Reader comments
Polygamists are urged to make public statement
40 comments | Read story
Ed H | 6:43 a.m. June 19, 2008
So if I get this correct our Attorney General is asking polygamist groups to
declare they will not condone "child bride" marriages. Isn't
that like the Chief of Police asking robbers to swear off doing burglaries.
Last I read, in the Utah Constitution, plural marriage was against the law. Not
just the child bride part. Hey Utah Attorney General, how about doing all of
your job? Instead of urging criminals to forgo some of their criminal acts, how
about putting them on notice that you will prosecute all of their criminal acts?
L. G. KIRKPATRICK | 7:17 a.m. June 19, 2008
To Ed H | 6:43 a.m. June 19, 2008
Mr. Ed, it's a time-honored, strategic, and viable tactic to choose one's battles. There's nothing useful or grand or noble in engaging the enemy in a battle that cannot be won. Any attack on multiple simultaneous marriages is going to eventually wend its way to the SCOTUS, and faces the likely prospect of being knocked down as unconstitutional. Is that what you want? If so, "time's a-wastin'; let's git 'her done"!
Mr. Ed, it's a time-honored, strategic, and viable tactic to choose one's battles. There's nothing useful or grand or noble in engaging the enemy in a battle that cannot be won. Any attack on multiple simultaneous marriages is going to eventually wend its way to the SCOTUS, and faces the likely prospect of being knocked down as unconstitutional. Is that what you want? If so, "time's a-wastin'; let's git 'her done"!
BC | 8:14 a.m. June 19, 2008
To Ed H - It is harder to prosecute polygamists than it would seem. Since they
are not married "under law" they are not in violation of the law. The
argument could be made that the women are just mistresses and we know that
society unfortunately doesn't have a problem with a man having multiple
mistresses. Thus, the Attorney General is limited on what claims he can pursue.
Comments continue below
BTW | 8:30 a.m. June 19, 2008
Mr AG, what other laws (beside polygamy) are you not enforcing?
I'm sure the criminal element would like to know which other laws are "freebies".
I'm sure the criminal element would like to know which other laws are "freebies".
Is that what you want? | 8:38 a.m. June 19, 2008
What we want, Mr Kirkpatrick, is the law enforced.
If the Court overturns anti-polygamy laws then we can all obey the new law and move on.
What we do not want, Mr Kirkpatrick, is tens of thousands of people ignoring the law in broad daylight.
What we do not want, Mr Kirkpatrick, is an attorney general sworn to uphold (ALL) the law picking and choosing not to enforce laws.
What we do not want, Mr Kirkpatrick, is a subclass of children (not just lost boys and child brides, ALL children of illegal polygamy) living outside the protection of the law.
Is that clear?
Is that really too much to ask?
If the Court overturns anti-polygamy laws then we can all obey the new law and move on.
What we do not want, Mr Kirkpatrick, is tens of thousands of people ignoring the law in broad daylight.
What we do not want, Mr Kirkpatrick, is an attorney general sworn to uphold (ALL) the law picking and choosing not to enforce laws.
What we do not want, Mr Kirkpatrick, is a subclass of children (not just lost boys and child brides, ALL children of illegal polygamy) living outside the protection of the law.
Is that clear?
Is that really too much to ask?
Technicalities... | 8:56 a.m. June 19, 2008
This "declaration" changes exactly NOTHING, for the following
reasons:
1. It's very carefylly worded so that if the jurisdiction doesn't have a low enough age limit to accommodate the intended marriage, they'll just haul the girl to a different jurisdiction with a lower age limit.
2. As stated in the article, the age limit law only applies to LEGAL marriages. They can still "spiritually marry" any girl at any age they darn well please.
Let's all hope our prosecutors and police are smart enough to realize that, since such "spiritual marriages" aren't legal, then any sexual contact therein is NOT protected by marriage, and is therefore subject to statutory rape prosecution. Statutory rape doesn't care about consent of the minor, it only cares about age. Prosecuting older men who take girls under the age of 18 as "spiritual" second, third, fourth (etc) wives for statutory rape is the best way to eradicate this practice for good.
1. It's very carefylly worded so that if the jurisdiction doesn't have a low enough age limit to accommodate the intended marriage, they'll just haul the girl to a different jurisdiction with a lower age limit.
2. As stated in the article, the age limit law only applies to LEGAL marriages. They can still "spiritually marry" any girl at any age they darn well please.
Let's all hope our prosecutors and police are smart enough to realize that, since such "spiritual marriages" aren't legal, then any sexual contact therein is NOT protected by marriage, and is therefore subject to statutory rape prosecution. Statutory rape doesn't care about consent of the minor, it only cares about age. Prosecuting older men who take girls under the age of 18 as "spiritual" second, third, fourth (etc) wives for statutory rape is the best way to eradicate this practice for good.
so | 9:09 a.m. June 19, 2008
We hope that all polygamists will reexamine their policies and realize that
their practices have devolved downward to the point of denying their people
basic rights.
1. Choice of who to marry
2. Choice of when to marry...age 18 or above if at all possible
3. Choice to continue education beyond eighth grade.
4. Freedom of fear that they will be ousted if they are a boy and make a few mistakes. They should be kept, fed and educated at least until they can be on their own.
5. Freedom for girls to NOT marry old men
1. Choice of who to marry
2. Choice of when to marry...age 18 or above if at all possible
3. Choice to continue education beyond eighth grade.
4. Freedom of fear that they will be ousted if they are a boy and make a few mistakes. They should be kept, fed and educated at least until they can be on their own.
5. Freedom for girls to NOT marry old men
DC | 10:08 a.m. June 19, 2008
To Ed H
Seems to me that BC is right, the polygamists don't appear to be breaking any law, because they do not avail themselves of the laws of the state to marry, and therefore are not married as a matter of law, even if they believe they are married in the only way that matters to them, which is under their religion. Now, the state could try to write a law (or interpret existing common-law marriage principles) to ban these multiple relationships in addition to actual multiple marriages, but I'm not sure how you could do that without sweeping in many relationships from the broader society that -- while many of us might want to discourage them strongly -- few people anymore think ought to be actually illegal. I noticed, though, that the article says the Utah AG's office does bring polygamy charges when it can do that in conjunction with other sex crime charges, so perhaps BC and I are wrong. Does anyone know if the AG does in fact do that, and, if so, on what theory?
Seems to me that BC is right, the polygamists don't appear to be breaking any law, because they do not avail themselves of the laws of the state to marry, and therefore are not married as a matter of law, even if they believe they are married in the only way that matters to them, which is under their religion. Now, the state could try to write a law (or interpret existing common-law marriage principles) to ban these multiple relationships in addition to actual multiple marriages, but I'm not sure how you could do that without sweeping in many relationships from the broader society that -- while many of us might want to discourage them strongly -- few people anymore think ought to be actually illegal. I noticed, though, that the article says the Utah AG's office does bring polygamy charges when it can do that in conjunction with other sex crime charges, so perhaps BC and I are wrong. Does anyone know if the AG does in fact do that, and, if so, on what theory?
RL | 10:10 a.m. June 19, 2008
Talk about missing the point from the beginning! They are breaking the law by
being polygamists in the first place. It's amazing how everyone so easily
gets off onto tangents that smoke screen the original problem. If they
weren't breaking the law in the first place, they wouldn't have
underage marriages, because that's against the law... as is polygamy! They
deserve due process in court, as everyone accused of crimes. But the fact still
remains they are breaking the law and should therefore be prosecuted for that.
Forget these la-mo public promises. They mean nothing coming from people who
aren't living the law of the land. Show you are real men and choose one
wife, stick with her, and leave the others alone OR go to jail.
John Lambert | 10:27 a.m. June 19, 2008
Actually polygamists in theory fulfill all the rules for violating the law.
The main problem is that since the people involved all support it, it is hard to
get enough evidence to convict. Even with statutory rape cases involving
underage brides, if the victim does not want to testify the state has a very
hard case.
Actually though, I do want to see a new Atorney General in Utah. Even if I normally disagree with Ed's hate mongering, in this case he does have a point. I want this case forced to the supreme court of the United States. I do not know which way it will come down, but that way we will hopefully see polygamist who fully justify themselves on the Bible and maybe even Islamic and Homong polygamists come out of the woodwork. Maybe them people will finally realize that most polygamists in the US neither live in Utah nor justify their actions based on Doctrine and Covenants 132. The House of Yahweh people in Abilene clearly do not, although it is not clear if they actually practice polygamy.
Actually though, I do want to see a new Atorney General in Utah. Even if I normally disagree with Ed's hate mongering, in this case he does have a point. I want this case forced to the supreme court of the United States. I do not know which way it will come down, but that way we will hopefully see polygamist who fully justify themselves on the Bible and maybe even Islamic and Homong polygamists come out of the woodwork. Maybe them people will finally realize that most polygamists in the US neither live in Utah nor justify their actions based on Doctrine and Covenants 132. The House of Yahweh people in Abilene clearly do not, although it is not clear if they actually practice polygamy.
DC | 10:40 a.m. June 19, 2008
To L.G. Kirkpatrick
I'm not sure you're right when you say that the Supreme Court would be likely to strike down anti-multiple-marriage laws as unconstitutional. The current court has been pretty respectful of states' rights generally. Yes, the court has in recent years upheld and even expanded precedents limiting the state's ability to regulate consensual sexual activity among adults. Marriage is a different thing, though, and states could argue it has far broader legal and social implications than merely shacking up (not least because marriage is a grant of rights from the state) and is therefore appropriate for state limitation provided the regulation is not arbitrary. My bet would be that the current court would uphold state laws banning polygamy (and gay marriage, for that matter) while striking down laws that tried to regulate sexual activity outside of marriage (including Texas's law defining an "informal" marriage that was specifically aimed at the FLDS in Eldorado). So I think Texas's anti-bigamy statute is safe, but so are the polygamists because they aren't violating that statute -- they're violating the "informal" marriage statute which probably isn't constitutional.
I'm not sure you're right when you say that the Supreme Court would be likely to strike down anti-multiple-marriage laws as unconstitutional. The current court has been pretty respectful of states' rights generally. Yes, the court has in recent years upheld and even expanded precedents limiting the state's ability to regulate consensual sexual activity among adults. Marriage is a different thing, though, and states could argue it has far broader legal and social implications than merely shacking up (not least because marriage is a grant of rights from the state) and is therefore appropriate for state limitation provided the regulation is not arbitrary. My bet would be that the current court would uphold state laws banning polygamy (and gay marriage, for that matter) while striking down laws that tried to regulate sexual activity outside of marriage (including Texas's law defining an "informal" marriage that was specifically aimed at the FLDS in Eldorado). So I think Texas's anti-bigamy statute is safe, but so are the polygamists because they aren't violating that statute -- they're violating the "informal" marriage statute which probably isn't constitutional.
DC | 10:55 a.m. June 19, 2008
To RL
As BC and I have noted above, it doesn't seem on the face of it that the polygamists *are* breaking the law unless, of course, the "spiritual" bride is underage. They seem to be pretty careful about structuring their relationships to comply with the limitations on multiple legal marriages. I was struck, for example, when Larry King had a number of FLDS on his show one evening and when he asked one of them how long she had been married to the father of her children she immediately said "We're not married." I thought "That's got to be tough, to say in front of millions of people that you're not married to the man who has fathered your children, when you believe that sex outside of marriage is a mortal sin and you belive you are married in the only way that counts, but you know that you're not married under the law and can't be." Her willingness to immediately say that seemed to show that they have thought at least that part of it through pretty carefully to try to comply with the law.
As BC and I have noted above, it doesn't seem on the face of it that the polygamists *are* breaking the law unless, of course, the "spiritual" bride is underage. They seem to be pretty careful about structuring their relationships to comply with the limitations on multiple legal marriages. I was struck, for example, when Larry King had a number of FLDS on his show one evening and when he asked one of them how long she had been married to the father of her children she immediately said "We're not married." I thought "That's got to be tough, to say in front of millions of people that you're not married to the man who has fathered your children, when you believe that sex outside of marriage is a mortal sin and you belive you are married in the only way that counts, but you know that you're not married under the law and can't be." Her willingness to immediately say that seemed to show that they have thought at least that part of it through pretty carefully to try to comply with the law.
to rl | 11:00 a.m. June 19, 2008
Have you ever broken the speed limit or tasted a grape in the grocery store?
Then you are breaking the law. The issue becomes, which is the more important
problem to solve: Underage marriage and abused spouses not coming forward or
defining marriage which already seems to be the case with legal gay marriage
already acceptable in a couple of states? While you seem against polygamy, you
ignore that adultery is also illegal but takes place with nary a glance and no
public outcry to convict those guilty.
DC | 11:19 a.m. June 19, 2008
To John Lambert
Eureka! Someone on the board who seems pretty well informed! But your post left me tantalized -- *how* is it that the polygamists fulfill all the rules for violating the law, even in theory? I guess there must be some way because the Leavitts did manage to convict Tom Green of polygamy, and I simply never followed the issue closely enough to know what the legal theory was. Is it some sort of common-law marriage approach, that could in principle apply to other relationships (such as the inner-city promiscuity frequently cited on this blog) except that they usually aren't stable enough to actually result in a marriage under common law? Obviously I ought to just research it myself, but life is short and you seem like someone who would know.
Eureka! Someone on the board who seems pretty well informed! But your post left me tantalized -- *how* is it that the polygamists fulfill all the rules for violating the law, even in theory? I guess there must be some way because the Leavitts did manage to convict Tom Green of polygamy, and I simply never followed the issue closely enough to know what the legal theory was. Is it some sort of common-law marriage approach, that could in principle apply to other relationships (such as the inner-city promiscuity frequently cited on this blog) except that they usually aren't stable enough to actually result in a marriage under common law? Obviously I ought to just research it myself, but life is short and you seem like someone who would know.
All rolled Up | 11:33 a.m. June 19, 2008
This is a case of rolling up all polgyamists into one big group. I see
absolutely NO REASON any group of people has to come out and say anything
because some other group is a bunch of idiots.
I belong to an INDEPENDENT Baptist church. We believe in Psalms 149:3 Let them praise his name in the dance: let them sing praises unto him with the timbrel and harp. Thus, in my church, we are allowed to dance.
Just because other Baptist churches have come out and said "WE DON"T DANCE" is no reason for my church to make some official, public declaration saying "WE DANCE".
If your group is NOT doing anything WRONG, coming out and yelling "HEY, WE AREN'T DOING THAT JUNK SOMEONE ELSE IS!" should not be necessary.
I belong to an INDEPENDENT Baptist church. We believe in Psalms 149:3 Let them praise his name in the dance: let them sing praises unto him with the timbrel and harp. Thus, in my church, we are allowed to dance.
Just because other Baptist churches have come out and said "WE DON"T DANCE" is no reason for my church to make some official, public declaration saying "WE DANCE".
If your group is NOT doing anything WRONG, coming out and yelling "HEY, WE AREN'T DOING THAT JUNK SOMEONE ELSE IS!" should not be necessary.
Wendy | 11:39 a.m. June 19, 2008
In Texas they have common law marriage. The polygamists are guilty of breaking
the law. They choice to break the law. Since the law enforcement now has the
Bishop's list, they can prove polygamy.Thus, common law marriage. The
polygamist are teaching their children that it is fine to break the law.
Polygamist should move to another country where it is acceptable.
Legalize | 12:02 p.m. June 19, 2008
If we're going to legalize gay marriage, and I think we are, maybe we will
have to re-think this issue.
My state representative in AZ recently wrote me that she will not support any ban on gay marriage, nor will she support a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to one man and one woman (she's a Jewish Democrat, for anyone who cares) because "Arizonans are independment minded people who won't allow the government to interfere with people's private lives."
If that is so, perhaps we should just legalize polygamy--it a a marriage practiced in many cultures all over the world, including by the Episcopal father of a Nigerian chieftan friend of mine.
The issue of polygamy is NOT the same as the issue of forced marriages, child brides, etc. Maybe we should just recognize that and put our resources to fighting the under-the-age-of-consent practices.
The FLDS have gotten away with this because these marriages are NOT legal marriages, but "spiritual" ones, which can't effectively be regulated by law unless you want to regulate ALL sexual relationships of underage girls everywhere--something that many segments of society would never support and the prosecution of which would cost the national debt and more.
My state representative in AZ recently wrote me that she will not support any ban on gay marriage, nor will she support a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to one man and one woman (she's a Jewish Democrat, for anyone who cares) because "Arizonans are independment minded people who won't allow the government to interfere with people's private lives."
If that is so, perhaps we should just legalize polygamy--it a a marriage practiced in many cultures all over the world, including by the Episcopal father of a Nigerian chieftan friend of mine.
The issue of polygamy is NOT the same as the issue of forced marriages, child brides, etc. Maybe we should just recognize that and put our resources to fighting the under-the-age-of-consent practices.
The FLDS have gotten away with this because these marriages are NOT legal marriages, but "spiritual" ones, which can't effectively be regulated by law unless you want to regulate ALL sexual relationships of underage girls everywhere--something that many segments of society would never support and the prosecution of which would cost the national debt and more.
Isn't that sweet | 12:03 p.m. June 19, 2008
Well, well, it appears that the so called "Safety Net" committee and
Principle Voices are advocating that all Mormon Fundamentalists bow down to
man's new marriage age laws (they keep changing them higher and higher), in
contrast to God's laws and allowances as found in the Bible and other
scriptures (i.e. menses/puberty). Just as the LDS did in bowing down to the
state and changing its doctrine advocating plural marriage/polygamy. Step by
step, with religious liberties being sacrificed to the State. State OVER
Church.
Gays have far more rights than Mormon Fundamentalists do.
Gays have far more rights than Mormon Fundamentalists do.
Gal50 | 12:44 p.m. June 19, 2008
While the marriage rules are expanding to include gay marriage, I'm not
sure the Supreme Court will extend them to polygamy. Scientists can prove that
homosexuality is an occurrence of nature, therefore it is apparent that
homosexuals are entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals. The idea of civil
unions come across as a "separate but equal is inherently unequal"
idea.
Polygamy seems to come with a lot of other criminal behavior. It seems that some of the religions that practice polygamy feel they are above the law in many matters whereas homosexual men appear to be less likely to engage in criminal behavior than heterosexual men.
There has been extensive adverse publicity regarding polygamy. Two anti-polygamy books are now on the New York Times best seller lists and there are plans to produce two anti-polygamy movies. The public has witnessed statutory rape of polygamous girls, forced marriage of girls to old men, boys kicked out of their families for minor infractions, brainwashing or extreme indoctrination, victims denied their day in court due to pressure from polygamist members, women and children reassigned to new men and family members prohibited from associating with other family members who have abandoned polygamy.
Polygamy seems to come with a lot of other criminal behavior. It seems that some of the religions that practice polygamy feel they are above the law in many matters whereas homosexual men appear to be less likely to engage in criminal behavior than heterosexual men.
There has been extensive adverse publicity regarding polygamy. Two anti-polygamy books are now on the New York Times best seller lists and there are plans to produce two anti-polygamy movies. The public has witnessed statutory rape of polygamous girls, forced marriage of girls to old men, boys kicked out of their families for minor infractions, brainwashing or extreme indoctrination, victims denied their day in court due to pressure from polygamist members, women and children reassigned to new men and family members prohibited from associating with other family members who have abandoned polygamy.
Polygamy is probably legal | 1:07 p.m. June 19, 2008
Most likely polygamy isn't illegeal - the State just won't give them
the chance to prove it. There maybe laws and the books - but those laws are
unconsitutional. There are still laws on the books against gay sex, but
it's legal because the have been ruled unconsitutional.
No one wants to prosecute polygamy because they know it is more than likely that the Supreme Court will find the laws unconsitutional. (Yes, there was an old decision, but recently the Court held that they would probably overturn polygamy laws).
That don't want people to be free - so the just don't prosecute it. That keeps people in fear and allows others to call them criminals. This is unfair and unethical.
By the way, I heard people say it's illegeal unless the Supreme Court overrules it. That's not how it works.
I do hope Texas does prosecute for polygamy - that way the law will be overturned.
No one wants to prosecute polygamy because they know it is more than likely that the Supreme Court will find the laws unconsitutional. (Yes, there was an old decision, but recently the Court held that they would probably overturn polygamy laws).
That don't want people to be free - so the just don't prosecute it. That keeps people in fear and allows others to call them criminals. This is unfair and unethical.
By the way, I heard people say it's illegeal unless the Supreme Court overrules it. That's not how it works.
I do hope Texas does prosecute for polygamy - that way the law will be overturned.
Bruce | 1:16 p.m. June 19, 2008
The great spiritual leaders of history have pretty much all demonstrated that
when God's law conflicts with man's law...God's law is to be
obeyed.
You will never legislate or persecute plural marriage out of existance. It cannot be done. It only makes personal convictions stonger.
If the concern of underage marriage is removed, what would be the problem with it being legal?
Those too weak to live higher laws should stop persecuting those that aren't.
You will never legislate or persecute plural marriage out of existance. It cannot be done. It only makes personal convictions stonger.
If the concern of underage marriage is removed, what would be the problem with it being legal?
Those too weak to live higher laws should stop persecuting those that aren't.
Joan | 1:20 p.m. June 19, 2008
I wonder which of these blogs are written by polygamists? Another question I
have wondered for a long time... When a polygamist wife divorces, does she have
to divorce the other wifes too? Oh yeah, I forgot, they are all so darned
happy, they would never divorce their man.
dream on, Gal50 | 1:41 p.m. June 19, 2008
>>Scientists can prove that homosexuality is an occurrence of nature,
therefore it is apparent that homosexuals are entitled to the same rights as
heterosexuals. <<
so...
the Constitution guarantees you the right to do anything animals do?
slaughter competitors?
cannibalism?
rape?
eat your own young?
abandon your young?
mate with your own children?
mate with siblings?
Hey Judge! I saw my dog do it! It must be OK!
Wild Kingdom meets James Madison.
get real,
please.
so...
the Constitution guarantees you the right to do anything animals do?
slaughter competitors?
cannibalism?
rape?
eat your own young?
abandon your young?
mate with your own children?
mate with siblings?
Hey Judge! I saw my dog do it! It must be OK!
Wild Kingdom meets James Madison.
get real,
please.
DC | 1:50 p.m. June 19, 2008
To Gal50
I'm not persuaded by your distinction between gay marriage and polygamy, as far as what the law's attitude ought to be. I'm not 100% sure what you meant by the statement "science can prove homosexuality occurs in nature". If you meant that some species of animals engage in homosexual activity -- well, many species engage in essentially polygamous activity, too. I don't think either fact should influence human law. If you meant that homosexual behavior in humans has been scientifically proven to be genetically determined, that is at best a wildly premature statement. We have interesting indications of perhaps some genetic predisposition, not yet anything more. From the standpoint of nature and history, there would seem to be at least as much support for polygamous human relationships as homosexual ones.
Turning to your litany of the ills of polygamy, they sound more like the ills of a closed society, not of polygamy itself. They don't arise in all polygamous groups. Moreover, there have been many strictly regulated groups with virtually all the ills you describe, except they practiced monogamy. No one blamed monogamy for their problems, or proposed to outlaw it.
I'm not persuaded by your distinction between gay marriage and polygamy, as far as what the law's attitude ought to be. I'm not 100% sure what you meant by the statement "science can prove homosexuality occurs in nature". If you meant that some species of animals engage in homosexual activity -- well, many species engage in essentially polygamous activity, too. I don't think either fact should influence human law. If you meant that homosexual behavior in humans has been scientifically proven to be genetically determined, that is at best a wildly premature statement. We have interesting indications of perhaps some genetic predisposition, not yet anything more. From the standpoint of nature and history, there would seem to be at least as much support for polygamous human relationships as homosexual ones.
Turning to your litany of the ills of polygamy, they sound more like the ills of a closed society, not of polygamy itself. They don't arise in all polygamous groups. Moreover, there have been many strictly regulated groups with virtually all the ills you describe, except they practiced monogamy. No one blamed monogamy for their problems, or proposed to outlaw it.
DC | 2:04 p.m. June 19, 2008
To Polygamy is Probably Legal
I sympathize with your view that the laws against polygamy seem unfair. In my ideal world, the state would grant marriage rights without discriminating against minority practices (polygamists and gays being the principal examples). Those of us who believe those ways of life are harmful (and I am one) would be free to explain that to whomever would listen and show the benefits of our beliefs through the example of our lives. But we shouldn't force those beliefs on others at the barrel of a gun.
But I think you're wrong that the Supreme Court would find a state's laws against either anti-polygamy or anti-gay-marriage statutes unconstitutional. Unless there is a future change in its composition, the court has shown great deference to a legislature's regulation of things like marriage. Bottom line: Utah and Texas shouldn't outlaw polygamy, but if they choose to the Supreme Court won't stop them.
I sympathize with your view that the laws against polygamy seem unfair. In my ideal world, the state would grant marriage rights without discriminating against minority practices (polygamists and gays being the principal examples). Those of us who believe those ways of life are harmful (and I am one) would be free to explain that to whomever would listen and show the benefits of our beliefs through the example of our lives. But we shouldn't force those beliefs on others at the barrel of a gun.
But I think you're wrong that the Supreme Court would find a state's laws against either anti-polygamy or anti-gay-marriage statutes unconstitutional. Unless there is a future change in its composition, the court has shown great deference to a legislature's regulation of things like marriage. Bottom line: Utah and Texas shouldn't outlaw polygamy, but if they choose to the Supreme Court won't stop them.
Anonymous | 2:41 p.m. June 19, 2008
How many underage girls have babies and are pregnant, I haven't seen any
numbers yet and still waiting.
DC | 2:42 p.m. June 19, 2008
Sorry for the incoherence of the second paragraph of my last post. The first
sentence of the second paragraph should of course read "I think you're
wrong that the Supreme Court would find a state's laws banning either
polygamy or gay marriage unconstitutional."
To DC and others | 2:51 p.m. June 19, 2008
I'm a male Mormon Fundamentalist with more than one wife (spiritually, that
is). I have followed the FLDS Raid closely, and 6-7 years ago, followed Tom
Green's conviction proceedings closely as well.
Tom Green was convicted for bigamy by using a combination of his legal marriages and common law marriage. His strategy was to marry each of his wives "legally" (i.e. with a marriage license), and then before he married another, to get a legal divorce. He never did commit the "crime" of bigamy which is by definition the practice of marrying legally more than one wife with the intent to deceive - usually for monetary and other gain. Each of his wives knew about the others, and consented to the spiritual/legal marriage.
The State/David Leavitt used the strategy of going back in time to when he was legally married to one wife, and then find evidence to supposedly "prove" he was "co-habiting" with another woman with whom he had been together for over 5 years to claim she was commonly married to Tom Green, and then call it "bigamy" - "married" to more than one woman at a time. One legal, the other "common law".
Tom Green was convicted for bigamy by using a combination of his legal marriages and common law marriage. His strategy was to marry each of his wives "legally" (i.e. with a marriage license), and then before he married another, to get a legal divorce. He never did commit the "crime" of bigamy which is by definition the practice of marrying legally more than one wife with the intent to deceive - usually for monetary and other gain. Each of his wives knew about the others, and consented to the spiritual/legal marriage.
The State/David Leavitt used the strategy of going back in time to when he was legally married to one wife, and then find evidence to supposedly "prove" he was "co-habiting" with another woman with whom he had been together for over 5 years to claim she was commonly married to Tom Green, and then call it "bigamy" - "married" to more than one woman at a time. One legal, the other "common law".
To Joan | 3:04 p.m. June 19, 2008
Each of the wives are married to the husband, not to the other wives. As per
Biblical/Mormon polygny.
Jonathan - non-FLDS Mormon Fundamentalist practicing the principle
Jonathan - non-FLDS Mormon Fundamentalist practicing the principle
To DC | 3:18 p.m. June 19, 2008
Funny thing - for almost the entire world's history, there was no
"licensing" of marriages. It wasn't considered a
State's/Country's right to "grant" marriage - it was an
unalienable right of all individuals. They couple simply covenanted with each
other, with the father of the bride "giving away his daughter's
hand" (surrendering his stewardship over her), and it was done. They
usually wrote it down in the family Bible. Government wasn't involved.
Some societies set up laws prohibiting inter-racial marriages, and so in order for a couple to be married inter-racially, a special "license" was required in order for that to occur, under certain circumstances. A license is defined as "permission to do that which is otherwise illegal".
So, for the above reasons, I would not only argue that plural marriage/polygyny should not only be "de-criminalized", but marriage licenses as well. It only brings the government into a three party marriage - the man, the woman, and the government. Hmmm....it would appear that the government secretly does believe in polygamy, and just doesn't like the competition of more women (i.e. more parties to the covenant/contract).
Marriage belongs in the civil courts.
Jonathan - non-FLDS Mormon Fundamentalist practicing the principle
Some societies set up laws prohibiting inter-racial marriages, and so in order for a couple to be married inter-racially, a special "license" was required in order for that to occur, under certain circumstances. A license is defined as "permission to do that which is otherwise illegal".
So, for the above reasons, I would not only argue that plural marriage/polygyny should not only be "de-criminalized", but marriage licenses as well. It only brings the government into a three party marriage - the man, the woman, and the government. Hmmm....it would appear that the government secretly does believe in polygamy, and just doesn't like the competition of more women (i.e. more parties to the covenant/contract).
Marriage belongs in the civil courts.
Jonathan - non-FLDS Mormon Fundamentalist practicing the principle
To DC | 3:20 p.m. June 19, 2008
Obviously, you've thought long and well on this issue. However, I'm
afraid I'll disagree with you in part, not because I want it that way, but
because of the tenor of society today.
Unless the Supreme Court moves to overturn the current situation in California (and I don't think they will), California's gay marriages will almost have to be accepted, under the Constitution, by other states. If that happens, polygamy will surely follow.
As the mores of society have changed in our country, Supreme Court decisions have followed suit, eventually. Abortion is an obvious example. Gay marriage will be another one, probably followed by polygamy, partly because of immigration to this country from countries where polygamy is acceptable.
There are some practical reasons to legalize polygamy--ability to enforce age of consent being one. End of welfare abuse being another.
And to those who wonder, no, I don't live in Utah, I am neither gay nor a polygamist, and I am not FLDS.
Unless the Supreme Court moves to overturn the current situation in California (and I don't think they will), California's gay marriages will almost have to be accepted, under the Constitution, by other states. If that happens, polygamy will surely follow.
As the mores of society have changed in our country, Supreme Court decisions have followed suit, eventually. Abortion is an obvious example. Gay marriage will be another one, probably followed by polygamy, partly because of immigration to this country from countries where polygamy is acceptable.
There are some practical reasons to legalize polygamy--ability to enforce age of consent being one. End of welfare abuse being another.
And to those who wonder, no, I don't live in Utah, I am neither gay nor a polygamist, and I am not FLDS.
John L | 3:28 p.m. June 19, 2008
The Utah Supreme Court has spoken on plural marriage many times. Every time
they have upheld the illegality of it. Further they have even upheld an
employer's right to refuse employment to a polygamist who wanted a
government job of trust (a Murray City Police Officer). I don't think that
when a State has a Constitutional ban on the practice, the U.S. Supreme court
will overturn it.
L. G. KIRKPATRICK | 3:42 p.m. June 19, 2008
To all who responded to my earlier posting today, I sincerely thank you from the
bottom of my left ventricle. Your explanations, reasonings, and logic are cogent
and timely. Your comments are appreciated and have been duly noted, but you
still have not totally convinced me.
Not LDS, not FLDS, living in Florida. But I do remember from my youth in Oklahoma, a little over 50 years ago, the case of one of the chiefs of the local Choctaw native American bands was hauled (with his eight wives that could be proven) before the local court, tried, and convicted in court of polygamy. The judge (through an interpreter) told Chief Ugh-A-Mug-Ugh that he could not be married to more than one wife at a time. The Chief responded to the judge, "You tell 'em that, Judge!"
Not LDS, not FLDS, living in Florida. But I do remember from my youth in Oklahoma, a little over 50 years ago, the case of one of the chiefs of the local Choctaw native American bands was hauled (with his eight wives that could be proven) before the local court, tried, and convicted in court of polygamy. The judge (through an interpreter) told Chief Ugh-A-Mug-Ugh that he could not be married to more than one wife at a time. The Chief responded to the judge, "You tell 'em that, Judge!"
Anonymous | 3:57 p.m. June 19, 2008
This isn't for real is it?
Red | 5:18 p.m. June 19, 2008
To DC and others 2:51: "... [T]he 'crime' of bigamy ... is by
definition ... marrying legally more than one wife...."
Used to be as you describe it; not now in Utah.
Utah's authorities are so hot to prosecute polygamists that they've changed the law to read:
"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"
-Utah Statutes, section 76-7-101(1).
So, in Utah, if either "he" or "she" is married (not to each other), and they're "cohabiting," they're committing bigamy.
No second "marriage," legal or "spiritual," required.
Move in with someone before his/her divorce is final, and Bang! You're guilty!
This may be why some polygamist studs drop by each partner but don't live with them; they may be trying to avoid "cohabiting."
IMO Utah, in an excess of anti-polyg zeal, has twisted its bigamy law into an illogical pretzel.
Used to be as you describe it; not now in Utah.
Utah's authorities are so hot to prosecute polygamists that they've changed the law to read:
"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"
-Utah Statutes, section 76-7-101(1).
So, in Utah, if either "he" or "she" is married (not to each other), and they're "cohabiting," they're committing bigamy.
No second "marriage," legal or "spiritual," required.
Move in with someone before his/her divorce is final, and Bang! You're guilty!
This may be why some polygamist studs drop by each partner but don't live with them; they may be trying to avoid "cohabiting."
IMO Utah, in an excess of anti-polyg zeal, has twisted its bigamy law into an illogical pretzel.
Tasting a grape?!!! | 5:34 a.m. June 20, 2008
Are you kidding???!!!
Depends on the grocery store you patronize. Most clerks and grocery personal encourage you to sample their produce so you will buy it.
What does this have to do with the price of rice in China anyway?
You're comparing apples to organges.
Depends on the grocery store you patronize. Most clerks and grocery personal encourage you to sample their produce so you will buy it.
What does this have to do with the price of rice in China anyway?
You're comparing apples to organges.
Anonymous | 7:41 a.m. June 20, 2008
STATEMENTS WERE MADE BY THE FLDS, AUB, AND KINGSTONS,....
SO, WHAT OTHER GROUPS NEEED TO MAKE MORE STATEMENTS?
SO, WHAT OTHER GROUPS NEEED TO MAKE MORE STATEMENTS?
Diego Larson | 12:11 p.m. June 20, 2008
For those critisizing the Utah Attorney General for not upholding his oath, you
are correct. However, the oath he took is as follows:
Prior to taking statewide office, newly elected officials, judges, appointed commission members and agency directors, and special law enforcement officers in Utah are required to take an oath of office from any person in the state authorized to administer oaths (UCA 78-24-16). Officeholders each solemnly swear (or affirm) to support, obey, and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Utah State Constitution, and to discharge the duties of the office with fidelity.
As you can see, he didn't swear to uphold illegal and unconstitutional laws. He swore to uphold the constitution of the United States and the state of Utah.
Of course the provision in the Utah constitution banning polygamy is in direct conflict with the U.S. constitution and therefore invalid. It is obviously also a violation of God-given rights even if there were no constitution recognizing them.
Mark Shirtail violates his oath by the evil and persecution his commits, not by keeping his oath to uphold the constitution and God-given rights.
Prior to taking statewide office, newly elected officials, judges, appointed commission members and agency directors, and special law enforcement officers in Utah are required to take an oath of office from any person in the state authorized to administer oaths (UCA 78-24-16). Officeholders each solemnly swear (or affirm) to support, obey, and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Utah State Constitution, and to discharge the duties of the office with fidelity.
As you can see, he didn't swear to uphold illegal and unconstitutional laws. He swore to uphold the constitution of the United States and the state of Utah.
Of course the provision in the Utah constitution banning polygamy is in direct conflict with the U.S. constitution and therefore invalid. It is obviously also a violation of God-given rights even if there were no constitution recognizing them.
Mark Shirtail violates his oath by the evil and persecution his commits, not by keeping his oath to uphold the constitution and God-given rights.
jordanriver | 1:15 p.m. June 20, 2008
Since moving to Utah, I'm constantly dumbfounded by this polygamy issue.
WHY aren't couples who live together but don't marry considered
criminals, when men who care for two women are? WHY is it okay for a man to
abandon or divorce one woman, leave his children in a broken home, and then
shack up with a new sex partner before the divorce is final, but it's a
crime to NOT abandon the first wife? Why is it NOT criminal to have an
adulterous affair, but it IS criminal to marry two women in a religious (not
legal) ceremony?
Watch this! | 1:16 p.m. June 20, 2008
Wow- just read about the 17 girls 16yrs old or less that are all pregnant in
Gloucester, Mass.
I wonder if CPS will break in on all them- take them away from their parents, etc, etc.
Let the Hypocracy begin!!
I wonder if CPS will break in on all them- take them away from their parents, etc, etc.
Let the Hypocracy begin!!
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
- Tigers vs. Miners by the numbers 2:32 a.m.
- Springville vs. Dixie by the numbers 2:25 a.m.
- Wasatch vs. Juan Diego numbers 2:22 a.m.
- Mustangs vs. Tbirds by the numbers 2:02 a.m.
- Nuggets win after clock review 1:41 a.m.
- Robbery ends poorly for one suspect 1:20 a.m.
- Wednesday on TV 12:59 a.m.
- Integration is possible on TV 12:59 a.m.
- Herbert talks land issues in D.C. 12:59 a.m.
- Developer looking to buy RSL share 12:58 a.m.
- Utah group finds homes for orphans
- Pratt pleads not guilty to sex charges
- Y. tight ends talented tandem
- Jazz blow big lead, hang on
- Utes get extra motivation
- Senators want food tax restored
- Hair-pulling raises more questions
- Lobo land like home for BYU lineman
- BYU soccer incident still popular
- U. hopes to keep clicking
- House passes health care bill
265 - TCU showdown has big implications188
- Lobo suspended185
- Cougars crush hapless Cowboys155
- Senators want food tax restored152
- Utah Jazz fall apart against Kings131
- TCU 4th in AP poll; U. 16th, Y. 22nd119
- No 'backlash' for pioneers, gays analogy105
- S.L. vote pending on gay protections104
- Utes pound winless Lobos89
Applebee's Neighborhood Grill & Bar restaurants nationwide will honor...
Meghan McCain, the daughter of former presidential candidate John...
Advertisement
Latest comments
Glad that he's finally going to be scouting how to beat TCU. Seems to...
Too anyone who whines about people who EARN high salaries; when was the last...
Don't know bout all that "Texas" stuff, but I'm here to tell you people, that...
Gorbachev was a brilliant leader and single most important individual in...
It buys votes from every irresponsible, lazy American in order to keep the...
My fear is the damage to the economy adding trillions of dollars to the...
I don't know, Ak can be horrible too, there are those times when he only...
Utah 24, TCU 21
You are so right about the BS of these 3 radio clowns!
And some of you out there could care less if we give up our freedoms as long...
Advertisements