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
philipcfromnyc
Far Rockaway, NY

The anti gay marriage crowd will use this ruling as ammunition for their cause. It is therefore essential that those who advocate gay marriage point out thee difference between polygamy and gay marriage -- not one gay marriage advocate that I know of is pressing for the gay equivalent of polygamy. I would like to read the judge's opinion before making any further statements pertaining to this issue -- but you can bet that this comparison will be made.

PHILIP CHANDLER

wrz
Phoenix, AZ

@Kevin J. Kirkham
"It should have made it legal for all of the wives to be legally married to him."

Who'd want more than one wife? Alotta girlfriends, perhaps, but only one wife to nag you.

To the DNews monitor: Isn't that what this guy, Kody Brown has... alotta (four) girlfriends? He's not married to them and they live with him, so they must be friends. And they appear to be girls. If you agree (and to be fair, you must) then why deny my post?

desert
Potsdam, 00

@ Diligent Dave / Logan, UT

We all should be Anti-Polygamists, as speaking about our attitude. Elements seen in Jacob, very clearly.

How about reading the whole part :

"27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;

28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.

29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or acursed be the land for their sakes.

30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

31 For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands."

Jacob 2

Old Navy
Provo, UT

Does this mean Kody Brown and his wives are going to move back to Utah? Or are they going to continue living an extravagant lifestyle in Vegas only because of the money they receive from their TV show?

desert
Potsdam, 00

@ The Walker

Looks like we are not that perfect in representing church. your personal believes seem to locate people at a wish thinking hope, the church does not teach it rather look at Paul for comparison :

"3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables."

(2. TIM 4)

antodav
TAMPA, FL

And so it begins…

Anybody who denied that gay marriage would create a "slippery-slope" effect looks really dumb right about now.

BlueEyesBrittany
Paris, 00

"For the Lord delights in the chastity of women"

I have always wondered how much the Lord delighted in the chastity of men too because we, women, surely delight in it and since there are few men who please God in that respect, we feel much safer in every respect steering clear of them.

I am outraged as how it would be that only women should be chaste and men do not have the same obligation. Another evidence it seems, that religions were created by men who had double standards and make rules that were unequal and favoured them over women.

No wonder there are more and more atheists if men get exaltation for marrying plural wives and women get the scarlet letter and damnation for doing the same.

Religions will always outrage me in how they have treated women since the beginning of time. To me, if God does not understand the notion of fairness and same law for all, then we are better without him

Mugabe
ACWORTH, GA

I knew it was bound to happen, but I think that people are looking at polygyny, the correct term, as something deviant and perverted. People who practice this in other countries have a different view of it than the western society. It is very well regulated and a man just can't decide that he wants to marry another woman and go do it. His first wife must be the one to select the additional wives. The number of wives is regulated as well, most of the countries I am familiar with, only allow the man to have only four.

I don't think that this practice was meant for all nations. I sincerely believe that it was only for those who are literal descendants of the nation of Israel.

No matter what government says about it, it is a law that is given by Heavenly Father, and "For all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same." (Doctrine and Covenants 132:3) It appears from this statement that the law just isn't revealed unto one man, but unto as many as the Lord will see fit.

BU52
Provo, ut

Most states have laws against co-habitation, but they are ignored to the detriment of the country.

Contrariusier
mid-state, TN

@Clinton --

"why would it be any more difficult for a woman to get out of a plural marriage than it would be for her to divorce in a monogamous marriage?"

Oh, I wasn't necessarily comparing it to monogamous marriage. I was saying that it's easier to get out of a polygamous cohabitation than a polygamous marriage, because of the lack of legal entanglements.

" your inference that incest, abuse, rape, etc. is synonymous with plural marriage is also lacking any sort of factual basis. "

I never said they were synonymous. I said they all convey a significantly increased risk of harm, compared to other forms of marriage.

"There is no reason to conclude that plural marriage would breed such behavior any more than monogamous relationships would."

Of course there is. And there are many research studies which back up the multiple deleterious effects of polygamy, ranging from the spread of AIDS to the abuse and neglect of children.

@Mugabe --

"His first wife must be the one to select the additional wives. "

You are mistaken. In fact, in most countries with legal polygamy, the first wife has no right to refuse when the husband decides to take an additional wife.

Contrarius
mid-state, TN

In regards to state cohabitation laws --

As of 2013, cohabitation of unmarried couples remains technically illegal (almost never enforced) in only three states -- Mississippi, Florida and Michigan.

However, I still don't know if there are additional laws against **bigamous** cohabitation in these states or in other states.

Anyone got specific info?

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Re: "If polygamy becomes legal, could the LDS church reinstitute plural marriage again, since it would then be legal?"

That's the question that has a lot of us shaking in our boots.

Here's hoping the Attorney General appeals. That'll at least kick the can down the road.

Alex 1
Tucson, AZ

It has been my view for some time that the federal government, who once took polygamy by force from the Latter-day Saints, would one day be the ones to give it back. Here we see one giant step towards that eventuality.

It would be the ultimate irony if polygamy were to become legal, but its prohibition among the Latter-day Saints remain.

Alex 1
Tucson, AZ

There are some here who speculate that the church will never reinstate plural marriage. Everyone is entitled to his opinion of course. You need to realize though that it is just as much speculation to say that plural marriage will never return, as it is to say that it will. For a Latter-day Saint, the correct answer to the question on whether plural marriage will ever return is, "I don't know." The truth is, there is no official church position one way or another.

Contrarius
mid-state, TN

In regards to other state laws, it does indeed look like Utah may just be catching up with the rest of the country.

Here's Utah's code on bigamy:

Title 76

Utah Criminal Code
76-7-101. Bigamy -- Defense.
(1) A person is guilty of bigamy when, knowing he has a husband or wife or knowing the other person has a husband or wife, the person purports to marry another person or cohabits with another person.
(2) Bigamy is a felony of the third degree.

And here's Tennessee's:

TENNESSEE CODE ANNOTATED
39-15-301. Bigamy.
(a) A person commits bigamy who:
1) Is married and purports to marry a person other than the person's spouse in this state under circumstances that would, but for the person's existing marriage, constitute a marriage....
....
(c) Bigamy is a Class A misdemeanor.

Notice that there is no "cohabitation" provision in Tennessee's code -- and notice that bigamy is a felony in Utah, but only a misdemeanor in TN.

I bet the legality gets complicated by common law marriages, though -- some states have em, and some don't.

Remember, ALL this court decision does is remove the "cohabitation" provision from the Utah law. It doesn't make polygamy legal.

JayTee
Sandy, UT

How about some Federal judge ruling that the taxpayers don't have to subsidize the costs associated with raising their offspring? Would that now be too un-American?

IMAN
Marlborough, MA

@Diligent Dave, Logan, UT

"So, should this 2013 ruling result in a major long due apology on behalf of the Federal government, indeed, the nation at large, of initially foisting the requirement for this provision on Utah around 120 years ago as a stipulation for Utah being admitted as a state to the 'Union'? "

Sure Dave just get in line behind Native Americans, African Americans, Disabled Americans,Lesbian, Gay, Transgendered Americans and basically any American who is not a white male Christian American. Because as you so keenly pointed out, the LDS church has only been waiting 120 yrs. for an apology. The others that I've mentioned have been waiting far longer than that.

wrz
Phoenix, AZ

In the last days (whenever that is) seven women will take hold of one man and say, "We will eat our own food and provide our own clothes; only let us be called by your name. Take away our disgrace!" Isaiah 4:1

Kevin J. Kirkham
Salt Lake City, UT

The verses in the new testament where the qualifications for a church leader are listed both include that he be a man of one wife. If polygamy was outlawed for all early church members, Paul would have had no reason to add that restriction. Polygamy was therefore allowed in the ancient christian church. It may have been forbidden to church leaders since having extra wives and kids would demand more of the leaders time which would limit the time he could have to perform his church calling.

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

antodav

TAMPA, FL

"And so it begins…

Anybody who denied that gay marriage would create a "slippery-slope" effect looks really dumb right about now."

-------------------

I actually think this has more to do with the idea that religious beliefs should be above the equal rights of others more than gay marriage. If you believe that you should be able to live your beliefs - even to the detriment of other Americans (discriminate against gays, etc), you are helping in the cause of polygamy.

to comment

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