Utah senate unanimously moves to decriminalize polygamy

Utah senate unanimously moves to decriminalize polygamy | US news | The Guardian

Sponsor says bill would help otherwise law-abiding polygamists gain access to critical services, but critics say polygamy is harmful

The Utah state senate voted unanimously on Tuesday to effectively decriminalize polygamy among consenting adults, reducing penalties for a practice with deep religious roots in the predominantly Mormon state.

The bill, which would treat the offense of plural marriage as a simple infraction on par with a parking ticket, now moves to the Utah house of representatives, where it is likely to face greater resistance.
====================================================================
This is odd - Utah was only allowed to join the United States after it abolished polygamy. See Utah's very interesting path to statehood - National Constitution Center

'Most significant was lawmakers' and others' hostility toward the church's practice of polygamy, which the Republican Party had denounced as one of the “twin relics of barbarism” along with slavery. (The church opposed slavery.)

Polygamy was forbidden by a series of federal laws. In addition, a Supreme Court decision in 1879, Reynolds v. U.S., ruled against a Mormon husband who called plural marriage his religious duty as protected by the First Amendment. Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite wrote:

“Can a man excuse his practices…because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land.”
========================================================
Dealing with one wife is plenty for me but having my choice of sleeping partners might be worth a try. Variety is the spice of life.

JacksinPA said:

Utah senate unanimously moves to decriminalize polygamy | US news | The Guardian

Sponsor says bill would help otherwise law-abiding polygamists gain access to critical services, but critics say polygamy is harmful

The Utah state senate voted unanimously on Tuesday to effectively decriminalize polygamy among consenting adults, reducing penalties for a practice with deep religious roots in the predominantly Mormon state.

The bill, which would treat the offense of plural marriage as a simple infraction on par with a parking ticket, now moves to the Utah house of representatives, where it is likely to face greater resistance.
====================================================================
This is odd - Utah was only allowed to join the United States after it abolished polygamy. See Utah's very interesting path to statehood - National Constitution Center

'Most significant was lawmakers' and others' hostility toward the church's practice of polygamy, which the Republican Party had denounced as one of the “twin relics of barbarism” along with slavery. (The church opposed slavery.)

Polygamy was forbidden by a series of federal laws. In addition, a Supreme Court decision in 1879, Reynolds v. U.S., ruled against a Mormon husband who called plural marriage his religious duty as protected by the First Amendment. Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite wrote:

“Can a man excuse his practices…because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land.”
========================================================
Dealing with one wife is plenty for me but having my choice of sleeping partners might be worth a try. Variety is the spice of life.

Click to expand...

This is just the beginning. The liberals started down this road supporting and defending gays and transvestites and transgender people the right to marriage and other things straight people don't even get. This will go on to other states as well. Eventually, it will end up back in the Supreme Court to decide about Polygamy. Ironic it's starting with Utah... I don't see how it's any more harmful than gays marrying and having children...

Cougarbear said:

This is just the beginning. The liberals started down this road supporting and defending gays and transvestites and transgender people the right to marriage and other things straight people don't even get. This will go on to other states as well. Eventually, it will end up back in the Supreme Court to decide about Polygamy. Ironic it's starting with Utah...

Click to expand...

What "other things straight people don't even get"?

ecofarm said:

What "other things straight people don't even get"?

Click to expand...

If I, a straight man, go into a woman's bathroom saying I feel like a woman, I'm getting arrested.

Cougarbear said:

If I, a straight man, go into a woman's bathroom saying I feel like a woman, I'm getting arrested.

Click to expand...

That's why you think transgender people have "other things straight people don't get"?

What if the transgender person is hetero?

JacksinPA said:

Utah senate unanimously moves to decriminalize polygamy | US news | The Guardian

Sponsor says bill would help otherwise law-abiding polygamists gain access to critical services, but critics say polygamy is harmful

The Utah state senate voted unanimously on Tuesday to effectively decriminalize polygamy among consenting adults, reducing penalties for a practice with deep religious roots in the predominantly Mormon state.

The bill, which would treat the offense of plural marriage as a simple infraction on par with a parking ticket, now moves to the Utah house of representatives, where it is likely to face greater resistance.
================================================== ==================
This is odd - Utah was only allowed to join the United States after it abolished polygamy. See Utah's very interesting path to statehood - National Constitution Center

'Most significant was lawmakers' and others' hostility toward the church's practice of polygamy, which the Republican Party had denounced as one of the “twin relics of barbarism” along with slavery. (The church opposed slavery.)

Polygamy was forbidden by a series of federal laws. In addition, a Supreme Court decision in 1879, Reynolds v. U.S., ruled against a Mormon husband who called plural marriage his religious duty as protected by the First Amendment. Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite wrote:

“Can a man excuse his practices…because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land.”
================================================== ======
Dealing with one wife is plenty for me but having my choice of sleeping partners might be worth a try. Variety is the spice of life.

Click to expand...

I have no problems with this. :shrug:

As long as all parties are legal adults, consenting, and accept the legal requirements of any other marriage, why should anyone care.

I guess my only question is the same as the question Bill Burr asks in this video. As usual Caution: Foul language.

Why the hell do people keep getting married?

JacksinPA said:

Utah senate unanimously moves to decriminalize polygamy | US news | The Guardian

Sponsor says bill would help otherwise law-abiding polygamists gain access to critical services, but critics say polygamy is harmful

The Utah state senate voted unanimously on Tuesday to effectively decriminalize polygamy among consenting adults, reducing penalties for a practice with deep religious roots in the predominantly Mormon state.

The bill, which would treat the offense of plural marriage as a simple infraction on par with a parking ticket, now moves to the Utah house of representatives, where it is likely to face greater resistance.
====================================================================
This is odd - Utah was only allowed to join the United States after it abolished polygamy. See Utah's very interesting path to statehood - National Constitution Center

'Most significant was lawmakers' and others' hostility toward the church's practice of polygamy, which the Republican Party had denounced as one of the “twin relics of barbarism” along with slavery. (The church opposed slavery.)

Polygamy was forbidden by a series of federal laws. In addition, a Supreme Court decision in 1879, Reynolds v. U.S., ruled against a Mormon husband who called plural marriage his religious duty as protected by the First Amendment. Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite wrote:

“Can a man excuse his practices…because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land.”
========================================================
Dealing with one wife is plenty for me but having my choice of sleeping partners might be worth a try. Variety is the spice of life.

Click to expand...

I have read nothing about this so this is a totally a first thought......this sounds like a branding and economic move...."Come all of Ye Poly People to our fair state, we will accept you and we will help you reach your goals in the Poly Lifestyle".

Captain Adverse said:

I have no problems with this. :shrug:

As long as all parties are legal adults, consenting, and accept the legal requirements of any other marriage, why should anyone care.

I guess my only question is the same as the question Bill Burr asks in this video. As usual Caution: Foul language.

Why the hell do people keep getting married?

Click to expand...

That (bolded above) is where things get tricky, legally. Any other US state's (existing) marriage contract has two requirements that the concept of polygamy violates, a single other partner (spouse) limit and a requirement that neither party is in another current marriage contract.

The fact that business partnership contracts (generally) have no such restrictions on the number of partners leads me to believe that marriage contracts could be devised to handle more than two partners, but the question remains as to whether that is possible on a state by state basis. For example, if the polygamous (or polyamorous?) marriage occurred in Utah would each spouse be covered by medical care insurance if they moved to Virginia or for the purpose of federal spousal survivor benefits under Social Security?

Polygamy is illegal in most adjoining states around Utah. The Mormons have major settlements in states like Arizona, Idaho, Nevada, etc. If you got pulled over by a policeman outside of Utah once this becomes legal, wouldn't you & your spice (plural of spouse) be guilty of violating the laws in that state?

ecofarm said:

What "other things straight people don't even get"?

Click to expand...

Go into a bathroom of my choice :lamo

ttwtt78640 said:

That (bolded above) is where things get tricky, legally. Any other US state's (existing) marriage contract has two requirements that the concept of polygamy violates, a single other partner (spouse) limit and a requirement that neither party is in another current marriage contract.

The fact that business partnership contracts (generally) have no such restrictions on the number of partners leads me to believe that marriage contracts could be devised to handle more than two partners, but the question remains as to whether that is possible on a state by state basis. For example, if the polygamous (or polyamorous?) marriage occurred in Utah would each spouse be covered by medical care insurance if they moved to Virginia or for the purpose of federal spousal survivor benefits under Social Security?

Click to expand...

Imagine the tax codes that would have to be changed as well. How many deductions we could have if we had 10 wives Of course, they would have to all be over 7's on a scale of 1 - 10 :2bow:

Cougarbear said:

Go into a bathroom of my choice :lamo

Click to expand...

One employs the appropriate restroom. You should have learned this in elementary school.

Cougarbear said:

Imagine the tax codes that would have to be changed as well. How many deductions we could have if we had 10 wives Of course, they would have to all be over 7's on a scale of 1 - 10 :2bow:

Click to expand...

The income tax codes should be changed to eliminate any complexity based on how or upon who one's income was later spent.

Cougarbear said:

This is just the beginning. The liberals started down this road supporting and defending gays and transvestites and transgender people the right to marriage and other things straight people don't even get. This will go on to other states as well. Eventually, it will end up back in the Supreme Court to decide about Polygamy. Ironic it's starting with Utah... I don't see how it's any more harmful than gays marrying and having children...

Click to expand...

I'm as liberal as all get-out and I support this, long as it's all between consenting adults, none of this middle-aged elders preying on teenage girls crap. Hell, have it work both ways or any combinations you want. Who's to say free adults shouldn't do what they want, just so nobody's hurt?

Cougarbear said:

Go into a bathroom of my choice :lamo

Click to expand...

Why do you want to use the women's bathroom and what exactly are you going to be doing in there to cause such alarm that a female would need to call the police?

I have seen a man use a women's bathroom more than a few times to strictly do their business and the world didn't end.

JacksinPA said:

Utah senate unanimously moves to decriminalize polygamy | US news | The Guardian

Sponsor says bill would help otherwise law-abiding polygamists gain access to critical services, but critics say polygamy is harmful

The Utah state senate voted unanimously on Tuesday to effectively decriminalize polygamy among consenting adults, reducing penalties for a practice with deep religious roots in the predominantly Mormon state.

The bill, which would treat the offense of plural marriage as a simple infraction on par with a parking ticket, now moves to the Utah house of representatives, where it is likely to face greater resistance.
====================================================================
This is odd - Utah was only allowed to join the United States after it abolished polygamy. See Utah's very interesting path to statehood - National Constitution Center

'Most significant was lawmakers' and others' hostility toward the church's practice of polygamy, which the Republican Party had denounced as one of the “twin relics of barbarism” along with slavery. (The church opposed slavery.)

Polygamy was forbidden by a series of federal laws. In addition, a Supreme Court decision in 1879, Reynolds v. U.S., ruled against a Mormon husband who called plural marriage his religious duty as protected by the First Amendment. Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite wrote:

“Can a man excuse his practices…because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land.”
========================================================
Dealing with one wife is plenty for me but having my choice of sleeping partners might be worth a try. Variety is the spice of life.

Click to expand...

Decriminalization is not the same as legalization. Polygamy as currently practiced involves one wife who is legally married to a man who may have an unlimited number of "celestial" wives who are married as far as their church is concerned, but are not legally married to him. They don't qualify for his health insurance etc. If polygamy is decriminalized, that doesn't mean the celestial wives become legally married. It just means that nobody goes to jail.

JacksinPA said:

Utah senate unanimously moves to decriminalize polygamy | US news | The Guardian

... among consenting adults

Click to expand...

This is the key: consenting adults entering into a civil contract that was formally thought of as "marriage". We'd like to think that government gets to say who partners with who, and for what reasons.

Once gay marriage was allowed, this eliminated that concept. Polygamy, father/son (as long as the son is 18), it's merely a civil contract that people formally (and incorrectly) thought of as marriage.

Anyone that is for gay marriage but against polygamy, or a father/son partnership, is merely drawing the line in a different place as to who they discriminate against.

Cougarbear said:

This is just the beginning. The liberals started down this road supporting and defending gays and transvestites and transgender people the right to marriage and other things straight people don't even get. This will go on to other states as well. Eventually, it will end up back in the Supreme Court to decide about Polygamy. Ironic it's starting with Utah... I don't see how it's any more harmful than gays marrying and having children...

Click to expand...

I suggest you read up on what actually happens in polygamous communities. The men in power decide who gets another bride. Quickly, there is an excess of eligible young bachelors and not enough young available women. If a young man hopes to marry, he must prove himself worthy by being loyal to the older men who wield power and authority. That power and authority is often abused in perverted ways. Other young men (boys as young as thirteen) are simply removed from the community, often on trumped up or completely fabricated charges of sin. Many of these boys are sexually abused as well.

Here are some links to get you started.

Link 1 The lost boys, thrown out of US sect so that older men can marry more wives

Link 2 From Polygamist Royalty To FLDS Lost Boy

Yes, polygamy is harmful.

bearpoker said:

Decriminalization is not the same as legalization. Polygamy as currently practiced involves one wife who is legally married to a man who may have an unlimited number of "celestial" wives who are married as far as their church is concerned, but are not legally married to him. They don't qualify for his health insurance etc. If polygamy is decriminalized, that doesn't mean the celestial wives become legally married. It just means that nobody goes to jail.

Click to expand...

And because those "celestial wives" are legally single, when they give birth they are eligible for various welfare subsidies. The polygamists call this "bleeding the beast (government)."

One wife is more than enough for any man.

Stealers Wheel said:

I suggest you read up on what actually happens in polygamous communities. The men in power decide who gets another bride. Quickly, there is an excess of eligible young bachelors and not enough young available women. If a young man hopes to marry, he must prove himself worthy by being loyal to the older men who wield power and authority. That power and authority is often abused in perverted ways. Other young men (boys as young as thirteen) are simply removed from the community, often on trumped up or completely fabricated charges of sin. Many of these boys are sexually abused as well.

Here are some links to get you started.

Link 1 The lost boys, thrown out of US sect so that older men can marry more wives

Link 2 From Polygamist Royalty To FLDS Lost Boy

Yes, polygamy is harmful.

Click to expand...

I actually have nothing against polygamy, or polyandry, if practiced by consenting adults acting freely on their own desires. That's not what happens in organized polygamous sects, where women are used as a basis of wealth and power.

bearpoker said:

I actually have nothing against polygamy, or polyandry, if practiced by consenting adults acting freely on their own desires. That's not what happens in organized polygamous sects, where women are used as a basis of wealth and power.

Click to expand...

The problem is that when a woman enters into a polygamous relationship, whether individually or part of a community/cult, she diminishes herself, emotionally, financially, and as parent. When a woman wants to leave a polygamous relationship, she pays a massive price, emotionally, financially, and as a parent.

Consequently, women who enter into polygamous relationships soon find they are for all practical purposes, slaves, especially if they have children. And they can't simply walk away. Polygamy only works in societies where women have no rights to begin with. They are born chattel, and they remain chattel for their entire lives.

The problems of polygamy are well known. Even societies that were highly promiscuous and had polygamy came to outlaw it for the huge problems it causes - such as Rome and the Greeks. Polygamy is a reason the ME/Muslim countries have been engaged in internal fighting and civil wars for thousands of years. Countries with polygamy are all backwards, primitive, in constant stages of revolution, and have highly oppressive governments.

With polygamy, the wealthy buy wives. Those children then become the upper class, and then those children also seeking to buy wives - generation after generation. The result?

1. The wealthy are not using their money in ways that benefit society but rather for the wife-buying business - causing economic blight.
2. There are no women for men other than by prostitution or rape. Warfare generally involves pillage and rape.
3. A young man having family responsibilities forces being responsible. A young man without a decent job and without any family has no hope other than by revolution and conquests.
4. The only way to try to hold down the inevitable social unrest and revolution is if the government is extremely oppressive, ruling by terror.
5. The extreme oppression by the government and wealthy to prevent desperate young men from revolting only makes the ticking bomb grow larger before it explodes.

It also means the wealthy can steal wives by basically buying them away from their husbands (or husbands from wives, but that is rare). In this, for lower income people, it makes their families particularly unstable.

If a wealthy person can buy 5 wives, that means 4 men who won't have a wife or children. It means the wealthy person is spending money on 5 wives and 5 sets of children, rather than industry and business - so there also are no jobs for those 4 men. What are those 4 men going to do, just happily starve in their family-less, sexless lives? This also leads essentially to slave-level jobs due to the overall economic limitations of the society.

We can see the results in the ME. Larger groups of unemployed and impoverished young men throwing rocks at the government - unless they can get AK47s, RPGs and mortars and then they'll use them. We saw first hand how they will raid other people literally to steal their women and wives for themselves, killing the men and often the children too, except female children. Literally, warfare and insurgencies becomes warfare and insurgencies to capture women.

Simply put, polygamy makes it impossible for poor men to have a family or have a wife. NOTHING good comes from that.

The reason even in the USA it would overwhelmingly be men with lots of wives is known and predictable. Among Mormons - the push for this - it is 100% men with multiple wives, not a wife with multiple husbands (that is just a reality show oddity.)

Looking at the countries that have polygamy now? Either they are desperately poor countries in constant upheaval and with intensely oppressive governments and non-stop levels of violent revolution - or they are one of the extremely oppressive rich "suburban countries" like Qatar, Dubai, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, where employees are treated no different than slaves.



THAT is the inherent problem with polygamy.

Grand Mal said:

I'm as liberal as all get-out and I support this, long as it's all between consenting adults, none of this middle-aged elders preying on teenage girls crap. Hell, have it work both ways or any combinations you want. Who's to say free adults shouldn't do what they want, just so nobody's hurt?

Click to expand...

Nothing stops "middle aged elders preying on teenage girls," providing they are the minimum age.

Rickeroo said:

This is the key: consenting adults entering into a civil contract that was formally thought of as "marriage". We'd like to think that government gets to say who partners with who, and for what reasons.

Once gay marriage was allowed, this eliminated that concept. Polygamy, father/son (as long as the son is 18), it's merely a civil contract that people formally (and incorrectly) thought of as marriage.

Anyone that is for gay marriage but against polygamy, or a father/son partnership, is merely drawing the line in a different place as to who they discriminate against.

Click to expand...

No, it's not the same at all. Gay monogamy and heterosexual monogamy are the same basic relationship structure and the diametric opposite from polygamy. What made polygamy seem more acceptable is the near total breakdown of the moral code of no sex outside of a monogamous marriage.

Once it became accept to have many lovers - unless married - in a bizarre way marriage became entering into a "less sex" contract, where before marriage was permission to have sex with one person.