us Judge Effectively Decriminalizes Polygamy in Utah

[Kreuger]

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.

 

 

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.

Are the rules for a common law marriage in the US different from Canada? I think over time if you've acquired property together or money, you still have to split it. That said, when I split from my child's mother, I wasn't forced to do anything except buy her out of our house. The car was in my name, so it wasn't touched. I also wasn't forced to pay spousal support, mind you we were only together for 3 years.

[+LogicalApex MVC]

Are the rules for a common law marriage in the US different from Canada? I think over time if you've acquired property together or money, you still have to split it. That said, when I split from my child's mother, I wasn't forced to do anything except buy her out of our house. The car was in my name, so it wasn't touched. I also wasn't forced to pay spousal support, mind you we were only together for 3 years.

Depends on the state I'm sure. In PA we pretty much outlawed common law marriages which is good as they are very complicated to properly ascertain proof of.

[Kreuger]

Depends on the state I'm sure. In PA we pretty much outlawed common law marriages which is good as they are very complicated to properly ascertain proof of.

 

Really? Can't be that hard. My brother was caught claiming single (on his taxes) when he was common law (he's now actually married) and had to pay back a large sum for taxes purposes. And I know a few others who were hit too (one up to $23000)

[Shadrack]

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.

 

This. 

 

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.

 

QFT.  Hopefully this changes. It bothers me when a judge does the work of legislators even if I share the same point of view as the ruling judge. Still, legislators don't act on things. There are still so many silly laws on the books that are not even enforced anymore that need to be purged. Sodomy laws and dildo laws in Texas for example.

[FloatingFatMan]

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.

 

Sorry, but I disagree.  Why should religions get special exemptions to laws that everyone else has to comply with?  That's just rank favouritism.  If the law doesn't apply equally, then there is no equality.

[+LogicalApex MVC]

Sorry, but I disagree.  Why should religions get special exemptions to laws that everyone else has to comply with?  That's just rank favouritism.  If the law doesn't apply equally, then there is no equality.

Except there is often a lack of equality in law. To argue law is crafted in a completely fair manner is similar to making an argument that scientists should keep biases out of their work. Inequality and biases are a natural part of human existence and should be mitigated against not denying their very existence. Religious exemption power offers a strong disincentive to the state attempting to craft laws oppressing others based on their religious practices. For instance, without such a provision there would be nothing barring the state from banning the cap often worn by Jews. Sure it would apply equally, except the only people wearing them happen to be Jewish...

[FloatingFatMan]

Nonsense. Not favouring religions under law doesn't automatically mean that governments will start oppressing people.

[+LogicalApex MVC]

Nonsense. Not favouring religions under law doesn't automatically mean that governments will start oppressing people.

Where did I say it would automatically create oppression? We don't have protections for Freedom of Speech because a lack of would automatically remove it... The protections exist to stop the oppression if it does come to pass.

 

If the laws are passed in a fair and equitable manner then the religious exemptions won't apply. Just like if the government doesn't start banning speech the Freedom of Speech provisions of the constitution would also not by needed. But, as I said earlier, these exist as a recognition of the faults of human existence. They offer a reminder to the state of the limits it has to adhere to.

[DocM]

Nonsense. Not favouring religions under law doesn't automatically mean that governments will start oppressing people.

This from the UK where the state wants to stop Muslim women from wearing their Hijaab. Gotcha.

[simonlang]

i think this is a sensible judgement. as with anything marriage related, this is only an option not an enforcement.

[FloatingFatMan]

This from the UK where the state wants to stop Muslim women from wearing their Hijaab. Gotcha.

Too right, too! I don't trust anyone who hides their face. For all I know, they're making rude faces at me!

[theyarecomingforyou]

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.

The government has no business dictating which types of relationships are or are not acceptable, especially when that discriminates against certain types of lifestyles. I recognise that marriage is a business / legal transaction but that doesn't make it right. If people wish to enter social contracts then they are free to do so but they shouldn't receive special tax breaks or be subject to exclusive inheritance rules as a result of marriage. It should be up to the individuals involved to determine the nature of their relationship and social contract.

 

Marriage is an outdated concept, one that only holds relevance because of the legal implications.

[Hum]

Too right, too! I don't trust anyone who hides their face. For all I know, they're making rude faces at me!

Several women told me they stick their tounge out at you. ;)

[+LogicalApex MVC]

The government has no business dictating which types of relationships are or are not acceptable, especially when that discriminates against certain types of lifestyles. I recognise that marriage is a business / legal transaction but that doesn't make it right. If people wish to enter social contracts then they are free to do so but they shouldn't receive special tax breaks or be subject to exclusive inheritance rules as a result of marriage. It should be up to the individuals involved to determine the nature of their relationship and social contract.

 

Marriage is an outdated concept, one that only holds relevance because of the legal implications.

I also disagree with the overall blanket ban on government sanctions on relationships. Obviously, we wouldn't want to allow arranged marriages with preteens and older men nor would we want to allow forced relationships to exist. Of course, those are extreme examples, but blanket bans of this type would include those.

 

Additionally, marriage is not always advantageous... For instance, there is a pretty severe marriage tax penalty in the US...

[theyarecomingforyou]

I also disagree with the overall blanket ban on government sanctions on relationships. Obviously, we wouldn't want to allow arranged marriages with preteens and older men nor would we want to allow forced relationships to exist.

That's why I said between "consenting adults". Preventing abuse is entirely different to dictating which types of relationships are acceptable.

[HawkMan]

This from the UK where the state wants to stop Muslim women from wearing their Hijaab. Gotcha.

 

yes, also people aren't allowed to walk into banks and stores wearing ski masks either. see. equal law for everyone. 

 

But then all women wear the Hijab of their own free will right, despite it not being required by the Quaran. oh wait... if it's free will... why when you look at pictures from Iran before America freed them from their leader who was fair, treated everyone equally, didn't enforce religion, spread the oil money among the people(just not the US) all the women are wearing modern (at the time) western like fashionable clothing. Then if course you did them a great favour killed that bastard of a leader and put in a great muslim extremist leader in his place and... oh suddenly women have to wear hijabs and can't drive cars or leave the house without a husband .... 

 

The Hijab is a tool of oppression, some of the wearer think they wear it because of freedom and not because they are "supposed" to, but that's indoctrination for you. and it makes interaction near impossible in many cases. and then you have issues like the terrorist who escaped by dressing up in a hijab. 

[Andre S. Veteran]

Marriage is an outdated concept, one that only holds relevance because of the legal implications.

Not sure what you mean by that. Marriage is an affair of law, the only relevance is and has always been the legal implications. If it's still relevant as far as a legal concept, in what way is it outdated?

[Argi]

Sensationalist title.  The judge didn't not remove the ban on polygamy, just some stupid law that limits the number of people that you can live with?  You still can't marry more than one person, if you actually read the details.

[HawkMan]

Not sure what you mean by that. Marriage is an affair of law, the only relevance is and has always been the legal implications. If it's still relevant as far as a legal concept, in what way is it outdated?

 

It's legal implications is a fairly recent thing as far as the history of marriage goes... so... always...

[Andre S. Veteran]

It's legal implications is a fairly recent thing as far as the history of marriage goes... so... always...

So what was it before then and could elaborate exactly where and when?

[PGHammer]

Something something sanctity of marriage. :rolleyes:

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

It shouldn't affect anyone except the Parties in Question - however, the original interference was by the United States government way back when Utah was a territory.  (I've posted about this issue before - the "Mormon War".)

 

There are two precedents - the "Hobby Lobby" decision and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

[PGHammer]

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. 

You mean 1920 - after it had already been made illegal.  The renunciation was due to three then-pending lawsuits in various United States District Courts - including the most critical, against the Equitable Life Assurance Company of the United States.  There is a technical term for what the government of the United States did - it's called "blackmail".  If an individual did that, they would be facing ten to twenty years in jail - yet the government is free to blackmail?  While the United States is BETTER on religious freedom than almost any other country, in the case of the Mormons, they have habitually stepped on the crank with the golf shoes.

 

I'm NOT a Mormon - however, the actions of the United States government viz. the Mormons have been nothing short of reprehensible.

[Ian S.]

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 ;)

Just because it happened doesn't mean it is right, correct? Do you mean to tell me everyone in the Bible is a perfect example of what God wants? Check out Numbers 31:17-18, Moses in response to polygamy with slaves felt a need to purify the Israelites, probably not the way God would have done it, but it shows the deep respect needed for one man and one women in marriage. So yes, the problem with polygamy is it is only for pleasure, not a true loving relationship. 

[HawkMan]

So what was it before then and could elaborate exactly where and when?

 

a religious promise to stay together under the wrath of god, you know since... we invented religion thousands of years ago when we started thinking and people became afraid that their pathetic lives are all there is and other peopel took advantage of this by creating religion to control them. Of course at the time religion also helped mankind survive since they could ban things they over generations found out was dangerous in religious rules. 

 So yes, the problem with polygamy is it is only for pleasure, not a true loving relationship. 

 

And you know this how? have you talked to and psycho analyzed any polygamists, or is it just because you "think" this and therefore it is, or because your "book" says it. 

[FloatingFatMan]

And you know this how? have you talked to and psycho analyzed any polygamists, or is it just because you "think" this and therefore it is, or because your "book" says it. 

 

 

Even IF he was right (he isn't), it's irrelevant anyway. It's still nobody's business except those involved in the relationship.