Polygamy

Montana Trio Applying for Marriage License

It's happening!

|

Nathan Collier

That government recognition of polygamy might follow government recognition of gay marriage was an argument usually deployed by opponents of same-sex marriage. Troublingly, those opponents usually lumped in plural marriage, at its heart an arrangement between consenting adults, and activities that aren't about consenting adults, like pedophilia and bestiality. With the Supreme Court finding a fundamental right to government recognition of gay marriage, the fight against polygamy continues. It often relies on arguments about the character of 19th century polygamy—a very different beast from polyamory in 21st century America. Of course fundamentalist polygamous relationships exist today—they are not, however, non-violent relations between consenting adults, and such fundamentalist groups usually find themselves running afoul of many laws, the laws against polygamy the least serious of them.

Now that the Supreme Court has found a fundamental right to government recognition of gay marriage, in a way even Chief Justice John Roberts believes could lead to government recognition of plural marriage, the case for polygamy is increasingly being made out in the open—without the worry that such an argument will be perceived as a stealth argument against gay marriage.

One trio in Montana has taken the observations in Roberts' dissent to heart. The Associated Press reports:

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 told The Associated Press 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."

Collier says he asked the ACLU of Montana for help—the ACLU says it hasn't received that request yet. While the ACLU has not done all that much in support of polygamy in the last decade, in 2005 its president called polygamy a "freedom of choice" issue the ACLU has and would continue to defend.

Via the Twitter feed of National Review's Charles Cooke, who has an excellent response to Jonathan Rauch's, and others', case against polygamy.

NEXT: Yoink! TSA Publicizes Man Traveling with Bag of Cash. Then Feds Seize It.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. good for them?

    1. Good for them!

      FTFY

    2. Sure, but eventually this leads to someone marrying their dog and fucking a toaster. The suspense is killing me.

      1. That sounds hot, or electrifying, or sizzling, or all three.

      2. As long as it’s this toaster, I don’t see the problem:

        http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-…..ylon-6.jpg

  2. But Brad Pitt and Russell Crowe and the Kochs will have all the women and there won’t be any for the rest of us!

    1. “Brad Pitt and Russell Crowe”

      Maybe in the 90s

      1. yeah, in a room with them in the 90s I had no chance. Now, it’s TOTALLY different.

      2. Russell Crowe still gets my motor runnin. Though Nick Offerman has supplanted him. Well, not really Nick Offerman so much as Ron Swanson.

        1. Why not both? It is a new era after all.

        2. Nick Offerman is rather boring. He needs to pull an Andrew Dice Clay and become his character fulltime.

          1. I tried to read his book, but I found myself not really caring what he had to say.

          2. Nick Offerman is boring? Apparently, you haven’t seen Axe Cop.

        3. Now I can finally marry hot identical twin girls and the twincest aspect is nice and legal.

          1. The only thing hotter than polygamous marriage is incestuous polygamous marriage. If only these were your twin sisters.

      3. So, we’re talking Tom Hardy and Daniel Craig, right? I’m in.

        1. Attractive Tom Hardy or homeless Tom Hardy. It’s always a crapshoot with him.

          1. He washes up good.

          2. “Why not both? It is a new era after all.”

            1. You, sir, are a peach. I wouldn’t do clean shaven or homeless looking Tom Hardy. Everything in between I would do with extreme prejudice.

          3. I want Far from the Madding Crowd Tom Hardy.

            1. You don’t know anything. Warrior Tom Hardy is the best, followed closely by Bronson Tom Hardy. Peaky Blinders Tom Hardy is good too. TRAPZ

            2. Okay, but only if actor Tom Hardy reads the part of Sergeant Troy.

        2. It’s physically impossible for me to find Daniel Craig attractive. He looks too much like my brother. Tom Hardy is too pretty. How about Clive Owen?

          1. Also, Michael Fassbender

            1. Were it not for the brother thing I’d be surprised you liked Fassbender and Clive Owen but not Daniel Craig.

              1. Yeah, the Brits are very good at coming up with handsome actors.

            2. Michael Fassbender is HAWT, as is James McAvoy (the only reason to watch X-Men Days of Future Past.

              1. Fassbender ain’t bad for a Euro. McAvoy is real purty, if you go for that sort of thing.

                1. Hey, Kristen – ignoring your lusts for a second or two – did you get your contract ‘sorted out’?

      4. I think Angelina already has Brad’s testicles bronzed, sitting in a little hope chest on her nightstand. So he’s out.

    2. Hey there isn’t any for me as it is!

  3. I wish the Colliers the best; not just because polygamy will, if legalized, make the collection of inheritence taxes a big pain, thrilling my black little anarchist heart; but because if their arrangement makes them happy, I want them to be happy.

    1. I’m no expert on the arbitrary and ever-changing statutory “law” codes, but I don’t think inheritance tax applies to a spouse. I may be wrong…

      1. And who says you have to marry em all at once?

        Inevitably this will lead to line marriages. Once again, Heinlein proves prophetic.

          1. I live in fear of his Starship Troopers’ society being prophetic as well.

        1. +1 Howard Family

        2. Little Big Man was on TMC the other night. If ever there was an argument against getting married to multiple women all at once, that movie made it.

          1. Big Love also comes to mind.

        3. I read a lot of Heinlein as an impressionable youth. Must be why my morals are so corrupt.

          1. You are just dying to eventually get your decrepit old man brain into a young nubile female body, aren’t you?

      2. States, and countries, differ but that was the crux of the Windsor case.
        Not able to inherit an estate, tax free, because the same-sex “marriage” wasn’t recognized.

    2. Feminists should jump on this. If a man has a piece on the side, she ends up getting nothing. Now, she can pressure him to legally commit to some of his property to her.

  4. It’ll be interesting to see how the courts justify rejecting this claim. There’s surely a strong impulse just to say “your analogy sucks, go away,” but I think the stronger (and less antagonistic) argument is that the legal conventions of marriage as currently established in the USA just don’t map onto polygamous relationships, and no amount of expansive “statutory construction” can make them work. Same-sex marriage, procedurally, was a matter of scratching out “bride” and “groom” on licenses and writing “spouse 1” and “spouse 2” instead. Poly marriage requires a complete rework of how many aspects of divorce operate, sends community-property practices pear-shaped, doesn’t map onto the tax code, etc. It can’t be done judicially — you need legislation.

    1. I have heard second hand of someone applying for a license this week pissed over bride and groom not being on the form. She wants her license to say bride.

      AFAIK she is fine with gay marriage, they just need to choose a bride and groom.

      1. It sounds like a false story to me, but then again, maybe not.

        1. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if it were true. Brides wanna bride.

      2. How else do you figure out who leads when they dance?

      3. Why don’t they just say top and bottom ?

    2. It can’t be done judicially — you need legislation.

      What a giant load of bullshit. We don’t need statutes to arbitrarily declare the terms of private contracts. We need only contracts unimpeded by the legislative impulses of people like yourself who think “there oughta be law!(statute)”. And contract law is completely up to the task. The only legislation that may be needed is the repeal of arcane legislation abridging the freedom of contract.

      1. Okay, yes, you could as an alternative ask judges to vacate every marriage law on the books that doesn’t work when applied to a poly marriage with an arbitrary number of participants, and also I would like a billion dollars and a unicorn.

        1. Yes, vacate every marriage law on the shitty books, like I said. As for your billion dollars and a unicorn, just legislate yourself those things. I’m told arbitrary law-making power solves all problems in human interaction and beyond.

        2. Instead, how about you simply have the judges, as cases get placed in front of them, work to modify those marriage laws to accommodate an arbitrary number of participants, rather than simply throw them out?

          Because that’s how the law has always worked as social norms changed.

          While the best option would be to actually throw out marriage law altogether and leave it up to people to contractually define the obligations, duties, and privileges in their relationships – they can still choose to use current marriage law as a guide to drawing up those contracts.

          But dealing with polygamy does not mean just tossing the current laws out – they simply stand and are modified as and when conflicts requiring adjudication occur.

          1. Instead, how about you simply have the judges, as cases get placed in front of them, work to modify those marriage laws to accommodate an arbitrary number of participants, rather than simply throw them out?

            Because that’s how the law has always worked as social norms changed.

            Silence with your common law heresy! The only valid law is that which is based on the whim of a unaccountable politicians and bureaucrats.

          2. Right, I don’t see how this is anything but a judicial issue. Legislation would be unwieldy and probably unhelpful, given the complexities and uniqueness of these relationships. It is up to the judges to look at their particular case and find an equitable solution. Other judges look at that decision, precedent builds, and we get better law.

            1. “Other judges look at that decision, precedent builds, and we get better law.”

              Oh? Not always better. You get judicial consensus. See also, “qualified immunity”, et al.

              1. Well, judicial consensus is still, most times, better than *legislative consensus*.

                Judges refine *law* – writing out those unwritten rules we’ve decided to live by, making explicit what, before, was simply ‘understood’.

                Legislatures make legislation and call it law when it often has no relation to what people consider fair and proper. Hell, nowadays they try to make legislation *before* something new causes a problem and by doing so cause worse problems because they don’t understand the ramifications of the new thing (no one does – its new).

            2. Legislation would be unwieldy and probably unhelpful,

              Since when has that stopped Congress?

        3. I too would also like a billion dollars, and a unicorn. A unicorn that shoots death rays from its horn. To incinerate my enemies.

      2. Contracts only work if they exist. The problem with recognition of polygamy in common law is that contracts often – usually – don’t exist in a personal relationship. If someone dies intestate, the court can’t just sit on the estate for some unknown unknowable perpetual amount of time. It’s gotta send out its legal notices, get on with hearings, make its judgements, and distribute the assets. Banning bigamy/polygamy is probably mostly an ick decision, but it is also a probate administration thing. Exactly how many potential unknown wives and ragamuffins need to tromp into court to make their claim on assets before the court starts distributing? Once the court does distribute, what then happens to unknown wife and ragamuffin? What IS the precedent out there (it may exist but it may not) for distributing assets if some have minor children, some have only adult children, and others have no children? This may be easier now with DNA testing and such – but it is still an administrative nightmare for a judge.

        Montana is one of the states that still does have common law marriage. What these people are doing in seeking to get a second marriage license (he already has the first marriage license so he is already fully into the state approval stuff) is to, in effect, use civil/licensed marriage to kill off common law marriage in Montana.

        It will not surprise me in the slightest that libertarians will skip down yet another path to state interference in the personal.

    3. Poly marriage requires a complete rework of how many aspects of divorce operate, sends community-property practices pear-shaped, doesn’t map onto the tax code, etc. It can’t be done judicially — you need legislation.

      Wrong.

    4. “the legal conventions of marriage as currently established in the USA just don’t map onto polygamous relationships, and no amount of expansive “statutory construction” can make them work.”

      Heh, heh, as if the courts would care for these sorts of considerations when they Really Care about Social Justice.

    5. 1. Doesn’t matter how complex the changes are – we don’t get to say you can’t do something because its too inconvenient for the government to accommodate it.

      2. It absolutely can be done judicially. Traditionally, *most* law has been common law – layers of judicial precedent. The majority of marriage law has been built by the courts and *then* codified in legislation.

      3. The best thing for everyone would be for the government to legalize polygamy and then step out of the way and let the courts deal with it on a case-by-case basis. As you say, its a complex issue and there’s no way we have good enough ‘Top Men’ to craft functional legislation in one go. Better to build it piece by piece, modifying the plan as obstacles arise.

      1. Bullshit. The majority of marriage law was created by canon law and ecclesiastical courts. Common law marriage used pieces of it in specific cases and in so doing built common law precedent but it was most emphatically designed law. Common law marriage was outlawed in England in 1753 – the first civil (ie bureaucratic) marriages were in 1830 – but divorce law and non-land probate law remained in church courts until 1857. Land was never part of any marital property – not ever anywhere until 150+ years ago or so. It was feudal property with obligations to defend it so it passed from father to legitimate adult son unless it remained part of tribal/clan property.

        The worst thing for common law would be to legalize polygamy. It would essentially render the courts incapable of dealing with any dispute because of the legal possibility that the parties in the courtroom are not all of the parties who have to be part of the judgement.

        There is a reason that Mormon polygamy was religious. They had solemnized the ceremony. They knew everyone involved. And they apparently loved spending time bs’ing about the rules of it. Polygamy was mostly banned here cuz ick Mormons – but the reality is that allowing it would have required also allowing Mormon law and Mormon courts.

        Legalize polygamy – and the next challenge will be someone looking to institute Sharia law and Sharia courts. Bet on it.

        1. Except for throwing a few qualifiers, like “two people”, the SCOTUS majority’s arguments creating the “right” to marriage, for those previously denied such, must also apply to multiple partners.
          “Dignity”, “love”, OK maybe not “waking in the middle of the night and feeling alone” – you know, all those reasoned legal arguments – must apply to multiples, or else there might be some hypocrisy going on.
          All of which you say is true and should have been considered when making the leap to get to homosexual “marriage”, but SJW’s are proggies, and proggies are just not known for looking to what the consequences of their latest quest might be.

      2. It doesn’t matter from a theoretical, libertarian point of view how complex the changes are. But from that point of view, marriage should be a private thing anyway. Libertarianism simply has nothing to say about the relative merits of one kind of government sanctioned marriage vs another kind.

    6. They just need to code tables with one to many relationships and GTG, baby.

  5. The book Liberty Awash has an account of a libertarian seastead where the founder has a polygamous marriage. It’s really funny.

  6. Cowboy up! And he damn well better be.

  7. George Takei’s a racist:
    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/s…..black-face

    Wow.

    1. What an idiot

    2. “I mean, doesn’t he know that slaves were in chains? That they were whipped on the back. If he saw the movie 12 Years a Slave, you know, they were raped.”

      I get all my history from the movies.

      1. Yeah, I’m guessing Justice Thomas didn’t have to watch 12 Years a Slave to know about his enslaved ancestors.

        And it’s a little-known secret that the Federation’s dilithium mines are worked by slave labor.

        1. +1000 EMH Mark I

      2. I wouldn’t mind having sexual servants. Not slaves, but a hot assistant that also services me on demand.

    3. Keep your bigotry memes strait: Calling someone an Uncle Tom is simply pointing out that he’s a self-hating black racist.

      Even white people can do it (or honorary white people, in the case of Asian-Americans) provided you vote for a left-of-center political party!

      1. There’s nothing wrong with castigating blacks who leave the ideological plantation. /prog

    4. Takei should be more offended by the majority opinion that declares that homosexuals are incapable of committed loving relationships unless they get Government permission (license) first.

    5. I can see why libertarians like Clarence Thomas. He talks about people having rights and dignity even when they don’t, in fact, have rights and dignity, as if that is instructive or meaningful for any practical reason.

      1. “I’ve never denied that people have rights.”— Tony 7/1/2015

        1. People who don’t have rights don’t have rights. Like, slaves.

          1. They do have rights. Rights that are being infringed upon by others.

            1. In Tony’s mind they don’t. He believes that government, something we all belong to, confers our rights upon us. His tiny mind not comprehending that our rights are ‘endowed by our creator’. He believes our rights, much like prosperity are the sole result of government decree.

              1. Careful, you’ll be sucked into the deep dark black hole of Tony’s “reasoning” (using the term VERY loosely) if you get too close. Stay out of his event horizon!

                1. It’s called words referencing actual things.

                  Imaginary rights are not useful to anybody.

                  1. It’s called words referencing actual things

                    It’s called your pathetic shitlibbery rearing it’s decadent, diseased head again.

                  2. Imaginary rights are not useful to anybody.

                    Remembering that for later…

    6. “[Thomas] is a clown in blackface sitting on the Supreme Court. He gets me that angry. He doesn’t belong there.”

      Ladies and Gentlemen, the party of Acceptance and Tolerance! Because it’s all about luuuuv.

      Beam me up, Scotty, there’s no intelligent life down here.

      1. I guess black folks can’t be clowns? That’s probably the most racist aspect of all this. Why can’t a brother slap on big shoes and suspenders and spray kids with seltzer water??

        1. Because Homey don’t play that.

    7. How did so much of the left misunderstand Clarence Thomas’s point so badly? I mean, George Takei took exactly the opposite meaning as what Thomas said. It’s uncanny.

      1. That’s a rhetorical question, of course. They misunderstand him on purpose because they hate him, and they hate him because he’s uppity and doesn’t know his place. It’s astonishing how much they hate him for having his own opinions.

      2. That’s a dumb question. Thomas is a Republican, they always mean the opposite of what they say.

      3. No, I think they understood it perfectly well. To them, every conceivable aspect of the human condition originates from and can be revoked by The Government. Dignity is no exception.

      4. I think because they legitimately see dignity in the way that Thomas denounces.

        1. Yeah, part of me really wants to understand what they think, and part of me is just terrified that you are correct.

          1. Is there any doubt that they see dignity as social and not innate? You see it quite explicitly when they talk about low-paid workers or blue collar jobs. A janitor cannot be dignified, because he is paid so little and neglected by ‘society.’ He doesn’t even win awards or get movies about him. The idea that a janitor could be at peace with his job or even enjoy it, or consider the job dignified or find dignity in something else, is rejected as absurd.

            My favorite is when they tie dignity to income, while also castigating you for being obsessed with money.

    8. Here’s what I don’t get – what’s racist about this?

      Clueless (black man in blackface?) certainly.

      But I don’t see him saying that Thomas is an embarrassment, a disgrace, and incompetent *because* of his race.

      1. sure he is. he didn’t call scalia or roberts those things. they’re white. they’re allowed to have different opinions than other white people.

      2. oh please. The intent was clear and always has been with Thomas.

    9. I liked him…he was funny(funny how?). What a complete douche bag.

    10. George, how can you know abourt dignity when you knowingly and repeatedly vote for the part that marched your family out of their house at gunpoint, took all that they had, and put you into an internment camp.

      You have none.

    11. He can’t be a racist because he isn’t white .

      unpossible

    12. I had always assumed that his long-running feud with Shatner was Shatner’s fault. Now, I’m not so sure.

      -jcr

  8. Bravo to Mr. Collier for doing it right and some perfect timing.

  9. Of course fundamentalist polygamous relationships exist today?they are not, however, non-violent relations between consenting adults

    It’s almost like you haven’t watched Big Love or ever talked to a Mormon before making these sweepingly broad and thus wrong statement.

    Some fundy poly marriages are between consenting adults, some aren’t.

    1. The guy in Big Love was not a fundamentalist. Most Mormons practicing polygamy do not consider themselves fundamentalists like Warren Jeff.

      1. Yeah, the central part of the story is Bill Paxton’s character attempting to distance himself from his fundamentalist upbringing.

      2. You don’t have to live on a compound to be a fundamentalist. Bill’s beliefs re: the nature of God, marriage, and the church (which he replicated in his own family) were essentially identical to the Prophet’s–he just wasn’t as much of a horse’s ass about it.

        The first two seasons of that show were amazing.

        1. His character was a fundamentalist trying to fit into wider society. He was still a fundamentalist.

          But prolefeed has a valid point, a very wide brush was being painted with in the article. The line should probably be “Of course fundamentalist polygamous relationships exist today?some are not, however, non-violent relations between consenting adults.”

  10. Kennedy repeatedly used the word “couple” and made reference to a “two person” union multiple times, including in his second guiding principal, that the court should be able to amply side step the issue of polygamy, at least for the next few decades. However, the Obergefell ruling has signaled that consanguineous marriage, between persons who share a close common ancestor, will eventually be sanctified with its invocation of the “two consenting adults” standard:

    it is appropriate to observe these cases involve only the rights of two consenting adults whose marriages would pose no risk of harm to themselves or third parties.

    When the majority examined the SCOTUS precedent regarding marriage it concluded

    each case inquired about the right to marry in its comprehensive sense, asking if there was a sufficient justification for excluding the relevant class from the right.

    The Court’s four guiding principles, in addition to limiting the relationship to two people, support constitutionally requiring consanguineous marriages just as much as, if not more than, same-sex marriage.

    1. Yes.

      Just because its icky doesn’t mean it should be illegal.

      And . . .

      This is only a problem because of the liberal insistence that there can be no negative social consequences for any behavior that is not illegal. Otherwise you could shun and refuse to associate/do business with sister-lovers.

    2. It already is legal in 20 states.

      1. It’s my understanding that all states have criminalized sexual relations of up to 3rd degree relations. Since consummation of a marriage typically involves sexual relations that kinda rules it out, even if “marriage” isn’t explicitly prohibited. For now that is…

          1. Yet 1st and 2nd degree relations (parents, siblings aunts, uncles, niece, nephew etc) are still illegal in every state. Those relationships cannot be reasonably excluded from the reasoning used in Obergefell.

            1. How are you this impressively wrong?

              1. Ah, Agammamon beat me to it.

              2. Thank you to all the nitpickers who have helped to edify me regarding all the details of the soon to be unconstitutional statutes throughout the various states. I will confess that I do not bother myself with the specifics of laws that will eventually be struck down.

                1. ‘Eventually’ can be a long time.

                  And I’m sure you can appreciate, the devil can easily be in the details. Hiding under your futon may provide immediate emotional comfort, but you’re probably going to experience a lot of discomfort in the months and years ahead, if you doubt that stare decisis won’t be invoked when anyone challenges this.

                  And it takes a while to get the momentum for a constitutional amendment.

                  1. Igor

                    you’re probably going to experience a lot of discomfort in the months and years ahead, if you doubt that stare decisis won’t be invoked when anyone challenges this.

                    And it takes a while to get the momentum for a constitutional amendment.

                    What does that have to do with anything that I said? Stare decisis from Obergefell is exactly why the consanguineous marriage bans will be struck down. I wouldn’t have suggested it if I doubted it. Or am I misreading your response?

                2. Actually the nitpicking is substantial since your original argument was that these relationships would be sanctified by this ruling, but in most cases they weren’t illegal to begin with. It isn’t nitpicking if we’re pointing out that you’re making a spurious argument.

                3. Nitpicking? You were complaining that cousinfucking was illegal, and it turns out to only be illegal for first cousins in a couple states. Maybe you don’t know what nitpicking means.

                  1. jess.in.mb
                    I was saying that ALL consanguinity marriage laws will eventually be struck down. That the various states differ in the degree to which they outlaw them is irrelevant. Every state bars consanguineous marriage to one degree or another and Justice Kennedy says that’s not constitutional.

                    Warty
                    Prior to this post I have not used the word “cousin” on this page at all. See above. Maybe it is you who doesn’t know the definition of nitpick

                    1. Gotcha you’re making claims about laws you don’t know a ton about and you’re upset about those laws. Let’s move on from nitpicking to the big picture: why do you give a shit?

                    2. A. I know enough about the laws to know that there is no way to distinguish any kind of consanguineous marriage from same-sex marriage, unlike polygamous marriage that involves multiple people where Kennedy’s states on virtually every page of his opinion that the relationship he found to be a constitutional right involves only two people.

                      B. I care about rational consistency when it comes to the application of the laws. I suspect that many of those who laud this decision would not approve of a marriage between a 45 year old man and his 20 year old biological daughter. Surprisingly no one has challenged me on that point.

                      C. I also enjoy argumentation and practice it as often as possible. Since no on has bitten on the main point I am left to debate irrelevant details with you. 🙂

                    3. C. I also enjoy argumentation and practice it as often as possible. Since no on has bitten on the main point I am left to debate irrelevant details with you. 🙂

                      Agammamon|7.2.15 @ 12:04PM

                      Yes.

                      Just because its icky doesn’t mean it should be illegal.

                      jesse.in.mb|7.2.15 @ 12:59PM

                      Probably not an issue due to the Wetermarck effect, but it seems mildly creepy but ultimately harmless at the extremely low frequency that it happens.

                      I have no problem with consanguinity laws being overturned. If it was good enough for the Moabites and the Ammonites it should be good enough for you.

                      It seems Ag and I both bit on your main point and just don’t care if the court overturns any consanguinity laws, but you haven’t responded to either of those comments instead digging in on the irrelevant details.

                    4. He’s arguing to argue, Jesse. Ignore.

                    5. Those comments did not contest my main point and therefore there was nothing for me to respond to. I find it dull to argue with someone on a point that we agree on.

                    6. Ah, so Warty is correct?

                      Nobody cares about your main point, so you’re going to argue minutiae and complain that nobody is arguing with your main point?

                      Are you a Tulpa sock? This has just gotten very Tulpical very quickly.

                    7. I’m trying to test my theory through argumentation. Admittedly the complete lack of the expected vitriol has taken me by surprise, but I’m not the one complaining. You initiated the discussion on minutiae by implying that since some consanguineous marriages are allowed that there would not be a challenge regarding the ones that aren’t allowed. I believe I have corrected your misconception (if there was one).

                      Not sure what Tibetan mysticism has to do with any of this if that’s what you’re getting at with the “Tulpa” reference. If it’s a local jargon I’d be happy to hear what you meant as I’m relatively new on this site. An incomprehensible insult is truly wasted.

                    8. Even the way you ask about Tulpa is in a Tulpa voice, or possibly a Bo voice. They might be the same. It isn’t so much an “insult” as genuine curiosity.

                      Assuming you are not Tulpa, he is a regular commenter who frequently assumes other handles and voices to get people arguing. Your style comports well with his. He is a long story and I’m poorly equipped to tell it fully. If you’re truly a new commenter and wish to know about him, you should ask something along the lines of “I’m new here and jesse.in.mb asked if I was Tulpa in another thread. Who is Tulpa and should I care?” in the PM Links.

                      The commenters will be more than happy to give you the broad strokes.

            2. Probably not an issue due to the Wetermarck effect, but it seems mildly creepy but ultimately harmless at the extremely low frequency that it happens.

              I have no problem with consanguinity laws being overturned. If it was good enough for the Moabites and the Ammonites it should be good enough for you.

        1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Laws_regarding_incest_in_the_United_States

          Almost none criminalize it at the 3rd degree as a whole though 30 states criminalize it if its between first cousins, I guess assuming (reasonably in my opinion) that sex with your great-grandparents/great grandchildren isn’t enough of a problem to be worth prohibiting.

          1. I know it is ironic that I point this out considering my reference to nitpicking above, but since Wiki is now an authority here I feel compelled to correct you. According to this Aunts & Uncles are 3rd degree relations and the table you cited indicates sexual relations with them are outlawed in most states.

          2. But this isn’t about sex. People can be married and not have sex ( I posit that what happens between two homosexuals isn’t, truly “sex”, i.e. penis+vagina).
            By basing a decision, granting rights, on such intangibles as “dignity” and “love”, it has thrown the door open to virtually anything that can be pointed to as being required to maintain one’s dignity and an expression of love.
            The fact that such things might be used as excuses to avoid things, like inheritance taxes, where a spouse gains an estate without being liable for them, while a child would, was not contemplated by the SJW’s that were falling all over themselves to get that “right”, or, they thought about it and, as the selfish beings they are, they didn’t care.

    3. the Obergefell ruling has signaled that consanguineous marriage, between persons who share a close common ancestor, will eventually be sanctified with its invocation of the “two consenting adults” standard

      prohibitions on first-cousin marriage are recent and dumb

      However, Professors Paul and Spencer said that the risk of congenital defects is about 2 per cent higher than average for babies born to first-cousin marriages ? with the infant mortality about 4.4 per cent higher ? which is on a par with the risk to babies born to women over 40. “Women over the age of 40 have a similar risk of having children with birth defects and no one is suggesting they should be prevented from reproducing,” said Professor Spencer, whose co-authored study is published in the online journal Public Library of Science.

      I will never understand why everyone gets so freaked out by this. If first cousin marriage is good enough for Charles Darwin it’s good enough for you.

      1. Jesse’s a shill for big hemophilia. Why don’t you start advocating that we all get congenital syphilis and sign a bunch of mutual defense treaties with each other and then start a gigantic war that none of us wanted?

        1. Shut up, Warty and stick your tentacles in a close relative just like god intended:

          And Abraham said, Because I thought, Surely the fear of God is not in this place; and they will slay me for my wife’s sake. And yet indeed [Sarah] is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife.

          Traditional marriage motherfuckers

          1. 18 May your fountain be blessed, and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth. 19 A loving doe, a graceful deer– may her breasts satisfy you always, may you ever be captivated by her love.

            TITTIES

            1. Little known fact: the Song of Songs was written by ee cummings.

    4. Kennedy repeatedly used the word “couple” and made reference to a “two person” union multiple times, including in his second guiding principal, that the court should be able to amply side step the issue of polygamy

      But polygamy is almost always about 2-person unions: A with B, & A with C, etc. It’s not about A, B, & C each marrying all.

      1. In Lawrence v Texas, Kennedy said that decision didn’t go as far as allowing SSM.
        He isn’t even consistent with his own, prior, decisions.
        What he said about “couple” and “two persons” is about as reliable as what he said in “Lawrence”.

  11. That chunkety-ass cowboy sure does love him some toothy wimmin.

    1. The attractiveness of the spouse you can get is going to be divided by the numbe of spouses you get.

      So, unless you’re superrich/attractive/have an amazing personality, you’re going to have to take a hit on the attractiveness of each spouse if you want more than one.

      1. Hey, they’re not unattractive – i wouldn’t kick either of ’em out of bed for eating crackers. If homeboy can play way out of his league like that, good for him.

        1. I’m not saying their unattractive, I’m just saying that the total potential hotness of the spouse is going to be divided between the spouses.

          If nothing else, its helps assuage my ego since I’m pretty damn unlikely to be able to pull off a multiple marriage.

          1. I don’t care at all if other people do it, but i couldn’t be part of a multiple marriage. Being married to one woman is hard enough.

    1. That guy is teh awesome. Love it.

    2. I salute the man and the baker. Bravo.

  12. Consenting adults? Check.

    End of comment.

  13. http://time.com/3942139/polygamy-is-not-next/

    Cathy Young argues that polygamous marriage just can’t happen, as it would up-end the myriad legal niceties associated with marital duo-ism and require customization of each polygamous marriage, robbing marriage of its legendarily streamlined legal simplicity, like screwing over fathers in family kangaroo courts. Apparently the complete inability of the state to accommodate polygamous marriage via statute–unlike, say, health care–a good reason for arbitrarily denying benefits to polygamous families. Because arbitrarily granting handouts to some while denying them to others is such a great feature of the democratically elected modern official.

    With no apparent irony or sense of shame, she writes, “In a free society, the private sexual choices of adults should not be criminalized. But they are not automatically entitled to cultural approval or societal support systems.”

    Cathy Young is the worst.

    1. Which is an argument crying out for the total elimination of state marriage licenses and the use of marriage contracts instead.

    2. she writes, “In a free society, the private sexual choices of adults should not be criminalized. But they are not automatically entitled to cultural approval or societal support systems.”

      I have seen that posted 5000 times about gay marriage.

      So many specious arguments. My favorite is the one where someone claims they aren’t offended at ALL by gays, don’t care if they get attached, even with a legal agreement but they are concerned about changing the semantic definition of marriage. Puhleeze.

    3. “In a free society, the private sexual choices of adults should not be criminalized. But they are not automatically entitled to cultural approval or societal support systems.”

      They are now!

      1. Fuck me. You don’t say Cathy. You don’t say. What an appalling idiot. She doesn’t believe in much of anything other than “gays are cool and should get their pony”

    4. We can’t have liberty, it would screw up the legal system.

    5. At least it shows she’s thinking. She always shows that in her writing. I wish we got more of her stuff here.

      She even brought out a reason for allowing same-sex marriage that I hadn’t considered previously. See, she makes me think too.

      1. Shut up and eat your Sheldon Richman!

  14. Good luck to that fellow.

    1. So if he marries both of these wenches at the same time what happens later if he wants to divorce one who turns out to be a bitch but wants to keep the other ?

      1. Sounds like a whole lotta “Not my problem.”

        Why should I (or you, or anyone else NOT INVOLVED) give a shit on how they choose to establish or dissolve their marriage(s)?

  15. The typical (stupid) response against polygamy is that it often involves underage girls. I guess it never occurs to them that legalizing it would bring it above ground where law abiding, adult, bigamists can exercise their liberties.

    In fact I would guess that legalizing it would reduce the number of child brides. I look forward to being able to use “BUT THE CHILDRENZ!” against those who usually pimp that phrase.

    1. “The typical (stupid) response against polygamy is that it often involves underage girls. I guess it never occurs to them that legalizing it would bring it above ground where law abiding, adult, bigamists can exercise their liberties.”

      Sort of like how we couldn’t legalize gay marriage because what if some of them want to rape little boys?

      WHAT THEN, GAYSTAPO.

      The arguments against polygamy are identical to the arguments against gay marriage and it’s funny that a lot of leftists refuse to acknowledge that.

      1. It’s going to be so fcuking funny watching the left continue to go down this path when talking about one-man/multiple-women relationships as the discussion starts to grow and cover one-woman/multiple-men relationships – which they will see as perfectly fine.

  16. 1) Who cares?

    2)

    Of course fundamentalist polygamous relationships exist today?they are not, however, non-violent relations between consenting adults

    That’s the line that many in the media will take — that polygamous relationships are inherently abusive (especially when it comes to “fundamentalists”!) whereas gay relationships are not. This, despite historical expressions of homosexuality having far stronger ties to pedophilia than can be said of historical expressions of polygamy. But gays are cool and in and the polygamous are not, so fuck them.

    3) Is there a good case, based on the substantive due process argument used by Kennedy, to deny this right to the polygamous but not to gays?

    1. 3. FYTW. Prepare to be bench slapped with the most incredible double think you’ve ever seen.

      1. If they decide to go FYTW, what they will say is that Obergefell wasn’t binding precedent but merely an ultra-narrow application of SDP.

      2. “bench slapped”. Nice. I’m totally using that.

  17. They’re both pretty cute, especially the one on the right.

    So I approve.

  18. Here’s where we find out who was supporting gay marriage as a special pleader who just wanted his/her/hir pony, and who supported it on a principled basis.

    Poly marriage requires a complete rework of how many aspects of divorce operate, sends community-property practices pear-shaped, doesn’t map onto the tax code, etc. It can’t be done judicially — you need legislation.

    I’m not sure how much of this you actually need legislation on, to tell you the truth. I’m not an expert on these areas of the law, so I don’t know how many of these laws actually refer to the number “two” in the text. If the issue comes down to a statute that refers to “the spouse” rather than “the spouse(s)” or “a spouse”, well the amount of de facto amending of state marriage statutes that was done before the big SCOTUS decision on gay marriage could easily encompass that much judicial “activism”.

    Property division is easily done along basic partnership lines, which doesn’t turn on the number of partners. Child custody is done via court order “in the best interest of the child”, and the judge can easily write an order that gives custody to one or five people, just as easily as one or two.

    Tax law is an unholy mess, but the IRS now has the authority to rewrite the tax code thanks to the Burwell case.

    1. Here’s where we find out who was supporting gay marriage as a special pleader who just wanted his/her/hir pony, and who supported it on a principled basis.

      Well, that’s pretty much all of them.

    2. “Here’s where we find out who was supporting gay marriage as a special pleader who just wanted his/her/hir pony, and who supported it on a principled basis.”

      If you’ve ever wanted to hear a Welch rendition of “One is the Loneliest Number,” here’s your chance.

    3. Here’s where we find out who was supporting gay marriage as a special pleader who just wanted his/her/hir pony, and who supported it on a principled basis.

      What’s there to find out? People don’t change. 98% of them have no actual principles. They can be easily discovered by how much they talk about morality and how little they talk about honor. And we already heard their arguments.

    4. and who supported it on a principled basis.

      The law should allow the marriage of any conceivable collection of consenting adults.

    5. Here’s where we find out who was supporting gay marriage as a special pleader who just wanted his/her/hir pony, and who supported it on a principled basis.

      You actually implicitly assume that all supporters of gay marriage based their support on somewhat libertarian grounds. Reason staff probably did, but far from everyone else. Some supporters of gay marriage pointed out that while homosexuality is a sexual orientation (let’s say gays are born that way), a desire to be in a polygamous union is nothing like a sexual orientation. Naturally, these supporters will continue to oppose state recognition of polygamous unions.

      1. You actually implicitly assume that all supporters of gay marriage based their support on somewhat libertarian grounds.

        I don’t really care if it was “libertarian” grounds or not. I know that most of the arguments being made for changing the definition from “any two people of the opposite sex” to “any two people” apply equally as well for changing the definition from “any two people” to “any number of people”. Its the willingness to abandon these arguments once they have gotten what you want that I call out as unprincipled.

        All poly marriage really raises as new arguments are those around how hard it will be to figure out the legal regime for poly marriage. Which, on the merits, is horseshit, and in principle shouldn’t matter.

        Marriage is a fundamental right now, correct? As a fundamental right, any restrictions on it (how many people, the need for some new laws) seem enormously insufficient as a basis for denying the right.

    6. It’s more complicated than you think, when you realize the marriages don’t all occur at the same time. A marries B, causing certain relationships to come into play. Then A marries C. Are you sure B & C are then equally positioned?

      1. Why do I care if B & C are equally positioned?

        1. They will care if it comes to a dispute. What did you think we were discussing?

          1. So what if the marriages do occur at the same time and later one of them want out ?

            Every divorce lawyer in America is probably having wet dreams over this shit.

  19. Of course fundamentalist polygamous relationships exist today?they are not, however, non-violent relations between consenting adults, and such fundamentalist groups usually find themselves running afoul of many laws, the laws against polygamy the least serious of them.

    Setting aside for a moment that the very example of polygamous marriage utilized in this article doesn’t comport with that generalization…

    Of course underage girls are, somewhere at least, forced into 2 party heterosexual marriages. Thus we should outlaw such marriages.

    There are those who use cash for crime, thus we should ban cash. There are those who commit vehicular homicide, we should outlaw motor vehicles. Why these examples even need to be brought up in response to a Reason staff member, I don’t know.

    1. I found that quote disturbing as well.

    2. Why these examples even need to be brought up in response to a Reason staff member,

      Perhaps because that staff member’s support for gay marriage was based on social signaling, not principles of human freedom, and supporting poly marriage sends the wrong social signals?

  20. Here’s what’s amazing: They’re already living as a polygamously married trio, they just don’t have the state license. They’re pretty much living proof of how unimportant state licensing should really be to marriage and why we should get rid of it entirely.

    1. Ignoring the state is probably the most economically sensible way to go. Wars are massive malinvestments.

    1. As Pa used to say, “Eat every bean and pee on yer plate.”

      1. “As Pa used to say, ‘Eat every bean and pee on yer plate.'”

        Peeing on your plate is bad manners.

        If I ate that I would be puking on my plate.

    2. As a friend of mine said about this recipe… I will not give peas a chance.

      1. how do you get peas? With a knife!!!

    3. Yesterday I saw a CNN headline saying that Obama had weighed in on the controversy.

      Still probably beyond his pay grade, but it’s good that his handlers find ways of keeping him busy while they’re working hard to fuck over every employer and consumer in the nation.

      1. It was just a response on the Tweeters to one of those “Ask POTUS” fluff things they do occasionally.

        And I happen to agree with him. That makes two things I have ever agreed with Obama about: peas in guac and Cuba.

      2. I thought you must have replied to the wrong post. Nope, he actually did. How about that.

    4. I thought it was going to be guacamole made with peas instead of avocados. This doesn’t look so bad. I’ve had guacamole that had celery in it (and it was made by Mexicans, so it’s all right), and that was quite good.

    5. iowahawk: “Jazz up your authentic New York-style supermarket bagels with Hershey’s Kisses” – El Paso Times

    6. Takes me back to my UK days:

      http://batchelorspeas.co.uk/

    7. I was completely expecting this to be a Bittman recipe. Now it appears that the NYT has a glut of awful food writers. (or is Bittman with the New Yorker or sumpin?)

    8. Hmm, I’m more prone to annoyance than offence but this is genuinely offensive.

    9. The peas add intense sweetness and a chunky texture to the dip, making it more substantial on the chip.

      Is she making this stuff in a blender? You *mash* the avocado and then add salt, if you’ve ‘smoothed it out’ you’re doing it wrong. If you’re feeling ‘modern’, toss on some lemon juice and some dice onions.

      1. ^^This, except substitute lime juice for the lemon and add crushed garlic.

    10. “The peas add intense sweetness and a chunky texture to the dip, making it more substantial on the chip.”

      Intensely sweet guac? Gross

  21. Montana, like all 50 states, outlaws bigamy ? holding multiple marriage licenses

    Well, then I guess it’s a good thing he just wants the one license that covers all three of them.

    1. I’m waiting anxiously to see the fight between folks like this where the one person wants to marry two+ people who aren’t married to each other, and the groups where each person is married to everybody.

      One is more ‘equitable’ and the other is more ‘traditional’.

  22. Wouldn’t it be awesome if this turned out to be the impetus that caused the government to get out of marriage altogether?

    1. Marriage licensing isn’t part of the social contract?

      1. You’re just batting 1.000, aren’t you.

        1. You almost managed to make an argument.

    2. Yes, but I’m not holding my breath.

    3. The only thing government ever wants to get out of is paying its debts.

    4. Hell I’ll be surprised if even libertarian legal groups make the argument to get government out of marriage. From what I can see, libertarians are happiest making the case for expansion of state licensing.

  23. Now if they could only get a baker that refuses to bake them a cake.

  24. So we’re not done freaking out over homos then?

    1. Need a new facebook profile photo now that my red & white equal sign is passe. If someone can find me a picture of black lesbian newlyweds holding a Confederate flag, I’d be appreciative.

        1. On second thought, I’m glad I SF’d that.

          1. Don’t worry–it’s the thought that counts when the NSA is compiling its lists of extremists.

    2. Didn’t learn anything from electing a black president?

    3. We’re never done freaking out about strong, powerful, muscly men that can just melt you with their eyes.

      Dey took er women!

  25. There isn’t enough popcorn in the world for this coming shitshow.

    1. Did you enjoy yesterday’s? I sure did.

      1. My favorite was the guy at the end of the thread who said he would never come here again because he was surprised to learn how our board was just like the huff post.

        1. There is nothing about huffy internet goodbyes that isn’t funny. Particularly when it’s some guy that I had never noticed before.

          1. In a thread about gay pride parades and gay marriage, his post stood alone as the gayest.

            1. I just went back and read the thread, and that was the most hilarious flounce i’ve seen in a dog’s age. Still waiting for that Tony/John slashfic, though. Sugarfree?

      2. What was yesterday’s shit show?

        1. One of the homo threads. I insulted Free Society a bunch and that offended someone who I’d never noticed before so much that he announced he was leaving and never coming back. Nicole did some great work in the thread, too.

          1. PM Links were also a shit show, though less of one.

          2. Well you did some name calling. But your opinions would need to be worth a damn for your words to actually be insulting. And yeah Nikki for her part makes a wonderful “yeah what he said!” argument. You on the other hand, didn’t actually make an argument. But good job all the same, Warty.

            1. Who was I “what he said”ing?

              1. I don’t know what you’re expecting here, but it should be good.

          3. I found the thread. I’m just gonna scroll through to see the huffier ones. Watching people get huffy on the internet can be fun.

            1. Can be? It’s the best part.

        2. Warty, John, shriek, and Tony are all terrible people who embody the groupthink dynamic lurking beneath the freewheeling veneer of Hit&Run;, according to a very serious thinker named after a video game.

          1. I’d still like an answer from Tony as to why anybody needs to “work on themselves” aside from those that want to use racist, canicidal, roid-raging baboons (that’s cops, the enforcers of State power, for the cake-eaters out there) to impose their will on others…

            1. Tony’s not real.

            2. Tony and logic and sensical answers don’t go well together.

              1. Tony is a character run by someone who is excellent at making people angry. There’s a word for that.

                1. The continued involvement of both Tony and John with this forum is pretty good evidence that the Manichean cosmology was the correct one.

            3. Dude, you don’t LIKE an answer from Tony. What you LIKE is the proof that Voltaire’s prayer has come true for you, and your enemies are, in fact, ridiculous.

              1. Unfortunately, as ridiculous as my enemies Matt be, there is still the grave potential that they will end up with the ability to fuck me over…

                1. *may*, tho perhaps if Welch thinks we’re his enemies it will motivate him to see to it we get an EDIT BUTTON…

          2. “Warty, John, shriek, and Tony”

            all walked into a bar?

            1. “Ouch,” they all said. Shriek immediately walked into the bar again.

      3. Did you enjoy yesterday’s? I sure did.

        No I skipped it because I think this has been argued to death already.

    2. All left wing commentary: Ok, we just won an major debate using the logical idea that consenting adults shouldn’t be micromanaged by the government. Now how do we make that not apply to everything else?

  26. “lgbt”…”glaad”….now the Rainbow Moral Majority and members of the PTLGBT Club.

    1. Your comments should come with a Prop 65 warning

      1. Because his posts are so bad they give us cancer?

  27. Same sex marriage & polygamy are different issues. One concerns what a marriage is, what “spouse” means. The other is about how many marriages you’re legally allowed to be a party to at the same time. Hardly ever is polygamy implemented as a true plural marriage, i.e. a set of 3 or more people each becoming the spouse of all the others at once; it’s nearly always a series of binary relationships. People often get confused on this point. It’s inherent in the word?poly-gamy: several marriages.

    1. “People often get confused on this point.”

      Nice try Sparky, but no one is confused about anything. Regardless of what any “lgbt” person might think, a marriage can now be any combo of consenting adults.

      We’re going to have freedom and liberty for everyone, not just the “lgbt” crowd.

      1. Deformed babies just spontaneously aborted. Well done Mr. Hiss

    2. One concerns what a marriage is, what “spouse” means.

      It was never about what spouse means. It was always about what marriage means.

      The other is about how many marriages you’re legally allowed to be a party to at the same time.

      Its also about what marriage means, just like the gay marriage debate. I don’t know why you would say that a plural marriage is necessarily a bunch of one-on-one marriages somehow jammed together. Why isn’t it a single marriage with more than two partners?

      1. Because that’s not how they’ve happened. In almost every instance, polygamy has been about someone who already had a spouse then marrying another (& another, etc. if that’s the case). A true plural marriage, where 3 or more single people get together at once, & each becomes the spouse of all the others, is pretty much just a hippie thing. You also couldn’t have the latter until you had same sex marriage, because with only 2 sexes & 3 or more people, at least 1 of the pairings within that group would have to be same-sex.

        1. Well the article that brought forth these comment is about 3 people who went to get a marriage license at the same time.

          1. Actually two already have a marriage license. They went to get a second one

    3. And, you’re wrong about this:

      It’s inherent in the word?poly-gamy: several marriages.

      Its defined as “The practice or custom of having more than one wife or husband at the same time.” Nothing there about several marriages.

      The historical origin is this:

      “Late 16th century: from French polygamie, via late Latin from Greek polugamia, from polugamos ‘often marrying’.”

      Again, nothing about “several” marriages.

      http://www.oxforddictionaries……h/polygamy

      1. “Poly-” is a prefix referring to plurality. It’s not as common for it to refer to frequency. “-gamy” always refers to marriage or to a sexual coupling between living things.

        Take the example in this story. Are you saying those 2 ladies are seeking to marry each other, as well as to marry the cowboy? It’s clear from the story that he’s not seeking an amendment to his marriage papers, he’s seeking an add’l one.

        1. Just try Google translate into Greek for “spouse” & “marriage”. Greek for “spouse” is nothing like “gam”, but for “marriage” it’s “gamos”. The -y is a suffix for condition or property.

    4. It’s all about the luvs…

  28. A red state should lead the way on this saying that if we don’t have one man-one woman, then it should be anything goes. Could gum up the works for all the blue states.

    1. Yes, because personal freedom is only valuable as a means to inconveniencing one’s foes, not as an end in and of itself.

      1. Freedom’s just another word for FUCK COSMOS.

        1. TRIIIIIIIIIIIIIBEZ

    2. Isn’t some red state already considering backing out of marriage licensing so they don’t have to give it to gays?

  29. Hardly ever is polygamy implemented as a true plural marriage, i.e. a set of 3 or more people each becoming the spouse of all the others at once; it’s nearly always a series of binary relationships.

    Citation needed.

    1. No citation is needed for something as commonly known as this. How many times have you heard of A + B + C all at once, vs. A marrying B, then A marrying C? Even sultans didn’t put together a harem all at once!

    2. I suppose now you’ll want to edit the Wikipedia entry that says

      bigamy is the act of entering into a marriage with one person while still legally married to another.

  30. Lately, whenever I bring up poly relations my leftist acquaintances always make assumptions that it is one guy with several women and that they are religious fundamentalists and live in fly-over country (so much for the left not having any prejudices). That prejudice is, I think, the big reason why the left does not support, at this time, multiple spouse marriages. Yet, in my decades of involvement in the libertarian movement and other causes(none of them considered right-wing), I have come across three poly ‘marriages’ that were one woman and two men. None are religious fundis, most are atheists, and some are agnostic. None of them live in fly-over country, all live in a major metropolitan area; two are on the west coast the other on the east coast. Several are professionals with successful white-collar careers.

  31. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ??

    I’m not American, but as I understand it these words from the Declaration of Independence form the basis of the Constitution. That is, “…the pursuit of happiness…” with the others is the reason and motivating principle behind the Constitution, with its various amendments.

    Is this right?

    If so, then I don’t see how anyone can deny polyamory, polygamy, etc. If people believe they will be happier having more than one spouse, if people believe that 3 or 4 people all love each other and want to be together, then how is this not inevitable…..following gay marriage?

  32. then how is this not inevitable…..following gay marriage

    Its not inevitable at all. The support for gay marriage was not principled; it trotted out principles as a pretext. The real engine for gay marriage was social signaling. That engine is lacking for plural marriage.

    1. That’s a little too broad. Should say: “Much of the support for gay marriage was not principled . . .”

    2. The support for gay marriage was fairly principled: the three principles were that the state should help make people happy, that the state has an interest in promoting sexual pair bonding, and that laws should be gender/sex neutral.

      The first two happen to be principles libertarians reject, and the last is a principle that follows trivially from more general libertarian principles. But the fact that progressive principles differ from libertarian ones doesn’t mean they lack principles.

      And progressive principles are actually quite attractive when you compare them to, say, Catholic principles of government. The problem with progressive principles is that they fail to achieve good results.

  33. I have no problem with polygamy in principle. However, while extending laws governing OSM to any two consenting adults is easy (you just ignore the sex of the participants), the same isn’t true for extending it further. So, recognizing polygamous marriages requires changing a lot of laws to clarify how the rules that apply to two people apply to more than two people.

    Of course, the libertarian in me hopes that such exercises will demonstrate how absurd governmental definitions of marriage are in the first place and will instead change the laws to be independent of marriage.

    For example, for Social Security, you might be allowed to designate one survivor who is financially dependent on you right now. For medical decisions, you might designate a list of people in order of priority. For income taxes, everybody should just be required to file as individuals. Etc.

  34. These boots just keep on walkin, and that’s just what they’ll do. One of these days these boots are gonna walk right over you. Bum de bum…

    1. Back in the sixties Nancy was sizzling hot. Wonder what she looks like now. I don’t think I’m going to try to find out. Some pleasant memories are just best left unmolested.

  35. Would you grant citizenship to illegal aliens who entered an “arranged” marriage with a citizen? This (which usually ends in divorce once the spouse becomes a citizen) was apparently common enough in the 90’s that the INS worker mentioned it to our family when applied for a green card. My parents were married for over 20 years, so nothing came out of it.

    Why can’t there be marriages of convenience? Who says marriages have to be based on affection and commitment? Not the constitution. For single illegal alien woman, citizenship marriage might be a better alternative to amnesty.

    The BIG question is, can a corporation marry another corporation? The left says they’re not people, but I don’t know – the SC says they have freedom speech!

    1. A corporation can marry a corporation. It’s called a merger.

      1. I know that, I was being tongue in cheek.

        Although, a merger can involve one company essentially taking over the other, which simply disappears.

    2. Please stop repeating this b.s. confusion about “coporations are [not] people”. Corporations are people in the same way that hamburgers are meat: their major ingredient is people, namely the owners of those corporations.

      So, corporations “have freedom of speech” because their owners do and they can use the corporation to engage in that speech.

      Obviously, corporations can’t marry because it makes no logical sense; marriage laws talk about individual, personal relationships that simply don’t apply to business entities or properties you own.

  36. Nathan, all the best buddy, especially if you can stand the nagging, although the shagging may make up for it.

  37. I can see this attempt being brushed aside, but how about one that punches all the correct buttons? A bisexual women wanting to marry a man and a women, who states “she cannot be fulfilled without both a husband and a wife”. Since the law only prohibits having more than one husband or more than one wife, it would seem that she has a perfect loophole: one of each.

  38. Why would any sensible person want to deal with more than one spouse!

  39. This is a question that begs to be asked and answered. The state has no place in this bed and needs to butt out of peoples private lives..

  40. Gee, marriage equality! I fell in love with my first cousin Bob when I was 18. The marriage laws said we could not marry because we are first cousins. YEAH!!! I am going to call him and tell him we can now get married because of marriage equality. What? You object? How can you object? We love each other and isn’t that all that matters and so what if our children could have birth defects and low IQ’s. It make US happy NOW and that is all that matters, right??? GIve love a chance and all that. I am just so so happy!!! We can keep it all in the family. What right do you have to tell us we can’t? Oh, that old Biblical rule thing? Bigot!!!! If everybody else can get married just because they love each other, then why can’t we? Morals? What does that have to do with anything? Old fashioned! Gee, we will both have the same last name even before we get married!
    Slippery slope? Unintended consequences? Who thinks of that? Do WE have to got to the SCOTUS to get permission? Are we second class citizens? It is our civil right!
    (Satire intended)

    1. Don’t most homophobes fuck their cousins anyway?

      1. Speaking from experience?

  41. marriage (archaic)
    1. The legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman as partners in a relationship.
    2. A combination or mixture of two or more elements.

    marriage (modern)
    1. The legally or formally recognized union of two or more of the same or different things.

  42. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    http://www.jobnet10.com

  43. Polygamy is the practice of having more that one spouse. That could include group marriages. Polygyny, which is what is really being discussed in the article, is the practice of one man having more than one wife. Polyandry is the practice of one woman having more than one husband. Of course, the government should not be involve in relationship contracts (marriage) between consenting adults. It’s a personal moral or religious issue not a secular government issue. Consenting adults, if they truly own the property of their bodies and minds (which the drug war has proven they don’t) should be able to enter into and leave any relationship contracts they damn well please.
    And then there are the no marriage whatsoever people. In Southwest China there is an ethnic group of people in which the women of a village can have sex with any man and as many men in the village that she wants. No problem. When she gets pregnant, her sisters and brothers help her raise the child and no man comes forward or is identified as the father. Google TED Talks and type in “Are we designed to be sexual omnivores,” by Christopher Ryan and become enlightened.

  44. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    http://www.jobnet10.com

  45. Well of course — you can’t invite the bearded lady to the freak show, but then keep out the conjoined twins.

  46. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.online-jobs9.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.