• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Polygamy Advocate Groups Hail Judge Ruling in Utah

Why do you care if some wacky people in Utah want to marry each other? How does that even remotely effect your life?

Liberty much?

A man that has to put up with more than one wife will go insane and possibly shoot up a school house. Restricting a man to one wife is definitely in the interest of public safety.
 
All I had ever heard about Utah was about Mormons and how religious it was.

The first time I drove into Utah and saw the beehive on the side of the Highway Patrol cars, I thought it was weird.

Since when did a beehive become a religious symbol.

It's not really a religious symbol. It's a reference to the fact that when the President of the LDS Church at the time led an expedition out to that part of the continent and there was a lot of LDS settlement, it was referred to by the Mormons as Deseret, which in the Book of Mormon translated to "honeybee." A large provisional state which included Utah was established by the Mormons and survived for 2 years without achieving recognition by the US government; the name of that provisional state was Deseret.

Ergo, the beehive.
 
All I had ever heard about Utah was about Mormons and how religious it was.

The first time I drove into Utah and saw the beehive on the side of the Highway Patrol cars, I thought it was weird.

Since when did a beehive become a religious symbol.

The beehive is symbolic in Freemasonry. Representing, simply put, the industry of the working man symbolic as to possible accomplishments when working in social harmony. Many Morman symbolism's are borrowed from Freemasonry. Whereas, Freemasonry view them in a symbolic and allegoric way, Joseph Smith apparently took them to the level of a religion.

Masonic Dictionary | BEEHIVE, THE | www.masonicdictionary.com
 
It's not really a religious symbol. It's a reference to the fact that when the President of the LDS Church at the time led an expedition out to that part of the continent and there was a lot of LDS settlement, it was referred to by the Mormons as Deseret, which in the Book of Mormon translated to "honeybee." A large provisional state which included Utah was established by the Mormons and survived for 2 years without achieving recognition by the US government; the name of that provisional state was Deseret.

Ergo, the beehive.

Well I didn't know any of that. Thanks for the info though.

Seeing the beehive made me realize there might be more to Utah than just Mormons, and there was. Lots of rusty old cars.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Here is a link to the judges decision.
http://jonathanturley.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/brown-summary-judgment-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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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!
 
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?

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.
 
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.
 
Where have you been? It already IS recognised as an orientation. What do your think the acronym LGBT stand for?

Since when has bisexual meant the need to be involved with one of each gender? I've always understood it to mean someone who is attracted to both the same sex and the opposite sex.

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.

Same-sex marriage proponents swore up and down that same-sex marriage would not lead to what I described, and I'm saying that while we'll get there it won't be because of a precedent set by same-sex marriage.
 
Since when has bisexual meant the need to be involved with one of each gender? I've always understood it to mean someone who is attracted to both the same sex and the opposite sex.

So, since we've decided that sexual orientation is one of the protected classes, why cannot someone who needs both get married? See how that goes? The only argument against it are those same arguments used unsuccessfully against gay marriage. The path has been blazed.

Same-sex marriage proponents swore up and down that same-sex marriage would not lead to what I described, and I'm saying that while we'll get there it won't be because of a precedent set by same-sex marriage.

They already are, that's the subject of the OP.
 
Wrong entirely on the first and the second.

You and I can't get married. Are we gay?

As for the second, can't wait to tell my wife she's legally obligated to have sex with me.
 
So, since we've decided that sexual orientation is one of the protected classes, why cannot someone who needs both get married? See how that goes? The only argument against it are those same arguments used unsuccessfully against gay marriage. The path has been blazed.

It's almost like you're not reading what I'm saying. There is no sexual orientation, either legally recognized or not, in which one requires a partner of each gender in order to be fullfilled.

They already are, that's the subject of the OP.

Actually, no, that isn't the subject of the OP at all. The judge's decision had nothing whatsoever with whether or not multiple-partner marriages are entitled to legal recognition
 
You and I can't get married. Are we gay?

Again, if you read the rulings allowing gay marriage where they have previously been disallowed, you'll see they have to do with sexual orientation, NOT gender.

As for the second, can't wait to tell my wife she's legally obligated to have sex with me.

In every state I know of withholding of sex from a spouse is grounds for a divorce.
 
It's almost like you're not reading what I'm saying. There is no sexual orientation, either legally recognized or not, in which one requires a partner of each gender in order to be fullfilled.

You're obviously not up to speed on the whole bisexual orientation.

Actually, no, that isn't the subject of the OP at all. The judge's decision had nothing whatsoever with whether or not multiple-partner marriages are entitled to legal recognition

The judge made his decision based upon the precedent set by the gay marriage decisions. Polygamists are not yet at the point the gay marriage folks have attained, but every decision for gay marriage brings them closer.
 
No, same-sex marriage bans are a classification of gender, not sexuality.

That's news to the judicial system. Almost every court decision overturning bans on same-sex marriage is based on discrimination against sexuality, not gender. Those include the supreme court decisions in:

MA
CA
IA
NJ

And a smattering of district courts in other states.

Hawaii is the only state's Supreme Court to have based a ruling on gender discrimination, and even there, it was only on a remand, not a full disposition of the case.
 
You're obviously not up to speed on the whole bisexual orientation.

You know what, as crazy as your interpretation of bisexuality sounds, I'll bite. Point me to something that brings me "up to speed."

The judge made his decision based upon the precedent set by the gay marriage decisions. Polygamists are not yet at the point the gay marriage folks have attained, but every decision for gay marriage brings them closer.

Absolutely patently false. From the article linked to in the OP:

U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups said in the decision handed down Friday that a provision in Utah law forbidding cohabitation with another person violated the First Amendment right of freedom of religion.
Under Waddoups' ruling, bigamy remains illegal in Utah only in the literal sense, such as when someone fraudulently acquires more than one marriage license.

The judge's decision had absolutely nothing to do with precedent sent by "the gay marriage decisions" (whatever the hell those are), and had nothing to do with legal recognition in any way shape or form.
 
Again, if you read the rulings allowing gay marriage where they have previously been disallowed, you'll see they have to do with sexual orientation, NOT gender.
Post a single state's law or constitutional amendment that says homosexuals aren't allowed to get married.
 
Post a single state's law or constitutional amendment that says homosexuals aren't allowed to get married.

MA, according to its supreme court:

The marriage ban works a deep and scarring hardship on a very real segment of the community for no rational reason. The absence of any reasonable relationship between, on the one hand, an absolute disqualification of same-sex couples who wish to enter into civil marriage and, on the other, protection of public health, safety, or general welfare, suggests that the marriage restriction is rooted in persistent prejudices against persons who are (or who are believed to be) homosexual.... Limiting the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage to opposite-sex couples violates the basic premises of individual liberty and equality under law protected by the Massachusetts Constitution.

CA, according to the landmark Perry case:

Because Proposition 8 disadvantages gays and lesbians without any rational justification, Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

CONCLUSION

Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California

has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

IA, according to its supreme court:

We are firmly convinced the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any important governmental objective. The legislature has excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification. There is no material fact, genuinely in dispute, that can affect this determination.

NJ, according to its supreme court:

Our decision today significantly advances the civil rights of gays and lesbians. We have decided that our State Constitution guarantees that every statutory right and benefit conferred to heterosexual couples through civil marriage must be made available to committed same-sex couples. Now the Legislature must determine whether to alter the long accepted definition of marriage.
 
Back
Top Bottom