Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Frank B.

us Judge Effectively Decriminalizes Polygamy in Utah

111 posts in this topic

Judge Effectively Decriminalizes Polygamy in Utah

 

A federal judge in Utah has ruled in favor of polygamy.

 

U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups struck down parts of a law banning polygamy because he says it violates freedom of religion.

 

The case revolves around a lawsuit filed by a polygamist family that appears on the TLC reality show, "Sister Wives."

 

Kody Brown and his four wives sued Utah three years ago after a county prosecutor threatened to charge them under the state's bigamy law.

 

The Utah attorney general said he will appeal the federal judge's decision.

 

Source: CBN News

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something something sanctity of marriage. :rolleyes:

Fair play, I guess. It doesn't affect me, let them do what they want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I both agree and disagree with this.

 

For one, I don't think it's anyone's business who or how many people you marry anyway, BUT, as there is a law in place making polygamy illegal, your religion should not be allowed to trump that law.  No religion should be given an exception to any law.  If you do, the law is no longer equal to all.

 

If a law limits your freedom to do something, then you get lobby to get the law changed. You don't just ignore it because you feel like it.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now I can marry my cousins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone know what the general oppositions to polygamy are? I've never really read about it. Are we just opposed to polygamy because of culture or are there proven social, financial, or scientific reasons to oppose it?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Interesting, thanks for the links.

 

A little OT, but holy crap:

 

Sub-Saharan Africa is home to 62% of the worlds? Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) cases, more than 14 000 people are daily infected with the HIV, and 11 000 people are dying daily due to HIV/AIDS related illnesses

 

 

 

I knew it was bad there, but I never knew it was those types of figures.


Utah, so I am thinking this is Mormonism and polygamy. I thought the Mormons abandoned Polygamy  along time ago. So which religion's religious freedom is this trying to protect? Some offshoot of Mormonism?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mormons did abandon polygamy. These groups operate outside of the mainstream LDS church. The total number would be about 40k individuals, about enough to fill the Comiskey Park baseball stadium in Chicago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only reason polygamy was outlawed is, Utah wanted statehood.

 

The LDS founders were secretly polygamists.

 

And I think people should be able to marry whoever they want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mormons did abandon polygamy. These groups operate outside of the mainstream LDS church. The total number would be about 40k individuals, about enough to fill the Comiskey Park baseball stadium in Chicago.

how do you know everything DocM? Do you just read a ton of articles? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how do you know everything DocM? Do you just read a ton of articles? :D

 

He Googles ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All those articles seem like BS to me. Polygamy isn't my thing but really, if it is somebody's who is the state to tell them they can't do it? Not really hurting anybody.

 

Also, if any christian or jewish has any religious problem with polygamy they should give the bible a read ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they can figure out tax codes, inheritance, medical proxy, and the other legal aspects of marriage, good for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God came from another planet
God is a man with a body of flesh and bones
There is a mother goddess
God and his goddess wife are married
You can become gods

 

Mormonism sounds cool to me, I can become a god, another inhabited planet exists, and I can have many wifes. Am I missing something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they can figure out tax codes, inheritance, medical proxy, and the other legal aspects of marriage, good for them.

The problem with marriage is that it offers benefits that should be available to anyone in a relationship. Married couples shouldn't receive tax breaks or benefit from inheritance rules not available to non-married couples / partnerships. Further, too often people stay in bad marriages because divorce is too complicated and costly - there is no value in a relationship if it is held together by the reluctance to get a divorce.

 

It's time to get the government out of people's relationships. If consenting adults wish to enter a polygamous relationship then they should be free to do so. That said, it's sad that the judgement was based on religious freedom rather than common sense and fairness - if atheists had campaigned for the same thing they would have been denied it. Religion has far too much influence in society.

7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with marriage is that it offers benefits that should be available to anyone in a relationship. Married couples shouldn't receive tax breaks or benefit from inheritance rules not available to non-married couples / partnerships.

I agree with that, "marriage" is a poor proposition for the government to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how do you know everything DocM? Do you just read a ton of articles? :D

3 of my best friends since elementary school, and their parents, are Mormons.

I have also lead a long life with many experiences, more school than I care to remember, raised 4 kids, took part in bunches of sports and other activities, lots of political activity in both parties and have had experiences you will hopefully never have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any man who can live with more than one wife nagging him, well good luck to him, for me one is quite enough at a time. 

Jim 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any man who can live with more than one wife nagging him, well good luck to him, for me one is quite enough at a time. 

Jim 

 

Imagine the monthlies... :S

 

Bad enough with a wife and daughter!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I live in Utah and I read an article about this the other day that was printed locally and there was one part of the law that the judge had an issue with which is why he struck it down.  The wording of the law was such that people living together would be violating the polygamy laws and that was way to general.  Here is quote from the local article:

 

 

 

U.S. District Court Judge Clark Waddoups ruled the phrase in the law ??or cohabits with another person? is a violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and is without a rational basis under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.?

 

And here is a link to the article.  More detailed than the one in the original post.

 

http://fox13now.com/2014/08/27/federal-judge-strikes-down-portion-of-utahs-ban-on-polygamy/

 

With that in mind I can agree with the judge striking down the law because it seems like it would result in roommate situations violating the law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No religion should be given an exception to any law.  If you do, the law is no longer equal to all.

 

This!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I both agree and disagree with this.

 

For one, I don't think it's anyone's business who or how many people you marry anyway, BUT, as there is a law in place making polygamy illegal, your religion should not be allowed to trump that law.  No religion should be given an exception to any law.  If you do, the law is no longer equal to all.

 

If a law limits your freedom to do something, then you get lobby to get the law changed. You don't just ignore it because you feel like it.

 

Mormons originally went to / play a part in founding Utah to have freedom of religion, partially due to persecution of Polgamy.

That being said, they officially renounced the practice in 1820. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No religion should be given an exception to any law. If you do, the law is no longer equal to all.

In the mid-1990's Bill Clinton signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. It was mainly targeted at protecting the practices of indigenous peoples, but because of the Constitutions Equal Protection Clause it applies to everyone.

One example of its reach is seen with animal cruelty laws. It protects practicers of Santeria (Voodoo) from prosecution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Over the years I've been in and have had friends in polyamorous relationships.

 

As long as all people are willing and are mentally able to make decisions for themselves -- who in the $#@$ cares what people do with their private lives.

 

I am so sick and #^@#^&$@# tired of "religious people" forcing their choices upon those who do not follow their religion - regardless of that choice is LGBQT or polyamory 

 

As for "government" being involved in marriage, it does so only because of the legal ramifications for taxes, property, and whatnot -- fix the damn laws so that people can live their lives as they see fit and keep it's nose out of people's bedrooms.

 

 

T

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I both agree and disagree with this.

 

For one, I don't think it's anyone's business who or how many people you marry anyway, BUT, as there is a law in place making polygamy illegal, your religion should not be allowed to trump that law.  No religion should be given an exception to any law.  If you do, the law is no longer equal to all.

 

If a law limits your freedom to do something, then you get lobby to get the law changed. You don't just ignore it because you feel like it.

The religious exemption power is carved out in the Constitution so it is a bedrock requirement in US law (until such a time when this is removed)...

 

The rationale is to prevent religious oppression of religious minorities by the majority. To remove it would be very problematic as you'll end up with even more religiously targeted laws flooding our law books without any way of curtailing them. The protection afforded by this amendment, like almost all things, is a knife that cuts both ways. It affords religious persons to escape certain legal requirements, but it also prohibits them from forcing their view onto others. A worthy compromise. As religion isn't going anywhere anytime soon. We have to judge granting exemption based on societal impact.

 

The problem with marriage is that it offers benefits that should be available to anyone in a relationship. Married couples shouldn't receive tax breaks or benefit from inheritance rules not available to non-married couples / partnerships. Further, too often people stay in bad marriages because divorce is too complicated and costly - there is no value in a relationship if it is held together by the reluctance to get a divorce.

 

It's time to get the government out of people's relationships. If consenting adults wish to enter a polygamous relationship then they should be free to do so. That said, it's sad that the judgement was based on religious freedom rather than common sense and fairness - if atheists had campaigned for the same thing they would have been denied it. Religion has far too much influence in society.

 

I disagree. Consider a marriage a contract. One not too different from any other contract you sign in the course of your life; such as your cell phone bill or to lease solar panels on the top of your house. Having a clearly agreed upon relationship makes it extremely easy to authenticate and enforce. The weaker you make it the harder it will be for the courts to ascertain who has the rights to inherited property, ownership of mixed assets in the course of contract dissolution (divorce), or even the right to decide what happens to the party on life support.

 

I agree that the government shouldn't be mixed up in the religious terms of "marriage" and that, possibly, you can start to discuss polyandry and how to support it, but to remove relationship contracts would be a huge step back for society. There should be a steep negative cost to entering into a contract and then choosing to dissolve that contract for matters of convenience. Without this you'll leave many women (though men can be affected too) at the mercy of their partners... How do you determine who owns what in a relationship without a bona fide formal contract in place? Is the one partner entitled to any money from the business that the other setup? Sure they didn't invest money directly, but they were the bread winner for the early years to get the business running... Or how do you compensate the partner who lost 8+ years of their career because the couple agreed they wanted to raise their kid themselves and not rely on daycare? I'm sure you see how complicated it gets.

 

IMHO I honestly don't understand how so many couples go into deep and long-term relationships without marriage. I understand the problem with the government using the same term as religion being off-putting to some, but doing long-term deep relationships with cohabitation and the like without marriage seems a lot like biking without a helmet. Sure it seems fine until you crash and split your head on the sidewalk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.