Polygamy Criminalization Ruled Unconstitutional

[Daniel2]

Federal judge strikes down part of Utah’s ban on polygamy

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

POSTED 5:20 PM, AUGUST 27, 2014, BY BEN WINSLOW AND MARK GREEN, UPDATED AT 05:45PM, AUGUST 27, 2014

SALT LAKE CITY — A federal judge declared a portion of Utah’s polygamy ban unconstitutional late Wednesday, essentially decriminalizing polygamy in the state.

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.”

The ruling comes in a lawsuit filed by reality TV polygamist Kody Brown and his wives, who left Utah fearing prosecution. They sued the state, arguing that the ban violated their right to freely practice their religion.

The ruling follows a similar order in December of last year that the judge took back while he decided the issue of damages. In the order, Judge Waddoups did preserve the phrases “marry” and “purports to marry” to “save the statute from being invalidated in its entirety.”

The judge also awarded financial compensation to the Brown family.

The full ruling is here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/237935982/Polygamy-ruling-in-Utah

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Yay! It is time to leave those families alone and focus on real crimes.

[JLHPROF]

Good.

Now, let's forget about OW and form RP:  Restore Polygamy!!

 

Who's with me?  It's no longer illegal so we can reverse the manifesto...

[Stargazer]

Good.

Now, let's forget about OW and form RP:  Restore Polygamy!!

 

Who's with me?  It's no longer illegal so we can reverse the manifesto...

Just because we can doesn't mean we should.

I vote NO.

[Stargazer]

I guess we're going to get that one, too. As the slippery-slopers have warned, SSM will kill anti-polygamy. Though there is no direct connection in the judge's ruling, I would be surprised if it weren't at the back of his mind. FWIW.

And the Lord will probably let the rest of world marry and give in marriage in any way it chooses, but will require the Latter-day Saints to maintain monogamy as at present.

I'd be happy with that, at least.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Thing is... polygamy is not DOWN the slope from "gay" marriage. At least polygamy was permitted on a limited basis anciently- homosexual acts have always been an abomination that never had divine sanction on any level whatsoever.

[The Nehor]

Good.

Now, let's forget about OW and form RP:  Restore Polygamy!!

 

Who's with me?  It's no longer illegal so we can reverse the manifesto...

 

No one gets a second wife until I have one first and that's final.

[Robert F. Smith]

The full ruling is here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/237935982/Polygamy-ruling-in-Utah

What I said.

[ERayR]

Good.

Now, let's forget about OW and form RP:  Restore Polygamy!!

 

Who's with me?  It's no longer illegal so we can reverse the manifesto...

 

Is the federal laws against cohabitation that the US government used to prosecute the church and its members still on the books and in effect?

[Daniel2]

I guess we're going to get that one, too. As the slippery-slopers have warned, SSM will kill anti-polygamy. Though there is no direct connection in the judge's ruling, I would be surprised if it weren't at the back of his mind. FWIW.

 

To keep things clear: this ruling did NOT do anything to legally recognize polygamy.  It does nothing that extends civil benefits, rights, or responsibilities to anyone having multiple spouses.

 

What it did do was decriminalize co-habiting couples, effectively decriminalizing those who may spiritually marry more than one spouse according to the dictates of their religion.  This ruling is a great win for religious liberty.

 

Time will tell whether the laws and courts of our country come to view individuals who want more than one spouse as a matter of equal civil marriage protection and attempt to navigate how to parsel out civil benefits for families consisting of multiple spouses.  They may, or they may not.

[Stargazer]

No one gets a second wife until I have one first and that's final.

Your demand for everyone to wait until you can find that rare creature, i.e. a woman who could stand you, will likely fall on deaf ears.

So, you better get crackin', dude, because with guys out looking for their second and third wives, well, the demand is going to exceed the supply pretty darned quick.

 

Gosh, I cannot believe how sexist this all sounds coming out of my mou... err, keyboard..

[The Nehor]

Your demand for everyone to wait until you can find that rare creature, i.e. a woman who could stand you, will likely fall on deaf ears.

So, you better get crackin', dude, because with guys out looking for their second and third wives, well, the demand is going to exceed the supply pretty darned quick.

 

Gosh, I cannot believe how sexist this all sounds coming out of my mou... err, keyboard..

Bah, many women can stand me and many like me. A few even want me. Sadly none of them were what I want and this it goes forever and ever.

[Stargazer]

To keep things clear: this ruling did NOT do anything to legally recognize polygamy.  It does nothing that extends civil benefits, rights, or responsibilities to anyone having multiple spouses.

Yes, that much is clear.

 

What it did do was decriminalize co-habiting couples, effectively decriminalizing those who may spiritually marry more than one spouse according to the dictates of their religion.  This ruling is a great win for religious liberty.

And, surprisingly enough, I agree with you.

 

Time will tell whether the laws and courts of our country come to view individuals who want more than one spouse as a matter of equal civil marriage protection and attempt to navigate how to parsel out civil benefits for families consisting of multiple spouses.  They may, or they may not.

On this, I diagree: I believe it's inevitable.

[Stargazer]

Bah, many women can stand me and many like me. A few even want me. Sadly none of them were what I want and this it goes forever and ever.

Then the problem isn't with them, it's with you. Too picky, apparently.

Well, age and desperation will solve that problem.

[The Nehor]

Then the problem isn't with them, it's with you. Too picky, apparently.

Well, age and desperation will solve that problem.

I don't get desperate so I may be single forever. I am not going to the lousy second-class Celestial as a lousy angel though. If I can't rule in heaven I will go rule in hell.

[Daniel2]

On this, I diagree: I believe it's inevitable.

 

I certainly think that's possible, and it appeals in some ways to the more libertarian-leaning side of me.

 

However, increasing the quantity of people that can be civilly married at any given time fundamentally requires making changes to civil law in ways that would not be required for allowing the marriage of two consenting adults, regardless of religion, race, age, ethnicity, national heritage, criminal status, or gender.

 

Purely from a civil benefits aspect, polygamy will already be inherently unequal from monogamous marriage in the sense that it will require new legislation to address rules governing how to calculate tax benefits, inheritance rights, spousal and child support, insurance premiums, claims, and payouts, employer benefits package payouts, etc when MULTIPLE spouses and children (as opposed to ONE spouse) are involved.

[JLHPROF]

Is the federal laws against cohabitation that the US government used to prosecute the church and its members still on the books and in effect?

 

There are no federal laws against cohabitation, only bigamy.

So, if we were to resume our sealing of plural wives tomorrow (but stick to only one marriage license) just as pre-manifesto people did there is not a law on the books to prevent it.

 

If the Church (and God) wanted to, they could restore the practice of polygamy tomorrow without violating a single law of the land.  The only law that forced the manifesto has been overturned as unconstitutional.

[cdowis]

Utah's bigamy law was stricter than the laws in 49 other states, making it illegal to even purport to be married to multiple partners or live together. Most bigamy laws prohibit people from having multiple legal marriage licenses. The judge left in place that portion of Utah's bigamy law.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/08/28/utah-governor-says-state-should-defend-law-anti-polygamy-struck-down-in-sister/

 

No big deal.  This was a relic of a by-gone era of federal persecution and the ruling only makes Utah conform with the bigamy laws in other states,

 

Defending a law that was not enforced is merely public relations.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Good.

Now, let's forget about OW and form RP:  Restore Polygamy!!

 

Who's with me?  It's no longer illegal so we can reverse the manifesto...

No, let's don't. Leave marriage as it, one man and one woman.

[The Nehor]

No, let's don't. Leave marriage as it, one man and one woman.

 

Why not two men, three women, and one hermaphrodite?

[Daniel2]

Why not two men, three women, and one hermaphrodite?

If a civil right to civil plural marriage is ever recognized, such "group marriages" will HAVE to be recognized, regardless of the configuration of all genders of the individuals in the group...

As I said earlier, however, increasing the quantity of people that can be civilly married at any given time fundamentally requires making changes to civil law in ways that would not be required for allowing the marriage of two consenting adults, regardless of religion, race, age, ethnicity, national heritage, criminal status, or gender.

Purely from a civil benefits aspect, polygamy will already be inherently unequal from monogamous marriage in the sense that it will require new legislation to address rules governing how to calculate tax benefits, inheritance rights, spousal and child support, insurance premiums, claims, and payouts, employer benefits package payouts, etc when MULTIPLE spouses and children (as opposed to ONE spouse) are involved.

That is where I think plural marriage may fail on equal protection grounds.

[JLHPROF]

No, let's don't. Leave marriage as it, one man and one woman.

 

You mean let's leave it as it's been for about 200 years out of the earths entire existence...?

[Stargazer]

There are no federal laws against cohabitation, only bigamy.

So, if we were to resume our sealing of plural wives tomorrow (but stick to only one marriage license) just as pre-manifesto people did there is not a law on the books to prevent it.

 

If the Church (and God) wanted to, they could restore the practice of polygamy tomorrow without violating a single law of the land.  The only law that forced the manifesto has been overturned as unconstitutional.

 

That is actually not true, except in Utah.  Other states' laws may not include a provision against cohabitation that was seen as necessary in Utah.  And isn;t there still a federal law on the books?  But it may be in effect only for federal territories (like Guam or Puerto Rico).

[JLHPROF]

That is actually not true, except in Utah.  Other states' laws may not include a provision against cohabitation that was seen as necessary in Utah.  And isn;t there still a federal law on the books?  But it may be in effect only for federal territories (like Guam or Puerto Rico).

 

I am unware of any other states having any laws against "unlawful cohabitation" defined as plural marriage relationships.  That was something that was forced into law as condition of statehood.  I may be wrong, but I believe the only laws are against legal polygamy (more than one legal marriage).

Previously it was part of the Edmunds-Tucker Act, a federal law that was overturned in 1978.

 

Without a provision against "unlawful cohabitation" there is no law on the books against a man having numerous wives sealed to him as long as they don't get marriage licenses/govt benefits.  Legally they aren't married.  It's how the fundamentalists have avoided any polygamy prosecution for well over 30 years.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Why not two men, three women, and one hermaphrodite?

Well if kept within that narrow definition.