From same sex marriage to Polygamy

Helena, Mont. • 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 told The Associated Press on Wednesday. "You can't have this without polygamy

Skeptical wrote:

Wasn't it said soon after the SCOTUS rewrote the law concerning same sex marriage that there is no slippery slope created by the decision regarding other groups/individuals wanting to marry other than the traditional way???

Well, it appears it is the turn for the those wanting and/or supporting polygamy to have their place in the sun.

Helena, Mont. • 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 told The Associated Press on Wednesday. "You can't have this without polygamy

http://www.sltrib.com/home/2688033-155/you-cant-have-marriage-equality-without

Plus I am sure you all can immdeiately recall what John Roberts said,

" much of the majority's reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage." In 1996, Justice Antonin Scalia claimed the court had put itself on the path to upholding the rights of polygamists."

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Wasn't it said soon after the SCOTUS rewrote the law concerning same sex marriage that there is no slippery slope created by the decision regarding other groups/individuals wanting to marry other than the traditional way???

Well, it appears it is the turn for the those wanting and/or supporting polygamy to have their place in the sun.

Helena, Mont. • 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 told The Associated Press on Wednesday. "You can't have this without polygamy

http://www.sltrib.com/home/2688033-155/you-cant-have-marriage-equality-without

Plus I am sure you all can immdeiately recall what John Roberts said,

" much of the majority's reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage." In 1996, Justice Antonin Scalia claimed the court had put itself on the path to upholding the rights of polygamists."

Romney and his family should be happy....

Darth Cheney wrote:For Shorties Lover...we knew it all along:

http://www.mrctv.org/blog/taxpayers-continue-spend-millions-find-out-why-lesbians-are-fat#.0kflq7:dqw0

A Tennessee judge has denied a divorce petition because of the US supreme court decision allowing gay marriage, leaving a couple married against their wishes.

Hamilton County chancellor Jeffrey Atherton denied the couple’s divorce petition last week, claiming the national marriage equality ruling had marred Tennessee’s ability to determine what constitutes divorce.

Atherton’s reasoning to deny the petition was that the supreme court had not clarified “when a marriage is no longer a marriage”, the Times Free Press reported.

“With the US Supreme Court having defined what must be recognized as a marriage, it would appear that Tennessee’s judiciary must now await the decision of the US Supreme Court as to what is not a marriage, or better stated, when a marriage is no longer a marriage,” Atherton wrote in the order.

“The conclusion reached by this Court is that Tennesseans have been deemed by the US Supreme Court to be incompetent to define and address such keystone/central institutions such as marriage, and, thereby, at minimum, contested divorces,” Atherton wrote.....

Darth Cheney wrote:We hve all heard about the Kentucky public servant who refused to issue marriage certificates to sodomists...

Apparently Mooslims are not imprisoned for refusing to do certain tasks that are against their religion like serving alcohol on an airplane. Ironically, liberals and qweers are not marching in the streets.

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/09/07/muslim-flight-attendant-suspended-for-not-serving-booze/

Dr. Jones wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:We hve all heard about the Kentucky public servant who refused to issue marriage certificates to sodomists...

Apparently Mooslims are not imprisoned for refusing to do certain tasks that are against their religion like serving alcohol on an airplane. Ironically, liberals and qweers are not marching in the streets.

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/09/07/muslim-flight-attendant-suspended-for-not-serving-booze/

You mean the public servant that has been married four times to three different men, had two children out of wedlock, with her third husband, conceived while still with her first,  that has suddenly decided to take up "God's crusade" against those who defile the sanctity of marriage???

Darth Cheney wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:We hve all heard about the Kentucky public servant who refused to issue marriage certificates to sodomists...

Apparently Mooslims are not imprisoned for refusing to do certain tasks that are against their religion like serving alcohol on an airplane. Ironically, liberals and qweers are not marching in the streets.

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/09/07/muslim-flight-attendant-suspended-for-not-serving-booze/

You mean the public servant that has been married four times to three different men, had two children out of wedlock, with her third husband, conceived while still with her first,  that has suddenly decided to take up "God's crusade" against those who defile the sanctity of marriage???

Judge not...and ye shall not be judged.

An openly gay Texas judge says she refuses to conduct marriage ceremonies for straight couples. No one tried to put her in jail. No federal judges tried to condemn her.

The Dallas County Judge Tonya Parker explained her decision at a monthly meeting for the Stonewall Democrats of Dallas.

“
“I do not perform them because it is not an equal application of the law. Period,” she said, according to the Dallas Voice, a newspaper for the gay community.

Parker is believed to be the first openly “gay” African-American elected official in the history of the state, according to NY Daily news.

Skeptical wrote:
Apparently Kim Davis's actions were so much more atrocious than murder and she is such a dangerous threat to the public and/or nation she is held in jail without bail.

Skeptical wrote:

This Gay Judge is Refusing to Perform Straight Marriages, No Jail Time – No Media Outrage

An openly gay Texas judge says she refuses to conduct marriage ceremonies for straight couples. No one tried to put her in jail. No federal judges tried to condemn her.

The Dallas County Judge Tonya Parker explained her decision at a monthly meeting for the Stonewall Democrats of Dallas.

“
“I do not perform them because it is not an equal application of the law. Period,” she said, according to the Dallas Voice, a newspaper for the gay community.

Parker is believed to be the first openly “gay” African-American elected official in the history of the state, according to NY Daily news.

http://www.thepcmdgazette.com/this-gay-judge-is-refusing-to-perform-straight-marriages-no-jail-time-no-media-outrage/

Dr. Jones wrote:

Apples and oranges.

Clicker wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Apples and oranges.

There is a difference in that one refuses to issue a license and the other refuses to honor a license.  Now, that said, what do you think the reaction would be if the judge were refusing to perform gay marriages only?  

Dr. Jones wrote:

Clicker wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Apples and oranges.

There is a difference in that one refuses to issue a license and the other refuses to honor a license.  Now, that said, what do you think the reaction would be if the judge were refusing to perform gay marriages only?  

That's not really the case.   We find ourselves, yet again, in a situation where conservatives are trying to manufacture a story where there isn't one in an attempt to play the victim.

As near as I can tell Texas allows judges to perform marriages,  but doesn't require it.  This would make it perfectly fine for any judge to refuse to marry anyone or everyone, for whatever reason.

However Mrs. Davis is required by law to give a marriage  license to anyone legally allowed to have one. There's a huge difference there.  She was given a chance to conform on her own free will, but chose not to, so she paid the consequence.  It's really quite simple.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Clicker wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Apples and oranges.

There is a difference in that one refuses to issue a license and the other refuses to honor a license.  Now, that said, what do you think the reaction would be if the judge were refusing to perform gay marriages only?  

That's not really the case.   We find ourselves, yet again, in a situation where conservatives are trying to manufacture a story where there isn't one in an attempt to play the victim.

As near as I can tell Texas allows judges to perform marriages,  but doesn't require it.  This would make it perfectly fine for any judge to choose to or not to marry anyone or everyone that asks, for whatever reason.

However Mrs. Davis is required by law to give a marriage  license to anyone legally allowed to have one. There's a huge difference there.  She was given a chance to conform on her own free will, but chose not to, so she paid the consequence.  It's really quite simple.

BladeRunner wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Clicker wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Apples and oranges.

There is a difference in that one refuses to issue a license and the other refuses to honor a license.  Now, that said, what do you think the reaction would be if the judge were refusing to perform gay marriages only?  

That's not really the case.   We find ourselves, yet again, in a situation where conservatives are trying to manufacture a story where there isn't one in an attempt to play the victim.

As near as I can tell Texas allows judges to perform marriages,  but doesn't require it.  This would make it perfectly fine for any judge to choose to or not to marry anyone or everyone that asks, for whatever reason.

However Mrs. Davis is required by law to give a marriage  license to anyone legally allowed to have one. There's a huge difference there.  She was given a chance to conform on her own free will, but chose not to, so she paid the consequence.  It's really quite simple.

Let me get this straight.

Are you saying that you think she is constitutionally required to uphold the laws of the land?

Dr. Jones wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:We hve all heard about the Kentucky public servant who refused to issue marriage certificates to sodomists...

Apparently Mooslims are not imprisoned for refusing to do certain tasks that are against their religion like serving alcohol on an airplane. Ironically, liberals and qweers are not marching in the streets.

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/09/07/muslim-flight-attendant-suspended-for-not-serving-booze/

You mean the public servant that has been married four times to three different men, had two children out of wedlock, with her third husband, conceived while still with her first,  that has suddenly decided to take up "God's crusade" against those who defile the sanctity of marriage???

Judge not...and ye shall not be judged.

Coming from someone who refers to homosexuals as sodomists?!?  Oooh that's rich.....

Follow your own advice you hypocrite.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Clicker wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Apples and oranges.

There is a difference in that one refuses to issue a license and the other refuses to honor a license.  Now, that said, what do you think the reaction would be if the judge were refusing to perform gay marriages only?  

That's not really the case.   We find ourselves, yet again, in a situation where conservatives are trying to manufacture a story where there isn't one in an attempt to play the victim.

As near as I can tell Texas allows judges to perform marriages,  but doesn't require it.  This would make it perfectly fine for any judge to choose to or not to marry anyone or everyone that asks, for whatever reason.

However Mrs. Davis is required by law to give a marriage  license to anyone legally allowed to have one. There's a huge difference there.  She was given a chance to conform on her own free will, but chose not to, so she paid the consequence.  It's really quite simple.

Clicker wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Clicker wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Apples and oranges.

There is a difference in that one refuses to issue a license and the other refuses to honor a license.  Now, that said, what do you think the reaction would be if the judge were refusing to perform gay marriages only?  

That's not really the case.   We find ourselves, yet again, in a situation where conservatives are trying to manufacture a story where there isn't one in an attempt to play the victim.

As near as I can tell Texas allows judges to perform marriages,  but doesn't require it.  This would make it perfectly fine for any judge to refuse to marry anyone or everyone, for whatever reason.

However Mrs. Davis is required by law to give a marriage  license to anyone legally allowed to have one. There's a huge difference there.  She was given a chance to conform on her own free will, but chose not to, so she paid the consequence.  It's really quite simple.

Even simpler, if the judge is marrying anyone, then under the the very Liberal doctrine of "do the right thing" she should agree to marry everyone.  

The prisoner has been released, probably because of the appeal but I'd bet the pressure was building on the judge who threw her in jail in the first place.  
http://www.aol.com/article/2015/09/08/jailed-clerk-who-fought-gay-marriage-is-ordered-released/21233091/
I mean even Dahmer got out on bail!!

Darth Cheney wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:We hve all heard about the Kentucky public servant who refused to issue marriage certificates to sodomists...

Apparently Mooslims are not imprisoned for refusing to do certain tasks that are against their religion like serving alcohol on an airplane. Ironically, liberals and qweers are not marching in the streets.

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/09/07/muslim-flight-attendant-suspended-for-not-serving-booze/

You mean the public servant that has been married four times to three different men, had two children out of wedlock, with her third husband, conceived while still with her first,  that has suddenly decided to take up "God's crusade" against those who defile the sanctity of marriage???

Judge not...and ye shall not be judged.

Coming from someone who refers to homosexuals as sodomists?!?  Oooh that's rich.....

Follow your own advice you hypocrite.

Homos are sodomists...maybe you don't understand what being gay entails...

Dr. Jones wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:We hve all heard about the Kentucky public servant who refused to issue marriage certificates to sodomists...

Apparently Mooslims are not imprisoned for refusing to do certain tasks that are against their religion like serving alcohol on an airplane. Ironically, liberals and qweers are not marching in the streets.

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/09/07/muslim-flight-attendant-suspended-for-not-serving-booze/

You mean the public servant that has been married four times to three different men, had two children out of wedlock, with her third husband, conceived while still with her first,  that has suddenly decided to take up "God's crusade" against those who defile the sanctity of marriage???

Judge not...and ye shall not be judged.

Coming from someone who refers to homosexuals as sodomists?!?  Oooh that's rich.....

Follow your own advice you hypocrite.

Sounds like you are a closet qweer...do you call her Steve when you're packing her crap?

Homos are sodomists...maybe you don't understand what being gay entails...

Maybe you don't understand what being in a heterosexual relationship  entails...

Dr. Jones wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Clicker wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Apples and oranges.

There is a difference in that one refuses to issue a license and the other refuses to honor a license.  Now, that said, what do you think the reaction would be if the judge were refusing to perform gay marriages only?  

That's not really the case.   We find ourselves, yet again, in a situation where conservatives are trying to manufacture a story where there isn't one in an attempt to play the victim.

As near as I can tell Texas allows judges to perform marriages,  but doesn't require it.  This would make it perfectly fine for any judge to choose to or not to marry anyone or everyone that asks, for whatever reason.

However Mrs. Davis is required by law to give a marriage  license to anyone legally allowed to have one. There's a huge difference there.  She was given a chance to conform on her own free will, but chose not to, so she paid the consequence.  It's really quite simple.

Let me get this straight.

Are you saying that you think she is constitutionally required to uphold the laws of the land?

Legally required.  Yes, of course.