Todd M. Siebert: Forecasts dead on! Polygamists’ demand cites Supremes

Nathan-Collier-wives-dresses-cropped

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts was just the latest to warn that a mandate for state recognition for same-sex “marriage” for two homosexuals or two lesbians soon would be expanded to more.

Like polygamy.

In his dissent from the 5-4 opinion only a week ago, he warned the reasoning used by the “five lawyers” in the majority “would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage.”

Other experts, too, had issued warnings, some dating as far back as 2008, that demands for polygamy would follow a decision to create same-sex “marriage” across the nation, and be based on the same arguments being used to push for homosexual “marriage.”

So the development in Yellowstone County, Montana, where Nathan Collier asked county officials this week for a license to marry Christine, even though he remains married to and committed to Victoria, should have not have surprised.

He said the family was just seeking “legal legitimacy” and told reporters, “We’re just asking for tolerance.”

Equality is the goal, he said.

While Montana state law makes polygamy illegal, as many state laws used to classify homosexual behavior, officials in the clerk’s office said they would have to consult with legal advisers and get back to the couple, err, trio.

The move actually probably surprised officials in the county in Montana, which on average probably is more conservative than many other states.

Comment declined

Officials in the judicial building, the county commissioners office and the county attorney’s office, all declined to respond to WND requests for comment.

Don’t miss Phyllis Schlafly’s book, now available autographed at the WND Superstore: “Who Killed The American Family?”

Collier, 46, is a former Mormon who was excommunicated for polygamy.

He told KTVQ he and his two female partners had been hiding their relationship for years, but then decided to go public with an appearance on the reality cable show, “Sister Wives.” They now want government-stamped legitimacy for their union.

“We just want to add legal legitimacy to an already happy, strong, loving family,” he said to KTVQ.

The three have seven children.

Christine said, CBS reported: “It’s two distinct marriages, it’s two distinct unions and for us to come together and create family, what’s wrong with that? I don’t understand why it’s looked upon and frowned upon as being obscene.”

The American Bar Association Journal reported while “they were initially turned down … Collier says he has since been informed that the county attorney is reviewing the issue and will send him a formal response.”

Collier said he will sue if rejected, the report said.

Inspired by Obergefell

Collier reportedly said he was inspired by Roberts’ dissent in Obergefell v. Hodges. Roberts warned the majority’s reasoning would support plural marriages just as easily as it was used to support homosexual “marriages.”

In fact, plural marriages not only are far more common around the globe today – only a handful of nations recognize same-sex “marriage,” but billions of Muslims live in societies that accept multiple wives – but throughout history plural marriages have been common.

In places like the United Kingdom, where the Muslim population is growing quickly, multiple marriages are becoming almost as common as marriages for two people, and the move is quickly growing in the United States, too.

The practice would include the many references to multiple spouses throughout the Bible, too.

The extreme example of alternative “marriages” – to this point at least – may be the reports of the “gay-married ‘throuple” in Thailand.

It was earlier this year when there were reports that “Bell, Art and Joke,” three men, got married on Valentine’s Day.

“The happy ‘throuple’ have become Internet famous, as photos from the ‘happiest day of their lives’ quickly went viral and Thai media outlets shared their unusual love story,” the New York Post said.

“Some people may not agree and are probably amazed by our decision, but we believe many people do understand and accept our choice. Love is love, after all,” said Bell, essentially forecasting the message of the U.S. Supreme Court’s majority.

Not surprised

One who was not surprised by the development in Montana was John Eidsmoe, a constitutional expert affiliated with the Foundation for Moral Law.

It was one of the dozens of organizations that filed briefs with the Supreme Court opposing same-sex “marriage,” and went even one step further than most groups, calling on Elena Kagan and Ruth Ginsburg to recuse themselves from the case.

That was based on judicial ethics, which call for a judge to step aside any time there is the appearance of a conflict. In this case, both Kagan and Ginsburg publicly had advocated for same-sex “marriage” by performing those ceremonies even while the case was pending before the court.

The court “received” the concern, but apparently did not delve into the issue further, and if the two had recused, traditional marriage would have been upheld 4-3.

“We predicted way before this decision that if the court was going to justify same-sex marriage, then you have have a hard time refusing group marriage,” Eidsmoe told WND.

Justice Samuel Alito raised the issue at oral arguments, only to have his concerns brushed off.

Eidsmoe said a solution might be for states, one by one, to act through their legislatures to say the court’s opinion “has no application within this state.”

“What we have here is an unauthorized means of procuring an unconstitutional decision to authorize an invalid union to perpetuate immoral activity,” he said.

More

Others who have warned about this very development include California Supreme Court Justice Marvin Baxter. When that court created same-sex “marriage” in that state, he said.

“The bans on incestuous and polygamous marriages are ancient and deeprooted, and, as the majority suggests, they are supported by strong considerations of social policy. Our society abhors such relationships, and the notion that our laws could not forever prohibit them seems preposterous. Yet here, the majority overturns, in abrupt fashion, an initiative statute confirming the equally deeprooted assumption that marriage is a union of partners of the opposite sex. The majority does so by relying on its own assessment of contemporary community values, and by inserting in our Constitution an expanded definition of the right to marry that contravenes express statutory law.

“Who can say that, in 10, 15 or 20 years, an activist court might not rely on the majority’s analysis to conclude, on the basis of a perceived evolution in community values, that the laws prohibiting polygamous and incestuous marriages were no longer constitutionally justified?” Baxter wrote.

And Elaine Smith, deputy presiding officer in the Scottish Parliament and former Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey agree on the threat.

“Whilst the government has said that it has no intention of allowing polygamous marriages as part of this legislation which changes the essential nature of marriage, it has not explained in any detail and with research analysis its reasons for taking that position,” Smith commented. “Further, if the government is sincere about its support for ‘equal love’ then it appears to have a contradiction on its hands.”

There would be no “logical reason” for not allowing polygamous arrangements if the redefinition of marriage is based only on “love,” she said.

It was Carey who also predicted what appears to be developing.

The London Daily Mail reported Carey, at the time, told Prime Minister David Cameron that an “equal marriage” proposal would have further consequences.

Carey pointed out some British lawmakers are recognizing that if they permit same-sex marriage, there would be no reason to bar two sisters from being married or multiple-partner arrangements.

No more exclusivity

“Once we let go of the exclusivity of a one-man, one-woman relationship with procreation linking the generations, they why stop there?” he said. “If it is about love and commitment, then it is entirely logical to extend marriage to two sisters bringing up children together. If it is merely about love and commitment, then there is nothing illogical about multiple relationships, such as two women and one man.”

After a previous court decision advocating homosexual marriage, pro-polygamy activists rejoiced.

“We polyamorists are grateful to our brothers and sisters for blazing the marriage equality trail,” Anita Wagner Illig told U.S. News and World Report.

The Billings Gazette noted that a federal judge already had struck down parts of Utah’s anti-polygamy law two years ago, “saying the law violated religious freedom by prohibiting cohabitation.”

What about adult-child marriages?

Commentator Cal Thomas also has joined the argument.

“[If] equal protection covers gays, lesbians, transgenders and the rest, what about the polygamists?” he asked in an interview on Fox News. “Some of their groups have already said that after same-sex marriage is approved, they want polygamy.”

Others will join in as well, he said.

“And even further out, the adult-child marriages, people, men especially, who want to marry young boys or young girls, as occurs in some Muslim countries, by the way, they want their rights, too.

“Who’s going to say ‘no’ and based on what?” he wondered.

Thomas was asked about a recent ad published in the Washington Post and other newspapers in which prominent Christian and Jewish leaders warned that if the justices create same-sex “marriage,” they will not honor that decision.

The statement by the leaders – who include Franklin Graham, James Dobson, Frank Pavone, Don Wildmon, Jerry Boykin, Alveda King and Alan Keyes – said: “We will be forced to choose between the state and our conscience, which is informed by clear biblical and church doctrine and the natural created order.”

Their conclusion?

“We will not honor any decision by the Supreme Court which will force us to violate a clear biblical understanding of marriage as solely the union of one man and one woman.”

See the Thomas interview:

Thomas said, “I think there’s legitimate concern about this … when you look at countries like England and Canada, which have passed laws under their various human rights acts prohibiting preachers from preaching about homosexuality and some of these other moral and social issues.

“And they can be fined and in some cases, in extreme cases, put in prison,” he said. “Look even during the anti-slavery movement, even the pro-slavery in the south in the United States, the United States government didn’t come in and try to keep pastors from preaching either for or against slavery.

“They let them have freedom of speech. You hear a lot from the left about the separation of church and state. A lot of evangelicals would be happy if the state got back on its side of the line,” he said.

What is happening in America? Paul Kengor explains in “Takedown: From Communists to Progressives, How the Left has Sabotaged Family and Marriage.”

Glenn Beck slams Disney on Cinderella’s rainbow castle

Serious pushback over same-sex marriage

Fox News anchor stands up for ‘gay’ marriage

Deserters! Republicans jump ship on marriage

Pentagon urged to boot chaplains who oppose ‘gay’ marriage

Rand Paul: Shut down government’s marriage racket

Rush Limbaugh: Here’s what’s next for marriages

How deceitful Obama became ‘gay marriage president’

Texas attorney general: Marriage ruling ‘lawless’

Lawmaker: Congress can halt same-sex ‘marriage’ in tracks

Family group: Marriage ‘persecution’ starts