Robert Gehrke: Utah should decriminalize polygamy — but legally it can’t

[SettingDogStar]

31 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Oh there was definitely an actual revelation.  All the historical accounts support that.  It just wasn't instruction to cease plural marriage.

If it were most General Authorities of the day were in apostasy and disobedience to God.

I’m just curious if we’ll get to actually see it.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

What we learn from this: have as many relationships as you wish. Just don’t have paperwork for more than one.

They were not legally married and I think they would have gotten a conviction even without the church paperwork. Common law marriage is a thing and bigamy laws do generally apply to it.

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

They were not legally married and I think they would have gotten a conviction even without the church paperwork. Common law marriage is a thing and bigamy laws do generally apply to it.

Magic Johnson. Keith Richards. Gene Simmons. Hugh Hefner. Et al. No obligations. No responsibility. No paperwork. No jail. 

Edited September 23, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Calm]

44 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Magic Johnson. Keith Richards. Gene Simmons. Hugh Hefner. Et al. No paperwork.

How about don't have serious one?  As in longterm cohabitation.

[The Nehor]

13 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Magic Johnson. Keith Richards. Gene Simmons. Hugh Hefner. Et al. No obligations. No responsibility. No paperwork. No jail. 

Yeah, that was not cohabitation.

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Yeah, that was not cohabitation.

Well, it was co- something. OK. Then just don't live with them or sign any papers.

Hefner???

A distinction without a difference.

Edited September 23, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

13 hours ago, Calm said:

How about don't have serious one?  As in longterm cohabitation.

The difference, please?

[JLHPROF]

On 9/22/2019 at 4:49 PM, SettingDogStar said:

I’m just curious if we’ll get to actually see it.

You know we won't.  John Taylor received a revelation in 1886 on the subject and the Church spent decades alternating between "It's not canon" and "it doesn't exist".

And with the exception of Joseph F. Smith's record of his vision we haven't seen a written revelation since the turn of the 20th century.

I doubt we will ever see the word of the Lord again in our lifetime.  Just the words of men claiming to have received God's will.

Edited September 24, 2019 by JLHPROF

[blueglass]

It would seem very difficult to legalize mormon polygamy the way we practiced it in nauvoo and utah as Canada recently investigated in 2011, they concluded that although it was a violation of freedom of religion to prohibit polygamy it was justified as a reasonable limitation to "prevent harm to women, children and society."

 

https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2011/12/nicholas-bala-canada-polygamy/

 

Legalizing a form of polyamory where say a bisexual woman married another woman legally, and then they want to marry the sperm-donor for the child I could see as a potential test case which could work.  Likely would have to be regulated to a max marriage group of 3 or 4. Division of assets, inheritance, etc drawing upon professional LLP laws? Not sure. 

 

these Iowa judges seem frustrated in understanding why legalizing same sex marriage would not easily prevent opening up to mulit-party marriage.  The lawyer defends 2-person marriage because writing new laws "is complicated" which is not a very good defense to a "fundamental right to marry".

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-723ns_tRhY

[SettingDogStar]

5 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

You know we won't.  John Taylor received a revelation in 1886 on the subject and the Church spent decades alternating between "It's not canon" and "it doesn't exist".

And with the exception of Joseph F. Smith's record of his vision we have seem a written revelation since the turn of the 20th century.

I doubt we will ever see the word of the Lord again in our lifetime.  Just the words of men claiming to have received God's will.

That 1886 revelation is pretty damning if it is legit.

[Stargazer]

On 9/22/2019 at 10:35 PM, SettingDogStar said:

I wonder what the revelation was. “Keep practicing it just not in the US, or if you have to just keep it secret.” Cause it didn’t stop until 1904. (And even then had issues.)

Part of the problem might have been pre-existing polygamous families.  Were these marriages grandfathered in?  

[SettingDogStar]

32 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Part of the problem might have been pre-existing polygamous families.  Were these marriages grandfathered in?  

Yes and more were made following the manifesto, the last recorded and sanctioned by the church was in 1904.

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Part of the problem might have been pre-existing polygamous families.  Were these marriages grandfathered in?  

Probably.  But we are speaking of new polygamous marriages authorized and entered into after the Manifesto, not about those who stayed married.

I read a statistic the other day that immediately following the Manifesto new plural marriages increased 5 fold over the year prior.

Interestingly if I rember rightly the last polygamous family active, recommend holding, calling filling in the Church lasted until the 1950s.  60 years after it was ended.

Edited September 24, 2019 by JLHPROF

[nuclearfuels]

On 9/22/2019 at 12:01 PM, The Nehor said:

I suspect legalizing multiple marriage will be a social disaster and a legal nightmare.

”I did not know he was already married.” “The box on the license saying you were informed of other marriage was checked and you signed it.”

Divorce court with two men and their wife. Who pays child support? The biological father? Both? What if the child is adopted? How do you split property three or four or five ways? What if they all joined at different times? Who gets alimony? Who pays it?

One thing I would like to see codified in law, preferably constitutional law, is a minimum age for marriage. Preferably at least 16 even under extraordinary circumstances. Kind of scary how low the exception ages can conceivably go.

For the past 150+ years, polygamous families (some, not all) form corporations according to the laws of the state where they live. Custody, inheritance, etc. is split according to time of entry to and exit from the marriage.

[Stargazer]

On 9/24/2019 at 12:23 PM, SettingDogStar said:

Yes and more were made following the manifesto, the last recorded and sanctioned by the church was in 1904.

Should they have forcibly terminated all those pre-Manifesto marriages?

[The Nehor]

On 9/26/2019 at 1:21 PM, nuclearfuels said:

For the past 150+ years, polygamous families (some, not all) form corporations according to the laws of the state where they live. Custody, inheritance, etc. is split according to time of entry to and exit from the marriage.

I am not convinced that would prevent the problem. Even prenups are overturned and custody disputes cannot be settled by contract. Divorces are not neat enough to make contracts workable. Children are not property and the courts will (ideally) look to the best interest of the child and they will not care that dad and his brother husband and two sister wives agreed to give each of them one quarter of a year with the child.

Also, up to now most polygamous communities come from religious roots. This often means the family is kept together (for good or ill) by that shared bond/codependency/abusive environment. Generalize it and even more of these arrangements will explode.

[nuclearfuels]

On 9/27/2019 at 10:33 PM, The Nehor said:

I am not convinced that would prevent the problem. Even prenups are overturned and custody disputes cannot be settled by contract. Divorces are not neat enough to make contracts workable. Children are not property and the courts will (ideally) look to the best interest of the child and they will not care that dad and his brother husband and two sister wives agreed to give each of them one quarter of a year with the child.

Also, up to now most polygamous communities come from religious roots. This often means the family is kept together (for good or ill) by that shared bond/codependency/abusive environment. Generalize it and even more of these arrangements will explode.

Lawyers are paid to help resolve/make worse/stir up people into legal nightmares, including divorce.

Imagine how much legally cleaner and simpler it would be to goto law enforcement for enforcement of an existing contract. 

Divorce courts in my limited experience do not look to the best interest of the child. Hoping some salaried black-robe wearing clown will know more thant hte paretns what the kids want seems questionable

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, nuclearfuels said:

Lawyers are paid to help resolve/make worse/stir up people into legal nightmares, including divorce.

Imagine how much legally cleaner and simpler it would be to goto law enforcement for enforcement of an existing contract. 

Divorce courts in my limited experience do not look to the best interest of the child. Hoping some salaried black-robe wearing clown will know more thant hte paretns what the kids want seems questionable

Yes, and then they can drag the contract into court and the robe wearing clown can try to figure out what the idiots who signed it we’re trying to say.

A parent in the middle of a custody dispute is not someone I would trust with the best interest of the child. I would trust the robe earring clown more.