Breaking: Per SCOTUS, Same-Sex Marriage is now law of the land.

[Lebowski]

Can I marry my rifle yet? I identify as a ammo-sexual and am tired of being oppressed and treated like a freak.

 

[jamil]

Can I marry my rifle yet? I identify as a ammo-sexual and am tired of being oppressed and treated like a freak.

You mean you haven't?

 

[cobber]

i was implying it as if the government were to sanction polygamous marriages. It becomes irrelevant if they decide to get out of it.

What, the partners? Marriage by government is essentially a two-person run business. Is the government going to outlaw businesses run by three or more people. Or, heaven forbid, corporations?


Who would pay all the campaign contributions for the Inside-the-Beltway bunch???

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

What, the partners? Marriage by government is essentially a two-person run business. Is the government going to outlaw businesses run by three or more people. Or, heaven forbid, corporations?


Who would pay all the campaign contributions for the Inside-the-Beltway bunch???

There you go...corporate marriages. People could buy shares into different marriages in exchange for a percentage of the "dividends".

 

[foszoe]

Nathan Collier: Montana man inspired by same-sex marriage ruling requests right to wed two wives - Americas - World - The Independent

 

[cobber]

There you go...corporate marriages. People could buy shares into different marriages in exchange for a percentage of the "dividends".

Now you're talking! And why not? Of course the left-wingers would buy into miserable granola-based corporate marriages and then would mewl for the govt. to bail them out...


Oh, those kind of dividends! I guess I'm showing my age...

 

[caverjamie]

Nathan Collier: Montana man inspired by same-sex marriage ruling requests right to wed two wives - Americas - World - The Independent

Not bad looking either in my opinion - but I don't understand how he can manage that. I am lucky I found one person willing to marry me, hah. Regardless, the floodgates are open, no justification not to approve it.

 

[MisterChester]

There you go...corporate marriages. People could buy shares into different marriages in exchange for a percentage of the "dividends".

I'm sorry McDonalds, it's not you, it's me.

 

[Libertarian01]

A few years ago there was a series I watched on and off, "Big Love," about a polygamous marriage. A couple I am good friends with and I were discussing it and I asked if they could tolerate the idea. We were laughing and joking but the wife said she would love the idea. I asked her what she would like about it. To put in a bit of background both of these folks are highly educated and have great careers. Both make good money, not rich but not wanting either.

So she explained that they are always running behind on everything on the home front as both are working. She explained that a second wife would be great! When he was feeling a little frisky she wouldn't have to deal with him (at least not all the time), the other wife could. While they were both at work the other wife could clean the house, prepare dinner, organize, shopping, etc. It would be great to have a second friend along when they went on trips. We went on chatting about it half joking and half serious, while at the same time knowing it would never be a reality for them.

Let us presume that such a scenario were to become legal. For the record I am neither supporting nor condemning polygamy in this post, just posing thoughts for discussion. Presume that a husband had wife A and wife B. Husband and WA work full time and make good money. WB stays home and does standard, olde fashioned "wifey" things like cleaning, cooking, etc. They all get along great. The marital unit (I can't use the word "couple") has two (2) kids, one by each wife and the current husband. Both kids are born the same year so are the same age for purposes of this discussion. When the kids reach 10 years olde WB decides she wants to go back to college and get her degree. While neither the husband nor WA are malicious they disagree as this would upset the status quo. WB gets upset and decides to file for divorce.

#1) Does WB get child support?
#2) IF WB does get child support, whose income is calculated, just the husband or the husband + WA?
#3) Does WB get visitation with the child of WA whom she has raised for 10 years?
#4) Does WA get visitation with the child of WB?
#5) If the husband dies after the divorce, does any of his estate go to either WB or WB's child?
#6) What about the grandparents rights to visitation, both of WA, husband, and WB?

I could go on and on as these are just off the top of my head. Imagine all the different permutations of child support, visitation, allimony, estates... Now imagine that with three (3) wives, or two (2) wives, one (1) husband where both the wives work and the husband is a stay at home dad! What if there is a divorce? Alimony?

With this in mind I can't figure out if the divorce attorneys are drooling at the opportunities OR pulling their hair out in terror of what is to come?

What may appear as simple numbers on the surface is capable of throwing the entire legal system into massive upheaval.

The above was just civil law. What about criminal law? What if the husband goes to prison for a few years and is allowed conjugal visits? Does he get both wives or just one? Can he have both at the same time if that is what was normal in their relationship? Wouldn't his rights be violated if he were denied access to the love and companionship of both wives? Before the husband even goes to jail does spousal privilege apply to one wife or all? What if one wife overhears a conspiracy between another wife and the husband? I would guess that criminal lawyers would be entering into uncharted territory as well.

When and if this becomes legal it will create a great deal more turmoil than gay marriage. We'll look back at the "good ol' days" when it was just two (2) people getting married - nevermind gay or straight!

Regards,

Doug

 

[cobber]

I doubt it will cause that much more turmoil. The analogy will be partnership law, not marriage.


I think Heinlein addressed some of this in "Stranger in a Strange Land".


Interesting how there doesn't seem to be a lot of talk about custody issues, etc., with the same-sex marriages currently so in vogue? I thought lots of these folks were having children/adopting/whatever.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Relevant and important. Huge developments.


https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...e-dispute-oregon-post5939421.html#post5939421

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Interesting how there doesn't seem to be a lot of talk about custody issues, etc., with the same-sex marriages currently so in vogue? I thought lots of these folks were having children/adopting/whatever.

That's where that village comes in.

 

[djl02]

Tom DeLay: DOJ wants to legalize bestiality, pedophilia | Sun Times National SAme sex marriage and this? Whats the world coming to?

 

[jamil]

Tom DeLay: DOJ wants to legalize bestiality, pedophilia | Sun Times National SAme sex marriage and this? Whats the world coming to?

Remember, this is Tom DeLay we're talking about.

 

[djl02]

I hear ya, still blows my mind to even think about this, even being brought up

 

[IndyDave1776]

I hear ya, still blows my mind to even think about this, even being brought up

No surprise here whatsoever. In my reckoning, it was obvious that this would come, and would not take long getting here. The problem is that once you make a sexual proclivity grounds for protected class status and government imprimatur for practitioners of one proclivity, the rest are going to be lining up for their spot on the protected special people list really fast.

Now, about those people who dismissed my thoughts regarding there being no difference as a matter of principle between one sexual proclivity and another...

 

[mrjarrell]

George Takei has apologised for his intemperate comments about Justice Thomas.

 

[Expat]

So the little dweeb supports the party that ordered the internment camps and is upst that Thomas doesn't support the party of Jim Crow....

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

So the little dweeb supports the party that ordered the internment camps and is upst that Thomas doesn't support the party of Jim Crow....

Who cares?

If it were somebody actually famous, at least I could understand why some people might take notice... but for a person, that every time his name is mentioned, they have to also remind us for why he's famous...who cares X 2.

 

[jamil]

Who cares?

If it were somebody actually famous, at least I could understand why some people might take notice... but for a person, that every time his name is mentioned, they have to also remind us for why he's famous...who cares X 2.

Yeah. I had to google him to remember who ie was. Yep. Was. Past tense.