Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

I seriously think that changes over the last 35 years in laws, and the interpretation of laws by the courts, have made it very unlikely that polygamists can be punished, unless their "wives" are underage or they have obtained multiple marriage licenses by fraud.
1 posted on 05/26/2008 8:42:18 PM PDT by Jim Noble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Jim Noble
Homosexual or “gay” marriage broke the dam, especially now that our most populous state has it. There will be 50 state polygamy within 5-10 years, just as there will be “gay” marriage.
2 posted on 05/26/2008 8:45:06 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (McCain could never convince me to vote for him. Only Hillary or Obama can!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Jim Noble
If multiple children by multiple women was the standard, there is a whole lot of money to be made off many NBA players, politicians and most any jock.
3 posted on 05/26/2008 8:46:02 PM PDT by texas booster (Join FreeRepublic's Folding@Home team (Team # 36120) Cure Alzheimer's!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Jim Noble

Not necessarily even then. I think that someone under the age of consent can still legally marry with parental approval in some, if not most, states.


4 posted on 05/26/2008 8:47:33 PM PDT by null and void (Capitalism=>Volkswagon, Audi, Porsche, BMW. |WALL| Communism=>Trabi. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Jim Noble

To make matters even more complicated, from what I can gather, the FLDS men and women do not even cohabitate. From what I saw on TV, for the most part the women live with the children kind of like in dorms. Some of the individual families, I believe, lived in separate homes. So if the State of Texas thinks it is going to prosecute for polygamy, I think they are going to have one heck of a hard time.

I think the judge, CPS, law enforcement THOUGHT they were going to look like heroes barging in there with guns and a great show of force because most people were going to shout, “Hallelujah, now those dang religious perverts are going to get what’s comin’ to ‘em - yahoo baby!”

Too bad the anti FLDS zealots forgot to study and Constitution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FN_QG1UqHLs


6 posted on 05/26/2008 8:50:41 PM PDT by Saundra Duffy (For victory & freedom!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Jim Noble

No, its not enforceable. The “underage” thing is (parental consent applies to a marriage, and these aren’t legal marriages). Thats about it. And thats about as far as the public ought to have any interest, that and the issue of force, where force is an element in maintaining control.

Texas over-reached. But where they can prove under-aged relationships, they may still have a case. And thats the only area where there is a public safety issue.


16 posted on 05/26/2008 9:08:24 PM PDT by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Jim Noble
I believe that in the US, laws against polygamy have become unenforceable while no one was looking.

Hugh: "No one was looking? Are you kidding?"


18 posted on 05/26/2008 9:14:17 PM PDT by TheDon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Jim Noble

Who woulda thought:
Tuesday, November 18, 2003
Supreme Court strikes down Texas sodomy law

Are Current Laws Against Polygamy Enforceable?

Probably not for long.


21 posted on 05/26/2008 9:36:11 PM PDT by philetus (Keep doing what you always do and you'll keep getting what you always get.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Jim Noble

I cant fathom having more than one wife.

I got more than I can handle with one.

These geeks are...


22 posted on 05/26/2008 9:37:05 PM PDT by crz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Jim Noble

FYI see Reynolds vs. US


29 posted on 05/26/2008 9:49:02 PM PDT by Las Vegas Ron (Election '08, the year McCain defined the word "dilemma")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Jim Noble

We need to encourage long-term monogamous relationships between men and women, especially to have children, because that will strengthen our society.

Still, it’s interesting that you put yourself at greater risk for prosecution for polygamy the more you take care of the children of women you sleep with. If you just have one-night stands and move on, no problem. If you have two long-term relationships at the same time, but keep one secret and encourage abortions (the mistress), again, no problem unless your wife finds out and divorces you.

But if you have an open long-term relationship with two women, and encourage both to have children, then you are in trouble.


31 posted on 05/26/2008 9:54:09 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Jim Noble
Contrary to feminist doctrine on the subject, polygamy harms (most) men more than women.

The vast majority of polygamous marriages involve one man and multiple wives (AKA polygyny) — polyandry is much less common. Obviously, if a lot of men have multiple wives; there will be many others who have none. (Assuming a rough balance between the sexes.)

Before the welfare state, men were expected to support all of their wives. Today, a lot of polygynous “families” seem to be entirely supported by welfare. That means most men are not only being deprived of a chance of having a wife — but, they also have to pay to support the families of men who have several wives. A double-whammy.

One only has to look at the nearest ghetto to see how destabilizing a large number of single, young men can be to a society. Marriage tends to civilize men. The outlook is not good.

33 posted on 05/26/2008 9:57:23 PM PDT by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Jim Noble
Have you read the comments on this thread? What a bunch of sea lawyers. How about this idea. Marriage is a religious institution. With fatherhood and motherhood, the most fundamental one. What if we took it out of the government's hands. No tax breaks, no insurance or property rights indulgences. Wouldn't the institution of marriage be stronger if there was nothing material to gain? That its greatest aspect was its most important thing, the affirmation and announcement to one's god and community that two people have an unending love and commitment to each other? I have been in love and married for quite some time now. It still bothers me that I had to get permission from a state or that year after year whether on not it get gets me a tax break.
37 posted on 05/26/2008 10:06:37 PM PDT by Delacon ("The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: AdmSmith; Berosus; Convert from ECUSA; dervish; Ernest_at_the_Beach; Fred Nerks; george76; ...

Note: this vanity topic is from a year ago, 5/26/2008.
51 posted on 05/27/2009 2:25:18 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/____________________ Profile updated Monday, January 12, 2009)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson