Page 9 of 37 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 367

Thread: Polygamy Advocate Groups Hail Judge Ruling in Utah

  1. #81
    Professor
    wolfsgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,140

    Re: Polygamy Advocate Groups Hail Judge Ruling in Utah

    Quote Originally Posted by mac View Post
    The cohabitation laws were meant to thwart the "common law" aspect of having second and third (etc) wives.
    Utah does not recognize common law marriage anyways.
    " May you live as long as you wish, and love as long as you live"
    R.A. Heinlein

  2. #82
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,182

    Re: Polygamy Advocate Groups Hail Judge Ruling in Utah

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    I have a question for you:
    Let's assume that your premise is accurate.
    So what?
    Indeed - so what? It matters nothing to me - I'm a Canadian conservative - "keep the government out of my wallet and out of my bedroom"

    I was simply trying to help clarify a point that another poster was making and that someone else was ridiculing.
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

  3. #83
    Professor
    wolfsgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,140

    Re: Polygamy Advocate Groups Hail Judge Ruling in Utah

    Here is a link to the judges decision.
    http://jonathanturley.files.wordpres...t-decision.pdf

    The court finds the cohabitation prong of the Statute unconstitutional on numerous
    grounds and strikes it. As a result, and to save the Statute, the court adopts the interpretation of
    “marry” and “purports to marry,” and the resulting narrowing construction of the Statute, offered
    by the dissent in State of Utah v. Holm, 2006 UT 31, ¶¶ 131-53, 137 P.3d 726, 758-66, thus
    allowing the Statute to remain in force as prohibiting bigamy in the literal sense—the fraudulent or otherwise impermissible possession of two purportedly valid marriage licenses for the purpose
    of entering into more than one purportedly legal marriage.
    So, no multiple legal marriages, but cohabitation is ok.
    " May you live as long as you wish, and love as long as you live"
    R.A. Heinlein

  4. #84
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Re: Polygamy Advocate Groups Hail Judge Ruling in Utah

    Quote Originally Posted by Kobie View Post
    So in other words, it's like EVERY OTHER STATE IN THE UNION.

    There is no law against polyamory ... only bigamy. You can't legally marry more than one person at a time. Nothing has changed, except for Utah's antiquated statute.
    No. The laws against bigamy include a fraud element. Now that marriage doesn't have a definition, it can and will eventually mean nothing/anything. Those who say polygamy wouldn't be at all affected by the gay marriage rulings have been shown to be wrong by reality.

    Once the camel's nose got his nose under the tent, now the rest of the camel is creeping in.

  5. #85
    Shankmasta Killa
    TacticalEvilDan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Western NY and Geneva, CH
    Last Seen
    08-30-15 @ 04:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,444

    Re: Polygamy Advocate Groups Hail Judge Ruling in Utah

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    No. The laws against bigamy include a fraud element. Now that marriage doesn't have a definition, it can and will eventually mean nothing/anything. Those who say polygamy wouldn't be at all affected by the gay marriage rulings have been shown to be wrong by reality.

    Once the camel's nose got his nose under the tent, now the rest of the camel is creeping in.
    All you have to do is define marriage as being between two adults, without any of the gender silliness. There's no precedent in American jurisprudence allowing someone to argue that specifying a number of participants is discrimination, whereas when it comes to gender there is precedent.
    I'm already gearing up for Finger Vote 2014.

    Just for reference, means my post was a giant steaming pile of sarcasm.

  6. #86
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Re: Polygamy Advocate Groups Hail Judge Ruling in Utah

    Quote Originally Posted by TacticalEvilDan View Post
    All you have to do is define marriage as being between two adults, without any of the gender silliness. There's no precedent in American jurisprudence allowing someone to argue that specifying a number of participants is discrimination, whereas when it comes to gender there is precedent.
    Nope, it's sexual orientation that is now a protected class. If a person is Bi they can now argue that they should be able to marry one of each to satisfy their orientation.

    Regardless of how folks spin and argue around here, the polygamists will use for their own benefit, and successfully, the court's wiggling interpretations made to make gays fit into marriage.

    Whether you think that's good, bad or just okay, it will happen, is happenning.

  7. #87
    Shankmasta Killa
    TacticalEvilDan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Western NY and Geneva, CH
    Last Seen
    08-30-15 @ 04:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,444

    Re: Polygamy Advocate Groups Hail Judge Ruling in Utah

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    Nope, it's sexual orientation that is now a protected class. If a person is Bi they can now argue that they should be able to marry one of each to satisfy their orientation.
    Not at all. Someone is as free to marry a man or a woman (in states where this battle has been won of course), so until the need to love two people at once is legally recognized as an orientation you can forget it.

    I have no doubt in my mind that someday we as a nation will more or less wake up to the reality that how someone else constructs their marriage (two men, two women, one of each, two of each, two of one and half a dozen of the other) makes no difference to anyone outside of that marital or family unit. I simply reject the argument that same-sex marriage has in any way paved the way. Discrimination on the basis of gender or orientation and discrimination on the basis of quantity are, legally, two totally different things.
    I'm already gearing up for Finger Vote 2014.

    Just for reference, means my post was a giant steaming pile of sarcasm.

  8. #88
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,739

    Re: Polygamy Advocate Groups Hail Judge Ruling in Utah

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    Nope, it's sexual orientation that is now a protected class. If a person is Bi they can now argue that they should be able to marry one of each to satisfy their orientation.

    Regardless of how folks spin and argue around here, the polygamists will use for their own benefit, and successfully, the court's wiggling interpretations made to make gays fit into marriage.

    Whether you think that's good, bad or just okay, it will happen, is happenning.
    No, same-sex marriage bans are a classification of gender, not sexuality. There are no laws regarding sexuality in marriage. Fun fact: married couples don't even have to have sex with each other!
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  9. #89
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Re: Polygamy Advocate Groups Hail Judge Ruling in Utah

    Quote Originally Posted by TacticalEvilDan View Post
    Not at all. Someone is as free to marry a man or a woman (in states where this battle has been won of course), so until the need to love two people at once is legally recognized as an orientation you can forget it.
    Where have you been? It already IS recognised as an orientation. What do your think the acronym LGBT stand for?

    Quote Originally Posted by TacticalEvilDan View Post
    I have no doubt in my mind that someday we as a nation will more or less wake up to the reality that how someone else constructs their marriage (two men, two women, one of each, two of each, two of one and half a dozen of the other) makes no difference to anyone outside of that marital or family unit. I simply reject the argument that same-sex marriage has in any way paved the way. Discrimination on the basis of gender or orientation and discrimination on the basis of quantity are, legally, two totally different things.
    At least this is an honest assessment. What you predict is a slope the gay marriage folks swore we would never slide down. As to that last, gay marriage was ushered in NOT to combat gender bias but to for sexual orientation. They tried at first to argue on gender basis but were defeated in the courts who said DOMA doesn't discriminate against gender.

  10. #90
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Re: Polygamy Advocate Groups Hail Judge Ruling in Utah

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    No, same-sex marriage bans are a classification of gender, not sexuality. There are no laws regarding sexuality in marriage. Fun fact: married couples don't even have to have sex with each other!
    Wrong entirely on the first and the second.

Page 9 of 37 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... 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
  •