Utah Polygamist Invokes Ruling on Gay Sex

AP ^ | December 1, 2003 | MARK THIESSEN

[Kay Soze]

December 1, 2003, 7:38 PM EST

SALT LAKE CITY -- A lawyer for a Utah man with five wives argued Monday that his polygamy convictions should be thrown out following a Supreme Court decision decriminalizing gay sex.

The nation's high court in June struck down a Texas sodomy law, ruling that what gay men and women do in the privacy of their homes is no business of government.

It's no different for polygamists, argued Tom Green's attorney, John Bucher, to the Utah Supreme Court.

[scripter]

Tempest, do you deny the reality of the following, and if so, on what grounds?

Between the Lines, Michigan's statewide "gay" newspaper, reports the risk of anal cancer "soars" by nearly 4,000% for men who have sex with men. "The rate doubles again for those who are HIV positive." Between the Lines admits there's no such thing as "safe sex" to prevent this "soaring" cancer risk: "A condom offers only limited protection."

The Medical Institute of Sexual Health reports [Executive Summary, "Health Implications Associated with Homosexuality," 1999]:

- "Homosexual men are at significantly increased risk of HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, anal cancer, gonorrhea and gastrointestinal infections as a result of their sexual practices."
- "Women who have sex with women are at significantly increased risk of bacterial vaginosis, breast cancer and ovarian cancer than are heterosexual women."
- "Domestic violence is...probably more common among homosexuals than among heterosexuals."
- "Significantly higher percentages of homosexual men and women abuse drugs, alcohol and tobacco than do heterosexuals."

The Advocate, a "national gay and lesbian newsmagazine,"concurs that "lesbians are at higher risk of breast, cervical, and ovarian cancer."

As with smoking, homosexual behavior's "second hand" effects threaten public health.

The Centers for Disease Control & Prevention report that men who engage in homosexual behavior are 860% more likely to contract a sexually transmitted disease (STD), increasing up to 500% their risk of contracting HIV/AIDS. Men who have sex with men "have large numbers of anonymous partners, which can result in rapid, extensive transmission of STDs," the CDC warns. "Control of STDs is a central component of HIV infection prevention in the United States; resurgence of bacterial STD threatens national HIV infection prevention efforts."

Gay Health reports that men who have sex with men are 320% more likely than heterosexuals to have unprotected sex without telling their partners they're HIV-positive.

Reuters reported that while "'gay men of all ages remain at an alarming risk,' a CDC spokesman told a news conference," another CDC study "confirms that young bisexual men are a 'bridge' for HIV transmission to women."

Thus, individuals who choose to engage in homosexual behavior threaten not only their own lives, but the lives of the general population. Source

And there are some like Freeper Tempest who thinks we shouldn't care or it's none of our business.

[SevenDaysInMay]

That is the problem. A man should not have more wives, of legal age, that he can support, either serially or in a mob.

Green's mature, but documented 13 y.o. bride broke his case wide open. Tom Green seems more hustler than bread winner. If a man can move, he should never live off his mate's(s') earnings.

Our society has not faced open war with famine (yet) on our lands for many generations where the mass loss of men imbalanced the general population.

I have no problem with a man and several women setting up their durable household as man and wives or wwoman and husbands. Aside from the Biblical stretch, I absolutely believe that there are more good women than good men.

Children need a stable home with responsible parents at home more than the State's certification.

The family unit more than the legal definition of marriage is in question. I am not in favor of homosexuals adopting children, because homosexuality is a mistake in nature, unlikely to ever be mainstream because most normal people find it abnormal. Dr. Laura caught some heavy flack some time ago for stating that obvious fact.

We need to live among people who love us and are willing to care for children and the aged/infirm - for life. That is the true, healthy family, however comprised. The State is doing rather badly as the "extended family", despite its power as schitzy nanny.

Plural marriage families living off the peoples' tax dollars' welfare is too much.

Green broke too many rules of man. Homos break too many rules of nature. The "Gay Plague" will take its toll.

We live in evolutionary, secular times benefitting self-absorbed people rejecting right and wrong.

[truthandjustice1]

???? Huh?! Was that supposed to make sense?! Or was that you showing your disagreement with my opinion. Perhaps you think that everyone that doesn't want to hang a homosexual must be one??? Ahhh such a great display of intellige"

temper, tempwr, tempest.

[Aquinasfan]

It's no different for polygamists, argued Tom Green's attorney

Of course not. Polygamy is far more natural than sodomy. Just read the Old Testament. I'd like to hear the rationalization for ruling against polygamy.

[Aquinasfan]

I thought that one of the basis of conservatism was to remove big goverment from our private lives?!

You are mistaken. The purpose of government is to promote the common good, or "the general welfare" as stated in the preamble to the Constitution. Society depends for its existence on the existence and welfare of the family, so the state has an interest in the welfare of the family.

[ArGee]

We expected it. And here it is. My, my that slippery slope sure is steep.

Well, you obviously don't pay attention. There is no such thing as a slippery slope. For there to be a slippery slope, there would have to be an "up" and a "down" which would imply a "right" and a "wrong." Since there is no right and wrong, especially when it comes to sexual perversion - I mean fetish - I mean orientation (sorry about the confusion there) then we aren't slipping downhill.

I know it looks like slipping downhill and it feels like slipping downhill but it is definately not slipping downhill by judicial fiat.

Shalom.

[ArGee]

A guy can have more than one wife soon? Woo hoo!

Most of us could not afford more than one.

And imagine multiple divorces at one time. It makes the strong blanch (unless it's a strong lawyer).

Shalom.

[ArGee]

Polygamists are not organized, nor an important special interest in the Democratic Party.

... yet.

Shalom.

[biblewonk]

Sounds like he went to Bring-em-young University.

[ArGee]

Anyways. . . I never really could figure out what wrong with homosexual relationships and why so called conservatives want the the goverment to legislate laws against it?!

The conservatives did not want to create new laws, just keep existing ones. Laws against buggery have been around for as long as the republic has.

I thought that one of the basis of conservatism was to remove big goverment from our private lives?!

No, because people will choose to do evil in private. The government does exist to restrain evil. Anyway, gay marriage isn't about private lives, it's about a public institution.

Meantime, the liberals are creating bigger government by asking them to prosecute "hate crimes". We had illegal homosexuality for over 200 years without creating a bedroom police. But homosexuality wasn't legal for more than 20 years before we got thought police.

Just who is trying to get government to intrude where, hmmmm?

Shalom.

[ArGee]

I think I'll wait until at least one court interprets Lawrence v Texas as requiring gay marriage before I worry about any court finding in Lawrence a right to multiple, simultaneous marriages.

What do you think the Massachusetts Supreme Court did?

Shalom.

[ArGee]

Isn't marriage for most folks a union between a man and woman in the eyes of GOD?

It may have been that when Adam and Eve walked the earth, but throughout most of history it has been a civil contract between the state and the couple.

Shalom.

[sheik yerbouty]

It kept Brigham Young for awhile though...

[Rutles4Ever]

LOL!!!! All I can do is issue a hearty chuckle. What was it, two weeks? I predicted here that every lawyer for every bigamist/polygamist would be hurriedly crafting their motions for the immediate reversal of their convictions.

I don't think even the Democrats want to be on this runaway coal train. I fully expect that if the GOP presses for a constitutional convention, the Dems will be forced to go along. The gay/bigamist voting block is just not big enough to trade for the Excedrine headache they're about to get slapped with. They'll ask for working to the effect that "two people" can be considered married, but they will be drowning in their own pre-election polling when they discover that nearly 70% of Americans are against gay marriage all together.

[Rutles4Ever]

wording, not working

[tuckrdout]

Here is a tragic story about "polygamy".

http://www.helenair.com/articles/2003/12/01/feature/a01112803_01.txt


http://www.helenair.com/articles/2003/12/02/feature/a01112903_01.txt



http://www.helenair.com/articles/2003/12/01/top/a01113003_01.txt

[hunter112]

Any way, I wish government truly would defend marriage, such as providing greater tax deductions for married families with children.

A thousand bucks a kid tax credit isn't good enough for you?

Back to the topic of this thread, so some sleazeball shyster attorney is citing a non-related court case to try to get his dirtbag client off? That happens every day, the only thing wrong with this story is that it IS a story. Why the media pays any attention to a man that is surely despised by the left and the right is a mystery to me.

[Aquinasfan]

I don't recommend polygamy and I don't think that it should be legal but... if it's polygamy or sodomy, polygamy gets the nod. There's no glossing over it, God tolerates it in the OT. It's a very difficult issue.

The History of Marriage

[Aquinasfan]

You might be interested in this too. Polygamy in Natural Law.

[churchillbuff]

I've never understood why it would be legal to have one wife and four mistresses, but not five wives. Presumably at least the last four wives are not legally married to him, so even if they all want to look at it as a marriage arrangement, I don't understand how the law can differentiate, at least in an unfavorable way, between this situation and that of a man who has five mistresses, assuming he pays support for children resulting from those extramarital affairs.

VERY GOOD POINT. AN EX-LOVER OF A SINGLE MAN CAN GET "PALIMONY," SO WHY COULDN'T AN EX-LOVER OF A MARRIED MAN BE ENTITLED TO SPOUSE-LIKE BENEFITS?