Judge Cites Same-Sex Marriage in Declaring Polygamy Ban Unconstitutional

http://www.breitbart.com ^ | December 14, 2013 | Ken Klukowski

[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.”

[Ransomed]

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

[greene66]

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.

[Venturer]

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.

[Olog-hai]

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

[FlingWingFlyer]

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”.

[Alberta's Child]

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.

[GOPsterinMA]

Yep. I knew this was coming.

[Hostage]

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

[cotton]

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?????

[shadeaud]

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

[Repeal 16-17]

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).

[Scoutmaster]

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.

[dfwgator]

Most true cartoon, ever.

[freedomfiter2]

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

[jonno]

So what’s next?

Democracy (iow - mob-rule)

[Stevenc131]

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

[GLDNGUN]

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.

[Alberta's Child]

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.

[Alberta's Child]

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).

[ProtectOurFreedom]

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