Posted on 08/27/2014 7:11:19 PM PDT by markomalley
A federal judge declared a portion of Utah’s polygamy ban unconstitutional late Wednesday, essentially decriminalizing polygamy in the state.
U.S. District Court Judge Clark Waddoups ruled the phrase in the law “‘or cohabits with another person’ is a violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and is without a rational basis under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
The ruling comes in a lawsuit filed by reality TV polygamist Kody Brown and his wives, who left Utah fearing prosecution. They sued the state, arguing that the ban violated their right to freely practice their religion.
The ruling follows a similar order in December of last year that the judge took back while he decided the issue of damages. In the order, Judge Waddoups did preserve the phrases “marry” and “purports to marry” to “save the statute from being invalidated in its entirety.”
The judge also awarded financial compensation to the Brown family.
Read the ruling here:
(Excerpt) Read more at fox13now.com ...
My grandson will be perfectly happy marrying his Playstation 20. Or whatever number it will have gotten up to by then.
Until the LDS president receives another revelation, coincidentally timed with a court decision, to revive its practice.
Hopefully, they will get to the pedophilia and bestiality cases soon. Can’t have any of those nasty anti-sex laws on the books in the Age of Obamanation!
In addition to procreation, marriage is a way of establishing legal procedures for systematizing property ownership.
Property is at the root of marriage.
The license by the state is proof of the marriage. The license is therefore the basis for the complex issues of how property in all it’s various forms is treated in the legal system.
Right, but is there anything you’ve described in terms of the relationship of property ownership and marriage that couldn’t be covered under simple contract law?
the problem would be change and having to deal with lawyers.
Lawyers are a scourge and forcing contracts on every transaction now included in the marriage contract settled law dating back eons is just foolish
Exactly, but it’s worse than just this narrow issue.
The Edmunds-Tucker Acts and subsequent bills paved the way for government intrusion into every aspect of our lives and there is a direct line of thought leading to homosexual marriage being approved by our elites in our day.
The loss of history is a great crime among a people. In America it is a direct result of the following government interventions:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrill_Anti-Bigamy_Act
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poland_Act
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmunds_Act
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmunds%E2%80%93Tucker_Act
An obscure and tiny Christian sect is targeted for a “crime” that was practiced Biblically, throughout history and by both American Indians and white settlers on the frontier. Why?
Is it any wonder then that the progressive movement, seeing this action followed quickly on its heels? How about compulsory schooling to stop those dangerous Papists? How about the temperance movement leading to Prohibition? Intrusion on the most intimate human relationship got us to where we are today with Big Government.
Imagine the horror of actually having a husband/father take responsibility! What we have now is so much better.
Happy wife, happy life.
I'd suggest that marriages might be more durable if they were established through a contract. It's rare for a court to override a binding contract, so a party who signs the contract would have the expectation that it isn't easy to get out of it.
What's pathetic about the government's involvement in the institution of marriage is that the government has managed to foul it up so badly. A marriage "contract" is the only contract under the law today that can be regularly breached with the consent of only one party -- and with the full complicity of the legal system. If real estate contracts (for example) functioned this way, a property title would be worthless.
http://le.utah.gov/code/CONST/htm/00I03_000100.htm
This judge is using the enlightened US Constitution for his ruling.
What's key here is 'bleeding the beast.'
The history of these 'polygamous' families has been to receive government assistance for the families other than the family with the primary, married spouse.
You’ve never been to Cook County Ill-Annoy. Our judges cannot wait to interfere in contract law.
I agree. I oppose polygamy, and the part of the law outlawing polygamy was left intact.
My reading of part of the law that was struck down is that it was expansive enough to ban “Threes Company” (if anyone actually remembers that show) situations where men and some share residences but are platonic roomates.
I’m also reminded of the old DC law that banned more than three (I think) unrelated women from sharing a residence by defining such as a Brothel.
So a reasonable ruling, even if the case was brought by a polygamist trying to advance his own cause.
I’m not a libertarian, nor do I support polygamy in any form. That said, we’ve asked government to step into so many realms for the “greater good” that we’ve created a Frankenstein of destructive and often self-defeating policies/laws that we’re in this mess to start with.
So imagine an alternate history without government intervention to prevent polygamous marriage with all its inherent problems. Imagine that Congress defeated this with a massive outcry from Americans in favor of Freedom of Religion/Thought and Freedom of Association, tied to the sanctity of marriage - that is marriage isn’t a government (General Welfare) issue. What would America look like today?
Did they enforce the cohabitation portion of the law with unmarried couples or only among groups of three or more?
Freegards
But I can't answer this question:
An obscure and tiny Christian sect is targeted for a “crime” that was practiced Biblically, throughout history and by both American Indians and white settlers on the frontier. Why?
Ping the Mormon hating wolf pack and they will fill up the rest of this thread with their cut and paste garbage as to why we need to employ force to suppress them.
It is basically the same line of reason which, byt the way, is being used against conservatives, white people, males and Christians by the ObaMao regime to target their enemies.
When Oklahoma became a state in 1907 a young bureaucrat informed Comanche Chief Quannah Parker that he would have to give up four of his five wives. Quannah grinned and pointed at his wives and told the bureaucrat, “You go tell them which four are no longer my wife.” The young bureaucrat declined.
Totally believable and common.
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.