Montana Man From ‘Sister Wives’: Polygamy Is Part Of Marriage Equality And I Want Two Wives

Montanan Nathan Collier said the Supreme Court decision to legalize same-sex marriage should also allow him to marry two women, and now he’s fighting for the legal right.

“It’s about marriage equality,” Collier told The Associated Press. “You can’t have this without polygamy.”

Collier, who appeared on the TLC show Sister Wives in January, is legally married to one woman but took the second woman to the Yellowstone County Courthouse Tuesday and requested a marriage license.

Trending: Duck Duck Go’s far-left political donations and abuse of user data have users FUMING

At first, the county clerk denied his request but said they will consult with attorneys to decide the best course of action. Collier has two women in his life, Victoria and Christine, but he is only legally married to Victoria. He met both women in 1999 and says he had a “spiritual ceremony” with Christine.

take our poll - story continues below

Has Big Tech Gone Too Far Banning the President?(2)

  • Has Big Tech Gone Too Far Banning the President?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Collier said if his request is denied, he will file a civil rights lawsuit.

“We’ve been together many years,” Collier told USA TODAY Network. “I want to give my wife the legitimacy that she deserves.”

While it’s unlikely Collier’s request will be granted and the Supreme Court decision did not specifically grant rights for polygamy, these claims are exactly what traditional marriage advocates warned would happen with the legalization of same-sex marriage.

Collier’s main argument is: if two men or two women can get married, what right do you have to tell me I can’t marry two women?

In his dissenting opinion last Friday, Chief Justice John Roberts warned this kind of thinking was the next step.

He wrote, “much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage.”

In one passage, he raised some serious questions about the logical implications of the ruling.

“Indeed, from the standpoint of history and tradition, a leap from opposite-sex marriage to same-sex marriage is much greater than one from a two-person union to plural unions, which have deep roots in some cultures around the world. If the majority is willing to take the big leap, it is hard to see how it can say no to the shorter one.”

“If ‘[t]here is dignity in the bond between two men or two women who seek to marry and in their autonomy to make such profound choices,’ why would there be any less dignity in the bond between three people who, in exercising their autonomy, seek to make the profound choice to marry? If a same-sex couple has the constitutional right to marry because their…dissenting children would otherwise ‘suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser,’ why wouldn’t the same reasoning apply to a family of three or more persons raising children?”


Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook and Twitter, and follow our friends at

Become an insider!

Sign up for the free Freedom Outpost email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

You Might Like
Previous Guess What Happened The Last Time The Chinese Stock Market Crashed Like This?
Next They Want To Use ‘Hate Speech Laws’ To Destroy Freedom Of Speech In America

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon to the right of the comment, and report it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation. If you don't see a commenting section below, please disable your adblocker.

Sorry. No data so far.