Published: Tuesday, Dec. 31 2013 9:55 a.m. MST
I wonder how many in the LGBT community and those who support them will, in
turn, support the polygamists in their fight for marriage equality.Tyler Jensen======= I do.FYI -- Warren
Jeffs is sitting in prison right now for sex with a minor, and contributing to
the rape of a minor. Not for polygamy.
I see no way for the government to continue outlawing polygamous marriages or
any type of marriage with the reasoning used to win the LGBT case. Maybe the
Carpenters (brother and sister who wanted to marry)... were just ahead of their
time. They had to leave the US to be married, but they could have sued and won
in the US if they had tried.The reasoning used by the judge in this
case makes it clear that absolutely no restrictions can be tolerated (or you
would be denying someone "equal protection"). So obviously this opens
the door to every relationship possible.
Tyler, let's legalize all of it with one provision. All participants must
be of age and enter such relationships of their own "free mind and
will". Then we can finally concentrate on real issues that effect society
like educating and feeding our children, creating good paying jobs and pug the
economic drain the corporate world has given us.
Didn't a judge just throw a bone to the polygamist community a couple weeks
ago? That having been said, I don't think anybody is looking at this as
being open ended. I haven't heard anybody advocating for same sex marriage
also advocating for incest or forced marriage or child abuse. Same sex couples,
motivated by biology, appear to be looking for the benefits of a stable, long
term monogamous relationship between consenting adults. Polygamists, however,
are ideologically driven, by religion in this case, which has proven time and
again subject to all kinds of abuse.
Tyler;Just a note, polygamists already HAVE marriage equality. They
can marry ONE person of their choice. That's all that LGBT people have
been asking for: the right to marry ONE person of their choice.
Open Minded Mormon,I don't know that the government can continue
preventing 14 year olds from wedding now. That would not be equal protection
under the law (age discrimination). By that standard if you prevent a 14 year
old from marrying you could get sued!I think there are a lot of
unintended consequences from this ruling. We will just have to deal with them
as they come up. But it's clear that you can't pretend anybody who
wants to from marrying now. That would all be government discrimination of one
type or another and by this ruling... "illegal".
"I wonder how many in the LGBT community and those who support them will, in
turn, support the polygamists in their fight for marriage equality."Depends what you mean by support. I'm fine with it being
decriminalized. Legalizing it would be a mess since it'd be changing a
2-person contract (and no you can't just have a bunch of 2-person
contracts, the overlapping nature of it would leave a mess out of taxes and
@2 bits – “I don't know that the government can continue
preventing 14 year olds from wedding now. That would not be equal protection
under the law (age discrimination).”No…We
prevent 14 year olds from doing all sorts of things that do not create 14th
amendment issues – drinking, voting, driving, signing contracts, joining
the military, etc.Unless society undertakes a fundamental change in
its “of age” norms, this ruling will have no impact on stretching
I don't have a problem with polygamists marrying multiple women, or if a
woman wanted, marrying multiple men.The late Alex Joseph, founder of
the Utah town Big Water, was a polygamist who supported his wives, if they
wanted to go to college, or leave the family. He would give any of his wives
$1000 and a car if they wanted to go, and many did. At any given time he would
have 6-8 wives, and one of his wives was the Kane County attorney, educated at
the U of U law school.There was nothing coercive about this
arrangement, it's kind of hard to be opposed to that kind of freedom.
Tyler,That is the point of 2 bits post...We limit their
drinking, voting, driving, or whatever... That is denying them their 14
amendment rights (as told by Judge Shelby), who to say they are not of age? Who
set this arbitrary "Be of age" limit? Some idiot politician?My grandmother was married at the age of 14, raised 11 kids on farm down in
the south. She knew full well the what the implications of being married was and
took on the responsibilities.
I'm in favor of it. Discrimination is discrimination. Isn't it? Or am
I just being facetious?
Tyler D,That was the point of my post. All these restrictions based on
age could now be open to a law suit based on the "equal protection"
interpretation. At what age do people deserve equal protection or equal
rights? The judge didn't decide that in his ruling... but some judge will
have to some day.The same goes for age based discrimination on
drinking, smoking, etc. According to the judge's interpretation of equal
protection... it's government endorsed discrimination to not allow one
person to do what is allowed for another.So these "of age"
laws can be challenged in a court of law... and found
"unconstitutional". The precedent has been set and the judge has to
follow it. The only question is if anybody will challenge them.
As long as the old guys don't marry 14-year-old girls, and/or commit
welfare fraud, then what difference does it make?
@Confused and @2 bitsIt’s an interesting question with a
“slippery slope” logic to it, but again I see this as highly
unlikely given the fact that all societies either now or in history have
recognized some real/practical separation between adults & children, and for
a whole host of obvious reasons.Granted the exact age of a minor is
somewhat arbitrary but our entire legal system is based on arbitrary lines being
drawn (e.g., 65mph OK – above that you’re breaking the law). And as
you said, the question is not only who will challenge it but would it be a case
of such social importance as to rise to the level of Federal or Supreme Court
action? I doubt it…With respect to gay people, there have been
societies throughout history that have allowed their unions, their actions
don’t harm society, the prejudices against them are largely religious
and/or bigoted in nature, and there has been a significant constituency fighting
for equal rights for a long time. Where are the 14 year olds
clamoring to get married, vote or patronize bars?
@2 bitsThe slippery slope logic you use is basically the same as that used
by those who opposed interracial marriage. If you can't separate out the
differences between a white man marrying1. a black woman2. another
man3. multiple women4. a child5. a dog... well,
that's your problem.
What if my horse and I really do love each other?
I personally have no problem with polygamy being legally recognized but it seems
a different level of legal scrutiny would be applied because one's sexual
orientation is immutable and something you are born with (even the LDS Church
admits this) while polygamy typically is based on one's religious
persuasions (ie a choice) - I am unfamiliar with any precedent on an "I was
born a polygamist" argument. It'll be interesting to see how it plays
out in the courts.
2-bits,The Carpenters (Richard & Karen) wanted to marry each
other? Where on earth do you get this stuff?Karen was married once
from 1980 until she died in 1983 but separated after 14 months. Richard married
after Karen’s death, is still married to his first spouse, and has five
The part of the story that Tyler Jensen left out was the probable truth that the
religious powers of the day influenced the government to pass a law requiring
marriage discrimination according to private religious belief. The same sort of
improper government action came about because of the power of religious
influence upon the government of Utah. Both cases violate the notion of freedom
of religion alluded to in the First Amendment. If a person pledges
to uphold the purpose, meaning and promises of the founding fathers and the
documents that they created, a person must temper their outward religious
activities to fit within the American creed. Believe as you will, but act
according to the rules of America.
Ranch,If your argument is that polygamists already have the same
right as others in marrying ONE person then the same "logic" can be used
to say that gays have always had the same rights as all people in being allowed
to marry someone of the opposite gender,If they don't want to,
well, polygamists don't want to marry just one. Disingenuous
and frankly very weak argument you make there.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments