Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Polygamy Ruling Appealed - Again.


Recommended Posts

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58505719-78/utah-wives-appeals-attorney.html.csp

 

Apparently the state of Utah is just not going to let this one go.  We thought they might, then they didn't.

 

The original lawsuit ruling - where the cohabitation clause was declared unconstitutional - was December 24, 2013.

On August 27, 2014 the judge issued the final ruling (not sure what the difference is).

Now they are appealing this decision to the 10th circuit court of appeals, but in light of the SCOTUS action this past week, I think they're going to have a hard time winning that appeal.

 

 

Oh, and while I was reading up on this I came across an interesting bit of trivia - guess what year one of the last prominent mainstream Church polygamous family that were members in good standing died out?

Would you believe 1954 - 64 years after the manifesto and only 60 years ago?

Much closer than we realize.  There are probably members on this board who were members when polygamous families still existed in the Church.

Edited by JLHPROF
Link to comment

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58505719-78/utah-wives-appeals-attorney.html.csp

 

Apparently the state of Utah is just not going to let this one go.  We thought they might, then they didn't.

 

The original lawsuit ruling - where the cohabitation clause was declared unconstitutional - was December 24, 2013.

On August 27, 2014 the judge issued the final ruling (not sure what the difference is).

Now they are appealing this decision to the 10th circuit court of appeals, but in light of the SCOTUS action this past week, I think they're going to have a hard time winning that appeal.

Judge Waddoups' decision is the correct one, and this defense of non-traditional marriage will eventually lead to reversal of Reynolds v USA.  It is ironic that Utah seeks to deny the right of polygyny, in light of the history of ardent defense of polygyny there.

 

...................................................... - guess what year one of the last prominent mainstream Church polygamous family that were members in good standing died out?

Would you believe 1954 - 64 years after the manifesto and only 60 years ago?

Much closer than we realize.  There are probably members on this board who were members when polygamous families still existed in the Church.

There is a difference between entering into new polygynous marriages after the Manifesto (and there were some), and simply continuing to live in such relationships -- until they died out.

 

The State of Israel had to deal with a similar problem of extant polygynous marriages when the State was founded.  Those already in such marriages were allowed to continue (it had been legal under Sephardic Jewish law), but no new such marriages could be entered into, and that included Israeli Muslim citizens.  Thus, in that country as well, there were polygynous marriages which eventually died out.  So what?

Link to comment

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58505719-78/utah-wives-appeals-attorney.html.csp

 

Apparently the state of Utah is just not going to let this one go.  We thought they might, then they didn't.

 

The original lawsuit ruling - where the cohabitation clause was declared unconstitutional - was December 24, 2013.

On August 27, 2014 the judge issued the final ruling (not sure what the difference is).

Now they are appealing this decision to the 10th circuit court of appeals, but in light of the SCOTUS action this past week, I think they're going to have a hard time winning that appeal.

 

 

Oh, and while I was reading up on this I came across an interesting bit of trivia - guess what year one of the last prominent mainstream Church polygamous family that were members in good standing died out?

Would you believe 1954 - 64 years after the manifesto and only 60 years ago?

Much closer than we realize.  There are probably members on this board who were members when polygamous families still existed in the Church.

For a church that says they don't do Polygamy, and a judicial system that can't make up their mind, some one sure keeps stirring the pot. Can someone tell me what is going on? Is there a substantial group that wants to do it?

 

Geeze, the Muslims just do it with impunity. What ?

Link to comment

Pfft, I can't even land one wife. Other people shouldn't be allowed a 2nd wife until I get one.

My sentiments exactly!  As I always say, "Ya hafta monog before ya kin polyg!" :D:rofl::D

 

P.S.: Actually, truth be told, free will is the main thing Christ shed his blood for.  As much as I might wish I had received more serious consideration from someone who later opted to marry someone else instead, what'm I supposed to do, want to take away someone else's agency and happiness, just so she can cater to mine?  I don't begrudge anyone who's found happiness ... with someone else, but I'd like to think that the future Mrs. Kenngo1969 is still out there somewhere!  (Whoever you are, wherever you are, Love You, Dear! :wub::air_kiss:)

Edited by Kenngo1969
Link to comment

.  It is ironic that Utah seeks to deny the right of polygyny, in light of the history of ardent defense of polygyny there.

 

 

I have always wondered about this irony.

Link to comment

I have always wondered about this irony.

 

It's the reverse effect of the apostasy pendulum swing.  The most bitter enemies of the Church are ALWAYS former members.

The most strident fighters against polygamy are those that once lived it.  It's a pattern that repeats often.

 

As far as explaining its cause - look at the goal the Church was moving towards at the same time polygamy was ending: IE, to become a worldwide Church.  Polygamy in the Church didn't really completely disappear until the days of President McKay, and under President McKay the Church really became worldwide and focused on missionary work for the first time.

 

That required distancing themselves from the unusual past.  In order to achieve their goals the past had to be brushed aside.

Link to comment

I have always wondered about this irony.

It's not really irony. It isn't the church trying to get this ruling overturned, it is the State of Utah. For those who think that they are one and the same, I have news: they aren't.

The other thing is this: state governments tend to want to keep their laws, and so will defend them. If the state of Utah wanted to repeal that law, then it would do so. It is merely defending its sovereignty under the 10th Amendement. Or 9th. Whatever.

Edited by Stargazer
Link to comment

It's not really irony. It isn't the church trying to get this ruling overturned, it is the State of Utah. For those who think that they are one and the same, I have news: they aren't.

The other thing is this: state governments tend to want to keep their laws, and so will defend them. If the state of Utah wanted to repeal that law, then it would do so. It is merely defending its sovereignty under the 10th Amendement. Or 9th. Whatever.

Aside from being a fallacy, anthropomorphizing or personifying organizations tends to mask the fact that they are run by people, and it is people inside the organizations who make the decisions you speak of.  In Utah it is the people who constitute the State, and their elected representatives make the laws and carry them out.  Despite the majesty of the Law, legal abstractions don't carry the kind of weight you suggest.  In a State which is overwhelmingly dominated by Mormons, and in which the Mormons are more Republican than the Republicans, there may be a better explanation as to why they seek to establish certain types of laws and not others.

 

The result is pure irony.

Link to comment

I am genuinely curious how you reached the conclusion that missionary work was not a focus before President McKay.

 

Didn't say it wasn't.  But it was kicked up a notch by President McKay - "Every Member A Missionary" and his frequent travel around the world.

Link to comment

Didn't say it wasn't.  But it was kicked up a notch by President McKay - "Every Member A Missionary" and his frequent travel around the world.

Yes you did. You said President McKay focused on it "for the first time" which means there was no focus before.

President McKay began the push for worldwide missions but truthfully we had more focus on missionary work in the early days of the church what with men of all ages and all situations being called to serve extended missions and sending most of the apostles on missions. With the possible exception of Church organization I suspect missionary work is the most emphasized principle in the Doctrine and Covenants.

Link to comment

I suspect that part of the reason for Utah not letting go is PR. The state (and the Church) have been trying to shed their Scarlet P for almost a century.

However, I think a bigger reason might be concern about the Warren Jeffs still out there. While the state might be fine with leaving the Sister Wives folks alone, they're probably legitimately concerned about opening the floodgates to the marrying of teenage girls and the abandonment of teenage boys.

Link to comment

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58505719-78/utah-wives-appeals-attorney.html.csp

 

Apparently the state of Utah is just not going to let this one go.  We thought they might, then they didn't.

 

The original lawsuit ruling - where the cohabitation clause was declared unconstitutional - was December 24, 2013.

On August 27, 2014 the judge issued the final ruling (not sure what the difference is).

Now they are appealing this decision to the 10th circuit court of appeals, but in light of the SCOTUS action this past week, I think they're going to have a hard time winning that appeal.

 

 

Oh, and while I was reading up on this I came across an interesting bit of trivia - guess what year one of the last prominent mainstream Church polygamous family that were members in good standing died out?

Would you believe 1954 - 64 years after the manifesto and only 60 years ago?

Much closer than we realize.  There are probably members on this board who were members when polygamous families still existed in the Church.

Please tell me who is advocating Polygamy? I know of some Polygamists but they are pretty much quiet and do not wish attention.

Link to comment

Yes you did. You said President McKay focused on it "for the first time" which means there was no focus before.

President McKay began the push for worldwide missions but truthfully we had more focus on missionary work in the early days of the church what with men of all ages and all situations being called to serve extended missions and sending most of the apostles on missions. With the possible exception of Church organization I suspect missionary work is the most emphasized principle in the Doctrine and Covenants.

During the Mckay presidency the Church administration changed its policy, and in effect its doctrine, of the gathering. Granted the trend to stop gathering in Utah had begun in the previous administrations, mostly I think because the conditions for gathering had changed due to Utah being integrated into the greater American political/economic system. So its not that missionary work began again after being completely stagnant, its that missionary work fundamentally changed. Now the Church would build up in other areas of the world. Areas without a close knit community of Mormons didn't have the resources or collective memory to respond to or understand the stranger practices of the nineteenth century. Plural marriage was stamped out of the Church during Heber Grant's presidency. Just because church sanctioned plural families didn't die out until the fifties, that doesn't mean it was really living practice until then. Most lived only with one wife anyways, though JLHPROF is right, it does make you think about how we are really not all that far removed from our "peculiar" past. Shoot, when my Grandma was a youth, the President of the Church was a Polygamist! Crazy! :)

Link to comment

Please tell me who is advocating Polygamy? I know of some Polygamists but they are pretty much quiet and do not wish attention.

The Brown family and others that still practice polygamy and other NON mainline Mormons that still practice polygamy.  I have also seen (unnamed sources) that 'some' Islamic groups etc that also practice polygamy according to their religious traditions also have a vested interest in the decisions of the courts in Utah.  I am NOT saying that all Muslims practice polygamy or wish it to be so...just that many people other than stubborn state officials are assisting in the push for the bans to be dissolved so that they are not being arrested for practicing and living a polygamous lifestyle among consenting adults...  It is not just about the LDS church mainstream, although you can see where many are following the cases closely.

Link to comment

The Brown family and others that still practice polygamy and other NON mainline Mormons that still practice polygamy.  I have also seen (unnamed sources) that 'some' Islamic groups etc that also practice polygamy according to their religious traditions also have a vested interest in the decisions of the courts in Utah.  I am NOT saying that all Muslims practice polygamy or wish it to be so...just that many people other than stubborn state officials are assisting in the push for the bans to be dissolved so that they are not being arrested for practicing and living a polygamous lifestyle among consenting adults...  It is not just about the LDS church mainstream, although you can see where many are following the cases closely.

I'll never face polygamy. I can say with certainty, still having ties with Muslims, that they practice it when they wish to because they simply ignore US laws. I was close friends with a woman in Ohio that had experienced it, and was asked to be second wife one time. I would have too, but when I asked first wife, she threw a fit.

 

No judgment from me for those who do it.

Link to comment

I have no judgments to make either....  I was simply responding to the question asked of who is still pushing "for" polygamy. 

I cannot give a source, but have also seen that there are social trends whereas the "idea" of polygamy, polyamorous, etc relationships have more awareness and acceptance than in previous years.  Again, I have no opinion on whether this is acceptable or the beginning of the great slide into iniquity that some predict. 

Link to comment

During the Mckay presidency the Church administration changed its policy, and in effect its doctrine, of the gathering. Granted the trend to stop gathering in Utah had begun in the previous administrations, mostly I think because the conditions for gathering had changed due to Utah being integrated into the greater American political/economic system. So its not that missionary work began again after being completely stagnant, its that missionary work fundamentally changed. Now the Church would build up in other areas of the world. Areas without a close knit community of Mormons didn't have the resources or collective memory to respond to or understand the stranger practices of the nineteenth century. Plural marriage was stamped out of the Church during Heber Grant's presidency. Just because church sanctioned plural families didn't die out until the fifties, that doesn't mean it was really living practice until then. Most lived only with one wife anyways, though JLHPROF is right, it does make you think about how we are really not all that far removed from our "peculiar" past. Shoot, when my Grandma was a youth, the President of the Church was a Polygamist! Crazy! :)

 

This.  Exactly.  Thank you for putting better than I did.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...