The fallout begins. ABC News A Montana man said Wednesday that he was inspired by last week's U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage to apply for a marriage license so that he can legally wed his second wife. Nathan Collier and his wives Victoria and Christine applied at the Yellowstone County Courthouse in Billings on Tuesday in an attempt to legitimize their polygamous marriage. Montana, like all 50 states, outlaws bigamy — holding multiple marriage licenses — but Collier said he plans to sue if the application is denied. "It's about marriage equality," Collier told The Associated Press Wednesday. "You can't have this without polygamy." County clerk officials initially denied Collier's application, then said they would consult with the county attorney's office before giving him a final answer, Collier said. Yellowstone County chief civil litigator Kevin Gillen said he is reviewing Montana's bigamy laws and expected to send a formal response to Collier by next week. "I think he deserves an answer," Gillen said, but added his review is finding that "the law simply doesn't provide for that yet." The Supreme Court's ruling on Friday made gay marriages legal nationwide. Chief Justice John Roberts said in his dissent that people in polygamous relationships could make the same legal argument that not having the opportunity to marry disrespects and subordinates them. Collier, 46, said that dissent inspired him. He owns a refrigeration business in Billings and married Victoria, 40, in 2000. He and his second wife, Christine, had a religious wedding ceremony in 2007 but did not sign a marriage license to avoid bigamy charges, he said. Roberts was right about the problem. There's no way to justify gay marriage without first allowing polygamous marriage, which is a form that has been widely recognized and practiced for thousands of years.
Well, the law in question, was apparently referred to as a three strikes law by all the justices involved. And as I read a number of articles about this decision, and it most certainly is "one of the ones (I) think it is". Regardless, it has been overturned, precisely because it used vague terminology and definitions.
Why do conservative Christians think this is some sort of trump argument? Yeah, okay, bring on the polygamy. What, think I'm gonna be all "Oh no!! Yuck!! Not POLYGAMY!!! ". Only thing is, inheritance would be a bitch to work out. Legal stuff like that. Otherwise, if it's consenting adults, fuck do I care?
Don't care. I have no problem with pretty much any agreements that are made between consenting adults.
If we allow polygamy, we have to allow Muslims to bring over all their wives - many of whom did not consent. Forced or arranged marriages have a long, rich history and are accepted throughout much of the world. By the court's reasoning, those will be allowed too.
And just how are you going to get a conviction on those, since the guy's third wife's family isn't going to testify against him and the third wife is too afraid to speak out?
If you thought this was the Three Strikes law that was locking up people for "minor crimes", then no it wasn't the one you thought it was. That law (actually laws) are State, not Federal. This law was for putting violent criminals in prison for a long time if they're caught with a firearm...not non-violent criminals for stealing a pack of gum.
I read the articles, and in none of my posts have I claimed that this law applied to criminals other than those involved in "serious drug crimes or violent felonies". I do indeed know the difference between the “residual clause” of the federal Armed Career Criminal Act, and the types of state 3 strikes laws you keep linking to for some reason, insisting that they are what I am thinking of, when they most certainly are not. If you don't like that the residual clause was also referred to as a 3 strikes law by virtually everyone involved in, and covering, this case, including the justices themselves, I suggest you take it up with them. By "minor" crime, I'm guessing they mean "in relation to the crime that was actually committed", rather than "in relation to the entire spectrum of crimes it is possible for a human being to commit".
First, I didn't make that claim, the author of the article I was quoting did. And, secondly, I defined what I thought was meant by "minor" in my last post. Though inartfully. Allow me to restate if from scratch. Some "violent felonies" are more or less significant in the eyes of the law than other violent felonies, which is why they carry different sentences. Clearly, a crime with a standard sentence of 5 years, is considered "minor" relative to a crime with a typical sentence of 20 years or more. Under the ACCA residual clause, an inmate who was found guilty of one of these "minor" 5 year crimes, might easily serve a much longer sentence than his relatively minor crime would usually warrant. Ergo "keeping people in prison for years for [relatively] minor crimes".
So...minor serious crimes? Either way, convicted felons caught committing minor serious drug crimes or minor violent crimes with a firearm need to be locked up. I hope Congress passes a better one.
Relatively, yes. "Lesser but still damn serious crimes", if you have the luxury of verbosity. "Minor crimes" if you're by neccesity into brevity, with only a few column inches in which to express a general idea.
Er... actually, now that I think about it, the whole opening line of my post may have been the title of the link that originally took me to that article. If it was merely a sensationalist Facebook Headline, I do apologize. (However, even if that's the case, it doesn't dispute the fact that violent felonies differ in severity, from relative minor, to really fucking serious and dire.)
Okay, that's where the disconnect was. I have a big problem with the state Three Strikes laws that lock people up for decades just for getting caught with one joint, but I have no problem whatsoever with locking them up for their third violent armed felony.
No need to wonder. Only six Justices found the law unconstitutional as written; two of the eight (Kennedy and Thomas) specifically found only that the gun possession charge did not amount to a violent felony.
