Polygamy bill held up pending Utah legal case

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Feb. 10, 2014 1:13 p.m.

    To "USU-Logan" if sex is the only thing that makes them unequal, then I don't really see a problem with polygamy.

    What you have failed to do is consider the group of gays. If a group of gays decide to enter into polygamy, is there anything unequal there? If gays can be choose polygamy where they are all 100% equal, why can't straight people have the same choice even if they do not all have the same number of sex partners?

  • USU-Logan Logan, UT
    Feb. 10, 2014 11:21 a.m.


    Don't already admit that Mr. Brown and his wives are unequal when it comes to sex?

    Sex is a fundamental part of marriage. and that is exactly why it is absurd for you to equate spouse-spouse relationship with parent-child relationship.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Feb. 10, 2014 9:58 a.m.

    To "USU-Logan" lets look at what legalizing polygamy could do. Imagine that you have 4 gay people that love eachother and want to get married. You now a situation where each person in the relationship has 3 partners. Is there any inequality?

    You said earlier that mariage is about more than sex, but the only inequality that you can find when 1 man marries multiple women has to do with sex. Is there any rational reason why there is an inequality?

    If anything the women receive more beneifits in a polygamous marriage than in a monogamous relationship. They have less need of babysitters. They can more easily persue careers outside of the home, and have a built in support network for problems that they may encounter. Plus, if any one of them is sick, they can receive better care from the multiple people that are not ill.

    So again, tell us what the problem is with polygamy.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 9, 2014 1:59 p.m.

    You two (Redshirt and Chris B) do realize that if you prove that gay rights supporters are just like you in that they oppose polygamy due to some form of moral disgust you're just proving you oppose gay marriage due to a similar moral disgust, right? One of the things your side is supposed to be doing in court is prove that Amendment 3 isn't based on animus. So you're kinda making a good argument for gay marriage... and a decent one for polygamy. You oppose both so... probably not the way to go.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 9, 2014 1:49 p.m.

    @Chris B
    "Where are the libs and the cries for equality for these people?"

    Do you badger interracial couples if they support equality for polygamists? I'm just wondering since you seem to think a person who supports any one expansion in marriage should support all expansions so you must think interracial marriage supporters are hypocrites. At least you would if you didn't have double standards.

  • USU-Logan Logan, UT
    Feb. 7, 2014 8:35 p.m.


    When will you ever stop equating spousal relationship with parent-child relationship? Do I need to remind you again that married couples have sex? Not only spousal relationship is a sexual one, it is life partnership, parent-child relationship is not.

    With or without child, in a monogamous marriage, the couples have each other and only each other as life partner, the two spouses are equal in such an institution.

    But in Mr. Brown's polygamous marriage, the husband has 4 partners, the woman however, not only merely has one husband, she has to share her only partner with 3 other women. husband and wife are simply not equal in such an institution.

    If you believe that in polygamy, like Mr. Brown's, husband and wife are equal, fine by me. I'd better live on a corner of the roof than argue with you over the same issue again and again. but don't expect others will buy your argument, especially a judge, that Mr. Brown vs any of his four wives, are equal in such arrangement.

    if you still don't understand, or do not want to understand, I can't help you.

  • Gregorio Norco, CA
    Feb. 7, 2014 4:35 p.m.

    Reduce and simplify activities.

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    Feb. 6, 2014 1:37 p.m.

    To "USU-Logan" you still have not expressed what is unequal. You keep saying that things are not equal.

    Does sharing a husband really lead to anything unequal? Do the women still have access to him even if it isn't "their week" for him?

    Using your logic, as children are born, women lose a portion of their husbands. Is that really the case?

    In many ways, those women can have better lives than women in monogomous marriages. Think of it this way. If 1 wife wants to persue a career and 1 wants to say home, they can both do that and raise children without the risks of daycare.

    I am still waiting for a description about how things are not equal if a woman shares her husband with other women.

  • Brahmabull sandy, ut
    Feb. 6, 2014 12:39 p.m.


    So as long as you have the framework of equality to start then it is legal. Gotcha. I do, however, agree with you that the state doesn't have to recognize the marriage, but should leave them alone as long as all parties are of legal age and are happy with the arrangement.

    Although I don't know Mr. Brown or any other polygamist personally, I tend to think that it could be an ideal arrangement for some people and they can make it work rather well.

  • USU-Logan Logan, UT
    Feb. 6, 2014 10:47 a.m.


    "Do you honestly think that in every legal marriage that the partners are equal?"
    Would you please stop making straw man in here? No one believes in every single legal marriage the partners are equal, just like not all one-father-one-mother families are loving and supportive to their children.

    However, in a monogamous marriage, the couples have each other and only each other. Monogamy at least provides a framework of equality as an institution.

    But for polygamy, like Mr. Brown's marriage, the husband has 4 wives or partners, but the woman not only has merely one husband, she has to share her only partner with 3 other women. Such arrangement is not equal from the very beginning, it's a non-starter.

    "Let adults choose how they want to live and move on".
    I agree, and Mr. Brown should not be prosecuted, the law to put polygamous family in jail should be repealed. However, if they go further and ask government to recognize their polygamy, the government has legitimate interest to deny.

  • Brahmabull sandy, ut
    Feb. 6, 2014 9:21 a.m.


    We don't live in a fantasy land here. Do you honestly think that in every legal marriage that the partners are equal? Equal in what way. One does more financially, one may do more around the house, one may have more say here or there and one may do what the other says. Yes, traditional marriages must have all partners exactly equal... right.

    Why not just let adults choose how and who they want to marry as you are afforded that same right. It is not logical to allow a man to sleep with many women at a time (and have children with multiple people that aren't his spouse) but then condemn somebody who wants to do the same thing but live with them and take care of the children. How is that fair?

    Let adults choose how they want to live and move on.

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    Feb. 5, 2014 1:31 p.m.

    To "USU-Logan" so then you agree that 1 man with 4 wives is equal to 1 man and 1 woman.

    What is in inequality here. You keep saying that there is an inequality, yet cannot define the inequality. Please tell us what is not equal?

  • USU-Logan Logan, UT
    Feb. 5, 2014 12:21 p.m.


    I have to bring up the issue of sex because you start to equate spouse-spouse relationship with parent-child relationship.

    "How does sharing the same partner make them unequal?" Don't try to make a straw man here. I have never said such thing, That's your logic fallacy. For the four wives who share their husband, they are equal one to another, what is not equal here is the husband and one of his wives in this arrangement.

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    Feb. 5, 2014 8:28 a.m.

    To "UTSU" let me get this straight. You agree taht marriage is about more than sex, yet your argument that they are unequal uses sex.

    How does sharing the same partner make them unequal? Are you saying that if a spouse becomes incapicated and can no longer take part in sexual relationships that they are considered to not be married? You still have not explained how they are unequal. Your example of an emperor and his concubines is irrelavant because an emperor has supreme power and concubines are wives with no claim on inheritance.

    Again, how are they unequal? What does sharing the same man have to do with being unequal?

  • UTSU Logan, UT
    Feb. 4, 2014 8:47 p.m.

    "You do know that marriage is about more than sex don't you?"

    Of course we all do. but nobody can deny sex is a fundamental part of marriage. That is exactly why it is ridiculous for you to equate spouse-spouse relationship with parent-child relationship.

    For Mr. Brown and his 4 wives, he has 4 sexual partners, but each wife has to share her only partner with 3 other women in this arrangement. if you say Mr. Brown and his women are equal in this polygamy, who are you kidding? You might just go on and claiming an emperor and his concubines are equal.

  • DUPDaze Bakersfield, CA
    Feb. 4, 2014 4:17 p.m.

    Why hasn't Utah long ago fixed the problem they created in 1847 and then again in 1890?

    With the LDS Church's abrupt about-face in denying plural/celestial marriage, they created more havoc with their sub-culture of newly disgraced but devout polygamists. The huge disgrace is the inequality shown to Fundamentalists by those who brought "The Principle" put west initially.

    To deny that fact is mind boggling.

    Rectifying/legalizing this religious injustice for thousands may actually help their stigmatized underground, which poses harm to many young women. At least we can try and see if it helps this culture so shrouded in secrecy and domination today.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Feb. 4, 2014 3:03 p.m.

    To "UTSU" PROVE it. You keep claiming that if a man is married to more than one woman, that the women have less of a husband each, yet lack any proof to show that the women have a fractional "share" of a husband.

    You do know that marriage is about more than sex don't you?

  • USAlover Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 4, 2014 3:03 p.m.

    If you take "sex" out of the equation, Polygamy could probably be considered noble and praiseworthy.

    Any man who takes on children, and women, and cares for them lovingly and with respect is probably laudable in today's society.

  • jcobabe Provo, UT
    Feb. 4, 2014 2:25 p.m.

    How ironic to recall the origin of polygamy laws in Utah, and how it relates to current events.

    Just before the beginning of the 20th century, some of my own ancestors were imprisoned in the Federal Penitentiary - as punishment for practicing polygamy. I guess that puts me in my proper place.

    The Federal Government reputedly imposed polygamy laws on the State as a requirement for Utah Statehood.

  • Bored to the point of THIS! Ogden, UT
    Feb. 4, 2014 2:12 p.m.

    The people of who hit the blogs of the DNews seem to be unwilling to address the polygamy issue. It gets little attention. I'm curious as to why?

    The conservatives go wild about marriage being between a man and woman. The liberals go wild about equal rights for all... yet neither group says much here?

    I would think both would have plenty to say?

  • UTSU Logan, UT
    Feb. 4, 2014 2:03 p.m.


    This has nothing to do about comparing a husband with another husband, this is about whether a husband and a wife are equal in such an institution. If they are not equal, then government has compelling interests to against such institution. Unless Mr. Brown can prove 4 equal to 1/4, he won't get his polygamy recognized.

    And BTW, are you equating spouse-spouse relationship with parent-child relationship? You do know that married couples have sex, right?

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Feb. 4, 2014 1:32 p.m.

    To "UTSU" I will make this simple.

    Prove that a man with 4 wives is any less of a husbad to those 4 women than a man with only 1 wife.

    While you are at it, prove that parents with only 1 child are less of a parent when multiple children are involved.

    If you can do that, prove that 1 person cannot love multiple people equally.

  • UTSU Logan, UT
    Feb. 4, 2014 12:44 p.m.


    Your argument is hard to understand. My point is, unless Mr. Brown can prove that, he, a 4-wife-husband, and one of his 4 wives, who has to share her husband with three other women, are equal, have equal right in such an institution, there won't be legal recognition for their polygamy.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Feb. 4, 2014 11:52 a.m.

    To "Miss Piggie" I don't think you would want multiple husbands. Imagine you 2 guys together that are buddies. You will never see either one of them, and now you gave your first husband a video game/fishing/hunting/biking/weight lifting/farting buddie that is around all the time.

    To "UTSU" But it is equal. Can you prove that that multiple women with one man is equal to only having 1/4 husband?

  • UTSU Logan, UT
    Feb. 4, 2014 11:44 a.m.

    @Chris B

    Unless you can prove that, Mr. Brown having 4 wives and a wife having 1/4 husband, are equal, his polygamy is not going to get legal recognition.

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 4, 2014 8:09 a.m.

    Where are the libs and the cries for equality for these people?

    After all, they were just born differently, with a desire to marry many.

    don't they deserve equal rights?

  • techpubs Sioux City, IA
    Feb. 4, 2014 7:36 a.m.

    It would be interesting to know how many people who support legalizing illegal immigrants to prevent the break-up of families oppose the move to legalize polygamy even though it breaks up families.
    And allowing adults to cohabit in a house should be illegal if they are legally married to one person and spiritually married to the rest.

  • Miss Piggie Phoenix, AZ
    Feb. 3, 2014 9:04 p.m.

    "...if polygamy is legalized, Utah ceases to be a state."

    That's easily fixed. Just Get Judge Robert Shelby onto the case.

  • DN Subscriber Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 3, 2014 7:28 p.m.

    No need to repeal the law. Just stop enforcing it.

    Obama soes it with immigration, the Obamacare law, and others.

    At a time when families (by any definition) are under attack and declining, a law that bans a polygamous family is sort of silly. Especially when rampant random cohabitation and procreation is tolerated, if not actually encouraged today.

  • Northern Lights Arco, ID
    Feb. 3, 2014 6:27 p.m.


    You bring up an intriguing point to think about: what if a federal judge should ever rule the Utah constitution unconstitutional? While the idea itself is absurd in my opinion, some other judicial rulings in recent years have been almost as bold.

  • Vanceone Provo, UT
    Feb. 3, 2014 5:35 p.m.

    Utah can't legalize polygamy for a very simple reason, and it's a compelling state interest: According to Utah's state charter and also the state constitution, if polygamy is legalized, Utah ceases to be a state. It was all part and parcel of being admitted to the Union.

  • The Deuce Livermore, CA
    Feb. 3, 2014 4:39 p.m.

    This is all part of leaving the barn door open with the many issues surrounding marriage equality. At this point, everything should be fair game.

  • intervention slc, UT
    Feb. 3, 2014 4:39 p.m.

    @miss piggie

    Just a thought, reading the article before commenting my help prevent an off topic comment in the future.

    "In December, U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups threw out the part of the bigamy law that bans cohabitation. Waddoups said the provision was a violation of the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of religion. The Utah attorney general's office might appeal the ruling, so Anderson said he's dropping his proposal this year because lawmakers don't want to interfere."

  • Miss Piggie Phoenix, AZ
    Feb. 3, 2014 4:01 p.m.

    Cory Brown and his four wives shouldn't have any problem once the same-sex issue is resolved. Perhaps I should begin scouting for a second and even a third husband. This could get exciting. I have assets and other things to pass on.