Modern day polygamy?

[LA Coug]

I thought this was interesting....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-19402508

"Public Notary Claudia do Nascimento Domingues has said the man and two women should be entitled to family rights.

She says there is nothing in law to prevent such an arrangement."

[pellegrino]

Oh man, I can totally see an increase in converts in Brazil because of this.

[Uncle Ted]

Federal judge declares Utah polygamy law unconstitutional

District court ruling finds key parts of Utah polygamy laws unconstitutional.
A U.S. District Court judge has sided with the polgyamous Brown family, ruling that key parts of Utah’s polygamy laws are unconstitutional.


Judge Clark Waddoups’ 91-page ruling, issued Friday, sets a new legal precedent in Utah, effectively decriminalizing polygamy. It is the latest development in a lawsuit filed by the family of Kody Brown, who became famous while starring in cable TV channel TLC’s reality series "Sister Wives." The show entered a fourth season at the end of the summer.

Waddoups’ ruling attacks the parts of Utah’s law making cohabitation illegal. In the introduction, Waddoups says the phrase "or cohabits with another person" is a violation of both the First and 14th amendments. Waddoups later writes that while there is no "fundamental right" to practice polygamy, the issue really comes down to "religious cohabitation." In the 1800s — when the mainstream LDS Church still practiced polygamy — "religious cohabitation" in Utah could have actually resulted in "multiple purportedly legal marriages." Today, however, simply living together doesn’t amount to being "married," Waddoups writes.

"The court finds the cohabitation prong of the Statute unconstitutional on numerous grounds and strikes it," Waddoups later writes.

Utah’s bigamy statute technically survived the ruling. However, Waddoups took a narrow interpretation of the words "marry" and "purports to marry," meaning that bigamy remains illegal only in the literal sense — when someone fraudulently acquires multiple marriage licences.

[...]

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/56...ltrib.html.csp

I wonder if Obamacare is less for unmarried polygamist as well.

[Jeff Lebowski]

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/56...ltrib.html.csp

I wonder if Obamacare is less for unmarried polygamist as well.

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

[TripletDaddy]

I think the Church isn't going to rally the troops against this development.

[Dwight Schr-ute]

I think the Church isn't going to rally the troops against this development.

Yeah. I doubt the church will jump on board until polygamous spouses are given legal recognition.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Applejack]

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

This is really a no-brainer, really. One can make good arguments against sanctioning polygamous marriage. It is very hard, on the other hand, to defend criminalizing polygamous living arrangements in light of recent Supreme Court cases.

[Harry Tic]

I think the Church isn't going to rally the troops against this development.

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.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I think the Church isn't going to rally the troops against this development.

But it is a threat to traditional marriage!

[TripletDaddy]

But it is a threat to traditional marriage!

and an inevitable slippery slope towards marrying plants and animals!

[TripletDaddy]

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.

[UVACoug]

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.

I would be very surprised if they said anything beyond restating the Church's current position on polygamy. What is there to denounce?

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

[Harry Tic]

I would be very surprised if they said anything beyond restating the Church's current position on polygamy. What is there to denounce?

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

You mean other than the deterioration of the traditional family?

[Moliere]

I would be very surprised if they said anything beyond restating the Church's current position on polygamy. What is there to denounce?

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

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.

[Dwight Schr-ute]

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.

I think I'll wait for the next lds.org release before I claim what the church does or doesn't believe concerning polygamy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk