Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nathan Collier and his two wives, Vicki and Christine, said Tuesday that they are simply looking for equality.
Nathan is legally married to Vicki, but also wants to legally wed Christine.
On Tuesday, Nathan and Christine traveled to the Yellowstone County Courthouse to see if they would be awarded the right to marry under the Marriage Equality Act.
The polyamorous movement is a national push to allow marriage between multiple partners.
As I recall, during the initial push for marriage equality, we were all assured by the MSM that it would all end with gay marriage.
This was in answer to questions raised by Conservatives at the time with regard to allowing other groups of interest being allowed to marry.
It appears, at least so far, and on it's suface, that the gay marriage lobby, and the MSM were wrong on this point.
The polyamorous movement is seemingly following in the same footsteps as the gay marriage movement did ---
And here's the hook -- Will marriage equality eventually be determined to include these other groups? Because after all, Aren't our rights inherent and inalienable, and don't they include the preservation of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
Hopefully. Although it's a bit trickier to apply to poly marriage due to having to overhaul the entire system.
My thoughts exactly
The government would certainly have their hands full for sure -- But hey -- Isn't it all about creating hugely ineffective bureaucratic departments any way? ... Rewriting the entire tax code to accommodate "our rights"? ... Rewriting the welfare rules, and even rewriting how certain social security benefits are disbursed?
I always find it idiotic when people talk about 'other groups' in regards to this issue. They'd ask a gay rights activist if they're out to also legalize polygamy and they tell them that they group they work with aren't fighting for that. They speak for themselves though. Polygamists will decide if they want to right for a certain right. I don't know what idiot is telling people that everyone who doesn't vote the same way they do are all on the same team, but it's not true. Not even slightly and no intelligent person can possibly think that's the case.
As for polygamy, doesn't matter to me. Gay marriage is a pronoun change, however, polygamy is a bit more complicated. You'd have to change the nature of the contract to include multiple people and somehow make it fair for those who only marry one person. It's not nearly as easy as it sounds.
But if they can figure it out, by all means, legalize it. Make no difference to me.
I always find it idiotic when people talk about 'other groups' in regards to this issue. They'd ask a gay rights activist if they're out to also legalize polygamy and they tell them that they group they work with aren't fighting for that. They speak for themselves though. Polygamists will decide if they want to right for a certain right. I don't know what idiot is telling people that everyone who doesn't vote the same way they do are all on the same team, but it's not true. Not even slightly and no intelligent person can possibly think that's the case.
As for polygamy, doesn't matter to me. Gay marriage is a pronoun change, however, polygamy is a bit more complicated. You'd have to change the nature of the contract to include multiple people and somehow make it fair for those who only marry one person. It's not nearly as easy as it sounds.
But if they can figure it out, by all means, legalize it. Make no difference to me.
So what you are saying is that "Marriage Equality" isn't nearly as easy as it sounds ... Right?
How can polygamy be any more or less complicated than any other form of marriage - Equal Rights are what they are ...
And here's another thought to consider -- What about all of the gay people, for instance, that might want to marry more than one person?
The "traditional marriage" crowd shouldn't have any problems with polygamy. From a practical standpoint I don't know how marriage works when you have multiple parties. Who splits property? Which of the marriage partners gets to make end of life or health care decisions? What about custody of children? What happens to the marriage license when one of the partners leaves? Does a divorce nullify the marriage of all of the partners?
I don't think marriage rights can pertain to more than a binary contract. Would all of the partners be married to each other? Otherwise you would have to allow for one person to hold multiple marriage licenses. What would then stop one of the married partners to then go and enter into marriage contracts with others in polygamous partnerships? You could have a spiderweb of marriage, which would be legally untenable.
What does this have to do with same sex marriage fighting for the right to get married?
I have no ability to stop others from suing for whatever they decide to sue for. I don't care if they go, fight, win. But this is a separate fight from the fight for same sex marriage.
SSM changes the restriction on the sex of the people getting married.
Interracial marriage changed the race restriction on the people getting married.
One did not mean the other would happen, and SSM being legal does not mean that any other restriction, like the number of people getting married, is changed.
If they can get the courts to change basically the entire structure of laws surrounding marriage good for them. But it is a far bigger task than changing the race, or sex restrictions, which didn't change the structure of the marriage contract or the benefit and protection structure.
So what you are saying is that "Marriage Equality" isn't nearly as easy as it sounds ... Right?
How can polygamy be any more or less complicated than any other form of marriage - Equal Rights are what they are ...
And here's another thought to consider -- What about all of the gay people, for instance, that might want to marry more than one person?
Can of worms anyone?
I'm not seeing a can of worms at all. I'm not even sure what you're arguing to be honest.
Marriage, in it's current state, is a contract between two people binding their assets together. Let's use death as an example. In a marriage, if one spouse dies, the other get their assets, like their home. In polygamy, it's not the simple. First, we need to ask ourselves who's married to whom. Are they all married to each other? Or is one person marrying several people? Let's assume it's the latter. The one who married multiple people dies; who does the house go to?
See the problem? I'm not against it and I don't think there's a real moral argument against it, but the logistics actually require a change in the system whereas gay marriage was really just a pronoun change.
us conservatives kept asking what was next if gay marriage was made the law of the land, one of the things we said would happen is that the polygamists would step forward and want their marriage rights. and we were poo pooed as being hysterical on the subject. well its here now, so what is after this? bestiality? nambla getting their way? how far is this going to go?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
