Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

North Dakota to Let Man in Same-Sex Marriage Wed Woman, Too (Bigamy OK'ed)
Breitbart ^ | 16 Dec 2013 | Frances Martel

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.

[snip]

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; US: North Dakota
KEYWORDS: bisexual; gay; gaymarriage; goodcall; homosexualagenda; legalizebigamy; legalizepoligamy; marriage; nd; northdakota
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 next last
Like we didn't see this coming.

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.

1 posted on 12/17/2013 10:30:10 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

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...


2 posted on 12/17/2013 10:31:55 AM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrB

“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.


3 posted on 12/17/2013 10:35:58 AM PST by geologist ("If you love me, keep my commands" .... John 14 :15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

Where is the Bishop?


4 posted on 12/17/2013 10:37:32 AM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
I see no legal grounds to stop such a thing. That's always been the problem. You cannot change the definition of marriage "just a little". If it's not one man and one woman, then it's just "anything goes".

People of intelligence saw this from the beginning.

5 posted on 12/17/2013 10:39:34 AM PST by ClearCase_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

He was too late.. Monty Python reference.


6 posted on 12/17/2013 10:40:25 AM PST by wally_bert (There are no winners in a game of losers. I'm Tommy Joyce, welcome to the Oriental Lounge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

North Dakota of all places?


7 posted on 12/17/2013 10:40:45 AM PST by GeronL (Extra Large Cheesy Over-Stuffed Hobbit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

Obama’s daddy was a bigamist. It had to happen this way.


8 posted on 12/17/2013 10:40:48 AM PST by a fool in paradise (America 2013 - STUCK ON STUPID)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

apparently you can now be married to more than one person


9 posted on 12/17/2013 10:41:05 AM PST by GeronL (Extra Large Cheesy Over-Stuffed Hobbit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrB

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.


10 posted on 12/17/2013 10:43:27 AM PST by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

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.


11 posted on 12/17/2013 10:44:02 AM PST by LearsFool ("Thou shouldst not have been old, till thou hadst been wise.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

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.


12 posted on 12/17/2013 10:50:47 AM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

Amerika The Freak Show! This “fundamental transformation” crap is some really goofy stuff!


13 posted on 12/17/2013 10:52:15 AM PST by FlingWingFlyer (Merry Christmas to all my fellow Americans. "Whatever" to everybody else!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LearsFool
But we’ve given up hacking at the root, and instead find some comfort in complaining about the fruit.

Wonderful use of the language.

14 posted on 12/17/2013 10:53:33 AM PST by Sergio (An object at rest cannot be stopped! - The Evil Midnight Bomber What Bombs at Midnight)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Somebody has to cook and clean. (Duck for Incoming)


15 posted on 12/17/2013 10:54:27 AM PST by billhilly (Has Pelosi read it yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

The downward slide continues.

You need a flow chart for this insanity.


16 posted on 12/17/2013 10:58:59 AM PST by headstamp 2 (What would Scooby do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

Bigamy is self punishing. There is no need to involve the State.


17 posted on 12/17/2013 11:00:19 AM PST by Lurker (Violence is rarely the answer. But when it is it is the only answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LearsFool

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.


18 posted on 12/17/2013 11:01:38 AM PST by tanknetter (L)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

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.


19 posted on 12/17/2013 11:21:23 AM PST by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

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???


20 posted on 12/17/2013 11:28:15 AM PST by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

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.


21 posted on 12/17/2013 11:28:43 AM PST by reg45 (Barack 0bama: Implementing class warfare by having no class.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: MrB

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.


22 posted on 12/17/2013 11:31:22 AM PST by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

Chaz says it’s all so confusing.


23 posted on 12/17/2013 11:45:46 AM PST by TexasCajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

But isn’t the “conservatism” here on Free Republic limited to the subject of economics? Why bother with all of this?


24 posted on 12/17/2013 11:52:07 AM PST by John Leland 1789
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrB; geologist; LearsFool; tanknetter

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.


25 posted on 12/17/2013 12:00:36 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o (Mater et Magistra.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

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.


26 posted on 12/17/2013 12:00:37 PM PST by dsc (Any attempt to move a government to the left is a crime against humanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: geologist

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!


27 posted on 12/17/2013 12:00:56 PM PST by Beagle8U (Unions are Affirmative Action for Slackers! .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: dsc

LOL


28 posted on 12/17/2013 12:01:16 PM PST by freedomlover
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
One really interesting possibility-given the inevitability of the legalization of polygamous marriages-being when will the "Official" Mormon church re-institute polygamous marriages?
29 posted on 12/17/2013 12:01:24 PM PST by AEMILIUS PAULUS (It is a shame that when these people give a riot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

How long will it take for the lucky truple to adopt?

A couple black kids would fit in nicely in that modern hip family.


30 posted on 12/17/2013 12:09:40 PM PST by Beagle8U (Unions are Affirmative Action for Slackers! .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
They've got a new young bishop there, +John Thomas Folda, 51, who was just installed in June by Pope Francis.

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.

31 posted on 12/17/2013 12:13:26 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o (Mater et Magistra.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

The two men aren’t married.


32 posted on 12/17/2013 12:15:20 PM PST by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

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.


33 posted on 12/17/2013 12:17:33 PM PST by Islander2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
"If it's not one man and one woman, then it's just "anything goes".

Exactly.

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.

34 posted on 12/17/2013 12:22:13 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o ("OK, youse guys, pair off by threes." - Yogi Berra)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
Precisely because ND is just the kind of state where the AG would say, "Hell no, there's no way we regard this guy's previous liaison with another guy as a marriage; and therefore in our view, he is just an unmarried man, and therefore entitled to marry this consenting woman."
35 posted on 12/17/2013 12:25:51 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o ("OK, youse guys, pair off by threes." - Yogi Berra)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

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.


36 posted on 12/17/2013 12:25:58 PM PST by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego
And the next step: if multiple spouses is suited to Mr. Bisexual, simply in accord with his sexual orientation, it has to be available to Mr. Hetero Tomcat, here, who also has a polygamous orientation.

Can't discriminate, y'know.

37 posted on 12/17/2013 12:30:05 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o ("OK, youse guys, pair off by threes." - Yogi Berra)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: LearsFool
"But we’ve given up hacking at the root, and instead find some comfort in complaining about the fruit."

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.

38 posted on 12/17/2013 12:33:21 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o ("OK, youse guys, pair off by threes." - Yogi Berra)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Lurker

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.


39 posted on 12/17/2013 12:35:55 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o ("OK, youse guys, pair off by threes." - Yogi Berra)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: John Leland 1789
"But isn’t the “conservatism” here on Free Republic limited to the subject of economics? Why bother with all of this?"

I think you've been here long enough to know that we socons are everywhere.

40 posted on 12/17/2013 12:39:09 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o ("OK, youse guys, pair off by threes." - Yogi Berra)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U
Truple, truple, truple.

Nothin' but truple.

41 posted on 12/17/2013 12:41:12 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o ("OK, youse guys, pair off by threes." - Yogi Berra)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Islander2
On the optimistic side, antibiotic-resistant STD's like the new Super-Gonorrhea --- which is arriving just in time --- can rip through non-monogamous sexual networks like flames through paper chains.

Natural and logical consequences.

42 posted on 12/17/2013 12:45:53 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o ("OK, youse guys, pair off by threes." - Yogi Berra)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: fwdude
Oh, it's a set-up, that's for sure. Just like Lawrence vs Texas, Doe vs Bolton, and Roe vs Wade.

These things are always set-ups.

43 posted on 12/17/2013 12:48:08 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o ("OK, youse guys, pair off by threes." - Yogi Berra)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

A triple couple = truple.


44 posted on 12/17/2013 12:53:37 PM PST by Beagle8U (Unions are Affirmative Action for Slackers! .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Lucky

Yep. Just like the Polygamy case in Utah, he was only married to one of them.


45 posted on 12/17/2013 12:54:41 PM PST by GeronL (Extra Large Cheesy Over-Stuffed Hobbit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U
I got that!

Clever word, too. Because truple is trouble.

Triple trouble.

46 posted on 12/17/2013 12:57:35 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o ("OK, youse guys, pair off by threes." - Yogi Berra)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

I have not checked, but does NoDak have recognize common law marriage, would be a question.


47 posted on 12/17/2013 1:19:10 PM PST by SgtHooper (If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: John Leland 1789

Government benefits. $$$$$.


48 posted on 12/17/2013 1:29:11 PM PST by ChicagahAl (Don't blame me. I voted for Sarah.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

The new female wife will have a good ole time sharing the two men.


49 posted on 12/17/2013 1:41:20 PM PST by Real Cynic No More (Border Fence Obamacare!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Real Cynic No More

Looks like wifey didn’t marry both men, just one of them.


50 posted on 12/17/2013 1:46:46 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson