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

Skip to comments.

Federal judge declares Utah polygamy law unconstitutional (vanity)

Posted on 12/14/2013 10:50:10 AM PST by TigerClaws

Link not allowed but this is a major news story for conservatives as it proves what we warned about:

A U.S. District Court judge has sided with the polgyamous Brown family, ruling that key parts of Utah’s polygamy laws are unconstitutional.

Judge Clark Waddoups’ 91-page ruling, issued Friday, sets a new legal precedent in Utah, effectively decriminalizing polygamy. It is the latest development in a lawsuit filed by the family of Kody Brown, who became famous while starring in cable TV channel TLC’s reality series "Sister Wives." The show entered a fourth season at the end of the summer.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/56894145-78/utah-brown-family-sltrib.html.csp


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; US: Utah
KEYWORDS:
Knew this was coming after 'marriage' definition was tossed aside.
1 posted on 12/14/2013 10:50:10 AM PST by TigerClaws
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: TigerClaws
Just because it's a slippery slope argument doesn't mean it's invalid. Why is that so hard for so many people to grasp?

Sunday is Double Double Dessert Dessert Day Day. Don't forget.

2 posted on 12/14/2013 10:56:27 AM PST by Standing Wolf (No tyrant should ever be allowed to die of natural causes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigerClaws

From Wikipedia:

“Judge Waddoups received his undergraduate degree from Brigham Young University in 1970 and his juris doctorate from the University of Utah’s law school in 1973. He was most recently a partner in the law firm of Parr, Waddoups, Brown, Gee & Loveless where he was a trial lawyer specializing in commercial litigation, including antitrust, securities, labor/employment, banking, construction, environmental and insurance claims. Clark Waddoups has represented clients in industries such as heavy manufacturing, broadcasting, banking and finance, automotive, oil, and real estate.”

Waddoups was appointed by, you guessed it, George W. Bush.


But what else could you expect from someone belonging to the law firm of Parr, Waddoups, Brown, Gee & Loveless?


3 posted on 12/14/2013 10:56:29 AM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigerClaws

Vindicated, but nobody will care. They’re already on board with polygamy, and we’re already haters.


4 posted on 12/14/2013 11:01:42 AM PST by Viennacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigerClaws

Sex with kids is next ... just like the Muslims (and also some Mormons) ...


5 posted on 12/14/2013 11:07:07 AM PST by Star Traveler (Remember to keep the Messiah of Israel in the One-World Government that we look forward to coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigerClaws
polygamy laws are unconstitutional.

um....wasn't outlawing polygamy a condition of Utah's statehood ?
6 posted on 12/14/2013 11:07:51 AM PST by stylin19a (Obama -> Fredo smart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Viennacon
Let them have as many wives as they want. C'mon......All of you married men out there. Do you REALLY want more than one?

Those who do, deserve what they get.
Can you imagine a household of 3 to 6 wives, all synchronized on their monthly cycle?
Hell on earth, that is.
7 posted on 12/14/2013 11:10:17 AM PST by jrg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TigerClaws

This shouldn’t be a surprise after homosexual (so called) marriage declared aok.
Now, can women sue to allow polyandry?


8 posted on 12/14/2013 11:10:27 AM PST by svcw (Not 'hope and change' but 'dopes in chains')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

Really?
This is GW Bush’ fault, oh come on.


9 posted on 12/14/2013 11:11:30 AM PST by svcw (Not 'hope and change' but 'dopes in chains')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TigerClaws

I don’t know why people are so hung up on the legal aspects of polygamy. From what I’ve seen, “polygamy” is alive and well — and encouraged by U.S. welfare policy — all over the U.S. You might even say it’s the predominant culture in most of our cities.


10 posted on 12/14/2013 11:13:19 AM PST by Alberta's Child ("I've never seen such a conclave of minstrels in my life.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigerClaws

In order to encourage nuclear families and provide the ideal environment for young children, the government began to provide benefits and tax breaks to families. The initial criteria was not the presence of children, but rather a valid marriage license, a government, not a religious document.

Well, whatever is subsidized grows, but instead of more nuclear families bearing and nurturing children, we got all sorts and manner of people demanding government subsidies on the sole criteria of engaging in some lifestyle arrangement between two or more adults. Up until now, you could only involve more than two adults serially, via divorce and remarriage, but the trend was clear.

That, together with the trend that renders a marriage contract meaningless, we are crafting a society where marriage is completely unnecessary, you can simply form benefit pools to get the full range of government benefits. Provided, of course, that you agree to vote only for Democrats.


11 posted on 12/14/2013 11:14:42 AM PST by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigerClaws

Words have meaning. If everything is okay, then nothing is not okay.

Eventually we return to a decadent primal state, with the final two things being cannibalism and human sacrifice.

Then we’re done.


12 posted on 12/14/2013 11:15:36 AM PST by lurk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigerClaws

It’s just a matter of time until pedophilia is encouraged by this perverted administration and its minions.


13 posted on 12/14/2013 11:26:10 AM PST by freeangel ( (free speech is only good until someone else doesn't like it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
I don’t know why people are so hung up on the legal aspects of polygamy. From what I’ve seen, “polygamy” is alive and well — and encouraged by U.S. welfare policy — all over the U.S. You might even say it’s the predominant culture in most of our cities.

What we have in those parts of the inner cities is not even polygamy. A true polygamist will take public responsibility for his wives and offspring. The Tom cats in the cities take no responsibity, gets territorial and aggressive, but will take free saucers of milk given out by well-meaning civilized folks.
14 posted on 12/14/2013 11:28:57 AM PST by Dr. Sivana (There's no salvation in politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
“polygamy” is alive and well

Sure is in Maine. Lots of our Somalis have the 4-wives thing going. It is encouraged to the point that the welfare wallahs will give them one Sec. 8 apartment per wife, and pay for each dependent child.

How can polygamy possibly be against the law? If a number of women wish to make some sort of breeding arrangement with one man, with or without benefit of clergy or civil authority, who's to stop them?

15 posted on 12/14/2013 11:34:02 AM PST by Kenny Bunk (OK, Obama be bad. Now where's OUR Program, Plan, and Leader?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Sivana

Tomcats can be neutered.


16 posted on 12/14/2013 11:39:01 AM PST by Slings and Arrows (You can't have Ingsoc without an Emmanuel Goldstein.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: TigerClaws

yes.
I keep returning to the thought that maybe the State should be told to get OUT of the marriage business ... this being a function that has not always been vested in the bureaucracy.

I say this just because it is something that the state has a lot of difficulty trying to rule over, administer, deal with.
And, because many of us believe marriage is either a sacrament or at least a matter best left to the people to handle for ourselves, without needing to ask or beg or pay the state to supervise, regulate, proscribe what we do.

or something like that?

gays would still decide to “get married” but the state would not be in the business of ‘officially sanctioning’ it anymore

why do we seem to want to get our validation, our official sanction, our approval...from the bureaucracy or from the usually-corrupt politicians, anyway?

if I want validation, I will get it from church (or synagogue). Validation by the state seems somehow oxymoronic...


17 posted on 12/14/2013 11:47:47 AM PST by faithhopecharity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler

Don’t forget incest— that’s coming down the pike also.


18 posted on 12/14/2013 11:53:01 AM PST by pierrem15 (Claudius: "Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud hatch out.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: TigerClaws
Knew this was coming after 'marriage' definition was tossed aside.

That wasn't the point where things went south. The problem started when the State got into the business of regulating marriage in the first place.

I think that most Americans, even those who aren't believers, would agree that "marriage" is a religious term of art. Religions have always set rules to define that word for their followers. Our mistake was allowing the State to take over that role in society.

This was noncontroversial when it started because no one could imagine the State coming up with definitions that might run counter to that of the People. What we failed to realize is that our Constitution doesn't allow for a definition that agrees with the religious views of most Americans. It doesn't matter, nor should it, that a majority hold the view that marriage is between one man and one woman. An integral part of American society is the concept that we will not support the tyranny of the majority. Our Constitution protects us from that form of tyranny; whether we like it or not!

So what do we do when some guy wants to marry his goldfish? There are two solutions. We can amend the Constitution to allow for laws that favor one religion's definition of marriage over other views. Or, we can undo the original mistake: Amend the Constitution to forbid the regulation of marriage by the State.

As a Christian, I don't need the State to define marriage for me. That's God's job. I don't need the State to arrogantly presume to define the terms used by my church. If the State can tell my church that marriage is between one man and one woman today, the same State can tell us that it's between two women and a staple gun tomorrow. We should never have given the State that power in the first place. We erred when we accepted the regulation of marriage as one of the functions of government. The quickest fix for the "problem" of gay marriage or the "problem" of polygamy or the "problem" of trans-species marriage is to stop the State from defining the terminology of our faith.

19 posted on 12/14/2013 11:58:56 AM PST by Redcloak (Winter is coming.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigerClaws

Justice Scalia is proven a prophet. A house or nation divided against itself cannot stand. the Federal Judiciary has been divided for some time. Any Judge who makes his/her/its opinions based upon their personal agenda and is Never held to the Oath /or affirmation administered When the courts no longer recognize nor uphold the US Constitution and Laws made pursuant to it Then there is NO justice— No Law— No Peace— only an Oligarchy of Despots and a nation of slaves.


20 posted on 12/14/2013 12:24:56 PM PST by StonyBurk (ring)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigerClaws

21 posted on 12/14/2013 12:32:17 PM PST by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigerClaws

What consenting adults do in their own homes is their business. Get someone to wave a wand over your heads and you are a unit, couple, pair, etc . . . A private affair the state has no business in.

Every legal claim they want can be accomplished with a little legal planning and contracts.

Legal and religious marriages are VERY different.
The State has an interest in what’s best for the State, and rewards/punishes to that end. The State can also NOT discriminate in many areas.
If one man/one woman is not marriage, anything and everything is possible.

Marry all your children and pass on everything inheritance tax free!


22 posted on 12/14/2013 2:10:15 PM PST by Macoozie (1) Win the Senate 2) Repeal Obamacare 3) Impeach Roberts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Sivana
A true polygamist will take public responsibility for his wives and offspring.

Those FLDS members in TX were sucking up every welfare entitlement they could get their hands on.

23 posted on 12/14/2013 2:39:32 PM PST by TigersEye (Stupid is a Progressive disease.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

Polygamy is certainly less unnatural than the bizarre and ludicrous concept that persons of the same sex can be “married.” Bravo Judge!


24 posted on 12/14/2013 3:05:20 PM PST by Godwin1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: TigerClaws

Yo, ho, ho and the canary’s next!


25 posted on 12/14/2013 3:54:53 PM PST by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline, Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Society: Rack 'em, Danno)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
Yeah, but Judge Waddoups is a reliable vote for corporate mega-interests! Did Orin Hatch recommend this boob for the District Court? Maybe Mike Lee has an available ideological twin to make Utah safe for conservatism next time Hatch is up. Just in case, Hatch would like to run yet again, make him pay for Waddoups.

The Mormon high command in Salt Lake City gave up on polygamy more than a century ago. Practicing (however unofficially) polygamists in Utah are actively suppressed. Therefore, Waddoups is doing this, not as a Mormon, but as a social revolutionary. Hide your household pets before he strikes again.

26 posted on 12/14/2013 4:03:40 PM PST by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline, Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Society: Rack 'em, Danno)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: stylin19a

Yes, it was.


27 posted on 12/15/2013 10:58:36 AM PST by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

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