Quantcast
Utah

Utah will appeal polygamy ruling, attorney general says

Comments

Return To Article
  • Utefan60 Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 18, 2014 2:08 p.m.

    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!

  • Brahmabull sandy, ut
    Feb. 17, 2014 8:50 a.m.

    Ultra Bob

    Your 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.

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    Feb. 17, 2014 2:33 a.m.

    The Bountiful Case [2011] 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.

  • CBAX Provo, UT
    Feb. 17, 2014 2:07 a.m.

    @Chris B

    I 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.

  • KDave Moab, UT
    Feb. 16, 2014 6:57 p.m.

    Wasn't it the Fed Govt. that forced Utah to outlaw polygamy in the first place?

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    Feb. 16, 2014 8:47 a.m.

    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).

  • trekker Salt Lake, UT
    Feb. 14, 2014 5:00 p.m.

    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.

  • Bifftacular Spanish Fork, Ut
    Feb. 14, 2014 4:48 p.m.

    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.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 14, 2014 4:07 p.m.

    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.

  • trekker Salt Lake, UT
    Feb. 14, 2014 2:55 p.m.

    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?

  • nonceleb Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 14, 2014 12:18 p.m.

    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?

  • DRay Roy, UT
    Feb. 14, 2014 9:11 a.m.

    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.

  • boneheaded, but not a smidgen SLC, UT
    Feb. 14, 2014 9:06 a.m.

    thid
    i want to see the happy faces of the children

  • Kevin J. Kirkham Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 14, 2014 8:32 a.m.

    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.

  • NedGrimley Brigham City, UT
    Feb. 14, 2014 7:54 a.m.

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

  • Thid Barker Victor, ID
    Feb. 14, 2014 7:03 a.m.

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

  • techpubs Sioux City, IA
    Feb. 14, 2014 6:09 a.m.

    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.

  • TA1 Alexandria, VA
    Feb. 14, 2014 5:51 a.m.

    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).

  • LovelyDeseret Gilbert, AZ
    Feb. 13, 2014 9:27 p.m.

    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.

  • NedGrimley Brigham City, UT
    Feb. 13, 2014 8:16 p.m.

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

  • boneheaded, but not a smidgen SLC, UT
    Feb. 13, 2014 7:46 p.m.

    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?

  • GZE SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Feb. 13, 2014 7:24 p.m.

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

  • sg newhall, CA
    Feb. 13, 2014 6:53 p.m.

    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.

  • Unreconstructed Reb Chantilly, VA
    Feb. 13, 2014 5:01 p.m.

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

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 13, 2014 4:53 p.m.

    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!