Monday, July 06, 2015

Montana Man Applies to Marry Wife #2

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF

Nathan Collier loves both of his wives. Last week he applied for a license to legally marry wife #2.

The Yellowstone County Courthouse officials initially denied the application "because bigamy is against the law in Montana"---as it is in all 50 states.

Nathan, Victoria and Christine say they now have a right to marry whom they love.

Collier told AP, "It's about marriage equality." And, "We are just asking for tolerance."

After initially declining Collier's application, the county officials have now taken a step back and said they need to refer the matter to the state attorney general, who as of Friday, was simply repeating that polygamy is against the law.

The happy threesome are standing by. So are many others.

Collier told the Billings CBS affiliate KTVQ TV that he "just wants to add legal legitimacy to an already happy, strong, loving family."

Quoting lines from the homosexual campaign to redefine marriage, the threesome says, "We're not asking for acceptance, we're just asking for tolerance. Let us live our lives together without fear. All we want is legal legitimacy. We're not asking anybody for anything else. We just want to give our marriage and our family the legitimacy it deserves."

Chief Justice John Roberts predicted this would be a consequence of the Court's decision to redefine marriage. So did a number of others, including yours truly.

Samuel Smith writes, "After the US Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples have the constitutional right to get married, Chief Justice Roberts and many others have argued that the reasoning used by the majority on the Court to justify the right to same sex marriage gives 'no reason' why plural unions should be banned."

Roberts spoke to this issue at length in his dissent. He said, "From the standpoint of history and tradition, a leap from opposite sex marriage to same sex marriage is much greater than one from a two-person union to plural unions, which have deep roots in some cultures around the world."

Within hours of the Supreme Court's ruling on marriage, warriors fighting for polygamy were on the march.

Politico Magazine ran a call to arms titled, "It's Time To Legalize Polygamy".

In it Fredik de Boer says, "The Supreme Court decision clearly shows that marriage should be a broadly applicable right---one that forces the government to recognize as Friday's decision said, a private couple's 'love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family'."

De Boer writes, "Polyamory is a fact. People are living in group relationships today. The question is not whether they will continue on in those relationships. The question is whether we will grant to them the same basic recognition we grant to other adults: that love makes a marriage, and that the right to marry is exactly that, a right."

He says, "Given that many of us have argued, to great effect, that deference to tradition is not a legitimate reason to restrict marriage rights to groups that want them, the next step seems clear. We should turn our efforts towards the legal recognition of marriages between more than two partners. It's time to legalize polygamy."

Jonah Goldberg, a conservative, widely read columnist and senior editor of the National Review, observes that within hours of the Supreme Court ruling the White House was "beaming the gay pride flag on its facade," reflecting the president's deep commitment to redefining marriage and advancing the homosexual agenda.

And Goldberg notes an element that is always present in these kinds of campaigns.


Goldberg says, "Many of us always believed Barack Obama was lying about his opposition to gay marriage" when he passionately told America in 2008 "that his religious faith required him to oppose gay marriage."

President Obama's close, long time adviser and confidant David Axlerod wrote in his recent book that Obama actually did support same-sex "marriage" for a long time before admitting it publicly.

Goldberg says "the president and his allies now consider that position to be unalloyed bigotry."

This, Goldberg notes, is the true poison of it all. There is a complete breakdown of trust.

"Again and again progressives insist that their goals are reasonable and limited," he says.

Proponents of gay marriage insisted that they merely wanted the same rights to marry as everyone else," he says. "They mocked, scorned and belittled anyone who suggested that polygamy would be next on their agenda."

This was the narrative in Washington State when Larry Stickney, myself and others led in opposing the "everything but marriage" domestic partnership bill headed by then Senator Ed Murray.

Murray repeatedly said it was not about marriage, it was about fairness. The day following the defeat of the Referendum 71 effort, Murray and the Seattle Times began calling for marriage to be redefined.

Goldberg rightly points out that this denial continued "until they started winning. In 2013, a headline in 'Slate' [a pro-homosexual magazine] declared 'Legalize Polygamy!' and a writer at the "Economist' editorialized- 'and now on to polygamy'. The Atlantic ran a fawning piece on Diana Adams and her quest for a polyamorous alternative to marriage."

We were also told the fight for marriage equality had nothing to do with a larger war against organized religion and religious freedom. But know we know that too was a lie.

Goldberg reminds his readers that the ACLU has reversed its position on religious freedom laws, in line with the left's scorched-earth attacks on religious institutions and private businesses that won't---or canted---embrace the secular fatwa that everyone must celebrate 'love' as defined by the left."

Legalized "Group Marriage" is not likely in the near future. Polygamy? How can the Court who became God and redefined marriage now decline to offer polygamists the same rights?

Be sure, the drum beat will grow louder.

Goldberg says, "Social justice---forever ill-defined so as to maximize the power of its champions---has become an industry but also a permanent psychological orientation among journalists, lawyers, educators and other members of the new class of eternal reformers."

These are times when everything that can be shaken is being shaken.

Mark Creech, head of Christian Action League, observed this week that same-sex marriage will be overturned---either by Christians who continue to stand firm and stand for marriage, or ultimately by God Himself.

He says, "Real marriage (natural) and anti-marriage (same-sex) cannot coexist any more than can matter and anti-matter. Children will suffer from marriage being redefined as a genderless institution that purposefully renders either a mother or a father as obsolete to child rearing. Homosexuality will be taught in public sex-ed curriculums as normal. It will further stress our healthcare and social security systems by adding hundreds of thousands of new dependents. These issues, plus the constitutional crises and threat to the democratic process this ushers in, may prove to be too much and result in a national collapse beneath the weight of our own sin."

"Contrary to the thinking of some," Creech says, "this is not the final word. The great Judge of all the Earth, God, will have the final say."

Creech says what many feel: "God is not pleased with the Court's decision regarding marriage---and institution He Himself created--described in Genesis, and confirmed by Jesus Christ His Son in Matthew 19."

Everything that can be shaken will be shaken.

On the radio today I'm talking about 4 things that cannot be shaken. You may join me from anywhere in the world, live at 9 AM PDT, and rebroadcast at 7:30 PM PDT. Here's how.

Be Strong. Be Blessed.


  1. There is nothing good that comes from the homosexual agenda. Like an evil tree it sprouts corrupt branches. It didn't come from anything holy. America should get rid of the whole thing. Their flag belongs in a museum along with a long list of offences explaining why it didn't work anything good for America.

  2. A far easier legal win would be over an incestuous wedding. If same-sex couples can get married there is no coherent reason that same sex siblings could not get married. And if homosexual couples have that right then heterosexual couples would as well.

  3. Couldn't help but notice Joel 2:17.


Faith & Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.