Federal Judge Strikes Down Utah Anti-Polygamy Law

[BehindBlueI's]

Because the legal reasoning is beyond strained just as it was in California district court for the gay marriage ban.

From the article you quoted:

In other words, as reconstructed by the court, people who are married by the state already can’t get married a second time. But people who are already legally married are allowed to live with other people as if they are married to those other people, and to hold themselves out as being married to those other people, as long as they do not try to get married to those other people

Help me out, what's wrong with that?

1) State has the authority to define marriage.
2) State does not have the authority of telling you what other adults you can live/have sex with, regardless of that person's marital status.

What standing does the state have to punish infidelity?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

What standing does the state have to punish infidelity?

Standing? You mean by what power to the states have to punish infidelity? That would be by the Constitution.

The problem is that, yet again, wants become needs become fundamental rights via the magic of a federal court.

Rather than abide by the Constitution and allow the states to make these definitions (see also abortion, sodomy, gay marriage, etc) we will get five demigods in black telling us how to live.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Standing? You mean by what power to the states have to punish infidelity? That would be by the Constitution.

The problem is that, yet again, wants become needs become fundamental rights via the magic of a federal court.

Rather than abide by the Constitution and allow the states to make these definitions (see also abortion, sodomy, gay marriage, etc) we will get five demigods in black telling us how to live.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. The "five demigods" aren't telling us how to live, they are telling the legislature they can't tell us how to live in these matters. Not one court decision tells you that you have to engage in abortion, sodomy, gay marriage, or polygamy. You still get to choose how YOU live, you just don't get to decide how your neighbor lives, and that's apparently the rub for the social conservatives.

The freedom to associate with others of your own choosing is such a fundamental personal right, I think its going to take some serious legal gymnastics to claim its constitutional to tell someone they can't live with a person because that person is married.

 

[traderdan]

You... Who wish to destroy the fabric of our nation, Who cheer the belittling of the traditional family...Do not weep when your Nation crumbles, and your hard earned wealth is absorbed, by those void of the moral background that would teach them to provide for their own.
I do not believe that the state should meddle in the personal sexual affairs of the individual, I believe that the community as a whole must abhor behavior that is counterproductive to the common good.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Not one court decision tells you that you have to engage in abortion, sodomy, gay marriage, or polygamy.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with Long Beach, Indiana's contribution to federal constitutional law?

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Perhaps you are unaware that if you disagree with any of your parade items that you have to pay for them? How is taxation not force?

The point being is that the Supreme Court is telling the states how to run their states regarding issues that are not constitutional rights. It is an outrage upholding wants=>needs=>rights.

Polygamy is just another wants train on its way to becoming a constitutional right.

 

[mrjarrell]

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with Long Beach, Indiana's contribution to federal constitutional law?

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Perhaps you are unaware that if you disagree with any of your parade items that you have to pay for them? How is taxation not force?

The point being is that the Supreme Court is telling the states how to run their states regarding issues that are not constitutional rights. It is an outrage upholding wants=>needs=>rights.

Polygamy is just another wants train on its way to becoming a constitutional right.

Polygamy as a form of marriage has been a norm for as long as people have been gathering together in tribes. Even the religious right cannot escape this as fact, as their holy book has numerous examples of it. It's not a want, it's an ignored norm.

 

[88GT]

From the article you quoted:


Help me out, what's wrong with that?

1) State has the authority to define marriage.
2) State does not have the authority of telling you what other adults you can live/have sex with, regardless of that person's marital status.

What standing does the state have to punish infidelity?

I'd say a more accurate representation of reality is that the state has usurped the authority to define marriage. The state has no business in marriage. Though I will concede that it can define primary "spousal" relationships to prioritize rights of succession and the like.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

It's not a want, it's an ignored norm.

Uh huh and the same can be said of the abhorent practice of sex with children.

If polygamy or sex with children is such an ignored norm, why have the federal courts create rights in the penumbra? Won't the legislatures of the several states simply not lift prohibitions against polygamy?

Polygamy is the next logical want to become a right but others will be down the pike shortly.

The state has every Constitutional power to build a gallows next to the funeral pyre.

 

[88GT]

The line is simple, fellas. Use of force. Norm, tradition, whatever ain't got nothing to do with it.

 

[hornadylnl]

Pastor said this morning that historians believe Mary was about 13-14 and Joseph was around 25. Off to the gallows with Joseph.

 

[hornadylnl]

You... Who wish to destroy the fabric of our nation, Who cheer the belittling of the traditional family...Do not weep when your Nation crumbles, and your hard earned wealth is absorbed, by those void of the moral background that would teach them to provide for their own.
I do not believe that the state should meddle in the personal sexual affairs of the individual, I believe that the community as a whole must abhor behavior that is counterproductive to the common good.

Collective Good. I thought those 2 words were kryptonite to conservatives.

 

[xryan.jacksonx]

You... Who wish to destroy the fabric of our nation, Who cheer the belittling of the traditional family...Do not weep when your Nation crumbles, and your hard earned wealth is absorbed, by those void of the moral background that would teach them to provide for their own.
I do not believe that the state should meddle in the personal sexual affairs of the individual, I believe that the community as a whole must abhor behavior that is counterproductive to the common good.

Take one of your guns and go use it to regulate the behavior of consenting adults yourself. Doing it via proxy through the police gives you no moral credit.

 

[Trigger Time]

I have no problem with how people live their lives in private as long as all parties are adults and agreeable. (No abused or underage sex with kids Ect). But why in the hell any man would want more than 1 wife has me puzzled! I can understand multiple **** buddies, but multiple wives! You gotta be nuts! Hell not to mention that most wives get jealous if the waitress smiles at their husband too much, so how would they handle sharing him with other women?
if they want to live life in a constant living hell, I say go for it. Not my fantasy!

 

[John Galt]

 

[Leadeye]

I wonder how much money will be generated for law firms over these issues.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

The line is simple, fellas. Use of force. Norm, tradition, whatever ain't got nothing to do with it.

Really? So you think that 1-2% of the population deserves to dictate social behaviors for the other 98-99%? Is this what you believe?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with Long Beach, Indiana's contribution to federal constitutional law?

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Perhaps you are unaware that if you disagree with any of your parade items that you have to pay for them? How is taxation not force?

The point being is that the Supreme Court is telling the states how to run their states regarding issues that are not constitutional rights. It is an outrage upholding wants=>needs=>rights.

Polygamy is just another wants train on its way to becoming a constitutional right.

A Conscienctious objector still pays taxes, and some of that tax money will support the military, but they aren't being drafted into the military and handed a rifle. Your taxes going to things you don't agree with and being "told how to live" are completely different things.

Freedom of association and equal protection certainly are constitutional rights. Did you read the filing?

The right of the state to criminalize polygamous marriage is not even an issue in this case. The plaintiff isn't even calling into question that a state can criminalize the issuance of multiple marriage licenses, but believes the state cannot criminalize free association of consenting individuals.

 

[hornadylnl]

Really? So you think that 1-2% of the population deserves to dictate social behaviors for the other 98-99%? Is this what you believe?

So you are currently in a same sex or polygamous relationship because the 1-2% forced you into it?

 

[blue2golf]

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.

Hmm. Our Western version of marriage has served our culture well for centuries now. Celebrating it's mutation is quite the definition of "short sighted."

 

[HeadlessRoland]

So you are currently in a same sex or polygamous relationship because the 1-2% forced you into it?

Yes. The second wife insisted that I get a first wife, and the fifth wife insisted on the fourth, who really wanted a third. But it was the seventh who really was the pushiest about the whole thing.

Their right to be deviant exists until they attempt to infringe upon my right not to have to acknowledge their deviancy. If someone really likes their goat, they can 'marry' their goat. But I refuse to acknowledge their goat-love as legitimate. The same goes for homosexuality, bestiality, and all the rest of the deviancy masquerading as the oppressed in this world: "You're not acknowledging our love as legitimate, we're oppressed!" They can do as they please, but I refuse to acknowledge it as legitimate, which is really what they're pushing for. Tolerance is no longer acceptable. Forced acceptance is the new minimum: "You won't bake us a cake or acknowledge our love as legitimate! We're oppressed!" If consenting adults want to do whatever in the bedroom until they're sore, I say go for it, no skin off my nose. But do not attempt to utilize the State to force me to try to acknowledge deviancy as legitimate.