy,” he said. …..

… Anne Wilde, a co-founder of the polygamy advocacy organization Principle Voices located in Utah, said Collier’s application is the first she’s heard of in the nation, and that most polygamous families in Utah are not seeking the right to have multiple marriage licenses.

“Ninety percent or more of the fundamentalist Mormons don’t want it legalized, they want it decriminalized,” Wilde said.

A federal judge struck down parts of Utah’s anti-polygamy law two years ago, saying the law violated religious freedom by prohibiting cohabitation. Bigamy is still illegal.

The state has appealed the ruling, and the case is pending in the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

My marriage is defined as one man and one woman uniting to be a family unit of one.  I don’t give a damn about what the SCOTUS had to say.  In the case of my marriage, it is from a higher authority than the SCOTUS.  I was married in the eyes of God.  That the state government gave us a piece of paper didn’t make my marriage any more legitimate. 

From my understanding of the legal precedent set by the SCOTUS, I can see absolutely no reason or rationale to prohibit the polygamists.  If 2 men can marry, and if 2 women can marry, then why can’t 2 women and a man marry?  If one is okay, how can there be no justification for the other?

This, of course, renders the piece of paper the state gave me entirely meaningless.  It doesn’t add legitimacy, it creates illegitimacy.  Fortunately, I don’t view my marriage as state sanctioned.

It is a sad day to realize the nation I’ve live in and love has become a Godless nation.  This probably speaks more to the failings of the Christians in this nation than anything else. 

Today, my piece of paper means the same thing as someone engaged in bestiality. 

This brings me to the insanity of distinctions without difference.  Insanity is what we reap when we no longer base our lives and laws on the Word of God. 

So, a federal judge as ruled laws against cohabitation are unconstitutional …. precedence in this case has been clearly set for decades.  But, bigamy (that is holding a piece, or, pieces of paper pronouncing the cohabitation as ordained by the state) is still illegal.

My view is that the state never should have been in the marriage business to begin with.  Given the recent SCOTUS ruling and the recent federal judge’s ruling, it makes less sense for the state to be in the marriage business.  Anyone can marry anyone or anything.  And, anyone can divorce for any or no reason at all.  In the eyes of the state, I have no idea what meaning a “marriage license” has.  It doesn’t mean anything other than some people are hanging out together.  And, in the near future, it can also carry the meaning that someone and some animal are hanging out … and perhaps, some inanimate objects, as well. 

There is the issue of joint ownership of stuff and tax considerations.  I believe these can easily be overcome.  Other than that, I see no reason why the good Christians of this nation don’t move to decouple the state from the marriage business.  I believe that would a delicious move which would frustrate the lunatics of this world. 


h/t Hank

This entry was posted in News and politics. Bookmark the permalink.

28 Responses to Marriage Laws And The Distinctions Without Difference ……

  1. gator69 says:

    Amen. I have said for many years that if the state wants to give spousal rights and benefits for civil unions, I am on board. But marriage is a religious “rite”, and not a “right” of citizenship, the state should not being dictating to the religious who is allowed to participate in their sacred rituals, or how they should be performed.

    OTOH, does this mean I can marry my 12 ga and enjoy some tax breaks, as well as the right to carry her anywhere?

    • HankH says:

      So long as she doesn’t hold more than three shells I think you will be fine in most states except maybe California. 😉

      • gator69 says:

        That’s sizism! My baby is a full figured gal!

        • HankH says:

          I love all of my guns and I have to admit my Mossberg 12 ga. tactical shotgun is my favorite. Thank goodness my other guns don’t get jealous.

        • HankH says:

          … and my Mossie doesn’t have a plug. The magazine extends all of the way to the end of the barrel. She is definitely full figured.

        • gator69 says:

          No problem Hank, marry them all! And yes, I too know the value of a full figured gal when defending the domicile. 😉

  2. HankH says:

    Back in my university days, in one of our psych class lessens we were taught about the concept of “precipitating a crisis.” It’s a method sometimes used when someone is in a frame of mind when they are acting in a destructive way without regards to consequences. The idea is you orchestrate consequences that become a crisis for them so that they’ll start thinking about where they’re headed and stop the destructive behavior.

    The precipitation of the crisis has begun with these polygamists and will grow more precipitating as more people demand, “what about my right to happiness and cohabitation with [insert whatever here]?”

    • suyts says:

      Exactly. That’s why I think it’s time for us to take our toys and go home. Remove the argument. We know if we don’t this will have no end.

  3. rg says:

    Only thing I remember about my marriage 29 years ago and growing I bonded as one soul to my wife. The gov’t nor the preacher made that happen. Pass financial rules reg’s all you want. Ssm and others have rights to fulfill their dreams also. Don’t force me to bend over backwards to accommodate anyone else’s choices. Agree. Take my toys and go home.
    Off topic – are we a Christian nation or a nation of Christians?

    • suyts says:

      Today, I can’t say we are a Christian nation. And, I believe Christians are in a minority in this nation …. only, without minority status.

      I think it’s well past time we become less passive.

  4. leftinflagstaff says:

    I would actually consider bigamy/polygamy has the only other valid marriage, as it can produce children. Back to the biology that led to the tradition, that led to the definition. To alter its meaning now is like saying: ‘Ok, biology made a cat, but let’s now also call it a dog.’

    And yes, government shouldn’t have been involved in the first place. But if it must be, as Gator mentions, ‘civil unions’ makes almost too much sense. A different name for something [that] can only be different, until biology allows it reproduce.

    • gator69 says:

      Civil unions takes the government and blasphemy out of the church. Our founders intended for us to be free and intended that right of conscience, and religion, be respected. It is the only way to resolve this issue, and remain America as God and our founders intended.

      • leftinflagstaff says:

        And I believe in both the religious and scientific aspects of traditional marriage.

        But, I think the undeniable science points out the absurdity of redefining marriage even more. That our species requires the mating of opposites to replicate itself, and produce offspring so dependent for years, with the strengths of each of the sexes in a ‘marriage’ ( even before it had the name) greatly increasing survival, kinda set what the word now means.

      • leftinflagstaff says:


        Well, that’s a whole different post.

  5. leftinflagstaff says:

    Something THAT can only be different.

    • suyts says:

      I think “which” is more appropriate, but, those are your words …. I fixed it for you!

      • leftinflagstaff says:

        ‘Which’ is probably better.
        And I don’t mean to sound like I’m for bigamy, or any other non-traditional marriage. Those traditions became traditions for good reason too.

      • suyts says:

        I don’t oppose bigamy. It’s just that I don’t want their unions to be equated with mine. Mostly because, it’s not the same and is not equal, by definition.

        From the responses, I think most of us are in accord.

        • gator69 says:

          Bigamy is having one wife too many. Monogamy is the same.
          -Oscar Wilde

          I just worry there is not enough of me to go around. 😉

        • suyts says:

          Again!!! In the same accord! Don’t get me wrong, I deeply love my wife, but, I don’t think I could have another, even if she was an exact replica of my wife. There’s just not enough of me to go around to two of her!!!!

  6. Thank you for the post and I thank all for their comments.

  7. DirkH says:

    Given the photo, I can understand he couldn’t make his mind up.

  8. Scott says:

    I posted this on the Ramadan thread, where it was OT, but I posted it pretty late in the game and I don’t know if anyone other than Kim saw it. It’s an article from 2002 about the tactics and history of homosexual activists. It’s frighteningly accurate and the tactics it talks about are rampant today…describes tPhDS to a T. Certainly worth a read.,%20No.%202,%208%20Rondeau.pdf


  9. gator69 says:

    The Episcopal Church officially joined Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and the United Church of Christ this week in becoming the third mainline denomination to embrace gay marriage rites — a move that comes just days after the U.S. Supreme Court legalized same-sex unions.

    The new liturgy extending marriage to gays and lesbians was widely approved with a vote of 184-23 by the Episcopal Church USA’s House of Deputies during the denomination’s 78th General Convention; it will become available for use on November 29, Deseret News reported.

    In a separate vote of 173 to 27, the institution of marriage was changed from being comprised exclusively by a man and a woman to being between two persons more generally, with the line “both parties understand that Holy Matrimony is a physical and spiritual union of a man and a woman” being axed from the canon.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s