Polygamous family has sued Utah

[liberty]

This is hypocrisy; a man can live with as many women as are willing as long as he does not call them his wives. What business is it of our's how people conduct their personal lives as long as no one is being harmed?__________________________________________________________________________

http://news.yahoo.com/sister-wives-fami ... 01794.html

....SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — Kody Brown and his four wives want what any family wants, to live in the privacy of their own home free from government intrusion, and out from under the threat of criminal prosecution for — as they see it — just loving each other.

The polygamous family, stars of the TLC show "Sister Wives," has sued Utah and the county they fled from, hoping to persuade a federal judge to overturn the state's bigamy law as unconstitutional.

The case could potentially decriminalize a way of life for tens of thousands of self-described Mormon fundamentalists, most of whom live in Utah where bigamy is a third-degree felony punishable by up to five years in prison.

The state, meanwhile, has publicly said it won't prosecute consenting adult polygamists unless there are other crimes involved, but insists the law doesn't overreach.

"It is not protected under religious freedom because states have the right to regulate marriage," said Paul Murphy, spokesman for Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff.

A hearing was set for Wednesday on a motion to dismiss the case after prosecutors in Utah County, where the family had been living until last year, announced no criminal charges would be filed against the Browns under the state's bigamy statute.

The move came after Shurtleff assured the Browns they wouldn't be prosecuted by the state under his policy that consenting adult polygamists won't be charged as long as they're not committing other crimes.

U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups then dismissed Shurtleff and Gov. Gary Herbert from the lawsuit, but allowed it to continue against the county since, at the time, prosecutors there hadn't officially adopted the same policy. That changed in May when Utah County Attorney Jeff Buhman announced the closing of his criminal investigation into the Brown's lifestyle, simultaneously adopting the state policy.

Buhman, who didn't return a call from The Associated Press, is seeking to have the lawsuit dismissed outright. He claims the Browns have no standing since they are no longer subject to prosecution.

No matter, claims their attorney, Washington, D.C., constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley.

Brown and his wives — Meri, Janelle, Christine and Robyn — remain victims and continue to live under the stigma of being considered felons, Turley said, noting they fled to Nevada last year.

It's no longer just about being prosecuted, Turley argued.

"The underlying statute is facially unconstitutional," he said.

Turley argues that under previous U.S. Supreme Court rulings, such as one that struck down Texas' sodomy law, private intimate relationships between consenting adults are constitutionally protected.

While all states outlaw bigamy, some like Utah have laws that not only prohibit citizens from having more than one marriage license, but also make it illegal to even purport to be married to multiple partners. Utah's bigamy statute even bans unmarried adults from living together and having a sexual relationship.

The latter provision could include same-sex couples, unmarried heterosexual couples and those, like the Browns, who don't have multiple licenses but live in a marriage-like relationship.

Their lawsuit doesn't aim to challenge Utah's right to refuse recognition of multiple licenses, nor are the Browns seeking them, Turley said. They just want to be left alone, he added, and not labeled felons.

In fact, Utah's statehood was granted in the 1890s under the condition that plural marriage — which was then openly practiced by members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — would be banned in the state constitution.

The practice has been illegal under federal law in the U.S. since the 1860s. In 1887 and 1890, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected legal challenges of the ban that argued that First Amendment protections should guarantee the right to continue the practice.

The Browns are members of the Apostolic United Brethren and say they practice polygamy as part of their religious beliefs.

And like most polygamists, Brown only has a valid marriage license with his first wife, Meri. He married the other three in religious ceremonies. They consider themselves "spiritually married."

Fewer than a dozen Utah cases have challenged the law — none successfully. It has most commonly been used to prosecute polygamists typically when the defendants were also charged with other crimes, like child abuse. The criminal investigation into Warren Jeffs, for instance, and his polygamous Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints group, began as a probe into child sex abuse allegations.

He is now serving a life sentence in Texas after convictions on child sex and bigamy charges.

Some experts liken the issue to gay marriage or sodomy bans, but note neither carries the historical stigma that comes with polygamy.

"In many ways, the movement for the rights of polygamists has just not advanced enough to the point where the claim is going to seem legitimate to the courts," said Stanford University constitutional law expert Jane Schacter.

She noted there is "much more acceptance of gay couples, of homosexuality in general."

Polygamy "opens up a whole can of legal worms that is not really opened with the same sex marriage issue," Schacter said, noting polygamy throughout history has been associated with underage marriages and child sex abuse.

Regardless of whether there are polygamous relationships among consenting adults where no other crimes are occurring, the historical stigma persists, she said.

"It's not an issue I think will be laughed out of court, but I don't think it is poised for a victory at this point," Schacter added. "Contemporary law under the First Amendment regarding the exercise of religion is just not very friendly to the claims of polygamists."

..

[dgs49]

The great prophet Ricky Santorum predicted that the acceptance of gay "marriage" was step #1, to be followed by other relational absurdities.

Exhibit B has arrived.

Essentially ALL of the arguments in favor of gay marriage also support multiple-spouse arrangements among consenting adults.


Brothers & sisters next?

[liberty]

The great prophet Ricky Santorum predicted that the acceptance of gay "marriage" was step #1, to be followed by other relational absurdities.

Exhibit B has arrived.

Essentially ALL of the arguments in favor of gay marriage also support multiple-spouse arrangements among consenting adults.


Brothers & sisters next?

Would it really matter if some guy down the street has wives?

[Scooter]

A complete debunking of the ridiculous slippery slope argument that recognition of same-sex marriage must lead to legal recognition of polygamy, including a number of public policy considerations that would make legal recognition of polygamy problematic.

[liberty]

A complete debunking of the ridiculous slippery slope argument that recognition of same-sex marriage must lead to legal recognition of polygamy, including a number of public policy considerations that would make legal recognition of polygamy problematic.

Why are you opposed to polygamy; it seems that you would be more tolerant than most?

[Sue U]

Why are you opposed to polygamy; it seems that you would be more tolerant than most?

Why would you think that?

[dgs49]

It's a "complete debunking" because you wrote it?

I'm sure that hundreds of people who actually understand the constitutional issues and believe that it is a legitimate question would be quite surprised to know that the question is settled.

Asshole.

[Grim Reaper]

Oh look, a childish tantrum to avoid actually debating the response.

[Big RR]

While it has absolutely nothing to do with the recognition of gay marriage, I see nothing wrong with polygamy under the same rules of support, etc.

I'm sure some imbeciles would have previously said, see if you allow different races to marry, it will lead to polygamy, etc. One has nothing to do with the other.

[rubato]

In "conservative world" the things that lead to polygamy are:

Reading books.
Art.
Sex.
Good Sex.
Good Art.
Not bashing homosexuals.
Not bashing homosexuals who are 'out'.
Smoking Marijuana.
Not hating all of the people that you are supposed to hate.
Not being angry all the time.

&c

[Crackpot]

And Rubato hates everything else.

[Lord Jim]

In "conservative world" the things that lead to polygamy are:

Reading books.
Art.
Sex.
Good Sex.
Good Art.
Not bashing homosexuals.
Not bashing homosexuals who are 'out'.
Smoking Marijuana.
Not hating all of the people that you are supposed to hate.
Not being angry all the time.

&c

Incoherent blithering.

yrs,
rubato

Fixed....


See rube, that's a perfect example of what I was talking about when I said you could save yourself a whole lotta keystrokes....

[liberty]

Look how logical polygamy could be: say for example a conservative man has four wives; two wives could go into the work force and support the family. One wife could stay home and dedicate herself to having as many conservative babies as possible. The husband would stay to home to supervise and father the children in the conservative life style. The end result would be a more stable society.

[dgs49]

The point is simply this: IF the [fictitious] Constitutional Right of Privacy prevent states from criminalizing private acts of sodomy between consenting adults, and

IF the same Constitutional right (and perhaps the "privileges and immunities" language of the 14th Amendment) requires the states to recognize same-sex marriages in the same way that it recognizes heterosexual marriages,

THEN, what grounds could the states possibly have for prohibiting consensual marriages by unrelated, competent adults in numbers greater than two (2)?

Just as sodomy laws were made to to "Poof!" so could bigamy laws, eh?

One could say that this would create a nightmare of administrative difficulty when it comes to later questions of divorce & alimony, child support, custody, inheritance, and so forth, but one (that is, a State) cannot fuck with the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS of its citizens simply because to grant them creates some inconvenience.

Strange things begin to happen sometimes when you carry a silly assertion ("Marriage" means whatever I WANT it to mean!") to its logical conclusion.

[liberty]

Polygamy is the only lifestyle that will make sense in the future. It will take one husband and six wives in order maintain a decent standard of living. For higher income earners two working wives may be sufficient, but for most families it will take minimum four working wives. Now, I can hear what you are thinking; why should the husband not work. Well with six wives and children the husband will need to be home to supervise and settle disputes. In order to make the transition work smoothly polygamy should be taught in public schools as a viable life style starting in the earliest grades.

Some feminist might think why not one woman and six men. That would never work; men are too aggressive to share a woman.

[Sue U]

The point is simply this: IF the [fictitious] Constitutional Right of Privacy prevent states from criminalizing private acts of sodomy between consenting adults, and

IF the same Constitutional right (and perhaps the "privileges and immunities" language of the 14th Amendment) requires the states to recognize same-sex marriages in the same way that it recognizes heterosexual marriages,

THEN, what grounds could the states possibly have for prohibiting consensual marriages by unrelated, competent adults in numbers greater than two (2)?

Just as sodomy laws were made to to "Poof!" so could bigamy laws, eh?

One could say that this would create a nightmare of administrative difficulty when it comes to later questions of divorce & alimony, child support, custody, inheritance, and so forth, but one (that is, a State) cannot fuck with the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS of its citizens simply because to grant them creates some inconvenience.

Strange things begin to happen sometimes when you carry a silly assertion ("Marriage" means whatever I WANT it to mean!") to its logical conclusion.

First of all, it's neither the right to privacy nor the Priviliges and Immunities clause that is the Constitutional basis for making marriage available to same-sex couples. so your "point" is at best fallacious. It is instead the fundamental liiberty interest in marriage and the equal protection of law guaranteed by the Constitution. Therefore, it is the burden of the state (and those who oppose same-sex marriage) to demonstrate a compelling government interest in denying this fundamental liberty right on the basis of gender. (By the way, there is none.)

Moreover, marriage does in fact mean whatever the state wants it to mean -- short of violating constitutional guarantees -- because the state provides the legal framework for creating it, dissolving it, adjudicating the rghts and responsibilities of its participants and protecting its issue.

None of this implicates any fundamental right to polygamy, nor does the First Amendment under the guise of "religious freedom." Religious freedom does not mean freedom to do whatever one's religion "commands." Laws of general application that restrict religious practices are constitutionally valid as long as they are not simply a pretext for religious discrimination. (Justice Scalia has been very clear on this point.)

[Sue U]

. . . . .

I know you think you are being clever, but you should probably think again.

[liberty]

. . . . .

I know you think you are being clever, but you should probably think again.

Well then Sue, tell me why not, why should women be denied the support of sister wives and a man be denied multiple wives? What is wrong with it other than you are prejudice against it for some personal reason?

[Sue U]

For starters:

Legal recognition of plural marriages would give rise to a plethora of complications not present in marriages between two people only. For starters, determining who is married to whom - is one person married to all of the others, or is everyone married to everyone else, or some hybrid thereof? Are children born into the marriage automatically the legal children of all of the adults in the marriage, or do the non-biological parents have to adopt them? Is there any limit on the number of spouses that one person can claim as dependents for purposes of taxation, social assistance, employer-paid health benefits, etc.? What would happen if one spouse were to engage in physical violence with another? Would one or the other, or both, have to be removed from the family home, to the detriment of their relationships with all of the others? There are ten distinct relationships in a marriage of four people. That carries with it at least ten times the risk of a marital breakdown, in which case the state will have to use its power as arbiter. What would a marital breakdown mean? Does the desire of a single member of the marriage to leave it mean the marital bonds among all the others are dissolved, or not? Who would be responsible for financially supporting whom? Who would be responsible for paying child support, and for which children? These are questions for which it would be impossible to impose uniform answers to every plural marriage and which would therefore make it impossible to formulate a coherent body of family law.

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=5457&p=66308&hilit ... %2A#p66308

Moreover, because marriage is a status created by the state, the test of Constitutional conformance is whether the law involves invidious discrimination. If you can identify the improper discriminatory effect (race, religion, sex) of a law resrticting marriage to two people, you might be on to something.

The question is not whether states should allow plural marriage; it is whether it would be unconstitutional to prohibit it. If a state figured out a way to make it workable, there is nothing that would prevent the state from sanctioning plural marriages. However, if a state simply restricts marriage to two persons, there is no recognized constitutional basis to invalidate that law.

[liberty]

For starters:

url]viewtopic.php?f=12&t=5457&p=66308&hilit ... %2A#p66308[/url]

Moreover, because marriage is a status created by the state, the test of Constitutional conformance is whether the law involves invidious discrimination. If you can identify the improper discriminatory effect (race, religion, sex) of a law resrticting marriage to two people, you might be on to something.

familial discrimination Or, can they can only be family if you say so?