Federal Court Strikes Down Criminalization of Polygamy In Utah

Posted in the Gay/Lesbian Forum

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#1 Dec 13, 2013
http://jonathanturley.org/2013/12/13/federal-...
Published 1, December 13, 2013 Constitutional Law , Courts , Criminal law , Free Speech , Lawyering , Media , Politics , Religion , Society , Supreme Court 20 Comments
240px-sister_wives_tv_series_l ogo
"It is with a great pleasure this evening to announce that decision of United States District Court judge Clarke Waddoups striking down key portions of the Utah polygamy law as unconstitutional."
"As I have previously written, plural families present the same privacy and due process concerns faced by gay and lesbian community over criminalization."

Seems I remember many in this thread declaring gay right legal advances would never be used as the basis for polygamous relationships. Seems you all were very, very wrong.:)

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#2 Dec 13, 2013
You do realize that the only provision of the law which has been overturned, is the section which made it illegal for someone who was legally married to cohabit with anyone else. There is no legal recognition of plural marriage, just an end to an unwarranted intrusion into some folks love/sex lives.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#3 Dec 13, 2013
Federal judge declares Utah polygamy law unconstitutional.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/56894145-78...

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#4 Dec 13, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
You do realize that the only provision of the law which has been overturned, is the section which made it illegal for someone who was legally married to cohabit with anyone else. There is no legal recognition of plural marriage, just an end to an unwarranted intrusion into some folks love/sex lives.
Yes. But the argument in a few threads here was polygamy would never be legalized on the back of same marriage legalization. Well this is one step in that direction just like it happened for laws recognizing homosexual rights and homesexual relationships/marriages.

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

#5 Dec 14, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
........
Seems I remember many in this thread declaring gay right legal advances would never be used as the basis for polygamous relationships. Seems you all were very, very wrong.:)
No, we simply argue that marrying one person at a time, and marrying many at a time are unrelated. If polygamists seek legal recognition for their unions, does that really have anything to do with everyone else who marries only one at a time?

You might as well complain that allowing heterosexuals to legally marry the single person of their choice has lead to people marrying many. Should we ban all heterosexuals from legally marrying, because their marriages have led to polygamy?

At least start with logic.

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

#6 Dec 14, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. But the argument in a few threads here was polygamy would never be legalized on the back of same marriage legalization. Well this is one step in that direction just like it happened for laws recognizing homosexual rights and homesexual relationships/marriages.
Actually, the law is being changed on the back of heterosexual marriages to single people. After all, most polygamists are heterosexual, aren't they? And most of them are conservative religious believers.

Why blame gay folks when the numbers of straight married couples are so much larger?

Do you REALLY think it's logical to harm one group of people, because an unrelated group might do something you don't like?

That's ridiculous.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#7 Dec 14, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
Yes. But the argument in a few threads here was polygamy would never be legalized on the back of same marriage legalization. Well this is one step in that direction just like it happened for laws recognizing homosexual rights and homesexual relationships/marriages.
Your wake up to reality call is that the Brown families aren't actually illegal in that many states. They are actually breaking fewer state's laws than Lawrence did. If I remember right, it might be as few as three that prohibit extra-marital cohabitation (Az & Md I think). States had/have adultery laws, but for that you need a complainant. This was decided as a right to individual privacy, not as a right to a legally recognized plural marriage contract. BIG difference. Just so you know, ever since this case was first announced, I've been saying that this was all you were going to be able to hope for out of this case and you were only going to get that because they had finally found someone in such a 'spiritual marriage' that hadn't taken a 14 year-old wife along the way. Until now, the only folk who challenged this were in far more serious trouble, that only over-turning the cohabitation charge might help. Did not play well.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#8 Dec 14, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
No, we simply argue that marrying one person at a time, and marrying many at a time are unrelated. If polygamists seek legal recognition for their unions, does that really have anything to do with everyone else who marries only one at a time?
You might as well complain that allowing heterosexuals to legally marry the single person of their choice has lead to people marrying many. Should we ban all heterosexuals from legally marrying, because their marriages have led to polygamy?
At least start with logic.
You're not listening to what I said.
Long ago in these threads it was said by some (me included) that when same sex marriage got enough footholds in enough states, polygamists would come forth on the same premises that same sex marriage advocates used to prove discrimination etc. Many here said it would NEVER happen. This case proves it is happening.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#9 Dec 14, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, the law is being changed on the back of heterosexual marriages to single people. After all, most polygamists are heterosexual, aren't they? And most of them are conservative religious believers.
Why blame gay folks when the numbers of straight married couples are so much larger?
Do you REALLY think it's logical to harm one group of people, because an unrelated group might do something you don't like?
That's ridiculous.
Why blame gay folks? There was no blame here. Why are you speaking of blame? I made a statement long ago with others and it is happening. Simple fact. And hetero laws for monogamy are the laws that helped to establish laws against polygamy. So no, heterosexual marriages won't help in this case. But the basis of discrimination as established in courts by same sex advocates will help the cause of polygamists as it did in this first case.

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

#10 Dec 15, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
You're not listening to what I said.
Long ago in these threads it was said by some (me included) that when same sex marriage got enough footholds in enough states, polygamists would come forth on the same premises that same sex marriage advocates used to prove discrimination etc. Many here said it would NEVER happen. This case proves it is happening.
It proves no such thing. Did you even READ what the lawsuit was about, and what the ruling was? Not a thing about gay folks marrying one person at a time.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/14/us-...

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#11 Dec 16, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
It proves no such thing. Did you even READ what the lawsuit was about, and what the ruling was? Not a thing about gay folks marrying one person at a time.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/14/us-...
Did you read the statement made by one of the people involved in the lawsuit? of course you didn't. You'd rather jack your jaw then address what was stated from those involved in the lawsuit that you claim know nothing about their own lawsuit or it's reasons and accomplishments.

""It is with a great pleasure this evening to announce that decision of United States District Court judge Clarke Waddoups striking down key portions of the Utah polygamy law as unconstitutional."
"As I have previously written, plural families present the same privacy and due process concerns faced by gay and lesbian community over criminalization."

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The gay cafe for GLBT, friends and family (Oct '09) 12 min Norfolkian 68,112
Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? 18 min Frankie Rizzo 3,094
Gay kiss couple 'thrown off bus' 27 min Frankie Rizzo 32
Is Vladimir Putin Another Adolf Hitler? 40 min Avenger 1,994
Gay-rights group backs use of HIV-prevention pill 41 min cpeter1313 31
Hitching Post wedding chapel sues over gay marr... 42 min NorCal Native 12
Anti-gay Tenn. billboard stirs religion debate 45 min cancer suxs 1,520
GOP leader: NC officials can refuse to marry gays 49 min cpeter1313 33
Christian Pastors Given Choice: Perform Same-Se... 1 hr eJohn 158
Next gay marriage fight: religious exemptions 2 hr cancer suxs 606

Gay/Lesbian People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE