• 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

NIMBY said:
One man, one wife, four concubines--a grand total of 18 children--an "unofficial" polygamy family--been going on since Lincoln's decree..
Oldest daughter mothering youngest children until Dad sells her off to another "unofficial" polygamist .
One cannot even think of their own daughter .
Click to expand...
Have you been drinking? I, nor anyone else, has any idea what you're talking about.
 
vesper said:
As far as this character Kody and his four wives, they have 18 children among them. Three of the wives are stay at home moms and one works outside the home. He filed this lawsuit because he believes his relationships are legal because he is only legally married to one wife the other three are "spiritual" marriages. Spiritual my arse.
Click to expand...

He has three "concubine" wives..
Times are different from when Lincoln outlawed polygamy for the very child-abuse cases that rarely get public notice .
 
If anyone knows what a concubine is, it would be a military man..
Feigning ignorance by saying noone knows what another is saying is a huge fail and skating on thin ice .
MarineTpartier said:
Have you been drinking? I, nor anyone else, has any idea what you're talking about.
Click to expand...
 
NIMBY said:
If anyone knows what a concubine is, it would be a military man..
Feigning ignorance by saying noone knows what another is saying is a huge fail and skating on thin ice .
Click to expand...
I know what a concubine is bro.
Feigning ignorance by pointing to that part of your post instead of the rest of that babble is a huge fail and skating on this ice.
 
Which words would you like to focus on then pal ?
MarineTpartier said:
I know what a concubine is bro.
Feigning ignorance by pointing to that part of your post instead of the rest of that babble is a huge fail and skating on this ice.
Click to expand...
 
vesper said:
Well because it violates the Fourteenth Amendment, the equal protection clause. In a polygamy relationship the man's multiple wives is not seen as infidelity but if one of the wives were to engage in another relationship that is considered infidelity. Most countries that permit polygamy are governed under Sharia Law.

I do see those advocacy groups for polygamy using the same arguments as those used for Same Sex Marriage, whether it works for them is yet to be seen because in a same sex marriage there is no violation of the Fourteenth Amendment because both partners are equals.

As far as this character Kody and his four wives, they have 18 children among them. Three of the wives are stay at home moms and one works outside the home. He filed this lawsuit because he believes his relationships are legal because he is only legally married to one wife the other three are "spiritual" marriages. Spiritual my arse.
Click to expand...
Letting people create their own contracts between each other violates their constitutional rights? That's a new one. The 14th amendment is about equality under the law, it doesn't forbid people from making contracts that someone else might think are disadvantageous. Besides, polygamy is the purest definition of a biblical marriage. :lamo
 
So now we're heading back to Biblical times, when females had very few protections and rights..These 13-YO girls are sex slaves, plain and simple .
 
NIMBY said:
One man, one wife, four concubines--a grand total of 18 children--an "unofficial" polygamy family--been going on since Lincoln's decree..
Oldest daughter mothering youngest children until Dad sells her off to another "unofficial" polygamist .
One cannot even think of their own daughter .
Click to expand...

I can't grasp in my head the thought of any woman living today would even consider such a lifestyle. It's fargin insane.
 
vesper said:
I can't grasp in my head the thought of any woman living today would even consider such a lifestyle. It's fargin insane.
Click to expand...

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 .
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Letting people create their own contracts between each other violates their constitutional rights? That's a new one. The 14th amendment is about equality under the law, it doesn't forbid people from making contracts that someone else might think are disadvantageous. Besides, polygamy is the purest definition of a biblical marriage. :lamo
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
vesper said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
MarineTpartier said:
Save face? Lol. From what?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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
 
NIMBY said:
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 .
Click to expand...
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, :lol:
 
RabidAlpaca said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
vesper said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
About time straight polygamy became legal at least in Utah. If it would ease Utahnians, Iranians have been practicing for a great while.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
vesper said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.


>>>>
 
vesper said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
WorldWatcher said:
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.


>>>>
Click to expand...

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.
 
vesper said:
Before they get done redefining marriage, it will be legal between a brother and a sister, father and daughter, a mother and son, gay men/women, straight men/women will be allowed multiple spouses and the consent laws will get lowered. And who knows maybe a man who loves his sheep or the woman who loves her cat. You keep hearing more and more people willing their money to their animals.
Click to expand...

Now there's a non-sequitor red herring. Leaving their money to their animals for the care of said animal is a whole other creature (no pun intended) from wanting to marry said animal.

vesper said:
What part don't you get, it doesn't have to be legal for someone to practice polygamy. In Utah for practicing playing house with multiple wives came with jail time if caught. The judge changed that.
Click to expand...

First off you can't complain about polygamy being allowed and then warn next they will allow women to have multiple husbands. It's one in the same. Up till now most of what you've posted, intended or not, put forth the concept of polygamy and the rest of your slippery slope being legal. Which is why everyone's been arguing against you that it's not. And before you tell me that's not what you been putting out, why are we all telling you the same thing? Like I said, you may not have intended to express your view in that manner but you did.

Kobie said:
Living with multiple partners is not polygamy. It's polyamory. Marrying multiple partners is polygamy.
Click to expand...

Actually, polyamory is holding multiple intimate relationships at the same time. It does not necessarily require co-habitation or marriage. Secondly, there are at least 2 if not 3 aspects to marriage; legal, social and religious (the last two possibly being considered as one). One can get married without going through the state. In such a case the marriage is not legally recognized and thus no laws dealing with marriage and bigamy and such can be applied. But to claim that those people who are living in polygamy are not simply because there is no paperwork is disingenuous.

Jerry said:
The pro-gay movment had to first tackle sodomy laws before moving on anything else. Likewise the pro-polygamy movement has to move on cohabitation before anything else. Next will be insurance, adoption, housing and job discrimination, just like SSM went. When there is sound legal foundations for those agenda items then the fight for polygamy will begin at the federal level, just as with SSM.
Click to expand...

The pro-gays tackled it because they were the only ones targeted by it. Sodomy by legal definition was any act other than straight vaginal intercourse. This included both oral and anal regardless of gender combination. However, those enforcing the law were only targeting gays with the law. It was a blatant abuse of the law for discrimination. Had they enforced it across the board those laws would have fallen a lot sooner.

All arguments in support for SSM also support polygamy. There is no argument unique to SSM, or polygamy, for that matter. To allow one is to allow them all.
Click to expand...

You could include incest in that as well, especially in dealing with those only legally related.

MarineTpartier said:
I was simply eluding to the "slippery slope" that many believe SSM creates for cases such as this. The slippery slope being that once we start altering what we believe to be marriage with the repeal of DOMA, other forms of marriage would follow behind.
Click to expand...

Actually it would be a return to these states of marriage (with the exception of human/animal if someone wants to try to make that argument) as poly and same sex and incest marriages have all existed in the past and with government approval.

CriticalThought said:
What next? You going to post a story about the price of tea in China so you can stir the debate about gun control?
Click to expand...

If multiple people were taking that position earlier then it would be a logical move.

TacticalEvilDan said:
I'm pretty sure absolutely no American court has said that.
Click to expand...

Where the hell have you been? For a long time the courts were telling people they couldn't marry outside their own race. People even got arrested for it as in Loving v. Virginia. It was also illegal to marry your own gender. It's also illegal to marry someone related to you by blood or legality (within a certain distance). So yeah the courts have been telling people that they can't by the very act of upholding the law.

CriticalThought said:
I believe you thought the article was evidence that DOMA somehow influenced a judge to rule in favor of polygamy. I believe that once it became clear that the judge's 1st amendment ruling had nothing to do with DOMA you tried to save face by concocting this ruse that the story had nothing to do with the thread even though the title of the thread is "Polygamy Advocate Groups Hail Judge Ruling in Utah." I believe that the best argument YOU can come up with against polygamy is "well the gays are not allowed to marry." I believe in the future you should read things before you post them and make sure they actually say what you think they say before you try to "stir debate."

That is just what I believe. Good night.
Click to expand...

Um...doesn't the thread title HAVE to be that because it's the article's title....by DP rules?
 
RabidAlpaca said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
maquiscat said:
Now there's a non-sequitor red herring. Leaving their money to their animals for the care of said animal is a whole other creature (no pun intended) from wanting to marry said animal.



First off you can't complain about polygamy being allowed and then warn next they will allow women to have multiple husbands. It's one in the same. Up till now most of what you've posted, intended or not, put forth the concept of polygamy and the rest of your slippery slope being legal. Which is why everyone's been arguing against you that it's not. And before you tell me that's not what you been putting out, why are we all telling you the same thing? Like I said, you may not have intended to express your view in that manner but you did.
Click to expand...

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.
 
vesper said:
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.
Click to expand...


Why should the government tell two (or more) consenting adults who they can and cannot live with?

See this is the inconsistency of many social conservatives, they talk about smaller, more limited government and the return to individual freedom. But then they advocate the control of government in who lives in who in personal relationships (i.e. those which have no impact on the government).


>>>>
 
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...


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.

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.)


>>>>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom