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 ...
Nothin' but truple.
Natural and logical consequences.
These things are always set-ups.
A triple couple = truple.
Yep. Just like the Polygamy case in Utah, he was only married to one of them.
Clever word, too. Because truple is trouble.
Triple trouble.
I have not checked, but does NoDak have recognize common law marriage, would be a question.
Government benefits. $$$$$.
The new female wife will have a good ole time sharing the two men.
Looks like wifey didn’t marry both men, just one of them.
This one is so freaky I can’t figure it out.
I can. It’s the acid-bath approach. They want to keep dipping marriage in that tub of solvent until they dissolve it all.
I feel a need to be reminded. Thank you.
Is this an example of a “bisexual ‘marriage’”? And they(the lying left) said “this would never happen”, Mrs. Don-o.
Exactly, my friend. Geesh.
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.