Comments about ‘Judge grills state attorney seeking to dismiss 'Sister Wives' lawsuit over Utah bigamy law’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, July 25 2012 10:00 a.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

Leave it to Utah ---

Where they'll throw you in jail for pan-handling, vehicle lisense expiration, burned-out tail-lights, spitting out chewing gum, and jay-walking...

But completely ignore and never enforce speeding, running red-lights, and Bigamy laws.

Brigham City, UT

LDS Liberal. That's a pretty wide generalization. I'm aware of many individuals receiving tickets for speeding and running red lights. I don't think it's completely ignored. And I know of no one going to jail for the infractions you list, though I have to admit, I don't know everyone. But I would guess there would have to be far more involved for someone to be jailed for gum spitting.

Seriously, I know sarcasm when I see it. That said, however, this particular issue, (polygamy) is as relevant right now as it has ever been, if not more so. With all the clamour in the news recently about marriage and relationships, how can the status of polygamy not become an issue as well? And why should it not be visited with the same passion as other "alternative union" issues?

Salt Lake, UT

I support Kody Brown, They should get rid of these laws let people live the way they believe as long as no abuse is going on and it is not forced on someone or minors. Plus if they prosecute him they need to go after anyone cohabiting, involved in adultery, homosexual relationships etc he is only legally married to Meri Brown. it was wrong for our country to force the LDS Church to abandon the practice of plural marriage it violated the constitution freedom of religion at that time. Funny they do not go after Muslims or others that come to this country as polygamists.

San Diego, CA

Amazing that people still engage in the false-equivalency of labeling homosexual and polygamist relationships "alternative unions." Almost as if they've never met a homosexual in their entire lives.

Quick challenge to trekker and other pro-polygamists:

Name a culture that (a) practiced polygamy without (b) devolving into rampant child sex-abuse, incest, and male-killing/banishment. Go ahead. Name one.

BTW: I thought the Church stopped practicing polygamy pursuant to God's revelation, not our country's force. Am I wrong?

Jens Bloomquist
Forks, WA

JCH: yes, actually, you are wrong. Read the manifesto written by Wilford Woodruff. Not a word about revelation. There is ample evidence that the church continued to practice Polygamy in Canada, Mexico, and the Pacific after the manifesto. The church promised to stop solemnizing plural marriages in the United States because the Federal Government had branded them criminals, hunted them down, jailed them, taken away their right to vote, and seized their property. Also because it was the only way they could achieve statehood, elect their own legislature, and enact their own laws.

It wasn't until early in the 20th century that prophets like Joseph F. Smith started teaching that the Lord had given a revelation ending the practice of plural marriage.

As to your challenge: The LDS church in the 1800s was able to practice polygamy without all of the issues you listed. There were some individuals and groups who separated themselves from the main body of the church so that they could do those things, but the main body did not.

Jens Bloomquist
Forks, WA

I will say one more thing. Wilford Woodruff does state in some of his addresses that he was commanded by the Lord to write and issue the Manifesto (different from being commanded to end the practice of plural marriage). He is also very clear in pointing out that he was instructed to do so only because if he did not do so then the government would seize everything, including the temples.

So, there was "revelation" involved which directed the prophet to write the Manifesto. But not revelation to stop the practice of polygamy. Not until later.

sandy, ut

There should be no law against polygamy. Are we as a country really dumb enough to allow people who are single to have sexual relationships with as many girls they want, whenever they want, and sometimes at the same time, but then as soon as they want to marry them it becomes illegal?? That is the idiocy surrounding that law. It all parties are consenting adults then they should be able to live as they choose. No law exists that says you can't have sexual relations with 100 girls in a week, but the second you want to marry 2 of them it is illegal. That is rediculous. The underage thing is a whole other matter, and should be prosecuted as the crime that it is.

West Haven, Utah

I will be interested to see how Nevada handles this situation with the Brown family. Will they prosecute? Will they ignore their anti-polygamy laws? And what, if anything, will the Federal Government do? As I remember the history on this subject, the Federal Government rounded up any polygamists they found in the late 19th century and jailed them. They don't seem to do that now, but expect the states to enforce the Federal Law.

Just like Utah, Nevada will be caught 'between a rock and a hard place.'

Sacramento, CA

Adultery was also once illegal, and it seems to be anywhere from a joke, to something to get away with if you can, to a tragedy, to a cause for diddolution of marriage if/instead of state laws for no-fault divorce. Premarital sex was also frowned on, and still statutory rape laws exist, and are even known to apply when the girl is over 18. Yet as frowned on as it is, it happens, as was noted, and is even, especially among males, congratulated. Of course, females are behaving just as badly lately. Doesn't anyone have anything else to think about, except what other people do in their bedrooms, homes, their houses of worship, by themselves? Get a life, folks, and let everyone else have their free will, as long as their free will isn't getting in the way of someone who cannot make theirs known, or is being forced or coerced to do another's. You who are LDS should recognise that as something we believe in and something we should be not forcing others to do by legislating them to do the collective will of the group.



How about Islam? Islam has not devolved 'into rampant child sex-abuse, incest, and male-killing/banishment'. In Indonesia it is legal to have as many as four wives unless you are a civil servant or in the military. For a man to take a 2nd wife the first wife must agree or be disabled or be unable to have children and the man must be able to financially support all his wives equally. While there are protests there against polygamy there is a study that found polygamous politicians were overwhelming more popular with female voters than monogamous politicians!

Is it better to have it formalized with polygamy or informalized and called other names, including 'having a mistress' and adultery? How about 'sexual networking' by Nigerians, 'parallel relationships' by the Finns or 'simultaneous multi-partnerships' by the French?

You could always argue that men and women should only have one sexual/emotional partner, but that hasn't yet come close to being true in all of recorded history and I don't hold much hope for our lifetime.

People should be allowed to do what they want as long as they don't harm others.

Bountiful, UT

The state also has anti fornication and anti adultery laws it doesn't prosecute.

Bountiful, UT

If a wife (or husband) becomes disabled and thus unable to perform as a wife or husband, the husband or wife ought to be able to legally take an other spouse.

If not the alternatives are to put your life on ice, divorce your spouse, or bread Utah's adultery law.

Brigham City, UT

JCH. I "labeled" polygamy as an alternative union because, thus far, it is illegal, and therefore something other than the culturally "accepted" norm. But some people are just as passionate about it as others are about homosexuality.

My comment is not an attempt to vote yes or no either way. Nor am I attempting to "challenge" any one's position, belief or leaning. (Though I think your "challenge" was answered.) I'm just noting that societally the discussion is wide open right now and every one is entitled to their opinion, including you.

However, I find it amazing that someone as passionate about homosexuality as you appear to be, is so quick to tear into someone elses closely held beliefs.

Shouldn't it be a matter of choice?

Forks, WA

NedGrimley: I think this is really the underlying problem, not plural marriage or homosexuality. The problem is that parties on both sides of any issue are unwilling to tolerate the fact that parties on the opposite side have different beliefs.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments