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.

[Eris]

PS - I believe in keeping government's nose out of any adult's business - be it what they own, what guns they have, who they sleep with, who they enter contracts with, how they conduct their business, how they worship, how they keep their relationship with the Lord, what they drive, what they spend, what they invest in, what they do for fun and how they raise their children.

I believe it's not government's business to protect people from the consequences of their own bad decisions or take from them the rewards of their own good behavior.

I believe people should mind their own business and keep their hands to themselves.

I believe government should stay out of the boardroom and out of the bedroom.

If that's not your brand of conservatism, tough cookies.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

Sweetie, no need to be confused;-)

Genesis says "one man, one woman." All else is corruption.

That being said, should this ever come back into fashion, well, I've got things to buy, Nordstrom bills to pay. How many husbands can I have?

[little jeremiah]

My comments to you about your growling dog method of "debate" and your ad hominem attacks *are* about the subject. Verbal stone throwing is your method; I pointed it out. If you don't like it, terribly sorry for your hurt feelings.

Or maybe you think everyone should bow and scrape to you, just because you're you?

[little jeremiah]

In other words, a utopian liberaltarian, that is if you're telling the truth.

It would work if the world was all different, people were all different, and the laws of nature were all different.

[Eris]

No a conservative who believes in minimal government.

I don't need government insulting my values and religion by trying to codify them.

Government's job is to guard the borders and prosecute criminals.

I'll take care of my own body, soul and prosperity, thank you very much.

[Eris]

PS - I didn't throw out a single insult until I was insulted, and I responded in kind.

Take your whining elsewhere.

[little jeremiah]

Yup, a libertarian all right. The philosophy that 13 year old boys would invent if 13 year old boys could invent philosophy.

And funny how their personalities are usually so grating.

[little jeremiah]

Not whining, just commenting on the general tone of the thread.

I didn't see any rules against it.

[Eris]

Funny how collectivists and socialists such as yourself like to pretend you're conservative.

[ppaul]

[goldstategop]

Strange as it may seem, I agree with this lawsuit. Its hard for liberals to argue sodomy and gay marriage are deserving of constitutional protection but polygamy isn't. Society in their eyes has evolved and hey, if a man wants to marry as many women as he wants, its a private matter. Polygamists ought to have privacy in their homes too. After Texas V Lawrence , there's no rational or moral basis for banning polygamous marriage except a dislike of the Mormon religion. After all, its all about sex and besides, its time to move on.

[Robert_Paulson2]

"And funny how their personalities are usually so grating."

---

Grating only to those who are driven to dictate their morality to folks who disagree with the moralist's own obsessions.

Chiefly the obsessive fear that someone somewhere, might be enjoying themselves in some way they don't approve of personally, and doing it without social regulation or governmental prosecution...

What's truly great is how libertarian "tell others what's moral" type of folks become when it's hillary and company telling you what to do in some area YOU disagree with: healthcare, governmental interference with families, gun registration, teaching alternative lifestyles or situation ethics, in a public school.

They scream bloody murder when government investigates their favorite televangelist for tax fraud "persecution" they scream.

Then it's "government needs to mind it's own business."
It all depends on whose ox is being gored.
Pathetic. Either you want a nanny state or you don't.

I don't.

[rusty millet]

Good point. The financial burden on society can go beyond the immediate welfare for the existing "family" if Mr Stud is unemployed, and has the potential to extend into social security suvivor's benefits in case of the Mr. Stud's early demise.

[rusty millet]

Well, Hillary! has told me it takes a village, and that's good enough for me. So if you will excuse me, my village and I are
goin' to the chapel
and we're
gonna get ma a aried.

</sarcasm>

Can you even imagine the new crop of "love songs" this is going to require?

[CatoRenasci]

Right, and remember, Rome had a good run, a couple of hundred years of being degenerate at least, before the barbarians started sacking Rome. So, since (pace Keynes) we're all dead in the long run, sit back and enjoy the ride!

< /end cynical irony >

[Mamzelle]

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

You're a man with some sense. Perhaps this is why the Islamists are so nasty--they're driven crazy trying to negotiate between wives.

Men tend to think in terms of the sexual fantasy--but being married to more than one woman sounds like hell on earth...

[LizardQueen]

While I generally agree with Eris' comments, these are legitimate and difficult problems.

I feel much the same as you do. On one hand, I abhor the nanny state and think the gov't should butt out of personal affairs, and on the other hand I see all sorts of problems with opening up marriage to all sorts of oddball configurations.

Bestiality, incest, and sex with minors all should get (and generally are) ruled out because of the consent issue. Bestiality because animals cannot provide informed consent, minors because the judgement of minors isn't sufficiently developed to provide informed consent, and incest because the relationship between the parties (particularly when they are older/younger) taints the ability to consent. The incest rule is the same reason why we don't allow doctors to get involved with their patients - there is an authority situation there that renders the power held by both sides unequal and therefore renders the consent suspect.

But if marriage is opened up to gays, I can't see any logical grounds for denying it to polygamists, outside of my personal feelings that it's disgusting and stupid.

One enormous problem I can see coming down the pipe is financial - can you imagine what's going to happen to the company health insurance plan when people start trying to insure 6 wives or 4 husbands? And companies won't be able to say no without getting sued for discrimination.

One thing that bugs me about mixing the current debate up with the Texas decision: Just because something shouldn't be illegal doesn't mean it should be sanctioned.
I don't approve of the gov't busting into peoples bedrooms and arresting them for who or what they're doing (as long as the consent is there, they're of age, etc), but I also don't believe in gov't sanction of those activities by then granting the rights and privileges of marriage to all those configurations that they don't prosecute anymore.

One other thing I thought of the other day is that we already have a form of non-simultaneous polygamy because of the high divorce rate in the country at the present time. That's, to me, as big a problem as the gay and polygamist issue.

LQ

[Rebelbase]

Mmmm....in retrospect, if Elven wifes were available, I might reconsider:

[Zack Nguyen]

It's too difficult for the law to handle this issue on a case-by-case basis rather than with an arbitrary age limit, nor would an attempt to do so provide the necessary guidance for individuals to know ahead of time whether a minor met such a standard.

I might tend to agree with you. I support the setting of an arbitrary age limit, because I think that sex between two different people of vastly varying ages is generally a bad thing, outside of wedlock. But I think it proves why "mutual consent" is a poor method of judging whether certain sexual activity can be regulated or not.

[Zack Nguyen]

No, my logic says minors by definition can't give consent, just as they can't enter contracts.

Of course they can give "consent." Logic says that a 17 years old can make a rational decision whether or not to have sex. Now I agree that statutory rape laws are good, as is the setting of an arbitrary age limit. But again, if consent is your only criteria for what is or is not a lawful sexual activity, then you have to be prepared to allow a 20 year old to have sex with a 15 year old, if the 15 year old is able to give rational consent.

My entire point is that consent isn't good enough.

Polygamy doesn't "violate nature."

Sure it does. Having more than one wife is not what we were created to do.