Comments about ‘Defense for FLDS may use same-sex marriage arguments’

a polygamist, but I'd have to agree on this one. I think plural marriage is much more "natural" than sodomy--sorry, guys.

it's unclear to me what same-sex marriage has to do with polygamy.

The marriage contract is between two people. If the mormons want to marry more than one person, they need to create a new contract that covers multiple people. And all parties should have to sign it (including current wives, etc)

the funny part is, the only way a current wife will sign to add another wife is if the first wife is attracted to her. So it will really be just a same-sex marriage with some guy stuck having to support multiple women.

works for me - y'all go ahead and create the new contract. Let's see how many people sign up..

I agree 100%. If we are going to cater to special interest groups, then we need to cater to ALL of them. I would prefer we didn't cater to any of them.

This is an incredible shocker. Imagine that when you bend the laws of moral rectitude, others could latch onto the same immoral arguments to justify their own immoral behavior! Where will this slippery slope turn upward?

fdls boys, you might get it!

If the fdls win this one, wouldn't that mean that the women could have more than one husband. Finally justice would be served.

I guess this means that they also approve of homosexuality also.

My, aren't times a changin.

To RealityCheck,

They are both perversions, and people who like to trash their body's.

I'm all for creative legal arguments, but this one doesn't fly very far. Same-sex marriage bans discriminate on the basis of sex, polygamy bans don't (unless they simultaneously allow polyandry, but I don't think that's the argument here).

The problem with polygamy is practice of "marrying" underage girls. FLDS leader Warren Jeffs has even been photographed kissing a 12 year old "wife".

If it was just persons over 18, don't think most people would even care. Because there are not enough females to go around in polygamous groups, they either have to bring in females from outside the group or resort to marrying younger and younger females and removing excess males from group to insure enough females for multiple marriages. Which creates the "lost boys" problem of young men kicked out of polygamous groups. Polygamy has also been the root of much violence as in cases of LaBarons, Lafferty, and Brian D. Mitchell, who unable to obtain females within polygamist culture resorted to kidnapping, & attempted kidnappings in California & Utah. The FLDS IMO will not be able to explain away the violence and crime associated with polygamous lifestyle.

"I'm not a polygamist, but I'd have to agree on this one. I think plural marriage is much more "natural" than sodomy--sorry, guys"

not sure why you had to bring sodomy into the equation... seems like a strange comment - especially when 50% of gays are lesbians.... and more mormons practice it in the privacy of their own homes than you would care to admit...

let's stick to the issue - same-sex marriage is two people that love each other wanting to be married. Polygamy is a group of people joining together for religious purposes to have as many children as possible so their followers ranks aren't diminished...

it's an apples and squirrels comparison....

I think we should legalize it within the same boundaries that everyone else must recognize. You can't marry children because it is child abuse and sexual assault.
If they are allowed to marry then they will not be able to claim welfare when their "family" has money to support the 20 children.
This is going to go on no matter how anyone feels about it because they are raised to believe that this is what god wants. Who are they to question god.

This is how it starts. The Gay rights activists ask how them being married effects me!! Now we've got people wanting to marry multiple people. It's fine as long as everybody agrees right? So when some dude uses this logic to Marry my 14 year old daughter it'll be fine!

You people all need to undergo some kind of therapy for your warped way of thinking. It's totally outrageous, out of place, and completely uncalled for in this day and age. Perversion like yours will be the down fall of our society. Beside most NORMAL people find you FLDS completely off your rockers- Literally!

the flds are not mormons.

flds are not mormons get your story straight before you leave a comment

Gee, we never saw this coming

I am suprised more of you don't see the relationship, or refuse to see it. If consenting adults want to marry we shouldn't stand in their way. Isn't that what the gay/lesbian community have been fighting for? But why should it then only apply to gays or straights. If we are going to be fair I think the strong argument is that we should be fair to all, not just those who share our particular views on what relationships we should have and those we shouldn't. To say gays should be able to marry but polygamists shouldn't is hipocrasy at its worst. Granted the way it is practiced among the FLDS is child abuse and incredibly disgusting. I don't know why we even allow 16 year olds to marry. If I am too stupid to make the choice to drink before I am 21, I should definitely be too stupid to make a choice of a marriage partner until I am 21. The laws make no sense.

realitycheck,

"The marriage contract is between two people."

Because the majority decided that it was between two people just like the majority decided that a marriage was between one man and one woman regardless of the individuals gender, race, sexual orientation or religious/political beliefs.

"If the mormons want to marry more than one person, they need to create a new contract that covers multiple people. And all parties should have to sign it (including current wives, etc)."

Why should the FLDS create a new contract and gays not create a new contract? The argument by these attorneys is simple. If the majority does not have the right define marriage as one man and one woman than it shouldn't have the right to define it as a union between two people.

So the real issue here is whether the majority has the right to define anything. The floodgates have already been opened. The courts in ruling that the majority can't define marriage as one man and one woman has ultimately stated that the majority can't define anything because equal protection means the right to be included in a definition. Not just treated equally under the definition.

Kevin,

"I agree 100%. If we are going to cater to special interest groups, then we need to cater to ALL of them. I would prefer we didn't cater to any of them."

I happen to agree with you. If the argument is that it's discrimination to deny individuals of the same sex the alleged "right" to marry each other then it holds true that it is also discrimination to deny 3 or more people of the opposite sex or the same sex or any combination thereof regardless of current or biological relationship to each other the same alleged "right."

If "equal protection" requires the majority to include other relationships in the definition of marriage then it holds true for all relationships. A mother and son can't be discriminated against, a man and his three sisters can't be discriminated against, etc. This argument also extends into every facet of society. If equal protection means that the majority MUST include X in the institution of marriage then the majority MUST also include X in the institution of Congress or Presidency. Simply stated the majority can't deny 10 year olds right to marry or be President.

Fair enough. If gays get the right to marry so should polygamists.

STEVE-O,

"This is how it starts. The Gay rights activists ask how them being married effects me!! Now we've got people wanting to marry multiple people. It's fine as long as everybody agrees right? So when some dude uses this logic to Marry my 14 year old daughter it'll be fine!"

You haven't broadened the outcome enough yet you are correct. The natural result of their argument and position is that a majority can't define any law or any institution because equal protection does not mean equal protection UNDER THE LAW but equal protection ACCORDING TO LAW.

Instead of equal protection simply meaning that if the majority defines the requirements of X to be Y then it must apply Y to everyone instead of having a different standard for minority Q it instead has become if the majority defines the requirements of X to be Y then it must also define the requirements of X to be Y and Z and not just Y otherwise you are discriminating against Q who doesn't want Y but wants Z.

It doesn't matter if X is marriage or right to be President at 20.