Page 27 of 37 FirstFirst ... 172526272829 ... LastLast
Results 261 to 270 of 367

Thread: Polygamy Advocate Groups Hail Judge Ruling in Utah

  1. #261
    Engineer

    RabidAlpaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    American in Europe
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    14,588

    Re: Polygamy Advocate Groups Hail Judge Ruling in Utah

    Quote Originally Posted by vesper View Post
    Really? Well here is something else for you to consider. There have been multiple times when the Supreme Court has overturned state laws pertainingto the equal protection clause when it comes to protecting women's rights in relation to marriage. Some of those cases go directly to the hardships of those women and their children especially like cases where the polygamist dies. AND....the U.S. obligation under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to “ensure equality of rights and responsibilities of spouses as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.” the UN Human Rights Committee and the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women have condemned polygamy in no uncertain terms.
    And? Your assertion that it somehow violated the constitution is flat out wrong. You simply don't like it and want it banned. Typical statist behavior.
    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    I've got to say that it is shadenfreudalicious to see the rich and famous fucquewads on the coast suffering from the fires.

  2. #262
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Polygamy Advocate Groups Hail Judge Ruling in Utah

    Quote Originally Posted by MarineTpartier View Post
    Save face? Lol. From what?
    From the embarrassment of claiming that this decision was somehow linked to DOMA, even though you have absolutely no evidence to support your claim


    If you don't like the topic, move along man.
    We're talking about what you said in your OP. I understand why you don't want to see that done, but it is ridiculous for you to assert that discussing what you said in your OP is somehow off-topic
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  3. #263
    Sage

    vesper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,903

    Re: Polygamy Advocate Groups Hail Judge Ruling in Utah

    Quote Originally Posted by NIMBY View Post
    The television programming is fairly accurate from my experiences..Your points on Sharia law are spot-on..While the state of Utah is a great place to visit, these citizens behave as 3rd-worlders in selling their daughters..Several other states adjacent to Utah will also have this problem..Mormonism isn't the only closed religion that does this in the USA .
    Actually Latter Day Saints do not condone this. This Kody character belongs to some Apostolic Brethren Church.
    As far as the mention of biblical marriage practices. Abraham was married to Sarah for many years. It was Sarah that gave the A OKAY to sleep with Hagar.It was Sarah's idea. And according to the story, that didn't work out so well. Abraham did not have a haram. He was not married to more than one woman. after Sarah's death he married a woman called Keturah. Noah had one wife and his three sons all had one wife. King David's first marriage was annulled by King Saul. David was an opportunist, he married one for wealth, he married another for beauty. At one point he demanded to be reunited to his first wife strictly for political power after she had moved on with her life, he had her pulled from her husband and forced to live at the palace. The moral of the story as a whole told of the miserable life his choices created for him. And that's the end of the Sunday School lesson,

  4. #264
    Sage

    vesper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,903

    Re: Polygamy Advocate Groups Hail Judge Ruling in Utah

    Quote Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca View Post
    And? Your assertion that it somehow violated the constitution is flat out wrong. You simply don't like it and want it banned. Typical statist behavior.
    A statist? BRAHAHAHAHA


    Here is some case law for you to check out where the Supremes found violations in state law pertaining to women and marriage.

    (Kirchberg v. Feenstra, 450 U.S. 455 (1981)) or denies a wife benefits awarded automatically to a husband, such as welfare benefits if the wife is unemployed (Califano v. Westcott, 443 U.S. 76 (1979)), housing and medical benefits for the wife’s spouse (Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973)), child-care benefits for a surviving spouse (Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, 420 U.S. 636 (1975)), or self-care benefits for a surviving spouse (Califano v. Goldfarb, 430 U.S. 199 (1977), and Wengler v. Druggists Mutual Insurance Company, 446 U.S. 142 (1980)),

    All the above the Court has found violations of the Equal Protection Clause.

  5. #265
    Engineer

    RabidAlpaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    American in Europe
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    14,588

    Re: Polygamy Advocate Groups Hail Judge Ruling in Utah

    Quote Originally Posted by vesper View Post
    A statist? BRAHAHAHAHA


    Here is some case law for you to check out where the Supremes found violations in state law pertaining to women and marriage.

    (Kirchberg v. Feenstra, 450 U.S. 455 (1981)) or denies a wife benefits awarded automatically to a husband, such as welfare benefits if the wife is unemployed (Califano v. Westcott, 443 U.S. 76 (1979)), housing and medical benefits for the wife’s spouse (Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973)), child-care benefits for a surviving spouse (Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, 420 U.S. 636 (1975)), or self-care benefits for a surviving spouse (Califano v. Goldfarb, 430 U.S. 199 (1977), and Wengler v. Druggists Mutual Insurance Company, 446 U.S. 142 (1980)),

    All the above the Court has found violations of the Equal Protection Clause.
    It seems then like the state is having issues determining the legal prpcess for things like spousal benefits. None of them however say anything about two or more people marrying each other violating the constitution. That was simply an idiotic statement.

    Now, you seem to be a huge advocate of having the government play an intimate role in your marriage and sexual life, but I prefer liberty. To each his own, I suppose.
    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    I've got to say that it is shadenfreudalicious to see the rich and famous fucquewads on the coast suffering from the fires.

  6. #266
    Sage
    DDD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Republic of Dardania
    Last Seen
    05-06-17 @ 06:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,173

    Re: Polygamy Advocate Groups Hail Judge Ruling in Utah

    About time straight polygamy became legal at least in Utah. If it would ease Utahnians, Iranians have been practicing for a great while.
    Quote Originally Posted by poweRob View Post
    Stats come out and always show life getting better. News makes money in making you think its not.
    The Republic of Dardania is the proper name for: http://www.debatepolitics.com/europe...ification.html

  7. #267
    Sage

    vesper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,903

    Re: Polygamy Advocate Groups Hail Judge Ruling in Utah

    Quote Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca View Post
    It seems then like the state is having issues determining the legal prpcess for things like spousal benefits. None of them however say anything about two or more people marrying each other violating the constitution. That was simply an idiotic statement.

    Now, you seem to be a huge advocate of having the government play an intimate role in your marriage and sexual life, but I prefer liberty. To each his own, I suppose.
    What you consider a "simply idiotic statement" is actually an opinion shared by many legal eagles who I believe have a better understanding of the law than you do. Not to mention the feelings internationally the views of polygamy on the violation of women's equality. Second, the reason Congress wanted to ban polygamy and refused to allow Utah to become a state until they banned/renounced the practice was due to Mormon dominance, economic practices that involved doing business with only other Mormons, their lack of free public schools, and church interference with state affairs that all added up to several violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. It was because of the practice of polygamy that the territory in a few years became dominated by Mormons practicing polygamy that allowed their strength in numbers and the violations against the Constitution to transpire. The practice of polygamy started in 1830 by Joseph Smith where it was practiced privately. By the 1850's it was being practiced publically. In forty short years the LDS church had taken over the Utah territory. During that time the Supremes ruled on multiple cases, 3 in favor of Mormons and 16 in favor of Congress.
    Last edited by vesper; 12-16-13 at 08:46 AM.

  8. #268
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    12-14-17 @ 07:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,041

    Re: Polygamy Advocate Groups Hail Judge Ruling in Utah

    Quote Originally Posted by vesper View Post
    Well the government may not recognize their marriages but from this day forward in the state of Utah they will no longer face jail time for practicing having multiple wives who will produce them many offspring that will have their father's name on their birth certificates.

    They can still only have one civil marriage, that was not changed.

    The fathers name being on the birth certificate does not change. Couples are not required to be Civilly Married for the fathers name to be listed.


    >>>>

  9. #269
    Engineer

    RabidAlpaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    American in Europe
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    14,588

    Re: Polygamy Advocate Groups Hail Judge Ruling in Utah

    Quote Originally Posted by vesper View Post
    What you consider a "simply idiotic statement" is actually an opinion shared by many legal eagles who I believe have a better understanding of the law than you do. Not to mention the feelings internationally the views of polygamy on the violation of women's equality. Second, the reason Congress wanted to ban polygamy and refused to allow Utah to become a state until they banned/renounced the practice was due to Mormon dominance, economic practices that involved doing business with only other Mormons, their lack of free public schools, and church interference with state affairs that all added up to several violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. It was because of the practice of polygamy that the territory in a few years became dominated by Mormons practicing polygamy that allowed their strength in numbers and the violations against the Constitution to transpire. The practice of polygamy started in 1830 by Joseph Smith where it was practiced privately. By the 1850's it was being practiced publically. In forty short years the LDS church had taken over the Utah territory. During that time the Supremes ruled on multiple cases, 3 in favor of Mormons and 16 in favor of Congress.
    Incorrect. Nobody has ruled polygamy itself is a violation of the constitution, just things that are sometimes associated with it. All of the things you listed such as lack of public schools or government interference has nothing to do with a few people marrying other.

    So either provide a case showing POLYGAMY ITSELF is a violation of the constitution, or shut up about it. For some reason you think it's your god given right to interfere in the personal lives of free citizens.
    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    I've got to say that it is shadenfreudalicious to see the rich and famous fucquewads on the coast suffering from the fires.

  10. #270
    Sage

    vesper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,903

    Re: Polygamy Advocate Groups Hail Judge Ruling in Utah

    Quote Originally Posted by WorldWatcher View Post
    They can still only have one civil marriage, that was not changed.

    The fathers name being on the birth certificate does not change. Couples are not required to be Civilly Married for the fathers name to be listed.


    >>>>
    I'm aware of that but what the judge did in his ruling has made those who do practice polygamy( as they view themselves married), the law can no longer punish them for it. Kody Brown and his "wives" when filing the suit used the law of only being legally married to one wife, he was not breaking any law even though he practices "spiritual matrimony" with the other three women which he calls his wives.

Page 27 of 37 FirstFirst ... 172526272829 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •