'Sister Wives': Polygamy law challenge called demand for equality , page 1

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 14 times

Topic started on 12-7-2011 @ 08:56 PM by SirMike

'Sister Wives': Polygamy law challenge called demand for equality

www.sltrib.com

Utah’s complicated history with polygamy will start a new chapter Wednesday when an attorney for a reality-show family files a lawsuit that could send the state’s ban on plural marriage to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Nationally-known constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley said the lawsuit to be filed in U.S. District Court in Salt Lake City will not call for plural marriages to be recognized by the state. Instead, it asks for polygamy between consenting adults like his clients, former Utahn Kody Brown and his wives, to no longer be considered a crime.

(visit the link for the full news article)

reply posted on 12-7-2011 @ 08:56 PM by SirMike

The obvious parralell to gay marriage has to be drawn here.

If the distinction between decriminalization and state recognition seems confusing, it helps to know that Utah’s bigamy statute includes cohabiting with one person when you’re legally married to another. And in fact, this guy is only legally married to one woman; the other three are, er, “sister wives.” Basically, he’s arguing that he doesn’t care if the state recognizes them as legal spouses or not, just that he doesn’t want the cops to come knocking and lock him up when they find out. In that sense, his court claim mirrors the current legal regime in most states where gay marriage is banned but gay sex is constitutionally protected

While supporters of gay marriage once scoffed at the the idea that their efforts would become the legal spearhead for polygamists, it now appears very likely that with the Brown's leading the way polygamy will become the law of the land someday fairly soon.

So whats the take on this ... good or bad? And is this the start of state recognized polygamist marriages just like gay marriage is being now being recognized?

www.sltrib.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply posted on 12-7-2011 @ 09:01 PM by silent thunder

Originally posted by SirMike
So whats the take on this ... good or bad? And is this the start of state recognized polygamist marriages just like gay marriage is being now being recognized?

My take on this is that gay marriage has indeed opened the door for polygamy and evern more, shall we say...exotic...domestic arrangements.

Nobody wanted to think about that. The entire issue (both pro and con) was framed in terms of the rights of Gay people. Nobody spent much time asking about the knock-on effects of changing the basic foundation of what defines marriage, one of the oldest and most universal human institutions.

Because the entire thing became a cirucus of political-correctness, "hate," and "homophobia" there has been shockingly little discussion of what it means for society to change the essential definition of something as fundamental as marriage.

reply posted on 12-7-2011 @ 09:05 PM by SirMike

reply to post by silent thunder

Its even worse because you had idiots like this who were adamant that the slippery slope didnt exist.

Uh oh. Conservatives are starting to hyperventilate again. You know the symptoms: In a haystack of right-wing dominance, they find a needle of radicalism, declare it a mortal danger to civilization, and use it to rally their voters in the next election. First it was flag-burning. Then it was the "war on Christmas." Now it's polygamy. Having crushed gay marriage nationwide in 2004, they need to gin up a new threat to the family. They've found it in Big Love, the HBO series about a guy with three wives. Open the door to gay marriage, they warn, and group marriage will be next.

Welcome to the jungle.

reply posted on 12-7-2011 @ 09:12 PM by Annee

Originally posted by silent thunder

So whats the take on this ... good or bad? And is this the start of state recognized polygamist marriages just like gay marriage is being now being recognized?

Polygamy should never have been banned/outlawed in the first place. It was part of a religious belief. This country was founded on Freedom of belief. Imposing only one wife - - - was in violation of religious freedoms.

Beyond that - - - I see zero correlation between polygamy and same gender marriage.

Current laws/tax codes - benefits etc - - - are written for a marriage of two people. Gender of those two people changes nothing already in place.

edit on 12-7-2011 by Annee because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 12-7-2011 @ 09:13 PM by getreadyalready

reply to post by SirMike

I'm a Republican, a Tea Partier, and a Conservative, and I don't see a thing wrong with Polygamy. The whole "gay marriage" debate was mostly about the term "marriage." I think "Legal Unions" should be allowed for all couples, not just gay ones. I think little old widows should be allowed to form unions for sharing benefits and retirement funds. I think Polygamy makes logical sense. I think all people could get ahead faster if they could learn to co-habitate and stop being so dam independent. Sharing is caring.

Seriously. There is no such thing as simply a "conservative" or simply a "liberal." I believe prostitution should be legal, I think possession of most drugs should be legal, I believe polygamy and gay unions should be legal. I hate mandatory sentencing and 3-strike laws.I think seatbelt laws are ridiculous for adults. I don't want to wear my life-jacket on my boat, or my helmet on my motorcycle. I've crashed plenty of times without them, I know the risks, and I can make my own decisions!

I believe all of those views are CONSERVATIVE views, because they all limit the intrusion by the Federal Government. Any body that claims they are a conservative, yet supports a ban on gay marriage, or stricter drug laws, is misinformed!

reply posted on 12-7-2011 @ 09:13 PM by xxsomexpersonxx

I'm all for Polygamy. As long as the members are consensual, and treated equally. It is not the governments place to say it's only ok to love one person.

Oppression of women, and not given them choices/rights, which is often compared with Polygamy, is a different story. Forced Marriages, Domestic abuse, ect, should be illegal, not the non-harmful act of becoming close to multiple people.

And the is a strong dividing line between gay marriage and polygamy and Animal marriages and child marriages. Neither Animals or children have full citizen rights(to be recognized as one body), and neither are able to consent.

The arguement in favor for gay marriage, and polygamy, is that consenting people who harm no one shouldn't have the law telling them their harmless acts are illegal. Or any less legal than the more socially acceptable alternatives(straight marriage). Not that anyone can do anything they want to animals or children.

reply posted on 12-7-2011 @ 09:17 PM by blood0fheroes

I see this issue being very much akin to the ban of "dont ask / dont tell", where no one stopped to think of the ramifications to UCMJ in the light of dictating morality. And this reasoning will come up in time.

I personally believe that neither the government nor the military should be in the business of dictating morality whatsoever. All voluntary associations should be protected. Past that protection, it's no one else's business how each of us leads our lives.

reply posted on 12-7-2011 @ 09:18 PM by Apokalypsis

Utah’s bigamy statute includes cohabiting with one person when you’re legally married to another.

He should be tackling this. Where does the state get off telling him, or anyone else, male or female they can't live with more than one partner? As long as he is only married to one of them until such time as the law changes. The rest is none of the states business. And shouldn't have been to start with.

edit on 7/12/2011 by Apokalypsis because: clarity

reply posted on 12-7-2011 @ 09:22 PM by Annee

Originally posted by getreadyalready
The whole "gay marriage" debate was mostly about the term "marriage." I think "Legal Unions" should be allowed for all couples, not just gay ones.

The thing about that though - - is you can't go backwards. You can't put the worm back in the can.

No one who thinks they have the right to claim "marriage" is going to give it up for civil union. Allowing only one group of people to use the word "marriage" creates a separate class of people. Can't do that. The legal government license is entitled "marriage".

Plus it is a global word and several countries have already allowed gay "marriage".

Marriage is IT - - can't undo it.

reply posted on 12-7-2011 @ 09:27 PM by getreadyalready

reply to post by Annee

I disagree, but maybe the government forms should be changed to say union.

I think a vast majority of people think of "marriages" being done in churches or chapels. That was part of the big hangup for conservative Christians.

Originally marriages were sacred before God, and the governments loved them, because they resulted in procreation, more tax payers, more soldiers, etc. In that original sense, a ban on Gay Marriage made sense, because gay marriages didn't result in children.

These days, it is a pretty toothless argument, but I am a fan of tradition, so I say keep marriages in church if it makes them feel better, but extend the same benefits to any couple that wants to form a legal union. Hell, if they wanted to get technical, anybody could form a LLP (legal limited partnership) and get the union recognized by the State and Federal government, combine assets, shelter themselves from taxes, etc., etc. It might even be better than a marriage, LOL!!

reply posted on 12-7-2011 @ 09:27 PM by thisguyrighthere

if it werent for the tax code none of the personal relationships of anybody would ever be an issue.

sick how much government sanctioned extortion at the barrel of a gun rules our lives, thoughts, beliefs and morals.

who defines wrong or right? well the accountants and politicians of course.

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply posted on 12-7-2011 @ 09:31 PM by nunya13

reply to post by getreadyalready

I totally agree with you. Though i do not condone polygamy, it is not my place to tell someone how many people with whom they can intimately cohabitate. However, that being said, if they are going t recognize polygamy,
they need to recognize that women can have multiple husbands and that all the spouses, who MUST be consenting adults, are entitled to an EQUAL share of income and benefits.

reply posted on 12-7-2011 @ 09:34 PM by MrStyx

I say good for them I see no reason why its illegal to begin with if consenting adults want to be in a polygamist relationship what gives the government the right to say they cant. I emphasize adults cause this doesn't give the ok for child brides or other forced arrangements.

reply posted on 12-7-2011 @ 09:35 PM by Unity_99

Is it me or am I feeling theres a link between the mason founded mormon's and Sharia, and the fourth reicht, with Nazi pope, Nazi husband of UK Queen, Nazi prince of Holland, Nazi link to formation Muslim Brotherhood, Nazi/Nasa, Nazi/Cia, etc etc etc........The Nazi's openly praised Muslims and disliked Chrisitianity and Judaism.

Having a sexual preference, that is minority is not the same thing as opening the door to more than 1 legal spouse. Period. Apples and Oranges.

Polygamy is not the way to go. Women don't need to be shafted any more. This is your daughters your talking about!!!!!!!!!

I doubt you're talking about a woman with 2 hubbies, and as appealing that might be, it can be forgone. Thats just greedy.

Banna and Nazi's here

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Great pics of swaztika shaped buildings even a retirement home that got a lot of criticism, Navy barracks, Colorado Airport, and the moon.

edit on 12-7-2011 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 12-7-2011 @ 09:36 PM by nunya13

Originally posted by blood0fheroes
All voluntary associations should be protected.

I never could have said it better myself. "Voluntary association." I love it!

Who the heck is anyone to be telling anyone else with whom and how many they chose to be intimate with? As long as they are consenting adults who are voluntary taking part in the union, the state should recognize it. Otherwise, they are discriminating based on opinions that can only be supported by religious and ideological beliefs.

reply posted on 12-7-2011 @ 09:38 PM by Annee

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Annee

I disagree, but maybe the government forms should be changed to say union.

I think a vast majority of people think of "marriages" being done in churches or chapels. That was part of the big hangup for conservative Christians.

Originally marriages were sacred before God, and the governments loved them, because they resulted in procreation, more tax payers, more soldiers, etc. In that original sense, a ban on Gay Marriage made sense, because gay marriages didn't result in children.

You ever researched the history of marriage? Women were property - bought - sold - traded - used for political alliances - - etc etc.

The Catholic church got into the marriage license business for control and money.

The argument of God and Marriage - - - is a pretty lame excuse as far as I'm concerned.

The "sanctity of marriage" - - give me a break. Churches are like little Peyton Places and marriage has something like a 50% divorce rate amongst Christians.

They haven't earned the right to the word Marriage.

But still - - - you can't create a second class citizen. It has to be equal. ALL must be called Marriage.

And eventually ALL will be.

reply posted on 12-7-2011 @ 09:38 PM by Ryanp5555

reply to post by SirMike

Just to be clear, she has not won her case yet right? So, I'm not sure how you've determined that this is a victory for the "no-gay-marriage" crowd. Why don't we wait until the final rulings are in before we start calling people names or gloating.

reply posted on 12-7-2011 @ 09:40 PM by getreadyalready

reply to post by Unity_99

Its just you.

I am a Mason, and we don't have anything to do with Mormonism. I don't know that much about Mormonism, perhaps the founders were Masons, but it wasn't necessarily a Masonic principle. In fact, I think my opinions on drugs and prostitution and polygamy would probably be very unpopular in my Masonic Lodge.

Also, I would have no problem with a "multiple husband" household. If the other man will pay half the bills, watch the kids half the time, and mow the yard every other weekend, I am all for it!!