Modern day polygamy?

[Pheidippides]

I've read about half of the opinion. A couple things are clear. First, the idea of an anti bigamy law isn't dead, and there's not a fundamental right to polygamy. There is, however, a fundamental right to have one marriage and a bunch of religious but not legal marriages - i.e., the consenting adults concept. Second, the Utah County attorney is a blithering idiot and should be disbarred, at least reading between the lines of the opinion. It's clear that Judge Waddoups doesn't think much of him. Third, holy cow did he go into background. 91 pages, and he cites Todd Compton, Susan Easton Black, Richard Bushman, Brian C. Hales and a host of others. Frankly, the first section of his opinion is pretty dang good reading to just to understand the practice of polygamy in Utah in the late 1800s/early 1900s.

[Pheidippides]

I doubt that they will rally the troops with phone trees and donations to some sort of campaign but I wouldn't be surprised in the least to see it denounced from the pulpit and in print without the slightest hint of irony.

If they are smart they won't. Judge Waddoups has already noted the irony the opinion.

[Stick]

and an inevitable slippery slope towards marrying plants and animals!

Don't forget ferris wheels.

[San Juan Sun]

Don't forget ferris wheels.

I get the appeal of metting hitched to a ferris wheel. They have a long life expectancy and steady income. A girl could do worse, like marrying a Tilt-a-Whirl, always swinging around, covered in vomit.

[UVACoug]

There's nothing to denounce. The church still believes in polygamy and polygamous sealings are performed all the time, even today. The Manifesto was only a temporary ban brought on by political pressure. Of course, I doubt the church will lift that ban now, especially since it's much more politically expedient to keep it in place and if the whole PH ban thing has shown us God sometimes changes his doctrine to alleviate political persecution.

The case doesn't legalize polygamy (though I could understand why one would think it does, given the Trib's coverage). It merely states what everyone already knew but did not want to admit. It is not constitutional to criminalize cohabitation. That has been clear for at least a decade when the U.S. Supreme Court decided Lawrence v. Texas. There has been no prosecution of cohabitating polygamists since Lawrence, and there likely would not have been any in this case. Buhman is an idiot though and decided to make an example out of these people and ended up forcing the court to articulate a rule that anyone who analyzed the situation already knew was true. Marrying more than one person concurrently is still illegal in all 50 states.

[Uncle Ted]

As much as I dislike polygamy, that is the right ruling.

Yes, marriage is between the people involved and God. Maybe at some point the government will simply stop trying to define marriage and let religion do that.

Of course, the government has created economic advantages for people to just consider cohabitation rather than government recognized marriage. For example, the Obamacare marriage penalty. Also, the sister wives of Apostolic United Brethren men game the government as single mothers:

According to one former member, attorney John Llewellyn, "plural wives [of AUB men] are sent into nearby Hamilton to apply for welfare as single mothers. The informant reported that welfare checks are often taken directly to the priesthood leaders."[12]

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

[Pelado]

The time has come to address this discrepancy. When the Supreme Court struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act in U.S. v. Windsor in June, opening the door to federal recognition of same-sex marriage, it also set the stage for a discussion of plural marriage.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/16/opinio...html?hpt=hp_t4

[Dwight Schr-ute]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/16/opinio...html?hpt=hp_t4

What's interesting is how reluctant supporters of plural marriage are of having to hitch their wagon to the gay marriage parade. It's almost like they'd rather settle for a lack of legal recognition than ride those rhinestone coat tails.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Uncle Ted]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/16/opinio...html?hpt=hp_t4

Government issued marriage licenses really only came around in the 1920's because interracial marriages...

George Washington was married without a marriage license. So, how did we come to this place in America where marriage licenses are issued?


Historically, all the states in America had laws outlawing the marriage of blacks and whites. In the mid-1800’s, certain states began allowing interracial marriages or miscegenation as long as those marrying received a license from the state. In other words they had to receive permission to do an act which without such permission would have been illegal.

Blacks Law Dictionary points to this historical fact when it defines “marriage license” as, “A license or permission granted by public authority to persons who intend to intermarry.” “Intermarry” is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as, “Miscegenation; mixed or interracial marriages.”


Give the State an inch and they will take a 100 miles (or as one elderly woman once said to me “10,000 miles.”) Not long after these licenses were issued, some states began requiring all people who marry to obtain a marriage license. In 1923, the Federal Government established the Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act (they later established the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act). By 1929, every state in the Union had adopted marriage license laws.

http://www.libertariannews.org/2011/...inst-humanity/

Ron Paul said on the subject of marriage:

"I’d like to settle the debate by turning it into a First Amendment issue: the right of free speech. Everyone can have his or her own definition of what marriage means, and if an agreement or contract is reached by the participants, it will qualify as a civil contract if desired."

[UVACoug]

Polyamory ... "the new gay."

http://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/l...family-n127396