Comments about ‘Judge in 'Sister Wives' case asks for definition of polygamy’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, Jan. 17 2013 8:15 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
BlueEyesBrittany
Paris, 00

continued

I can see how it could work for the women, the men and the children ....; but to make polygamy legal is quite another matter ...

I personnally would not marry anyone because as you said many men cheat on their wives ... so why would i take a chance on my health or have my heart broken ....

Conclusion : though i would not prosecute this guy if everyone is happy with the arrangement and it is by common consent and all members are properly taken care of ... ..... i would still not make polygamy legal...

BlueEyesBrittany
Paris, 00

Looking at all the aspects of polygamy though, it still poses problems when it comes to sexual diseases, with HIV being the worse, if people break the rules of complete fidelity in the marraige arrangement, of inner breeding in the following generations, of the burden for the man to be able to provide for all the children ... or the man abusing the situation ....so all things should be discussed openly, problems tackled to ensure no one is hurt, abused or neglected, .. rules should be put in place and fully complied with (to reduce risks, harm, abuse, neglect and misery to a minimum) ... and limits drawn to men's desire to have more wives .... just for his lust

Screwdriver
Casa Grande, AZ

The standard now has become hundreds of sexual partners and kids with multiple partners, wedding optional.

Pretty hard to convict someone of polygamy I would suppose.

cjb
Bountiful, UT

If a polygamous family is from a polygamous tradition that does indeed forces girls to marry and kicks young men out of the home at too young of an age, the state of Utah has a very valid point. Otherwise I see little difference between polgamy and consenting adults choosing to have multiple partners. Utah has laws against fornication and adultery.

Flashback
Kearns, UT

If the only argument that the state can come up with is that because they are poligs there may be child abuse means we don't have many deep thinkers in the AG's office. Waddups brought that point out.

kfbob
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

So the Prosecutor thinks that it is not okay to have multiple cohabitating adults but sleeping with 10 different women and not committing to them is okay? Weak logic and arguments indeed.

Kevin J. Kirkham
Salt Lake City, UT

The real issue here boils down to the purpose of laws. Should they punish harm or enforce subjective morality? If the latter, then there's no logical reason for 19th century LDS to complain about others banning polygamy. Our ancestors' claims of religious persecution mirror those of the Browns'. How can LDS today hypocritically oppose legalizing polygamy? Opposing polygamy because the Church doesn't currently practice it is no different than those who based their opposition to polygamy 150 years ago on their own religious beliefs. Scripture likewise condemns using subjective morals to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others (1 Cor. 10:29, D&C 134:4).

If laws are to instead punish objective harm, we must ask who the Browns, as consenting adults, are harming? The kids aren't. They have multiple parental figures, at least one of whom stays at home for the kids. There are no risks to tax payers any more that a man who has one wife and three mistresses. They are happy to have the polygamous wives remain legally single women. They aren't asking for special rights.

There is no logical reason to retain the ban on polygamy for consenting adults.

Kevin J. Kirkham
Salt Lake City, UT

Nrajr: “There are also other pre-twentieth century morality laws that forbid fornication, adultery, and sodomy on the books of Utah and other states...Jensen, and other prosecutors should be enforcing those other morality laws as well.”

KJK: Sorry, but the Supreme Court's Lawrence vs. Texas decision outlawed bans on homosexuality and cohabittating. The above mentioned laws are invalid under Lawrence. The Browns might fall under it too. It's another proof that the law should only be used to punish objective harm rather than promote subjective religious/moral beliefs.

John C. C.
Payson, UT

Adultery is just as destructive to our society as it ever was. We, as a society have decided to accept it as a moral choice only involving the adults involved. We are wrong.

Civil law may now allow immorality, but God still knows our society will fail unless we return to higher standards.

mattrick78
Cedar City, UT

Ahhh...the paradox of prosecuting those who live in a polygamous marriage.

How can you prosecute people under the law when under the law the man is only married to one woman?

Red Smith
American Fork, UT

The Brown's should wise up and get of TV and out of the press. Being in the media is nothing but trouble.

to comment

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