Federal judge strikes down key parts of Utah's polygamy law

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,313
534
126
Federal judge strikes down key parts of Utah's polygamy law in 'Sister Wives' ruling



http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...-polygamy-law-in-sister-wives-ruling#comments




By Daniella Silva, NBC News

A federal judge has found key parts of Utah’s anti-polygamy law to be unconstitutional, ruling in favor of a polygamous family known for their reality television show.


While all 50 states across the nation have laws against bigamy, prohibiting people from having multiple marriage licenses, the law went further in Utah, finding a person guilty of bigamy when a married person “purports to marry another or cohabits with another person.”


But Judge Clark Waddoups of the U.S. District Court in Utah ruled late Friday that the “cohabitation” provision of the law was unconstitutional because it violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, which guarantee freedom of religion and the right to due process. His 91-page ruling now criminalizes plural marriages only in the literal sense, through acquisition of multiple marriage licenses.


The decision follows years of litigation in a case brought forth by Kody Brown, a star of the TLC reality television show “The Sister Wives,” which chronicles the lives of Brown, his four wives and their 17 children. The Browns are members of the Apostolic United Brethren Church, a fundamentalist church that shares historical roots with Mormonism and believes that polygamy is a core religious practice.


The Brown family does not have multiple marriage licenses, with only one recorded marriage license between Kody Brown and his wife, Meri.
“With this decision, families like the Browns can now be both plural and legal in the state of Utah,” their lawyer, Jonathan Turley, said in a post on his website.


Turley said the Browns drew attention of Utah authorities because of their television series. The Brown’s filed suit in July 2011, and fled Utah for Nevada under threat of prosecution. Bigamy is punishable by up to five years in prison in Utah.


Kody Brown issued a statement through Turley thanking the court for the “historical ruling.


“While we know that many people do not approve of plural families, it is our family and based on our beliefs,” he said in the statement. “Just as we respect the personal and religious choices of other families, we hope that in time all of our neighbors and fellow citizens will come to respect our own choices as part of this wonderful country of different faiths and beliefs.”
Judge Waddoups acknowledged in his decision that the ruling was not easy.


“The proper outcome of this issue has weighed heavily on the court for many months as it has examined, analyzed, and re-analyzed the numerous legal, practical, moral and ethical considerations and implications of today’s ruling,” he wrote.



Ultimately he ruled that the language of the law was unconstitutional because of its vagueness and “its targeted effect on specifically religious cohabitation,” therefore violating the First Amendment right to free expression of religion.


Waddoups said that while “polygamy” was not a fundamental right, the issue in the case of the Brown’s was “religious cohabitation” or “a personal relationship that resembles a marriage in its intimacy but claims no legal sanction” between consenting adults. As such, the language of the law violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment designed to ensure liberty.



Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-day Saints, or Mormons, fled to the Utah area in the 1800s following religious persecution. While the mainstream church abandoned polygamy in 1890 as Utah sought statehood, certain sects have broken off and continue to espouse plural marriage as a tenet of their religion.
So who didn't see this coming?:D
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,549
1,130
126
All this ruling does it bring Utah in line with the polygamy laws of the other 49 states. Some people are trying to blame this on gay marriage being legalized/on path to being legalized, but in reality it this is the result of the over expansion of freedom of religion.

If Hobby Lobby wins its case, I would not be surprised if corporations say paying taxes is against the corporations(and its owners) religion. If Hobby Lobby wins its case its sets an incredibly dangerous and terrible precedent.
 
Last edited:

CZroe

Lifer
Jun 24, 2001
24,195
857
126
All this ruling does it bring Utah in line with the polygamy laws of the other 49 states. Some people are trying to blame this on gay marriage being legalized/on path to being legalized, but in reality it this is the result of the over expansion of freedom of religion.

If Hobby Lobby wins its case, I would not be surprised if corporations say paying taxes is against the corporations(and its owners) religion. If Hobby Lobby wins its case its sets an incredibly dangerous and terrible precedent.

The government shouldn't be recognizing any marriages, gay or straight. It's an irrelevant cultural and religious ceremony. The main reason for them recognizing it is the tax breaks to promote population growth. Social Security depends on population growth as does the economy (inflation needs distribution). Once they start recognizing same-sex marriages then it makes no sense to recognize any marriage at all: Recognize civil unions for legal/medical disputes (inheritance, medical decisions, etc) and offer a bigger tax break to any household with children (gay adoptive/surrogate, straight, single, etc).
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,818
6,778
126
The government shouldn't be recognizing any marriages, gay or straight. It's an irrelevant cultural and religious ceremony. The main reason for them recognizing it is the tax breaks to promote population growth. Social Security depends on population growth as does the economy (inflation needs distribution). Once they start recognizing same-sex marriages then it makes no sense to recognize any marriage at all: Recognize civil unions for legal/medical disputes (inheritance, medical decisions, etc) and offer a bigger tax break to any household with children (gay adoptive/surrogate, straight, single, etc).

I deem your opinion invalid, irrelevant, and incorrect. Sorry.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,818
6,778
126
I deem your post completely retarded. Namely - because you offer zero counter to the post you're arguing against.
CZroe spells it out better than anything else can.

Don't fall victim to illogic because you imagine you see it in others. First you say I offered no case and then you claim his is the best case there is. Mine is actually better, even if I didn't make it and you wouldn't have the capacity to judge given you fell for his.

Hint: Love is sacred and a brilliant intellectual can be emotionally dead. Have fun. Try to be real.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,941
10,280
136
5 years in prison for cohabiting?

:thumbsup: to telling Utah to shove it.
 

Chaotic42

Lifer
Jun 15, 2001
34,986
2,145
126
I say we make marriage a religious issue and allow people to choose a partner for the purpose of benefits and inheritance. If someone has multiple partners, they can allot them certain percentages so that the amount of the benefits is the same, but their multiple partners can all get a share.
 

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,811
198
106
Hopefully anti-polygamy laws will be struck down just like anti-gay marriage laws.

This ruling is but one step in achieving true marriage equality.
 
Last edited:

lopri

Elite Member
Jul 27, 2002
13,314
690
126
Tentatively speaking, I would oppose polygamy until women no longer have to bear children.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
I say we make marriage a religious issue and allow people to choose a partner for the purpose of benefits and inheritance. If someone has multiple partners, they can allot them certain percentages so that the amount of the benefits is the same, but their multiple partners can all get a share.

Why should your live in sex buddy get special benefits?

The government shouldn't be recognizing any marriages, gay or straight. It's an irrelevant cultural and religious ceremony. The main reason for them recognizing it is the tax breaks to promote population growth. Social Security depends on population growth as does the economy (inflation needs distribution). Once they start recognizing same-sex marriages then it makes no sense to recognize any marriage at all: Recognize civil unions for legal/medical disputes (inheritance, medical decisions, etc) and offer a bigger tax break to any household with children (gay adoptive/surrogate, straight, single, etc).

So lets eliminate marriage and replace it with something that is basically marriage with a new name :rolleyes:
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
30,058
31,016
136
Hopefully anti-polygamy laws will be struck down just like anti-gay marriage laws.

This ruling is but one step in achieving true marriage equality.

I have no problem with various types of poly relationships as long as everyone involved is there of their own free will. To me that would rule out groups like the bunch in AZ where marriages were arranged while girls were not old enough to consent.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
Hopefully anti-polygamy laws will be struck down just like anti-gay marriage laws.

This ruling is but one step in achieving true marriage equality.

Yep. This coupled with rulings like the one in Georgia where the government can retroactively declare you to have been married means we are one step closer to human-toaster marriages :thumbsup:
 

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,811
198
106
To me that would rule out groups like the bunch in AZ where marriages were arranged while girls were not old enough to consent.

I fully agree.

Also, to have true marriage equality polygamy and polyandry both need to be legalized.
 
Last edited:

Chaotic42

Lifer
Jun 15, 2001
34,986
2,145
126
Why should your live in sex buddy get special benefits?

Why should your wife (or husband) get them? If we're going to have the same kind system we have now, where you can get family coverage, I think we should modify the rules as I've mentioned.

If two (or more) people want to consider themselves a family, what business is it of ours? And if they're willing to pay extra for what is now spousal life insurance to be given to their "life-partners" or whatever they're called, what business is it of mine or yours?
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
Why should your wife (or husband) get them? If we're going to have the same kind system we have now, where you can get family coverage, I think we should modify the rules as I've mentioned.

If two (or more) people want to consider themselves a family, what business is it of ours? And if they're willing to pay extra for what is now spousal life insurance to be given to their "life-partners" or whatever they're called, what business is it of mine or yours?

Its our business because they are demanding it to be our business.
But part of it was inherent in the battle for marriage, which, after all, takes its very meaning from the quest for public recognition of a couple’s union. The whole point of a wedding, from a cultural perspective, is for a couple to invite their community to recognize and help enforce—indeed to approve of—their union as a positive thing worth supporting. There has always been something a bit disingenuous about gay rights activists insisting that they deserve marital recognition from their society because their relationships are nobody’s business but their own. Marriage is all about making your relationship other people’s business.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/...iendly_as_they.html?google_editors_picks=true

In case its unclear that is from a gay marriage advocate.
 

lopri

Elite Member
Jul 27, 2002
13,314
690
126
You make it sound like women are held down against their will and impregnated.

I shall rephrase: Tentatively speaking, I would oppose to institutionalized polygamy until males can bear children.
 
Last edited:

Chaotic42

Lifer
Jun 15, 2001
34,986
2,145
126
Its our business because they are demanding it to be our business.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/...iendly_as_they.html?google_editors_picks=true

In case its unclear that is from a gay marriage advocate.

The concept of society accepting something is different from society recognizing it as a right. What people think about homosexual marriage isn't as important as their recognizing that people should have the right to choose their family.

I say it's their right and that it should be legally recognized as such because who you choose for your family shouldn't be the business of the state. Can you give a good reason why you think it should be and why only certain relationships should be recognized for financial, benefit, and inheritance purposes?
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
The concept of society accepting something is different from society recognizing it as a right. What people think about homosexual marriage isn't as important as their recognizing that people should have the right to choose their family.

I say it's their right and that it should be legally recognized as such because who you choose for your family shouldn't be the business of the state. Can you give a good reason why you think it should be and why only certain relationships should be recognized for financial, benefit, and inheritance purposes?

That seems like an argument against marriage of any type. After all the whole purpose of marriage is to recognize only certain relationships for financial, benefit, and inheritance purposes.

Perhaps you should try understanding what marriage is before discussing it?:confused:

Who you choose as your family is the business of the state if you want the state to grant you special privileges based on who your family is. Don't want the government involved in your personal life, than don't demand they become involved in it.