Polygamists In Utah

[WalkerW]

so it seems the argument present from finns is that according to the Catholic tenants a hetero couple must only have sex to have children and sex the does not produce children is not good sex or rather sex that is not good for society?

It seems like Finnis' stance (at least based on this article) might lean in that direction. I've never found George's stance to go in that direction.

[TAO]

sorry Tao, not picking on you. and i was convinced it came from someone else.

Nah, it's fine, that was the quote I was referring to. I stand by it... but we shouldn't let it derail this thread probably.

[frankenstein]

No problem, sorry to drag you in like that, I have much respect for your constant level headedness on this board. Back to the OP.

This seems to be the law in question:

“A person is guilty of bigamy when, knowing he has a husband or wife or knowing the other person has a husband or wife, the person purports to marry another person or cohabits with another person.”

I say the family has a strong case. What Utah has done in this statute, and possibly many other states is made have an affair illegal, even if all non-incestous adult parties knowingly and willfully consent. I say that Lawrence v. Texas provides a strong basis. As Utah is criminalizing behavior based on private matters of the bedroom.

[frankenstein]

Not accounting for any religious objections, does anyone have reason(s) why bigamy should be illegal? Or that polygamy should be illegal?

[KevinG]

Not accounting for any religious objections, does anyone have reason(s) why bigamy should be illegal? Or that polygamy should be illegal?

If you mean bigamy in the sense that one or more of the partners is not aware of the other partners then that should be illegal.

But in the case of a full disclosure polygyny or polygamy situation I see no problems as long as the family is stable (not swapping with members coming and going) and they have the ability to provide for their offspring.

What was done to the Saints was an abridgement of their first amendment right to practice their religion IMO.

This kind of ties into my other comments on the Gay marriage thread, but IMO the overriding factors for a successful family are stability and love. I think long term polygamy/polygyny is probably healthier than short term serial monogamy.

(This is my opinion and worth everything you paid for it).

[bluebell]

If you mean bigamy in the sense that one or more of the partners is not aware of the other partners then that should be illegal.

But in the case of a full disclosure polygyny or polygamy situation I see no problems as long as the family is stable (not swapping with members coming and going) and they have the ability to provide for their offspring.

What was done to the Saints was an abridgement of their first amendment right to practice their religion IMO.

This kind of ties into my other comments on the Gay marriage thread, but IMO the overriding factors for a successful family are stability and love. I think long term polygamy/polygyny is probably healthier than short term serial monogamy.

(This is my opinion and worth everything you paid for it).

I agree. I don't see any reason not to decriminalize polygamy.

If it's legal for a man to have 3 children out of wedlock with three different women, none of which he's actually supporting because he makes no money and is therefore not required to pay child support, then i can't fathom why the Browns situation, or others like it, shouldn't be legal as well.

[Jaybear]

Not accounting for any religious objections, does anyone have reason(s) why bigamy should be illegal? Or that polygamy should be illegal?

Bigamy is fraud, in the absence of informed consent.

Polygamy in isolated communities would lead to a scarcity of eligible brides, the scarcity could lead to the exploitation of teenage girls. As for young men, .... well need I explain the potential negative impact on young men in small community with no marital prospects.

[bluebell]

Bigamy is fraud, in the absence of informed consent.

Polygamy in isolated communities would lead to a scarcity of eligible brides, the scarcity could lead to the exploitation of teenage girls. As for young men, .... well need I explain the potential negative impact on young men in small community with no marital prospects.

You have valid points, but are they enough for something to be kept illegal when it is possible to practice polygamy without having to deal with any of the issues you brought up.

Should something be illegal because one group does it in a way that could be harmful? It's an interesting thought, if mostly because almost everything has the potential to be harmful in some way or another under the right circumstances.

[thesometimesaint]

Jaybear:

If all adult members know about it, and have given their consent. Would that still be bigamy?

[Jaybear]

Jaybear:

If all adult members know about it, and have given their consent. Would that still be bigamy?

Yes. But, in that case, you would have a victimless crime.

Bigamy in the traditional sense was created to protect women from giving up their virtue or other things, erroneously believing to be lawfully married.

[thesometimesaint]

Jaybear:

But you just said that "Bigamy is fraud, in the absence of informed consent". If informed consent is given then it can't be fraud.

Believe me I have no desire for the return of polygamy at least in my lifetime. But I don't have any real legal reasons why it should be illegal.

[Jaybear]

If informed consent is given then it can't be fraud.

That is what I said: "Bigamy is fraud, in the absence of informed consent".

Believe me I have no desire for the return of polygamy at least in my lifetime. But I don't have any real legal reasons why it should be illegal.

Why is it illegal to remove more than your allotted limit of fish from a lake?

If because of persecution, there becomes an overabundance of Mormon women, perhaps the Utah law agaisnt polygamy will change, and you will be permitted to take a second or third wife.

[frankenstein]

Jaybear:

But you just said that "Bigamy is fraud, in the absence of informed consent". If informed consent is given then it can't be fraud.

I think Jaybear was responding to my post that polygamy is fraud because polygamy would require multiple marriage licenses.

Bigamy would also be fraud IF all parties did not know about each other.

The "sister wives" family is being investigated for bigamy, there is no fraud on the part of the "husband" or "wives" because they all know about each other, thus all have given informed consent.

The might be fraud in a bigamy case where one of the person claims to a third person "this is my husband" when in fact legally that man is not a husband due to bigamy.

[frankenstein]

perhaps the Utah law agaisnt polygamy will change, and you will be permitted to take a second or third wife.

not likely the Utah Constitution states that the polygamy law can not be changed without the consent of the Federal Government.

Article 3 Section 1 – The following ordinance shall be irrevocable without the consent of the United States and the people of this State: [Religious toleration -- Polygamy forbidden.]

First: – Perfect toleration of religious sentiment is guaranteed. No inhabitant of this State shall ever be molested in person or property on account of his or her mode of religious worship; but polygamous or plural marriages are forever prohibited.

[Jaybear]

I think Jaybear was responding to my post that polygamy is fraud because polygamy would require multiple marriage licenses.

Polygamy does not require multiple wedding licences. MOst polygamist are only married civilly to one wife.

From time to time, some on this board has attempted to make the legalistic argument that Smith did not break the law because he was only lawfully married to one wife, Emma. The argument assumes there is a loophole, which does not exist.

[thesometimesaint]

Jaybear:

To use your analogy would you think it fair/reasonable to limit the number of fish you could take from that lake to only one. Particularly if you owned the lake, and provided for the total care of the fish in your lake?

Ps. I don't live in Utah. I'm more concerned with my state of California.

[bluebell]

Yes. But, in that case, you would have a victimless crime.

I think that's the issue. If a crime is victimless, then is it valid for the action to be illegal?

[Jaybear]

Jaybear:

To use your analogy would you think it fair/reasonable to limit the number of fish you could take from that lake to only one. Particularly if you owned the lake, and provided for the total care of the fish in your lake?

Ps. I don't live in Utah. I'm more concerned with my state of California.

The problem with your analogy it the part where you own the lake.

Wives are selected from the community at large, not from your own private reserve.

[thesometimesaint]

Jaybear:

I didn't compare women to fish. You did. I'm merely following your analogy.

To be techniclly correct the owning of human beings in the US is a crime. However familiar relationships do involve a certain amount of symbolic ownership. She is MY wife, and I am HER husband. He/She is MY child, and I am his/her father.

Again if there is informed consent by adults. I see no substantive legal objections.

[Jaybear]

Jaybear:

I didn't compare women to fish. You did. I'm merely following your analogy.

I don't have a problem with the analogy. But, you materially changed the analogy when you brought up a privately stocked lake. That is concept which does not translate to wives.

Again if there is informed consent by adults. I see no substantive legal objections.

Victimless crimes are still crimes. Gambling, prostitution, drugs, minimum wage, blue sky laws, building codes.

[bluebell]

Victimless crimes are still crimes. Gambling, prostitution, drugs, minimum wage, blue sky laws, building codes.

The issues isn't whether or not something that is a crime is still a crime if it doesn't have any victims, but whether something that is a crime should remain so when it doesn't have any victims.

[Jaybear]

The issues isn't whether or not something that is a crime is still a crime if it doesn't have any victims, but whether something that is a crime should remain so when it doesn't have any victims.

You are preaching to the choir here. But it won't happen.

I think if you legalize polygamy, you can eliminate most of the current abuses associated with the practices by those living on the finge of society.

[bluebell]

But it won't happen.

I think the Brown's actually have a really good case, but only time will tell.

[frankenstein]

Polygamy does not require multiple wedding licences. MOst polygamist are only married civilly to one wife.

From time to time, some on this board has attempted to make the legalistic argument that Smith did not break the law because he was only lawfully married to one wife, Emma. The argument assumes there is a loophole, which does not exist.

Here is what I thinking, (I have no knowledge as to the reasons put forth about Joseph Smith).

So here goes. If we take a State definition of marriage for generic purposes "one man and one woman" who have applied for an received a marriage license, then it would seem a person could not be married - by any given states definition of marriage - to more than one person unless there are multiple marriage licenses; which means fraud was committed.

[Stargazer]

Victimless crimes are still crimes. Gambling, prostitution, drugs, minimum wage, blue sky laws, building codes.

Criminal conduct which is punished by law are loosely of two general types:

• Malum in se - a Latin phrase meaning "Evil by its very nature"
• Malum Prohibitum - again Latin, meaning Evil by prohibition, or paraphrased, declared evil by statute

The crimes in the first category are actions which are generally recognized worldwide from time immemorial as "unlawful". Murder, battery, theft, and the like.

The crimes in the second category are all over the map. A man marrying two women at the same time breaks the law in the US, say, but does not in Saudi Arabia. Some may say that polygamy is a malum in se, but since it is not recognized as such worldwide, and throughout human history has been an accepted part of many societies, it cannot, by its very nature, be evil. Thus it is merely malum prohibitum.

Crimes in the second category can be made non-crimes at the stroke of a pen. Crimes in the first cannot be -- and if it is tried, the society trying it is likely to destroy itself.

The "victimless crimes" you cite are all malum prohibitum, although prostitution is closer to a malum in se, recognized in the vast majority of societies as evil.

I don't want to see polygamy legalized in the United States. But even if it is not, nothing prohibits a man from treating two or more wives as if they were married to him, and they him. As has been pointed out. Many moral laws which used to be enforced no longer are. Consensual sexual relations between adults are pretty much laissez faire these days. There's no reason to seek a change in the law.