Utah Senate Votes Unanimously to Decriminalize Polygamy

[10THAmendment]

On 2/15/2020 at 9:58 AM, california boy said:

Where is the outrage from the Church?  Where are the protesters carrying signs saying "Marriage is between only one man and one woman".  Where are the millions of dollars going to fight this   Where are all the slippery slope arguments claiming that now a man will marry multiple farm animals?  

I am sure it is coming any day now.  Certainly this is the second step to the entire fall of mankind and will be the beginning of the end of the world.  

My first thought was why the church allowed the state to vote this way. But then I thought that the church ONLY stopped mortal polygamy because the federal government threatened them. The church still regularly practices polygamy in the temple. Who’s to say they won’t start it again in mortality if the government gives them permission?

Edited February 22, 2020 by 10THAmendment

[carbon dioxide]

58 minutes ago, 10THAmendment said:

My first thought was why the church allowed the state to vote this way. But then I thought that the church ONLY stopped mortal polygamy because the federal government threatened them. The church still regularly practices polygamy in the temple. Who’s to say they won’t start it again in mortality if the government gives them permission?

Technically there is nothing that is stopping the Church from starting it again if the Lord commands it.  I think in the current legal environment, it would be easier to challenge the laws today in court.  Also the church could practice it today in countries that allow polygamy outside the US.  Yet it has not even sought to do it.   Who knows what the future will hold.  Some people have predicted the Church will one day allow same sex marriage.  My response to that the church is 500 times closer to starting polygamy again than allowing same sex marriage.  At least there is abundant scriptural and historical foundation in polygamy. 

[PacMan]

On 2/15/2020 at 2:44 PM, Calm said:

Have you seen any legislation or major voting on making adultery legal?  Serious question as I don’t pay close attention to such. 

The Supreme Court of the United States made that happen in Lawrence v. Texas. 

[smac97]

On 2/22/2020 at 10:31 AM, carbon dioxide said:

Technically there is nothing that is stopping the Church from starting it again if the Lord commands it.

I would be quite surprised if the Church re-introduced polygamy.  But I'll cross that bridge when we come to it.

The wheel sure has turned.  130 years after the government moved heaven and earth to punish the Church and its members for practicing polygamy, we are now facing the prospect of the Supreme Court discovering there is a constitutional "right" to polygamy.  Fascinating.

On 2/22/2020 at 10:31 AM, carbon dioxide said:

I think in the current legal environment, it would be easier to challenge the laws today in court. 

Same here.  Polygamy is a consideraly more legitimate form of marriage than same-sex marriage, though I'm not persuaded that either is a constitutional right.  I think the Arizona Supreme Court in Standhardt v. Superior Court of Ariz., 77 P.3d 451 (Ariz. 2004) did an excellent job of summarizing the law on this issue (as pertaining to same-sex marriage, though I think this analysis has equal application to polygamy) (some internal citations omitted) (emphases added) :

Quote

Petitioners first argue that Arizona's prohibition of same-sex marriages impermissibly infringes on their right to marry each other, which, they contend, is guaranteed as a fundamental liberty interest by the due process provisions of both the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 2, Section 4, of the Arizona Constitution, and assured as a fundamental privacy right explicitly granted by Article 2, Section 8, of the Arizona Constitution. The State responds that while Petitioners possess a fundamental right to enter opposite-sex marriages, they do not have an equivalent right to enter same-sex marriages.

Whether entry in state-licensed, same-sex marriages is a constitutionally anointed "fundamental right" is a critical inquiry in deciding the viability of A.R.S. §§ 25-101(C) and -125(A). If participation in such unions is a fundamental right, we must apply a "strict scrutiny" analysis, which permits us to uphold these provisions only if they serve a compelling state interest and are narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 721, 117 S. Ct. 2258, 138 L. Ed. 2d 772 (1997) (noting substantive due process forbids government infringement on fundamental liberty interest "unless the infringement is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest") (citation omitted); State v. Watson, 198 Ariz. 48, 50, 51, ¶¶ 4, 7, 6 P.3d 752, 754, 755 (App.2000) (acknowledging same test for implicated fundamental rights secured by substantive due process provision of Arizona Constitution).

If participation in such unions is not a fundamental right, we will assess the constitutionality of §§ 25-101(C) and -125(A) by using a "rational basis" analysis, which requires us to uphold these provisions if they are simply rationally related to a legitimate government interest. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 728, 117 S. Ct. 2258 (stating that unless interest is fundamental liberty interest protected by Due Process Clause, law must only be rationally related to legitimate government interests); Large v.Super. Ct., 148 Ariz. 229, 237, 714 P.2d 399, 407 (1986) (using rational basis test under due process provision of Arizona Constitution); State v. Murphy, 117 Ariz. 57, 61, 570 P.2d 1070, 1074 (1977) (applying rational basis analysis in deciding whether statute violated Arizona's constitutional guarantee of privacy).
...
We begin with the well-accepted premise that the substantive due process guarantee "provides heightened protection against government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests." Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 720, 117 S. Ct. 2258. In addition to the freedoms protected in the Bill of Rights, such rights and interests are those "`deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition,' ... and `implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,' such that `neither liberty nor justice would exist if they were sacrificed.'" Id. at 720-21, 117 S. Ct. 2258 (citations omitted); see Watson, 198 Ariz. at 51, ¶ 8, 6 P.3d at 755. Thus, using our Nation's history, legal traditions, and practices as a guidepost, the Supreme Court has conferred fundamental-right status on the right to marry, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12, 87 S. Ct. 1817, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1010 (1967), and the right to marital privacy, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 485, 85 S. Ct. 1678, 14 L. Ed. 2d 510 (1965).

...It therefore follows that fundamental rights protected by the due process provision of our state constitution are those firmly entrenched in our state's history and tradition and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty that may be, or may not be, shared with the rest of the country.
...
Petitioners finally argue that the choice to enter a same-sex marriage must be granted fundamental-right status in view of society's evolving acceptance of same-sex unions. To demonstrate this evolution, they cite evidence of such unions in ancient times, the existence of religious liturgies for these relationships, international recognition of same-sex marriages or unions, Vermont's enactment of civil union laws, and the number of lawsuits pending or planned to challenge laws restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples.

We are mindful of the Supreme Court's admonition to "exercise the utmost care" in conferring fundamental-right status on a newly asserted interest lest we transform the liberty protected by due process into judicial policy preferences rather than principles born of public debate and legislative action. In exercising that care, we reject Petitioners' argument.

Although same-sex relationships are more open and have garnered greater societal acceptance in recent years, same-sex marriages are neither deeply rooted in the legal and social history of our Nation or state nor are they implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.  Despite changing attitudes about both homosexuality and the attributes of "family," no state in this Nation has enacted legislation allowing same-sex marriages. To the contrary, Congress and the majority of states, including Arizona, have enacted legislation in recent years explicitly limiting marriage to opposite-sex unions.

This court does not dispute that a homosexual person's choice of life partner is an intimate and important decision. However, not all important decisions sounding in personal autonomy are protected fundamental rights. Id. at 727-28, 117 S. Ct. 2258 ("That many of the rights and liberties protected by the Due Process Clause sound in personal autonomy does not warrant the sweeping conclusion that any and all important, intimate, and personal decisions are so protected."). The history of the law's treatment of marriage as an institution involving one man and one woman, together with recent, explicit reaffirmations of that view, lead invariably to the conclusion that the right to enter a same-sex marriage is not a fundamental liberty interest protected by due process.

I think the foregoing analysis is substantially better than what is found in Obergefell.

On 2/22/2020 at 10:31 AM, carbon dioxide said:

Also the church could practice it today in countries that allow polygamy outside the US.  Yet it has not even sought to do it.

A good reminder that the parameters of marriage are defined by God, not by secular law.

On 2/22/2020 at 10:31 AM, carbon dioxide said:

Who knows what the future will hold.  Some people have predicted the Church will one day allow same sex marriage.  My response to that the church is 500 times closer to starting polygamy again than allowing same sex marriage.  At least there is abundant scriptural and historical foundation in polygamy. 

Yep.

As you say, "who knows what the future will hold."  I think the re-introduction of polygamy is technically possible, but quite unlikely.  And I think the recognition/endorsement of same-sex marriage is only "possible" in the meanest de minimis sense.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

4 hours ago, PacMan said:

The Supreme Court of the United States made that happen in Lawrence v. Texas. 

I was thinking since Prop 8.  It was my understanding that there was a distinct lack of prosecution for adultery lately, assumed there was legislation that had put that issue to bed.  Something that left it as a private issue, government not involved to say it was criminal. 
 

Do you mean by ruling sex between consenting adults is legal it made adultery legal as well?  Would that cover what might be viewed as fraud in regards to the marriage contract?

Edited February 24, 2020 by Calm

[PacMan]

On 2/24/2020 at 1:29 PM, Calm said:

I was thinking since Prop 8.  It was my understanding that there was a distinct lack of prosecution for adultery lately, assumed there was legislation that had put that issue to bed.  Something that left it as a private issue, government not involved to say it was criminal. 
 

Do you mean by ruling sex between consenting adults is legal it made adultery legal as well?  Would that cover what might be viewed as fraud in regards to the marriage contract?

Yup. Consenting adult relationships are legal. Not sure I understand the bit on fraud. 

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, PacMan said:

Yup. Consenting adult relationships are legal. Not sure I understand the bit on fraud. 

If marriage is a contract between to adults to stay sexually faithful to each other, breaking the contract by committing adultery...are there any legal issues there that the individual could be charged with.

Edited February 25, 2020 by Calm

[JLHPROF]

Update - this just passed the House.

If the governor signs it polygamy in Utah will be reduced to an infraction, on par with a parking ticket.

https://www.fox13now.com/news/local-news/polygamy-bill-passes-the-utah-state-legislature?fbclid=IwAR3L0t6f4r_wdymc7hvP4vI8wy8objpVi5eSKQrxXht5h2DEJp8t2w1pOuI

[Stargazer]

On 2/19/2020 at 2:54 AM, nuclearfuels said:

 

Or perhaps the Senate vote is being made in preparation for the re-institution of polygamy within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints?

Oh, that would be interesting.  In the sense of the ancient chinese curse, "May you live in interesting times!"

On 2/19/2020 at 2:54 AM, nuclearfuels said:

I'd actually consider moving back to UT if that was the case, and that's really saying something.

Very little can make Utah attractive as a place of residence to me, and this isn't one of them. Rather the reverse, in fact.  It's still a nice place to visit, however!

[Stargazer]

On 2/20/2020 at 5:53 PM, Calm said:

So scheduling with fertility as the primary determinant....but one can include romance if one wants to.  That's not going to lead women to feel like breeding stock.  

And if they are all fertile at the same time?  Women living together often have their cycles synch up.

I had heard about the synchronizing of cycles, and thought it sounded plausible, but apparently it is more a matter of coincidence than actual synchronicity.

https://blogs.webmd.com/womens-health/20101004/do-womens-cycles-sync-up

In pertinent part:

"Two of the most recent studies have strengthened the idea that the best condition for cycling together is chance. Kiomkiewicz and colleagues (2006) evaluated 99 women for five months and found no synchrony of menstruation. The longest study, lasting one full year, assessed 186 Chinese women living together in dorms (Schank & Yang, 2006). Again, no menstrual synchrony emerged."

 

[smac97]

On 2/25/2020 at 3:13 PM, Calm said:

If marriage is a contract between to adults to stay sexually faithful to each other, breaking the contract by committing adultery...are there any legal issues there that the individual could be charged with.

Criminally?  I don't think so.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I had heard about the synchronizing of cycles, and thought it sounded plausible, but apparently it is more a matter of coincidence than actual synchronicity.

https://blogs.webmd.com/womens-health/20101004/do-womens-cycles-sync-up

In pertinent part:

"Two of the most recent studies have strengthened the idea that the best condition for cycling together is chance. Kiomkiewicz and colleagues (2006) evaluated 99 women for five months and found no synchrony of menstruation. The longest study, lasting one full year, assessed 186 Chinese women living together in dorms (Schank & Yang, 2006). Again, no menstrual synchrony emerged."

 

My info is from the 80's (when I was taught it; since it appeared to happen in several situations I knew of, I have never questioned it and therefore never researched it personally), so not surprised it is out of date.  Thanks for the update.  Hopefully will remember to rep you when they get restocked.

Edited February 27, 2020 by Calm

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

My info is from the 80's (when I was taught it; since it appeared to happen in several situations I knew of, I have never questioned it and therefore never researched it personally), so not surprised it is out of date.  Thanks for the update.  Hopefully will remember to rep you when they get restocked.

Wow, you ran out of rep points?  You must be very busy!  I once tried to see if I could use them all up, and by the time I was done (repping everything, basically), I was exhausted. Props to you, Calm!!

[PacMan]

On 2/25/2020 at 3:13 PM, Calm said:

If marriage is a contract between to adults to stay sexually faithful to each other, breaking the contract by committing adultery...are there any legal issues there that the individual could be charged with.

It’s a statutory relationship. Not a contractual one. 

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, PacMan said:

It’s a statutory relationship. Not a contractual one. 

Meaning?

[PacMan]

13 hours ago, Calm said:

Meaning?

Meaning your hypothetical of a broken contract doesn’t work. 

[smac97]

14 hours ago, PacMan said:

Quote

If marriage is a contract between to adults to stay sexually faithful to each other, breaking the contract by committing adultery...are there any legal issues there that the individual could be charged with.

It’s a statutory relationship. Not a contractual one. 

I don't understand this.  I have always understood marriage - in a legal sense - to be broadly construed as a "contract."  See, e.g., here:

Quote

Definition {of Marriage}

The legal union of a couple as spouses. The basic elements of a marriage are: (1) the parties' legal ability to marry each other, (2) mutual consent of the parties, and (3) a marriage contract as required by law.

See also Common-Law Marriage.

Overview

In the English common law tradition from which our legal doctrines and concepts have developed, a marriage was a contract based upon a voluntary private agreement by a man and a woman to become husband and wife. Marriage was viewed as the basis of the family unit and vital to the preservation of morals and civilization. Traditionally, the husband had a duty to provide a safe house, pay for necessities such as food and clothing, and live in the house. The wife's obligations were maintaining a home, living in the home, having sexual relations with her husband, and rearing the couple's children. Today, the underlying concept that marriage is a legal contract still remains, but due to changes in society the legal obligations are not the same.

Marriage is chiefly regulated by the states. The Supreme Court has held that states are permitted to reasonably regulate the institution by prescribing who is allowed to marry and how the marriage can be dissolved. Entering into a marriage changes the legal status of both parties and gives both husband and wife new rights and obligations. One power that the states do not have, however, is that of prohibiting marriage in the absence of a valid reason. For example, in Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court held that prohibiting interracial marriage is unconstitutional because it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. Thus, establishing that marriage is a civil right. 

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 2, 2020 by smac97

[PacMan]

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

I don't understand this.  I have always understood marriage - in a legal sense - to be broadly construed as a "contract."  See, e.g., here:

Thanks,

-Smac

Let’s explore that. 

Where’s your contract? What’s it actually say? What are the terms? Can you agree to end it without court intervention? Why?

If your marriage terms aren’t written, your contract must be oral. But if it is, then it falls outside the statute of frauds, right?

Marriage was, at one time, a property exchange. Thus, a contract. Not any more. 

And most contracts now don’t need a licensed officiator.

[smac97]

10 hours ago, PacMan said:

Let’s explore that. 

Where’s your contract? What’s it actually say? What are the terms? Can you agree to end it without court intervention? Why?

If your marriage terms aren’t written, your contract must be oral. But if it is, then it falls outside the statute of frauds, right?

Marriage was, at one time, a property exchange. Thus, a contract. Not any more. 

And most contracts now don’t need a licensed officiator.

For some reason, I'm not able to post my response.

[Navidad]

On 2/19/2020 at 10:51 AM, carbon dioxide said:

Why would polygamy result in less child per mother?  If I want 30 kids, the best way to get that is having multiple wives.  One wife making 30 kids is kind of hard.

There are several factors contributing to this, at least regarding fundamentalist mormon polygamists. First, it was taught for years, perhaps still now that sex is only for procreative purposes; it was not a diversion to be enjoyed. Sex was only had with a wife when it was likely she would get pregnant.  Second, intercourse was often forbidden during pregnancy, menstruation, and while the mother was nursing. This certainly cut down on the frequency of the sex act. This is testified about in many diaries and journals of the polygamists. A number of polygamist wives only had sex with their husbands four or five times a year at most. 

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Navidad said:

There are several factors contributing to this, at least regarding fundamentalist mormon polygamists. First, it was taught for years, perhaps still now that sex is only for procreative purposes; it was not a diversion to be enjoyed. Sex was only had with a wife when it was likely she would get pregnant.  Second, intercourse was often forbidden during pregnancy, menstruation, and while the mother was nursing. This certainly cut down on the frequency of the sex act. This is testified about in many diaries and journals of the polygamists. A number of polygamist wives only had sex with their husbands four or five times a year at most. 

And they wrote that in journals?

In the Victoian era?  I am just trying to figure out the motivation.  

On the other hand I can see reasons for minimizing accounts of sexual activity which might be read by others outside of the polygamist communities since they saw the whole community as committing "whoredoms."

 

Edited March 5, 2020 by mfbukowski

[Navidad]

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

And they wrote that in journals?

In the Victoian era?  I am just trying to figure out the motivation.  

No, this was in material written much later than the Victorian time. I am researching and referring to Fundamentalist polygamy in the time period of the 1960s to 80s. Sorry for the confusion. 

[nuclearfuels]

On 2/19/2020 at 10:13 AM, smac97 said:

The legislature also decriminalized adultery and fornication in 2019.  Are you suggesting that the "the Senate vote is being made in preparation for the {legitimizing of adultery and fornication} within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints"?

Pretty absurd, right?

-Smac

The absurd part of this is that you think you are using reason.

Fornication and adultery, sadly, have happened in the past, in and outsuide of the church's attendants. Hopefully less than 1/100.

Polygamy was practiced as a calling and ordinance in the past in and outside the church. Probably less than 1/100 of amles practiced it - not sure.

One of these has been condemned from Adam and Eve's day. 

One has been practiced since Adam and Eve's day - mostly by non-LDS people.

[nuclearfuels]

On 2/18/2020 at 10:58 PM, Calm said:

Why?

to practice polygamy, as my ancestors and those of my wife did.

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, nuclearfuels said:

to practice polygamy, as my ancestors and those of my wife did.

Your wife interested in that as well? (Serious question)

Edited March 6, 2020 by Calm