Comments about ‘Utah will appeal polygamy ruling, attorney general says’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, Feb. 13 2014 4:05 p.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Chris B
Salt Lake City, UT

If we're going for equal rights, polygamists should be able to marry. And so should two brothers who are in love.

After all, we shouldn't discriminate if they were born that way.

Equal rights for all!

Unreconstructed Reb
Chantilly, VA

So what exactly aspects of the ruling does the state consider appealing? A little more detail would be helpful.

newhall, CA

Apparently these women and their husband find nothing wrong with what they are doing or how they are living. There are enough foolish laws on the books that need to be removed; polygamy is one of them that should be removed. If such adults are inclined to live this way, they have every right.


Because the State just has a pile of money they can't think of how to spend?

boneheaded, but not a smidgen

it seems to me that these people's pictures are in the DN constantly. why? obviously attention is what they love, reality show and all, so why continue to publicize?

Brigham City, UT

Any chance this story will get 266+ comments like the marriage rights discussion in "Most Commented" is getting? It will be interesting.

Gilbert, AZ

I think this is mislabeled as a "polygamy ruling", it should be a "cohabitation ruling". Judge Waddoups ruled that laws against multiple cohabitation was not constitutional.

No one has the freedom to marry the person they love if it is in a polygamous relationship. There is no media hype or Hollywood protests for freedom for polygamists. They are still discriminated against. Their children and parents don't get the legal protection that everyone else gets. They truly are second rate citizens.

Alexandria, VA

I may not personally agree with polygamy, but I respect the right of adults to enter into that type of relationship (as long as there is no coercion of any type).

Sioux City, IA

Lovely Deseret has a good point. This is truly only about "cohabitation" by adults since Mr. Brown is only legally married to one of his wives. The rest are spiritual marriages as performed by his Church. But now that States are opening the issue of changing the definition of who can have a legal marriage with the same-sex rulings then I believe it's time for them to also allow multiple marriage by consenting adults.

Thid Barker
Victor, ID

Look at how happy they all look in the photo! But what about all those mothers in law? What are they thinking?

Brigham City, UT

Unreconstructed: Obviously they don't consider any of it appealing... (nyuk nyuk nyuk)

Kevin J. Kirkham
Salt Lake City, UT

As has been pointed out, this isn't about polygamy, but rather about cohabitation while married. We know from the Lawrence vs. Texas ruling that the government doesn't have a right to interfere what goes on behind closed doors. No other state has such a law. My brother lived with my wife and me for several months. If we had lived in Utah at the time, we'd have been criminals.

Polygamy should be legal too. Some may claim that it's not healthy for women and kids, but we allow women to marry drug dealers, wife beaters, etc...and raise kids.

boneheaded, but not a smidgen

i want to see the happy faces of the children

Roy, UT

Traditional tenets are attacked from every angle, every side, today. Traditional marriage has seen America through its greatest achievements and prosperity. We should defend that which best lends to a healthy society. Govern by reason and rule of law, not by giving in to the anything goes, no standards at all movement. Chaos and confusion will not increase strength, unity, or healthy relationships.

Salt Lake City, UT

Does anyone else find it odd that Utah, where polygamy was a temporal practice until 1890 and a Mormon man (civilly divorced or widowed) can still be sealed to more than one woman for the hereafter, is now a vigorous supporter of the one man, one woman version of marriage?

Salt Lake, UT

I think the state is wasting its time if the are going to fight this the judge was right. The cohabitation part of the bigamy law is unconstitutional, you can't single out polygamists only for cohabitation, you would have to go after adultery, and live in situations too gay or straight for that matter. As long as polygamy is consensual between adults and their is no abuse going on let them live according to their beliefs. I am LDS and believe it was wrong for the LDS Church to be forced to give up plural marriage for Utah to become a state, it was a clear violation of the 1st amendment the rest of America imposed their religious belief of 1 man 1 woman on us. For us to take the gospel to every kindred tongue and people we have to allow it again, their are many cultures on the earth that live by plural marriage in other countries. We can't tell them to give up all but one wife to join the Lord's church and abandon the other wives and children. Should we deny them the gospel for simply having more than one wife?

Ultra Bob
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Adult Americans should have the freedom to do as they please so long as they do not infringe on the rights and freedoms granted by the Constitution and government of the United States of America.

Children do not have the freedom to do as they please, simply because they are assumed to be lacking in experience and knowledge to exercise such freedom and would do harm to themselves.

One man and One woman united in the normal traditional marriage is the desired parents that our society deems appropriate to the rearing of children. Society and its government have the right and the obligation to enforce its decisions.

Non-traditional marriages of adults such as bigamy, polygamy, same sex, and any other such, may be OK for adults but not for children. Any children that become part of an abnormal marriage should immediately become wards of the state and removed from the influence of the non-traditional marriage.

Spanish Fork, Ut

I can't believe I'm saying this but.... AG office, leave it alone. This is a waste of time and taxpayer's money. Unless we plan to go after people cohabiting or just having sexual relations out of wedlock, what is the point? At least polygamist's are making a commitment! That's a whole lot more than everyone else who are sleeping around, having children out of wedlock, and creating an entire generation of fatherless children. What's the difference? The commitment. One group is committing and the other isn't and so who do we prosecute? The committed. Brilliant By all means, if polygamists (or anyone else) commits welfare fraud - let's go after them hard. But if they support themselves, leave it alone.

Salt Lake, UT

Some of you say lets see the children. Well you can see the happy Brown children on most Sundays on TLC during the Sister Wives show. They are like any monogamous parent families they have happy days sad days etc. the same as your kids.Yes there are abuse in some polygamist groups but the same can be of any group monogamous, homosexual, polygamist, religions etc. Forcing them to be in secret only makes it easier for abuse to happen. Ultra Bob removing children should only be in cases of abuse. Children of divorced parents are more likely to develop problems in many areas. Is that not also a from of abuse, should they state come in and remove them too? because it is not the best environment of parenting. I would stand and protect any parent if the government came to get their children out simply because their marriage or lack there of isn't what you prefer.

equal protection
Cedar, UT

If an anti-polygamy/bigamy statue is challenged because it does not apply evenhandedly to similarly situated people (e.g., Sister Wives and those in closed faith promoting communities where harm and abuses is well documented to be under-reported) the means selected by the legislature must bear a substantial relationship to a legitimate government interest. Assuming harm and abuse is a legitimate interest of the State. If a line has to be drawn somewhere, it is the governments busines when dealing with a spectrum of risks and harms. When applying the rational basis standard, courts will not invalidate a provisionof law on equal protection grounds “unless the varying treatment of different groups or persons is so unrelated to the achievement of any combination of legitimate purposes that [a reviewing court] can only conclude that the government’s actions were irrational.” Kimel (2000).

to comment

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