| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Federal judge cites same sex marriage in declaring poligamy ban unconstitutional; I could see this one coming | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Dec 16 2013, 07:30 AM (155 Views) | |
| Pat | Dec 16 2013, 07:30 AM Post #1 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I knew this one was just around the corner. So let's expand on the logic a little bit further. If one key base of the marriage laws was to bind men in an obligation to care for the offspring, with women's rights and equality, I would think that that basis was illegal also. Men were for thousands of years considered the king of the estate and ruler over females, not so anymore. In fact in reviewing the deadbeat list from my home state, many on the list were women who owe back child support. With equal rights for women and for homosexuals, it seems logical to include the same for polygamists, people who want to marry animals and so forth. To each their own and keep the feds out of our bedrooms and business. In my opinion it's none of their business provided, the parents equally share in the raising of any offspring. I also read today where the reality show stars, a guy and his four sister wives won a ruling in Utah that prevents the state from using the anti polygamy law that started this discrimination. Judge Cites Same-Sex Marriage in Declaring Polygamy Ban Unconstitutional by Ken Klukowski 14 Dec 2013 3558 post a comment In a game-changer for the legal fight over same-sex marriage that gives credence to opponents’ “slippery slope” arguments, a federal judge has now ruled that the legal reasoning for same-sex marriage means that laws against polygamy are likewise unconstitutional. In his 91-page opinion in Brown v. Buhman, on Dec. 13, U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups struck down Utah’s law making polygamy a crime. In so doing, he may have opened Pandora’s Box. As a condition for becoming a state in 1896, Congress required Utah to outlaw polygamy, which is marriage between three or more persons. This case involved a family of fundamentalist offshoots of nineteenth-century Mormonism. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints disavowed polygamy in 1890, and again in 1904, but some splinter groups continue the practice. Waddoups’ opinion would not only cover such groups, however, but also Muslims or anyone else who claims a right—religious or otherwise—to have multiple-person marriages. He notes that the Supreme Court ruled against polygamy in its 1878 case Reynolds v. U.S., but said he cannot simply rest upon that decision “without seriously addressing the much developed constitutional jurisprudence that now protects individuals from the criminal consequences intended by legislatures to apply to certain personal choices.” In its 2003 Lawrence v. Texas case, the Supreme Court overruled previous sexuality precedents by declaring unconstitutional laws that made homosexual sodomy a crime, holding that although the Constitution says nothing about sex or marriage, there is nonetheless a right to consensual sexual activity between adults that government cannot regulate. This was over the vigorous dissent of conservative justices, who said that the Constitution commits such questions of marriage and morality to the states and the democratic process, and that therefore federal courts have no power to impose their own moral judgments. The Lawrence case lays the foundation that has been cited for a decade now in court to make the case for a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. If government cannot forbid homosexual conduct, this argument goes, then neither can it deny those who define themselves by homosexual behavior to officially recognize any such relationship as a marriage. It began a political, religious, and philosophical debate in America between two different definitions of marriage and family. For over 5,000 years of recorded human history, marriage laws worldwide were about providing a social structure for producing and raising children. These laws simply acknowledged the biological reality that only sex between a man and a woman can produce a baby, and that, correspondingly, that every child born into the world has two parents, one of which is a man, the other a woman. Marriage laws were designed to secure parental rights for that man and woman over the child they had created, and also imposed strict duties and obligations on each of them for raising that child. As part of that, those laws also bound the man and woman to each other, imposing obligations of sexually exclusivity, mutual care, and support. Those laws were created for the nurturing of those children, and assign the gender role of demanding the man’s protection and support of the woman during pregnancy and once the children were born. They were designed primarily for the protection of children, and secondarily for the support of women. A man and woman would form a new family to act as a single unit in society, and care for any children resulting from their monogamous sexual relationship. Thus, marriage has been defined as the union of one man and one woman. More precisely, it is the union of (1) two consenting persons, (2) of opposite biological sex, (3) who are not close blood relatives. The new conception of marriage, rooted in the proliferation of no-fault divorce laws in the 1970s and the sexual revolution, is that marriage is about personal happiness and fulfillment. People should be free to form whatever relationships they find personally satisfying and to follow whatever their personal sexual inclinations are to engage in whatever form of sexual behavior they find gratifying. If, therefore, you have a right to officially recognize those homosexual relationships through redefining marriage to include same-sex couples, then there is no reason to say it cannot include more than two people, so long as everyone is a consenting adult. This lawsuit is the brainchild of Prof. Jonathan Turley at George Washington University. He’s designed a two-step strategy, piggybacking on same-sex marriage: first, decriminalize polygamy, then assert a right to official recognition of polygamy. As Turley explained in previous court filings, he believes there is a “right to self-determination of private relations and family matters free of government intrusion.” He noted that many oppose polygamy, and goes on to assert that polygamists “are entitled to protection from such majoritarian animus and bias vis-à-vis their private lifestyles and relations. Their status under domestic law is a civil rights issue deserving the same protections afforded to homosexuals and other minority groups.” The exact legal arguments for same-sex marriage equally apply to multiple-person marriages. Turley acknowledges that marriage laws that do not include both are “a tool for the imposition of a uniform moral agenda or tenets on citizens.” Turley then goes on to make clear he is not only arguing for the form of polygamy technically called polygyny, which is one man with multiple women. In other words, he also argues for a right to polyandry (one woman with multiple men) and polyamory (multiple men with multiple women). Waddoups concluded that Reynolds has been overtaken by Lawrence and other recent legal developments. While keeping in place for now the Utah law against issuing multiple marriage certificates for polygamous marriage (the second step of the Turley strategy), he invalidated the criminal law against multiple adults cohabiting together as a family, which is the core of the laws against polygamy. This case will likely now go to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in Denver. Ken Klukowski is senior legal analyst for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter @kenklukowski. |
![]() |
|
| Neutral | Dec 16 2013, 08:28 AM Post #2 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
If gays are allowed to marry, I'm not sure why anyone would object to polygamy. Myself, I have never cared if a man wants more than one wife, more power to him if that's his game. I talked to a wife of a polygamist once, she told me everyone was completely happy. |
![]() |
|
| donsm60 | Dec 16 2013, 08:49 AM Post #3 |
|
Silver Star Member
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Whether it’s gay marriage or polygamy who cares? If they are willing to enter the legal bond of marriage they should be able to, they will be subject to the divorce hell and costs like the rest of us if it doesn't work out. If making the commitment works for them I’m for it. |
![]() |
|
| tomdrobin | Dec 16 2013, 02:43 PM Post #4 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
If a guy is married to 4 women and has several kids by each, he is overpopulating IMO. I've heard many of these "families" get public assistance. It would take an awfully good income to support all those wives and kids. Granted it's probably better than the guy who impregnates several single moms. I don't see where the state could legally deny their living arrangements. But, only one should get the state recognized marriage license with all the benefits that go with it. |
![]() |
|
| colo_crawdad | Dec 16 2013, 10:08 PM Post #5 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Two comments. One of the things I find intetsting about this decision, if it stands, is the irony that it was the Federal Government that forced Utah to pass that law. It was a requirement of Utah gaining Statehood. Second, I would think that those who favor smaller government would applaud the decision restricting the Federal Government from forcing States to pass such laws. Do I, as a liberal, have a bit of a problem with the decision? Yes. |
![]() |
|
| Pat | Dec 17 2013, 01:33 AM Post #6 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
You are correct Colo about the statehood issue, the outlawing of plural marriage was a condition. I think it is clear that despite the constitution, the federal government cow tows to Christianity. On the face value of the reasons given for enforcing one wife one husband, that is the protection of off spring, there have always been men who had plenty of resources in which to provide for multiple wives and kids. The country now is becoming more secular by the day, it will be interesting to see how the high court would rule on this. I think this one is a situation that the court will shy away from the same way it did for homosexual marriage. This is another law that most law enforcement agencies ignore, it does breed welfare fraud as Tom noted. I think in cases of polygamy, the cops and courts have focused on welfare fraud and the negiligence or abuse of the children rather than the plural marriage itself. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic » |





![]](http://z3.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)




10:11 PM Jul 11
