Tuesday, December 17, 2013

(UPDATED) A Bisexual Legal Union (Marriage) will occur first in North Dakota?

Hat tip to The Coalition of the Swilling, for alerting me to this article over at Breitbart.
"North Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem filed a legal opinion last week confirming that the state does not recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages, allowing a man married to another man to come to North Dakota and marry a woman without divorcing his husband."
This of course could also occur with a woman "marrying" a woman, and then going to North Dakota to marry a man. Apparently this can happen right now.
"While many wildly speculated that the legalization of same-sex marriage could lead to polygamy, they probably never thought it would be like this. Presented with a legal hypothetical, Attorney General Stenehjem answered three questions: whether someone in a same-sex marriage in another state can also receive a marriage license to someone of the opposite sex in North Dakota, whether they can file legal documents as 'Single' when they possess a same-sex marriage license in another state, and whether this would open the individual up for prosecution under another state's bigamy laws. The Attorney General's response can be read in full PDF form here."
Silly me, I thought it would be in Vermont. Somebody was thinking. I'll have to find out who. This is really a genius back door way to get where we're going. I wonder how long it will hold up though before the legislature of North Dakota catches up. Coverage is also at "Religion Clause." "Jon's Blog" noticed before the Kody Brown case was decided. See also "Rhymes with Right and Georgia Unfiltered."

Sphere: Related Content


Jon said...

It makes sense when folks insist on state-by-state marriage recognition. It's less likely to occur as more states allow equal marriage rights & responsibilities. It will also help now that the federal government recognizes legal same sex couples regardless which state they live in.

But states like Colorado that do civil unions instead of marriage will remain open for the multiple family unit risk.

Personally I'm surprised we haven't seen more incidents of folks with multiple state-based relationships given our push for state recognition of same sex marriages only.

Hugh McBryde said...

States are eroding their own rights, by refusing to recognize contracts formed in other states. Be careful what you wish for, some say.

I'm all for states making their own laws but if I'm "married" in Vermont, I should be "married" in the eyes of North Dakota. By failing to recognize Vermont's marriage laws, North Dakota (and every other state) may lose the right to write their own.

I've oft observed that the government won't be out of marriage until it collects tax from it's citizenry in some other fashion than it does now. As long as we have a progressive income tax with deductions, the state will be in marriage.

As long as the state wants to tell us what child rape is, they'll be insisting on registering marriage as well. All you need to know about this issue is that the state wants a record they can access to prove you're legally married to a a 15 year old if you're doing the deed with them. It is legal to have sex with a 15 year old, if you're 40, if you're married to them. Hence, the government wants to register and thus define marriage. Now I've created an unholy union of NAMBLA and the FLDS.

Jon said...

Fortunately, I don't have to worry about your final points since my husband is a few years older than me.

Otherwise, I don't disagree much with what you're shared. Have a good weekend! :)

Hugh McBryde said...

Yeah, the legal environment must concern itself with people like Percy Wetmore (Doug Hutchinson).