Quantcast

Comments about ‘Federal judge overturns part of Utah's law against polygamy’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, Dec. 13 2013 9:25 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
attyguy
Salt Lake City, Utah

Regardless of how government "defines" marriage what makes marriage truly meaninful is our own personal definition of marriage. Traditional marriages only bat about .500. Those marriages don't fail because gay or plural marriage but because of a individual failure to commit and sacrifice. My marriage cannot lessened or weakened because someone else has a governmentally sanctioned right to form a union. The Constitution gives all that right even if it makes others uncomfortable. Those that say marriage means nothing or means less now need to look to themselves and realize only they can make their own marriage special.

I support all mutually consenting adults be they gay, straight, polygamous, or some other union I cannot think of, in their individual quests to create, satisfying, loving, supportive unions and pray that I might continue to be sucessful with my own.

Kimber
Salt Lake City, UT

The difference in this alternative lifestyle and in gay marriage is that gay marriage has only one other partner. The problem that comes from this lifestyle is an increase in abuse (monogamous relationships are not guiltless in this) But we have seen over and over that polygamous relationships cause more problems (and financial is obvious) These types of people normally abuse the welfare system to survive. I'm glad they mentioned that bigamy is still against the law (and always should be) Can you imagine many women being satisfied with a "spiritual" marriage (not legal)? No there are not many that will be and the polygamy groups have many leaving them when they find out how brainwashed they've been. (Those people and probably these people in this story think they have to do it to get to heaven). How sad....

Cats
Somewhere in Time, UT

In countries where polygamy is currently legal, it is still banned by the LDS Church. I don't believe the Church will ever reinstitute polygamy. It served its purpose and is over.

BlueEyesBrittany
Paris, 00

Since most women do not want to marry because of the sexual health hazards related to multiple partners, this is the most unwise and dumbest decision that was ever taken. In addition, it is fair to assume that the law will only allow men to enter into plural marriages and that women will be denied the same right, another evidence that men and religions have always been privileging men over women and are, of course, only made and ruled by men. Of course, this very selfish self-serving attitude towards women are only going to hurt women more and children as well not just emotionally, but also,physically, healthwise and financially and we are not mentioning the inbreeding problems of future generation. No wonder that most women prefer to be single and are increasingly becoming atheists. After all, this is one additional proof that God does not have women's best interest at heart (also,)

BlueEyesBrittany
Paris, 00

(continuation from previous post)

Women should be well advised to never join a religious system that allows such male privileged and health dangeroous practices and they should also be well advised to never marry any men that belongs to them.

And since women are becoming more and more relectant to marry because of the health hazards associated with dating and marrying someone who has multiple partners whether official or non official, it is even less likely that anyone will want to marry those whose religions support plural marriages and therefore put each of the women party to such lustufl practice at risk of contracting sexual diseases including the lethal HIV.

I think all women should go and demonstrate in the streets for allowing a practice that is so damaging to them, to their health, their emotional fulfillment, their financial survival and their equal right to have a fulfilling safe and monogamous marital life.

Charlemagne
Salt Lake City, Utah

Polygamy is even worse for society than gay "marriage"!
1. If one man like this Kody Brown has four wives that means that three will have none. Why should other men live a life of pain and loneliness because of the narcissistic greed and arrogance of these polygamists?

2. Allowing one man to have multiple wives can create genetic problems when too many individuals ahve the same father.

3. What about the so called "lost boys"? I(n order to maintain this lifestyle the "excess" sons are going to ahve to be turned out. As a i said before, Why should other men live a life of pain and loneliness because of the narcissistic greed and arrogance of these polygamists?

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

Charlemagne said: Polygamy is even worse for society than gay "marriage"!
"1. If one man like this Kody Brown has four wives that means that three will have none. Why should other men live a life of pain and loneliness because of the narcissistic greed and arrogance of these polygamists?"

Seriously? You believe in redistribution of women/wives for equality reasons?

"2. Allowing one man to have multiple wives can create genetic problems when too many individuals ahve the same father." Not sure what your even trying to say here, but it's not based in any real science.

There You Go Again
Saint George, UT

"...Federal judge overturns part of Utah's law against polygamy...".

Oh the irony of that headline.

Contrariusier
mid-state, TN

@Happy Valley Heretic --

"Seriously? You believe in redistribution of women/wives for equality reasons?"

Charlemagne is correct. It's not "redistribution" per se, though. But polygamy does tend to create an underclass of poor unmarried men, many of whom are thrown out of their homes and even communities as teenagers. Look up articles about the "Lost Boys" of Utah and Arizona.

"Not sure what your even trying to say here, but it's not based in any real science."

Actually, it is. Look up "Founder Effect" and "genetic bottlenecks". Minimizing the number of males contributing to a population decreases genetic variability within that population, especially in isolated groups -- which polygamous communities usually are.

And now I've gotta leave. It'll be interesting to see what develops on this thread by the time I get back!

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@Contrariusier
"it is true that most US states have no serious laws against cohabitating anyway."

I'm pretty sure none do. I feel like (I could be wrong) what this judge was doing though was saying that you can act like you're married to multiple people, it's just against the law to have multiple marriage licenses at the same time.

Gary
Federal Way, WA

Not surprised by the decision of the court. The constitution prohibits the government meddling in religious issues and this is one of them. To those who are not happy about this, complain all you want. What you don't realize is the constitution is protecting you so that your religion is safe. This decision proves that the constitution is still alive. That federal law prohibiting polygamy will soon be removed and people will be able to treat each married partner within the law and be respected being in a family protected by the law. It's about time this happened. This isn't about the lds church or any religion against polygamy. People will follow their church leaders. For others in religion where polygamy is encouraged, so be it. To each their own. If you don't like it, then don't do it yourself and let those who do, let them be respected. It's not about who sleeps with who. Its about families such as this one who have this desire with good intentions be allowed. Simple as that.

morpunkt
Glendora, CA

@somewhere in time, Utah" LDS Church. I don't believe the Church will ever reinstitute polygamy. It served its purpose and is over". Are you absolutely sure? It's a mere formality, at present, for the living. Many husbands today, once widowed, get sealed to another wife. If it gets legalized, it's just a matter of time, IMHO.

roberto
Moses Lake, WA

Rock on makes an excellent point. Having said that it takes all the strength I have to keep up with the one wife.

Two For Flinching
Salt Lake City, UT

@ Hey It's Me

Is a 13-year old girl a consenting adult who can legally sign a marriage license? No.

Your fears can be put to rest.

mhilton
Lancaster, CA

They are married, just cohabitating, or having sex with other women with the permission of the others. So, adultry. Just sad!

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

This could never happen in new york or california. There, they tend to believe more in traditional marriage.

terra nova
Park City, UT

The judge did not legalize polygamy. All he did was overturn the co-habitation portion of the law.

So, yes... the Brown's can live under the same roof. But they are not all married to each other.

The law is still one woman, one man.

The comments on this board make it sound like polygamy is legal. It is not.

brainoncapitalist
Orem, UT

Oh the irony! The Federal government is telling the State of Utah that polygamy is OK. LOL!

Archie1954
Vancouver, BC

I find this multiple wives arrangement to be much more degrading to the sacrament of marriage than same gender marriages. For one thing it demeans women.

Brahmabull
sandy, ut

Dan Taylor

This isn't the work of the devil. This was a federal judge realizing that preventing consenting adults from participating in a relationship how they choose is illegal. You don't have to agree with what they do, and I'm sure you do things that other people don't agree with. That is life. People need to move on and not worry so much about what other people do, assuming no innocent underage people are being harmed. If there was abuse it is a different story. But abuse happens in all forms of relationships...

to comment

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