• 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

MarineTpartier

Haters gon' hate
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 30, 2011
Messages
5,586
Reaction score
2,420
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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
 
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.

Has nothing to do with gay marriage.

Utah makes it illegal to even purport to be married to multiple partners or live together.

Under Waddoups' ruling, bigamy remains illegal in Utah only in the literal sense, such as when someone fraudulently acquires more than one marriage license.

Can't say I disagree with the ruling anyway.
 
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

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?
 
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?
Some people really do mind, I don't. That said, it appears that it's simply cohabitation with multiple partners that is now legal, not polygamy.
 
Some people really do mind, I don't. That said, it appears that it's simply cohabitation with multiple partners that is now legal, not polygamy.
Yep. Technically, my housemates and I would be considered living illegally in the same house. It was an overly strict law and it was stupid. Nothing to do with "gay marraige" but hey the haters never hesitate to burn down those strawmen wherever they see them. And if they don't see one they'll build one and burn it down.

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.
 
Yep. Technically, my housemates and I would be considered living illegally in the same house. It was an overly strict law and it was stupid. Nothing to do with "gay marraige" but hey the haters never hesitate to burn down those strawmen wherever they see them. And if they don't see one they'll build one and burn it down.

Well in my opinion it's just freedom of freedom, not freedom of religion since anyone might choose to cohabitate with more than one.
 
I see no problem with gay marriage, any more than I see a problem with polygamy.

Personally, I think if we were minding our own business, we wouldn't have time to stick our noses in the bedrooms of others.
 
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?

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.
 
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

Gotta read past the headline dude. The ruling was about cohabitation laws, not marriage.
 
You don't get to deny homosexuals rights because of the possible ripple effects. Fight for or against an issue based on its merits and its merits alone. One could also point to interracial marriage as a stepping stone for both of the aforementioned battles occurring presently. That does not in any way diminish the validity of that particular position.
 
Last edited:
You don't get to deny homosexuals rights because of the possible ripple effects. Fight for or against an issue based on its merits and its merits alone. One could also point to interracial marriage as a stepping stone for both of the aforementioned battles occurring presently. That does not in any way diminish the validity of that particular position.

This is not a ripple effect ruling from SSM anyway. The ruling was based on a case against sodomy laws, not marriage laws. Basically the ruling states that there is a limit to just how intrusive the government can be in private, personal matters. Marriage is a state, public institution in that you need a license to be considered legally married(among other things) and receive a whole mess of legal rights and responsibilities from marriage. This ruling does not bring us closer to state licensed polygamy.
 
This is not a ripple effect ruling from SSM anyway. The ruling was based on a case against sodomy laws, not marriage laws. Basically the ruling states that there is a limit to just how intrusive the government can be in private, personal matters. Marriage is a state, public institution in that you need a license to be considered legally married(among other things) and receive a whole mess of legal rights and responsibilities from marriage. This ruling does not bring us closer to state licensed polygamy.
Thanks for that. I was basing my comment strictly off positions that the OP referenced.
 
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.

Guess they'll have rewrite them all now.
 
Under Waddoups' ruling, bigamy remains illegal in Utah only in the literal sense, such as when someone fraudulently acquires more than one marriage license.

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.
 
Guess they'll have rewrite them all now.

No you wouldn't because polygamy could not be governed by the same laws as marriage between two individuals, its a simple matter of treating a marriage between a man and a woman the same as one between two men for all legal concerns. But I think it would be better served if new laws came out since at least 3 people are now involved instead of just two. You would need new laws, not rewritten laws.

Also, whats wrong with rewriting the law?
 
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

Call it the law of unintended consequences or if you must, for ever action there is a reaction. I have no problems with either gay marriage or polygamy. I believe government has no place in saying who can or can't be married. DOMA was wrong and so to is limiting how many wives or husbands one can have.

The only reason I see why government ever became involved is marriage is used for tax purposes. Heck it was until 1916 that Kentucky became the last state in the union to start keeping records on marriages. Before then it was a church responsibility or just writing it down in a family bible or something like that. Being it is no longer a crime is a step in the right direction.
 
No you wouldn't because polygamy could not be governed by the same laws as marriage between two individuals, its a simple matter of treating a marriage between a man and a woman the same as one between two men for all legal concerns. But I think it would be better served if new laws came out since at least 3 people are now involved instead of just two. You would need new laws, not rewritten laws.

Also, whats wrong with rewriting the law?
You're putting words in my mouth.
 
Call it the law of unintended consequences or if you must, for ever action there is a reaction. I have no problems with either gay marriage or polygamy. I believe government has no place in saying who can or can't be married. DOMA was wrong and so to is limiting how many wives or husbands one can have.

The only reason I see why government ever became involved is marriage is used for tax purposes. Heck it was until 1916 that Kentucky became the last state in the union to start keeping records on marriages. Before then it was a church responsibility or just writing it down in a family bible or something like that. Being it is no longer a crime is a step in the right direction.

Good morning, Pero. :2wave:

If polygamy is ever legalized, are we supposed to have a wish list ready? :lamo:
 
Gotta read past the headline dude. The ruling was about cohabitation laws, not marriage.

The cohabitation laws were meant to thwart the "common law" aspect of having second and third (etc) wives.
 
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

Did you post the wrong story? Nothing you said had anything to do with the story you posted.
 
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.

You make several false assumptions. Adding a number of "spouses" to tax forms is not a huge deal. Business partnership contracts have no limit on the number of, or gender of, the partners yet they handle the voluntary separation (and death) of any partner, joint ownership of assets and most other areas addressed by a marriage contract. The only adjustments required would be to deal with child custody - but that generally requires a separate hearing even with divorce (voluntary termination) in "convetional" marriage contracts. To assert that "classic" polygamy (one male with multiple females) would be the only form polygyny (multiple marriage partners of any gender) allowed or that it must also allow bigamy (being in more than one marriage contract at a time) is also a logical fallacy.
 
Back
Top Bottom