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 ...
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!
LOL
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.
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.
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.
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.