Quote:
Originally Posted by frau kaleun
I don't know the exact wording of those laws, but if they specify that marriage can only exist between two individuals, and no more than that number, then they are addressing the number of spouses one person can have and not which two people can marry each other where only two people are involved to begin with.
If they bring sex into the issue by stating that a man cannot be married to more than one woman at a time, well, nothing's changed there. A man still can't be married to more than one woman at a time. (He can't be married to more than one man at a time either.) As long as the law doesn't specify that marrying a woman is his only option for wedded bliss, it shouldn't be affected by this judge's ruling.
|
I think that is against my civil rights. I should be able to have more then one wife. I think that law is unconstitutional. It should be overturned. I don't care who voted for it.
__________________
“You're painfully alive in a drugged and dying culture.”
― Richard Yates, Revolutionary Road
|