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: 3793
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 # 59.
#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.
Same sex marriage was not allowed for anyone either, Bozo.
The issue is two people could get married and have benefits under the law that two other people as a couple could not. Know your enemy rather than your own ignorance.
So two sisters can now marry? And two brothers as well?
I think they would hold that the State has a paramount interest in not licensing close relatives.
So two sisters can now marry? And two brothers as well? I think they would hold that the State has a paramount interest in not licensing close relatives. Why if, as in a gay marriage, no procreation is possible ? What would be the compelling interest to prevent two sisters or two brothers from marrying?
I believe your point is well taken. I just suppose they would wordsmith the issue in some manner. Where there is a will, there is a way, like a penalty is really a tax, and state means federal. Mainly it will just lack popular support. In the same manner, they will likely engage in their custom of seeing how many angels they can stand on the head of a pin while inventing their justification for denying plural marriage. I do not expect the court to approve plural marriage, but their logic in Obergefell would appear to apply. When the time comes, they will creatively carve out a plural marriage exception.
In other words SCOTUS is now full of sh*t and is no longer an impartial, honest broker (if it ever was). Also lest there was doubt up to now the Consitution isn't worth the paper that it is written on and can be bent all out of shape with impunity by popular will.
Well, the members are all political appointees. For justices who espouse the Living Constitution, the meaning of the language morphs into their opinion. Wartime has produced the worst, most outrageous opinions.
That's up for argument.
There are no replies to Comment # 59. End Trace Mode for Comment # 59.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#6. To: Pericles, redleghunter, Nolu Chan (#3)
This does not apply to polygamists because that is not allowed for anyone.
#7. To: SOSO (#6)
Same sex marriage was not allowed for anyone either, Bozo.
#10. To: Pericles, All (#7)
#21. To: SOSO, Pericles (#10)
So two sisters can now marry? And two brothers as well?
#24. To: nolu chan, Pericles (#21)
#48. To: SOSO (#24)
Why if, as in a gay marriage, no procreation is possible ? What would be the compelling interest to prevent two sisters or two brothers from marrying?
#53. To: nolu chan (#48)
#58. To: SOSO (#53)
In other words SCOTUS is now full of sh*t and is no longer an impartial, honest broker (if it ever was).
#59. To: nolu chan (#58)
Wartime has produced the worst, most outrageous opinions.
Replies to Comment # 59.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]