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
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41 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
To: AUH2OY2K
That's right. Traditionally, having sex with a minor was not a problem IF the minor(s) in question was/were married.
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
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)
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
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.)
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
To: Smokin' Joe
9
posted on
07/04/2004 1:08:41 AM PDT
by
AUH2OY2K
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!!)
To: Papatom
uring the 50s a couple local fifteen year old girls got marriedI 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?)
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....)
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
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)
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.
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)
To: AUH2OY2K
Wouldn't "the right to peaceably assemble" apply here?
17
posted on
07/04/2004 3:30:16 AM PDT
by
Grut
To: AUH2OY2K
18
posted on
07/04/2004 5:13:03 AM PDT
by
joesnuffy
(Moderate Islam Is For Dilettantes)
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
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
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson