Polygamists Point to ‘Gay Marriage’ in Fight Against Utah’s Appeal of Polygamy Ruling

[RebeccaJ]

Essentially it boils down to my near libertarian view of the government’s decision not to prosecute particular crimes. Bigamy is illegal in all 50 states. Utah, unlike other states, has made it criminally illegal to cohabit with “other wives” such that individuals like Kody Brown can go to state prison for no other reason than he has more than one wife (despite the fact that these women agree to the arraignment), he’s broken the law only insofar as he’s shared quarters with these women. I don’t see any benefit to society having a man like Kody Brown in prison. I also don’t see any benefit to society having homosexuals in prison for no other reason than they had homosexual sex. I don’t want to see such individuals in prison. I feel that I can simultaneously advocate for a traditional Christian understanding of marriage while still advocating for these individual persons’ rights as citizens of the USA.

Bigamy laws exist to protect people again fraud, not polygamy.

Utah passed its anti polygamy laws as a condition to be allowed to enter the union of the United States. It is no small thing to undo the conditions of statehood.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Enabling Act of 1894:

"AN ACT to enable the People of Utah to form a Constitution and State Government, and to be admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States.

…]

First. That perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured, and that no inhabitant of said State shall ever be molested in person or property on account of his or her mode of religious worship; Provided, That polygamous or plural marriages are forever prohibited."

Article 3, section 1 of the Utah State Constitution, includes the exact wording of the federal Enabling Act.

Kody Brown has a bigger battle than an anti-cohabitation law. The anti-cohabitation law is intended to enforce the State Constitution.

Of course, as we all know in Utah, this article of the constitution is not enforced anyway.

 

[Trident_H]

With due respect, you’re essentially making my point for me!

How do we draw the line on morality while looking at bigamy on one hand and homosexuality on the other hand?

I don’t know how you do that. Especially with both hands full like that. I mean you can’t draw a line with both your hands full.

And what have your hands been doing that they each have these separate problems?

But really. I don’t actually know what you want me to say. I mean would you be happy with dropping the bigamy thing if SSM was dropped? Because if so that’s sort of not in my power. It really wasn’t my fault that it went through. I mean no one asked me first.

Peace.

-Trident

 

[Actaeon]

More likely, however, is that bisexuals will want to know why they are forced to choose either a male or a female spouse (but not both) thereby restricting their marriage equality.

That’s not really fair. Just because someone suffers a mixed level of SSA, does not mean they’re poly-amorous or necessarily promiscuous either. Many people with bisexual attraction practice serial monogamy just like everyone else (and many of them only date members of the opposite gender as well).

 

[Lion_IRC]

Actaeon,
I hope you understand the context of this thread, and the wider debate in society, is about people who WANT to get married but can’t.
You are referring now to a cohort of people outside the scope of the debate.
Tons of heterosexual people don’t want to get married as well.
What about them?

BTW - I never mentioned promiscuity

 

[Memaw]

Sorry if you had to say it again just because of me. I mean I sort of understood that. I guess I was just pointing out why it might still be good to keep this illegal. I guess it’s because I don’t really see the difference between polygamy and calling it a different word because it happens in Utah. Once it’s legal somewhere it’ll be legal everywhere. That means lots of 4 wife Muslim families too. In your neighborhood. So I don’t know if that’s the greatest thing that was ever let out of the box. I mean my worry still stands. Polygamy is a bit of a pyramid scheme that takes potential wives away from other guys in order to give them all to one guy. So what happens to all those other guys? Obviously if there are 100 men and 100 women in an area and one guy gets 10 women and another gets 5 there is an imbalance. There are too many men left over.

But then maybe that’s just because I’m a tidy guy who likes to imagine there is a lid for every pot. Maybe those stray guys will just all become gay and move into a big polygamous pile of their own? Who knows? Why not?

And then what happens to all the kids born in the polygamy pile-up? Aren’t they all going to think it’s normal to be in a huge huge family? So then there just ends up lots of polygamous pile-ups? But how? Because if there are 5 boys on one street and only 4 girls someone’s going to get hurt. Well I don’t know. Maybe I’m just over thinking this. Sorry.

I hope you don’t have to state your thing a third time just because of me again.

Peace.

-Trident

To sum it all up, it is TOTALLY against God’s law and we should never promote anything that is against HIS laws. HE knows what is best for the human race HE created. When we go down our own road we get into all kinds of trouble as can be seen in birth control, leading to easy divorce, abortion and now even selling of babies body parts for experimenting on. And now, God help us, the redefinition of God given Marriage according to man’s whims. And we are on the virg of loosing our Freedom of Religion. Prayers for all. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Brandon_Cal]

Rebecca,

Before I start arguing against your opinion about anti-bigamy laws in Utah, I must say that you of all people on these boards demand a great deal of respect from me. I’ve seen your other posts in Mormon related threads and I’ve found them to be very level-headed, and well reasoned. In many ways you very much remind me of my daughter who is the sole individual of my female progeny to go against the grain, think for herself, get an education (she’s now a well respected attorney who advocates for women who are victims of domestic violence) and leave Mormonism. I’m so very thankful that women like you exist in Mormondom (or at least in the fringes of ex-Mormons).

Bigamy laws exist to protect people again fraud, not polygamy.

This assumes that the possibility of fraud existed at the time. As I understand it, fraud only enters the picture when we consider welfare, which didn’t exist when Utah entered the Union.

Utah passed its anti polygamy laws as a condition to be allowed to enter the union of the United States. It is no small thing to undo the conditions of statehood.

Is it? That congress in essence required the State of Deseret to criminally punish bigamy to an extent that was never required of any other state is not sufficient to show that such should be required in perpetuity. Indeed, these being acts of congress are easily overturn by other acts of congress… and even moreso, they are quickly overturned by constitutional challenges brought to courts by plaintiffs, which is exactly what Kody Brown is doing.

Enabling Act of 1894:

"AN ACT to enable the People of Utah to form a Constitution and State Government, and to be admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States.

…]

First. That perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured, and that no inhabitant of said State shall ever be molested in person or property on account of his or her mode of religious worship; Provided, That polygamous or plural marriages are forever prohibited."

Article 3, section 1 of the Utah State Constitution, includes the exact wording of the federal Enabling Act.

Kody Brown has a bigger battle than an anti-cohabitation law. The anti-cohabitation law is intended to enforce the State Constitution.

And if Kody Brown (and his family) have their way, they will demolish this bit of Utah history in one fell swoop simply by appealing to the SCOTUS, which they’ve made very clear is in fact their intention. Should SCOTUS rule in their favor (and should they even make it as far as a SCOTUS hearing) they could very well end up with a State that has to change its statutory laws against bigamy.

Of course, as we all know in Utah, this article of the constitution is not enforced anyway.

I completely agree… until it’s actually enforced… which usually only occurs when the LDS Church is too closely associated with those evil pligs, and some resourceful distancing is necessary.

 

[zaffiroborant]

This assumes that the possibility of fraud existed at the time. As I understand it, fraud only enters the picture when we consider welfare, which didn’t exist when Utah entered the Union.

I assumed the fraud was committed against the wives and families, for me “bigamist” brings to mind men who have more than one family each unknown to the other(s).

 

[HelenRose]

I won’t be surprise if the question comes up to the Supreme Court in the near future. It will be interesting listening to the arguments given on both sides.

I have an idea that, given the influences of Islam in this country, polygamy will be upheld as a religious and civil right.

 

[Brandon_Cal]

I assumed the fraud was committed against the wives and families, for me “bigamist” brings to mind men who have more than one family each unknown to the other(s).

That may be the case in other states but certainly not Utah Territory. It was no secret at the time that polygamy was being practiced quite openly, and as is usually the case the Federal government used what legislative power it had to curtail the practice such that new anti-bigamy laws were enacted especially for the Utah Territory with stiffer penalties than were found elsewhere. With the Edmunds-Tucker act the Feds unilaterally abolished all common law marriages in Utah, made each overnight stay of a man with a non-spouse woman a felony, repealed women’s suffrage in Utah (as it became increasingly obvious that Utahan women weren’t going to use their votes to ban polygamy), and required all male voters of Utah to take an anti-polygamy oath as a condition of their own suffrage.