Sister Wives lawsuit a partial win for polygamists

[Plasmaball]

'Sister Wives' case: Judge strikes down part of Utah polygamy law - CNN.com

The link is pretty basic, but it includes a link to the court opinion. The pertient info that the ban on polygamy was upheld, but the ban on multi partner relationships was overturned. The opinion is interesting. First, it notes the County Attorney and State didn't really respond, which strikes me as curious.

Secondly, and more importantly imo, the polygammy ban was allowed to stand mainly on historical grounds, which strikes me as bogus considering emerging judical views of same sex marriag. Thirdly, and imo even more bogus, is the court found no "rational relationship" between a legit govt function and a ban on mulitple partner cohabitation ... or Sister Wives setups.

Having lived for for years near sister wive setups in Western Wyo, these relationships entail under age girls being coerced; under age males "run off" so as to reduce competition for females; and the pursuit of higher education being diminished. However, if the govt cannot, or will not, prove the rational relationship between the law and deterring the societal harm, then the law should fall.

It is for the reasons you state that polygamy should be banned. A rational reason can be given. Harm can be proven. As you said, polygamy too often leads to underaged brides and the oppression of women.


The court ruling basically says you can shag as many chicks under one roof as you like. You just can't marry them all.

Yet the law was struck down, interesting.

By the way, harm is only demonstrated if polygamy is in a manner that would be considered to be discrimination under current law. If women can have as many husbands as men can have wives there is absolutely no evidence that it is harmful.

It was kinda not but sorta struck down.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It is for the reasons you state that polygamy should be banned. A rational reason can be given. Harm can be proven. As you said, polygamy too often leads to underaged brides and the oppression of women.


The court ruling basically says you can shag as many chicks under one roof as you like. You just can't marry them all.

Yet the law was struck down, interesting.

By the way, harm is only demonstrated if polygamy is in a manner that would be considered to be discrimination under current law. If women can have as many husbands as men can have wives there is absolutely no evidence that it is harmful.

It was kinda not but sorta struck down.

It was completely struck down, but thanks for proving you didn't read the decision.

FYI, the law that was struck down defined bigamy as being married and cohabiting with another woman even if you didn't try to get a marriage license. Feel free to show me which part of that law survived the judge's ruling.

 

[Plasmaball]

Yet the law was struck down, interesting.

By the way, harm is only demonstrated if polygamy is in a manner that would be considered to be discrimination under current law. If women can have as many husbands as men can have wives there is absolutely no evidence that it is harmful.

It was kinda not but sorta struck down.

It was completely struck down, but thanks for proving you didn't read the decision.

FYI, the law that was struck down defined bigamy as being married and cohabiting with another woman even if you didn't try to get a marriage license. Feel free to show me which part of that law survived the judge's ruling.

You still cant marry many partners. That part of the law still stands.

End conversation

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It was kinda not but sorta struck down.

It was completely struck down, but thanks for proving you didn't read the decision.

FYI, the law that was struck down defined bigamy as being married and cohabiting with another woman even if you didn't try to get a marriage license. Feel free to show me which part of that law survived the judge's ruling.

You still cant marry many partners. That part of the law still stands.

End conversation over...

Really?

76-7-101. Bigamy -- Defense.
(1) A person is guilty of bigamy when, knowing he has a husband or wife or knowing the other person has a husband or wife, the person purports to marry another person or cohabits with another person.
(2) Bigamy is a felony of the third degree.
(3) It shall be a defense to bigamy that the accused reasonably believed he and the other person were legally eligible to remarry.

http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE76/htm/76_07_010100.htm

Funny, I don't see anything that even approaches what you said there, maybe you can point it out.

 

[Ava]

Polygamy will eventually become legal in the U.S. ......

Yes, I have said that if gay marriage becomes legal, next will be polygamy. I do love the Reality show, Sister Wives, but there is much more to consider and this article covers all sides:

SNIPS:



Marriage, as its ultramodern critics would like to say, is indeed about choosing one’s partner, and about freedom in a society that values freedom. But that’s not the only thing it is about.

As the Supreme Court justices who unanimously decided Reynolds in 1878 understood, marriage is also about sustaining the conditions in which freedom can thrive. Polygamy in all its forms is a recipe for social structures that inhibit and ultimately undermine social freedom and democracy. A hard-won lesson of Western history is that genuine democratic self-rule begins at the hearth of the monogamous family.

When Kurtz wrote his piece, the debate over polygamy was just starting to bubble up in no small part because of the premiere of the HBO series Big Love which ran from 2006 to 2011.

The show contrasted the “good polygamy” of its protagonist Bill Hendrickson, an upwardly mobile Viagra-popping entrepreneur who just happened to have three highly attractive wives with the “bad polygamy” of the cult living in a remote compound dominated by an evil “prophet” and his son, a repressed homosexual.

If one ignores the religious dimensions of the argument between the LDS church and fundamentalist Mormons that was part of the subtext, the series presented the choice of plural marriage as one that ought to be encompassed by the promise of American liberty.

Much more:

?Big Love? Vindicated: Polygamy and Privacy « Commentary Magazine

 

[Plasmaball]

It was completely struck down, but thanks for proving you didn't read the decision.

FYI, the law that was struck down defined bigamy as being married and cohabiting with another woman even if you didn't try to get a marriage license. Feel free to show me which part of that law survived the judge's ruling.

You still cant marry many partners. That part of the law still stands.

End conversation over...

Really?

76-7-101. Bigamy -- Defense.
(1) A person is guilty of bigamy when, knowing he has a husband or wife or knowing the other person has a husband or wife, the person purports to marry another person or cohabits with another person.
(2) Bigamy is a felony of the third degree.
(3) It shall be a defense to bigamy that the accused reasonably believed he and the other person were legally eligible to remarry.

http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE76/htm/76_07_010100.htm

Funny, I don't see anything that even approaches what you said there, maybe you can point it out.

Good luck...what I posted is all the engaging you will get from now on. I am no longer interested in playing your games...

 

[Katzndogz]

Of course polygamy will be legalized. Once a culture starts down the road of degeneracy it goes all the way to the end.

Each downward level is just so reasonable. Taken in light of the previous level it's not so bad.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Interesting that no one who said this would never happen is here to explain why it is.

You obviously didn't read the ruling, or even the OP's summary of it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You still cant marry many partners. That part of the law still stands.

End conversation over...

Really?

76-7-101. Bigamy -- Defense.
(1) A person is guilty of bigamy when, knowing he has a husband or wife or knowing the other person has a husband or wife, the person purports to marry another person or cohabits with another person.
(2) Bigamy is a felony of the third degree.
(3) It shall be a defense to bigamy that the accused reasonably believed he and the other person were legally eligible to remarry.

http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE76/htm/76_07_010100.htm

Funny, I don't see anything that even approaches what you said there, maybe you can point it out.

Good luck...what I posted is all the engaging you will get from now on. I am no longer interested in playing your games...

The specific law that was challenged is 76-7-101. For some obscure reason you think the fact that the judge didn't strike down other laws, which were not part of the lawsuit, proves something. I guess that means that when SCOTUS struck down laws that restrict abortion in Roe v Wade that they really didn't because they didn't say anything about laws that made adultery illegal.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Interesting that no one who said this would never happen is here to explain why it is.

You obviously didn't read the ruling, or even the OP's summary of it.

I posted a thread about the ruling on Friday, that gave me the whole weekend to read about it, unlike you. Not only did I read the ruling, I read multiple pages of legal analysis of it, and its impact, which is almost non existent because Utah is the only state that makes it a felony to be married and then pretend to marry someone else without lying to the state about anything.

You, however, are free to pretend you know more about it than I do, even though you didn't know about it until today.

 

[Politico]

The court ruling basically says you can shag as many chicks under one roof as you like. You just can't marry them all.

That already happens now. Just ask Charlie Sheen.

The problem with polygamy is it offends the progressive that think their culture is inherently better than that of the wogs who marry more than one person.

Their culture is already includes alternative lifestyles. Jeez people are whiny bitches. You can't open the door to this progressive crap and then pick and choose.

 

[ClosedCaption]

The problem with polygamy is it offends the progressive that think their culture is inherently better than that of the wogs who marry more than one person.

So your problem with Polygamy is that liberals are offended by it huh?

I always have a problem when idiots use the government to impose their religious beliefs on others.

And that has nothing to do with liberals schitzo

 

[novasteve]

No slippery slope eh libs?

Opinion: It's time to reconsider polygamy - CNN.com

 

[novasteve]

It's a great time to be a degenerate!

 

[BobPlumb]

Why not? Consenting adults..........

 

[novasteve]

Libfags said this wouldn't happen. Did they lie again? Incest is next . Consenting adults..

 

[SteadyMercury]

USMB Troll-In-Chief is a trollin...

 

[novasteve]

How am I trolling? Is the article fake? You liberals lied. You said this wouldn't happen. When presented with this what do you do ? You attack me

 

[wavingrl]

one person's opinion. I scanned the article very quickly.

Perhaps TLC's polygamist family--The Browns/Kody et al --are not the best example of polygamy. Relationships--difficult with 2 people and adding more--I wouldn't consider this lifestyle.

I don't understand much about the recent legislation--? 'in Utah--still one marriage license but cohabitation of other adults decriminalized?' I really do wonder how the 4 families have survived financially--the TLC show seems to be the main means of income. 4 rather large homes and several children already enrolled in college.

Haven't checked GA law--assume it will be decades or longer until this is a priority.

<Morals-based legislation has been unconstitutional since 2003's Lawrence v. Texas, and so we cannot just continue ignoring the polygamists' clamor for acceptance. But the practical policy solution -- awarding those formerly banned relationships rights, and with those rights accompanying duties and responsibilities, which will be monitored -- was only handed down last summer.

A clean-cut version of American polygamy does not currently exist, but under Windsor, perhaps, we could actually build it.
>

 

[JakeStarkey]

We will see how it turns out.