The Supreme Court redefined marriage so that it no longer means one man, one woman, for life. What follows from attaching the word “marriage” to people who have temporary feelings of love for other people?
Here’s the story from MSN.com.
Excerpt:
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.”
[…]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.
Meanwhile, this lady writing in The Federalist explains how she wants polyamory to come next after the gay marriage. Why? Because she and partner don’t always feel “in love”. Her solution is that she be able to add people to her current relationship so that she can have those “in love” feelings.
She writes:
The problem is, fires don’t burn indefinitely unless you keep adding more wood. They start with a spark, work their way up to a roar, then calm back down to a crackle. When the crackling gets too quiet, someone throws another log on, and the flames flare back up. The cycle repeats over and over again, as long as there are more logs, more fuel.
Our fuel is running out. Brad and I have tried all the tricks. We’ve fanned the flames. We need more logs—new energy, a fresh perspective. It doesn’t mean we don’t love each other, or that we are done with each other. It just means we need something new.
[…]Four years into our relationship, we found ourselves in the typical rut of co-dependence, resentment, boredom, and fighting over the grocery bill. We’d had an unplanned baby, I’d quit my job to do attachment parenting full-time, and Brad was working long hours in a dungeon of a warehouse. I was stuck at home washing dishes, folding laundry and talking to a two-year-old, bored out of my mind. If we didn’t have anything to fight about, we’d find something, just to make life a little more interesting.
Now for the part that’s interesting to me. I have heard this same reasoning from so many formerly Christian women:
I had freed myself from the grips of government, religion, and parents. The only chains left to throw off were those on my sexuality—particularly the chains of monogamy.
The first authority I came to see as illegitimate was government, shortly after discovering Ron Paul in 2008. I stumbled upon his campaign like a rabbit hole that led me to question all of society’s rules. Soon after, I started to question my religion—Christianity. How much of it had been made up, twisted, and contrived—in collusion with the government—to support the powers that be?
Along with the fear of God, I cast off any respect for parental authority I once had. Since the punitive, authoritarian man in the clouds was no longer real to me, who was to say children should obey their parents?
[…]Then, one day, I came across an article about polyamory. One article led to another, and soon I was watching documentaries about polyamorous triads and quads. I became obsessed with the reality TV show “Polyamory: Married and Dating,” and ordered the book “Sex at Dawn: How We Mate, Why We Stray, and What it Means for Modern Relationships.”
“This is it!” I thought. I’d finally found what seemed like a desirable alternative to the wedded misery I saw all around me.
She exchanged the God of the Bible for a reality TV show about polyamory. And do you think it was because she worked through all the arguments for Christian theism? No – it was because she wanted to throw off the authority of God and her parents.
This focus on self-centeredness and personal autonomy will work for her for a while, too. It will work until she hits 40 and loses the only thing that gives her value to the men she prefers – her youth and beauty. She has not used her youth to take responsibility, accept obligations and develop the skills, work experience, assets and character traits that will make her a good wife and mother. She is headed for a disaster once her youth and beauty fades. When she is cast off for being too old, it will be too late for her to turn back and rebuild the character traits that a marriage-minded man values no matter how old a woman is. A typical man is willing to put up with self-centeredness for a beautiful, young woman, but not for one who loses that beauty and youth.
That’s why we had marriage, so that a woman learned to love a man with more than just looks and youth, and a man learned to look beyond looks and youth, because he knew he was committing to a woman for life. Marriage (prior to no-fault divorce) was society’s answer to the fading of a woman’s youth and beauty. Since marriage was for life, men looked for more than just fun and thrills from a woman, they looked for character and ability as a wife and mother. And women responded to men by minimizing youth and beauty, and trying to cultivate skills, work experience, assets and character traits that would help her support and encourage a man in his life plan.
WINTERY KNIGHT 
How do you feel about religious marriage granting civil rights? Or other religious ceremonies (like ordination) providing special civil status?
LikeLike
I think at the state level, states should enact benefits that disproportionately favor opposite opposite sex couples who get married and stay married and raise lots of their own kids. For example, the state could give a tax credit to the parents equal the amount that a child ears each year between 16-25. That would make it so that families with lots of income and lots of kids would not pay taxes. Single mothers who don’t work would get no use out it. Only couples with working people who raise kids who work would get it, and the more kids the better. And yet no mention of sexual orientation or single motherhood by choice.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What about childless couples who adopt – would they receive the benefit? Also, do you believe encouraging additional children and population growth are net positives for the states? If so, then how does reducing the tax burden impact things like schools and other tax-funded, community based services?
LikeLike
More children raised in married homes is good. I would privatize as much as possible to cut costs, and then attach money to each child so that the parents could choose the school (vouchers).
LikeLiked by 1 person
How has privatization of public services worked in other industries? I am thinking prisons, for instance, have become more expensive, not less. At the same time, there is still a significant cost involved per student – even if the privatized schools are cheaper on a per-student basis. If we remove taxes while keeping or slightly reducing costs, there is still a problem paying for the schools.
LikeLike
I never said that the taxes had to come down before the savings were realized from privatization.
LikeLiked by 1 person
But if you create more expense – by providing financial incentive for married couples to have more children – then the net result is more children. More net children mean more expense total even if there is a savings on each individual child.
Think about how many today blame unwed mothers having multiple children on the welfare system “paying” them to have children.
Even middle-class, opposite sex parents are going to be encouraged to have more children under your plan while decreasing the net tax income.
To me, that sounds like a plan that would ultimately bankrupt education.
If I am missing something here, let me know.
LikeLike
Well, that’s why if you privatize the functions that families use, there will be money for the suppliers. When there is money to be made because of a demand, investment money naturally flows to meet the need. That’s how the free market works. The money comes from investors and capitalists looking to meet a consumer need with a quality product at a reasonable price. So, we privatize health care, schools, post office, roads, utilities, etc. And we give tax breaks for kids who work from ages 16-25. Now parents are very interested in making these kids not get into jail, and not loaf around doing English and psychology degrees. Parents are actually getting a tax credit for raising kids who prioritize work. And meanwhile, bad parents, divorced parents, single parents who can’t control their kids are missing out. Suddenly, fathers will be quite a useful thing to have around again. And as more children practice working, we are not going to have unskilled people entering the workforce at all.
I would also drop all health insurance mandates and lift restrictions on out of state policies. It’s amazing how sensible people act when they don’t have to pay for “drug addiction therapy” and “sex change surgery”. People who don’t need it have more money, and people who do want it suddenly have to pay the real costs of their immorality, which makes them stop wanting to be immoral. It’s amazing how people stop misbehaving when they have to pay the costs for it themselves. After all the mandated coverages were gone, a whole bunch of money for Medicare and Medicaid would be saved. I would also raise the social security age to 70, which again favors married people who live longer, and I would reinstate welfare reforms (which obama got rid of) and means test all government benefits. I’d also abolish several departments: energy, EPA, education and IRS – and drastically cut others. I’d also get rid of a lot of the civilian waste in the military and privatize all of that. Privatize student loans so that people don’t get loans for women’s studies degrees. And cut off funding for universities, and instead pay for performance – i.e. – offer matching grants to companies to fund research that has value. Abolish public sector unions, free trade with everyone, and draw down all our basis in Europe and Asia over 30 years, while ramping up in the Middle East and rebuilding the Navy. All prison terms would involve useful, compensated work, at rates well below the minimum wage.
This is fun, I want to be dictator right now.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Why would you do any of what you say as a dictator when the people will clamor for you to do it when you make them cut a check for it?
All you have to do is ban tax withholding (forcing people to write a check to the various tax collection agencies) and change the tax due date to the first Monday in November.
Both of those are well within executive authority.
LikeLike
Oh that would help.
LikeLike
Wintery for President!
LikeLike
You’re confusing “privatization” with “free markets.” In a hypothetical free market absent government there would be no prisons because nobody would have the authority to arrest and imprison anyone else.
What happens in your typical case of privatization is exactly what you describe: One function of government or the other is handed over to a private contractor, usually a friend or donor to some politician. The contractor now has (usually) exclusive rights to perform that formerly-government service on behalf of the government, which usually means jacking up prices. After all, when you’re the only game in town, why wouldn’t you? Really, this is no different in principle than the government running a service in the first place.
What OUGHT to happen, and what Wintery Knight is talking about (I think, please correct me if I’m wrong) is that government-run services should be contracted out via an open bidding process, meaning the most efficient private company would perform the service at the lowest cost. If they were unable to perform the service to a set standard, they would be removed.
Also keep this in mind with respect to prisons: You can’t be arrested by a private prison. You get arrested by the government and tried by the government. It’s sad, but a state prosecutor’s goal is to get a conviction any way they can which creates demands for more prisons which then crowds prisons. Abuse and expense is a symptom of government run amok, not the private sector.
LikeLike
Who can say, “I didn’t see that one coming”!
LikeLike
Multi partners are not what Jesus intended, no matter how many people want to forget what he said about the subject of marriage. Marriage seemed more important to Jesus than Paul, in my opinion. You were not even suppose to look with the sin of temptation in your heart at another person. He did allow Divorce if the spouse cheated. If people like Mr. Brown of Sister wives were true Christians, they would not be adulterous people. To me, I watch them and get offended as they slap the words of Jesus with every act of all their adulterous affairs within their adulterous circle of life. It may be a stumbling block in their view but I see it as the truth. It is the truth that they cannot face just like Gay Marriage. Both actions are AntiChrist actions and actions speak louder than words.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Patriactionary and commented:
Yep.
Once again, the slippery slope is real.
Even if this doesn’t happen now, it will come.
LikeLike
Polygamy won’t ever be popular, although it will damage some people. We can at least take solace that it won’t be able to cause the sort of damage divorce did, since it takes rich men to have multiple wives, and they’ve been delaying marriage to their first wife due to divorce theft, they won’t put their assets in further danger very quickly.
LikeLike
No-fault divorce is the worst. It really enforces the idea that marriage is about being happy, and that is just setting people up for divorce. Marriage is not about being happy, it’s about self-sacrificial love for your spouse and life-long commitment for the sake of the children.
LikeLiked by 1 person