Same-sex marriage coming to Utah

[UVACoug]

I used to think that requiring the right of gays to get married would lead to the required legalization of polygamy. However, I now don't think it does. The federal/state government has basically no interest and receives no benefit from denying gays from getting married.

However, I think there is a compelling state interest in outlawing polygamy. Centuries ago, societies that promoted marriage succeeded while those that didn't failed. You have to look at the thing from an anthropological perspective. Alpha males got the women and then would eventually cast them off for younger women. There was also a large population of beta males who rarely got the opportunity to mate. It's not good to have large populations of single beta males and single older females (and by older I mean mid 30s and older) along with their children. There are segments of our society now that avoid marriage and there is a massive population of children without fathers. The Colorado City clan culls the herd of young males (the "lost boys") and casts them off in society at large. The females are treated as chattel. They do not, generally speaking, abandon older females however. They do force some of the females to certain men at very young ages.

You can think that all you want. The problem is that the state has to come forward with evidence that that is the case. They weren't able to do that in the sister wives case. Maybe that is just a result of the A.G.'s office's incompetence, but I am not aware of any reliable evidence that shows polygamy is inherently abusive. There is no doubt that abuse occurs in polygamous families (just like it does in monogamous families). You have to show that it is the institution of polygamy itself that CAUSES the abuse.

If the only argument against polygamy is a moral argument, it is no different than gay marriage under Shelby's analysis.

[Bruiserstone]

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8...l-tyranny.html

I'll comment on this later, but right now I'll just say

Yea those damn activists judges never stop

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzCgOrQn0GM

[Topper]

You can think that all you want. The problem is that the state has to come forward with evidence that that is the case. They weren't able to do that in the sister wives case. Maybe that is just a result of the A.G.'s office's incompetence, but I am not aware of any reliable evidence that shows polygamy is inherently abusive. There is no doubt that abuse occurs in polygamous families (just like it does in monogamous families). You have to show that it is the institution of polygamy itself that CAUSES the abuse.

If the only argument against polygamy is a moral argument, it is no different than gay marriage under Shelby's analysis.

Making polygamy legal won't make it more desirable. I doubt legal polygamy will become a boom industry.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Polygamy with consenting adults is probably coming for good. With Islam favoring it, and the arguments surrounding gay marriage, it is difficult legally to prevent it.

The possible eventual legalization of polygamy was my one major hangup with overturning gay marriage bans. If it's impossible to constitutionally delineate between gay marriage and polygamy, then I would just rather say the government has a compelling interest to regulate marriage and then rely on equal protection to dictate other aspects of it (like not allowing interracial marriage).

It's apparent to me that UVACoug has a very good understanding of this area of Constitutional Law. I haven't read the decision yet, but it's quite possible that, like UVA said, Shelby botched the substantive due process part but got the equal protection part okay. US v. Windsor was decided on equal protection grounds. Requiring the right of gays to get married under equal protection grounds wouldn't really transmit to polygamy, but overtturning it on substantive due process grounds would.

This case will eventually go to the Supreme Court, there's little doubt about that. The only way it wouldn't is if Utah decides not to appeal it either to the 10th Circuit or then the Supreme Court depending on the outcome at the Circuit. I find it hard to believe that Utah won't appeal it as far as it can go.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

You can think that all you want. The problem is that the state has to come forward with evidence that that is the case. They weren't able to do that in the sister wives case. Maybe that is just a result of the A.G.'s office's incompetence, but I am not aware of any reliable evidence that shows polygamy is inherently abusive. There is no doubt that abuse occurs in polygamous families (just like it does in monogamous families). You have to show that it is the institution of polygamy itself that CAUSES the abuse.

If the only argument against polygamy is a moral argument, it is no different than gay marriage under Shelby's analysis.

Except polygamy strays much, much farther away from the definition of marriage than gay marriage. At least with gay marriage it is between two individuals regardless of gender. I assume that benefits that heterosexual marriage conveys to society applies equally to gay marriage. The same can't be said of polygamy especially in light of the massive amount of public assistance that is consumed by the likes of the degenerates in Colorado City.

[Topper]

The possible eventual legalization of polygamy was my one major hangup with overturning gay marriage bans. If it's impossible to constitutionally delineate between gay marriage and polygamy, then I would just rather say the government has a compelling interest to regulate marriage and then rely on equal protection to dictate other aspects of it (like not allowing interracial marriage).

It's apparent to me that UVACoug has very good understanding of this area of Constitutional Law. I haven't read the decision yet, but it's quite possible that, like UVA said, Shelby botched the substantive due process part but got the equal protection part okay. US v. Windsor was decided on equal protection grounds. Requiring the right of gays to get married under equal protection grounds wouldn't really transmit to polygamy, but overtturning it on substantive due process grounds would.

This case will eventually go to the Supreme Court, there's little doubt about that. The only way it wouldn't is if Utah decides not to appeal it either to the 10th Circuit or then the Supreme Court depending on the outcome at the Circuit. I find it hard to believe that Utah won't appeal it as far as it can go.

Substantive due process is squishy, and very flexible. Judges can make it do whatever they wish.

Loving v. Virginia combined with Equal Protection makes it difficult eventually to ban polygamy. As pointed out above, I don't see polygamy as inherently abusive.

Again, opponents of liberties such as the right extended to gays or as many consenting adults as desire it, do it out of cultural expectations. We don't like what we see in polygamous unions, because they have been the traditional weirdos of society, at least for our modern society. Or they are part of Islam, which given recent history isn't viewed favorably.

It won't mark the end of "traditional" marriage, whatever that is, just as gay marriage won't. Plus, think of all the new divorces, lawyers will get to do, now with the new groups of marriages lining up.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Except polygamy strays much, much farther away from the definition of marriage than gay marriage. At least with gay marriage it is between two individuals regardless of gender. I assume that benefits that heterosexual marriage conveys to society applies equally to gay marriage. The same can't be said of polygamy especially in light of the massive amount of public assistance that is consumed by the likes of the degenerates in Colorado City.

Exactly.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Substantive due process is squishy, and very flexible. Judges can make it do whatever they wish.

Loving v. Virginia combined with Equal Protection makes it difficult eventually to ban polygamy. As pointed out above, I don't see polygamy as inherently abusive.

Again, opponents of liberties such as the right extended to gays or as many consenting adults as desire it, do it out of cultural expectations. We don't like what we see in polygamous unions, because they have been the traditional weirdos of society, at least for our modern society. Or they are part of Islam, which given recent history isn't viewed favorably.

It won't mark the end of "traditional" marriage, whatever that is, just as gay marriage won't. Plus, think of all the new divorces, lawyers will get to do, now with the new groups of marriages lining up.

I see more polygamous people on a routine basis than anyone on this board and they irritate the hell out of me. Invariably they're assholes. I also personally know a number of "lost boys" who were culled from the herd. Additionally, I know someone who is privy to how much they abuse food stamp and welfare laws -- it's abundant. They're the Utah's version of gypsies.

[Topper]

I see more polygamous people on a routine basis than anyone on this board and they irritate the hell out of me. Invariably they're assholes. I also personally know a number of "lost boys" who were culled from the herd. Additionally, I know someone who is privy to how much they abuse food stamp and welfare laws -- it's abundant. They're the Utah's version of gypsies.

I have met one polygamist my entire life.

However, the argument about massive public assistance might be the result of having hide out away from society and not being able to be practice as openly as they desire. Maybe it's about just being a bunch of losers, I don't pretend to know.

However, if the anecdotal evidence of "every polygamist I know is scum" is the basis for disallowing it, would a legislator who only knows scummy married persons be entitled to strike down all marriage? I don't support polygamy, but just see it as inevitable.

It sure seems to be a better solution for government to get out of the marriage business, make everything a civil union with a contract. And let whatever religious affiliation one has dictate what conjugal bonds a person or persons enjoy.

[byu71]

Except polygamy strays much, much farther away from the definition of marriage than gay marriage. At least with gay marriage it is between two individuals regardless of gender. I assume that benefits that heterosexual marriage conveys to society applies equally to gay marriage. The same can't be said of polygamy especially in light of the massive amount of public assistance that is consumed by the likes of the degenerates in Colorado City.

Those who believe marriage is to procreate and raise children need to be brought out of their dark ages mentality. In the case of Utah perhaps getting people to move from California and the East would help.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I have met one polygamist my entire life.

However, the argument about massive public assistance might be the result of having hide out away from society and not being able to be practice as openly as they desire. Maybe it's about just being a bunch of losers, I don't pretend to know.

However, if the anecdotal evidence of "every polygamist I know is scum" is the basis for disallowing it, would a legislator who only knows scummy married persons be entitled to strike down all marriage? I don't support polygamy, but just see it as inevitable.

It sure seems to be a better solution for government to get out of the marriage business, make everything a civil union with a contract. And let whatever religious affiliation one has dictate what conjugal bonds a person or persons enjoy.

Please. That is not the legal argument why they shouldn't get it. It is the reason why you will not see a massive social movement in support of polygamy.

[SoonerCoug]

Were you ever NOT an apostate? This is the first I've heard.

SoonerCoug's Church resume:

1) Seminary graduate and teachers quorum president.
2) Invited to speak in stake conference as a teenager. I was asked to choose a topic from the For the Strength of Youth Pamphlet. I thought about speaking on masturbation but instead chose friendship.
3) Gordon B. Hinckley scholar.
4) Great nephew of Spencer W. Kimball and 1st cousin once removed of President Eyring.
5) Served a 2-year mission but never intentionally converted anyone. I did inadvertently convert a few.
6) Assistant to the president for 6 months.
7) Elders quorum presidency in 2003.
8) Primary pianist for about a decade.
9) Started going inactive around 2010 but really sealed the deal in 2012.

I should also say that I was a skeptic long before number 1. I was mostly just playing along. Perhaps I was also purposely blind, as Paul Haggis discusses in this interview. Scientology is obviously more extreme than Mormonism in many ways, but there are certain common features with Mormonism and also religion in general: (Church discipline of dissenters, lack of freedom of speech, belief in the absurd.)

Fast forward to around 3:45. For Haggis, it started with a Prop 8 issue. I think this discussion is quite interesting.

At 6:10 he talks about being purposely blind

At 9:45 he talks about belief in the absurd and why he played along. This is also a good discussion about systems of belief, people being within a fortress and not looking out, not willing to undergo investigation or take criticism, squashing dissent, and believing that the world is out to get them.

[Uncle Ted]

Except polygamy strays much, much farther away from the definition of marriage than gay marriage. At least with gay marriage it is between two individuals regardless of gender.

It seems pretty easy to change the definition to include polygamy. Let's see, using your words above:

Marriage it is between N individuals regardless of gender. Where N is two or more.

It doesn't seem to stray "much, much farther" to me.

I assume that benefits that heterosexual marriage conveys to society applies equally to gay marriage. The same can't be said of polygamy especially in light of the massive amount of public assistance that is consumed by the likes of the degenerates in Colorado City.

That isn't a problem of polygamy but of social welfare laws. Are they breaking any current laws if a "single mother" collects welfare even if that single mother happens to be cohabiting with a man that has other women cohabiting with him? It seems they found a loophole. The government should change the welfare laws to fix the loopholes if it is a valid problem.

It seems the government should just stop trying to regulate marriage and requiring marriage licenses. Of course, with the cohabitation ruling I don't see a lot of incentive for someone to pay the government to issue them a piece a paper that declares they are married other than for religious reasons. If their god thinks they are married then apparently that is good enough for them.

[Uncle Ted]

Please. That is not the legal argument why they shouldn't get it. It is the reason why you will not see a massive social movement in support of polygamy.

While polygamy may not be as massive social movement it seems still significant. It is legal and practiced in lots of countries. Heck, even our current president's father was a polygamist.

Besides it doesn't matter if there is a massive social movement or not. Two thirds of the people of Utah voted to define marriage as between a man and a woman but one judge ruled that wasn't constitutional. It seems it would only take a small social movement.

[Jeff Lebowski]

While polygamy may not be as massive social movement it seems still significant. It is legal and practiced in lots of countries. Heck, even our current president's father was a polygamist.

Besides it doesn't matter if there is a massive social movement or not. Two thirds of the people of Utah voted to define marriage as between a man and a woman but one judge ruled that wasn't constitutional. It seems it would only take a small social movement.

I don't see the legal argument being as strong either. So they have a more difficult battle on both fronts.

But who knows? Time will tell.