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."

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.

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.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/na...arriage-scotus

Hopefully this happens! Probably won't anytime soon but maybe in the next 50-100 years.

Once the legalities are sorted out I can definitely see it happening eventually.

Key difference: No gay marriage is, essentially, denying gay people a right straight people have. Rights were inequal. On the other hand, polygamy is illegal for EVERYONE. EVERYONE can only have 1 spouse. Therefore, it's not inequality, it's equality. Whether you think it SHOULD be legal or not has nothing to do with inequality, which isn't present in the banning of polygamy

Also, the reason it's illegal is because of the legal headache. They're not going to pass this.

Interesting. I made a thread about poligamy just a few days ago.

watch this being blamed at marriage equality and lgbt !

One could say gays have always had the right to marry, every gay person could marry (a person of the opposite sex).
One could say no poligamious marriage is denying poligamous people a right non-poligamous people have.

Your logic is a bit flawed to me, but whatever.

The key right that straight people had was to marry someone from the opposite sex. Gays had that right too; they were free to marry someone from the opposite sex. It's not like straights were allowed to marry someone from the same sex, and gays couldn't. So allowing gay marriage didn't expand a right - it created a new one.

Why not, create another one for Polygamy?

Well, I could have saved myself sometime and just co-signed this.

Ugh ewwww now am starting to think we're getting too progressive goodluck with that Murica

Not even close to being comparable to a relationship/union between two people. This is downright disgusting and they shouldn't be allowed.

Polygamy brings up loads of legal troubles though, plus it only affects a very small amount of people. I doubt it'll be passed anytime soon.

You people can't be ****ing serious about this. Gay people always could've got married? What the **** . If you are gay why the hell would you marry the opposite sex it doesn't make sense. Besides, they were barred from marriage for being who they are

Polygamy (besides the numerous downsides that will destroy a nation) isn't in any way natural inside a person.

Yasss split that wealth into more slices. Better make prenup a must too.

It's pretty simple and the truth tbh, so I don't get why you're all up in arms about it.

Gay people always had the right to marry. They just didn't have the right to marry other gay people.

They had the same right as anyone else.

And now a new right has been created "the right to marry someone from the opposite sex" and it's a right for gay people and straight people. Even a straight guy could marry a straight guy now, if they choose to.

--
Polygamy has been around since Biblical times.

They need a child to continue their Britney stanning

I'm here for my two husbands, I want chocolate nut and vanilla nut. Hahahaha

Technically true. That said, not being allowed to pursue a legal marriage of which gender you're born attracted to (since marriage is supposed to represent love and all that stuff) IS different than "I really want to choose to marry two people but I can't." Would it be fair to say the two are very, very different dynamics and situations and therefore not particularly comparable?

You skipped over the "completely overhaul the way legal marriage works would be a headache" bit, which is the main reason I'm opposed, not morality ones. On the other hand, legalizing gay marriage literally just changes which genders are allowed to marry. If you could legalize it without the legal headache, fine I gues. I can't impose my moral beliefs on everyone, but we have WAY more important things to do than legalize the ability for people to CHOOSE to marry 3+ people. The other issue comes with setting a limit. No matter where it's set, you'll have people claiming inequality and that they want to marry more, not settin one will make it a bigger legal headache than it already is.