Federal Judge Strikes Down Utah Anti-Polygamy Law

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • mrjarrell

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 18, 2009
    19,986
    63
    Hamilton County
    Yet another blow struck for getting government out of marriage and enlarging the freedom of consenting adults to interact as they please. No doubt the Utah legislature will move to correct their law and make it more in line with the courts decision, rather than just chucking it and letting people live free. Of course the critics against marriage equality are going to be up in arms saying, "We told ya so!!!".

    Federal Judge Strikes Down Anti-Polygamy Law | Utah Political Capitol
     

    blue2golf

    Expert
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 13, 2008
    1,130
    99
    Evansville
    More marriage mutation. Marriage will always be one man + one woman. Besides, I've found that one wife is enough for me to handle.
     

    BehindBlueI's

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    29   0   0
    Oct 3, 2012
    25,890
    113
    Of course the critics against marriage equality are going to be up in arms saying, "We told ya so!!!".

    Then they didn't read the article. It doesn't strike down the anti-polygamy law in that it now allows polygamous marriage. It simply says the current law is too broad.

    The law currently reads that “ A person is guilty of bigamy when, knowing he has a husband or wife or knowing the other person has a husband or wife, the person purports to marry another person or cohabits with another person.”

    Kody Brown, who is only legally married to Meri, made no attempts to legally marry his other wives and made no attempts to defraud other individuals or the state in regards to this fact.

    the court reemphasized the fact that the state has an important role in regulating marriage, but only in the legal sense.

    So what changed? You can now cohabitate with someone you know is married, but still can't marry more than one person. I wonder when the last time that law was enforced...
     

    Birds Away

    ex CZ afficionado.
    Emeritus
    Rating - 100%
    18   0   0
    Aug 29, 2011
    76,248
    113
    Monticello
    "Marriage" is a religious distinction. In so far as the gubmint is concerned they should pass a law for civil contracts between individual adults. They should not refer to it as marriage but as a civil union, regardless of who is involved. If someone wants to get "married" let them do so as they wish because it would have no standing in law or the courts.
     

    mrjarrell

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 18, 2009
    19,986
    63
    Hamilton County
    More marriage mutation. Marriage will always be one man + one woman. Besides, I've found that one wife is enough for me to handle.
    How many wives did Solomon have? Or many of the patriarchs of the OT? Sorry, marriage has been many things in many cultures for many thousands of years. But, it's never been one thing. It's always been more than what some short sighted individuals would have it to be.
     
    Last edited:

    mrjarrell

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 18, 2009
    19,986
    63
    Hamilton County
    "Marriage" is a religious distinction. In so far as the gubmint is concerned they should pass a law for civil contracts between individual adults. They should not refer to it as marriage but as a civil union, regardless of who is involved. If someone wants to get "married" let them do so as they wish because it would have no standing in law or the courts.
    That doesn't sound unreasonable.
     

    BehindBlueI's

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    29   0   0
    Oct 3, 2012
    25,890
    113
    If anyone's interested beyond the headline, here's the original filing:

    Complaint | Kody Brown, et al. v. Gary Herbert, Governor of Utah, et al. | Tyson B. Snow - JDSupra

    It doesn't even ask for legal marriage among polygamists, just the right to live with multiple partners without government interference. It also claims uneven enforcement, as the only reason the Brown family was targeted was because they were on some television show, which was apparently corroborated.

    I haven't found a free source for the decision yet.
     

    GodFearinGunTotin

    Super Moderator
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 22, 2011
    50,582
    113
    Mitchell
    Where in the Constitution is it prohibited for the states to govern what constitutes a legal marriage?

    The modern interpretation of the 14th, I'm guessing.
     

    BehindBlueI's

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    29   0   0
    Oct 3, 2012
    25,890
    113
    Where in the Constitution is it prohibited for the states to govern what constitutes a legal marriage?

    The modern interpretation of the 14th, I'm guessing.

    Where in this decision is legal marriage addressed? Ah, only in confirming the state's role in regulating it. "the court reemphasized the fact that the state has an important role in regulating marriage, but only in the legal sense."

    Cassandra has told you it is coming, but people do not believe her.

    Maybe, maybe not, but this isn't it. Would these folks arrangement have been illegal in Indiana? No one tried to legally marry two partners, so bigamy doesn't apply. Exactly what in this decision is an assault on any definition of legal marriage?


     

    Kirk Freeman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Mar 9, 2008
    47,969
    113
    Lafayette, Indiana
    Exactly what in this decision is an assault on any definition of legal marriage?

    Because the legal reasoning is beyond strained just as it was in California district court for the gay marriage ban. Nothing more than "get result, work backwards" that will set the table for striking down polygamy, bestiality, sex with children, inter alia.

    Beyond the strange legal reasoning of a federal court setting the table: The Reasoning of the Utah Opinion Partially Striking Down and Rewriting the State's Bigamy Law | The Volokh ConspiracyThe Volokh Conspiracy
     

    mrjarrell

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 18, 2009
    19,986
    63
    Hamilton County
    Because the legal reasoning is beyond strained just as it was in California district court for the gay marriage ban. Nothing more than "get result, work backwards" that will set the table for striking down polygamy, bestiality, sex with children, inter alia.

    Beyond the strange legal reasoning of a federal court setting the table: The Reasoning of the Utah Opinion Partially Striking Down and Rewriting the State's Bigamy Law | The Volokh ConspiracyThe Volokh Conspiracy

    Ummm...you really think that same sex marriage is going to lead to beastiality and legalised pedophilia?
     

    GodFearinGunTotin

    Super Moderator
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 22, 2011
    50,582
    113
    Mitchell
    Ummm...you really think that same sex marriage is going to lead to beastiality and legalised pedophilia?

    As you're one of the ones that cheer at the redefining of various traditional values/norms, why would you presume your version of right and wrong will be the one that should prevail over the long run?
     
    Last edited:

    hornadylnl

    Shooter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Nov 19, 2008
    21,505
    63
    Ummm...you really think that same sex marriage is going to lead to beastiality and legalised pedophilia?

    One day, homosexuals are an insignificant 1.5%. The next, they will destroy the institution of marriage and no child or animal is safe from their depravity.

    Which is it?
     

    mrjarrell

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 18, 2009
    19,986
    63
    Hamilton County
    One day, homosexuals are an insignificant 1.5%. The next, they will destroy the institution of marriage and no child or animal is safe from their depravity.

    Which is it?
    Hard to tell with this crowd. Kirk's coming from out in right field. Can't tell if he's serious of being facetious. I am certain that he should know better.
     

    patience0830

    .22 magician
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 96.6%
    28   1   0
    Nov 3, 2008
    17,589
    149
    Not far from the tree
    The comparison is apples to oranges... but at this point... what other ridiculous argument can they make?


    Not sure about the applies to oranges thing. There's some percentage of the population that loves their dog just as much as the average 1 1/2%er and wishes he could give his/her dog legal standing to inherit and visit them in hospital. Not really that far fetched, is it?
     

    HeadlessRoland

    Shooter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Aug 8, 2011
    3,521
    63
    In the dark
    1-2% is a statistical anomaly, but instead of writing it off as a blip on the radar of normalcy, we're supposed to accede to the demands of that statistical blip because they make a lot of noise and wave flags and make television shows? Interesting. "E'erybody in the club gettin' mo' wives!" "Wives, wives everywhere!"
     
    Top Bottom