YeeHaw let the fun begin..where's Damaged Eagle ?

http://www.wnd.com/2015/07/polygamous-trio-applies-for-marriage-license/

Polygamous TRIO applies for marriage license

A married Montana man has taken his wife and his girlfriend to the Yellowstone County Courthouse and told the clerk: Marry us – if the Supreme Court OK’d “gay” unions, then we should be allowed to join together in holy polygamy.

“It’s about marriage equality,” said Nathan Collier, who filed for a marriage application to two women, Victoria and Christine, CBS News reported. “You can’t have this without polygamy.”

Victoria is currently his legal wife. Christine is his girlfriend.


County officials at first denied the application, but then backtracked and said they’d have to consult with attorneys.

Thus it begins. The freedom off all mature willing companions being allowed to form marriages as they choose is at hand.

Hallelujah brothers and sisters! Hallelujah!!!!!

*****HAPPY SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhGMmmd9Ixs

In all honesty, if people or groups of people choose to live together in that fashion, what do I care? If they want to join in marriage, what do I care?

The only reason that any type of marriage should be banned is if it can demonstrably be shown to exert some negative externality or influence on others. Outside of that, why would anyone care what other people choose to do or with whom they choose to live their lives?

Nobody cares who gets married.....well except government who makes classification by legislation as to marriage.   Now I will type really slow........the recent supreme court case dealt with the strict scrutiny of a protected class based on gender.  This gave rise to a a fundamental right which required a government classification to have a compelling state interest.

When talking about the number of folks in a marriage, that to is a classification by legislation as to marriage, but the difference is the it must pass the lesser test because numbers are not a protected class and the government only needs a rational basis to justify their classification system. 

So Sal is right.  Other things will be considered, but a state can pass legislation restricting numbers and this restriction will not be imposing on an individual and their fundamental right to marry because gender is incorrect, or they can allow it because they have deemed it rational and a benefit to that state.

boards of FL wrote:In all honesty, if people or groups of people choose to live together in that fashion, what do I care?  If they want to join in marriage, what do I care?  

The only reason that any type of marriage should be banned is if it can demonstrably be shown to exert some negative externality or influence on others.  Outside of that, why would anyone care what other people choose to do or with whom they choose to live their lives?

What kind of 'negative externality or influence on others' are you suggesting?

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JG77YHX5yYE

As for the government they'd best catch up to the new philosophy of extended family groups and allowing other mature willing companions to marry as they choose because it's discrimination not to do so since they've set the precedent, because there's a...

*****HAPPY SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sO9SlNJHlsc



Hallelujah my brothers and sisters! Now take your brother's and/or sister's hand and hold on to it because that's what it's there for.

to marry they choose because it's discrimination not to do so since they've set the precedent,

Nope.  There most certainly is NOT precedent.

2seaoat wrote:to marry they choose because it's discrimination not to do so since they've set the precedent,

Nope.  There most certainly is NOT precedent.

Sure they did. Anyone that wants to form a marriage, not conforming to the standard one man and one woman, would have to be considered a minority grouping. So attempting to prevent them from marrying would be discrimination.

Says so right in...

Iowa Bill Of Rights
Article I:

Laws uniform. Section 6. All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation; the General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.



http://publications.iowa.gov/135/1/history/7-7.html

Since that is based on the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act I'm sure if we looked in either of those two pieces of legislation we'd find something very similar.

I'ma' bettin' that Florida's Constitution has something to that effect in it also.

*****FART*****
IN YOUR GENERAL DIRECTION

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Esp_hOlFqiM

*****HAPPY SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1PFwJY8xnk

*****HAPPY SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=def3ob2h-1s

*****HAPPY SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAZQaYKZMTI