Skip to comments.North Dakota to Let Man in Same-Sex Marriage Wed Woman, Too (Bigamy OK'ed)
Posted on 12/17/2013 10:30:09 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o
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.
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.
The answer to all these questions, essentially, is that a person can legally possess two marriage licenses in North Dakota, because a same-sex marriage license is not recognized. The Attorney General did not comment on whether such a situation would lead to a bigamy charge in another state, suggesting it was "inappropriate" to comment on laws outside of North Dakota.
North Dakota's constitution prohibits same-sex marriage since the state voted to amend it in 2004, and the state has an additional statute prohibiting same-sex unions from valid recognition. Marriages performed outside of the state are also recognized in North Dakota only when they do not violate the laws of North Dakota, which would already invalidate same-sex marriages, but the statute goes further to explicitly cite the illegitimacy of same-sex marriages in that state.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
FTA:In addition to state laws permitting this activity, the Attorney General cites one of the few provisions in the Defense of Marriage Act still standing after this summer's Supreme Court decision: no state can be made to respect a same-sex marriage license from another state.
North Dakota's strict laws against same-sex unions had previously led to tax issues, as well, with the state requesting that anyone holding a same-sex marriage license in another state file their taxes as a single person, essentially eliminating the tax benefits that come with a marriage. Without even looking at the moral implications of forcing a couple with a legal marriage license to declare themselves single, this clearly looks like a recipe for tax code disaster. This opinion in particular, which allows a heterosexual union even when there previously exists a homosexual one, creates a situation in which three individuals are bound and three individuals are filing as married to each other. Because of the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause, the heterosexual union from North Dakota would have to be recognized in some form in the state that provided the same-sex marriage license--whether recognized as a criminal, bigamous act or as a legal license that yields tax credits.
The opinion also creates the most explicit conflict between states on gay marriage yet. It pits North Dakota against states like New York, Massachusetts, and Hawaii that now have to choose between violating the Full Faith and Credit Clause, and upholding a marriage license they issued or acknowledging North Dakota's intransigence and violating the state's standards on gay rights. The legal opinion's uncanny timing also pairs it in headlines with the easing of polygamy laws in Utah, and provides a stark contrast between what self-proclaimed polygamists want from their government and what the individual wishing to marry twice in this case does.
The "Sister Wives" family that won the Utah suit only have one marriage license among them, and do not wish to receive any more. The man in the North Dakota case wants two marriage licenses, and the right to proclaim himself single on legal documents until he receives his second. The latter creates the bigger problem, because the parties in the case want further government involvement in their lives--not to get the government out of their lives--and this forces state governments to turn on each other.
The good news for all involved is that a case in which a man wants to marry a woman after having married a man is a genuinely unusual one, reading almost as a thought experiment designed to challenge law students on how to apply the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit and Comity Clauses. But there is at least one case--that which inspired this legal opinion, and will provide much to talk about in upcoming months, when the individuals that inspired the opinion will likely receive their marriage license.
Like we didn’t see this coming,
and spoke out about it,
and were ridiculed by the left for it.
Did I mention how much I despise leftists?
I really do...
“Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.”
What next? Crazy stuff. We are falling away from truth more by the day. Very deceiving to the unbelievers and the youths today. We turn to our own way!
God forgive us and place our feet on Thy path, in Jesus name amen.
Where is the Bishop?
People of intelligence saw this from the beginning.
He was too late.. Monty Python reference.
North Dakota of all places?
Obama’s daddy was a bigamist. It had to happen this way.
apparently you can now be married to more than one person
And, this was predictable in another way. The LGBT peoples, the gay community, have this acronym, in which the “B” stands for bisexual. In their worldview, a bisexual person would feel entitled to have a partner of each sex.
So, based on the liberal view that we should be non-judgemental about all of this, we have to allow this arrangement for this man to take place. Based on liberal thought, it’s a logical progression.
The first one was a fake. Why should it hinder him from getting married?
The problem here is not bigamy, but sodomy. Plus its accompanying perversities. Plus the rampant wickedness and ungodliness in this “Christian nation”.
But we’ve given up hacking at the root, and instead find some comfort in complaining about the fruit.
I’m split on this one.
The first “marriage” wasn’t a real one, and isn’t recognized in North Dakota. So, if gay marriages aren’t real, then you don’t need a divorce, just a statement of repentance of some sort admitting that it wasn’t a marriage in the first place.
On the other hand, this kind of thing is obviously trashing our system of laws. There’s no good solution once you start going down this path.
Amerika The Freak Show! This “fundamental transformation” crap is some really goofy stuff!
Wonderful use of the language.
Somebody has to cook and clean. (Duck for Incoming)
The downward slide continues.
You need a flow chart for this insanity.
Bigamy is self punishing. There is no need to involve the State.
What I wonder is whether either “marriage” is truly legitimate, or if the three people involved are just part of a well-planned setup to create a case (or multiple cases) that’ll help push the legal definition of marriage over a cliff.
Gay ‘marriage’ is not marriage.
And if a gay man marries a woman and has no intention of being committed to the woman alone, then it isn’t a marriage either.
The government definition of marriage will continue to change, until there is no definition of marriage or the term becomes meaningless. However, the Catholic definition of marriage and related rules for an annullment remain unchanged.
The AG answered the LEGAL questions honestly since ND does not recognize same sex marriages they can be no valid (i.e. legal) marriage license from another state. What would expect him to say otherwise???
Bisexuals should marry gender ambiguous persons. That way they could be married to a “male” on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays; and be married to a “female” on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays.
It is a tough call because if you insist on the male it divorcing the other male it which it is married to, then you are recognizing homosexual marriage. Or, at least, that is what they will claim.
Chaz says it’s all so confusing.
But isn’t the “conservatism” here on Free Republic limited to the subject of economics? Why bother with all of this?
As we all pretty much suspect, while the gang at Gay, Inc. were ridiculing us (”Oh, you crazy irrational-animus-driven homophobic paranoids!”) they were SETTING UP this case. You can hear the slight metallic slide as the trapdoor opens beneath our feet. This was a set-up, mark my words.
How about this? If you are sodomite play-pretend married to another man, and you apply for a marriage license with a woman, you have a right to be shot in the face.
Works for me.
Up until a couple years ago sex with animals was legal in Washington state.
There was no law against it and a judge ruled that there was no way to prove the animal didn’t enjoy it!
They finally passed a law making it illegal.
Liberalism is a mental illness!
How long will it take for the lucky truple to adopt?
A couple black kids would fit in nicely in that modern hip family.
Hasn't made any news about anything yet, as far as I can see, except for a little kerfuffle when he came back from Rome with Hepatitis A -- food contamination--- and was said to have inadvertently created a risk by giving out Holy Communion before he knew he was infected.
He also supported legislation--- since struck down by the courts --- which might have closed the only remaining abortion site in ND.
The two men aren’t married.
Right on, Dilbert.
[B stands for bisexual. In their worldview, a bisexual person would feel entitled to have a partner of each sex.]
This is the beginning of a daisy-chain. Bisexual A marries bisexual M. Bisexual A’s other half also marries B. B’s other half also marries C. On the other side bisexual M also marries N, and on and sickly on.
And even prior to the deconstruction of marriage, there was a deconstruction of sex. If any kind of jiggery-pokery --- involving sodomy, contraception, ejaculation into the anal or oral cavity, or whatever --- redefines sex as a briefly exciting act for adult satisfaction, rather than as a procreative act related to the making of a conjugal family, there's no reason to valorize sterile heterosex over sterile homosex.
More than likely the man is an activist attempting to marry the woman, another activist, in North Dakota merely as a political stunt to muddy the waters. Anything to throw more confusion into the mix.
Can't discriminate, y'know.
All this is the "fruit" of contraception, i.e. we can change the very definition of sex, disassemble, throw out the components we don't like, reassemble in a different shape.
Once you've deconstructed sex, it's easy to deconstruct marriage. It's not a slippery slope, it's a logical Interstate Highway.
Well, they don’t have to live together, they just need to get the contracts and share the benefits. There are (supposedly) thousands of them -— or so the Gay Marriage lobbyists tell us.
I think you've been here long enough to know that we socons are everywhere.
Nothin' but truple.
Natural and logical consequences.
These things are always set-ups.
A triple couple = truple.
Yep. Just like the Polygamy case in Utah, he was only married to one of them.
Clever word, too. Because truple is trouble.
I have not checked, but does NoDak have recognize common law marriage, would be a question.
Government benefits. $$$$$.
The new female wife will have a good ole time sharing the two men.
Looks like wifey didn’t marry both men, just one of them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.