[EternalVigilance]

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.

[Lurker]

“The contract has been negated.”

It’s been negated for decades in case you hadn’t noticed.

[Alberta's Child]

Actually, the legal arguments are right on target. The Federal government had the authority to impose those requirements on those western states because a Federal statute in place at the time gave the Federal government authority over the marriage laws of U.S. territories that were not states and therefore had no state laws to govern the institution of marriage.

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.

[Vigilanteman]

Correct. I believe Idaho and Utah were required to forsake plural marriage in perpetuity due to a large Mormon population. Oklahoma was required to do the same due to a large Native American population. Arizona had both.

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.

[kaehurowing]

I can’t wait for the Mormons’ class action against the federal government for violation of their constitutional rights since the mid-1800s. I am sure they are owed hundreds of billions.