Same-Sex Marriage Decision Prompts Polygamist to Apply For Marriage License

Posted by | July 3, 2015 07:00 | Filed under: Politics


A Montana man has applied for a marriage license to wed a second wife following last week’s Supreme Court decision to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide. Nathan Collier says Chief Justice John Roberts’ dissent, in which he argued polygamy has deeper historical roots and the decision “would apply with equal force to the claim of fundamental right…

(more…)

By: Alan

Alan Colmes is the publisher of Liberaland.

216 responses to Same-Sex Marriage Decision Prompts Polygamist to Apply For Marriage License

  1. Anomaly 100 July 3rd, 2015 at 07:53

    Stop it. It’s not the same thing.

    • TuMadre, Ph.D July 3rd, 2015 at 08:13

      Give it 15 years.

      • Hirightnow July 3rd, 2015 at 08:35

        There’s a pedophilia joke lurking in there that I aint gonna touch…

      • The Original Just Me July 3rd, 2015 at 08:39

        maybe

    • Suzanne McFly July 3rd, 2015 at 11:19

      I think they are doing it to show why their opposition to gay marriage is justified in their own little minds. I am sure there are licenses for men to marry their horse, goat, dog, car……just in spite.

    • The Original Just Me July 3rd, 2015 at 14:12

      Well, then roll over. Sorry, I just couldn’t pass that one up.

  2. Chris July 3rd, 2015 at 07:57

    Ah yes. TLC. The “network” also responsible for the Duggars and Honey Boo Boo, two other pervert shows embraced by the Republican electorate.

    Thanks for promoting another wackadoodle bunch to burn our retinas.

    • CandideThirtythree July 5th, 2015 at 09:53

      I am so glad that I don’t watch TV hahaha, just the things I see about it on the internet is disturbing enough.

  3. NW10 July 3rd, 2015 at 08:08

    Support for polygamy is rising. But it’s not the new gay marriage. – The Washington Post

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/07/02/support-for-polygamy-is-rising-but-its-not-the-new-gay-marriage/

    • Hirightnow July 3rd, 2015 at 08:29

      What about …gay polygamy? (dunh dunh duuuuuuuuuuuh!)
      No,seriously.

  4. The Original Just Me July 3rd, 2015 at 08:15

    I do believe this Stupid is just playing the system. He already can Boink as many women as will fall for his line of B S so why try to stir up trouble? Does anybody else think he has had his 15 Seconds of fame ?

    • TuMadre, Ph.D July 3rd, 2015 at 08:20

      Hey, I’m not really interested in polygamy myself, but so long as it is between consenting adults, and all parties give that consent uncoerced, who are we to judge?

      I’m thinking they will use the same argument that was used for gay marriage. “I just want all the people I love to be able to receive my benefits. My love is the exact same as yours, it just involves a third party.”

      I imagine adult incest will also get a movement, as they are also adults who are giving uncoerced consent.

      This is why I’ve always been against State Marriage. It’s next to impossible to do with any limitation beyond, “Are they adults and do they give uncoerced consent?”

      And that is exactly why the state should keep out of love all together, rather than keep slapping expansions onto an already imperfect system. Let individual religions sort it out, and have the insurance companies make forms that are suitible to the situation, like “Individual,” “Individual + One,” “Individual + One + Children,” etc.

      • NW10 July 3rd, 2015 at 08:27

        Difference is, there are multiple laws that would need to be overturned, which includes rewriting tax codes and US codes, as opposed to making marriage gender neutral for same sex couples.

        • TuMadre, Ph.D July 3rd, 2015 at 08:30

          While I don’t argue with you at all on that, it doesn’t change the fact that there will be people who will never stop pitching that fit, saying the law is discriminatory against people who want multiple spouses.

          • NW10 July 3rd, 2015 at 08:32

            And they will lose, as they have in Canada and other countries. It’s much much more complex to make polygamy legal, not to mention that it’s not as common a practice to where it should be legal. It’s even less acceptable to be a polygamist in Utah than it is to come out of the closet in Utah, and Utah is polygamist central.

            • TuMadre, Ph.D July 3rd, 2015 at 08:36

              I wouldn’t count them out yet. I’ve seen photos from the 50’s where gays were fighting for the right to get married.

              • Mike July 3rd, 2015 at 18:53

                Polygamy is settled law…
                See Reynolds v US
                It found that religion is no excuse for breaking the law, and the government, by outlawing polygamy, is not infringing upon anyone’s 1st amendment rights. It specifically Stated the Constitution is supreme to the words of any god.
                Just because you believe your god is telling you to go out and spread your seed to every female you can, does not mean the government has to facilitate your god’s wishes.

                Without the religious angle there really is no case. The government is under no obligation to allow polygamy, polygyny, or polyandry.

                This case will never be a case. I’d bet the farm it will be difficult if not impossible, to get any court in the country to hear it, they’re bound by stare decisis, and nothing about this case is different than Reynolds, in fact Reynolds had a better case.

                • TuMadre, Ph.D July 4th, 2015 at 00:03

                  Laws can easily be overturned. That’s how liquor stores exist today, and pot can be smoked in certain states.

                  • Mike July 4th, 2015 at 00:55

                    Sorry, but you’ve confused a law with reversal of a a SCOTUS decision…in our 200+ years as a country that has happened less than 80 times.

                    Good Luck with that

                    Liquor stores exist because of the 21st amendment, not because of a SCOTUS reversal…and it is technically illegal to use, possess, buy, sell, or transfer pot in all 50 states and US territories. Federal law trumps all state law. No law in either Colorado, Oregon, Washington, Alaska, or the District of Columbia, is superior to federal law, There are still more than 400 state pot statutes still on the books in the jurisdictions I listed.

                    An interesting story in USA Today back in March…a group of Sheriff’s in Colorado are suing the state because all law enforcement officers swore an oath to uphold and protect the US Constitution and enforce all state law. Because the laws still exist, the sheriff’s claim they are violating their oath. Relief can only be granted in 1 of 2 ways…either The feds reschedule pot or 4 states and the Dis of Col are going back to illegal pot.
                    I give the case 2 years to make it’s way to the SCOTUS

                    • TuMadre, Ph.D July 4th, 2015 at 01:01

                      So it’s happened.

                      Also, I don’t need luck. I could care less whether polygamy gets legalized. I most certainly wouldn’t use it.

            • Jack E Raynbeau July 3rd, 2015 at 18:41

              In Utah we look the other way when it comes to the child rapist polygamists down south.

              Also, the worst treatment for gays here is usually from their family.

              There are a few butthurt Mormons who make for fun reading on the Salt Lake Tribune comments.

      • The Original Just Me July 3rd, 2015 at 08:38

        You do make some points. But trying to expand on the same sex marriage approval that has ben reached is just not sensible. There has been a large expansion of personal freedom won here and it could crumble if used for other causes. Bigamy, which is the correct term for what this man is proposing. and Polygamy are concepts that have quite different goals and intensions than Same sex marriage. I accept same sex marriage but I also believe that Polygamy, Beastility, incest, or any other contrived diversion should not coat tail in on this.

        • TuMadre, Ph.D July 3rd, 2015 at 08:48

          Animal marriage will never happen, as the animal is unable to give adult consent.

          All the other ones are fair game, and will likely succeed in time, unless you leave the state out of love.

          I agree it will crumble. I also agree that it needs to, frankly. State marriage is a botched concept that penalizes the people unable or uninterested in finding love with higher taxes. It isn’t fair, and this is coming from a happily married man.

          I don’t know, I could be wrong, and the words “slippery slope fallacy,” come into play a lot when I spoke out against state marriage in any shape or form. But I’ve seen pedophile rights movements begin (before the Supreme Court ruled), as well as “gay incest” rights begin, as there would be no risk of interbreeding. Examples of both are only a google search away.

          Personally, I don’t see it (“it,” being qualified as the fight for expanding marital rights) stopping unless people stand up and say that marriage should be left in the hands of churches, and that marriage will not give you any increased state benefits. Then, the insurers will cover what they want to cover (as it is their businesses), and will limit benefit abuse.

          • The Original Just Me July 3rd, 2015 at 12:24

            Okay, I’m going to have a little fun here to start with. Animal marriage will never happen because of age laws. By the time an animal is of legal age to marry, they would be pretty Old Dogs and not that attractive.
            That was fun. The chipping away problem is why I am against states controlling marriage. In states that are controlled by the Right Wing, such as Idaho, you would have VERY restrictive marriage laws and they would probably do away with civil marriages all together and go Church marriage only. In strong liberal states the opposite might happen. We need uniformity across the nation as we are a nomad people. Therefore, recognition of marriage rights across state borders needs to be uniform. Taxing couples as one unit was started by the income tax law and really that is what set the basis for marriage in the U.S. as we know it today, with government registration of marriage, AKA, the wedding license.
            Marriage is made up of three things:
            First, Love between two human beings. The animals being unable to communicate gets left out here. This is usually an undying and total commitment to each other through all things.
            Second, is a ceremony preformed to express this love and swearing your mutual devotion before Your choice of God and all people and governments.
            Third, is the legal aspect of being recognized as one unit in all legal and civil matters. As assuming responsibility for the others actions and debts.
            The heredity aspects do need to be instilled in the restrictions but even that will never stop lncest. Beastility will also never be completely stopped. We need to control human deviot behavior as much as possible and condoning it through marriage just can not help control it. Homosexuality, is indescribable as to whether it is deviot or natural to some. It can not be stopped so tolerable acceptance is needed to prevent violent reactions by some folks. We humans are a mixed up mess and need to just sit down, relax, and have a cold one once in a while. Have a Happy one.

            • TuMadre, Ph.D July 3rd, 2015 at 12:33

              Fair enough on the animal laws, unless you count stuff like tortoises, that live longer than humans. Still can’t give consent.

              As for “States controlling marriages,” I never implied that I wanted that AT ALL! I don’t! I just think ALL government should stay out of it. Alimony should have been retired decades ago, as women can now work an actual career, and you shouldn’t be taxed higher just because you can’t find love, are uninterested in finding love, or don’t want to risk alimony. You can have a ceremony at whatever church will allow your marriage, but it won’t mean anything to the state. In order to meet demand of services, insurance companies will quickly adapt to this, and Wills and Power of Attorney are what’s for death and emergency (and both are very cheap to have done). They even have types of agreements that PoA’s can only become PoA’s in the event that you are unable to give any sort of consent.

              I don’t happen to disagree with any of your assertions past that, but people still aren’t going to give it up. Ever.

              You have a good one, too!

              • The Original Just Me July 3rd, 2015 at 13:52

                We do agree on a lot of points here. I did want to imply disagreement with you on Sate control. I guess I was just expanding on my thoughts. As we have it now, People do have a choice between Religious marriages or straight Civil marriages now. Unfortunately, we have created our own government and it has become very including in our lives. The alimony thing was a hold over from the Stay at Home Mother days, but is pretty much well antiqued these days and is slowly slipping away. With people living longer and marriages lasting into older age, we are on 51 years now, POA and such are becoming very important. In Idaho, Spousal POA is still on the books but no one wants to recognize it. We have reciprocal, Wills, POA, Medical POA, and Living Wills. I am glad we did this because it is now becoming vital in our lives.
                I do hold my glass up in honor to your civility and your knowledge. I enjoy our discussions. Oh, I’m still thinking that Tortoises thing. It is bring up some different images.

                • TuMadre, Ph.D July 3rd, 2015 at 13:55

                  We do tend to have our fun together. I enjoy discussing things like this with well-reasoned people, rather than the usual run-of-the-mills that just insult you if your views don’t align perfectly with theirs. I’m fine with debate, but insulting leaves you nowhere to go.

                  • The Original Just Me July 3rd, 2015 at 21:07

                    I think that is why I am an Independent.

                    • TuMadre, Ph.D July 4th, 2015 at 00:13

                      I’m libertarian, so I’m not thrilled with either of the big parties.

                      Don’t let that fool you though, according to a lot of people on this site, I’m just a Republican that wants to smoke pot, rather than someone who believes that you are an adult and have the ability to be responsible for yourself.

                    • The Original Just Me July 4th, 2015 at 00:31

                      When I say I am a Fierce Independent, People call me a Democrat Liberal. I just like picking and choosing my own way. There are Good people out there but they are getting harder to find.

                    • TuMadre, Ph.D July 4th, 2015 at 00:37

                      I love it when people think that they know you better than you know yourself, despite the fact that they only interact with you over a website. Just a couple hours ago, I got called a racist from Tracey Marie for the hundredth time, as if her saying it enough will make it true. Anyone is welcome to search through my posting history, and see if I’ve made any racist comments EVER.

                      Won’t stop people from calling me that. It’s like they use minorities as a token or a prop to defend themselves from criticism.

                    • The Original Just Me July 4th, 2015 at 00:54

                      My life has turned out to have a shit load of baggage. When people start telling me what I that I should do this or I should be doing that, I just tell them, what I really need is two more people telling me how to run my life that know absolutely nothing about my life. That usually shuts them up.

      • tracey marie July 3rd, 2015 at 13:23

        Then give up all the benefits you enjoy being married, put your money where your mouth is.

        • TuMadre, Ph.D July 3rd, 2015 at 13:30

          To me, that’s like complaining that Ayn Rand took out Social Security. If there is a way to manipulate the system to treat you favorably, you are a fool not to go for it.

          If I could work my job while pulling 6 months of unemployment benefits for every 12 months worked, and constantly draw food stamps, welfare, and literally anything else I could wrap my mitts around, you can bet I would. I don’t believe in them, which is why I wish more people would abuse them and force them to come crashing down. After all, its not like my job would go anywhere.

          • tracey marie July 3rd, 2015 at 13:33

            so you are all talk and no conviction when it comes to what you “say” you believe.

            • TuMadre, Ph.D July 3rd, 2015 at 13:35

              I’m not a martyr, if that’s what your asking. Wife and I have been thinking about faking depression or some mild form of autism to get her disability and medicaid, so I could take her off my work insurance, and get insured as a single for free.

              • tracey marie July 3rd, 2015 at 13:43

                so you are a theif and a liar, got it.

                • TuMadre, Ph.D July 3rd, 2015 at 13:51

                  You might have a point with “liar,” but what government program wasn’t built on one lie or another? I’m hardly worse than they are.

                  How am I a thief if I’m paying into it? Am I going to get it all back if I don’t use it? Actually, since I don’t have the option to opt out of the program, I would go so far to say that the government is the thief, as they are taking money I earned, by giving up my time, at gunpoint. If I stole your TV, and you knew I stole it, and stole it back, would that make you a thief?

                  Anyways, if you don’t like it, you can always vote to end the forced extraction of income, and give the money that would have been extracted to people you know need it.

                  • DieselJohnson July 3rd, 2015 at 14:48

                    You sound like a child, not a Ph.D.

                    • TuMadre, Ph.D July 3rd, 2015 at 14:54

                      That’s nice. Meaningless, but nice.

                    • DieselJohnson July 3rd, 2015 at 15:28

                      It’s feedback. Use it however you choose. I wasn’t sure if you realized how you sound to others.

                    • TuMadre, Ph.D July 3rd, 2015 at 15:33

                      It was intentionally typed in a very specific way. It is the same way everybody sounds to me when they think they have a right to my paycheck, when it isn’t being used for universal goods.

                      I’d also like to point out that I’ve never heard of a single child speak about taxes at all, let alone in that way.

                    • Budda July 3rd, 2015 at 16:13

                      “Right to my paycheck”…”government taking my money”..you sound like an immature, greedy child. Don’t like paying taxes than don’t use any of the bennefits they get you.

                    • TuMadre, Ph.D July 3rd, 2015 at 23:57

                      That’s not how that works, bud. For example, if you don’t like your local Chinese restaurant, you don’t go, pay the money, and then not eat the food. You just vote with your wallet, and abstain from their business. You don’t pay the money, and you don’t get the food.

                      What you are proposing is that I am forced to pay the money, and then NOT eat the food because I don’t like that I’m being forced to pay money. That’s silly.

                    • Budda July 4th, 2015 at 20:51

                      You’re talking taxes not chow mein Skippy.

                    • TuMadre, Ph.D July 4th, 2015 at 20:57

                      Yes. See, when its chow, you are voting with your wallet. When its taxes, you have no such option, unless I choose to utilize those options, at which point, I make my money back.

                      I’d love to opt out of these things, and, in exchange, to never be able to use them. That isn’t an option for me. My only recourse is to continue to pay for these services, and then to use them.

                    • Budda July 4th, 2015 at 22:28

                      I take it you don’t like to pay you taxes.

                    • TuMadre, Ph.D July 4th, 2015 at 22:52

                      I have no problem paying taxes for the universal goods. Military Self-Defense Force, roads (pay for them when you tag your car; if you don’t have/use a car, you don’t need to pay the taxes), electricity, water, sewer, emergency health care, preventative health care, and internet are all universal goods, and the public should own these things. Doesn’t mean everyone should pay a flat rate (things like electricity and water should be charged for how much you use; that way for-profit businesses don’t force the average citizen to subsidize the business’s energy usage).

                      But forcing the responsible to pay for the irresponsible/stupid/unlucky? I’m not for that, no.

                    • Budda July 5th, 2015 at 09:37

                      Yeah, I don’t like paying for the irresponsible and stupid either…like bailing out the big banks, supporting insurance companies, tax breaks for Exxon and big pharma. The unlucky, like tornado, hurricane, flood and wild fires, well I don’t have a problem with helping them…it’s called compassion.

                    • TuMadre, Ph.D July 5th, 2015 at 18:52

                      I don’t like bailing out banks, supporting insurance companies, or tax breaks for anyone.

                      As for you not having a problem helping people, that’s great! Me neither! I donate food to a pantry every two weeks, and I also volunteer at a kitchen. As for your “compassion,” argument, regarding taxes… pic related.

                    • Budda July 5th, 2015 at 21:34

                      What is the matter with your thought process? Nobody is “helping” people at gun point.

                    • whatthe46 July 5th, 2015 at 21:51

                      he’s lost it. poor thing.

                    • TuMadre, Ph.D July 5th, 2015 at 22:09

                      If you don’t pay taxes, and continue living your life as nothing is wrong, guns will be brought in. If you don’t pay your taxes, you get audited. If you ignore the audit, you get summoned to court. If you don’t go to court, men with guns show up at your house to take away your freedom.

                    • Budda July 6th, 2015 at 10:04

                      You are describing a violent tax cheat. You have long ago drifted into a fantasy land of your own making.

                      You are incorridgable.

                    • TuMadre, Ph.D July 6th, 2015 at 19:06

                      How does not paying taxes turn you violent?

                    • Budda July 6th, 2015 at 19:47

                      Damn, you are dense. You did.

                    • TuMadre, Ph.D July 6th, 2015 at 19:50

                      I pay taxes, though. I’m arguing that if you peacefully refuse to pay taxes, and continue living your life as though everything was alright, men with guns would inevitably arrive. You have yet to disprove that.

                    • Budda July 6th, 2015 at 21:07

                      That is an assumption. The burden of proof is yours!

                    • TuMadre, Ph.D July 6th, 2015 at 21:18

                      It’s not an assumption. It is what happens if you don’t pay taxes and keep living your life as though you had (ignoring audits and court summons).

                    • Budda July 7th, 2015 at 08:22

                      Prove it.
                      By the way, does the Ph.d stand for pretty heavy drinker?

                    • TuMadre, Ph.D July 7th, 2015 at 10:47

                      If you don’t pay your taxes, you get audited. If you don’t show up for the audit, they summon you to court. If you don’t show up to court, they put a warrant out for your arrest. Then officers of the law (who have guns) come and arrest you.

                      Proven.

                    • tracey marie July 5th, 2015 at 09:58

                      so you hate civilization because it also benefits those you hate.

                    • TuMadre, Ph.D July 5th, 2015 at 18:48

                      You are putting words in my mouth.

                    • tracey marie July 5th, 2015 at 18:59

                      when you were married, did you tell the baker your wife is bisexual?

                    • TuMadre, Ph.D July 5th, 2015 at 19:02

                      When I got married, it cost us 20 dollars, start to finish, at a court house. No reception, unless you call “having the witnesses over to drink beer and play video games,” a reception.

                      So no, the cake was not an issue. Because we didn’t have one.

                    • tracey marie July 3rd, 2015 at 19:27

                      Nobody wants your meager SS or your not disabled wifes disability, you are stealing from the country.

                    • TuMadre, Ph.D July 4th, 2015 at 00:07

                      I’m not stealing. I’m being stolen from, as there is no option to opt out. And I wouldn’t sneeze at her disability. She would make about $943 per month. Nothing like making another 11,300 bucks per year.

                    • tracey marie July 4th, 2015 at 13:39

                      Theif liar and racist

                    • TuMadre, Ph.D July 4th, 2015 at 20:59

                      You have to prove two of those things. As a matter of fact, you call me racist all the time, yet are never able to prove it when challenged.

                      If I didn’t know better, I would say that you are using people of color as nothing more than a prop to defend yourself from criticism. “If you are gonna criticize me, then I’m going to call you a racist!”

                      I would honestly be ignoring you at this point if you didn’t put up comedic gold every now and again.

                    • TuMadre, Ph.D July 5th, 2015 at 03:41

                      As a final thought, I am going to explain why your mind is working the way that it does, using some excepts from a study (which I will link to). What you, and people like you, are suffering from, is called pathological altruism.

                      “Our eyes can be powerless against visual illusions, with our underlying neural machinery leading us to predictably erroneous conclusions about the size or shape of an object. In a similar fashion, our empathic feelings for others, coupled with a desire to be liked, parochial feelings for our in-group, emotional contagion, motivated reasoning, selective exposure, confirmation bias, discounting, allegiance bias, and even an egocentric belief that we know what is best for others, can lead us into a power and often irrational illusions of helping.”

                      “In other words, people’s own good intentions, coupled with a variety of cognitive biases, can sometimes blind them to the deleterious consequences of their actions. This dynamic of pathological altruism involves subjectively pro-social acts that are objectively anti-social.”

                      “Pathological altruism can be conceived in behavior in which attempts to promote the welfare of another, or others, results in harm that an external observer would conclude was reasonably foreseeable.”

                      Source: http://www.pnas.org/content/110/Supplement_2/10408.full.pdf

                      I encourage a full read, as it is very informative.

                    • CandideThirtythree July 5th, 2015 at 09:46

                      Get em tracy!

                    • tracey marie July 5th, 2015 at 09:55

                      That one is always contradicting itself, I do believe it is a young libertarian angry because it may not discriminate at will. Morning !

                    • CandideThirtythree July 5th, 2015 at 09:56

                      :-) Good morning!

                    • CandideThirtythree July 5th, 2015 at 09:45

                      He is a child, he already told us a lot about himself like his age and how he got married really young and has been homeless and that now he works shift work where he spends all of his time on the computer annoying liberals. Getting paid to do a job but trolling on the internet instead…you can almost picture him can’t you?

      • Larry Schmitt July 3rd, 2015 at 13:26

        Then what do people who don’t have a religion do? Marriage is not a religious issue at all, it’s a social and economic issue. Churches merely convinced their sheep that they have to get it “sanctified.”

        • TuMadre, Ph.D July 3rd, 2015 at 13:31

          They can do whatever they want, including some ceremony with a Universal Church guy who got his licence for 20 bucks.

          As for the economic issue, the economics should be taken out of marriage. I’ve explained why elsewhere in this thread.

          • Larry Schmitt July 3rd, 2015 at 13:38

            But those people now can just go to a JP. Why should they have to go to even a phony reverend? And when I said economic, I just meant that two can live more cheaply than one, I wasn’t including the tax angle. And it is social, because even today it’s still more socially acceptable for two people who are living together to be married.

            • TuMadre, Ph.D July 3rd, 2015 at 13:42

              Do you need to be married to live together, even if you are non-religious? Do you need to declare your love in front of some government official to make your love, “true?” If so, I think there might be a problem with your love.

              And that’s wonderful that it’s socially acceptable, It used to be socially acceptable for people of note to have a bedding ceremony, where people watched them consummate their marriage for the first time. Times change. If you want the tradition, that’s fine. You don’t need to involve the government in the tradition.

              Coming from someone that was born into a Catholic household, and, at age 24, became Atheist.

              • Dwendt44 July 3rd, 2015 at 17:42

                Many states still have ‘common law’ marriages, which aren’t marriages at all. Living together and ‘acting’ as though married is what’s the qualifying requirement. Usually includes mixing financial interests and so forth.

                • TuMadre, Ph.D July 4th, 2015 at 00:00

                  Yes. These “common law” marriages put people at risk of alimony without having them sign anything, or even get a reduction in their taxes. They are doubly bad.

  5. Warman1138 July 3rd, 2015 at 08:29

    Harems, that’s what polygamy’s end result is. Harems for the rich and the cults. Anything else is just wishful thinking.

    • Hirightnow July 3rd, 2015 at 08:32

      Disagree only in that there would be actual loving three member marriages, but agree that there would be harems for the rich.
      (I want to be rich…)

      • Warman1138 July 3rd, 2015 at 09:09

        True but the cults make me shudder.

  6. OldLefty July 3rd, 2015 at 08:41

    This fight is older than the gay marriage fight and most likely loses under rational basis review, where the state proves it has a rational basis for denying it.

    • The Original Just Me July 3rd, 2015 at 14:15

      The Mormons in Utah had to barter off Plural Marriage in order to gain Statehood. I guess that is the rational basis you are referring to ?

      • OldLefty July 4th, 2015 at 12:58

        Mostly I mean they need to prove that there is an undue
        burden on the state, like settlements in divorces, death etc, and there has
        been tons of evidence that polygamy has long been associated with unique harms:
        the repression of women; underage girls too young to consent forced into
        marriage; the severe displacement of young men in geographically concentrated
        communities. Gay rights don’t pose any of these problems.

        • The Original Just Me July 4th, 2015 at 13:21

          I do agree with you but same sex marriage is not totally without it’s problems. I guess you could say nothing is perfect.

  7. Larry Schmitt July 3rd, 2015 at 09:22

    Why is it that plural marriages always involve one man and multiple women? I have never seen it the other way round. What special talent to these dudes have that makes them attractive to even one woman, much less two or more? They’re never good looking, are they fabulously wealthy, or is there some other reason?

    • TuMadre, Ph.D July 3rd, 2015 at 09:33

      Men are traditionally the provider. I imagine it has something to do with that.

      • whatthe46 July 3rd, 2015 at 13:53

        a man with multiple wives and more than a dozen children can’t provide for them period. a man with multiple “wives” (not legally married) and with more than a dozen children however, can provide for him because all, except the legally married wife, are on welfare and foodstamps.

        • TuMadre, Ph.D July 3rd, 2015 at 13:57

          I imagine that there are some rich enough to legally marry multiple wives and provide

          • whatthe46 July 3rd, 2015 at 14:00

            i would argue rich men wouldn’t. hell, they don’t want to give up 1/2 when getting a divorce from one woman, you think they wannt give up more when they go through a divorce with multiple women?

            • TuMadre, Ph.D July 3rd, 2015 at 14:01

              That already happens. Just more slowly.

          • The Original Just Me July 3rd, 2015 at 14:04

            My question again, how many Mother-In-Laws can one man put up with ?

            • TuMadre, Ph.D July 3rd, 2015 at 14:05

              I’m married and put up with zero. I haven’t even seen her since 2009.

              • The Original Just Me July 3rd, 2015 at 14:28

                That’s about when my Mother-In-law passed away. Oh, Bad Joke. Actually, I liked my wife’s mother and father.

                • TuMadre, Ph.D July 3rd, 2015 at 14:35

                  My wife’s mother is a horrid person. Luckily, my wife saw that, too.

                  • whatthe46 July 3rd, 2015 at 14:42

                    or did you tell your wife her mother is a horrid person and she had no choice but to agree.

                    • TuMadre, Ph.D July 3rd, 2015 at 14:53

                      I’ve seen this argument thrown around a lot, because my wife happens to believe in libertarianism, and happens to be an atheist, meaning that most of our views happen to coincide.

                      I don’t know how you treat the women in your life, or, if you are a woman, how you like to be treated, though these kinds of posts certainly insinuate things. That said, I treat my wife with respect.

                      Her mother attacked her to the point of giving her a broken arm for saying, at age 21, that she was planning to move out in a few months, and then took everything she owned to the dump while she was getting the cast. This same woman watched her daughter throwing up and unable to eat for weeks without taking her to the hospital. My wife only lived because her mother had a check up, and said, “I guess you can come.” Turns out her appendix had ruptured, and if that appointment had been another day later, she would be dead.

                      My wife figured out what kind of person her mother was long before she met me.

                    • whatthe46 July 3rd, 2015 at 14:56

                      how long have you been married. because from what you said, it was in ’09 since you’ve last seen her. which means that they had a relationship up to that point.

                    • TuMadre, Ph.D July 3rd, 2015 at 14:59

                      Yes. They did have a relationship up to that point. As in, my wife lived there. We got engaged in 2009, and married in 2010. The year before the wedding, she asked me to let her move in, offering to pay the same amount of rent that she needed to pay her parents.

                    • tracey marie July 3rd, 2015 at 19:47

                      so respectfully you want her to lie and fake a mental illness or disability so you do not have to pay for her HC….yeah we understand exactlly what you are.

                    • whatthe46 July 3rd, 2015 at 19:59

                      but tracey… his mother-in-law. sounds like he wants to use and control her the way he seems to insist her mother did. what do you think he has to say about women on welfare, who need it? bet it’s unpleasant. yet, he wants his wife to become a welfare queen when she DOESN’T need it because healthcare. wow… just fk’n wow.

                    • tracey marie July 3rd, 2015 at 20:03

                      he is a racist libertarian pos.

                    • TuMadre, Ph.D July 4th, 2015 at 00:09

                      It was actually her idea. I would never present an idea that could potentially effect someone else’s ability to work. I’m just not against it.

                    • tracey marie July 4th, 2015 at 13:38

                      Thief and liar.

                    • CandideThirtythree July 5th, 2015 at 09:34

                      Yep, you should read the stuff he says about his wife, it is disturbing.

                    • whatthe46 July 5th, 2015 at 10:44

                      with only a few of the posts i’ve seen, i have no doubt that you’re right.

                  • Larry Schmitt July 3rd, 2015 at 14:43

                    I wonder what she thinks of you.

                    • TuMadre, Ph.D July 3rd, 2015 at 14:46

                      I don’t. I don’t feel its worth one’s time to concern myself with the opinion of the woman who intentionally broke my wife’s arm.

                    • Larry Schmitt July 3rd, 2015 at 14:58

                      I think we’ve just crossed over into TMI.

                    • TuMadre, Ph.D July 3rd, 2015 at 15:01

                      Fair enough. Still a valid reason to not care about her opinion.

                    • CandideThirtythree July 5th, 2015 at 09:33

                      He is the one who ‘speaks’ for his wife here all the time. He claims that she agrees with him 100%… now he says that he has been keeping her away from her mother for the majority of their 5 year marriage…sounds like an abuse case to me, you know how abusers make sure to separate their victims from their support system? He is mega creepy!

                  • The Original Just Me July 3rd, 2015 at 21:13

                    I have a friend who said that. His wife went running home to mama early in their marriage. That horrible Mother-In-Law sent her back. They have now been married 50 plus years and she never went home to Mama again.

                    • TuMadre, Ph.D July 4th, 2015 at 00:11

                      We’re only a tenth of the way there, but, at least so far, we are on track to do it, as well.

                    • The Original Just Me July 4th, 2015 at 00:28

                      Congratulations, just remember, life is all about. practice, practice, practice, until you get it right.

                    • TuMadre, Ph.D July 4th, 2015 at 00:34

                      Thanks. It helps to marry someone intelligent, yet compassionate. We enjoy each other’s company greatly.

    • Suzanne McFly July 3rd, 2015 at 11:15

      Some men require multiple babysitters and I could not stand to have more than one man around that I have to lay claim to, you guys are too much work.

      • Larry Schmitt July 3rd, 2015 at 11:25

        I think I’ve figured it out. The women in these relationships are secret lesbians, and are just using the guy’s income.

        • Suzanne McFly July 3rd, 2015 at 11:49

          I think you are just fantasizing but it is a cute fantasy.

          • whatthe46 July 3rd, 2015 at 13:51

            nail on the head. lol

            • The Original Just Me July 3rd, 2015 at 14:21

              That would hurt.

          • Larry Schmitt July 3rd, 2015 at 13:54

            It’s not my fantasy. I would have my hands full with one woman.

            • whatthe46 July 3rd, 2015 at 13:58

              lol. but, it’s not a fantasy for most men. thing is,you don’t need to get married to multiple women to get some into a threesome.

              • The Original Just Me July 3rd, 2015 at 14:21

                A man is not considered successful unless he has a wife, a mistress, and a little something going on the side. Just a joke.

                • whatthe46 July 3rd, 2015 at 14:30

                  well, there are a lot of successful men in that catagory.

                  • The Original Just Me July 3rd, 2015 at 21:06

                    A friend of mine is in that category, not rich though, and none of them seem to have a problem with it. I’m good with it for him. Of coarse he’s an Old Fart.

                    • whatthe46 July 3rd, 2015 at 21:37

                      he’s an “Old Fart.” viagra dude, viagra. lol. must know some… nevermind.

                    • The Original Just Me July 4th, 2015 at 00:24

                      His Doc told him, Use it or lose it.

                    • whatthe46 July 4th, 2015 at 00:56

                      men.

                • Dwendt44 July 3rd, 2015 at 17:36

                  Close to the norm if you are rich enough.

            • The Original Just Me July 3rd, 2015 at 14:20

              I am not going to go into cup size on that one. I am trying to remain in control of my comments here.

              • whatthe46 July 3rd, 2015 at 18:57

                i thought a handfull is enough…

                • The Original Just Me July 3rd, 2015 at 21:03

                  My thinking, as a youth of coarse, was a mouthful. Now I’m living in the past and Damn it’s nice.

                  • whatthe46 July 3rd, 2015 at 21:39

                    …and a mouthful is too much. lol.

                    • The Original Just Me July 4th, 2015 at 00:23

                      Okay, Chuckle, I guess I’m reading what your mouth is full of. Oh, I’m Bad ! But, then again———

                    • whatthe46 July 4th, 2015 at 00:57

                      coming to town any time soon. what? wait? that was not me typing that i promise. that crazy “b” alter ego. excuse me while i kick her….

                    • The Original Just Me July 4th, 2015 at 06:02

                      Not unless your town is in south Central Idaho. I love to travel but my circumstances limit me now days. Write this series of letters down and keepthem for awhile. It will make more sense later. mrgmnsr

                    • whatthe46 July 4th, 2015 at 10:04

                      i actually did a cross country trip from texas to pocatello. i loved it. not pocatello, the trip.

                    • The Original Just Me July 4th, 2015 at 10:21

                      Pocatello started out as a dirty little railroad town. Interesting history about the railroad there. But, it has grown into quite a city now and is doing Quite well. Idaho Sate Un. is there. that is where I put in my college time. I met my wife there and got married there. Boy, that has been a long time and many miles ago. Write down @g and add it to the other letters.

                    • whatthe46 July 4th, 2015 at 10:28

                      got it.

                    • The Original Just Me July 4th, 2015 at 10:43

                      A little more to come but you may have it already. Do or say what you want. Well, back to the make believe world of politics.

                    • whatthe46 July 4th, 2015 at 15:33

                      i went back to bed after reading some post and responding this morning. i just got back up. i’ll see if i’m right in a bit.

                    • The Original Just Me July 4th, 2015 at 21:27

                      Please remember, I like to talk to people. I like to joke and kid around. I love to laugh and see people laugh. but that is about the extent of my universe. mail.com have a pleasant day.

                    • whatthe46 July 4th, 2015 at 22:14

                      lol. your universe seems great! i sent a test earlier. you have a great and safe evening.

                    • The Original Just Me July 5th, 2015 at 01:34

                      it appears your note to gmail.com didn’t make it through.

                    • whatthe46 July 5th, 2015 at 01:53

                      i have an idea. get back with ya.

                    • The Original Just Me July 5th, 2015 at 14:17

                      I think we just need to sit down and have a cup of coffee. Try the first set of letters I sent you and @gmail.com

                    • whatthe46 July 5th, 2015 at 15:06

                      abemarion

                    • whatthe46 July 5th, 2015 at 17:16

                      oops. abemarion45…

        • The Original Just Me July 3rd, 2015 at 14:18

          In most plural marriages, some of the women work to support the household and very few of the men work at all.

      • allison1050 July 3rd, 2015 at 12:46

        chuckles

    • Dwendt44 July 3rd, 2015 at 11:29

      If the ‘second’ wife is now married, doesn’t she lose the SNAP card and free medicaid and so forth that most polygamists enjoy?

      • whatthe46 July 3rd, 2015 at 13:51

        she should lose it.

      • The Original Just Me July 3rd, 2015 at 14:07

        Depends on the quality of the new husband.

    • fahvel July 3rd, 2015 at 11:31

      the man does not exist who can satisfy even one woman 100% so why would a bunch of ladies want one dim wit fella?

      • The Original Just Me July 3rd, 2015 at 14:09

        We have been married 51 years and I am still trying to figure what it would take to satisfy my wife in anything.

        • whatthe46 July 3rd, 2015 at 16:36

          lol. oooh, if she’s reading that. you’ll be working on that much harder.

          • The Original Just Me July 3rd, 2015 at 21:01

            Oh, I could say that it doesn’t get hard any more but that would be censored and maybe it’s a lie.

          • CandideThirtythree July 5th, 2015 at 09:27

            hahahaha!

    • Hirightnow July 3rd, 2015 at 13:13

      Possibly so that one woman could be pregnant, while the other one does chores, leaving the man free to do “man things”…

      • Larry Schmitt July 3rd, 2015 at 13:20

        You might have something there. In any pictures I’ve seen of that far-out Mormon cult on the Arizona-Utah border (they’re so weird even the Mormons kicked them out), the old man is never doing anything productive. And all his wives looked tired. And disgusted. I’m sure any one of them would have stuck a shiv in his ribs for a nickel.

      • The Original Just Me July 3rd, 2015 at 14:06

        My luck would be, no matter how many wives I would have, they would all hit that time of the month on the same week.

        • whatthe46 July 3rd, 2015 at 18:56

          laughing so hard.

          • The Original Just Me July 3rd, 2015 at 20:59

            Don’ t wet the undies.

            • whatthe46 July 3rd, 2015 at 21:41

              too late. showered and everything. lol

              • The Original Just Me July 4th, 2015 at 00:19

                Dang, I always miss all the Good stuff.

                • whatthe46 July 4th, 2015 at 00:58

                  you are gonna get me banned.

                  • The Original Just Me July 4th, 2015 at 05:57

                    Then I would lose contact with my very good friend. BIG SAD FACE.

    • tracey marie July 3rd, 2015 at 13:21

      No talent, just submissive women with no self esteem.

      • Larry Schmitt July 3rd, 2015 at 13:22

        That’s what I was thinking too.

    • The Original Just Me July 3rd, 2015 at 14:17

      Watch the movie ” Paint Your Wagon. “

    • CandideThirtythree July 5th, 2015 at 09:26

      No talent on the men’s part, you have to brainwash and abuse the girls from the day they are born to get them to accept being just property with no rights, only then will they give up and stop fighting when they are raped by the filthy old man their fathers sold them to.

  8. fahvel July 3rd, 2015 at 11:30

    as long as they don’t expect public assistance let them marry a dozen or a million – who the fk cares?

  9. Dwendt44 July 3rd, 2015 at 11:36

    Sometimes, one wife is one to many.

    • The Original Just Me July 3rd, 2015 at 14:13

      One wife, one Mother-In-Law, I can handle that.

    • The Original Just Me July 3rd, 2015 at 20:56

      Or two to many.

  10. Jamie July 3rd, 2015 at 15:18

    @destructoid< Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far thss best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6879 this – 8 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $218 bper hour. I work through this link………

    >/

  11. Mike July 3rd, 2015 at 15:55

    Gay marriage and polygamy have nothing in common legally.
    Polygamy is a demand that the state comply with a perceived religious edict. (it’s called the Principle in Mormonism)
    Polygamy is outlawed and has passed constitutional muster (Reynolds v US) proving the constitution supreme to the words any god might have written.
    Gay marriage was a demand that the state enforce the equal protections clause. Anti-gay marriage proponents were asking the state to deny others a right they enjoy because of their religious beliefs.
    My religion demands I sacrifice a virgin every New Year’s Eve…(not really) is my government denying my 1st amendment right when it arrests me, of course not.

    • The Original Just Me July 3rd, 2015 at 20:55

      Very well put.

    • greenfloyd July 4th, 2015 at 04:24

      The demand in this case isn’t “religious” at all. I think it’s about the state respecting freedom of association and recognizing personal contracts, a public declaration of love, like a marriage license, between consenting adults. I thought that was already settled!? Of course it has and I suspect that’s why this request has been sent upstairs to the Montana AG, in light of the recent SCOTUS ruling. Democracy in action.

  12. johnnybizzoy July 3rd, 2015 at 16:04

    Why does anyone care if there is polygamy?

    • tracey marie July 3rd, 2015 at 19:44

      because ws, the rate of welfare and child abuse is enormous. All the cults that practice polygamy use welfare for the “wives” that are not legal, they abuse their children in the name of god, they abuse women and girls(sexually) in the name of mans dominance.

      • johnnybizzoy July 3rd, 2015 at 20:07

        Sounds to me like you are stereotyping polygamous relationships. Many of these same arguments were once used to oppose gay marriage as well. What problem would you have with a polygamous relationship where there was no welfare and no abuse?

        • tracey marie July 3rd, 2015 at 20:33

          so glbt arguments were about second wives and abuse of children…because GLBT marriage used to be leal…dumbass W.S.

          • johnnybizzoy July 3rd, 2015 at 20:53

            No – people used to make the argument that homosexuals were far more likely to sexually abuse children, and had far higher rates of drug and alcohol abuse – and therefore the “lifestyle” was unhealthy, and allowing gay people to marry was a bad idea. I’m just pointing out that you are using very similar, “lifestyle” arguments against the notion of polygamous marriages. Do you happen to have links to, or know the names of, any empirical studies that support your claims that polygamous marriages result in high incidents of welfare, or child, or spousal abuse?

            • tracey marie July 3rd, 2015 at 23:07

              not people, your kind of filth.

              • johnnybizzoy July 3rd, 2015 at 23:34

                lol, whatever you say angry lady ;-)

        • CandideThirtythree July 5th, 2015 at 09:18

          There is no such thing because it cannot be sustained..if there ”
          were 15 females born for every one male then yea but since there isn’t it can never be an equal arrangement.

          You know that the leader of one of those Mormon groups is in prison for molesting little girls right? Not only did he molest them, he sold them off to other old men to molest. Little girls cannot consent to marriage but the drive to collect more and more wives makes the men decide that they can’t wait until the current crop grows up.

          Then there is the incest, the fact that they are all living in a gated compound means that new blood does not come in so they just resort to incest and the resulting birth defects have caused whole counties to go broke because states are required by law to provide medical care for all children.

          Also since there are not enough females to go around they drive little boys to other towns and drop them off on the side of the road so that they do not have to share females.

          “Up to 1,000 teenage boys have been separated from their parents and thrown out of their communities by a polygamous sect to make more young women available for older men, Utah officials claim.

          Many of these “Lost Boys”, some as young as 13, have simply been dumped on the side of the road in Arizona and Utah,
          by the leaders of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of
          Latter-day Saints (FLDS), and told they will never see their families again or go to heaven.”

          Marriage has to be equal and polygamy by its very nature can never be equal.

    • The Original Just Me July 4th, 2015 at 00:42

      The population as general is 50 /50 % man and women. The polygamist thing is, I got mine and yours. Is that simple enough ?

      • johnnybizzoy July 4th, 2015 at 13:43

        So we should restrict people’s freedom to marry one another, because it might inconvenience other potential suitors?

        • The Original Just Me July 4th, 2015 at 13:54

          My attitude is, Do what you want as long as it harms no one else. If you want Two or Eight or Twenty Mother-In-Laws, go For it.

    • greenfloyd July 4th, 2015 at 02:33

      That’s a good question. I don’t think most people actually understand what “polygamy” really is. It seems most people associate it with reliegeous fanatics and charlatans who are actually, among far worse things, bigamists. I think polygamy has gotten a bad-rap in America. After all monogomy has been very, very good to the church, the state and bizness interests. If this were to actually become a thing right-wing heads would spinn-off into orbit! I love it. Who wants a “nuclear” family anyway?

      • johnnybizzoy July 4th, 2015 at 14:21

        On this issue I say it comes down to freedom. What right does the government have to limit people’s freedom to live together? If none – then what is the government’s role? In my opinion, it is to ensure contracts, to guarantee that contracts are upheld. So what is a “marriage” to the government? It is a contract of co-habitation and combination of assets. Yes? So if three rather than two people wish to co-habitat and merge assets, I see no problem with this. We already have all kinds of laws governing contracts between individuals, businesses, LLCs, corporations. Is a polygamist marriage really going to de-rail our entire society? I doubt it.

        • CandideThirtythree July 5th, 2015 at 09:07

          Nah, but you have to watch them like a hawk because the people who do that tend to be creeps of the highest order.

    • CandideThirtythree July 5th, 2015 at 09:05

      Because of the fact that it almost always comes with severe abuses of one sort or another. They are welfare cheats and child molesters and they dump off little boys on the side of the road like a sack of garbage so the old men won’t have to share the sex. Then there is the incest, whole counties have gone broke just providing medical care for the incest caused birth defects of those polygamist groups in Utah and Texas.

      The reason it was stopped in the first place was because the rich men get all the wives and the poor are left without hope of ever marrying and passing on their genes so they turn to crime and make for a ready army of terrorists…

      Places where it still happens in the world have all of those problems and more. Since the young men cannot get wives, they tend to go into another town and kidnap and gang rape, and that is not just polygamy but where the father’s own the daughter’s virginity and sell it, like in most countries with arranged marriages. The drive to pass on one’s genes is a powerful force that should not be taken lightly.

  13. Jack E Raynbeau July 3rd, 2015 at 18:42

    A man doesn’t have to be a polygamist to have one wife too many.

    • whatthe46 July 3rd, 2015 at 18:58

      but he sure as hell must be mental.

    • CandideThirtythree July 5th, 2015 at 08:52

      Or 10 wives too many either. I know a guy who is now on wife #10, not all at once of course, he is more a serial divorcer.

  14. greenfloyd July 4th, 2015 at 01:07

    Polygamy, as a legal concept, has nothing to do with religion or cults. It’s a common misconception because people who claim to be married to more than one wife, or husband are actually bigamists, not polygamous. In America bigamy is illegal in all 50 states, so actual polygamy does not exist. Or does it, Montana?

    It’s also a misconception promoted by the self-appointed guardians of monogamy, specifically between one man and one woman, the so-called “institution” of marriage. Now that’s been redefined, finally, by the highest court in the land. It’s a new day!

  15. TuMadre, Ph.D July 4th, 2015 at 01:14

    Sorry about the baggage. I’ve had my fair share of rough patches in life, but I’ve always turned out better for it. Hope your baggage is one of those that winds up improving you in the long run!

    Good advice, by the way!

    • The Original Just Me July 4th, 2015 at 06:09

      Let’s just say that retirement has not turned out like it was planned. My wife’s health is a problem but I didn’t sign on for the short run.

  16. Talkin_Truth July 4th, 2015 at 12:19

    An interesting aspect of polygamy is that it can be argued from both the left and the right.

    The polygamists argue that they are consenting adults who are hurting nobody — and that appeals to our liberal sensibilities.

    But polygamy is also a age-old traditional definition of marriage — and that fits right into the conservative arguments.

    And it seems like to the wings of polarized nation practice it — the extreme patriarchal conservatives (like this guy) and the libertine “polyamorists.”

    (One difference is that the libertines are less interested in government legitimacy than the extreme conservatives. At least the few I’ve met don’t seem interested in anything like a traditional family. )

  17. CandideThirtythree July 5th, 2015 at 08:50

    There is no equality in polygamy all the power is in the man’s hands. As soon as they get married then they will no longer be able to be welfare cheats so I doubt any of them really want to get married.

Leave a Reply