Kawasaki Concours Forum
Mish mash => Open Forum => Topic started by: twowheeladdict on July 02, 2015, 05:49:22 AM
-
http://news.yahoo.com/polygamous-montana-trio-applies-wedding-license-193205283.html (http://news.yahoo.com/polygamous-montana-trio-applies-wedding-license-193205283.html)
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.
-
http://news.yahoo.com/polygamous-montana-trio-applies-wedding-license-193205283.html (http://news.yahoo.com/polygamous-montana-trio-applies-wedding-license-193205283.html)
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.
If they don't have a gov contract it can't be called a marriage just a threesome.
-
Yep, once you erase the line it's tough to say where to re-draw it. This was expected, although a bit quicker than I anticipated.
-
Wow, not me- I did NOT see this one coming at all. But you are right, now that the door has been kicked ajar, how much wider can it be opened? And honestly, I cannot think of any constitutional reason why three (or more) people could not be married? The suit should use the same argument too- fourteenth amendment, ....equal protection under the law.
Brian
Yep, once you erase the line it's tough to say where to re-draw it. This was expected, although a bit quicker than I anticipated.
-
... now that the door has been kicked ajar, how much wider can it be opened?
People should be very wary of demanding that the government allow this or ban that.... The screen door may indeed start to swing in the direction that equates to a loss of personal freedoms....
-
Wow, not me- I did NOT see this one coming at all. But you are right, now that the door has been kicked ajar, how much wider can it be opened? And honestly, I cannot think of any constitutional reason why three (or more) people could not be married? The suit should use the same argument too- fourteenth amendment, ....equal protection under the law.
Brian
What happens when a hippie commune (do they exist anymore?) applies for a "Group" license?
Jamie
-
Fun?
-
So if I divorce 3 women and 2 men do I have to pay alimony to all of them?? ::)
-
Yes. Fair is fair..
-
Yep, once you erase the line it's tough to say where to re-draw it. This was expected, although a bit quicker than I anticipated.
Oh, fun!
Next; are we going to legalize animal marriage?
Ohh, "Fluffy",,, :censored:
(Yes, I know I'm a sick man)
But my point is, de-draw the line or erase it?
Where are we headed?
Ride safe, Ted
-
I don't want a 1st "wife", WTF are guys thinking wanting multiples ;D
-
Two women, three men; five women, two men and so forth. Then you come along and ruin the whole thing by going too far Ted..... sheep! Why I don't think they even allow that in TX.... anymore. ;D
Animal marriage won't be a problem, fundamental part of the law has regard to the term 'soul', which only humans are viewed to have. Same thing would apply to necrophiliacs looking for a marriage license I suspect- one o' dem has no 'soul'.
But I do have to wonder about polygamy- if all parties wanted to get married, would not the same argument about gay marriage apply? Sure it seem ridiculous at first thought but then again, gay marriage would have been a ridiculous thought 40 or more years ago also.
How does that Chinese curse go....'May you live in interesting times.'.
Brian
Oh, fun!
Next; are we going to legalize animal marriage?
Ohh, Sheeeeeeeep! :censored:
(Yes, I know I'm a sick man)
But my point is, de-draw the line or erase it?
Where are we headed?
Ride safe, Ted
-
People should be very wary of demanding that the government allow this or ban that.... The screen door may indeed start to swing in the direction that equates to a loss of personal freedoms....
That horse has already left the barn....
-
I think PETA will get in the way of people getting married to animals. I suppose those couples will have to "live in sin" without "equal protection under the law "
-
Yea, I know, I crossed the line. Sorry about that, I got carried away....
(I went back and fixed it)..
But my point stands.
Is it even possible to re-draw the line?
Or, has it been erased?
Ride safe, Ted
-
I think it is more semantics than anything else. The term "Marriage" goes back thousands of years and it was a religious ceremony because churches were equipped to keep accurate records. And then one day, Lawyers got involved. That's when things got complicated. Then the Government got involved. And let's throw pride into the mix. No wonder it's a mess.
It seems to me that contracts and powers of attorney could solve these problems. The terms "husband" and "wife" carry with them a sense of "ownership" and "obligation" unseen in other types of partnerships. Wedding vows used to be pretty much carved in stone, not so much anymore. The vows only count until Judges and Lawyers say that they don't. What a mess.
-
The terms "husband" and "wife" carry with them a sense of "ownership" and "obligation" unseen in other types of partnerships.
Its supposed to represent 'commitment'.
Someone has to take care of the resulting children, who will in turn take care of all of us later.
We're already under quite a financial burden for that now. Necessary but heavy.
If a 'vow' can be undone, its not a vow.
Language and meaning of words is important. Constant redefinitions muddy the water.
Yea, I know, I crossed the line. Sorry about that, I got carried away....
(I went back and fixed it)..
But my point stands.
Is it even possible to re-draw the line?
Or, has it been erased?
Nope. Pandora's box applies here my friend.
-
Summary of some of the objections here:
http://www.zggtr.org/index.php?topic=19736 (http://www.zggtr.org/index.php?topic=19736)
'that'll never happen here'
'you're really stretching there'
'you can't use the 'slippery slope' argument' . . . .
Here we are a day later.
Its becoming reality, fast. It all up for grabs and we ain't seen nothin' yet. Buckle up.
-
Well, I do think there will be some limitations: marriage will be limited to humans. Brothers and sisters (and any immediate family members (Easy Boys! Not THOSE members!) and all forms of incestuous marriage would also be rejected due to 'immediate and severe harm' as the litmus test (deformed offspring). Otherwise, I really cannot see why there would be a legal, constitutional standing to limiting marriage to two people. ??
This really is an interesting development. But all of this is making me feel..... boring somehow. I only have one spouse, and she is a female, and always was a female, and I am a male, and always was a male. I have only ever had one spouse. Hmmmm, maybe we are doing something wrong? <limited smiley here>
And I do not think you went too far Ted- Gene Wilder did it long ago....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B94lP-fZyLk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B94lP-fZyLk)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQk_52bnp9k (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQk_52bnp9k)
Brian
Yea, I know, I crossed the line. Sorry about that, I got carried away....
(I went back and fixed it)..
But my point stands.
Is it even possible to re-draw the line?
Or, has it been erased?
Ride safe, Ted
-
I read somewhere that some pedophiles are now looking for equal treatment using the same argument. That would certainly be a RED line for me. I really don't care who you marry but do not mess with one of my grandkids.
-
Well, I do think there will be some limitations: marriage will be limited to humans. Brothers and sisters (and any immediate family members (Easy Boys! Not THOSE members!) and all forms of incestuous marriage would also be rejected due to 'immediate and severe harm' as the litmus test (deformed offspring). Otherwise, I really cannot see why there would be a legal, constitutional standing to limiting marriage to two people. ??
People said the same type of thing several decades ago about what is common place now.
What if the parties involved get themselves sterilized or for some reason cannot conceive? Or just make a provision to automatically abort any resulting pregnancy in those cases, or if a child is born anyway, just kill it? That way we can assure those people their rights too. Absurd and far fetched?
We are currently unmoored and adrift to the prevailing winds. Slippery slope in living color.
EVERYTHING is up for re-definition without an absolute moral standard. Therefore ANYTHING is possible. And its happening fast.
I read somewhere that some pedophiles are now looking for equal treatment using the same argument. That would certainly be a RED line for me. I really don't care who you marry but do not mess with one of my grandkids.
I agree (emphasis bolded from your comment) and I fear for the environment mine will have to live and grow up in.
From what basis would you successfully argue against such a thing when the precedent is a (non) standard that is readily re-definable? Its just YOUR line you don't want crossed, but perhaps not someone else's. Would we let a stranger offer our 5 year old a candy bar and then molest them, all the while saying the child is free to decide what's right and wrong for them? Why not?
Perhaps we should be caring who people marry when it paves the way to things like this, just as the ignored voices warned would happen.
No person is an island. It doesn't just affect them. It affects you and me, and more importantly, our kids and grandkids.
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2898715/Woman-celebrating-decade-marriage-two-pet-CATS-says-never-happier-no-plans-human-husband.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2898715/Woman-celebrating-decade-marriage-two-pet-CATS-says-never-happier-no-plans-human-husband.html)
Woman who is celebrating a decade of marriage to her two pet CATS says she has never been happier (and has no plans to find a human husband)
Barbarella Buchner, 48, is celebrating the 10th anniversary of her marriage
She 'married' 14-year-old cats Spider and Lugosi in January 2004
Says they make her happier than a human husband ever could
Cats consoled her during break-up with last serious boyfriend
Londoner now lives in Lanzarote with her feline husband
-
Actually, that is an interesting twist on the point of incest. Suppose two siblings DID want to get married but would offer proof of surgical sterilization...... hmmmmm. That just may satisfy the legal reasons why that is not permitted. Then it would be down to the "icky" factor and the "traditionally we do not allow that" arguments which are frankly pretty thin, especially in light of recent developments.
There goes another 'it cannot happen' rule perhaps. Glad I have a small family and no one has any siblings of the opposite sex (I believe all members of my immediate family are heterosexual).
I think we may need to form an island and put in some rules for those living or even visiting there. The catchphrase would be 'Not on MY island you don't!'.
Has anyone else noticed that as we progress down this wide 'diversity' road, we also seem to be re-segregating ourselves? Not legally on in any forced, collective way but some groups seem to be avoiding other groups and putting distance between themselves and the 'others'.
Brian
People said the same type of thing several decades ago about what is common place now.
What if the parties involved get themselves sterilized or for some reason cannot conceive? Or just make a provision to automatically abort any resulting pregnancy in those cases, or if a child is born anyway, just kill it? That way we can assure those people their rights too. Absurd and far fetched?
<snip>
-
That's what comes from 'celebrating diversity'.
-
We'll see what we see and how the lower courts handle it...but it's interesting never the less.
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2898715/Woman-celebrating-decade-marriage-two-pet-CATS-says-never-happier-no-plans-human-husband.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2898715/Woman-celebrating-decade-marriage-two-pet-CATS-says-never-happier-no-plans-human-husband.html)
Woman who is celebrating a decade of marriage to her two pet CATS says she has never been happier (and has no plans to find a human husband)
Barbarella Buchner, 48, is celebrating the 10th anniversary of her marriage
She 'married' 14-year-old cats Spider and Lugosi in January 2004
Says they make her happier than a human husband ever could
Cats consoled her during break-up with last serious boyfriend
Londoner now lives in Lanzarote with her feline husband
(http://mcphee.com/shop/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/1200x1200/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/c/r/crazy_cat_lady_action_figure_1.jpg)
-
What's your point? :rotflmao:
-
I don't want a 1st "wife", WTF are guys thinking wanting multiples ;D
I was under the distinct impression that the 1st wife/spouse was for trade-in after the starter marriage. :o
-
I was under the distinct impression that the 1st wife/spouse was for trade-in after the starter marriage. :o
...like starting out on a 250 or 300cc starter bike and looking for something faster for the second season...
I thought it'd be funny to introduce my wife when we went to the first family reunion after our wedding as "My First Wife..."
She didn't share my amusement... Neither did any of my married relatives. Weird - all my single buddies thought it was hilarious... :doh:
Jamie
-
A man never knows when or where he might meet his next ex-wife......
-
Many women (my wife included) do not have our sense of humor about these things. I'm still being whacked around the head and ears for things I say or look at and we've been together for 41 years.
-
It's heating up.
In the news today is 2 gay couples are suing a Clerk that refused to issue them a marriage License.
In an attempt to not show prejudice.
She stopped issuing "any" marriage Licenses.
I believe that the Non Gays that were not issued Licenses, did not join in the litigation.
Yes, I know law of the Land, and as a Employee of the Gov. she is required to issue the licenses.
She said she refused because of her Christian beliefs.
Guess we'll have to watch and see what happens.
Ride safe, Ted
-
Where?
-
Unintended consequences.
-
Where?
If I'm not mistaken this is going on in Kentucky.... My opinion is as a government employee her refusal on religious belief may very well get her fired.... It is her job to shuffle the paperwork....
-
Thanks.
-
What if govt just removes "marriage" from its book altogether?
What problems wouldn't that solve? (or would it cause?)
-
The current income tax laws are rife with marriage benefits. It certainly helps me out. It would be a major re-write to change that... Not out of the question but I don't see that happening yet.
-
What does marital status have to do with taxes? Why does it matter? Sounds like another way to control the populace.
-
Dunno, but it matters to me. I get more tax breaks filing that way and as long as it's in the code, I'll use it as with any other tax breaks I can find. I tried looking for when it was put into the tax code but I'm coming up empty.
-
The current income tax laws are rife with marriage benefits. It certainly helps me out. It would be a major re-write to change that... Not out of the question but I don't see that happening yet.
Best solution to that would be to do away with the income tax. Worst form of tax anyway. Totally negates the right to privacy if you have to document every dime you make and negates 5th amendment in that it forces you to either pay or incriminate yourself. Replace it with consumption tax.
-
^^^ABSOLUTELY!
Currently, until you spend it, it's all ones and zeros. It's not real money. But we can't do away with the current system because of the BILLIONS of dollars the industry generates. All the accountants, software people, printers, paper producers, ink producers, etc, are a POWERFUL lobby. And do NOT forget the tax attorneys. Like everything else that pertains to Government, it is self perpetuating.
-
+1
-
It's heating up.
In the news today is 2 gay couples are suing a Clerk that refused to issue them a marriage License.
In an attempt to not show prejudice.
She stopped issuing "any" marriage Licenses.
I believe that the Non Gays that were not issued Licenses, did not join in the litigation.
Yes, I know law of the Land, and as a Employee of the Gov. she is required to issue the licenses.
She said she refused because of her Christian beliefs.
Guess we'll have to watch and see what happens.
Ride safe, Ted
Other states should follow Utah's (yes Utah) example on this. Essentially, each county needs to have at least one clerk/employee that is willing to issue licenses to gay/lesbian couples and is authorized to do so. If they have one that is willing to do so, the other clerks may refuse on religious grounds, directing said couples to the person designated to issue said licenses.
It's not a perfect solution, but it seems to be working for Utah.
As y'all may remember, Utah's 'Marriage is between a man and woman' law was struck down in Federal court not too long ago, and the subsequent solution above was agreed to by Utah's LGBT community and the religious and other types in the Utah legislature. Utah was actually very proud of this passed legislation/solution, and I'm sure a few of you may have seen it on the national news.
Of course, while Polygamy is technically illegal in Utah, I do expect some of our underground polygamists to come out of the woodwork soon as part of the 'multiple parner marriage' thing y'all are alluding to.
-
(http://global3.memecdn.com/Meanwhile-in-Australia_c_112639.jpg)
-
(http://global3.memecdn.com/Meanwhile-in-Australia_c_112639.jpg)
:rotflmao: I have heard that incest is all right as long as you keep it in the family.
-
Birds and the Bees do it.....