Ultra Bob, your comment: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.Wow really? Can you imagine the damage to
these children by ripping them out of their homes? Traditional marriages
account for about 20% of households. Where would the State put all of these
children? I have some friends that are in Polygamous marriages and their
children are very well adjusted and educated. The Warren Jeff's cult has
cast a bad light on the abuse of children. However, you have stereotyped as bad
anything but a traditional marriage. It just isn't true. How
many children are you willing to take into your household? With your solution
there would be thousands available!
Ultra BobYour comment is strange to me. You say the children are at
risk... so then should we take away every child that has been born out of
wedlock, where one parent disappears and won't have anything to do with
them? Should we just turn those over to the state because it isn't an ideal
situation in your mind? Right.
The Bountiful Case  court findings:-Women in polygamous
relationships are at an elevated risk of physical and psychological harm.-Children in polygamous families face higher infant mortality, even
controlling for economic status and other relevant variables.-Early
marriage for girls is common, frequently to significantly older men. The sex
ratio imbalance inherent in polygamy means that young men are forced out of
polygamous communities to sustain the ability of senior men to accumulate more
wives.-Polygamy has negative impacts on society flowing from the
high fertility rates, large family size and poverty associated with the
practice.-Harms against women include: exploitation;
commodification; social isolation; the inevitable favouritism of some women and
deprecation of others within the household; discrimination; and,
impoverishment.-Harms against children include: the negative impacts
on their development caused by discord, violence and exploitation in the marital
home; competition between mothers and siblings for the limited attention of the
father; diminishment of the democratic citizenship capabilities of children as a
result of being raised by mothers deprived of their basic rights;
impoverishment; and, violation of their fundamental dignity.-Polygamy harms good citizenship; threats to political stability; and the
undermining of human dignity and equality.
@Chris BI am with you. As your (and everyone's) fellow american
I condone, like, approve of, enjoy, endorse, applaud, encourage, support, and
love this comment. Marriage was a joke anyways, we may as well just
open the race to everyone.
Wasn't it the Fed Govt. that forced Utah to outlaw polygamy in the first
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).
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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
thidi want to see the happy faces of the children
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.
Unreconstructed: Obviously they don't consider any of it appealing... (nyuk
Look at how happy they all look in the photo! But what about all those mothers
in law? What are they thinking?
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.
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
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.
Any chance this story will get 266+ comments like the marriage rights discussion
in "Most Commented" is getting? It will be interesting.
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
Because the State just has a pile of money they can't think of how to
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.
So what exactly aspects of the ruling does the state consider appealing? A
little more detail would be helpful.
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!