Lawsuit to Challenge Ban on Plural Marriage

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
1

Awesome. Hopefully all the non-bigots can unite with white-hot fervor in their calls for equality. Any maybe, just maybe, someone can manage to work in a comparison to the Civil Rights movement, because, you know, being denied the right to this consenting adult relationship is just like slavery and Jim Crow:

[/i]"Utahâ??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 stateâ??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.

“We are only challenging the right of the state to prosecute people for their private relations and demanding equal treatment with other citizens in living their lives according to their own beliefs,” Turley said in a press release. The Browns star in the TLC network show “Sister Wives.” There is no word yet on whether they will appear in a press conference scheduled for Wednesday.

Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff said the countryâ??s ongoing legal wrangling over same-sex marriage will necessarily grow to include plural marriage â?? quite possibly centered around this case.

“Iâ??m confident that we can [defend] a challenge all the way to the Supreme Court,” Shurtleff said.

“Ultimately, this decision is going to have to go there. You see it coming,” he added.

The Supreme Court toyed with taking on polygamy five years ago, when they asked for briefs in the case of polygamous police officer Rodney Holm, who was accused of having sex with a 16-year-old plural wife. The justices ultimately refused to hear his appeal.

“The whole case was tainted by [sexual contact with a minor]. We didnâ??t die on the courthouse steps, we died inside,” said attorney Rod Parker, who represented Holm. “I donâ??t know if [the Brown case] will be the one, but sooner or later oneâ??s going to go there … if itâ??s factually clean.”[/i]

2

Who said this was coming…oh yeah. This guy!

Not everyone’s “beliefs” are equal, some should be discriminated against.

4

I would not be apposed to polygamy if they did not have this coercive way of coralling the young women into marring old geezers and running off the young men interested being with the young women.

Being an older man the offense is worthy Horse whipping

5

[quote]pushharder wrote:
I wonder if anyone here on TN PWI or elsewhere has mentioned this possibility before in debates on gay marriage.

I wonder.[/quote]

No, no I don’t think nary a member of the Nation has ever mentioned the possibility that putting forth this pretend marriage, that is same-sex marriage, into legislation would give precedent to other forms of non-traditional marriage being put into a protective class and legislation, which foremost would be polygamy. And, subsequently protected from discrimination in the name of false tolerance of other’s beliefs.

Although, I do find it somewhat interesting that I, and the other false prophets, did point to polygamy being the first of the non-traditional unions to come up for consideration after SSM was put into legislation. I guess it has to do with that it is the closest to normalcy (in some weird way) to traditional marriage as it is between a man and women and can still possess aspects of a traditional marriage.

Anyway. Time to going back to my backwards way of living, you know not pretending like my sins are “normal” and people should tolerate them.

6

Next on the list, lowering the age of consent to 12…14 years. Kids grow up faster nowadays :slight_smile:
Hey, it’ll be consensual…

7

Hooray for freedom…?

8

If nobody comes out and wants to marry his lampshade some posters on this board still lose.

9

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I would not be apposed to polygamy if they did not have this coercive way of coralling the young women into marring old geezers and running off the young men interested being with the young women.

Being an older man the offense is worthy Horse whipping [/quote]

I’d pondered this question for a while.

In the natural order of things it is the younger generations duty to stand up to the older generation.

History seems to be nothing more than the expression of young ideas struggling against the old ideas.

10

If they rule that polygamy is legal if the women are of age and consenting…

The LDS church will go back to this practice in 3…2…1

11

Seems appropriate, to bad it’s not higher quality

12

I wonder exactly where we are on the slippery slope? Sort of feels like were getting near the bottom. But not quite yet.

13

This case will be sort of “new” for Utah (I say “new” with quotes, because Utah has the most experienced of all the States on dealing with the issue).

Utah Lama and BYUKid can correct me if I’m wrong; but Utah has long stopped prosecuting Polygamy per se…and began to prosecute people for 1) sex with minors and 2) Medicaid and Medicaire fraud. (Which appears to be rampant among the Polygamous community).

Utah did this because prosecuting Polygamy often got the State mired in “religious freedom” arguments that tended to go no where. Prosecutions for underage sex and Government fraud tended to be more successful.

As an aside…the charges of underage sex is what got Warren Jeffs prosecuted…not Polygamy itself. And trying to attack Polygamy as a practice is what got the State of Texas is such a mess when they invaded the Jeff’s compound. (In addition to trampling on a HOST of individual liberties of those in the compound…but that’s another thread.)

Mufasa

14

Plural arrangements following in through the door is a no-brainer. Every shallow justification for state recognition of SSM applies to any imagined arrangement of consenting adults, sexual or nonsexual. There was nothing more obviously stupid than a pro-SSM’er denying this. You can’t deny the entrance of other alternatives, having screamed about discrimination, bigotry, equality, and the mantra-like ‘consenting adults…’ Slamming the door shut behind SSM was never going to happen. It might take a decade or two once SSM is basically the law of the land, but the state definition of ‘married’ is basically going to mean "adult US citizen.’

15

As another interesting aside.

While I can’t actually confirm this; I read once that The Attorney General of Utah that actually changed the focus of prosecution was actually female.

Her name was Jan Graham (sp?).

(I just thought that was interesting).

Mufasa

16

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
This case will be sort of “new” for Utah (I say “new” with quotes, because Utah has the most experienced of all the States on dealing with the issue).

Utah Lama and BYUKid can correct me if I’m wrong; but Utah has long stopped prosecuting Polygamy per se…and began to prosecute people for 1) sex with minors and 2) Medicaid and Medicaire fraud. (Which appears to be rampant among the Polygamous community).

Utah did this because prosecuting Polygamy often got the State mired in “religious freedom” arguments that tended to go no where. Prosecutions for underage sex and Government fraud tended to be more successful.

As an aside…the charges of underage sex is what got Warren Jeffs prosecuted…not Polygamy itself. And trying to attack Polygamy as a practice is what got the State of Texas is such a mess when they invaded the Jeff’s compound. (In addition to trampling on a HOST of individual liberties of those in the compound…but that’s another thread.)

Mufasa

[/quote]

I wonder what happened to all those women and children?

17

Out of curiosity, how do you guys see polygamy or ssm harming society? Assuming the government didn’t have anything to do with marriage at all, how do you see these two types of marriage arrangements as being harmful? Assume no laws concerning underage sex or sexual abuse are broken. This is a genuine question, so please keep it civil.

18

[quote]kilpaba wrote:
Out of curiosity, how do you guys see polygamy or ssm harming society? Assuming the government didn’t have anything to do with marriage at all, how do you see these two types of marriage arrangements as being harmful? Assume no laws concerning underage sex or sexual abuse are broken. This is a genuine question, so please keep it civil.[/quote]

Oh jeez…go to the “any dudes want to get married” thread to find the answers to these questions. A lot of it has to do with the Bible and religion and what is considered “normal” and beneficial to society and to the raising of children. For longer answers check out the thread I named above.

19

Off the top of my head, I really don’t see any harm in it, but I’m open to debate on that.

IMO, it would seem that the bigger the team, the more successful they can be. It’s a numbers game. If you were to have many wives/husbands being able to work, and look after the kids, it would be alot less stressful than doing it all by yourself or just with your partner. Like a couple of my friends that work in trades, if they’re on call after hours, if they had to do it day-in day-out, it takes it’s toll but when there’s more people involved, it’s alot less stressful for everyone individually(most of the time).

20

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Off the top of my head, I really don’t see any harm in it, but I’m open to debate on that.

IMO, it would seem that the bigger the team, the more successful they can be. It’s a numbers game. If you were to have many wives/husbands being able to work, and look after the kids, it would be alot less stressful than doing it all by yourself or just with your partner. Like a couple of my friends that work in trades, if they’re on call after hours, if they had to do it day-in day-out, it takes it’s toll but when there’s more people involved, it’s alot less stressful for everyone individually(most of the time).[/quote]

You aren’t married, are you?