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 …..
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.