Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (41716)	6/24/1999 12:09:00 PM
From: nihil	Respond to of 108807

No, you're right. The circuit court found the state could not produce clear and convincing evidence of detrimental social effects so that the marriage of the parties should not be permitted, and the granting of the petitions by the Supreme Court was assumed to be a foregone conclusion. Thanks for the correction. As to "polygamy", I think you mean "polyandry" in your example. I believe in Hawaii that any marriage made outside the state is considered legal. A polygamous marriage I believe would indeed be legal. We are daily expecting a case, but I don't think anyone would be dumb enough to bring one against a polygamist or polyandrist here. Just as polygamy is a sleeping dog in Utah and Arizona, I think it is here also.