Fox 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. [...]
Why are Christians so opposed to polygamy? I thought the "New Testament" (עפ"ל) was only להקל and not להחמיר?
ReplyDeleteI mean, you do see where this headed. If a man can have two wives, than it follows from the "Law of Equality" that a woman can have....
ReplyDeleteThe legislatures and courts in this country have succeeded into twisting the term "marriage" into something synonymous with G'lui A'ryos. I think we need a new term to describe what used to be called "marriage".
May I suggest "Eden Union", perhaps shortened to "Eunion"? The term is self-explanatory: a relationship like that of Adam and Eve.
Should anyone be surprised? The gay lobby's contention against traditional marriage was that man-women was not a sacred thing, it should be any two people. Then the polygamists come along and that same lobby suddenly decides that two is an inviolable number. Really, if marriage can be between any two persons, why not three, heck , why not the entire football team along with its cheerleader squad?
ReplyDeleteHypocrisy.
We already have polygamy. Those 'civil unions' did not require celibacy. I.e., one can have several 'civil unions' and or marriage and civil union.
ReplyDeleteFrom a Jewish point of view, polygamy is assur because of cherem rabbeinu Gershom.
ReplyDeleteHowever for the goyim, polygamy is actually a great idea and is much better than gay marriage.
In polygamy many children can be created to add to the population needed
to advance and progress our society. Polygamists are not know to have
Aids unlike the practitioners of gay sex. Polygamous marriages are
healthy for the women in that if one wants to advance a career and the
other wants to be a home maker that works our perfectly.
From a religious point of view, the forefathers Abraham and Jacob were involved in successful polygamous marriages. Even though it is not the practice today but it is not a dire sin like gay activities are.
In today's society, many people engage in multiple relationships even when they are monogamously married and being officially married takes away any
stain of infidelity.
All in all, polygamy is a great way to move forward from our current situation.
"polygamy is assur because of cherem rabbeinu Gershom."
ReplyDeleteUntrue. The majority of Jewish kehillas never accepted that cherem, and practised polygamy ad hayom hazeh.
Judaism doesn't prohibit polygamy. Some Jewish communities, such as Ashkenazim, prohibit it within their community via rabbinic decree. Others, such as Teimanim (Jewish Yemenites) and perhaps other Sefardim, have no prohibition on polygamy.
ReplyDelete"From a Jewish point of view, polygamy is assur because of cherem rabbeinu Gershom."
ReplyDeleteOnly for Ashkenazim, and only until the year 5000 (1239 c.e.). Nowadays it is just a Minhag.
they have a few symbolic chumras, to go against the Torah, but otherwise they actually have very little connection to the Torah, maybe the 10 commandments, but even Shabbat has been changed to another day.
ReplyDeleteIt's a minhag that the Rema cites as halacha so it's not simply a minhag. Name one non sfardi community where polygamy is practiced.
ReplyDeleteThe rema states that even though the cherem of Rabbeinu Gershom has expired, it should still be kept and this has been the simple understanding of shulchan aruch as a full fledged halacha. Since when is a gezera dirabonon not Judaism?
ReplyDeleteThe vast majority of Orthodox Jews hold by this issur and only a small minority are nohaig heter.
This is certainly not true for Ashkenazy kehillos. Which kehillos practice polygamy today? It appears to me to be a small minority.
ReplyDeleteYou seem to be right - I hadn't seen the Rema (E.H. 1:10).
ReplyDeleteNon-Ashekenazim never accepted the ban in the first place. And the Rama is speaking to and accepted by Ashkenazim, not Sefardim. This has always been the case. The Sephardim go only with the Mechaber in Shulchan Aruch without the Rama. And the Shulchan Aruch accepts polygamy.
ReplyDeleteTeimanaim, for one, still have polygamous families.
ReplyDeleteThat's only one. The majority of sephardic communities seem not to have maintained polygamy practically.
ReplyDeleteWhile what you are saying is true, there are very few who deviate from this position today and practice polygamy/
ReplyDeleteThat has more to do with civil secular restrictions on polygamy in the countries where Jews who traditionally practiced polygamy (i.e. Teimanim, Sephardim, Non-Ashekenazim) moved to after leaving their long-time host countries where polygamy was civilly legal. The reason for its decline among non-Ashkenazim (though it still exists) was not for any halachic reasons. In fact, in 1950 the Chief Rabbis of Israel banned polygamy for non-Ashkenazim. In 1951, Chacham Ovadia Yosef, in his position as a Dayan, ruled the Chief Rabbis decision was not binding upon Sephardim.
ReplyDeleteNorth African, Iraqi and Persian communities all practised polygamy up until the mass aliya at the time of the founding of the State. As far as I'm aware it's illegal in Israel (although not for people who arrived already married to more than one wife).
ReplyDeleteSince it appears that polygamy is permissible to a large portion of klal yisroel, then it should be advocated and supported as a solution to the shidduch crisis. The sefardim should certainly use it if they encounter the problem.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if it's conceivable to go against the Rema in special situations of shaas hadchak and reverse the cherem to solve the shidduch problem. It's probably not possible but perhaps some massive heter mayah rabbonim could be made for some portion of klal yisroel to relieve the shidduch crisis and perhaps the parnossa crisis by having more people contribute to a family.
Rav Avigdor Miller, in one of his famous Q&A sessions that was recently published in book format and is available on tape recording as well, was asked and responded that it is conceivable that the contemporary rabbonim will end the cherem of Rabbeinu Gershom.
ReplyDeleteIt's great to hear it from such a great tzaddik.
ReplyDeleteLifting the Cherem would solve some problems but create new ones. Currently an unattractive/poor/etc. man can find a wife because there's somehow a shortage of men. But if the Cherem is lifted so girls without a shidduch will just double up with Mr. rich/handsome/etc.
ReplyDeleteSupposedly poligamist countries have this very problem. Poor etc. men can't marry.
The shidduch problem is a fact and here now. The poor nebach man problem is possible but unproven. Additionally, many older girls will not opt for being second even if it were available so there is still room for the undesirable.males.
ReplyDeleteRabbeinu Gershom's consideration for the cherem was not based on the impact on men but was because of a problem with multiple wives and their interaction. The Vilna Gaon desired the retraction of Cherem Rabbeinu Gershom.
In any case, any activity in this direction would have to be undertaken by gedolei horoa and they would consider all the issues. It appears to be a good approach for a number of existing problems and represents the pure d'oraisa point of view.
Where is the Vilna Gaon?
ReplyDeleteWhen you mention the "pure d'oraisa view" I assume you mean it merely as a description and don't mean it as carrying weight in this discussion. "Derabanan view" and even "Minhag view" can be, as it were, preferable to the "pure d'oraisa view". Opting for one over the other is sometimes nothing more than a personal opinion.
The statement was made by Rav Yisroel mishklov
ReplyDeleteBy the pure d'oraisa I mean the din of 6 women are permitted.
I don't understand at all what you are saying about derabanan or minhag. If it's derabanan there is no heter outside of 100 rabanan. If it's minhag there may be other kulos. I don't see where personal preference is involved.
The idea of an impact on poor men is actually brought down in משנה הלכות