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.

[nickcarraway]

Lawrence vs. Kansas ping

Scalia? Santorum? What did they say?

[Poohbah]

Remember...when you have a group of women living together, their cycles tend to start lining up.

Imagine all 5 having PMS at the same time.

[Agnes Heep]

Mormon wants more men.

[onedoug]

Without Judeo-Christianity, why not?

[Bobby777]

Imagine all 5 having PMS at the same time.

my guess would be one VERY dead man ... and ...

[Unam Sanctam]

And it's not just Mormons. "Polyamory" is the new left-wing sex craze.

[Plutarch]

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

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

[Ford Fairlane]

Next will be incest marriages.

Once upon a time, the law in Kentucky stated that the age of consent for a young lady to marry was (either 14 or 16, I dont remember which), "unless the woman has been previously married or the bride & groom are related"

[Tempest]

Yeah I can see how this is an important issue compared to National Security. . . No really. . . I can. . .

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?!

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

[anniegetyourgun]

Bingo.

[AntiGuv]

The guy isn't suing for the right to sleep with multiple women in private, but rather the right to have his relationships contractualized by the state. 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.

[Salgak]

All I can say about polygamy is in Chinese:

The ideographic symbol for "trouble" is that of a house, with two "woman" ideographs inside. . .

[Tempest]

Were as I see your point after reading the whole article it appears that this guy is a real low-life who isn't up to the responsibility of taking care of his 5 wives and countless kid, plus not all of his wives are up to the legal age of consent.

[nosofar]

Incestual marriage should be fine as long you abort the kids.

Sometime before puberty?

[tracer]

Trust me, you will be amazed at the irony of seeing the "Mormon" Church and its membership -- many of whom are legislators and judges both at the state and national levels, speaking out as the most vocal opponents of the return of polygamy in this century......

[jwalsh07]

The guy will lose & the Supreme Court won't grant cert. Bank it!

People will never be able to suck the brains out of partially born children, bank it!

Uh oh, thats exactly what people do.

Lawrence is analagous to Roe and Goodridge is analagous to Doe v Bolton. History is clear, the elitists never contract precedent it is always expanded.

No surprise here. Next up in Massachusetts will be a couple of friends or brother and sister who love each other and want access to each others government bennies. It's gonna happen and the SJC of Massachusetts has written an opinion that won't allow them to deny the request.

[jwalsh07]

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.

Short wait, the Mass SJC did just that.

[miele man]

If this guy is successful, I'm sure Michael Jackson will be watching this case with more than a passing interest.

[honeygrl]

shhhhh you'll interupt the homobashfest. That's much more important that limited government. /sarcasm

[KantianBurke]

IF we had a judiciary that respected state's rights then most folks could bank on silly things such as gay marriage never coming to pass in their own states. However as we had a Judicial system made up of philosopher kings who can and do disregard the Constitution at will, the only measure that will prevent gay marriage and G-d knows what else from being instituted across the land is a Federal Amendment. Hence why Bush should get involved.