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

Skip to comments.

AZ seeks emergency hearing on twin polygamy towns
KSL.com ^ | July 14th, 2010 | AP

Posted on 07/14/2010 2:43:09 PM PDT by T Minus Four

AZ seeks emergency hearing on twin polygamy towns July 14th, 2010 @ 12:32pm SALT LAKE CITY (AP) -- The Arizona attorney general's office has asked a Utah judge for an emergency hearing on the rising tensions between residents of twin polygamous communities on the Utah-Arizona border.

The Thursday request comes in the wake of property-use disputes and allegations that police have failed to enforce the court-ordered authority of an accountant charged with managing the United Effort Plan Trust.

The trust holds nearly all the properties in Hildale, Utah, and Colorado City, Ariz., the base of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

The Utah courts took control of the trust in 2005 amid allegations of mismanagement. That has sparked a string of disputes between current and former FLDS members.

(Copyright 2010 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; US: Arizona; US: Utah
KEYWORDS: arizona; flds; inmam; lds; mormon; mrmon; polygamy; utah
Read the comments for a laugh.
1 posted on 07/14/2010 2:43:11 PM PDT by T Minus Four
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: T Minus Four

This is why they want Romney to run...
Of course Reid is left off the hook..


2 posted on 07/14/2010 2:47:32 PM PDT by Freddd (CNN is down to Three Hundred Thousand viewers. But they worked for it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Freddd

You’re an idiot. Your rabid anti-Mormonism has blinded you to any reason or logic.

Moreover, you need to get with the program. Now that a federal district court in Massachussetts has ruled that the federal Protection of Marriage Act is unconstitutional these non-Mormon polygamists will be free to have their marriages recognized.

This recent decision essentially said the federal government can’t tell a state how to regulate marriage, and since the federal government told Utah they couldn’t permit polygamy over 100 years ago that federal interference is now null and void....right?


3 posted on 07/14/2010 3:32:30 PM PDT by Auntie Dem (Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! Terrorist lovers gotta go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Elsie; Colofornian

ping


4 posted on 07/14/2010 4:22:07 PM PDT by fishtank (The denial of original sin is the root of liberalism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Auntie Dem
since the federal government told Utah they couldn’t permit polygamy over 100 years ago that federal interference is now null and void....right?

One would hope. "Congress shall make NO LAW respecting the establishment of a religion, nor prohibit the FREE EXERCISE thereof..."

I don't agree with polygamy. I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone would want more than one wife at a time. But as long as everyone involved is a consenting adult and there is no force, threat of force, or fraud involved it is quite simply none of the Governments business how or who adults chose to live with.

Period.

5 posted on 07/14/2010 4:25:56 PM PDT by Lurker (The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: T Minus Four; Utah Binger

United Effort...

Where have I heard THAT before?


6 posted on 07/14/2010 6:58:04 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Auntie Dem
Your rabid anti-Mormonism has blinded you to any reason or logic.

Your rabid Mormonism has blinded you to any reason or logic.

7 posted on 07/14/2010 6:58:52 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Lurker
...simply none of the Governments business ...

I guess the GUMMINT will do whatever it wants to!

8 posted on 07/14/2010 7:00:39 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Auntie Dem
 
This recent decision essentially said the federal government can’t tell a state how to regulate marriage, and since the federal government told Utah they couldn’t permit polygamy over 100 years ago that federal interference is now null and void....right?



 
The Mormon church Organization; based in Salt Lake City, does not practice Polygamy any more.
They decided to stop the practice for fear of losing all their worldly goods.
It was banned in 1890.
  


 

"Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriage...
I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws..."

~ Wilford Woodruff, 4th LDS President



9 posted on 07/14/2010 7:02:45 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

All federal laws are null and void unless the fed acts to uphold them. That is Bambi’s stance. Party on Wayne.


10 posted on 07/14/2010 7:06:17 PM PDT by eyedigress ((Old storm chaser from the west)?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Lurker
Irrespective of our individual likes or dislikes of polygamy, it is clear that at various times in Biblical history it was practiced with God's approval, and at other times with his disapproval. Such is the case in "modern" times. But we can agree that under the U.S. Constitution the First Amendment should have recognized (not given) the right to polygamy as a religious tenet. That our gutless Supreme Court did not uphold that right is despicable. While I may currently disagree with the religious claim by today's polygamists, that is my individual right to make that judgment about their religion. I do not believe government has any place deciding what is or is not a religious idea or practice.
11 posted on 07/14/2010 7:28:23 PM PDT by Auntie Dem (Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! Terrorist lovers gotta go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Auntie Dem
Irrespective of our individual likes or dislikes of polygamy, it is clear that at various times in Biblical history it was practiced with God's approval, and at other times with his disapproval.

I surely hope that you will post some evidence to back up this statement you just made.

It should be interesting to read.

12 posted on 07/14/2010 7:52:36 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Auntie Dem
Whether or not someones God approved is not for me to judge. What is quite clear however is that the US Congress has absolutely no authority to make any law on the subject at all.

I refuse to be drawn into discussions about whether or not a particular "God" approves of it or not. It's irrelevant.

L

13 posted on 07/14/2010 8:18:58 PM PDT by Lurker (The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Lurker
What is quite clear however is that the US Congress has absolutely no authority to make any law on the subject at all.

And yet they do it all the time!

Amazing country; this!

14 posted on 07/15/2010 6:25:02 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Auntie Dem

Finally, someone who has some sense.

Polygamy is unenforceable, simple as that.

Unless someone gets multiple concurrent marriage licenses, you cannot prosecute them on the books for bigamy or polygamy as a criminal charge.

Having cohabiting persons, even in multiplicity is fully legal, and has been for who knows how long. Numerous celebrities have open relationships or cheat on their spouses in their own homes, or have separate families with their mistresses. We don’t prosecute this, even when the guy doesn’t support children had through these relationships.

We once did sent federal enforcement against off-the-books polygamy (i.e. cohabitation), but that pretty much singled out the Mormon Church, and good laws don’t single groups out. How are we going to get back to enforcing the laws.

IMO, the real issue is not whether or not certain marriages are legit, but rather whether the state has any say in throwing out tax cuts to select registered relationships. I really don’t think it does. If that were true, you would disenfranchise the FLDS ranches, if they were using welfare dollars, and disenfranchise who knows what else that desired some sort of special recognition. Inheritance rights or custody rights could be settled, and that should be that.

Sadly though, I do think that the Federal government will end up being the arm of the propaganda machine for these various movements.


15 posted on 07/29/2010 8:49:44 PM PDT by Morpheus2009 (separation of church and state)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Auntie Dem

So long as their beliefs are not at my expense, I would not care. But this religion’s beliefs, if they are welfare-dependent, are entirely at the expense of our taxpayers’ money to uphold. In addition, are any of these people participating in their constitutional rights as citizens, paying their taxes, etc.? I would really like to know. If they are just being a burden on us to pay for with our taxes, such as rampant illegal immigration, put the disenfranchisement threat placed on the LDS Church on the FLDS.


16 posted on 07/29/2010 8:50:34 PM PDT by Morpheus2009 (separation of church and state)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

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