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 ...
I am just waiting for a Federal judge to strike down part of a state's incest law.
Menage a` Ute
When will it be mandatory?
Incest will be followed by bestiality and necrophilia. Our grandchildren will be allowed to marry household appliances.
When you’re 19 you may think this means more sex.
Before you’re 40 you’ll know it means more “input”.
uh...you won’t have to ask....it just shows up.
This is a good ruling. How do you enforce this on cohabitating individuals? Will you go and do DNA tests on children? What about if the man involved is sterile?
The state regulates marriage for better or worse, but cohabitating?
Gee, weren’t we told that homosexual marriage was just that and no it would not lead to legalization of polygamy, beastality or any other weird stuff? I could swear I heard that somewhere.
Of course I also have these odd memories where we were promised that the first seat belt laws would never be used as a “primary” offense and no one would EVER be pulled over just for that.
What did Orwell call these? False memories?
In order to become states, Utah, along with three other states, Idaho, Arizona and Oklahoma, had to agree to forsake plural marriage in perpetuity.
Either this silly judge’s opinion is moot, or those states are no longer states in the Union. The contract has been negated.
Before deciding this is a victory for human liberty, you might want to look into the history of the FLDS Church. The abuse of women and children associated with the practice, as opposed to the theory, of polygamy is what this law was intended to prevent.
I don’t have an answer as to how to effectively deal with this issue, given our commitment to freedom of religion. But anything that encourages the survival and spread of an inherently abusive system is not a good thing.
“The contract has been negated.”
It’s been negated for decades in case you hadn’t noticed.
When anyone can marry anyone, and in any number or combination - then marriage effectively becomes meaningless from the standpoint of the state. The next step is to ban marriage as a legal institution.
The legal argument presented today ... and from my standpoint it's a very compelling one ... is that the Federal statute governing marriage in those territories effectively became null and void once those territories adopted their own marriage laws after they were granted statehood.
I understand what you’re saying, but I was referring to this particular contract.
That would be a huge step in the right direction. Not a ban on marriage per se, but a complete eradication of any government involvement in the institution of marriage.
There are very few things more indicative of a totalitarian state than the simple concept of a marriage license. Who the hell is a government to order people to get a "license" to be married? That's the equivalent of a government demanding a license to be out in public while you are black.
Well said. Well said indeed.
Existing plural marriages were grandfathered in. Oklahoma and Arizona, because they were among the last of the lower 48, had legal plural marriages on the books until the 1970s, when the last of the grandfathered marriage partners passed.
In short, a much longer precedent than the currently stylish gay marriages.
Certainly makes more sense than the court rulings legalizing same-sex marriage. At least the pieces fit together.
They were required to put it in their state constitutions. That was the deal.
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.