In a move calculated to make every fundagelical family-values type scream "We told you so!" a polygamous Montana guy has applied for a license to marry his second wife, so that she can be just as legally married to him as his other wife. We're quite certain that we should take everything Nathan Collier says about his struggle for freedom, dignity, and equality at face value, because he is a genuine Reality TV star, or at least the focus of a
Doesn't anyone remember that bigamy is against the law? Take it to the damned Supreme Court, or legislate to rescind the law. Otherwise, I don't see the point of this faux Darrowesque grandstanding.
Except, I guess, to be a dick, which in America is never a bad strategy...just ask Trump.
Umbrella corporation: each wife (or husband, but let's be real here) can be a wholly-owned subsidiary of Patriarch Enterprises, whilst retaining an arms-length relationship with Wife Number Two Inc.Sorted!
Eh, "up to four wives" has worked more or less in Muslim countries for 1400 years. They reckon it began because there was a severe man shortage in the early years of the community what with all the wars against the local pagans and Jews and whatnot.
I feel we have to use the corporate form. Each wife gets a certain number of shares, which she can distribute, per stripes, to her children and children's children. Dividends would run to shareholders in proportion to their shares. Only thing you'd have to worry about is a hostile takeover in the event of a divorce, cuz i don't see how no fault divorce could work in a multiple marriage, and if we're back to fault to dissolve a multiple marriage there's bound to be tortious interference with advantageous relations claims and such. Maybe the work could expand to include all those hordes of law school graduates. (I'm an optimist.)
Also, there's been a very strong reason for outlawing polygamy, across centuries and cultures: because in pre-modern societies, the way it always went was that the rich old landowner would marry up all the available women- and young girls, yuck.Leaving a population of extremely pissed-off young men without brides to marry, but easy access to torches and pitchforks. It sowed social discord , violence and unrest in the past.
Would that be the same today? Perhaps not. But I heartily resent polygamists piggy-backing on the marriage equality victory for gay people. I grew up thinking I could never, ever marry the one person I love, and until relatively recently I couldn't. Polygamists have always had that right, to marry the one they love, where gay people couldn't. If they really want legal polygamy, why don't THEY get off their lazy, sleazy asses and do the hard work that gay people did over decades? They're just greedy, and human nature being what it is, no, someone always gets left out in a threesome. Monogamy is imperfect, but I can only imagine polygamy as an emotional disaster eventually for someone in the triad or quartet. Ask Fleetwood Mac! Let the polygamists shack up and cohabit to their hearts' content, if that works for them. Claiming that the victory for gay marriage somehow validates them is bullshit I have no time for.
She's rockin' the "I Dream of Jeannie" outfit.
Commie liberal checking in: I am OK with this.
You win the internets today for describing polyamory as "subcontracting". roflmao
Doesn't anyone remember that bigamy is against the law? Take it to the damned Supreme Court, or legislate to rescind the law. Otherwise, I don't see the point of this faux Darrowesque grandstanding.
Except, I guess, to be a dick, which in America is never a bad strategy...just ask Trump.
Oh, but I bet she'd shape right up if you told her you were bringing home some sweet young thing to help her out with the wifely duties.
I got enough problems with one wife, if thats what you want,fine. Good luck.
I can't see too many women wanting to take care of two or more lazy beer guzzling slobs at one time, on a full time basis.
And if you can't get two FFTs to marry you, you can go on Fox and complain that your First Amendment rights were violated.
Umbrella corporation: each wife (or husband, but let's be real here) can be a wholly-owned subsidiary of Patriarch Enterprises, whilst retaining an arms-length relationship with Wife Number Two Inc.Sorted!
Here's the thing: the state can easily show a compelling state interest in limiting marriage to two people.
Eh, "up to four wives" has worked more or less in Muslim countries for 1400 years. They reckon it began because there was a severe man shortage in the early years of the community what with all the wars against the local pagans and Jews and whatnot.
Nailed it.
I'm pretty sure that's a hanging offense in at least 37 states.
I feel we have to use the corporate form. Each wife gets a certain number of shares, which she can distribute, per stripes, to her children and children's children. Dividends would run to shareholders in proportion to their shares. Only thing you'd have to worry about is a hostile takeover in the event of a divorce, cuz i don't see how no fault divorce could work in a multiple marriage, and if we're back to fault to dissolve a multiple marriage there's bound to be tortious interference with advantageous relations claims and such. Maybe the work could expand to include all those hordes of law school graduates. (I'm an optimist.)
Also, there's been a very strong reason for outlawing polygamy, across centuries and cultures: because in pre-modern societies, the way it always went was that the rich old landowner would marry up all the available women- and young girls, yuck.Leaving a population of extremely pissed-off young men without brides to marry, but easy access to torches and pitchforks. It sowed social discord , violence and unrest in the past.
Would that be the same today? Perhaps not. But I heartily resent polygamists piggy-backing on the marriage equality victory for gay people. I grew up thinking I could never, ever marry the one person I love, and until relatively recently I couldn't. Polygamists have always had that right, to marry the one they love, where gay people couldn't. If they really want legal polygamy, why don't THEY get off their lazy, sleazy asses and do the hard work that gay people did over decades? They're just greedy, and human nature being what it is, no, someone always gets left out in a threesome. Monogamy is imperfect, but I can only imagine polygamy as an emotional disaster eventually for someone in the triad or quartet. Ask Fleetwood Mac! Let the polygamists shack up and cohabit to their hearts' content, if that works for them. Claiming that the victory for gay marriage somehow validates them is bullshit I have no time for.
And hi, JMPEsq. :)
Big College Sportsball Fan as well, who knew?