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

Skip to comments.

Judge Cites Same-Sex Marriage in Declaring Polygamy Ban Unconstitutional
http://www.breitbart.com ^ | December 14, 2013 | Ken Klukowski

Posted on 12/14/2013 11:53:21 AM PST by NKP_Vet

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 1896 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.”

(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: culturewars; homosexualagenda; kodybrown; moralabsolutes; polygamy; rop; ruling; sharia; sodomandgomorrah
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-83 next last
So here is what we have here. This liberal activist judge could care less what the Supreme Court ruled in 1896, when it said Polygamy was illegal. So if this fruitcake can overrule the Supreme Court, it is only a matter of time before it goes back to the Supreme Court where Anthony Kennedy and John Roberts will side with the liberals and Polygamy will once again be not only legal in Utah, but it will also be the law of the land. Then it will be OK for some pervert that likes to sex with a dog to marry his dog. This is how backwards this country has became with the liberals that now control the US Supreme Court. If marriage is not legally defined as one man and one woman and nothing else, it means nothing anymore. Nothing at all. Sodomites have won, because the US Supreme Court is loaded with them. I am saying all this because if the case returns to the Supreme Court they will legalize Polygamy and every other type of degenerate activity you can think of.
1 posted on 12/14/2013 11:53:21 AM PST by NKP_Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet
Fortunately for the men who were justices of the Supreme Court in 1896, they are all dead...or they could be prosecuted for a hate crime for outlawing polygamy. Who were they to judge? What difference does it make?

Next they will need to come up with a label to stigmatize anyone who objects to polygamy (along the lines of "homophobia" and other coinages).

2 posted on 12/14/2013 12:00:45 PM PST by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

Next up, marry your goat.


3 posted on 12/14/2013 12:03:06 PM PST by Navy Patriot (Join the Democrats, it's not Fascism when WE do it, and the Constitution and law mean what WE say.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

Slippery slope?

More like a water slide to Hell.


4 posted on 12/14/2013 12:03:42 PM PST by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

” This liberal activist judge could care less what the Supreme Court ruled in 1896, when it said Polygamy was illegal”

A later SCOTUS ruled abortion is hunky dory. A previous one ruled that slavery was ok. SCOTUS is frequently wrong.


5 posted on 12/14/2013 12:04:44 PM PST by Lurker (Violence is rarely the answer. But when it is it is the only answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet
Double the pleasure ?

Not bloody likely.

6 posted on 12/14/2013 12:05:23 PM PST by onona (The Earth is the insane asylum for the universe (yup, I belong))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Navy Patriot

7 posted on 12/14/2013 12:06:01 PM PST by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet
Actually, this judge is on solid legal ground to overrule the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Federal government (including the U.S. Supreme Court) has no jurisdiction in state marriage laws. In 1896 it no jurisdiction, either. The Supreme Court ruling from 1896 was based on the legal argument that the U.S. law requiring Utah to outlaw polygamy as a condition of statehood was valid on constitutional grounds because Utah was a Federal territory (not a state) at the time the law was passed.

The Utah legislature could have passed a state marriage law allowing polygamy and told the U.S. Supreme Court to "#*%& off!" immediately after statehood had been granted, but they didn't. It took 117 years, but it looks like someone finally did.

8 posted on 12/14/2013 12:11:42 PM 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: NKP_Vet
Dave Kopel's take on it isn't so hyerpbolic:

http://www.volokh.com/2013/12/14/brown-v-buhman-isnt-complicated/

Utah’s anti-bigamy ordinance has a normal provision, and an unusual provision: “A person is guilty of bigamy when, knowing he has a husband or wife or knowing the other person has a husband or wife, the person purports to marry another person or cohabits with another person.” Utah Code Ann. § 76-7-101(1) (2013).

Judge Waddoups upholds the first part, about marrying a second person, as a straightforward application of Reynolds. If X has a marriage license to A, then X can’t obtain a marriage license to B. If X tricks a county clerk into issuing him a marriage license for B, then X are guilty of bigamy. This is the same in Utah as everywhere else in the United States. Thus, the State of Utah has no obligation to treat X+A+B as all being married. The plaintiffs in Brown sought no legal recognition for plural marriage.

Rather, the case involved the unique part of the Utah statute, which defined “bigamy” to also include when X “cohabits with another person.” This criminalizes quite a lot of conduct which, these days, is pretty common. For example, X and A are civilly married. With A’s knowledge and consent, X spends some weekends at the home of his mistress, B, with whom he has sexual relations. Under the common law, this is the crime of adultery, and adultery is still a crime in some states. But as far as I know, no state other than Utah would describe such conduct as “bigamy.”

[...]

It is important to remember Brown v. Burnham in no way establishes a constitutional right to plural marriage. Nor does the Brown decision challenge ordinary state laws against adultery. Rather, the decision simply strikes down an unique state law which defined cohabitation as “bigamy.” Even then, the statute might have been upheld but for the government’s policy of reserving prosecutions solely for cohabitators who for religious reasons considered themselves to be married to each other under God’s laws, and who fully conceded that they were not married under the civil law of the state.


9 posted on 12/14/2013 12:12:48 PM PST by jdege
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet
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.

I disagree with this assessment. The U.S. Supreme Court opened Pandora's Box. Judge Clark Waddoups simply removed the hinges on the lid. There's no point in even having a box after Pandora's fled the scene, right?

10 posted on 12/14/2013 12:14:18 PM 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: NKP_Vet
Wow. I never saw that coming.

Oh, wait...

11 posted on 12/14/2013 12:17:59 PM PST by RichInOC (2013-14 Tiber Swim Team)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

Sorry, but his reasoning is sound, and no justification for calling him a liberal.

This is exactly what conservatives have warned of all along. When you permit a behavior to have the same legal status as a biological characteristic, you have no philosophical basis for restricting ANY behavior, and you certainly have no basis for actually punishing a behavior


12 posted on 12/14/2013 12:18:21 PM PST by papertyger ("refusing to draw an inescapable conclusion does not qualify as a 'difference of opinion.'")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet
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.

You watch... Anyone want to take bets on how long before marriage to minors comes up? Bestiality? Necrophilia? Hey, if you're going to be "fair" and not discriminate against one demographic, you can't discriminate against another. A slippery slope indeed.

13 posted on 12/14/2013 12:18:23 PM PST by ThunderSleeps (Stop obarma now! Stop the hussein - insane agenda!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet; MeganC; GOPsterinMA
Sure, Why the Hell Not?

If Two Dudes can get "married" than why I can't I get hitched to the Victoria Secret Fashion line up?

We all should be Members of the NFL then it would almost be encouraged!

14 posted on 12/14/2013 12:20:57 PM PST by KC_Lion (Build the America you want to live in at your address, and keep looking up.-Sarah Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

Given the degeneracy of American manners and morals this decision was a “no brainer!”


15 posted on 12/14/2013 12:21:57 PM PST by AEMILIUS PAULUS (It is a shame that when these people give a riot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

“If marriage is not legally defined as one man and one woman and nothing else, it means nothing anymore. Nothing at all.”

I reckon my faith is still going to look at it as a Sacrament no matter what the state says about it. Nothing the state does can devalue a Sacrament. That’s why certain faiths don’t accept remarriage after civil divorce or ‘gay marriage’ even though the state does.

Freegards


16 posted on 12/14/2013 12:22:12 PM PST by Ransomed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ThunderSleeps
It didn't even take ten full years after gay "marriage" was brought to America by the Ma. Supreme Court for things to fall THIS far!

Marriage to minors, bestiality, necrophilia,incest.....it's not a question of "if"....just "when"!

17 posted on 12/14/2013 12:24:05 PM PST by massmike (If I like my tagline,I can keep it! Obama said so..........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ThunderSleeps

18 posted on 12/14/2013 12:26:33 PM PST by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

19 posted on 12/14/2013 12:29:28 PM PST by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

And the punchline is conservatives are supporting this by getting state issued licenses to marry. Its not required for the religious ceremony, yet conservatives line up to get them anyway.


20 posted on 12/14/2013 12:29:39 PM PST by RKBA Democrat ( There is no worst president but owebama, and valerie jarrett is his prophet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jdege

Does Utah even use it’s cohabitation law? I thought that most of the time they end up prosecuting them for things like benefit fraud or some sort of abuse.

Freegards


21 posted on 12/14/2013 12:29:57 PM PST by Ransomed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

Yeah, no surprise.

America continues its headlong dive into the sewer. With such deviancy as fag marriage getting a foothold, the reverberations continue, and the rot continues. A “state” that sees no difference between a true marriage and these perverted arrangements is no longer a country worth even trying to salvage.


22 posted on 12/14/2013 12:31:59 PM PST by greene66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

A man with two women is more natural that a man sticking his crank in another man.

If they allow the one they have to allow the other.

Am I a proponent of it?? No,but how many mn have mistresses or a little something on the side. How many women have the same.

Fornicating man and woman is how God intended sex to be.
If numerous men or women of course it’s against Church law but not natural law.

Bung holing is against natural law.


23 posted on 12/14/2013 12:32:57 PM PST by Venturer (Half Staff the Flag of the US for Terrorists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Pandora isn’t real. Fire and brimstone judgment, however . . .


24 posted on 12/14/2013 12:36:39 PM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

That is a great cartoon. Right on the money. The only thing missing is a can of worms. We’ve got a lot of fools living in this country these days. Most of them are Federal “judges”.


25 posted on 12/14/2013 12:41:07 PM PST by FlingWingFlyer (Trust No One.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: RKBA Democrat

I agree with you, but If you don’t get a marriage license you’d better have a lot of legal documents in order with all the I’s dotted and the T’s crossed. If you get married in a religious ceremony and there’s no civil record of it, you may be running some serious risks down the road when it comes to tax law, inheritance, etc.


26 posted on 12/14/2013 12:42:21 PM PST by Alberta's Child ("I've never seen such a conclave of minstrels in my life.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: KC_Lion

Yep. I knew this was coming.


27 posted on 12/14/2013 1:01:32 PM PST by GOPsterinMA (You're a very weird person, Yossarian.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

The real danger is in striking down laws of sex or same sex with minors, in other words legalizing some degree of pedophilia.


28 posted on 12/14/2013 1:01:54 PM PST by Hostage (Be Breitbart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

I have elderly friends man and women who just had a commitment ceremony at a church. They did not want the legal financial laws to come into effect. ???? They now live together. What will happen to them?????


29 posted on 12/14/2013 1:11:04 PM PST by cotton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Navy Patriot

My goat is already spoken for, but you can bid on the sheep


30 posted on 12/14/2013 1:11:25 PM PST by shadeaud (Be strong when you are weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet
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.

No, that box has long since been opened. See Romer v. Evans (1990), Lawrence v. Texas (2003), and United States v. Windsor (2013).

31 posted on 12/14/2013 1:17:10 PM PST by Repeal 16-17 (Let me know when the Shooting starts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
The Utah legislature could have passed a state marriage law allowing polygamy and told the U.S. Supreme Court to "#*%& off!" immediately after statehood had been granted, but they didn't.

Except the Constitution of the State of Utah outlaws polygamy and says that the polygamy prohibition cannot be changed without the consent of the federal government.

32 posted on 12/14/2013 1:27:35 PM PST by Scoutmaster (I'd rather be at Philmont)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

Most true cartoon, ever.


33 posted on 12/14/2013 1:28:27 PM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

All law is based on someone’s moral system. In the US, we’ve rejected judeo-Christian morality. So what’s next?


34 posted on 12/14/2013 1:34:24 PM PST by freedomfiter2 (Brutal acts of commission and yawning acts of omission both strengthen the hand of the devil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedomfiter2
So what’s next?

Democracy (iow - mob-rule)

35 posted on 12/14/2013 1:58:21 PM PST by jonno (Having an opinion is not the same as having the answer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

I’ve found one wife more than sufficient, I can’t imagine two or more in the house.


36 posted on 12/14/2013 2:12:19 PM PST by Stevenc131
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet
I have been waiting for this inevitable moment for a long time and have seen it coming for a long time. Pandora's Box is about to open for the LDS Church when polygamy is no longer a crime.

Going back to when the LDS Church quit practicing polygamy, there was NOT a revelation given forbidding the practice, only a "vision" the current "prophet" had of what would happen to the Church is they didn't stop the practice.

It was kind of a weasily way out of it because the "revelation" had been given to practice polygamy and previous prophets like Brigham Young said it was the only form of marriage practiced in heaven and the Church would NEVER abandon it on earth.

But then they saw the writing on the wall. Stop the practice or the federal government would pretty much dissolve the Church. The Mormons desperately wanted to be left alone and become a state so they agreed to stop the practice and had to put it into their state constitution that they would "never" re-instate it unless the federal government changed the law. This was put in there to placate the feds.

So, now, here we are. It's only a matter of time before polygamy is legal everywhere. The LDS church stopped the practice, not because they thought it was wrong or had a "revelation" that it was bad and to stop it, but merely to survive and obey the law. With survival and the law no longer a hindrance, on what basis will they tell their members that they can't practice polygamy?

The LDS Church wants to be thought of a mainstream Christian organization, but if they allow/support plural marriages by their members, that would obviously put them far out of the mainstream. But if they continue to forbid polygamy by their members, they will be exposed.

Many members will think "Ok, we firmly believed in God's command to have plural wives, but had to stop the practice or be irradicated. We stopped it to survive, but now that the government says it's ok, why wouldn't we continue with this practice that God had commanded?"

Leaves them in quite the pickle.
37 posted on 12/14/2013 2:16:55 PM PST by GLDNGUN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scoutmaster

Interesting. I would guess that any Utah judge could easily point to the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling on “gay marriage” and accept that as the explicit consent of the Federal government for anything that anyone decides constitutes a marriage.


38 posted on 12/14/2013 3:05:03 PM PST by Alberta's Child ("I've never seen such a conclave of minstrels in my life.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: cotton
If they're elderly it may not matter much. Do they have agreements in place to document the ownership of the assets that each of them had before their "commitment ceremony"?

Without a marriage license, the disposition of assets after one or both of them dies will be done under the terms of any contracts they have, or under court oversight (if they have none).

39 posted on 12/14/2013 3:07:53 PM PST by Alberta's Child ("I've never seen such a conclave of minstrels in my life.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Navy Patriot

Goat, horses, dogs, sheep, camels, the dead, your kid. Western Civ is done. Better order your prayer rug today.


40 posted on 12/14/2013 3:08:32 PM PST by ProtectOurFreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
Utah and Arizona haven't enforced the polygamy ban since the 1953 Short Creek raid.

Even the Utah Attorney General's website states: "Polygamy is illegal in Utah and forbidden by the Arizona constitution. However, law enforcement agencies in both states have decided to focus on crimes within polygamous communities that involve child abuse, domestic violence and fraud."

There are an estimated 40,000 polygamists in the intermountain west.

41 posted on 12/14/2013 3:41:49 PM PST by Scoutmaster (I'd rather be at Philmont)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

Polygamy is not in the Constitution, therefore there can be no Federal law banning it.

Ok, Judge.

Healthcare is not in the Constitution either, but it is the law of the land.

Huh?


42 posted on 12/14/2013 3:48:47 PM PST by exit82 ("The Taliban is on the inside of the building" E. Nordstrom 10-10-12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

great cartoon!!


43 posted on 12/14/2013 4:00:05 PM PST by GOP Poet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

Ladies and gentleman.... I give you a government separated from religion......


44 posted on 12/14/2013 4:18:28 PM PST by wonkowasright (Wonko from outside the asylum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: papertyger

“Sorry, but his reasoning is sound, and no justification for calling him a liberal”

Does the same go for Anthony Kennedy for legalizing sodomy?


45 posted on 12/14/2013 5:02:27 PM PST by NKP_Vet ("God never tires of forgiving us, we are the ones who tire of seeking his mercy" - Pope Francis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

A seventh-grader discovered that the US is at the mercy of nine cloaked wizards — in plain signt in Washingont DC! Scary. http://dandygoat.com/seventh-grader-reveals-u-s-at-the-mercy-of-nine-wizards


46 posted on 12/14/2013 5:16:14 PM PST by SammyStone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

Because marriage has been seized in some states by forces who are hostile to God’s definition of that institution, it is time to reduce the State’s role in marriage and to return marriage to the private sphere from where it originated.


47 posted on 12/14/2013 5:19:49 PM PST by theBuckwheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scoutmaster

“Polygamy is illegal in Utah and forbidden by the Arizona constitution. However, law enforcement agencies in both states have decided to focus on crimes within polygamous communities that involve child abuse, domestic violence and fraud.”

Yeah, I thought that they don’t even enforce their cohabitation/bigamy law, I seem to recall them always prosecuting on abuse cases or benefit fraud.

Freegards


48 posted on 12/14/2013 5:22:09 PM PST by Ransomed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

Islam.

It has actually always been about Islam.


49 posted on 12/14/2013 5:22:45 PM PST by combat_boots (The Lion of Judah cometh. Hallelujah. Gloria Patri, Filio et Spiritui Sancto!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

I think it was Mark Steyn who pointed out that polygamy has a larger constituency than gay marriage.


50 posted on 12/14/2013 5:47:57 PM PST by Salman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-83 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