Posted on 10/01/2005 11:34:21 AM PDT by Bushwacker777
"The Netherlands and Belgium were the first countries to give full marriage rights to homosexuals. In the United States some politicians propose “civil unions” that give homosexual couples the full benefits and responsibilities of marriage. These civil unions differ from marriage only in name.
Meanwhile in the Netherlands polygamy has been legalised in all but name. Last Friday the first civil was registered. Victor de Bruijn (46) from Roosendaal “married” both Bianca (31) and Mirjam (35) in a ceremony before a notary who duly registered their civil union.
“I love both Bianca and Mirjam, so I am marrying them both,” Victor said."
(Excerpt) Read more at brusselsjournal.com ...
Not for nothing is it called the "nether lands."
Have a look at the link , Dr Evil up to no good.
He won't get cold this winter.
But, golly. This will never happen when marriage becomes a civil 'right'. Until it actually happens.
Yeah, but with the shortage of heterosexual men in Holland he may be doing something truly patriotic.
When will we have a similar law here? I want to marry the twins from the Coors commercials.
The Netherlands is SO COOL !!
Moral Absolutes Ping.
I know, I know - I already pung out one of the articles about this charming assemblage of screwed up weirdos. But it is big stuff, because it proves that Santorum was right. And since at least a couple SCOTUS justices allowed that foreign laws, constitutions AND CUSTOMS should inform SCOTUS decisions, watch out.
I'm not clicking the link to read the rest of the article, but a previous one stated that both "ladies" are bisexual. Just so you know how deviant this bunch of freaks is.
Freepmail me if you want on/off this pinglist.
The Fugly sisters...
Homosexual Agenda Ping.
Okay, you get it too. Since the "wives" are bisexual, this qualifies as a homosexual agenda ping.
I promise both lists I won't ping out about this incident ever again. Unless there's more similar ones...
Freepmail me AND DirtyHarryY2K if you want on/off etc.
Polygamy always wrong? Not necessarily.
It could be a possible solution to some of the problems in poorer parts of the community.
A good, responsible father with two wives and children is a better evironment for kids than a single mother with a run-away dad.
He better have his own bathroom.
Europe is going to be under considerable pressure a few years down the line to legitimize Muslim laws and customs, namely to recognize the right of all virtuous Muslims to have four wives and divorce them at will by speaking a few words. After Muslims are in the majority in Europe, and perhaps even before, they will pretty certainly push this through. What grounds will the dying races of Europe have to deny them, since they no longer admit that Christian laws and precepts have any validity?
Probably the right to multiple wives will first apply to Muslims who married before entering the country, then to Muslims living in Europe, and finally to anyone else, since why should only Muslims have this privilege?
Then it will spread here, unless we reform our courts, since American intellectuals are eager to follow Europe down the tubes.
Makes it even more important, now doesn't it, that Judge Roberts is no fan of letting European law affect our own. Here's part of his confirmation testimony:
"ROBERTS: Well, I don't want to comment on any particular case but I think I can speak more generally about the approach. I know Justices Scalia and Breyer had a little debate about it themselves here in town that was very illuminating to get both of their views.
And I would say, as a general matter, that there are a couple of things that cause concern on my part about the use of foreign law as precedent. As you say, this isn't about interpreting treaties or foreign contracts but as precedent on the meaning of American law. The first has to do with democratic theory. Judicial decisions: In this country, judges, of course, are not accountable to the people, but we are appointed through a process that allows for participation of the electorate.
The president who nominates judges is obviously accountable to the people. Senators who confirm judges are accountable to people. And in that way, the role of the judge is consistent with the democratic theory.
ROBERTS: If we're relying on a decision from a German judge about what our Constitution means, no president accountable to the people appointed that judge and no Senate accountable to the people confirmed that judge. And yet he's playing a role in shaping the law that binds the people in this country. I think that's a concern that has to be addressed.
The other part of it that would concern me is that, relying on foreign precedent doesn't confine judges. It doesn't limit their discretion the way relying on domestic precedent does. Domestic precedent can confine and shape the discretion of the judges. Foreign law, you can find anything you want. If you don't find it in the decisions of France or Italy, it's in the decisions of Somalia or Japan or Indonesia or wherever.
As somebody said in another context, looking at foreign law for support is like looking out over a crowd and picking out your friends. You can find them. They're there. And that actually expands the discretion of the judge. It allows the judge to incorporate his or her own personal preferences, cloak them with the authority of precedent -- because they're finding precedent in foreign law -- and use that to determine the meaning of the Constitution. And I think that's a misuse of precedent, not a correct use of precedent."
Oh my gosh!!!!
ping
I'm waiting for someone to marry their dog! I'm sure it will become legal someday.
Finally, the long held nerd dream of literally marrying your computer will become a reality.
*strokes iBook a little too lovingly* Soon, my pet. We are one step closer. Patience...
/sarcasm
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.