United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Polygamist who appeared on Sister Wives applies for a license to marry his second wife in wake of Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage
Source:
Daily Mail UK
URL Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art ... o-applies-wedding-license.html
Published: Jul 6, 2015
Author: AP and Daily Mail reporters
Post Date: 2015-07-06 15:48:02 by redleghunter
Keywords: None
Views: 3791
Comments: 59
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 said Wednesday. 'You can't have this without polygamy.' Collier and his second wife were met with confusion when they went to the Yellowstone County court house on Tuesday to fill out the application. 'So, are you legally married, you didn't get divorced?' one clerk asked, when he saw that Collier marked 'not applicable' on a question asking the dissolution date of his previous marriage. Collier responded that he was indeed still married and trying to marry for a second time. 'We'll have to deny that, let me go grab the other supervisor real quick so I can get confirmation but as far as I'm aware you can't be married to two people at the same time,' another clerk said. 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.' 'All we want is legal legitimacy. We aren't asking anybody for anything else. We just want to give our marriage and our family the legitimacy that it deserves,' Nathan Collier said. In a Facebook post on Wednesday, Nathan Collier said he had yet to hear an answer from the county attorney on their decision to grant or deny the marriage license. However, he says that he has told through 'other sources' that the attorney general's office is considering charging him for bigamy. 'I knew the risks I faced when I asked the State to grant legal legitimacy to my family, and I accepted those risks. 'I only ask that if their intent is to lock me in a cage (and we wonder why they keep asking for more money to expand the jails?!?!?) over my family dynamic, contact me privately and I will walk in your front door. 'I have no reason to run or hide. Please, don't kick my door in and shoot my dogs,' Collier wrote. Collier goes on to say that he is 'saddened' that his family faces such challenges in the 'land of the free'. 'You can believe that the entire nation is and will be watching your choices and actions. There is no honor in destroying functional families,' Collier added. The Supreme Court's ruling on 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. Poster Comment: Seems to look like a "happy, loving, healthy" family...I mean who are we to judge if they all really love each other....The wise Latina wants to know...
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 42.
#3. To: redleghunter, Nolu Chan (#0)
(Edited)
The supreme court case centered around equal treatment under the law. The logic is that since a hetero couple can get married a homo couple should also because they are denied rights a married hetero couple would get. This does not apply to polygamists because that is not allowed for anyone. Whoever brings up this polygamy should now be legal argument just shows they are ignorant over the judicial arguments involved. I don't agree with gay marriage at all as a Christian but the arguments for it are based on the equal protection clause. If I am wrong, I will let our resident lawyer tell us otherwise.
What is magical about the number 2? Nothing. It's purely a cultural artifact, just like the insistence on heterosexuality. It's not even a requirement of Biblical Judaism. Polygamy is a very ancient and widely practiced marital norm. The only reason it is banned is religious and cultural preference in the West. As such, the denial of polygamous marriage denies Muslims and Yemenite Jews in particular their right to the equal protection of their religion under the law, by specifically enforcing the Christian marriage norm and denying the Muslim and Yemenite Jewish right to practice their religion. It is unconstitutional to use the law to enforce one religious norm at the expense of other people's religious norms. It is the establishment of religion and the denial of equal protection to Islam and some forms of Judaism. Therefore, if we were a principled nation of laws, polygamy would have to be permitted to those religions that practice it. But of course we are a nation of men and ruled by the opinions of men of money and power, so trying to argue legal principles as though they really existed and as though we were actually governed by them is a fool's errand.
It was a common American Indian custom as well. Christianity does teach marriage is a one man and woman coupling but does not in any way claim that polygamy is evil. How can it?
#44. To: Pericles (#42)
Depends on which Indians we're talking about. It wasn't common among the Three Fires People of the Great Lakes. May have been common among the river people. I don't know about them.
Jesus cited Genesis, and said that it is two becoming one flesh, for life. He was emphasizing the indissolubility of marriage. YHWH teaches that the man who deflowers the virgin has married her - and is responsible for her. And that's the way God made women to think too, when you drill down into it. They never forget their first. We've gone far off the reservation. For my part, I simply don't care what people do, as long as they don't do it in the street and disturb the horses. Back in the 80s I didn't care whether or not there were gays in the military, and I still don't. In my experience, the men who are most adamantly and vocally aggressive about homosexuality are repressing it in themselves. Of course I never say that, because I really don't like to fight with people. I just don't care, and I don't particularly like it that other people care. Likewise, I don't care about heterosexuals having sex outside of wedlock. I find adultery a whole lot more offensive than fornication, because of the violation of trust. And I observe that my value judgments on these things are quite a bit different from God's, so I don't propose to replace God's laws with my own views. Still, when it comes to politics, I don't care that gays can marry. I care about the murdering of babies, because THAT is important. I see Christians pretending that guys buggering is as or more important than babies being murdered, and I shake my head and think: we're really sunk - our ability to see what is important is THAT BAD, and therefore no real alliance is possible, and the babies are just going to keep on dying. And then I shrug my shoulders about that too, because - guess what - I'M not killing them, and I can't DO anything about it, so it's one more thing not to drive myself nuts over. The most important thing to ME is finding a healthy diet and keeping my family reasonably on track towards a good life. All of the rest of this political jibber-jabber is fun, but there is such chaos and disorder among people that finding any sort of permanent alliance is impossible. Even with SEXUAL ties, 50% of marriages fail, so how in the hell are mere POLITICAL allegiances going to hold?
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#39. To: Pericles (#3)
#42. To: Vicomte13 (#39)
Polygamy is a very ancient and widely practiced marital norm. The only reason it is banned is religious and cultural preference in the West. As such, the denial of polygamous marriage denies Muslims and Yemenite Jews in particular their right to the equal protection of their religion under the law, by specifically enforcing the Christian marriage norm and denying the Muslim and Yemenite Jewish right to practice their religion.
Replies to Comment # 42. It was a common American Indian custom as well.
#45. To: Pericles (#42)
Christianity does teach marriage is a one man and woman coupling
End Trace Mode for Comment # 42.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]