Bruce, Bruce, Bruce....how can you deny them?? - Granite Grok

Bruce, Bruce, Bruce….how can you deny them??

many wedding ringsIt seems that commenter Bruce Currie took offense to my post that spotlighted Ted Olsen ( gay marriage lawyer), kept refusing to answer Chris Wallace’s question of does this Supreme Court decision open the door for polygamy (emphasis mine).  His comment was:

“Polygamy is historically a feature of patriarchal societies in which women are treated as property with few or no legal rights of their own. The SCOTUS decision on marriage equality elevates the individual’s wish to marry whomever they choose to a constitutional right–in keeping with the Constitution’s focus on individual rights. Marriage equality means just this; a partnership between TWO people who choose to marry. It dovetails perfectly with the evolution of women’s rights to (in theory) legal equality with men. Those who claim this ruling opens the way for polygamy are introducing a red herring that is 180 degrees from the point of the decision–and the arc of history.”

Wrong.  Short and pithily, my response was if gender is now irrelevant, what’s so special about TWO?  Er, nothing at all, given how “marriage” has just been royally redefined.  Once opened, dude, that barn door isn’t ever going to get shut.  And besides – here’s that polygamy news I KNEW was coming right behind:  Polygamous Montana trio applies for wedding license

(reformatted, emphasis mine):

HELENA, Mont. (AP) — 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 Wednesday. “You can’t have this without polygamy.”

Equality there Bruce – the gays have already redefined what “marriage” AND “equality” are.  What Bruce is saying is, in effect, “Equality for me but not for thee!”.  Not exactly a strong legal argument, dude.  Given what the Left has given us for language distortion of the common meanings as well as the absolute (heh!) relativism of the culture, you have NO chance of winning this one. As I said in my REPLY, it’s now only about the “dignity”, as Justice Kennedy wrote.

So who are you to deny them long sought dignity, bigot?

County clerk officials initially denied Collier’s application, then said they would consult with the county attorney’s office before giving him a final answer, Collier said.  Yellowstone County chief civil litigator Kevin Gillen said he is reviewing Montana’s bigamy laws and expected to send a formal response to Collier by next week.  “I think he deserves an answer,” Gillen said, but added his review is finding that “the law simply doesn’t provide for that yet.”

Not to worry; given where the 5 Supremes pulled their decision out of, I’m quite sure there is another little one in there, somewhere.  “The Law” you say, Bruce?  Yeah, tell that to Kennedy who dissolved That Law back in 2003 and annulled the Texas sodomy law.  What’s the worth of a duly legislated law when the Supremes (in their supra-legislative minds) can just ink over it?

The Supreme Court’s ruling on Friday made gay marriages legal nationwide. Chief Justice John Roberts said in his dissent that people in polygamous relationships could make the same legal argument that not having the opportunity to marry disrespects and subordinates them.  Collier, 46, said that dissent inspired him. He owns a refrigeration business in Billings and married Victoria, 40, in 2000. He and his second wife, Christine, had a religious wedding ceremony in 2007 but did not sign a marriage license to avoid bigamy charges, he said.

Bruce, do you have any TRUST in this Supreme Court Justice’s words?  Trust, sir?  After all, there’s another social justice warrior word in Collier’s plea:

Collier said he is a former Mormon who was excommunicated for polygamy and now belongs to no religious organization. He said he and his wives hid their relationship for years, but became tired of hiding and went public by appearing on the reality cable television show “Sister Wives.”  The three have seven children of their own and from previous relationships.  “My second wife Christine, who I’m not legally married to, she’s put up with my crap for a lot of years. She deserves legitimacy,” he said.

Gosh, Bruce, the homosexual marriage advocates use that word, legitimacy, too?  Are you saying that only some can use that line of argument – but others cannot?  Does this mean that gay privilege outweighs polygamy privilege (hard on the math, given that having more people in the relationship, the polygamous folks should outweigh any two-some, eh?).

Collier said he sent an email asking the ACLU of Montana to represent him in a possible lawsuit. ACLU legal director Jim Taylor said he has not seen the request.  Taylor said he has no opinion on Collier’s claims, though the Supreme Court decision on gay marriage “is about something very different.”

Anne Wilde, a co-founder of the polygamy advocacy organization Principle Voices located in Utah, said Collier’s application is the first she’s heard of in the nation, and that most polygamous families in Utah are not seeking the right to have multiple marriage licenses. “Ninety percent or more of the fundamentalist Mormons don’t want it legalized, they want it decriminalized,” Wilde said.

Gee, isn’t that how the gays started?  Decrim, and then civil unions?  Each time, we were told “just this far and no further”.  And then each time, they went further.  You mean to tell me, Bruce, that the “polys’ can’t use the same strategy?  Well, that’s just straight up bigotry!

But lookee – religious freedom folks may have a silver lining in all this!

A federal judge struck down parts of Utah’s anti-polygamy law two years ago, saying the law violated religious freedom by prohibiting cohabitation. Bigamy is still illegal.   The state has appealed the ruling, and the case is pending in the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

And now for the Libertarian argument:

Wilde said most polygamous families are satisfied with the judge’s ruling and believe taking it further to include multiple marriage licenses would bring them under the unwanted jurisdiction of the government.

There is that, but to end up on a note that won’t make Bruce a happy camper (and, btw, pretty much blow up one of the main points for homosexual marriage):

But she said the Supreme Court’s decision on gay marriage should strengthen their chance of winning the appeal.  “We hope the Supreme Court decision will show the direction the nation is going,” she said. “It’s more liberal, it’s more understanding about people forming the families the way they want.

After all, Bruce, the gays want the families THEY want – why would you not want the families that the polys want?  Why would you deny them their love(s), their dignity(s), and their legitimacy(s)?  And why would you be a H8er for being a bigot?  Just because you “got your’s” as far as homosexual marriage?

(H/T:

>