Suit Challenges Constitutionality of Utah Ban on Polygamy

Salt Lake Tribune ^ | January 12, 2004 | Alexandria Sage

[mrobison]

SALT LAKE CITY — A leading civil rights attorney prepared Monday to file a federal lawsuit challenging Utah’s ban on polygamy, citing the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that struck down a Texas sodomy law.

The suit says Salt Lake County clerks refused a marriage license to plaintiffs G. Lee Cook, an adult male, and J. Bronson, an adult female, because Cook was already married to D. Cook. That woman had given her consent to the additional marriage.

In denying the marriage license, the county violated the plaintiffs’ First Amendment right to practice their religion, attorney Brian Barnard says in the suit.

The suit, an advance copy of which was obtained by The Associated Press, does not mention what faith the plaintiffs observe, except to say polygamy is a ‘‘sincere and deeply held religious major tenet.’’

The suit argues that the Supreme Court ruling last June in Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down laws criminalizing gay sex, protects the defendants’ privacy in intimate matters.

Polygamy, a felony under Utah law, was a part of the early beliefs of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but was abandoned more than a century ago as the territory sought statehood.

The Utah Constitution bans polygamy and the Mormon church now excommunicates those who advocate it, but it is believed that thousands in Utah continue the practice.

[mrobison]

I'm so confused...

[Redbob]

The inevitable result, as predicted, of the court decision on gay marriage, etc.

[Rebelbase]

Why a man would want more than one wife at a time dwelves into sanity issues, IMO.

[King Black Robe]

In denying the marriage license, the county violated the plaintiffs’ First Amendment right to practice their religion, attorney Brian Barnard says in the suit.

Actually he has a better shot with that ever elusive 14th amendment where so-called privacy trumps reason. This should be an easy win after Lawrence. Bet the media left forgets they own Rick Santorum an apology.

[Redbob]

SORRY!

Meant to say, "Inevitable result of Supreme Court decision on Texas sodomy statute."

[Lucky Dog]

Read Rick Santorm's predictions of the consequences of the Lawrence case. It happened faster than anybody expected, but it is just as expected in content.

[mrobison]

The irony of these folks using a struck-down anti-sodomy law to advocate for their religious rights is just too out there.

[mrobison]

Hey, Mod Squad:

If this isn't legit Breaking News, I don't know what is. Why did you pull it?

[LiteKeeper]

Here it comes - the fall-out from the Texas Sodomite decision

[need_a_screen_name]

A good day for Libertarians! What is the problem??

[Angelus Errare]

This is the logical outgrowth of the Massachusetts decision and all that the lawyer is doing here is taking it to its logical extremes. And since we can't have the government meddling in religion or some kind of "optional polygamy" for Mormon schismatics and the like, the inevitable result is going to be the creation of a kind of secular polygamy.

Oui.

[Eris]

I have yet to see a good reason for polygamy among consenting adults to be outlawed.

[FreedomCalls]

Let's stop here and remember Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's dissent in Lawrence v. Texas from last June:

"...State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality and obscenity are ... sustainable only in light of Bowers validation of laws based on moral choices," ... "This effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation."

So it goes...

[scripter]

Bump and ping.

[HiTech RedNeck]

The problem mostly happens when the state is asked to call these second, third, etc. partnerships marriage. Mere unmarried cohabitation, however immoral is no longer illegal in many (most?) places.

[bicycle thug]

Hope they included polyandry. It wouldn't be fair for just men to get the multiple contract option.