A former 40 year Atheist analyzes Atheism, without resorting to theism, deism, or fantasy. *** If You Don't Value Truth, Then What DO You Value? *** If we say that the sane can be coaxed and persuaded to rationality, and we say that rationality presupposes logic, then what can we say of those who actively reject logic? *** Atheists have an obligation to give reasons in the form of logic and evidence for rejecting Theist theories.
Tuesday, December 17, 2013
Actual Polygamy In North Dakota
A man in North Dakota can have both a husband and a wife, so long as the husband was obtained by marriage in another state. There is truly nothing too absurd to actually happen these days.
2 comments:
Michael
said...
Just the latest attempt to morally undermine our country. When normal people argued that allowing gay marriage would snowball into a slippery slope to all manner of immorality, they said that it was a ridiculous argument without merit. Sure enough, it has come to fruition. Pure insanity. It's only a matter of time before they make it legal to marry Fido. *WOOF!*
Just because the state hands a couple or group a piece of paper saying that they're "married" doesn't mean that they are.
I'm not certain it's "absurd" in this case. Granted everything's up for grabs these days, but it seems to me the AG answered in the only way he could within the strictures of ND law.
As usual, the news report goes for the sensational at the expense of accuracy. The AG's opinion states, in part, "the individual would not be committing a criminal violation in this state by indicating he or she was “Single/Never Married.”
While the media warped this into "AG says a man can have a husband AND a wife!" what the AG in fact said is that ND law does not recognize that the man has a husband. So that in the eyes of ND law he is effectually "single/never married". As such, then, he is entitled to be issued a marriage certificate in ND.
The situation is only an absurdity if one presupposes the validity of the first, same-sex, marriage.
I suspect, by the way, this is an issue churches will eventually have to come to terms with. If a person in a same-sex marriage approaches a church which doesn't recognize same-sex marriages seeking to marry heterosexually, what response can the church give? If the church says, "You're already married," it is in effect acknowledging the validity of the same-sex marriage, contrary to its own beliefs. To be consistent with its beliefs the church would have to act as if the person is not married and agree to perform the (second, heterosexual) marriage.
This may ultimately pose a dilemma for the state, if the state recognizes the validity of religious marriage ceremonies. In effect, the state would be forced to legitimize polygamy, or else to cease recognizing religious marriages.
2 comments:
Just the latest attempt to morally undermine our country. When normal people argued that allowing gay marriage would snowball into a slippery slope to all manner of immorality, they said that it was a ridiculous argument without merit. Sure enough, it has come to fruition. Pure insanity. It's only a matter of time before they make it legal to marry Fido. *WOOF!*
Just because the state hands a couple or group a piece of paper saying that they're "married" doesn't mean that they are.
I'm not certain it's "absurd" in this case. Granted everything's up for grabs these days, but it seems to me the AG answered in the only way he could within the strictures of ND law.
As usual, the news report goes for the sensational at the expense of accuracy. The AG's opinion states, in part, "the individual would not be committing a criminal violation in this state by indicating he or she was “Single/Never Married.”
While the media warped this into "AG says a man can have a husband AND a wife!" what the AG in fact said is that ND law does not recognize that the man has a husband. So that in the eyes of ND law he is effectually "single/never married". As such, then, he is entitled to be issued a marriage certificate in ND.
The situation is only an absurdity if one presupposes the validity of the first, same-sex, marriage.
I suspect, by the way, this is an issue churches will eventually have to come to terms with. If a person in a same-sex marriage approaches a church which doesn't recognize same-sex marriages seeking to marry heterosexually, what response can the church give? If the church says, "You're already married," it is in effect acknowledging the validity of the same-sex marriage, contrary to its own beliefs. To be consistent with its beliefs the church would have to act as if the person is not married and agree to perform the (second, heterosexual) marriage.
This may ultimately pose a dilemma for the state, if the state recognizes the validity of religious marriage ceremonies. In effect, the state would be forced to legitimize polygamy, or else to cease recognizing religious marriages.
Post a Comment