Thursday, July 2, 2015
Saw this one coming...
I predicted last week that this would happen within a year. I was wrong. It took less than one week.
Reported by Cheryl Chumley: 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.”
http://www.wnd.com/2015/07/polygamous-trio-applies-for-marriage-license/#PW1YcczdhVtzjYIU.99
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Where is there any discrimination?
What are you talking about? The article doesn't say anything about discrimination.
so he has no case. No polygamy suit has ever won and this one will be no different. IF you can show the harm to the state ( which apparently no state could show in the same sex case) then the court backs the state. IN other words, this guy in Montana is just being an ignoramus. Also, from what I have read about with polygamy, it is very discriminatory towards women.
For nearly 6000 years, marriage as been universally defined as a committed union between a man and a women. This idea is inherent in human nature, which is why it has been practiced in societies that have never been exposed to biblical precept. But in spite of this, it is nevertheless a clear biblical precept and for those of us who believe the Bible, we can say with assurance that marriage between a man and a women was defined and instituted by God at the very beginning of human history.
But now, marriage has been redefined by man. And if marriage can be defined by man, then it no longer has a immutable definition. As the majority opinion stated, marital concepts have changed over time. Of course, those changes have always been within the larger context of marriage being the union of a man and a woman. But now it has changed in its fundamental meaning. Now it can be between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. But who's to say it must be limited to two individuals? If judges have the power to alter the meaning of marriage, then they certainly don't have to stop where they currently are. If marriage is all about love and dignity, it is easy to take it to the next level arguing that a man can love two women. Or that a bi-sexual person can love both a man and a woman. All it will take is one liberal judge and we have taken the reckless next step toward anarchy.
Post a Comment