Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Polygamy is a 'constitutional right,' man says
The Daily Herald ^ | 07/03/2004 | THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Posted on 07/03/2004 9:35:05 PM PDT by AUH2OY2K

SALT LAKE CITY -- The attorney for a former police officer convicted of bigamy and illegal sex with an underage girl has filed a brief with the Utah Supreme Court arguing that polygamy is a constitutional right.

Rodney Holm, a former police officer in the polygamous community of Hildale, was found guilty in August and sentenced to serve a year in jail. In Story Ad

In a 115-page brief, attorney Rodney Parker wrote that monogamy was the minority way of life worldwide, and that critics of polygamy overstate its problems.

"Current demographics, domestic relations law, and religious diversity all accommodate plural marriage," Parker wrote. "Popular departure from traditional marriage has made our domestic laws on cohabitation and fornication anachronistic."

Holm's conviction stemmed from his union with a third wife, Ruth Stubbs, who was 16 at the time of the plural marriage performed by leaders of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

Holm, who was 32 at the time, also is married to Stubbs' older sister, Suzie, and a second wife, Wendy.

In the brief, filed Wednesday, Parker argues that Mormon women in the past have consistently voted to retain multiple marriage -- rejecting a common claim that it amounts to women's enslavement.

However, prosecutors contend that there is no constitutional right to have sex with a minor, and they say polygamy can mean forced marriage and child spousal abuse.

Polygamy was part of the early beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints but was abandoned more than a century ago. The LDS Church excommunicates those who advocate it. This story appeared in The Daily Herald on page A1


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; US: Utah
KEYWORDS: constitution; god; holm; homosexualagenda; marriage; polygamy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041 next last
He's half right. Polygamy has been accepted by many cultures throughout history. If the United States is bent on legalizing gay marriages, then polygamy should also be legalized.

The half wrong part is marrying minors. I don't know the law in Utah regarding marrying 16 year olds. It is accepted in a number of states with the consent of the Court or parents of the minor.

1 posted on 07/03/2004 9:35:05 PM PDT by AUH2OY2K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: AUH2OY2K

That's right. Traditionally, having sex with a minor was not a problem IF the minor(s) in question was/were married.


2 posted on 07/03/2004 10:01:27 PM PDT by valkyrieanne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AUH2OY2K
"The half wrong part is marrying minors."
Within the framework of his historical argument, it would not appear to present a problem:
Historically, in India, they even had child marriages one time. In medieval Europe, too, there were cases of marriages between 14yr olds (Henry II &Catherine Medici, in 1532). So, on his lines, it at least COULD be OK.
3 posted on 07/03/2004 10:11:06 PM PDT by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AUH2OY2K

Polygamy is about older men hiding behind religion to obtain very young, vulnerable women.


4 posted on 07/03/2004 10:28:56 PM PDT by tkathy (nihilism: absolute destructiveness toward the world at large and oneself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AUH2OY2K

And we all expected this after what the Mass SC did...and The USSC did with the Texas case....Don't be surprised if this guy wins with the gutless wonders in black robes


5 posted on 07/03/2004 11:17:26 PM PDT by jnarcus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AUH2OY2K

The penalty for having two wives: Two mothers-in-law.


6 posted on 07/03/2004 11:18:54 PM PDT by Smokin' Joe (If it seems like a good idea, imagine it diabolically twisted in the hands of your worst enemies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #7 Removed by Moderator

To: tkathy
So much for the Old Testament.
8 posted on 07/04/2004 1:06:19 AM PDT by AUH2OY2K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe

Good one.


9 posted on 07/04/2004 1:08:41 AM PDT by AUH2OY2K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: AUH2OY2K

I think this is a good thing. The more they push gay marriage etc., these kind of lawsuits theoretically have the same wacko legitimacy. What say you Sandra Day?


10 posted on 07/04/2004 1:28:11 AM PDT by lainde (Heads up...We're coming and we've got tongue blades!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Papatom
uring the 50s a couple local fifteen year old girls got married

I guess gay marriage wasn't much of a political issue back then, but you think someone would have objected to that sort of thing.

11 posted on 07/04/2004 1:28:35 AM PDT by xm177e2 (Stalinists, Maoists, Ba'athists, Pacifists: Why are they always on the same side?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: AUH2OY2K
According to 2001 World Almanac, in Utah, age of consent is 18..

Marriage With Parental Consent is, however, 16..

I think the question here is whether the girl herself gave consent, or was just "married off" to this guy..

Otherwise, the question of law seems to ride on the issue of polygamy, and nothing else..

12 posted on 07/04/2004 1:30:54 AM PDT by Drammach (Ripley... Last survivor of the Nostromo.... signing off....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
The penalty for having two wives: Two mothers-in-law.

Not so fast. From the article; " Holm, who was 32 at the time, also is married to Stubbs' older sister, Suzie

That would be a single mother-in-law, in most cases, but we are talking about a family of polygamist, it may be several mothers-in-law with each marriage.

13 posted on 07/04/2004 1:37:52 AM PDT by snodog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: AUH2OY2K

He's right. There's no constitutional objection to polygamy if gay marriage is legal. After all if some form of family union is permissable whose is to say any other kind is not? By supporting SSM, the Left has opened a Pandora's Box that can't be closed.


14 posted on 07/04/2004 1:47:20 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Papatom
The federal government should not be involved with marriage, parranting, etc.

If I explicitly said how much I agree with you, my post would get likely deleted. Let's just say that it's a lot. More than just a little.

Keep at it.

15 posted on 07/04/2004 1:56:39 AM PDT by The Other Harry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: AUH2OY2K
He should have filed in Massachusetts.

Calling Judge Marshall (Mass, New York Times), .....

16 posted on 07/04/2004 3:15:53 AM PDT by Diogenesis (We do only what we are meant to do)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AUH2OY2K

Wouldn't "the right to peaceably assemble" apply here?


17 posted on 07/04/2004 3:30:16 AM PDT by Grut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AUH2OY2K

Bring'um young.....


18 posted on 07/04/2004 5:13:03 AM PDT by joesnuffy (Moderate Islam Is For Dilettantes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: valkyrieanne

Recently Ireland was forced to deal with polygamy issue when a Pakistani Muslim immigrated (among many), with a wife and several kids. Once in, he demanded they let him bring in his first wife and six or eight more kids. Ireland will lose its identity, but I guess that's the whole idea.


19 posted on 07/04/2004 5:18:48 AM PDT by hershey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: AUH2OY2K

I forgot to add that the Pakistani polygamist immediately went on the dole, with all his wives and kids.


20 posted on 07/04/2004 5:20:15 AM PDT by hershey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson