I wonder how many in the LGBT community and those who support them will, in
turn, support the polygamists in their fight for marriage equality.Tyler Jensen======= I do.FYI -- Warren
Jeffs is sitting in prison right now for sex with a minor, and contributing to
the rape of a minor. Not for polygamy.
I see no way for the government to continue outlawing polygamous marriages or
any type of marriage with the reasoning used to win the LGBT case. Maybe the
Carpenters (brother and sister who wanted to marry)... were just ahead of their
time. They had to leave the US to be married, but they could have sued and won
in the US if they had tried.The reasoning used by the judge in this
case makes it clear that absolutely no restrictions can be tolerated (or you
would be denying someone "equal protection"). So obviously this opens
the door to every relationship possible.
Tyler, let's legalize all of it with one provision. All participants must
be of age and enter such relationships of their own "free mind and
will". Then we can finally concentrate on real issues that effect society
like educating and feeding our children, creating good paying jobs and pug the
economic drain the corporate world has given us.
Didn't a judge just throw a bone to the polygamist community a couple weeks
ago? That having been said, I don't think anybody is looking at this as
being open ended. I haven't heard anybody advocating for same sex marriage
also advocating for incest or forced marriage or child abuse. Same sex couples,
motivated by biology, appear to be looking for the benefits of a stable, long
term monogamous relationship between consenting adults. Polygamists, however,
are ideologically driven, by religion in this case, which has proven time and
again subject to all kinds of abuse.
Tyler;Just a note, polygamists already HAVE marriage equality. They
can marry ONE person of their choice. That's all that LGBT people have
been asking for: the right to marry ONE person of their choice.
Open Minded Mormon,I don't know that the government can continue
preventing 14 year olds from wedding now. That would not be equal protection
under the law (age discrimination). By that standard if you prevent a 14 year
old from marrying you could get sued!I think there are a lot of
unintended consequences from this ruling. We will just have to deal with them
as they come up. But it's clear that you can't pretend anybody who
wants to from marrying now. That would all be government discrimination of one
type or another and by this ruling... "illegal".
"I wonder how many in the LGBT community and those who support them will, in
turn, support the polygamists in their fight for marriage equality."Depends what you mean by support. I'm fine with it being
decriminalized. Legalizing it would be a mess since it'd be changing a
2-person contract (and no you can't just have a bunch of 2-person
contracts, the overlapping nature of it would leave a mess out of taxes and
@2 bits – “I don't know that the government can continue
preventing 14 year olds from wedding now. That would not be equal protection
under the law (age discrimination).”No…We
prevent 14 year olds from doing all sorts of things that do not create 14th
amendment issues – drinking, voting, driving, signing contracts, joining
the military, etc.Unless society undertakes a fundamental change in
its “of age” norms, this ruling will have no impact on stretching
I don't have a problem with polygamists marrying multiple women, or if a
woman wanted, marrying multiple men.The late Alex Joseph, founder of
the Utah town Big Water, was a polygamist who supported his wives, if they
wanted to go to college, or leave the family. He would give any of his wives
$1000 and a car if they wanted to go, and many did. At any given time he would
have 6-8 wives, and one of his wives was the Kane County attorney, educated at
the U of U law school.There was nothing coercive about this
arrangement, it's kind of hard to be opposed to that kind of freedom.
Tyler,That is the point of 2 bits post...We limit their
drinking, voting, driving, or whatever... That is denying them their 14
amendment rights (as told by Judge Shelby), who to say they are not of age? Who
set this arbitrary "Be of age" limit? Some idiot politician?My grandmother was married at the age of 14, raised 11 kids on farm down in
the south. She knew full well the what the implications of being married was and
took on the responsibilities.
I'm in favor of it. Discrimination is discrimination. Isn't it? Or am
I just being facetious?
Tyler D,That was the point of my post. All these restrictions based on
age could now be open to a law suit based on the "equal protection"
interpretation. At what age do people deserve equal protection or equal
rights? The judge didn't decide that in his ruling... but some judge will
have to some day.The same goes for age based discrimination on
drinking, smoking, etc. According to the judge's interpretation of equal
protection... it's government endorsed discrimination to not allow one
person to do what is allowed for another.So these "of age"
laws can be challenged in a court of law... and found
"unconstitutional". The precedent has been set and the judge has to
follow it. The only question is if anybody will challenge them.
As long as the old guys don't marry 14-year-old girls, and/or commit
welfare fraud, then what difference does it make?
@Confused and @2 bitsIt’s an interesting question with a
“slippery slope” logic to it, but again I see this as highly
unlikely given the fact that all societies either now or in history have
recognized some real/practical separation between adults & children, and for
a whole host of obvious reasons.Granted the exact age of a minor is
somewhat arbitrary but our entire legal system is based on arbitrary lines being
drawn (e.g., 65mph OK – above that you’re breaking the law). And as
you said, the question is not only who will challenge it but would it be a case
of such social importance as to rise to the level of Federal or Supreme Court
action? I doubt it…With respect to gay people, there have been
societies throughout history that have allowed their unions, their actions
don’t harm society, the prejudices against them are largely religious
and/or bigoted in nature, and there has been a significant constituency fighting
for equal rights for a long time. Where are the 14 year olds
clamoring to get married, vote or patronize bars?
@2 bitsThe slippery slope logic you use is basically the same as that used
by those who opposed interracial marriage. If you can't separate out the
differences between a white man marrying1. a black woman2. another
man3. multiple women4. a child5. a dog... well,
that's your problem.
What if my horse and I really do love each other?
I personally have no problem with polygamy being legally recognized but it seems
a different level of legal scrutiny would be applied because one's sexual
orientation is immutable and something you are born with (even the LDS Church
admits this) while polygamy typically is based on one's religious
persuasions (ie a choice) - I am unfamiliar with any precedent on an "I was
born a polygamist" argument. It'll be interesting to see how it plays
out in the courts.
The part of the story that Tyler Jensen left out was the probable truth that the
religious powers of the day influenced the government to pass a law requiring
marriage discrimination according to private religious belief. The same sort of
improper government action came about because of the power of religious
influence upon the government of Utah. Both cases violate the notion of freedom
of religion alluded to in the First Amendment. If a person pledges
to uphold the purpose, meaning and promises of the founding fathers and the
documents that they created, a person must temper their outward religious
activities to fit within the American creed. Believe as you will, but act
according to the rules of America.
Ranch,If your argument is that polygamists already have the same
right as others in marrying ONE person then the same "logic" can be used
to say that gays have always had the same rights as all people in being allowed
to marry someone of the opposite gender,If they don't want to,
well, polygamists don't want to marry just one. Disingenuous
and frankly very weak argument you make there.
It's kind of a strange concept to grasp, but minors do not have the same
Constitutional rights as an adult. You see, we have this thing called ages of
majority which is designed to determine when a child is mature enough to
exercise his or her rights responsibly. It's a wonderful means of
protection for our minors.
To compare the love of two human beings as the same as loving your pet says a
lot about who you are, and that racism would be easily accepted by someone who
could compare other humans to animals. The Idea that children are the same as
adults and would ever be treated as such is how absurd you have to get to defend
Polygamous groups are not similarly situated to couples. If one
member of a couple dies, there is only one person left to inherit the worldly
possessions of the deceased. There is only one person to make medical decisions
should the other one become incapacitated. There are many, many other examples.
All of our marriage laws and policies are based on couples. The gender of the
two people who comprise that couple makes no difference - neither does the
ability of that couple to reproduce. Having more than two people -
more than a couple - makes a huge difference. This difference may not be
insurmountable, but it does mean polygamous groups are not similarly situated
and there are a lot of legal questions and ramifications that would need to be
resolved before polygamy could be legalized. And remember, it
won't just be Adam and his several wives, but Eve and her several husbands,
and Lilith and her several spouses of both genders. And if Ben is married to
Mary and Esther, can Mary marry John while Esther marries Joe and Ben marries
Miriam? And if so, what is Miriam's relationship to Joe and John?
@Open Minded Mormon:"FYI -- Warren Jeffs is sitting in prison right
now for sex with a minor, and contributing to the rape of a minor. Not for
polygamy."Once same sex marriage becomes legal, polygamy is
next, then incest, then child marriages. If same sex marriages become legal so
should all other combinations of marriages be legal including the marriage that
Warren Jeffs entered into with the younger girls. Remember, he was married to
them. He's likely clapping his hands in sheer joy knowing that soon he may
be free. He has the LGBT's to thank.Let's say Texas
(where Jeffs was prosecuted and jailed) has to give in to same sex marriage,
Jeffs can run his case up to the US Supreme Court and get the same judgement on
polygamy and underage marriage. If not, he can surely claim discrimination...
@Ranch:"Just a note, polygamists already HAVE marriage equality. They
can marry ONE person of their choice."Polygamy is marrying
several people at the same time."That's all that LGBT
people have been asking for: the right to marry ONE person of their
choice."LGBT's can marry the person of their choice... so
long as that person is of the opposite sex. Just like anybody else.@atl134:"I'm fine with it being decriminalized."Decriminalizing is legalizing."Legalizing it would be a mess
since it'd be changing a 2-person contract (and no you can't just have
a bunch of 2-person contracts..."A person can have contracts
with more than one person at a time."... the overlapping nature
of it would leave a mess out of taxes and other issues."No
problem... just add more lines for spouses on IRS 1040 page one... Brigham
Young musta had such a situation with all his wives.@Tyler D:"We prevent 14 year olds from doing all sorts of things that do not create
14th amendment issues drinking, voting, driving, signing contracts, joining the
military, etc"That seems discriminatory under Shelby's
ruling using the 14th Amendment.
@CHS 85:"As long as the old guys don't marry 14-year-old
girls..."That would be discrimination under the 14th Amendment.
Didn't you read Judge Shelby's judgement?@Tyler D:"... I see this as highly unlikely given the fact that all societies
either now or in history have recognized some real/practical separation between
adults & children..."We're not talking other
'societies.' We're talking the 14th Amendment to this countries
constitution which does not allow discrimination per Judge Shelby."With respect to gay people, there have been societies throughout history
that have allowed their unions..."There have been societies
throughout history that have allowed children to marry... and to drink... and to
use marijuana..."Where are the 14 year olds clamoring to get
married, vote or patronize bars?"The issue has nothing to do
with 'clamoring.' The issue has to do with equal protection under the
law. Check out the 14th Amendment when you get a chance.@Stalwart
Sentinel:"...one's sexual orientation is immutable and something
you are born with..."Sexual orientation can be manged, with
effort. Gays have been known to marry the opposite sex, have children, and
enjoy the good life.
@Kalindra:"And remember, it won't just be Adam and his several
wives, but Eve and her several husbands, and Lilith and her several spouses of
both genders. And if Ben is married to Mary and Esther, can Mary marry John
while Esther marries Joe and Ben marries Miriam? And if so, what is
Miriam's relationship to Joe and John?"I think you've
put your finger on why marriage should be limited to just one man/one woman.
Allowing any other combination only opens the door to what you describe.
Confused; When you grandmother married at 14 she probably didn't even get a
license. No one cared and cities and counties didn't need the revenue.
Minors however have been a protected class since the beginning in common law.
Some "idiot politician" wouldn't get past public opinion or the
first court test of such a plan.Thid: Horsing around is your
business. But if it happens, please get back with me because I want to be there
when they file for a license.
WRZ: When you use a slippery slope argument, at least realize you are doing so
and that generally society has moved on from such "stop it now before it
gets out of hand" solutions. The classic example of the fallacy of your
argument is the domino theory that was widely accepted during the cold war
period. Communism had been on the rise since 1917 in Russia and the world map
was becoming increasingly "red" and was shown as such in textbooks.
Hence the logic was unassailable (at the time) that we had to stop communism in
Vietnam before it came to our shores. An eight year war and 55,000 dead proved
the fallacy and communism decayed of its own weight in twenty years later. Because same sex marriage is abhorrent to you does not mean that "we
are going to hell in a hand basket" only that on this one issue the public
sentiment has changed.
@Chris B & wrz;Investigate the term and meaning of
"similarly situated". Then get back with me.@Tyler D:"We prevent 14 year olds from doing all sorts of things that do not create
14th amendment issues drinking, voting, driving, signing contracts, joining the
military, etc.That seems discriminatory under Shelby's ruling
using the 14th Amendment."--- Not if we treat ALL 14 year olds
in the same manner. (see above comment about "similarly situated").
I have left a contribution before on how the two lifestyles don't compare
in the number of people involved and in the problems involved. Different courts
handle these issues and I believe that while gay marriage will be legalized
everywhere, polygamy will not with it's problems. A judge recently
"decriminalized" polygamy as long as those involved keep the law. These
laws include no bigamy (legally marrying someone else), underage brides, child
abuse and welfare fraud. The polygamy communities have not been known to keep
these laws well, so I don't believe they will thrive.
Hardly Chris B. When you have more than two people a whole new body of law to
deal with it needs to be drawn up. Personally I have no problem with
poly-whatever as long as it isn't abusive.
This, your horse can't consent to a contract. So sorry.
The LGBT community is kind of in a tough spot on this one.If they
don't now support every group who wants government recognition of any
arbitrary extension to the definition of marriage, then they are hypocrites.(this is why I think extending the marriage definition at all is a bad
idea because it open this can of worms)
I agree with "Hutterite"....and also believe that gay marriage is TWO
people looking for equality to have the same rights under the law as traditional
married couples. While polygamous marriages are shown to have many inherent
problems related to their numbers and also the fact that this causes 2nd class
citizenship of women and young girls.