Man Applies for Marriage License for 2nd Wife

[TomFoolery]

http://m.billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/polygamous-billings-trio-applies-for-wedding-license/article_97631ed5-c5b8-54e2-9423-c2f262bbff78.html

HELENA â€" 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 â€" holding multiple marriage licenses â€" but Collier said he plans to sue if the application is denied.
“It’s about marriage equality,” Collier told The Associated Press on 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.
“I think he deserves an answer,” Gillen said, but added his review is finding that “the law simply doesn’t provide for that yet.”
The Supreme Court’s ruling Friday made gay marriages legal nationwide. Chief Justice John Roberts said in his dissent that people in polygamous relationships could make the same legal argument that not having the opportunity to marry disrespects and subordinates them.

I think love is love. I'm obviously not a fundamentalist Mormon myself, but I think if they're all consenting adults, they should be free to exercise their love and relationship in a way their religion allows. It also doesn't hurt anyone.

I'm surprised by how many people are angry over this, like "We allowed the gays, and now look what you've done!" All I can say is, good. By the way, this kind of marriage is allowed in the Bible. So now what?

[Sal1981]

Chief Justice John Roberts said in his dissent that people in polygamous relationships could make the same legal argument that not having the opportunity to marry disrespects and subordinates them.

He's right.

I see nothing wrong with polygamy between consenting adults.

[TomFoolery]

I see this going the same way as the gay marriage argument in that a lot of opponents will claim that if we allow it, everyone will be rushing to get plurally married. Apparently those people have a dim view of how most people (particularly not fundamentalist Mormons) would handle jealousy and trust in their marriage if one spouse wanted to bring in a few more spouses. I don't see plural marriage spreading like wildfire, sorry.

[drunkenshoe]

I will take polygamy discussion seriously after A WOMAN applies for marriage licence for the 2ND HUSBAND. Let's see what will happen then.

[GrinningYMIR]

It's all fun and games until someone marries an AI

[Sal1981]

I will take polygamy discussion seriously after A WOMAN applies for marriage licence for the 2ND HUSBAND. Let's see what will happen then.

That seems, to me, only a matter of time ... & love.

[TomFoolery]

I will take polygamy discussion seriously after A WOMAN applies for marriage licence for the 2ND HUSBAND. Let's see what will happen then.

Well, certainly the religious basis for polyandry isn't really as strong, since there are far fewer cultural examples of it.

If you're into science fiction, Heinlein wrote a novel called The Moon is a Harsh Mistress in which the moon was a penal colony that eventually became an independent "state." Initially far more men were sent to the colony than women, and women took multiple husbands and eventually it evolved into a system they referred to as line marriage, where a group of consenting adults were all married to each other. In the novel, it's a system that works well as a means of raising children, fostering a good home life, etc.

It sounds absolutely laughable, but my husband has a daughter with special needs and taking care of her has taken a toll on both of us. I'm not a greatly affectionate person and I want a career more than children, and I once remarked that he needed a mother for his child more than he needed a wife. He turned it into a joke about marrying a second woman, and honestly I kind of thought, maybe?... We've compromised, where some people would get divorced. I think a second compromise (had it been legal) would have been allowing him to find a second wife who did want to be a stay-at-home mom, let her stay home and raise them all, and me and my husband go to work and provide them with a decent standard of living. I know it sounds ludicrous and I highly doubt I would ever meet anyone who would share such an open and liberal view of marriage. I admit my husband would likely be a lot less tolerant of finding a second husband than I would be of him finding a second wife, but hey. 

I guess the way I see it is, being a single parent is a pretty fast track to poverty, and the more parents (or guardians) a child has, the better their chance of success. Realistically as I've already said, I can't see millions of people rushing out to do this, but it's a model that makes practical and financial sense if all parties are willing to lay jealousy aside.

[Munch]

He's right.

I see nothing wrong with polygamy between consenting adults.

Agreed. I'm in one myself with my two bfs, and I remember a story about three women in love all together who wanted marriage licence

[drunkenshoe]

Well, certainly the religious basis for polyandry isn't really as strong, since there are far fewer cultural examples of it.

Yeah well, we can't have women going around 'legally' enjoy gang fucking. Especially because they are the gender with the suitable anatomy for it. Oh, I invented a term. '-What you are up to this weekend? Fancy a movie?-'Naah, I am booked, I am gang fucking my husbands, sorry'. We women can only get 'gang raped' or 'gang banged'. Not gang fuck. Tsk tsk tsk.

(See, this is all happening because they legalised marriage in the US. It corrupted me. I thought of anal and oral sex! At the same time!  Paaaat!)

If you're into science fiction, Heinlein wrote a novel called The Moon is a Harsh Mistress in which the moon was a penal colony that eventually became an independent "state." Initially far more men were sent to the colony than women, and women took multiple husbands and eventually it evolved into a system they referred to as line marriage, where a group of consenting adults were all married to each other. In the novel, it's a system that works well as a means of raising children, fostering a good home life, etc.

Were the people sent to the moon convicts at the begining? I remember something like that but I am not sure.

This reminds me Ursula Leguin's books. Probably you know Birthday of the World (story book). But mostly it is about dysutopias.

In one of her civilisations the marriage has to be between 4 people. If memory serves right, everyone has one het one gay partner and one that they never have sex with, but just friends. It's genius.

It sounds absolutely laughable, but my husband has a daughter with special needs and taking care of her has taken a toll on both of us. I'm not a greatly affectionate person and I want a career more than children, and I once remarked that he needed a mother for his child more than he needed a wife. He turned it into a joke about marrying a second woman, and honestly I kind of thought, maybe?... We've compromised, where some people would get divorced. I think a second compromise (had it been legal) would have been allowing him to find a second wife who did want to be a stay-at-home mom, let her stay home and raise them all, and me and my husband go to work and provide them with a decent standard of living. I know it sounds ludicrous and I highly doubt I would ever meet anyone who would share such an open and liberal view of marriage. I admit my husband would likely be a lot less tolerant of finding a second husband than I would be of him finding a second wife, but hey.

It doesn't sound ludicrous, however considering the human nature and the world we live in; certain 'roles' loaded with negative or positive connotations and the dynamic that would occur in the family could be a painful one. You could be better off with marrying him with a domestic motherly type and fuck him on the side if she accepts. If legal, then you'll be forced into some 'masculin' role bboth in and out of family wether you want it or not. I don't know. It depends on people.

I guess the way I see it is, being a single parent is a pretty fast track to poverty, and the more parents (or guardians) a child has, the better their chance of success. Realistically as I've already said, I can't see millions of people rushing out to do this, but it's a model that makes practical and financial sense if all parties are willing to lay jealousy aside.

Agreed. I will go further and offer what Ursula did in Dispossessed and say we should live in large communes. People shouldn't have moms and dads, but professional caretakers in professional places where they have to attend after their birth up to a certain age. People can see their children if they want. In generations to come we can wipe out marriage, stupid roles and norms that come with it and have a pretty healthy society if you ask me.

[TomFoolery]

Were the people sent to the moon convicts at the begining? I remember something like that but I am not sure.

Yeah, everyone sent to the moon was convicted of some crime on earth, but even after their sentence was over they continued to live on the moon and formed a society, even as new convicts and political dissidents came in. A unique thing about the book is women hold a higher social value than men, but when you think about why you realize it's still largely about men. Since there were so few women in the early days of the colony, women married multiple men so more men could have sexual satisfaction and in return they protected their wife against forcible rape by other men. The literal term "prison bitch" comes to mind. But as time went on and people began having children on the moon and more women joined the colony, women eventually just became very highly regarded. They even considered it lucky if one's firstborn was a girl.

Agreed. I will go further and offer what Ursula did in Dispossessed and say we should live in large communes. People shouldn't have moms and dads, but professional caretakers in professional places where they have to attend after their birth up to a certain age. People can see their children if they want. In generations to come we can wipe out marriage, stupid roles and norms that come with it and have a pretty healthy society if you ask me.

I feel like the notion of having children raised by professional caretakers runs the risk of homogenizing us too much, which I would think would be as bad as being too fractured. Yes, differences in beliefs and opinions has sent us to war, but war revolutionizes technology. It's a Catch-22. I also feel like the notion of marriage is antiquated, but I don't know if I'm against getting rid of it all together, because ultimately it still serves as a contract between two people to support each other. Unfortunately too many people prefer to walk away from their responsibilities.

[drunkenshoe]

I feel like the notion of having children raised by professional caretakers runs the risk of homogenizing us too much, which I would think would be as bad as being too fractured. Yes, differences in beliefs and opinions has sent us to war, but war revolutionizes technology.

The last sentence was probably the one of the biggest hypocritical bullshit I have seen in this forum so far. You have just said 'invading foriegn countries and killing millions of civilians make my country powerful and 'rich' and keeps me in business, why should we evolve?'

You realise that's definition of terrorism, right? There is no difference between you and an islamist jihaddist from this angle. You see yourself entitled to destory and kill for your benefits and make excuses for it. Why are you against christians -or muslims and others- and their attack on legalising marriage, equality or because they want to oppress females, killing gay people...etc. Their point is exactly the same with yours. It's beneficial for them. You both are voicing the same goal through the same act.   

You cannot homogenise billions of world population of thousands of different cultures and hundreds of languages by removing nuclear family. If you raise children apart from bullshit family values and their parents' desires, bullshit norms and roles and personal goals, you can undermine classes, most importantly most religious-bigotic brainwashing, any kind of entitlement and bullshit the world suffers. For example, people wouldn't buy any bullshit like nationalism, patriotism and very less amount of people would choose a military career. Tribalism and religious bullshit start with nuclear family. They would have a far more chance to be individuals in the real sense, society would be forced to evolve to create more forms of existence. 

It's not differences of opinions or beliefs that has sent 'you' into war. It's money and power and greed. And countless people like you in the world who support that, eager to be a part of it.



Considering the last paragraph you wrote along with your other reactions to some basic human rights issues in the forum, you must be surviving on extreme compartmentalisation bordering absolute apathy or some sort of sociopathy. Because I don't see how you come here, from there unless you only percieve your fellow countrymen as human beings and the rest as something to kill to have more and more.

Then may be, exactly like religious people, soldiers shouldn't be taken seriously as healthy participants in certain discussions. After all, you people are not programmed to think, are you?   

[TomFoolery]

Then may be, exactly like religious people, soldiers shouldn't be taken seriously as healthy participants in certain discussions. After all, you people are not programmed to think, are you?

That turned to a lot of name calling very quickly?

I never said I support war. I don't. I've been to war. I know what it looks like to hold someone's hand when they've just lost their limbs. Not many people hate war more than I do. That's a big part of why I left the Army. So stop acting like I said I like war. That was your interpretation of a single sentence taken out of context. Now who sounds like a religious zealot on a soapbox?

So before you start putting more words in my mouth and twisting them into things I never said or intended, all I was merely pointing out is that from the dawn of history, conflict HAS driven technology. That's fact. I'm not saying we should create more war in order to have a reason to develop more technology. I was simply acknowledging a link for FUCK'S SAKE.

[drunkenshoe]

That turned to a lot of name calling very quickly?

I never said I support war. I don't. I've been to war. I know what it looks like to hold someone's hand when they've just lost their limbs. Not many people hate war more than I do. That's a big part of why I left the Army. So stop acting like I said I like war. That was your interpretation of a single sentence taken out of context. Now who sounds like a religious zealot on a soapbox?

So before you start putting more words in my mouth and twisting them into things I never said or intended, all I was merely pointing out is that from the dawn of history, conflict HAS driven technology. That's fact. I'm not saying we should create more war in order to have a reason to develop more technology. I was simply acknowledging a link for FUCK'S SAKE.

I didn't put words in your mouth. I removed the political correctness, TF. It's not name calling, it is a soldier's place in the big picture. That's what I described. You don't have to like it or me for saying it. 

The sort of conflict that has once driven technology ended a couple hundreds of years ago. Competing who will get the biggest horse power to kill whom is not advancing technology. Almost all the budgets go for military res. since wwI. It's a full throttle machine annihilating masses for nothing and everything is shaped by it. When you voice it the way you do, how did you expect me to react to a soldier?

[TomFoolery]

I didn't put words in your mouth. I removed the political correctness, TF. It's not name calling, it is a soldier's place in the big picture. That's what I described. You don't have to like it or me for saying it. 

You didn't remove political correctness. You twisted my words. And I'm saying that what you're saying is based on emotion and a gross overgeneralization of all soldiers. I'm not a soldier anymore, and I don't consider myself one. You don't know me or what I believe, obviously. It's an Internet forum, we don't have to be best buddies braiding each other's hair and telling each other intimate secrets about our hopes and dreams. If you've hated me all along for my former military service, the stop replying to my posts.

But you don't get to say it's not name calling when you gladly tell me I'm a sociopath incapable of thought for one sentence that you took completely out of context.

And by the way, what you’re suggesting is that people should just turn their children over to “caregivers” so they won’t be brainwashed. If you think about what brainwashing is, in essence, raising children is brainwashing. It gets its negative connotation from teaching them hate and willful ignorance, but it also comes in the form of asking children to do the right thing before they have the mental capacity to appreciate the consequences of their actions.

Moreover, where do these “caregivers” come from? The government? Because obviously the government can and should be trusted to know what's best for children. *eyeroll* Google Romanian orphanages and see how that turns out. You think people wouldn't buy bullshit like nationalism if the government was in charge of their upbringing?!

[drunkenshoe]

And I'm saying that what you're saying is based on emotion and a gross overgeneralization of all soldiers.

What's that? A 'true soldier' fallacy? Or you have some Captain America fantasy?

Also the bolded part sounds like some het male comeback to some female voicing an obvious issue. What's next? Are you going to ask me if I am on my period? 

I'm not a soldier anymore, and I don't consider myself one.

Good for you, I suppose. But then the pics you posted were taken in the army I guess, that's probably why I thought you like being a soldier and talking as one. Soldiers usually have this thing of posting themselves in/with gear. It's the history of selfies before the internet. It has an immediate effect on me.

You don't know me or what I believe, obviously. It's an Internet forum, we don't have to be best buddies braiding each other's hair and telling each other intimate secrets about our hopes and dreams.

I don't get where that comes from. Everything I wrote here is about general issues we talk and what I think about them. I am writing you and everyone I see in the forum more or less with the same manner. Does that mean you unconscioulsy wanted something like that before? That's an honest question, because there is no reason or a cause for you to say something like that from my part. 

But you don't get to say it's not name calling when you gladly tell me I'm a sociopath incapable of thought for one sentence that you took completely out of context.

I do think, becoming a soldier -when it is not compulsory where you live, just choosing it as a career- and going to war to kill people and invade their homeland for no good reason at the other side of the world requires some level of those traits I described. Again, you don't have to like it or me for saying it. Do you see the difference between 'name calling' and describing something as you see it?

Would you like it better, if I said "we have to agree to disagree then, lol ;)" ?

And by the way, what you’re suggesting is that people should just turn their children over to “caregivers” so they won’t be brainwashed. If you think about what brainwashing is, in essence, raising children is brainwashing.It gets its negative connotation from teaching them hate and willful ignorance, but it also comes in the form of asking children to do the right thing before they have the mental capacity to appreciate the consequences of their actions.

Moreover, where do these “caregivers” come from? The government? Because obviously the government can and should be trusted to know what's best for children. *eyeroll* Google Romanian orphanages and see how that turns out. You think people wouldn't buy bullshit like nationalism if the government was in charge of their upbringing?!

Well, if you read the book, you'll get what I'm saying. It's too long I can't just write it here. It's not an utopia or a perfect world. It's also a nonreligious society. I was entertaining an idea. And you are giving too much credit to some notions and convictions.