Montana polygamist family applies for marriage license.....

[nhboy]

Link

"BILLINGS -Given the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling that same-sex marriage is legal in all 50 states, a Lockwood family is now looking to solidify rights of its own.

We first told you about the Colliers in January of 2015 when the polygamist family appeared on an episode of the TLC show, "Sister Wives."

The polyamorous movement is a national push to allow marriage between multiple partners.

Nathan Collier and his two wives, Vicki and Christine, said Tuesday that they are simply looking for equality.Nathan is legally married to Vicki, but also wants to legally wed Christine.

On Tuesday, Nathan and Christine traveled to the Yellowstone County Courthouse to see if they would be awarded the right to marry under the Marriage Equality Act.

Polygamy is illegal under Montana state law, and recognized as a misdemeanor offense.

"We just want to add legal legitimacy to an already happy, strong, loving family," said Nathan.
As the two filled out their marriage application they were met with questions.

"There's a spot on there where you put the dissolution date of your previous marriage and we put 'not applicable,'" said Christine.

In fact, the couple was met with varied reaction from employees, who were caught off guard.

"So, are you legally married, you didn't get divorced?" asked one clerk." .....

 

[Chris0nllyn]

"And now it begins"


Just wanted to post that and get it out of the way.

Again, the govt. decided that people's intimate lives are their business by making polygamy a crime.

It's time people start arguing that it's none of their damn business instead of arguing, incessantly, about whom they feel should be married based on their beliefs.

 

[tblwdc]

Link

"BILLINGS -Given the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling that same-sex marriage is legal in all 50 states, a Lockwood family is now looking to solidify rights of its own.

We first told you about the Colliers in January of 2015 when the polygamist family appeared on an episode of the TLC show, "Sister Wives."

The polyamorous movement is a national push to allow marriage between multiple partners.

Nathan Collier and his two wives, Vicki and Christine, said Tuesday that they are simply looking for equality.Nathan is legally married to Vicki, but also wants to legally wed Christine.

On Tuesday, Nathan and Christine traveled to the Yellowstone County Courthouse to see if they would be awarded the right to marry under the Marriage Equality Act.

Polygamy is illegal under Montana state law, and recognized as a misdemeanor offense.

"We just want to add legal legitimacy to an already happy, strong, loving family," said Nathan.
As the two filled out their marriage application they were met with questions.

"There's a spot on there where you put the dissolution date of your previous marriage and we put 'not applicable,'" said Christine.

In fact, the couple was met with varied reaction from employees, who were caught off guard.

"So, are you legally married, you didn't get divorced?" asked one clerk." .....

Well maybe love will win again.

 

[tblwdc]

"And now it begins"


Just wanted to post that and get it out of the way.

Again, the govt. decided that people's intimate lives are their business by making polygamy a crime.

It's time people start arguing that it's none of their damn business instead of arguing, incessantly, about whom they feel should be married based on their beliefs.

It isn't just about that. It will now be about prolonged property disputes because there is not a clear line as to who owns what if you include polygamist marriages. Do you not believe it is up to government to settle those disputes?

 

[vraiblonde]

It isn't just about that. It will now be about prolonged property disputes because there is not a clear line as to who owns what if you include polygamist marriages. Do you not believe it is up to government to settle those disputes?

Property disputes occur with two-person marriages all the time, and a judge settles it. How will this be different?

 

[Chris0nllyn]

It isn't just about that. It will now be about prolonged property disputes because there is not a clear line as to who owns what if you include polygamist marriages. Do you not believe it is up to government to settle those disputes?

It is about that.

A private marriage (one the govt. isn't involved in) would most likely be set up like a business contract, so to speak. Any disputes on that contract would go before a neutral arbitrator. In most cases, you split. In most cases where a bunch of money is involved or children visitation, there would be a contract involved delineating the right and responsibilities of the individuals who agree to that contract. But this should be between the two parties, not the govt.

To answer your question, no.

 

[tommyjo]

It is about that.

A private marriage (one the govt. isn't involved in) would most likely be set up like a business contract, so to speak. Any disputes on that contract would go before a neutral arbitrator. In most cases, you split. In most cases where a bunch of money is involved or children visitation, there would be a contract involved delineating the right and responsibilities of the individuals who agree to that contract. But this should be between the two parties, not the govt.

To answer your question, no.

Obviously you've never been involved in a divorce proceeding or a business contract dispute. They don't go before arbitrators...they go to court (or in your eyes, the govt). No one in their right mind would take a divorce proceeding or business contract dispute to an arbitrator if a settlement can't be agreed to out of court.

 

[Hijinx]

I have a lot less problems with polygamy than I do with same sex marriage.
Polygamy is between three people or more engaging in Heterosexual sex. ( not especially all at one time.)

Man and 2 women or one woman and 2 men. either way it is more natural than what homosexuals perform. (depending on how kinky they are)

It sure didn't take long though did it?

 

[officeguy]

It isn't just about that. It will now be about prolonged property disputes because there is not a clear line as to who owns what if you include polygamist marriages. Do you not believe it is up to government to settle those disputes?

Do you think the disputes will be any more complicated than in a serial monogamy situation interrupted by several divorces ?

We should get rid of community property anyway. You want to own 1/2 of a house, get your name on the deed.

 

[kinmd]

Just how prevalent does anyone think polygamy would be even if legalized? Any married guys here want a 2nd wife? Run that one by your wife at dinner.

 

[Hijinx]

Just how prevalent does anyone think polygamy would be even if legalized? Any married guys here want a 2nd wife? Run that one by your wife at dinner.

We are bringing in more and more Muslims, and they like multiple wives so that when they beat one so badly she cannot do the chores the other one can take up the slack.

 

[tblwdc]

Property disputes occur with two-person marriages all the time, and a judge settles it. How will this be different?

In divorce property disputes there are certain presumptions based on a two person marriage. If you add a third person that complicates the dispute much more. I could give you examples, but if you are unable to see that on it's face, then I doubt you would be able to understand th examples.

 

[stgislander]

In divorce property disputes there are certain presumptions based on a two person marriage. If you add a third person that complicates the dispute much more. I could give you examples, but if you are unable to see that on it's face, then I doubt you would be able to understand th examples.

So are we to say polygamy should not be allowed just because it will make it more difficult for govt. to resolve potential disputes? It seems there should be more to it than that. :shrug:

 

[tblwdc]

It is about that.

A private marriage (one the govt. isn't involved in) would most likely be set up like a business contract, so to speak. Any disputes on that contract would go before a neutral arbitrator. In most cases, you split. In most cases where a bunch of money is involved or children visitation, there would be a contract involved delineating the right and responsibilities of the individuals who agree to that contract. But this should be between the two parties, not the govt.

To answer your question, no.

So when the two parties can't agree, and one party refuses an arbitrator, how would you handle that if not with government intervention.

 

[snake]

Just how prevalent does anyone think polygamy would be even if legalized? Any married guys here want a 2nd wife? Run that one by your wife at dinner.

To be fair, homosexuality is not even prevalent. The LGBT community makes up an extreme minority of the population in all estimates (usually 3-5% maximum), but that didn't stop them from equating their struggle as if they were 50% of the population.

 

[tblwdc]

So are we to say polygamy should not be allowed just because it will make it more difficult for govt. to resolve potential disputes? It seems there should be more to it than that. :shrug:

That is one reason.

 

[officeguy]

In divorce property disputes there are certain presumptions based on a two person marriage. If you add a third person that complicates the dispute much more. I could give you examples, but if you are unable to see that on it's face, then I doubt you would be able to understand th examples.

There are already plenty of divorces where the alimony arrangement has to take pre-existing alimony and child support obligations into account. Government shouldn't be involved in the divying up of property related to marriage in the first place. Those rules are antiquated and based on a marriage model that hasn't existed in 40 years.

 

[tblwdc]

Government shouldn't be involved in the divying up of property related to marriage in the first place. Those rules are antiquated and based on a marriage model that hasn't existed in 40 years.

Who should?

 

[Chris0nllyn]

So when the two parties can't agree, and one party refuses an arbitrator, how would you handle that if not with government intervention.

Write it in the "contract". Good grief. You don't need govt. to play the role of arbitrator.

If the contract gets broken, or otherwise could become invalid for whatever reason, then it could go to court if necessary.


Of course, you're basing your argument that polygamy shouldn't be legal,. and should be a crime, on a hypothetical situation that is likely not to happen often.

 

[tblwdc]

Write it in the "contract". Good grief. You don't need govt. to play the role of arbitrator.

If the contract gets broken, or otherwise could become invalid for whatever reason, then it could go to court if necessary.


Of course, you're basing your argument that polygamy shouldn't be legal,. and should be a crime, on a hypothetical situation that is likely not to happen often.

So you propose there should be a contract for every marriage? This contract should cover every possible situation which may or may not occur over a 20 year marriage. Thsi contract should cover who pays what for which child...etc?