Judge Rules Part of Utah Polygamy Ban Unconstitutional

[Texashiker]

Finally, we make some progress towards true marriage equality.

This decision was rendered in December, but was not final until August 27th because of some "procedural issues."

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/08/27/Final-ruling-against-part-of-Utah-polygamy-ban

Next is the abolishment of anti-polygamy laws.

Sadly the law that was struck down prohibited cohabitation and did not address polygamy directly. This was Utahs way of banning polygamy without naming it directly.

I figure this will be a lot like the anti-sodomy laws that were used to charge gay couples with a crime. First society needs to deal with anti-cohabitation laws, then deal with anti-polygamy directly.

 

[Jimzz]

This was a district judge who went to Brigham Young University and is a Mormon. Shocker he is against Polygamy laws.

 

[PokerGuy]

If you are opposed to laws limiting marriage to a man and a woman, (ie, you support same sex marriage etc), then it is completely irrational to not also be opposed to other similar limitations imposed by government on who people choose to marry (or how many).

 

[nehalem256]

If you are opposed to laws limiting marriage to a man and a woman, (ie, you support same sex marriage etc), then it is completely irrational to not also be opposed to other similar limitations imposed by government on who people choose to marry (or how many).

Also irrational to oppose limitations on marrying adult family members.

If a dude wants to marry his 4 adult daughters what right does the government have to stop him?

 

[justoh]

If you are opposed to laws limiting marriage to a man and a woman, (ie, you support same sex marriage etc), then it is completely irrational to not also be opposed to other similar limitations imposed by government on who people choose to marry (or how many).

Cohabitation isn't marriage. It's not necessarily the case that you don't know that, i guess; you could just be posting off topic intentionally.

 

[justoh]

Also irrational to oppose limitations on marrying adult family members.

If a dude wants to marry his 4 adult daughters what right does the government have to stop him?

I believe it's known as police power.

could like, look it up

 

[SlowSpyder]

I don't care about polygamy one way or another. And maybe it is something that should be revisited sooner or later. I really don't care. But for people who are anti-gay marriage to try and use this or other 'inequalities' as an excuse for why gays shouldn't have the right to marry is truly pathetic grasping at straws reasoning.

 

[justoh]

I don't care about polygamy one way or another. And maybe it is something that should be revisited sooner or later. I really don't care. But for people who are anti-gay marriage to try and use this or other 'inequalities' as an excuse for why gays shouldn't have the right to marry is truly pathetic grasping at straws reasoning.

Have you ever in your life encountered a religious person capable of reasoning?

 

[PokerGuy]

Cohabitation isn't marriage. It's not necessarily the case that you don't know that, i guess; you could just be posting off topic intentionally.

Apparently the cohabitation ban was a way to ban polygamy without actually naming it. Like passing a law saying two men can't live together. Sure, it doesn't actually prohibit same sex marriage, but it has the same effect.

 

[nehalem256]

I believe it's known as police power.

could like, look it up

Funny that police power doesn't apply to sodomy or same-sex marriage though according to liberals.

Which is the real point. Liberals are complete and total hypocrites.

 

[PokerGuy]

I don't care about polygamy one way or another. And maybe it is something that should be revisited sooner or later. I really don't care. But for people who are anti-gay marriage to try and use this or other 'inequalities' as an excuse for why gays shouldn't have the right to marry is truly pathetic grasping at straws reasoning.

You are making inferences not supported by any posts. I didn't state any opinion on gay marriage, just saying that if you believe government should not limit what constitutes a marriage (or who can marry), then it's completely irrational to turn around and argue that it should apply such limits to couples who want to marry more than one person.

 

[justoh]

Funny that police power doesn't apply to sodomy or same-sex marriage though according to liberals.

Which is the real point. Liberals are complete and total hypocrites.

I guess you didn't look it up. You could, like, look it up. Maybe then you'd understand why.

 

[PokerGuy]

Which is the real point. Liberals are complete and total hypocrites.

Shocking, I tell you! :awe:

 

[justoh]

You are making inferences not supported by any posts. I didn't state any opinion on gay marriage, just saying that if you believe government should not limit what constitutes a marriage (or who can marry), then it's completely irrational to turn around and argue that it should apply such limits to couples who want to marry more than one person.

Speaking of improper inferences, who said that there shouldn't be a limit to what should constitute a marriage?

And why do you think that people who support gay marriage wouldn't also support marriage to more than one person? And then what?

Is there a point to anything you guys are going on about?

 

[SlowSpyder]

You are making inferences not supported by any posts. I didn't state any opinion on gay marriage, just saying that if you believe government should not limit what constitutes a marriage (or who can marry), then it's completely irrational to turn around and argue that it should apply such limits to couples who want to marry more than one person.

And I didn't say your name, guilty conscious? If anything I was talking about the OP who in the past has stated that gays shouldn't be able to marry until others are also able to marry who currently cannot. Maybe other groups, like those who want a polygamist marriage should have the right to marry as they want as well. But to withhold homosexual's right to marry one another because polygamists cannot is stupid. Why wouldn't you fix injustice where you see it and then move on to the next issue vs. saving them all in a shoebox so one day in the future (maybe decades?) we can try and wipe them all out at once? In the meantime all of those groups can suffer denial of rights. Stupid.

And really, we all know that is what this thread is about... not that the issue of polygamy is a hot topic for discussion, but to try and use this as a reason to dent those in favor of gay marriage rights. It is thinly veiled, anyone can see through it and recognize the true intentions of a thread like this. Lame.

 

[Oldgamer]

Finally, we make some progress towards true marriage equality.

This decision was rendered in December, but was not final until August 27th because of some "procedural issues."

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/08/27/Final-ruling-against-part-of-Utah-polygamy-ban

Next is the abolishment of anti-polygamy laws.

Sadly the law that was struck down prohibited cohabitation and did not address polygamy directly. This was Utahs way of banning polygamy without naming it directly.

I figure this will be a lot like the anti-sodomy laws that were used to charge gay couples with a crime. First society needs to deal with anti-cohabitation laws, then deal with anti-polygamy directly.

I for one am glad to see that this has been decriminalized now. The fact that they made it a serious felony is utterly ridiculous.

This is other peoples business, if they want 20 wives, or 20 husbands so be it. Leave them the hell alone.

They have a right to pursuit of happiness just like anyone else. It is the Christian religious who are the ones freaking out about this of course..

 

[SlowSpyder]

Funny that police power doesn't apply to sodomy or same-sex marriage though according to liberals.

Which is the real point. Liberals are complete and total hypocrites.

I'd say the religious right is the hypocritical side of this argument. Always claiming to be for a small non-infringing government, but can't wait to tell you how to live your life. According to your religion, we're all sinners, just like homosexuality is a sin. Yet you guys cast a lot of stones.

 

[Jimzz]

I for one am glad to see that this has been decriminalized now. The fact that they made it a serious felony is utterly ridiculous.

This is other peoples business, if they want 20 wives, or 20 husbands so be it. Leave them the hell alone.

They have a right to pursuit of happiness just like anyone else. It is the Christian religious who are the ones freaking out about this of course..

Problem is it was used as an excuse to marry young girls and abuse them.
That and there are legal components involved since marriage is a contract.

I don't care about the cohabitation part but marriage with more than 1 person (same or opp sex) can have legal and tax issues.

 

[Oldgamer]

Problem is it was used as an excuse to marry young girls and abuse them.
That and there are legal components involved since marriage is a contract.

I don't care about the cohabitation part but marriage with more than 1 person (same or opp sex) can have legal and tax issues.

We have many many laws in place that make abusing young girls illegal. We have many many laws that are in place to protect children.

Using that as an excuse to bar people of a different religion from marrying multiple partners is ridiculous. Many legally married couples have been caught abusing young girls and their children, it isn't something that is indicative to Polygamists. The demonization of polygamists really needs to end. It is Christian folk who enact these types of laws because they can't handle people who are different from them. I disagree on the marriage thing. Marriage in many many countries can mean being married to more than one person.

It is interesting how many Christian American's are clinging so hard to a rigid definition of what marriage is.

Like I said I am glad they decriminalized this. It is about damn time honestly.

 

[fskimospy]

Funny that police power doesn't apply to sodomy or same-sex marriage though according to liberals.

Which is the real point. Liberals are complete and total hypocrites.

Remember, never attribute to hypocrisy what is most easily explained by your own stupidity.

 

[nehalem256]

I'd say the religious right is the hypocritical side of this argument. Always claiming to be for a small non-infringing government, but can't wait to tell you how to live your life. According to your religion, we're all sinners, just like homosexuality is a sin. Yet you guys cast a lot of stones.

And Republicans are trying to keep the government from being involved in gay couples lives. Seems like small government to me!

Problem is it was used as an excuse to marry young girls and abuse them.
That and there are legal components involved since marriage is a contract.

I don't care about the cohabitation part but marriage with more than 1 person (same or opp sex) can have legal and tax issues.

If only there was a way to keep people from marrying young girls

 

[inachu]

The boys born out of these relationships are mostly shunned as non human entities and nobody in the communties will hire them because they contain so much inbreeding that they are marked as a cattle would be as BAD STOCK and not to be touched and many commit suicide.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Have you ever in your life encountered a religious person capable of reasoning?

The same reasoning Atheists are known for? I reason that I will pass!

 

[zinfamous]

There you go, TH, move to Utah and have at it.

 

[zinfamous]

I don't care about polygamy one way or another. And maybe it is something that should be revisited sooner or later. I really don't care. But for people who are anti-gay marriage to try and use this or other 'inequalities' as an excuse for why gays shouldn't have the right to marry is truly pathetic grasping at straws reasoning.

Oh let them have it. it's fun to watch them put themselves on display like this.