Skip to comments.Federal judge declares Utah polygamy law unconstitutional (vanity)
Posted on 12/14/2013 10:50:10 AM PST by TigerClaws
Link not allowed but this is a major news story for conservatives as it proves what we warned about:
A U.S. District Court judge has sided with the polgyamous Brown family, ruling that key parts of Utahs polygamy laws are unconstitutional.
Judge Clark Waddoups 91-page ruling, issued Friday, sets a new legal precedent in Utah, effectively decriminalizing polygamy. It is the latest development in a lawsuit filed by the family of Kody Brown, who became famous while starring in cable TV channel TLCs reality series "Sister Wives." The show entered a fourth season at the end of the summer.
Sunday is Double Double Dessert Dessert Day Day. Don't forget.
“Judge Waddoups received his undergraduate degree from Brigham Young University in 1970 and his juris doctorate from the University of Utah’s law school in 1973. He was most recently a partner in the law firm of Parr, Waddoups, Brown, Gee & Loveless where he was a trial lawyer specializing in commercial litigation, including antitrust, securities, labor/employment, banking, construction, environmental and insurance claims. Clark Waddoups has represented clients in industries such as heavy manufacturing, broadcasting, banking and finance, automotive, oil, and real estate.”
Waddoups was appointed by, you guessed it, George W. Bush.
But what else could you expect from someone belonging to the law firm of Parr, Waddoups, Brown, Gee & Loveless?
Vindicated, but nobody will care. They’re already on board with polygamy, and we’re already haters.
Sex with kids is next ... just like the Muslims (and also some Mormons) ...
This shouldn’t be a surprise after homosexual (so called) marriage declared aok.
Now, can women sue to allow polyandry?
This is GW Bush’ fault, oh come on.
I don’t know why people are so hung up on the legal aspects of polygamy. From what I’ve seen, “polygamy” is alive and well — and encouraged by U.S. welfare policy — all over the U.S. You might even say it’s the predominant culture in most of our cities.
In order to encourage nuclear families and provide the ideal environment for young children, the government began to provide benefits and tax breaks to families. The initial criteria was not the presence of children, but rather a valid marriage license, a government, not a religious document.
Well, whatever is subsidized grows, but instead of more nuclear families bearing and nurturing children, we got all sorts and manner of people demanding government subsidies on the sole criteria of engaging in some lifestyle arrangement between two or more adults. Up until now, you could only involve more than two adults serially, via divorce and remarriage, but the trend was clear.
That, together with the trend that renders a marriage contract meaningless, we are crafting a society where marriage is completely unnecessary, you can simply form benefit pools to get the full range of government benefits. Provided, of course, that you agree to vote only for Democrats.
Words have meaning. If everything is okay, then nothing is not okay.
Eventually we return to a decadent primal state, with the final two things being cannibalism and human sacrifice.
Then we’re done.
It’s just a matter of time until pedophilia is encouraged by this perverted administration and its minions.
Sure is in Maine. Lots of our Somalis have the 4-wives thing going. It is encouraged to the point that the welfare wallahs will give them one Sec. 8 apartment per wife, and pay for each dependent child.
How can polygamy possibly be against the law? If a number of women wish to make some sort of breeding arrangement with one man, with or without benefit of clergy or civil authority, who's to stop them?
Tomcats can be neutered.
I keep returning to the thought that maybe the State should be told to get OUT of the marriage business ... this being a function that has not always been vested in the bureaucracy.
I say this just because it is something that the state has a lot of difficulty trying to rule over, administer, deal with.
And, because many of us believe marriage is either a sacrament or at least a matter best left to the people to handle for ourselves, without needing to ask or beg or pay the state to supervise, regulate, proscribe what we do.
or something like that?
gays would still decide to “get married” but the state would not be in the business of ‘officially sanctioning’ it anymore
why do we seem to want to get our validation, our official sanction, our approval...from the bureaucracy or from the usually-corrupt politicians, anyway?
if I want validation, I will get it from church (or synagogue). Validation by the state seems somehow oxymoronic...
Don’t forget incest— that’s coming down the pike also.
That wasn't the point where things went south. The problem started when the State got into the business of regulating marriage in the first place.
I think that most Americans, even those who aren't believers, would agree that "marriage" is a religious term of art. Religions have always set rules to define that word for their followers. Our mistake was allowing the State to take over that role in society.
This was noncontroversial when it started because no one could imagine the State coming up with definitions that might run counter to that of the People. What we failed to realize is that our Constitution doesn't allow for a definition that agrees with the religious views of most Americans. It doesn't matter, nor should it, that a majority hold the view that marriage is between one man and one woman. An integral part of American society is the concept that we will not support the tyranny of the majority. Our Constitution protects us from that form of tyranny; whether we like it or not!
So what do we do when some guy wants to marry his goldfish? There are two solutions. We can amend the Constitution to allow for laws that favor one religion's definition of marriage over other views. Or, we can undo the original mistake: Amend the Constitution to forbid the regulation of marriage by the State.
As a Christian, I don't need the State to define marriage for me. That's God's job. I don't need the State to arrogantly presume to define the terms used by my church. If the State can tell my church that marriage is between one man and one woman today, the same State can tell us that it's between two women and a staple gun tomorrow. We should never have given the State that power in the first place. We erred when we accepted the regulation of marriage as one of the functions of government. The quickest fix for the "problem" of gay marriage or the "problem" of polygamy or the "problem" of trans-species marriage is to stop the State from defining the terminology of our faith.
Justice Scalia is proven a prophet. A house or nation divided against itself cannot stand. the Federal Judiciary has been divided for some time. Any Judge who makes his/her/its opinions based upon their personal agenda and is Never held to the Oath /or affirmation administered When the courts no longer recognize nor uphold the US Constitution and Laws made pursuant to it Then there is NO justice— No Law— No Peace— only an Oligarchy of Despots and a nation of slaves.
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.