Polygamy Advocate Groups Hail Judge Ruling in Utah

Deuce said:

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!

Click to expand...

Actually, if I'm not mistaken, failure to consumate a marriage is legal grounds for an annulment.

CanadaJohn said:

Actually, if I'm not mistaken, failure to consumate a marriage is legal grounds for an annulment.

Click to expand...

Only if one part is withholding sex from the other.

If they both agree, it's not a problem.


>>>>

WorldWatcher said:

Only if one part is withholding sex from the other.

If they both agree, it's not a problem.


>>>>

Click to expand...

Again, if I'm not mistaken, failure to consumate a marriage is legal grounds for an annulment of the marriage. It has no time limit.

CanadaJohn said:

Again, if I'm not mistaken, failure to consumate a marriage is legal grounds for an annulment of the marriage. It has no time limit.

Click to expand...

You are not mistaken, it is grounds for an annulment. However, that only applies one parter is withholding sex from the other.

If they both agree, it's not a problem.

There is no requirement that a couple "consummate" their marriage and it takes one of the couple to apply for an annulment (or divorce as would happen later in the marriage). There is not test of consummation, there is no requirement, after the honeymoon you don't have to file an affidavit of consummation, and no one is going to go ask - the annulment process would required one of the spouses to initiate the proceedings.



>>>>

WorldWatcher said:

You are not mistaken, it is grounds for an annulment. However, that only applies one parter is withholding sex from the other.

If they both agree, it's not a problem.

There is no requirement that a couple "consummate" their marriage and it takes one of the couple to apply for an annulment (or divorce as would happen later in the marriage). There is not test of consummation, there is no requirement, after the honeymoon you don't have to file an affidavit of consummation, and no one is going to go ask - the annulment process would required one of the spouses to initiate the proceedings.



>>>>

Click to expand...

I simply wanted to counter the impression left by another poster that marriage had nothing to do with sex.

vesper said:

I never stated polygamy itself is a violation, I stated the practice was at the heart of forming a dominance in an area in a relatively short period of time which led to constitutional violations in the past. Today however, there are those who find it violates women under the equal protection clause. And I agree.

Click to expand...

The hell? So you're just arguing about some other random ****? "There are polygamists who have done bad things, so we should ban all polygamy".

Glad I finally got it across to you that polygamy isn't a violation of the constitution. So you either oppose it because you hate liberty and want to control other people's lives, or you seem to think that 100% of all polygamists will go on to "violate the constitution" in other ways. Hell, you might even believe both. Either one is irrational and anti-liberty.

WorldWatcher said:

You realize that polygamy has been the definition of marriage for thousands of years and predates Christianity right and is still practiced in many religions and countries around the world.

Click to expand...

I have answered this before but will do so again. Those places that still practice polygamy are mainly countries ruled by Sharia Law. This is easily verified starting with Wiki.
As far as biblical text goes as a record of polygamy practiced.
The only wife mentioned for Adam was Eve.
Noah had one wife as did each of his three sons.
Abraham did not have a haram. His wife Sarah insisted Abraham sleep with her handmaiden Hagar because she had been unable to give him a son. Hagar and Abraham were not married.
Isaac the son Sarah finally bore was only married to one woman, Rebekah.
Rebekah bore twins Essau and Jacob.
Jacob is the first mentioned that was actually married to two women. And that was the result of him being tricked thinking he was getting the one he loved and ended up with her sister. There is too much evidence prior to Jacob to make the claim that some have that polygamy was the norm. It wasn't. In order for a married man to lay with another woman as a serogate to produce an heir seems to have been done at the suggestion of the wife as in the case of Sarah and later Rachael. It was after the Exodus, the laws were given to Moses and the "thou shall not commit adultery" was in the top ten.

The idea that one man and one woman is the only "traditional" marriage is pretty bogus. (You are free to now move the goalposts and narrow the criteria to met you needs.)

Click to expand...

Since its founding one man and one woman has always been the recognized definition of traditional marriage by state and federal governments until Joseph Smith. The Mormons only practiced polygamy publically for 10 years before the battle to shut the practice down began.

RabidAlpaca said:

The hell? So you're just arguing about some other random ****? "There are polygamists who have done bad things, so we should ban all polygamy".

Glad I finally got it across to you that polygamy isn't a violation of the constitution. So you either oppose it because you hate liberty and want to control other people's lives, or you seem to think that 100% of all polygamists will go on to "violate the constitution" in other ways. Hell, you might even believe both. Either one is irrational and anti-liberty.

Click to expand...

You didn't provide anything more than what I already expressed.
From the beginning there have been limits on religious freedoms. For instance some remote religion may call for the sacrifice of a virgin during a full moon. Is it denying "liberty" not to allow something like that? There is nothing in the Constitution that directly denies polygamy. But if something someone does results in violations of Constitutional Law which all states need to comply, then it can be challenged in the courts. Polygamy and the LDS church when practiced in the Utah territory it violated free access to public schools, it violated free trade, it violated separation of church and state. It was fought by Congress through new laws and they were challenged in the courts. Congress won. Today after all these years of women now seen equal to men, the practice violates equal protection under the law.

vesper said:

You didn't provide anything more than what I already expressed.
From the beginning there have been limits on religious freedoms. For instance some remote religion may call for the sacrifice of a virgin during a full moon. Is it denying "liberty" not to allow something like that? There is nothing in the Constitution that directly denies polygamy. But if something someone does results in violations of Constitutional Law which all states need to comply, then it can be challenged in the courts. Polygamy and the LDS church when practiced in the Utah territory it violated free access to public schools, it violated free trade, it violated separation of church and state. It was fought by Congress through new laws and they were challenged in the courts. Congress won. Today after all these years of women now seen equal to men, the practice violates equal protection under the law.

Click to expand...

1) Comparing two or more consenting adults making a voluntary contract with each other to murdering virgins is the epitome of ridiculous hyperbole. It is nothing like that. Murder has a victim, marriage does not. (Though some people might disagree)

2) You seem to have more of a beef with the LDS than with polygamy itself. You should distinguish that, because they are not synonymous.

3) You do realize that polygamy is not restricted to multiple women with one man, right? If Bob, Joe, and Sally want to marry, because it makes them happy, who the **** are you to step in and impose yourself on their lives?

RabidAlpaca said:

1) Comparing two or more consenting adults making a voluntary contract with each other to murdering virgins is the epitome of ridiculous hyperbole. It is nothing like that. Murder has a victim, marriage does not. (Though some people might disagree)

Click to expand...

No it isn't hyperbole when taken in the context the statement was made.

2) You seem to have more of a beef with the LDS than with polygamy itself. You should distinguish that, because they are not synonymous.

Click to expand...

Incorrect. In dealing with the history of polygamy, the LDS is at the center of it. Their founder Joseph Smith initiated the practice. Today they condemn the practice. The church congregation that Kody Brown and his 4 wives belong to is called the Apostolic Brethren Church.

3) You do realize that polygamy is not restricted to multiple women with one man, right? If Bob, Joe, and Sally want to marry, because it makes them happy, who the **** are you to step in and impose yourself on their lives?

Click to expand...

Currently in regard to the Apostolic Brethren Church it is restricted to multiple wives to one man. They can now practice their polygamy (since they view their relationships as being married and binding) in the state of Utah while Utah does not recognize but one woman to be the wife. But if polygamy were to be legalized, then it would have to include women having more than one husband. Somehow I don't see that one being real popular. If each male wanted children and only one to provide, she would be pregnant every full moon. If it was a relationship strictly for companionship, even a nymphomaniac would find it a challenge to appease multiple partners.
While you continue to rail about personal liberties, it also needs to be tempered with what is morally best for society. If you don't then you have anarchy. One of the oldest traditional institutions called Marriage is truly under attack. Since the crusade to redefine marriage to include same sex it has become open market for whatever advocacy group representing anything from polygamy, incest, or anything else that someone wants to define marriage to include. Yesterday you defended gay marriage, today you defend polygamy and tomorrow you will defend incest while the moral compass of society finally becomes broken beyond repair and anything goes.

vesper said:

No it isn't hyperbole when taken in the context the statement was made.

Incorrect. In dealing with the history of polygamy, the LDS is at the center of it. Their founder Joseph Smith initiated the practice. Today they condemn the practice. The church congregation that Kody Brown and his 4 wives belong to is called the Apostolic Brethren Church.

Currently in regard to the Apostolic Brethren Church it is restricted to multiple wives to one man. They can now practice their polygamy (since they view their relationships as being married and binding) in the state of Utah while Utah does not recognize but one woman to be the wife. But if polygamy were to be legalized, then it would have to include women having more than one husband. Somehow I don't see that one being real popular. If each male wanted children and only one to provide, she would be pregnant every full moon. If it was a relationship strictly for companionship, even a nymphomaniac would find it a challenge to appease multiple partners.
While you continue to rail about personal liberties, it also needs to be tempered with what is morally best for society. If you don't then you have anarchy. One of the oldest traditional institutions called Marriage is truly under attack. Since the crusade to redefine marriage to include same sex it has become open market for whatever advocacy group representing anything from polygamy, incest, or anything else that someone wants to define marriage to include. Yesterday you defended gay marriage, today you defend polygamy and tomorrow you will defend incest while the moral compass of society finally becomes broken beyond repair and anything goes.

Click to expand...

Holy ****. You think polygamy was invented by the LDS. We need to stop now because a conversation with someone that misinformed can not possibly be fruitful.

Can somebody explain the big deal with his ruling to me?

iacardsfan said:

Can somebody explain the big deal with his ruling to me?

Click to expand...

The ruling says that Utah polygamy law is valid but that the portion limiting cohabitation is unconstitutional.

Some small government types think they should be able to tell people who they can live with. (Yes that doesn't make sense.)



>>>>

WorldWatcher said:

The ruling says that Utah polygamy law is valid but that the portion limiting cohabitation is unconstitutional.

Some small government types think they should be able to tell people who they can live with. (Yes that doesn't make sense.)

Click to expand...

Oh i understand that, I just don't understand what the problem is.

RabidAlpaca said:

Holy ****. You think polygamy was invented by the LDS. We need to stop now because a conversation with someone that misinformed can not possibly be fruitful.

Click to expand...

Don't be putting words in my post! I never stated the LDS INVENTED POLYGAMY. But it was that time in history in the mid 1800's that the LDS was at the center of the polygamy battle. You are so disingenuous with your responses. I'm done discussing anything with you.

iacardsfan said:

Can somebody explain the big deal with his ruling to me?

Click to expand...

In Utah it was illegal for a married to people to co-habitate with people who were not their spouses and tell people they are married. A judge ruled that law unconstitutional. You still cannot be legally married to more than one person in Utah so in truth this ruling has nothing to do with polygamy.

I do wonder about a couple of things. Co-habitate doesn't necessarily imply a sexual relationship (though the Utah law may define the term). I wonder if a married couple taking in a keep it non-sexual relationship would violate the Utah law.

I also wonder, if the Utah law is meant to deal with sexual relationships, what that does to the still existing adultery law. Half the states still technically outlaw adultery.

Gaius46 said:

In Utah it was illegal for a married to people to co-habitate with people who were not their spouses and tell people they are married. A judge ruled that law unconstitutional. You still cannot be legally married to more than one person in Utah so in truth this ruling has nothing to do with polygamy.

I do wonder about a couple of things. Co-habitate doesn't necessarily imply a sexual relationship (though the Utah law may define the term). I wonder if a married couple taking in a keep it non-sexual relationship would violate the Utah law.

I also wonder, if the Utah law is meant to deal with sexual relationships, what that does to the still existing adultery law. Half the states still technically outlaw adultery.

Click to expand...

I understand the ruling. I was being more rhetorical than anything.

iacardsfan said:

I understand the ruling. I was being more rhetorical than anything.

Click to expand...

Rhetorical sometimes dosen't come across very well.

The the "[/SARCASM]" tag next time.



>>>>

WorldWatcher said:

Rhetorical sometimes dosen't come across very well.

The the "[/SARCASM]" tag next time.


>>>>

Click to expand...

will do

vesper said:

Since the traditional definition has been forever changed, redefining marriage has become a slippery slope. Laws have consequences. You don't care for how I expressed those views trying to show the reality that a slippery slope exists? Tough cookies.

Click to expand...

Correction: the definition has been forever changing. Polygamy is an historical fact, both as polygyny and polyandry. Incest marriages are a historical fact. Same sex marriages are a historical fact. For that matter ghost marriages (marrying a live person to a deceased person) area a historical fact. Your views are irrelevant to those fact. Marriage has held a variety of definitions across numerous eras and cultures. There is not and never has been one true and universal definition of marriage.

maquiscat said:

Correction: the definition has been forever changing. Polygamy is an historical fact, both as polygyny and polyandry. Incest marriages are a historical fact. Same sex marriages are a historical fact. For that matter ghost marriages (marrying a live person to a deceased person) area a historical fact. Your views are irrelevant to those fact. Marriage has held a variety of definitions across numerous eras and cultures. There is not and never has been one true and universal definition of marriage.

Click to expand...

Who in Sam Hill was looking for a "universal" definition of marriage? Go read my post again. I specifically focused on how marriage was defined in this country from it's founding. I focused on the history of polygamy during the mid 1800's in the Utah territory. I stated today most places that practice polygamy are countries governed by Sharia Law.

How you got "universal" definition of marriage out of that is beyond me.

Have I not said for years that the government shouldn't be involved in marriage. Get the government out and let social constructs take control of what was and is rightfully theirs. You can't regulate marriage without violating someone's freedom of religion. It just can't be done.

Wiseone said:

The only issue I have with polygamy is that the laws set up by the Federal and state governments to handle marriages don't deal with polygamy at all, for example if a man is married to two when and one wishes to divorce him how is that handled? Also tax laws which have different rules/benefits for married couples don't work with polygamy either. But if Utah were to change its laws to add text to deal with such issues, fine go ahead by all means.

Aside from that if these people are simply getting married in their churches, ie marriages not recognized by the state, and then living together to raise a family, I got no problem whatsoever so long as the children can be taken care up which is where already existing organizations like child services comes into play.

Only if it were one of those polygamy communities which drive out males to deal with the male/female imbalance or otherwise verges on cult like control of its members, only then would I support the law getting into their lives.

Click to expand...

And this is why I dont care if polygamy is recognized but I do not believe that any additional (or fewer) rights, protections, benefits, privileges should be accorded by the govt than for 2 person marriages. It should be the same, no matter how many participants. (I dont think the govt should be involved in marriage but since they are, my view is it should not discriminate and the benefits should be equal.)

MarineTpartier said:

I would like to say that while I did not agree with DOMA, many users on this website predicted this exact situation would happen as a result. The gay community is winning victory after victory in the same sex marriage realm. However, every action has a reaction. This, I believe, is a reaction to that. This judge really has no precedent anymore to rule against polygamy. Nor does any other Federal judge really.
Polygamy advocate groups hail judge's ruling in Utah | Fox News

Click to expand...

This decision really has nothing to do with Lawrence, Windsor, or Hollingsworth and it makes sense even without those decisions. The law was/is unconstitutionally vague and was applied in a discriminatory manner. In Lawrence, the State of Texas exempted heterosexuals in the application of its anti-sodomy law and used it solely to prosecute homosexuals. In this case, as the judge points out, Utah used this law to specifically target Mormons while exempting, in its application, adulterous cohabitation committed by all other persons. The only real relation to other cases mentioned is the unconstitutionally discriminatory nature of the law's application. The moral of the story is that you cannot enshrine the unconstitutional principle of second class citizenship into law no matter what the law is regulating.

wolfsgirl said:

Then please explain the point, because the issue from the OP was not about marriage at all. The case is about cohabitation, the marriage laws were upheld. The only thing that changed was the cohabitation law. Anyone can say they are married, but the government only recognizes legal marriage, not people saying they are married. Many people live together and are not legally married, that is not against the law. Now that is not against the law in Utah either.

Click to expand...

Utah's bigamy statute

A person is guilty of bigamy when, knowing he has a husband or wife or knowing the other person has a husband or wife, the person purports to marry another person or cohabits with another person. ... It shall be a defense to bigamy that the accused reasonably believed he and the other person were legally eligible to remarry.