Leave it to Utah --- Where they'll throw you in jail for
pan-handling, vehicle lisense expiration, burned-out tail-lights, spitting out
chewing gum, and jay-walking...But completely ignore and never
enforce speeding, running red-lights, and Bigamy laws.
LDS Liberal. That's a pretty wide generalization. I'm aware of many
individuals receiving tickets for speeding and running red lights. I don't
think it's completely ignored. And I know of no one going to jail for the
infractions you list, though I have to admit, I don't know everyone. But I
would guess there would have to be far more involved for someone to be jailed
for gum spitting. Seriously, I know sarcasm when I see it. That
said, however, this particular issue, (polygamy) is as relevant right now as it
has ever been, if not more so. With all the clamour in the news recently about
marriage and relationships, how can the status of polygamy not become an issue
as well? And why should it not be visited with the same passion as other
"alternative union" issues?
I support Kody Brown, They should get rid of these laws let people live the way
they believe as long as no abuse is going on and it is not forced on someone or
minors. Plus if they prosecute him they need to go after anyone cohabiting,
involved in adultery, homosexual relationships etc he is only legally married to
Meri Brown. it was wrong for our country to force the LDS Church to abandon the
practice of plural marriage it violated the constitution freedom of religion at
that time. Funny they do not go after Muslims or others that come to this
country as polygamists.
Amazing that people still engage in the false-equivalency of labeling homosexual
and polygamist relationships "alternative unions." Almost as if
they've never met a homosexual in their entire lives.Quick
challenge to trekker and other pro-polygamists:Name a culture that
(a) practiced polygamy without (b) devolving into rampant child sex-abuse,
incest, and male-killing/banishment. Go ahead. Name one.BTW: I
thought the Church stopped practicing polygamy pursuant to God's
revelation, not our country's force. Am I wrong?
JCH: yes, actually, you are wrong. Read the manifesto written by Wilford
Woodruff. Not a word about revelation. There is ample evidence that the church
continued to practice Polygamy in Canada, Mexico, and the Pacific after the
manifesto. The church promised to stop solemnizing plural marriages in the
United States because the Federal Government had branded them criminals, hunted
them down, jailed them, taken away their right to vote, and seized their
property. Also because it was the only way they could achieve statehood, elect
their own legislature, and enact their own laws.It wasn't until
early in the 20th century that prophets like Joseph F. Smith started teaching
that the Lord had given a revelation ending the practice of plural marriage.As to your challenge: The LDS church in the 1800s was able to practice
polygamy without all of the issues you listed. There were some individuals and
groups who separated themselves from the main body of the church so that they
could do those things, but the main body did not.
I will say one more thing. Wilford Woodruff does state in some of his addresses
that he was commanded by the Lord to write and issue the Manifesto (different
from being commanded to end the practice of plural marriage). He is also very
clear in pointing out that he was instructed to do so only because if he did not
do so then the government would seize everything, including the temples.So, there was "revelation" involved which directed the prophet
to write the Manifesto. But not revelation to stop the practice of polygamy.
Not until later.
There should be no law against polygamy. Are we as a country really dumb enough
to allow people who are single to have sexual relationships with as many girls
they want, whenever they want, and sometimes at the same time, but then as soon
as they want to marry them it becomes illegal?? That is the idiocy surrounding
that law. It all parties are consenting adults then they should be able to live
as they choose. No law exists that says you can't have sexual relations
with 100 girls in a week, but the second you want to marry 2 of them it is
illegal. That is rediculous. The underage thing is a whole other matter, and
should be prosecuted as the crime that it is.
I will be interested to see how Nevada handles this situation with the Brown
family. Will they prosecute? Will they ignore their anti-polygamy laws? And
what, if anything, will the Federal Government do? As I remember the history on
this subject, the Federal Government rounded up any polygamists they found in
the late 19th century and jailed them. They don't seem to do that now, but
expect the states to enforce the Federal Law.Just like Utah, Nevada
will be caught 'between a rock and a hard place.'
Adultery was also once illegal, and it seems to be anywhere from a joke, to
something to get away with if you can, to a tragedy, to a cause for diddolution
of marriage if/instead of state laws for no-fault divorce. Premarital sex was
also frowned on, and still statutory rape laws exist, and are even known to
apply when the girl is over 18. Yet as frowned on as it is, it happens, as was
noted, and is even, especially among males, congratulated. Of course, females
are behaving just as badly lately. Doesn't anyone have anything else to
think about, except what other people do in their bedrooms, homes, their houses
of worship, by themselves? Get a life, folks, and let everyone else have their
free will, as long as their free will isn't getting in the way of someone
who cannot make theirs known, or is being forced or coerced to do
another's. You who are LDS should recognise that as something we believe in
and something we should be not forcing others to do by legislating them to do
the collective will of the group.
JCH,How about Islam? Islam has not devolved 'into rampant child
sex-abuse, incest, and male-killing/banishment'. In Indonesia it is legal
to have as many as four wives unless you are a civil servant or in the military.
For a man to take a 2nd wife the first wife must agree or be disabled or be
unable to have children and the man must be able to financially support all his
wives equally. While there are protests there against polygamy there is a study
that found polygamous politicians were overwhelming more popular with female
voters than monogamous politicians!Is it better to have it
formalized with polygamy or informalized and called other names, including
'having a mistress' and adultery? How about 'sexual
networking' by Nigerians, 'parallel relationships' by the Finns
or 'simultaneous multi-partnerships' by the French? You
could always argue that men and women should only have one sexual/emotional
partner, but that hasn't yet come close to being true in all of recorded
history and I don't hold much hope for our lifetime.People
should be allowed to do what they want as long as they don't harm others.
The state also has anti fornication and anti adultery laws it doesn't
If a wife (or husband) becomes disabled and thus unable to perform as a wife or
husband, the husband or wife ought to be able to legally take an other
spouse.If not the alternatives are to put your life on ice, divorce
your spouse, or bread Utah's adultery law.
JCH. I "labeled" polygamy as an alternative union because, thus far, it
is illegal, and therefore something other than the culturally "accepted"
norm. But some people are just as passionate about it as others are about
homosexuality.My comment is not an attempt to vote yes or no either
way. Nor am I attempting to "challenge" any one's position, belief
or leaning. (Though I think your "challenge" was answered.) I'm
just noting that societally the discussion is wide open right now and every one
is entitled to their opinion, including you.However, I find it
amazing that someone as passionate about homosexuality as you appear to be, is
so quick to tear into someone elses closely held beliefs. Shouldn't it be a matter of choice?
NedGrimley: I think this is really the underlying problem, not plural marriage
or homosexuality. The problem is that parties on both sides of any issue are
unwilling to tolerate the fact that parties on the opposite side have different