Attorney challenges Utah ban on polygamy, citesTexas sodomy case

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Tuesday, January 13, 2003 | ALEXANDRIA SAGE, AP writer

[JohnHuang2]

Attorney challenges Utah ban on polygamy, citesTexas sodomy case ALEXANDRIA SAGE Associated Press

SALT LAKE CITY - A civil rights attorney challenged Utah's ban on polygamy Monday, citing a Supreme Court ruling that struck down a Texas sodomy law.

The lawsuit says Salt Lake County clerks refused a marriage license to a couple because the man was already married to another woman, who had consented to the additional marriage.

In denying the marriage license, the county violated the plaintiffs' First Amendment right to practice their religion, attorney Brian Barnard said in the complaint.

The suit said polygamy is the plaintiffs' "sincere and deeply held religious tenet." The complaint does not say what religion the plaintiffs observe.

The suit argues that the Supreme Court protected defendants' privacy in intimate matters when it struck down laws criminalizing gay sex in June, ruling that two gay men who were arrested after police entered their apartment and found them having sex were "entitled to respect for their private lives."

Polygamy, a felony under Utah law, was 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.

Some fundamentalist Mormons continue to believe in polygamy, and an estimated 30,000 in the West practice it.

Lawyers representing other polygamists have recently cited the Supreme Court ruling. Last month, the attorney for Tom Green, a convicted bigamist and child rapist, argued his client's convictions should be thrown out in light of the case. The appeal of Rodney Holm - who was convicted of bigamy and unlawful sexual conduct with an underage girl - also cites the Texas case.

Brian Barnard, who represents the couple in the most recent case, said his suit isn't clouded by rape or sexual misconduct. The plaintiffs are identified as G. Lee Cook, an adult male; his wife, D. Cook, who had given her consent to the additional marriage; and J. Bronson, an adult female.

[JohnHuang2]

Tuesday, January 13, 2003

Quote of the Day by Caipirabob

[freebilly]

What sauce for a goose is sauce for two ganders and a goose....

[freebilly]

What's

[kimmie7]

Why am I not surprised? *sigh*

Thanks John.

[Simmy2.5]

Slippery slope...

[freepatriot32]

The appeal of Rodney Holm - who was convicted of bigamy and unlawful sexual conduct with an underage girl - also cites the Texas case

thank you sandra day o conner

[sopwith]

I wonder what took them so long?
It must be the over burden court system.

[rintense]

Predicted by most freepers months ago with the Texas ruling... just waiting for someone who wants to marry their brother, sister, dog or cat.

[Siamese Princess]

Predicted by most freepers months ago with the Texas ruling... just waiting for someone who wants to marry their brother, sister, dog or cat.

Correct. If sodomy and gay "marriage" are legal, why not polygamy? I might add that incest is legal in Sweden.

[rintense]

The slide down the slippery slope is getting faster...

[Senator_Blutarski]

Predicted by most freepers months ago with the Texas ruling... just waiting for someone who wants to marry their brother, sister, dog or cat.

In a recent letter to the editor in my small town newpaper someone in a serious tone suggested that he should be allowed to marry his dog if he wanted.

[Maria S]

"The slide down the slippery slope is getting faster..."


I KNEW, KNEW, knew this was going to happen! Here comes the camel sliding down the slippery slope and his nose is heading straight for the tent and...

[randita]

The wrong approach is to base the case on religious freedom. The courts will not be sympathetic to that at all. Base it solely on the non-existent right to privacy (as the abortion and Texas sodomy case were done) and it should be a slam dunk in favor of the plantiff.

[WritableSpace]

Yay! Marriage Licenses for all who wants them...Here ya Go Kid nock yourself out... What? You want to marry your mother, your dog, cat, sister, and your Playstation? Well go right ahead its all LEGAL...

[MEGoody]

remember all the people on FR who were saying, 'Nah, that won't happen' when they were warned things like this would happen.

[lardog]

I can't understand why someone would want more than one wife. One is enough.

[DonQ]

The Texas case dealt with the right to privacy .... in particular, private sex behind closed doors without the local cops peeking through the keyhole. But the Texas case did not involve legitimizing those sexual connections in the way that a legally recognized marriage does.

Marriage carries with it a LOT of legal baggage that casual sex doesn't; for example, confidentiality of husband-wife communications, rights of inheritance/support/property division, tax considerations, the right to bring a lawsuit for the death or crippling of the spouse, etc. etc. You don't get those legal considerations from a hot date.

The attempt to stretch the Texas case to apply to the legal ramifications of a bona fide marriage are inapposite and doomed.

[Modernman]

There's really no need to legally punish guys who have more than one wife. Multiple wives are punishment enough.

[rintense]

The attempt to stretch the Texas case to apply to the legal ramifications of a bona fide marriage are inapposite and doomed.

Normally, I would agree with this. But considering the wild rulings lately within the courts, nothing would surprise me.

[mrustow]

The Texas case dealt with the right to privacy .... in particular, private sex behind closed doors without the local cops peeking through the keyhole. But the Texas case did not involve legitimizing those sexual connections in the way that a legally recognized marriage does. Marriage carries with it a LOT of legal baggage that casual sex doesn't; for example, confidentiality of husband-wife communications, rights of inheritance/support/property division, tax considerations, the right to bring a lawsuit for the death or crippling of the spouse, etc. etc. You don't get those legal considerations from a hot date.

The attempt to stretch the Texas case to apply to the legal ramifications of a bona fide marriage are inapposite and doomed.

You're being much too logical. My reaction was the same as yours, when Rick Santorum said that striking down the Texas sodomy law would make it permissible to marry your mother, dog, etc. But the USSC majority decision explicitly referred to gay marriage. What we have here, is not logic or law, but an irrational mentality, hostile to legal precedent, yet common to the ruling elites, particularly federal judges and professors of law.