Nearly 120 years ago, the federal government required marriage discrimination in the proposed Utah state constitution as a condition to becoming a state.
For 40 years the federal government had persecuted the people of Utah territory, including jailing polygamists, banning them from voting and holding public office, and preventing them from serving on juries. And over the years, many challenges to the constitutionality of this discrimination were heard and rejected by the federal courts.
In more recent years, the question of same-sex marriage arose. Utah joined other states in banning same-sex marriage by amending their state constitution. This was an extension of, and perfectly in harmony with, the discrimination that the federal government required for Utah's statehood, discrimination that has been repeatedly upheld in court battles over more than a century.
Now a federal judge has determined that this latest discrimination violates the U.S. Constitution. The appeals will ultimately lead to the U.S. Supreme Court making a final decision. And if the ruling is upheld, will the polygamists in Utah and other states then have the precedent they require to reverse 120 years of marriage discrimination against them? I should think so.
I wonder how many in the LGBT community and those who support them will, in turn, support the polygamists in their fight for marriage equality.
- In our opinion: Perry indictment a concern
- Carmen Rasmusen Herbert: Families battling...
- Scandals hiding in plain sight
- Mary Barker: The real 'Hunger Games' —...
- Charles Krauthammer: The role of a great...
- Jay Evensen: Marijuana acceptance will lead...
- Letter: Irreparable damage
- Michael Gerson: No time to lead from behind
- Mary Barker: The real 'Hunger Games'... 81
- Robert Bennett: Contrary to Krugman,... 61
- Letter: Utah's birthright 47
- In our opinion: Perry indictment a concern 47
- In our opinion: Avoid blurring the line... 46
- Letter: Irreparable damage 44
- Join the discussion: Why is young adult... 42
- Michael Gerson: Rand Paul's bogus outreach 37