Reader comments
FLDS cases may help end polygamy ban
49 comments | Read story
JrzWrld | 6:18 a.m. Sept. 22, 2008
The obvious and logical solution is to decriminalize it. Decriminalize it, and I
think you'll find that within a generation there will be a sharp drop in
the number of practicing polygamists, because without the threat of prosecution
and sundered families, they're going to be a lot more open to mainstream
culture. Let's face it, there's not a lot of people battering down
their doors to sign up for it. For most people, there's not a lot of appeal
in the lifestyle.
I believe the whole underage bride issue was actually exacerbated by the fact that polygamy is illegal, creating an "in for a penny, in for a pound" mentality. I also believe the underage marriages in the FLDS specifically were a tool by which Warren Jeffs shored up loyalty.
I believe the whole underage bride issue was actually exacerbated by the fact that polygamy is illegal, creating an "in for a penny, in for a pound" mentality. I also believe the underage marriages in the FLDS specifically were a tool by which Warren Jeffs shored up loyalty.
Joey | 6:23 a.m. Sept. 22, 2008
Decriminalizing polygamy might help solve the society's huge problem of
single, welfare-dependent mothers and the men who abuse them.
Comments continue below
My Thoughts... | 7:38 a.m. Sept. 22, 2008
Regulated like any other marriage union, there would be absolutely nothing wrong
with polygamous marriage. If anything, it would be a benefit in this day and age
because of the economy. Truly dedicated Polygamous families work close together
to take care of their families; live much more naturally, and the children are
not running about, joining gangs and gaining a criminal record through their
teen years.
Everyone talks about "Jeffs" being a polygamous leader --- NOT! He is just a sick, sick, sick man who got his kicks from little girls. Call it like it is, hes a bona fide sex offender, and should have been charged as such.
Given the opportunity, legalizing polygamy would actually be a much more beneficial option for men and women in todays society.
Everyone talks about "Jeffs" being a polygamous leader --- NOT! He is just a sick, sick, sick man who got his kicks from little girls. Call it like it is, hes a bona fide sex offender, and should have been charged as such.
Given the opportunity, legalizing polygamy would actually be a much more beneficial option for men and women in todays society.
Lakoma | 8:13 a.m. Sept. 22, 2008
Trixie, the allegations of welfare fraud being proven false doesn't mean a
blasted thing. There are still some of them on welfare--they just haven't
been caught yet. Unfortunately, the welfare system is such a mess that it's
hard to investigate all the claims in order to prove fraud.
As for decriminilizing polygamy; why not just legalize drugs and homosexual marriages? Polygamy is a crime, and while it may be one of the "lesser crimes", it is still illegal. Laws are set down for a purpose, and one of the reasons that this country is falling apart is due to the fact that our government keeps changing the laws to please the people. The government has to do what's right--and that means they must stop giving in to the groups that throw tantrums like spoiled children wanting their way.
As for decriminilizing polygamy; why not just legalize drugs and homosexual marriages? Polygamy is a crime, and while it may be one of the "lesser crimes", it is still illegal. Laws are set down for a purpose, and one of the reasons that this country is falling apart is due to the fact that our government keeps changing the laws to please the people. The government has to do what's right--and that means they must stop giving in to the groups that throw tantrums like spoiled children wanting their way.
zxcvbnm | 8:31 a.m. Sept. 22, 2008
It is so refreshing to see Shurtleff and Parker agree that the means and motivation used by Texas were overblown.
I guess even Shurtleff won't be suprised when the cases are thrown out for lack of evidence.
uncannygunman | 8:41 a.m. Sept. 22, 2008
I don't have much problem with polygamy being legalized as long as there
are protections in place to make sure it does not become a vehicle for abuse of
marital benefits or vulnerable persons. But then, I think the state should
pretty much get out of the marriage business altogether.
Tammie | 9:07 a.m. Sept. 22, 2008
I don't think polygamy should be legalized. There is a reason for it being
band. There are reasons for laws. I feel that polygamy creates more problems
than it is worth. Just think if there was a domestic violent husband and the
cops were called. How many people would be involved? How many people would be
arrested? Think of the kids in this situation!! They are the real victims!!! I
feel if we give people an inch, people will take a mile!
common sense | 9:15 a.m. Sept. 22, 2008
Mr Shurtleff, STAY OUT OF TEXAS!! You were doing a POOR job handling this
situation in UTAH to begin with!! My suggestion would be to round up every
polygamist sect in US and let Utah take care of them! Its possible Mr Shurtleff
needs to read the supreme court decision on Reynolds vs US on Polygamy. Since he
doesnt seem to UNDERSTAND why polygamy is against the law.
Lilathe | 9:22 a.m. Sept. 22, 2008
Most people practice "seriel" polygamy in the USA already. Most of the
people that I know outside of my church are on their 3rd, 4th or 5th spouse. If
you add in the people they "co-habited" with in "spiritual"
marriages, then their "spouses" would be up to 10-15.
Polygamy, practiced the way the FLDS practice it, has more security for the women and children involved than the 5 women with children all from the same "baby daddy".
Child abuse is wrong, whatever it was that Warren Jeffs was doing should be illegal. But polygamy is already being practiced by half of the United States, just the first wives and children are dumped for the trophy wife later on.
Polygamy, practiced the way the FLDS practice it, has more security for the women and children involved than the 5 women with children all from the same "baby daddy".
Child abuse is wrong, whatever it was that Warren Jeffs was doing should be illegal. But polygamy is already being practiced by half of the United States, just the first wives and children are dumped for the trophy wife later on.
To zxcvbnm | 9:25 a.m. Sept. 22, 2008
How will you feel being the fifth husband to your wife? She has 8 kids, 3 by
you and 2 by him and the other 3 by ???. When you get fatter and balder, she
will decide to have sex with you less and less. Your other young wives stop too
because they will have 5 other younger studlier husbands. You'll be a
lonely fat bald man working all day to feed your many children, while your wives
are enjoying the nights with their other husbands. Sounds gr8 to me. Count me
in!!!
common sense | 10:21 a.m. Sept. 22, 2008
Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere
with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices.
So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? The permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances....
This is from the opinion of Reynolds vs United States. This law has been tested since, by Barlow, Tom Green and Rodney Holm,, and each time the Supreme Court stuck with its decision on polygamy
So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? The permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances....
This is from the opinion of Reynolds vs United States. This law has been tested since, by Barlow, Tom Green and Rodney Holm,, and each time the Supreme Court stuck with its decision on polygamy
Joey | 11:02 a.m. Sept. 22, 2008
If you study the opinion on the Tom Green case, you will see that the justices
deliberately skate the issue of free speech rights. In a way, marriage can be
deconstructed as a form of expression. Expression falls under the category of
free speech, and should not be interfered with at that level. The only way I see
it, under the constitution, the government can regulate consensual relationships
such as any of the forms of "marriage" would be in the regulating of
the signed marriage contracts. In the absence of the contract, which the
government would be party to, there should be no regulation, as it would violate
those individual's free speech rights, not to mention their rights to
privacy and association.
chomama | 12:27 p.m. Sept. 22, 2008
ok - so 100 officers raided the compound of a preacher (last name Alamo) over
the weekend. They took 6 children believed to have been abused. The kids are
in state custody. Previous charges against this guy included child abuse for
having 4 men hit a child with a paddle 140 times. Charges were dropped because
no one would testify.
Exactly the same scenario as happened to FLDS, but I don't see anyone sticking up for him in the blogs. What's the difference between the two cases? Why is it good for him but bad for FLDS?
Exactly the same scenario as happened to FLDS, but I don't see anyone sticking up for him in the blogs. What's the difference between the two cases? Why is it good for him but bad for FLDS?
Re: Joey | 12:31 p.m. Sept. 22, 2008
Free speech has been stretched into all kinds of funny shapes but by your
definition any behavior at all can be justified under it. Assaulting someone,
molesting a child, committing murder--hey they are all forms of "expressing
yourself". They are not, however, protected speech.
Jes'Thinking | 2:06 p.m. Sept. 22, 2008
I saw that in the news, too. I don't know what the difference is, except
for me, the FLDS raid was more about a trashing of Constitutional rights and the
persecution of a religion, than it was about 'saving children.' The
NUMBER of children and women loaded on to buses - I'll never get that image
out of my mind - too much like what the Gestapo did with the Jews - I know,
people are tired of hearing the comparison, but it IS exactly what happened.
The men of the Ranch offered to leave so the women and children could stay - that wasn't allowed...
Just the whole 'feel' of the FLDS raid was SO wrong -
My question about the two raids - why do the authorities always wait until dusk to come for the children? Good grief. Why don't they come during the day and stop playing the role of boogie men in these kids' lives?!?!
The men of the Ranch offered to leave so the women and children could stay - that wasn't allowed...
Just the whole 'feel' of the FLDS raid was SO wrong -
My question about the two raids - why do the authorities always wait until dusk to come for the children? Good grief. Why don't they come during the day and stop playing the role of boogie men in these kids' lives?!?!
Joey | 3:09 p.m. Sept. 22, 2008
Excuse me, Re: Joey, if you can't tell the difference between a verbal or
demonstrative form of expression, and physical assault, then I think you need to
repeat this phrase to yourself 200 times: "Sticks and stones can break my
bones, but words can never hurt me!"
Annoy | 3:35 p.m. Sept. 22, 2008
Just what is this? Do we have the right to tell people how to worship God the
FLDS have Constitutional rights too. Wake up America we should punish those who
are proven guilty, but last I knew this was still America and people should be
presummed innocent until proven guilty. Not the other way around We need protect
our rights as Americians. Stand up if a wrong has been done as it was in Texas.
If a crime was committed by an FLDS member punish the member not the sect
realitycheck | 3:58 p.m. Sept. 22, 2008
re Lillithe 9:22am:
come on, girl. serial polygamy?
If you are talking about when a man and woman divorce and then remarry others, that's simply marriage and divorce. Nothing serial or polygamist about it. And living together is not a "spiritual" marriage. It's living together. Multiple spouses only really occurs when there is intimidation involved.
"FLDS polygamy practice has more security for the women and children".
Have you ever lived out in the desert, taught to shun society, and told that if you leave you will have lost your place in heaven? If that's security, so is San Quentin.
re - "to zxcvbnm 9:25am"
Why would you want to be 5th husband to your wife (or visa versa)? Who in their right mind would want more than one husband or wife, unless you believed the "you must have 3+ wives to get to the good spot in heaven, and the women can only come with you if they are in your good graces" speil.
Not many people would fall for that line - mostly just FLDS and a couple of other groups that can't think for themselves. A free-willed thinking person would just laugh at the suggestion.
come on, girl. serial polygamy?
If you are talking about when a man and woman divorce and then remarry others, that's simply marriage and divorce. Nothing serial or polygamist about it. And living together is not a "spiritual" marriage. It's living together. Multiple spouses only really occurs when there is intimidation involved.
"FLDS polygamy practice has more security for the women and children".
Have you ever lived out in the desert, taught to shun society, and told that if you leave you will have lost your place in heaven? If that's security, so is San Quentin.
re - "to zxcvbnm 9:25am"
Why would you want to be 5th husband to your wife (or visa versa)? Who in their right mind would want more than one husband or wife, unless you believed the "you must have 3+ wives to get to the good spot in heaven, and the women can only come with you if they are in your good graces" speil.
Not many people would fall for that line - mostly just FLDS and a couple of other groups that can't think for themselves. A free-willed thinking person would just laugh at the suggestion.
chomama | 4:09 p.m. Sept. 22, 2008
Realistically, I think marriage should be a private business or cease to exist
at all. It's really no one's business who you are with, etc.
Married people shouldn't get tax breaks, and insurance/benefits should be limited to the person insured, one other person (spouse?) and 3 children. Same for welfare, etc - one applicant and max 3 children.
Then anyone could marry anyone since it really wouldn't matter.
That would solve most (if not all) of the issues here.
Married people shouldn't get tax breaks, and insurance/benefits should be limited to the person insured, one other person (spouse?) and 3 children. Same for welfare, etc - one applicant and max 3 children.
Then anyone could marry anyone since it really wouldn't matter.
That would solve most (if not all) of the issues here.
re Annoy 3:35pm | 5:55 p.m. Sept. 22, 2008
religious freedom doesn't give people the right to screw up thousands of
children's lives. What about the child's right to self-determination?
Why aren't they allowed to decide what they want to be when they grow up,
instead of being restricted to one of only a couple of "careers"?
Brother Jessop | 8:07 p.m. Sept. 22, 2008
There is no way that the U.S. Supreme Court will overturn the ban on polygamy
and Rod Parker knows it. Clearly, he is giving the FLDS false hope.
Dave | 12:40 a.m. Sept. 23, 2008
Homosexual behaviour was also against the law at one time. If this becomes a
legitimate practice and homosexual marriages become the law of the land, it is
only a short step before polygamy must also be legitimized. The whole legal
system is now on a very slippery slope.
Paul in MD | 6:14 a.m. Sept. 23, 2008
to chomama @ 4:09 PM 9/22
Marriage is a private business, you are right. But I disagree with your assertion that it should cease to exist. Marriage is a contract, one that serves to bind two people who agree to take on and carry out a list of responsibilities. These family units are the building blocks of society.
Limiting the number of children via social engineering (limiting children, cutting tax breaks) sounds very communist to me. China limits offspring, but really only enforce that in the cities and more affluent areas. So, they limit the number of children to well-educated couples, the very parents who are most likely to raise well-educated children, while the poor are allowed to raise more kids, who are most likely to remain poor. Eventually that balance (or lack of it) is going to come back to hurt China.
Tax breaks are given to families with children because those children are our future leaders, doctors, etc. They ARE our future. Don't try putting the brakes on that.
Marriage is a private business, you are right. But I disagree with your assertion that it should cease to exist. Marriage is a contract, one that serves to bind two people who agree to take on and carry out a list of responsibilities. These family units are the building blocks of society.
Limiting the number of children via social engineering (limiting children, cutting tax breaks) sounds very communist to me. China limits offspring, but really only enforce that in the cities and more affluent areas. So, they limit the number of children to well-educated couples, the very parents who are most likely to raise well-educated children, while the poor are allowed to raise more kids, who are most likely to remain poor. Eventually that balance (or lack of it) is going to come back to hurt China.
Tax breaks are given to families with children because those children are our future leaders, doctors, etc. They ARE our future. Don't try putting the brakes on that.
Jack | 6:28 a.m. Sept. 23, 2008
I think government needs to get out of the privacy of our homes. When adults
(not children) agree to live in a relationship, why does the government need to
regulate it. For those against this then never practice it, it is your call.
If you choose not to drink, to shop on Sunday, that is your call. Who are you
to tell anyone that it is wrong simply because YOU would not do it. There are
cases that polgamy would be of benifit to familes. And there are cases were it
would not be. Let adults decide for themselves.
CURIOUS | 7:35 a.m. Sept. 23, 2008
SLIPPERY SLOPE HUMMMM.. WHEN I THINK OF FLDS, I THINK OF MIND CONTROL, AND BRAIN
WASHING FROM BIRTH, WHO IN THERE RIGHT MIND WOULD CHOOSE THAT.THEY START LIFE
WITH NO CHOICE. THIS IS A CULT, AND WAY FOR SICK MEN TO GET THEIR SICK WAYS
OVER ON THESE CHILDREN AND WOMEN. HOPEFULLY THIS CASE STAYS SLIPPING ALONG NOT
FALLING OFF THE CLIFF, AND ENDS THEIR ILLEGAL WAYS AND ACTIVITIES.
XGI | 7:36 a.m. Sept. 23, 2008
What religion dosen't have church weddings. Marriage is religious. It
came from GOD. The government shouldn't have anything to do with it. I
suppose that if you are concerned about your money and property then a civil
marriage may help you there. But should not be required.
I have heard it said that Polygamy breads abuse. I don't believe it. Thay say that the FLDS is a closed community. How many times has your communit been raided? Any abuser in any society will try to hide their abuse and even threten their victems. In Polygamy it is actually harder to hide the abuse because there is more people who could find out. You are not dealing with one wife one man and one child. How many celebs have come forth and say that they were abused in that only child situation?
I have heard it said that Polygamy breads abuse. I don't believe it. Thay say that the FLDS is a closed community. How many times has your communit been raided? Any abuser in any society will try to hide their abuse and even threten their victems. In Polygamy it is actually harder to hide the abuse because there is more people who could find out. You are not dealing with one wife one man and one child. How many celebs have come forth and say that they were abused in that only child situation?
SLC gal | 7:42 a.m. Sept. 23, 2008
The key word is adults. As long as polygomy is between two consenting adults, it
should be legalized. The US only criminalized and illegalized polygomy as an
expression of anti LDS sentiment.
SDS | 8:14 a.m. Sept. 23, 2008
This is amazing, I hear day in, and day out about how the FLDS are brainwashing,
and abusing children, are you really a hypocrite? The State of Texas Raided a
Ranch, and took 464 children, I'm saying 464 children, are you listening
still? And what did they find? NOTHING!, I heard the doctors who where brought
in, every doctor I seen interviewed all said the same thing, that they saw
healthy, Happy children. Now can someone tell me where your getting all this
abusing? Id like to to see someone go into a random school in your Town, or any
Town for that matter, and gather up random 464 children from 1st grade to 12th
grade, and see what you come up with, as far as abuse, and young Mothers. And
please don't try telling me that all your info comes from Caroline Jessop,
or any other of those books, i will have to weep for you.
JanSan | 8:25 a.m. Sept. 23, 2008
I do not have a problem with polygomy as long as it is legal and is between
adults. I think that if it should becoume legal then some very strong laws
should be put in place to protect against abuse of it being with children and a
woman (or man for that matter) who does not want to live it, should not be made
to live it. It would be a helpful way to give more women the chance to marry a
good man and have the experiences of being married. There are so many women who
will not have that experience now because of the lack of good men. But, it
should only be for those that want it.
re: SDS | 8:44 a.m. Sept. 23, 2008
I don't think anyone here wants your tears. You should save them for the
very young girls (ages 12-14) whose parents allow them to be "married"
to a middle-aged delusional pedophile.
observer from afar | 9:08 a.m. Sept. 23, 2008
re: SDS. I agree. What happened was very wrong. I stated (on this very DN
commentary) in the early stages of Texas vs YFZ that I was amazed all Americans
were not taking action and speaking out against this horrendous and sad event.
I thought Americans new their rights and freedoms in the Constitution. As for
the term brainwashing, any religion could say that about any other (ie
Catholics, Pentecostals, Muslim, Bhuddists, Evangelicals, Baptists, even
Athiests, etc ). Slamming and hurting another's beliefs is contrary to
being what you claim to be. From my side of the fence, what happened with the
FLDS was a sad note in US history!
Good! | 10:08 a.m. Sept. 23, 2008
Good!
The ban on polygamy should end. If multiple women of legal age, of their own free will, wish to live in "marriage" with one man then they should be allowed to.
The government should not be in the business of regulating the private lives of its citizens.
The ban on polygamy should end. If multiple women of legal age, of their own free will, wish to live in "marriage" with one man then they should be allowed to.
The government should not be in the business of regulating the private lives of its citizens.
Re: Good! | 10:41 a.m. Sept. 23, 2008
A woman even of legal age who has spent her life in an isolated cult and told
she must marry a certain man or go to hell (and she has been brainwashed by
indoctrination into believing she must follow her leaders or she will go to
hell) is not someone doing something 'of their own free will'.
Hermin | 11:24 a.m. Sept. 23, 2008
Lakoma, you stated: "Laws are set down for a purpose, and one of the
reasons that this country is falling apart is due to the fact that our
government keeps changing the laws to please the people."
This Republic is based on the fact that "the people" do indeed tell the government what to do. That is the whole basis of the Constitution. If the majority wants something, that is the way it is. The liberal view that the government knows best is wrong. I (we the people) know how to live my (our) life better than some government non-entity.
This Republic is based on the fact that "the people" do indeed tell the government what to do. That is the whole basis of the Constitution. If the majority wants something, that is the way it is. The liberal view that the government knows best is wrong. I (we the people) know how to live my (our) life better than some government non-entity.
she can choose | 11:50 a.m. Sept. 23, 2008
I am pro-choice when it comes to a woman deciding to become a polygamous wife.
After all, its HER body.
As for 14 yo brides, why is it ok for a 14 yo to get pregnant and have an abortion without parental notification or consent but not ok to get married? If she is old enough to make the decision to have sex and abort the baby, isn't she old enough to decide to get married? One is in her self-interest but the other is not?
As for 14 yo brides, why is it ok for a 14 yo to get pregnant and have an abortion without parental notification or consent but not ok to get married? If she is old enough to make the decision to have sex and abort the baby, isn't she old enough to decide to get married? One is in her self-interest but the other is not?
Bill from South Dakota | 12:49 p.m. Sept. 23, 2008
I love my wife dearly! She is a Gem! She continues to put up with me even after
26 years. That being said there is NO WAY I would ever want to enter into a
polygamous relationship and take another wife. I find that it is difficult
remaining in the "good grace" of one wife. Two would be impossible.
Honoring Marriage | 1:17 p.m. Sept. 23, 2008
The real question at stake here is whether government should honor a marriage in
a polygamous relationship. Currently, the government recognizes the tremendous
benefits that society receives from a responsible mother and father rearing a
child.
The benefits there are too numerous to list here.
The debate in the gay marriage field centers on this factor because there is no possible natural benefit of children in that relationship.
The question in polygamous relationships is whether society benefits enough to recognize them and give tax credits and stuff like that as an incentive to keep a healthy marriage relationship. Currently, the answer has to be a resounding "NO" because polygamous relationships currently are causing a lot more problems which totally out weigh any benefit society may receive from such a relationship. So there is no reason for society to honor that relationship whereas the traditional marriage and family remains the bedrock for a stable society.
The benefits there are too numerous to list here.
The debate in the gay marriage field centers on this factor because there is no possible natural benefit of children in that relationship.
The question in polygamous relationships is whether society benefits enough to recognize them and give tax credits and stuff like that as an incentive to keep a healthy marriage relationship. Currently, the answer has to be a resounding "NO" because polygamous relationships currently are causing a lot more problems which totally out weigh any benefit society may receive from such a relationship. So there is no reason for society to honor that relationship whereas the traditional marriage and family remains the bedrock for a stable society.
John Pack Lambert | 8:00 p.m. Sept. 23, 2008
JrzWorld has a bizarre notion. He needs to study the so-called
"Christian Polygamy Movement" and do more research on "Mormon
polygamists". The number of people with the FLDS may fall if polygamy is
legalized, but it is already estimated that most so-called Mormon polygamists
are "independents". Also the "Christian polygamy movement"
based in Maine is gaining strength, but with laws against what they are up to,
they keep a low profile.
John Pack Lambert | 8:13 p.m. Sept. 23, 2008
To honoring marriage,
There are two questions, and you focus on the one that is not present. One question is should plural marriage be a criminal offense. The other is should the government recognize plural marriages.
The first does not imply the second. There have been no criminal penalties in any states for homosexual actions for over five years, and it has been much longer in many states. However this has not inevitably or irrevocably lead to the official government recognition of same-sex marriage.
There are two issues, and we need to not confuse one with the other.
There are two questions, and you focus on the one that is not present. One question is should plural marriage be a criminal offense. The other is should the government recognize plural marriages.
The first does not imply the second. There have been no criminal penalties in any states for homosexual actions for over five years, and it has been much longer in many states. However this has not inevitably or irrevocably lead to the official government recognition of same-sex marriage.
There are two issues, and we need to not confuse one with the other.
PRENUPTIAL | 8:29 p.m. Sept. 23, 2008
PRESCRIBE PRENUPTIAL CONTRACTS FOR POLYGAMISTS
Bogus Bill | 10:19 p.m. Sept. 23, 2008
What? Legalise poligamy? Someone here thought it would die out? The opposite
would happen! The welfare fraud is bad enough now. What do you think it would be
if you had 2x to a 100 x more of it?
That thinking also has been suggested with drugs and the illegals!
If we legalised murder do you think there would be less of it?
If mormans sanctioned poligamy because it was now legal in the nation and state, and you know they would, it would ruin the nation in many ways!
On top of all other things mentioned, my biggest concern is the limited gene pool, or lack of it, how are you at math? Think there is enough women to go around? We would have a nation of retards for openers!
That thinking also has been suggested with drugs and the illegals!
If we legalised murder do you think there would be less of it?
If mormans sanctioned poligamy because it was now legal in the nation and state, and you know they would, it would ruin the nation in many ways!
On top of all other things mentioned, my biggest concern is the limited gene pool, or lack of it, how are you at math? Think there is enough women to go around? We would have a nation of retards for openers!
Jack | 6:39 a.m. Sept. 24, 2008
To Bogus Bill: How is it you connect pologamy with welfare fraud? with drugs
and illegals? The right to privacy is one's family life is not a mormon
issue. Gene pool? Do you have a clue as to how many single mothers are in this
nation now. How many women are now choosing not to marry at all. Even in the
LDS time of practicing it only a small percent actually did. If you do not wish
to practice it that is your call. But try and get a better arguement against
it.
Wendy | 3:16 p.m. Sept. 24, 2008
We need to stop and think what values the Constitution were first based on. That
would be the 10 commandments. The founding fathers did not participate in
polygamy either.
Your talk of making drugs legal is rather funny, when a bunch of state have smoke free bars and restaurants. Welfare should only be a short term help for those truly in need. If you can work then get a fricken job. If you don't make enough, then you should be able to apply for assistance. Just because some decides to have 4 kids, I don't feel my tax dollars should support them alone.
Your talk of making drugs legal is rather funny, when a bunch of state have smoke free bars and restaurants. Welfare should only be a short term help for those truly in need. If you can work then get a fricken job. If you don't make enough, then you should be able to apply for assistance. Just because some decides to have 4 kids, I don't feel my tax dollars should support them alone.
Polygamy =one woman to many men | 3:31 p.m. Sept. 24, 2008
I am only in favor of polygamy if it means a woman can marry as many men as she
chooses at the same time as well. I think men could never handle their wife
having many husbands and all the propolygamists blogging are men thinking of one
man and many women. I know for a fact those same men would NEVER stand for
their wife to be married to many men and having sex and children with them at
the same time.
sakeneko | 8:38 p.m. Sept. 24, 2008
| I am only in favor of polygamy if it means a woman
| can marry as many men as she chooses at the same
| time as well.
If you're talking about legalizing polygamy, I definitely agree. The only way to handle legalizing polygamy without getting the government involved in stuff it should not be involved in is to legalize any combination of people being in what amounts to a civil union.
The state's vital interests are twofold. First, the state needs to ensure that parents are recognized as parents, with the right and the responsibility to protect, provide for, and raise their children without interference as long as certain minimum standards are met. Second, the state needs appropriate and orderly property laws with reasonable "defaults" in cases of divorce or death of a spouse.
When it comes to the religious or sacramental aspects of a marriage, I firmly and vehemently believe that the state has no business getting involved in any capacity. That applies to polygamous marriages in the FLDS, polygamous marriages among Muslims, polygamous marriages among the Hmong, and monogamous marriages among us old-fashioned Christians who don't do the polygamous thing. :-)
| can marry as many men as she chooses at the same
| time as well.
If you're talking about legalizing polygamy, I definitely agree. The only way to handle legalizing polygamy without getting the government involved in stuff it should not be involved in is to legalize any combination of people being in what amounts to a civil union.
The state's vital interests are twofold. First, the state needs to ensure that parents are recognized as parents, with the right and the responsibility to protect, provide for, and raise their children without interference as long as certain minimum standards are met. Second, the state needs appropriate and orderly property laws with reasonable "defaults" in cases of divorce or death of a spouse.
When it comes to the religious or sacramental aspects of a marriage, I firmly and vehemently believe that the state has no business getting involved in any capacity. That applies to polygamous marriages in the FLDS, polygamous marriages among Muslims, polygamous marriages among the Hmong, and monogamous marriages among us old-fashioned Christians who don't do the polygamous thing. :-)
Carol P. Warnick | 3:04 p.m. Sept. 26, 2008
There is something very troubling about this article. It's not the Supreme
Court that makes the laws. They were not elected by the people. They were
appointed. Too many laws have been made by them that are out of their
jurisdiction. As American citizens we can not stand back and let the Supreme
Court take the place of the United States Legislature and Senate. What has
happened to the part in the Constitution which states "We the people?"
Anonymous | 3:47 p.m. Sept. 26, 2008
If the courts can legalize gay marriage (and in several states they have), there
is absolutely no basis for the government to decide that polygamous marriage
should be prohibited.
The issue is one of CONSENT of the parties involved, not how many times they have consented.
The issue is one of CONSENT of the parties involved, not how many times they have consented.
Not lawless | 6:29 p.m. Sept. 27, 2008
common sense | 10:21 a.m. Sept. 22, 2008
...So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed...
This is from the opinion of Reynolds vs United States. This law has been tested since, by Barlow, Tom Green and Rodney Holm,, and each time the Supreme Court stuck with its decision on polygamy
I see that a law was created specifically against the intended protection of Freedom of Religion. that is a fundamental part of the religious majority on this globe, that was never allowed to be challanged for what it is. A crime against religion! I support the Constitution and every other law based on the principles corporate to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and That being afforded to all. I do not support the idea that anyone should be exempt from the law. But that laws should meet the muster of the safeguards of intent placed within the Constitution and Bill of Rights before passage.
That Edmunds ... should have been tuckered out a long time ago.
...So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed...
This is from the opinion of Reynolds vs United States. This law has been tested since, by Barlow, Tom Green and Rodney Holm,, and each time the Supreme Court stuck with its decision on polygamy
I see that a law was created specifically against the intended protection of Freedom of Religion. that is a fundamental part of the religious majority on this globe, that was never allowed to be challanged for what it is. A crime against religion! I support the Constitution and every other law based on the principles corporate to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and That being afforded to all. I do not support the idea that anyone should be exempt from the law. But that laws should meet the muster of the safeguards of intent placed within the Constitution and Bill of Rights before passage.
That Edmunds ... should have been tuckered out a long time ago.
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.
- Shoppers 'experience' Black Friday 8:39 a.m.
- World markets fear Dubai debt 8:13 a.m.
- Space shuttle Atlantis returns 8:11 a.m.
- Stocks tumble on Dubai debt fallout 8:09 a.m.
- Holiday television program listings 1:02 a.m.
- Williams, Rose celebrate by playing 12:46 a.m.
- Utes to get tested by Illinois 12:40 a.m.
- Cougs to host Weber St. 12:39 a.m.
- Efforts to save a life praised 12:29 a.m.
- Settle fights, set tone of marriage 12:28 a.m.
- Man trapped in Nutty Putty cave dies
- Efforts to save a life praised
- Rivalry Week is highly profane
- Rivalry has had some 'turkeys'
- Holiday television program listings
- Salt Lake City woman shot
- Jazz share in win over Bulls
- Korver's return hits snag
- Highland players make special friend
- BYU's old uniforms?
- BYU would like friendlier rivalry
262 - Protests against Phoenix LDS temple211
- RSL wins MLS Cup on penalty kicks202
- Bronco, Kyle rubber match139
- Thunder rolls by Jazz136
- Letters: Rushing to judge Palin133
- Boys basketball rankings118
- Editorial: Poor welcome for Palin112
- Hall, Johnson matchup key102
- Man trapped in Nutty Putty cave dies101
Latest comments
Thanks to the Deseret News for posting this each year. It is a great service...
As much as some Utah fans would like to think so, Utah isn't nearly as good...
Hey Anonymous~ If you were active LDS you would know that hundreds, if not...
Smith--what do you have against libraries? Have you been in the Farmington...
Could I really the first person to comment on this story? Booz really D-will...
Bub, wow that was quaint. Is the Mtn. still broadcasting in Standard Def,...
Is that a word? See the "uneducated" posts in other articles. Exhibit B
an honest review should have been THIS MOVIE STINKS! if you had given an...
... would be to require registration of user IDs for posts (like the other SL...
everyone has choices to make, and each of us have ways to share the gospel,...
Advertisements
If legal Polygamy is ever allowed it would bring up many issues of health care, insurance and estate issues. Also Divorces when this happens and custody battles, and child support and visitation issues could get really messy.
I think it would be better to leave well enough alone and just say the "Marriage is Between 1 man and 1 Women.
Either way the LDS Church will has to stay out of it as much as possible and never endorse it publicly.
When The Church came out with Declaration 1, all those already in Polygamist Marriages where allowed to stay that way. It took Decades before they passed on.