Utah Polygamy Law Declared Unconstitutional

[rockpond]

Apples and oranges. Only one of those is being proposed to be recognized by the state. But I do agree that consenting adults should be free to enter into whatever relationship they choose. Only heterosexual marriage (monogamous and/or plural) however, deserves to be recognized and benefited (welfare) by the state.

You feel that plural marriage should be legally recognized? But not gay marriage?

[canard78]

It was that it has to be approved and the invitation issued by those with the keys for plural marriage (aka the Apostles). If you want to form a plural marriage get it cleared with your Bishop and Stake President and petition the Apostles. Good luck.

 

My wife has already started drafting the letter to apply for a "do the laundry pile wife." She says she'd be happy if that was an available option. It reminded me that I should attack the laundry pile more often.

[Glenn101]

   I think that way too much has been made of this as far as polygamy is concerned. The court only struck down those parts of the law which dealt with cohabitation. Polygamy, i.e. actually marrying more than one person according to the civil laws of the state is still illegal and has not been struck down in any state that I know of.

   Cohabitation laws have been struck down in many states over the past couple of decades. That seems to be all the ruling is about, more or less.

 

Glenn

[blooit]

   I think that way too much has been made of this as far as polygamy is concerned. The court only struck down those parts of the law which dealt with cohabitation. Polygamy, i.e. actually marrying more than one person according to the civil laws of the state is still illegal and has not been struck down in any state that I know of.

   Cohabitation laws have been struck down in many states over the past couple of decades. That seems to be all the ruling is about, more or less.

 

Glenn

 

Precisely.  The court has now reaffirmed that is is perfectly legal and constitutional to live with as many women as you want, to have "relations" with as many women as you want, and have children with as many women as you want.  It is only illegal to make those relationships of commitment and fidelity.

 

It is literally more legal to commit adultery than to marry two women and be faithful to them.

 

The court has reaffirmed to me how far our society has fallen.

[JLHPROF]

   I think that way too much has been made of this as far as polygamy is concerned. The court only struck down those parts of the law which dealt with cohabitation. Polygamy, i.e. actually marrying more than one person according to the civil laws of the state is still illegal and has not been struck down in any state that I know of.

   Cohabitation laws have been struck down in many states over the past couple of decades. That seems to be all the ruling is about, more or less.

 

Glenn

 

You are correct in your description of the ruling but the reason it IS significant is seen if you trace the "unlawful cohabitation" law back to its origin.

 

That phrase was added to the law because polygamous marriages were never really prosecutable since there was only ever one state wife and the rest were sealed in the temple as wives but not legal wives.

Ok, so the government couldn't prosecute the Mormons for being bigamists/polygamists legally so the Edmunds Tucker act added the unlawful cohabitation clause to prosecute Mormon polygamists who were living together as husband and wives regardless of marriage licenses.  The church was in trouble and its leaders were being hunted.  And then the manifesto came along.

 

Now that this law has been overturned as unconstitutional, bigamy/polygamy remains illegal, but the church COULD if it felt it right, resume spiritual sealings of plural wives and men COULD resume living with multiple wives as long as only one marriage license was around.  In short, the Church could now go back to the days of plural marriage from the 1850's with no fear of legal prosecution, at least they could if God commanded it again.

 

So the overturning of this law really is significant historically, even if we don't actually change anything religiously.

[Calm]

The Feds were the ones who imposed it on Utah if my understanding of history is correct (wasn't it included as one of the required state laws in order for Utah to be recognised as a state as well as having been made law by Congress for the territory?) so it makes for symmetry for the Feds to remove it through a US District Court.

[Tacenda]

On my husband's side his niece married someone that grew up in a polygamist family in Utah. When he was old enough he joined the church and went on a mission. In the back of my mind I've been concerned that he might want to marry other wives. He was all over this on FB today, the decriminalization. Now I'm even more worried.

[Kenngo1969]

Deleted.

[Glenn101]

You are correct in your description of the ruling but the reason it IS significant is seen if you trace the "unlawful cohabitation" law back to its origin.

 

That phrase was added to the law because polygamous marriages were never really prosecutable since there was only ever one state wife and the rest were sealed in the temple as wives but not legal wives.

Ok, so the government couldn't prosecute the Mormons for being bigamists/polygamists legally so the Edmunds Tucker act added the unlawful cohabitation clause to prosecute Mormon polygamists who were living together as husband and wives regardless of marriage licenses.  The church was in trouble and its leaders were being hunted.  And then the manifesto came along.

 

 

Was that true in Utah also??? I understand that there was only one civil marriage recorded in the polygamy cases in Illinois because of the bigamy laws. But I had never heard that about the Utah polygamous marriages.

 

Glenn

[Tacenda]

Assuming he has a current Temple Recommend, he better tread very carefully if he cares about maintaining it. Just sayin'.

He's a TR holder. A little different, but other than that I have no good reason to worry.

[bluebell]

You are correct in your description of the ruling but the reason it IS significant is seen if you trace the "unlawful cohabitation" law back to its origin.

That phrase was added to the law because polygamous marriages were never really prosecutable since there was only ever one state wife and the rest were sealed in the temple as wives but not legal wives.

Ok, so the government couldn't prosecute the Mormons for being bigamists/polygamists legally so the Edmunds Tucker act added the unlawful cohabitation clause to prosecute Mormon polygamists who were living together as husband and wives regardless of marriage licenses. The church was in trouble and its leaders were being hunted. And then the manifesto came along.

Now that this law has been overturned as unconstitutional, bigamy/polygamy remains illegal, but the church COULD if it felt it right, resume spiritual sealings of plural wives and men COULD resume living with multiple wives as long as only one marriage license was around. In short, the Church could now go back to the days of plural marriage from the 1850's with no fear of legal prosecution, at least they could if God commanded it again.

So the overturning of this law really is significant historically, even if we don't actually change anything religiously.

These kinds of 'marriages' have been legal in ither states for a while. Plus, they have also been legal in other countries.

The LDS church doesn't only exist in utah. Why do you thing this change in utah law creates a possibility that the church could go back to polygamy?

[thesometimesaint]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriageable_age

[JLHPROF]

These kinds of 'marriages' have been legal in ither states for a while. Plus, they have also been legal in other countries.

The LDS church doesn't only exist in utah. Why do you thing this change in utah law creates a possibility that the church could go back to polygamy?

 

Again, it goes back to the origin of the manifesto.  It's true that those kind of marriages were legal elsewhere.  But the Church was forced to abandon polygamy when the unlawful cohabitation clause of the law was passed.  It made the church member prosecutable criminals, the church a criminal organization, and it made their property (like the Temple) subject to seizure, and it prevented them from gaining statehood.  All of these factors under the unlawful cohabitation laws made for the issuing of the manifesto in 1890.

Now that law has been overturned, and it is legal to cohabit with more than one woman as a "wife" as long as there is no state marriage.

 

SO:

What I said was that the law in the state that was the reason polygamy ended has been overturned.  The church could choose to go back to polygamy and not fear prosecution.  The only reason it had to be stopped in 1890 has been removed.  If God approved it could start again.  It won't, but it could.

[Daniel2]

Apples and oranges. Only one of those is being proposed to be recognized by the state. But I do agree that consenting adults should be free to enter into whatever relationship they choose.

Hmmmm...

And yet we've been told so often it was a slippery slope...

Dan

[Daniel2]

You feel that plural marriage should be legally recognized? But not gay marriage?

Great question for BC, as well as other Latter-day Saints, Rockpond.

Daniel

[Glenn101]

Great question for BC, as well as other Latter-day Saints, Rockpond.

Daniel

 

   I myself do not care to see polygamy legalized. I do not see that it fills any compelling need or benefit for our society. And yet there are other religions which allow polygamy. That would be the only reason I would support legalization of polygamy. 

 

Glenn

[bluebell]

Again, it goes back to the origin of the manifesto. It's true that those kind of marriages were legal elsewhere. But the Church was forced to abandon polygamy when the unlawful cohabitation clause of the law was passed. It made the church member prosecutable criminals, the church a criminal organization, and it made their property (like the Temple) subject to seizure, and it prevented them from gaining statehood. All of these factors under the unlawful cohabitation laws made for the issuing of the manifesto in 1890.

Now that law has been overturned, and it is legal to cohabit with more than one woman as a "wife" as long as there is no state marriage.

SO:

What I said was that the law in the state that was the reason polygamy ended has been overturned. The church could choose to go back to polygamy and not fear prosecution. The only reason it had to be stopped in 1890 has been removed. If God approved it could start again. It won't, but it could.

Polygamy ended because continuing to practice it would have had dire consequences for the church and God revealed that such was not His will for the church moving forward.

One could argue that legally, those consequences have been gone for years though, in specific states and also in countries where the church now exists. So again I ask, why worry about polygamy coming back now?

[bluebell]

You feel that plural marriage should be legally recognized? But not gay marriage?

I read him as saying that polygamists are not trying to get the state to legally sanction polygamy, so a change in laws on this issue is not at all comparable to the change in laws that supporters if SSM are pushing for.

And that he has no problem with decriminalizing homosexuality or polygamy, but he does have a problem with the state recogitioning such relationships as legally valid.

[EllenMaksoud]

"Kody and family are very much Mormons" using exactly the same rationale that "Latter - day Saints are Christians."

Many modern Mormon polygamists believe in the Book of Mormon (as well as most cannonical Mormon texts) and view them as sacred texts, regard Smith and Young as prophets, honor the priesthood, believe in the plan of salvation and continuing revelation, participate in most Mormon ordinances, take the sacrament, attend relief society and Sunday school, wear CTR rings, carry triple combinations, youth attend seminary, kids attend primary,etc.

I see no compelling rationale that LDS could justifiably use to argue to exclude and prohibit polygamists from self-designating themselves as "Mormons" that couldn't equally be used to likewise counter and cancel LDS's claims that Latter-day Saints should thenselves be considered "Christian" by other non-LDS Christian denominations. Otherwise, those who cry foul and claim to be victims of unjust exclusion become the perpetrators of it.

Kudos to the court for finally upholding religious liberty and allow Mormon polygamists (as well as polygamists of other/no Faiths) the ability to practice their life in peace.

I believe it's appropriate that this ruling occurred prior to recognizing same-sex civil marriage in Utah, as well. It's about time we stopped forcing these people to live in the shadows and come out of obscurity.

Daniel

Well SSM is not legal yet, but I think that activists will not stop until they get it.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

"Kody and family are very much Mormons" using exactly the same rationale that "Latter - day Saints are Christians."

Many modern Mormon polygamists believe in the Book of Mormon (as well as most cannonical Mormon texts) and view them as sacred texts, regard Smith and Young as prophets, honor the priesthood, believe in the plan of salvation and continuing revelation, participate in most Mormon ordinances, take the sacrament, attend relief society and Sunday school, wear CTR rings, carry triple combinations, youth attend seminary, kids attend primary,etc.

Daniel

No they are not "very much Mormon" because they reject the last 9 Prophets and all Apostles since then, I don't care if they get the Ensign every month. If they practice polygamy that are apostates. Polygamy is done in this Church.

[thesometimesaint]

Great question for BC, as well as other Latter-day Saints, Rockpond.

Daniel

 

I opposed both. But find no legally consistent way to refuse either.

[BCSpace]

Apples and oranges. Only one of those is being proposed to be recognized by the state. But I do agree that consenting adults should be free to enter into whatever relationship they choose. Only heterosexual marriage (monogamous and/or plural) however, deserves to be recognized and benefited (welfare) by the state.

You feel that plural marriage should be legally recognized? But not gay marriage?

 

Gay marriage?  Never as it's not in the state's interest nor does it speak to 'equality'.  As for plural marriage, notice I said and/or.  However, the state indeed would have a compelling interest because it perpetuates in society the male/female role model and the potential for raising children under those conditions.

[thesometimesaint]

Gay marriage?  Never as it's not in the state's interest nor does it speak to 'equality'.  As for plural marriage, notice I said and/or.  However, the state indeed would have a compelling interest because it perpetuates in society the male/female role model and the potential for raising children under those conditions.

 

While technically true(It takes a male and female to make a child). The law is more concerned with how that child is actually treated/cared for than whom happens to be its biological parents. My wife and I took in our Grandnephew when he was quite young. We are his de facto parents, not his de jure ones. We always taught him to love and respect his mom. Even if she couldn't/can't raise a child any more than I can flap my arms and fly to the moon.

[rockpond]

Gay marriage?  Never as it's not in the state's interest nor does it speak to 'equality'.  As for plural marriage, notice I said and/or.  However, the state indeed would have a compelling interest because it perpetuates in society the male/female role model and the potential for raising children under those conditions.

 

So it's in the state's interest to have a man conceive children with multiple women but it's not in the state's interest to provide the legal protections of marriage to children being raised by a gay couple?

[bluebell]

So it's in the state's interest to have a man conceive children with multiple women but it's not in the state's interest to provide the legal protections of marriage to children being raised by a gay couple?

 

I'm not being argumentative but am sincerely wondering, what are the legal protections that a child would gain if his or her's parents were married, that they lack when the parents aren't married?