Utah Polygamy Law Declared Unconstitutional

[Glenn101]

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?

 

 

It is not in the state's best interests to have a man conceive children with multiple women. It is in the state's best interest in having children in a family where they have good role models from both sexes as parents.

[rockpond]

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?

 

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.html

[rockpond]

It is not in the state's best interests to have a man conceive children with multiple women. It is in the state's best interest in having children in a family where they have good role models from both sexes as parents.

 

That was BCSpace's assertion... that the state has a "compelling interest" in legally recognizing polygamy as well as one man, one woman marriage (but not gay marriage).

 

So is it your assertion that a man who conceives children with multiple women is a better role model than a gay man who is monogamously committed to his partner?

[bluebell]

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.html

 

Aren't these same rights gained through civil unions?

[rockpond]

Aren't these same rights gained through civil unions?

 

That would depend on the particular law for civil unions in your jurisdiction.  To my knowledge, civil unions for gay couples are not permitted in Utah (the subject of this thread).  Nor are they permitted in a majority of states in the U.S. 

[Glenn101]

That was BCSpace's assertion... that the state has a "compelling interest" in legally recognizing polygamy as well as one man, one woman marriage (but not gay marriage).

 

So is it your assertion that a man who conceives children with multiple women is a better role model than a gay man who is monogamously committed to his partner?

 

I do not hink that recognizing polygamy is in the state's best interests. My assertion is that the best interests of the state should be what is the best interests of the children. Having a both a male and female role models as parents is in the best interests of children.

 

Polygamy may have to be recognized legally at some point if the Supreme court revisits the issue in light of cultural shifts and reappraising the religious freedom aspect, but I do not think there are very many people that can have a very successful polygamous relationship. Although men are seemingly better wired for it on a sexual level than women, that is not a good reason to allow polygamy.

[rockpond]

I do not hink that recognizing polygamy is in the state's best interests. My assertion is that the best interests of the state should be what is the best interests of the children. Having a both a male and female role models as parents is in the best interests of children.

 

Polygamy may have to be recognized legally at some point if the Supreme court revisits the issue in light of cultural shifts and reappraising the religious freedom aspect, but I do not think there are very many people that can have a very successful polygamous relationship. Although men are seemingly better wired for it on a sexual level than women, that is not a good reason to allow polygamy.

 

I agree that the best interests of the state should align with the best interests of the children.  That's one of the reasons I support legal recognition for gay marriage.

 

I believe that if we are going to fight for religious freedom (as Elder Oaks has encouraged us to do) then we need to support the decriminalization of polygamy since it is a deeply held religious belief for many.

[bluebell]

That would depend on the particular law for civil unions in your jurisdiction.  To my knowledge, civil unions for gay couples are not permitted in Utah (the subject of this thread).  Nor are they permitted in a majority of states in the U.S. 

 

I know that.  Neither is SSM in many states, but that didn't stop you from answering my question on how SSM protects children.

 

Would civil unions provide the protection for children that you said the state should care about, or does it have to be marriage?

[Daniel2]

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.

I suggest you are confusing "Mormon" with "LDS." The terms are not synonymous. There are many Mormon Faiths which are not LDS. You may reject their prophets and label them as apostates, just as they reject yours and label you as apostates. But because you all believe in and promote The Book of Mormon, it's understandable and accurate for outsiders to note that you all share the designation of different divisions/interpretations of "Mormonism."

While it's certainly understandable that you would want to clarify your doctrinal differences while having an educated discussion, to non-believers it's little more than an appeal to religious authority and intolerance to attempt to deny "the other" group's ability to self-designate themselves as "Mormons."

Additionally, you're attempting to make an argument of exclusion based on doctrine, which is exactly the same mistake many evangelicals make when attempting to deny that Mormons are "Christian." If what I'm saying doesn't make sense to you I suggest you read LDS author Stephen Robinson's book, "Are Mormons Christians?"

To paraphrase one Disney character, "You think the only Mormons who are Mormons, are the Mormons who look and think like you... but if you walk the footsteps of a stranger, you"ll learn things you never knew you never knew."

Of course, it isn't likely surprising that I believe this same logic is also applicable to the non-mainstream forms of plural and same-sex marriage.

Daniel

[Daniel2]

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

I assume you're referring to Utah, given that gay marriage is legal in 16 other states (and counting).

I believe your other observation is accurate-we won't give up until same-sex couples have the same civil marriage rights as opposite-sex couples, nationwide.

[Daniel2]

Aren't these same rights gained through civil unions?

No, they aren't, even in states that grant civil unions or domestic partnerships.

[Daniel2]

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

There are religions which allow same-sex weddings. In the name of religious freedom, do you similarly support the legalization of same-sex marriages, just as you do with polygamy, even though you don't believe in and would personally decline to practice either plural or same-sex marriage?

[Daniel2]

I agree that the best interests of the state should align with the best interests of the children. That's one of the reasons I support legal recognition for gay marriage.

I believe that if we are going to fight for religious freedom (as Elder Oaks has encouraged us to do) then we need to support the decriminalization of polygamy since it is a deeply held religious belief for many.

This is a fantastic post, RP. Having emphasized religious freedom in recent months, it will be interesting if Latter-day Saint members and leaders defend, say, Unitarian Universaliats' religious freedom, as much as they're pushing for their own.

The retreat to the realm of "protecting religious freedom" is indicative of how and why the ideological struggle against same-sex (and probably plural) marriage are ultimately already largely over, and the immediate future is mostly going to be spent sorting out the slow logistics of legal implementation.

[rockpond]

I know that. Neither is SSM in many states, but that didn't stop you from answering my question on how SSM protects children.

Would civil unions provide the protection for children that you said the state should care about, or does it have to be marriage?

As I said, it would depend on how the civil union law is defined within each jurisdiction and then how those unions are recognized nationally.

Granting marriage rights to homosexual couples puts them within a legal structure that already exists both at the state and federal levels.

And while I believe that polygamy should be decriminalized nationally (which appears to be current trajectory), granting legal recognition to plural spouses gets a bit trickier because we currently don't have a legal framework to deal with that. At least not that I'm aware of.

[EllenMaksoud]

I assume you're referring to Utah, given that gay marriage is legal in 16 other states (and counting).

I believe your other observation is accurate-we won't give up until same-sex couples have the same civil marriage rights as opposite-sex couples, nationwide.

That is an abomination.

[rockpond]

This is a fantastic post, RP. Having emphasized religious freedom in recent months, it will be interesting if Latter-day Saint members and leaders defend, say, Unitarian Universaliats' religious freedom, as much as they're pushing for their own.

The retreat to the realm of "protecting religious freedom" is indicative of how and why the ideological struggle against same-sex (and probably plural) marriage are ultimately already largely over, and the immediate future is mostly going to be spent sorting out the slow logistics of legal implementation.

Agreed.

Other than the polygamists themselves, nobody should be celebrating this week's federal court ruling on polygamy more vociferously than us as members of a church who were once persecuted over the same belief/practice.

[blooit]

Agreed. Other than the polygamists themselves, nobody should be celebrating this week's federal court ruling on polygamy more vociferously than us as members of a church who were once persecuted over the same belief/practice.

 

Ah, but I disagree.  What the court ruled opposes virtually everything the church stands for.  It could be argued that the church:

• supports the practice of plural marriage when commanded by God (it follows that we would likely support the right of others to practice it when they feel it is right as well.)
• stands for complete fidelity within the bonds of matrimony

What this court ruled was basically:

• Plural marriage is NOT acceptable whether or not God commands
• Cohabitation and sexual immorality outside of marriage is acceptable

They don't seem to be congruent at all.

[Daniel2]

That is an abomination.

Just like eating shellfish, wearing cotton-poly blends, and touching menstruating women. ;-) Language intended to shame is only as shameful as is given power by those who perceive it, and the word "abomination" holds little sway over me, today. I support your right to believe all of the above, though.

[Glenn101]

There are religions which allow same-sex weddings. In the name of religious freedom, do you similarly support the legalization of same-sex marriages, just as you do with polygamy, even though you don't believe in and would personally decline to practice either plural or same-sex marriage?

 

I worded that one badly. I would support legalizing polygamy where it is part of the religious doctrines, not just where allowed. For example, Islam allows polygamy, but it is not part of their religion per se. I am not familiar with the marriage tenets of other religions but it seems that many non-Christian religions allow polygamy but it is not an integral part of their religion. It would make an interesting though process if a person were to start a gay religion where to be "saved" a person would have to be married to a person of the same sex.

 

Glenn

[EllenMaksoud]

Just like eating shellfish, wearing cotton-poly blends, and touching menstruating women. ;-) Language intended to shame is only as shameful as is given by those who perceive it, and the word "abomination" holds little sway over me, today. I support your right to believe all of the above, though.

Our conversation on this matter is over.

[Daniel2]

Our conversation on this matter is over.

A good illustration of my previous post that the ideological battle against marriage equality is largely over. I wish you, your family, and your husband joy and happiness, Ellen. Perhaps someday you may be able to do the same for me.

D

[rockpond]

Ah, but I disagree.  What the court ruled opposes virtually everything the church stands for.  It could be argued that the church:

• supports the practice of plural marriage when commanded by God (it follows that we would likely support the right of others to practice it when they feel it is right as well.)
• stands for complete fidelity within the bonds of matrimony

What this court ruled was basically:

• Plural marriage is NOT acceptable whether or not God commands
• Cohabitation and sexual immorality outside of marriage is acceptable

They don't seem to be congruent at all.

 

What we believe God commands or does not command of us is not relevant to the court.

 

What the court did was strike down the key parts of the law that was designed to prohibit the practice of polygamy.  Religious or otherwise.  That practice was/is for men to only legally marry the first wife (or none at all) and spiritually marry the other wives.  If you study the history of Utah you'll note that bigamy laws were ineffective in enabling prosecution of polygamists because there was rarely more than one legal marriage.

 

You're either playing word games here or suggesting that the early members of the church were co-habitating and committing sexual immorality in their polygamous marriages.

[rockpond]

I worded that one badly. I would support legalizing polygamy where it is part of the religious doctrines, not just where allowed. For example, Islam allows polygamy, but it is not part of their religion per se. I am not familiar with the marriage tenets of other religions but it seems that many non-Christian religions allow polygamy but it is not an integral part of their religion. It would make an interesting though process if a person were to start a gay religion where to be "saved" a person would have to be married to a person of the same sex.

 

Glenn

 

So you'd like for the law to distinguish between where a religion believes that God affirms gay unions and where a religion believes that a gay person must enter a same gender marriage to be "saved"?  That's religious freedom to you?

[Glenn101]

So you'd like for the law to distinguish between where a religion believes that God affirms gay unions and where a religion believes that a gay person must enter a same gender marriage to be "saved"?  That's religious freedom to you?

 

 

I did not say that. I only said that it would make for an interesting though(t) process.

[blooit]

What we believe God commands or does not command of us is not relevant to the court.

 

What the court did was strike down the key parts of the law that was designed to prohibit the practice of polygamy.  Religious or otherwise.  That practice was/is for men to only legally marry the first wife (or none at all) and spiritually marry the other wives.  If you study the history of Utah you'll note that bigamy laws were ineffective in enabling prosecution of polygamists because there was rarely more than one legal marriage.

 

You're either playing word games here or suggesting that the early members of the church were co-habitating and committing sexual immorality in their polygamous marriages.

 

I'm relatively familiar with the history of polygamy in the intermountain west.  I understand what you are saying, but I think I see the ruling differently than you do.  The practice of "spiritual marriages" was made necessary by government prosecution (and persecution).  I do not believe the church ever intended polygamy to be little more than "church sanctioned co-habitation."

 

The ruling literally says that co-habitation is OK but marriage to more than one person is not.  I find this perplexing and disturbing.  It kind of reminds me of "take home tests" given by professors.  These often only penalize those who are honest as the vast majority will cheat.  As the ruling stands now, it would mean that co-habitation is fine but our church's emphasis on "legal and lawful marriage" would preclude them from the practice.

 

No word games here.  Straight up - this ruling states that co-habitation is OK, legal marriage to more than one person is not.  Unless the church is willing to go back to playing in the "gray area" - they may, ironically, find themselves being one of the few defenders of monogamous marriage.