Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Utah Polygamist Invokes Ruling on Gay Sex
AP ^ | December 1, 2003 | MARK THIESSEN

Posted on 12/01/2003 5:01:52 PM PST by Kay Soze

December 1, 2003, 7:38 PM EST

SALT LAKE CITY -- A lawyer for a Utah man with five wives argued Monday that his polygamy convictions should be thrown out following a Supreme Court decision decriminalizing gay sex.

The nation's high court in June struck down a Texas sodomy law, ruling that what gay men and women do in the privacy of their homes is no business of government.

It's no different for polygamists, argued Tom Green's attorney, John Bucher, to the Utah Supreme Court.

(Excerpt) Read more at newsday.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: blueoyster; buttpirates; catholiclist; disney; gay; gaylifestyle; gaymarriage; homosexualagenda; homosexuals; lawrencevtexas; marriage; polygamy; prisoners; slipperyslope; sodomy; stoptheexcerpts; tomgreen; utah
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-178 next last
To: KantianBurke
How do you expect him to deal with it? Does the term "Separation of Powers" ring a bell?
51 posted on 12/01/2003 5:45:05 PM PST by MindBender26 (For more news as it happens, stay tuned to your local FReeper Network station)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: nosofar
"Sometime before puberty?"

Amen.

52 posted on 12/01/2003 5:47:27 PM PST by truthandjustice1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26
See post #40. He can and should come out and say that he supports Congress' efforts to pass a Marriage Amendment. Use the bully pulpit for something other than enlarging entitlement programs.
53 posted on 12/01/2003 5:48:10 PM PST by KantianBurke (Don't Tread on Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Bobby777
Just wondering, has there ever been a poll on which religions support homosexual marriage the most?
54 posted on 12/01/2003 5:50:12 PM PST by truthandjustice1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
Antiguv, it is instructive that the first case mentioned by the SJC of Mass was Lawrence and whats more I know you are plenty sharp enough to realise it.

The path to the destruction of marriage has its origins in Lawrence, a brief stop in a liberal New England State for a majority of 1 oligarch to redefine marriage and straight through to the full faith and credit clause.

You know it, I know it and the proponents of homosexual "marriage" know it. Of course, should they succeed there will be unintended consequences because every adult will be able to exercise there new found "right to marriage".

It can be stopped but I'm not optimistic about it. I say that knowing that we diverge on "homosexual" marriage.

55 posted on 12/01/2003 5:53:57 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: honeygrl; Tempest
Isn't marriage for most folks a union between a man and woman in the eyes of GOD?

Asking for government to get more involved in religion always ends up getting government more involved in religion. Why is it that government is involved in this in the first place? DUMB DUMB DUMB.
56 posted on 12/01/2003 5:56:34 PM PST by LibertarianInExile (When laws are regularly flouted, respect of the law and law enforcement diminishes correspondingly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Kay Soze
Like how are they gonna enforce that one? Demand that one of the partners be sterilized? I can just see that happening.
57 posted on 12/01/2003 5:58:27 PM PST by Ronin (Qui docet discit!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: truthandjustice1
Here's one I saw recently: Religious Beliefs Underpin Opposition to Homosexuality.
58 posted on 12/01/2003 5:59:40 PM PST by AntiGuv (When the countdown hits zero, something's gonna happen..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Kay Soze
And so the slide down the slippery slope begins.
59 posted on 12/01/2003 6:00:06 PM PST by rintense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maro
Bingo. Court shopping is a game any group can play. In fact, considering how this is Utah, I would not be surprised if their isn't at least one closet polygamist already on the bench somewhere back state.
60 posted on 12/01/2003 6:00:16 PM PST by Ronin (Qui docet discit!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: truthandjustice1
dunno ...
61 posted on 12/01/2003 6:00:23 PM PST by Bobby777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: I_Love_My_Husband; *Homosexual Agenda; EdReform; scripter; GrandMoM; backhoe; Yehuda; ...
And so...it begins.

And the Freepers who support homosexual marriage said it wouldn't happen. Thanks for the ping.

Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1), (Version 1.0)
Homosexual Agenda Index (bump list)
Homosexual Agenda Keyword Search

62 posted on 12/01/2003 6:00:26 PM PST by scripter (Thousands have left the homosexual lifestyle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Kay Soze
Of course it's starting. Next, I really do believe that someone is going to sue to be able to marry an animal.
63 posted on 12/01/2003 6:03:35 PM PST by doug from upland (Hillary didn't hire Pelicano.......my butt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tempest
Anyways. . . I never really could figure out what wrong with homosexual relationships...

Homosexual behavior results in severe health hazards that can affect all of us.

Homosexuals, being around 2% (including bisexuals) of the population, account for a third of child molestations. Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

There is absolutely no evidence homosexuality is genetic.

Homosexuals can change their behavior. That's just one of many links. You can find more of the same here and here.

Homosexuals must be accepted as the human beings that they are. It's their behavior that we must not accept.

64 posted on 12/01/2003 6:06:02 PM PST by scripter (Thousands have left the homosexual lifestyle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Kay Soze
I just got back from a largely Muslim area overseas, and apparently the practice of having multiple wives isn't terribly common. It's mostly for the rich guys, and often they keep them in separate houses or towns, occasionally even in different countries.

I can't imagine why anyone would want to do that in the States. It workes in places where women basically have no rights, in places where you can end a marriage by saying 'I divorce you' three times, and kick her out. Having multiple wives here would be just asking to get mauled in divorce court.

65 posted on 12/01/2003 6:11:43 PM PST by Steel Wolf (Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland
Don't look now Doug, but I think it has already happened. In fact I remember a FReep thread a couple years back where a guy sued for the right to marry his dog.
66 posted on 12/01/2003 6:13:19 PM PST by Ronin (Qui docet discit!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: scripter
It's irrelevant that he didn't bring it up in his trial. The court hadn't ruled on on Lawrence yet, but that isn't relevant either. What is relevant is that there is either a "right" for consenting adults to do what they want in the privacy of their own bedrooms or there isn't.
67 posted on 12/01/2003 6:15:32 PM PST by xzins (Proud to be Army!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Ronin
Why is this unusual?

I know a couple of guys whose wives are real dogs!
68 posted on 12/01/2003 6:26:15 PM PST by Elsie (Don't believe every prophecy you hear: especially *** ones........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
Hasn't Sullivan been saying for some time that the passage of homosexual marriage would force the issue of all sorts of different arrangements since homosexuals couldn't possibly be forced to abide by the tenets of traditional marriage?
69 posted on 12/01/2003 6:29:11 PM PST by ECM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Antiguv, it is instructive that the first case mentioned by the SJC of Mass was Lawrence and whats more I know you are plenty sharp enough to realise it.

I suspect we both know that the Lawrence citation was but a pretext, amongst other things designed to suggest that this is what it should mean, while recognizing it does not. The Mass SJC granted cert in Goodrich many months before the Lawrence challenge was even argued, much less a ruling handed down. I don't recall anyone at the time expecting anything aside from the eventual ruling, the impending Lawrence decision notwithstanding.

The path to the destruction of marriage has its origins in Lawrence, a brief stop in a liberal New England State for a majority of 1 oligarch to redefine marriage and straight through to the full faith and credit clause.

The path to the destruction of marriage as a meaningful institution has its origins in the women's rights movement, with Lawrence but another brief stop amongst many on the path to its eventual dissolution.

You know it, I know it and the proponents of homosexual "marriage" know it. Of course, should they succeed there will be unintended consequences because every adult will be able to exercise there new found "right to marriage".

I do not doubt that there will be unintended consequences, most likely of the same kind as those in other historical societies which have embraced homosexual relations. To be exact, I would imagine that homosexuality will become far more prevalent amongst the society as a whole, though this will likely take at least three more generations.

It can be stopped but I'm not optimistic about it. I say that knowing that we diverge on "homosexual" marriage.

The fact of the matter is that our modern sociolegal order is not designed to tolerate inequality on the basis of class. So long as the culture deems sexual orientation a dichotomous phenomenon, it is inevitable that in time equal protection under the law will be extended on this basis. Since there appears little indication that this paradigm of orientations will be abandoned anytime soon (since the alternative of a 'polyvalent' continuum is even more contrary to the modern Western culture), I see no reason to expect otherwise.

I'm not sure how much we diverge on the matter beyond my recognizing and accepting long ago the course society would take on the matter.

70 posted on 12/01/2003 6:29:17 PM PST by AntiGuv (When the countdown hits zero, something's gonna happen..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: tracer
It'll only take a 'revelation' to the top dog, and "aye"s from the 12 yesmen and polygamy will be back in force again, big time.
71 posted on 12/01/2003 6:29:32 PM PST by Elsie (Don't believe every prophecy you hear: especially *** ones........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: tracer
Trust me, you will be amazed at the irony of seeing the "Mormon" Church and its membership -- many of whom are legislators and judges both at the state and national levels, speaking out as the most vocal opponents of the return of polygamy in this century......

Well of COURSE!!


They want to make their religion appear as close to Orthodox Christianity as possible!
72 posted on 12/01/2003 6:35:37 PM PST by Elsie (Don't believe every prophecy you hear: especially *** ones........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: tracer
Trust me, you will be amazed at the irony of seeing the "Mormon" Church and its membership -- many of whom are legislators and judges both at the state and national levels, speaking out as the most vocal opponents of the return of polygamy in this century......

I wasn't trying to slur Mormons as a group -- I know and respect many. I guess I was just talking about the extreme Mormon polygamy proponents (and of course there are Mulsim proponents as well).

73 posted on 12/01/2003 6:41:02 PM PST by Unam Sanctam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: 11th_VA
yep - down the slope we go .... Honey lock up the Sheep!

I predicted this too. Polygamy is the logical next step after gay "marriage." Then it will be okay for adults to be "married" to children. Finally, humans will be allowed to "marry" chimps, sheep, dogs, or whatever...

You can expect the following types of sentences to appear in elementary school readers:

He seeks the sleek sheik's sheep.

The shagged sheep sure are shy in the shower.

The sleek sheik shagged the shy sheep in his sleep while sliding down the slippery slope.

She sheared the shy sheep that the sleek sheik shagged.

74 posted on 12/01/2003 7:10:35 PM PST by Wilhelm Tell (Lurking since 1997!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: scripter
"Homosexual behavior results in severe health hazards that can affect all of us."

Uhhhhh how can it affect anyone unless they they're not practicing monogomy or abstinance?! Frankly anyone that decides to have sex with out getting to know their partner very well and using contraceptives is at risk of a STD whether or not they're a a homosexual.

"Homosexuals, being around 2% (including bisexuals) of the population, account for a third of child molestations. Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5."

This is pure propaganda. Child molestation is a problem that extends well beyond the realms of homesexuality and into the realm of sexual abuse without consent of adults. I'm just not really inclined into buying this load of tripe where goverment should legislate the sexual behaviour of two willing and consenting adults of the same sexual orientation should be prosecuted for activities in which they are fully cognisent and desirous of participating in, in the privacy of their own domicile.

"There is absolutely no evidence homosexuality is genetic.

Homosexuals can change their behavior. That's just one of many links. You can find more of the same here and here.

Frankly I don't care whether or not it's genetic. I just don't see how come people feel entitled to infringe upon the private behaviour of two consenting adults.

75 posted on 12/01/2003 7:16:30 PM PST by Tempest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: truthandjustice1
"Right. Homos are just a Tempest in a tea pot. Right?"

???? Huh?! Was that supposed to make sense?! Or was that you showing your disagreement with my opinion. Perhaps you think that everyone that doesn't want to hang a homosexual must be one??? Ahhh such a great display of intelligence. . .

76 posted on 12/01/2003 7:18:58 PM PST by Tempest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
I really wish I could understand what you and jwalsh07 were posting about!
77 posted on 12/01/2003 7:22:59 PM PST by Kay Soze (Liberal Homosexuals kill more people than Global Warming, SUVsí, Firearms & Terrorism combined.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Plutarch
Well, yes they are. Polygamists are not organized, nor an important special interest in the Democratic Party.

Bingo! We have a winner!

78 posted on 12/01/2003 7:23:59 PM PST by Bubba_Leroy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv; jwalsh07
The guy will lose & the Supreme Court won't grant cert. Bank it!

D'accord, for rather mundane but compelling rather than transcendental reasons.

79 posted on 12/01/2003 7:25:27 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Kay Soze
"The who wants to have 2 wives, has never had 2 wives."

Brigham Young

80 posted on 12/01/2003 7:25:54 PM PST by TYVets ("An armed society is a polite society." - Robert A. Heinlien & me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KantianBurke
Gay marriage is unconstitutional now?! Oh well then! By all means just show me the passage and I'll be there to rally against it with you. . .
81 posted on 12/01/2003 7:25:59 PM PST by Tempest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: TYVets
The man


82 posted on 12/01/2003 7:27:00 PM PST by TYVets ("An armed society is a polite society." - Robert A. Heinlien & me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: KantianBurke
Why is Bush to blame for the Supreme Court's decision to strike down the Texas sodomy law?
83 posted on 12/01/2003 7:27:40 PM PST by freedom4me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kay Soze
"It's starting." Are you saying the sky is falling?

I doubt such. I am not defending the supreme court, but it only ruled that what two adult people did in private could not be a crime. It did not rule that what six adults did in private could not be a crime. (At some point, enough people in a room has to mean that something is no longer private). Second, it said nothing about what two or six people did in public not being a crime. To be "married" one has to do something in public, it seems to me.

Any way, I wish government truly would defend marriage, such as providing greater tax deductions for married families with children
84 posted on 12/01/2003 7:27:54 PM PST by linksduster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
since the alternative of a 'polyvalent' continuum is even more contrary to the modern Western culture

I am not sure I agree with that. I also think Western culture is rather good over time in going with the empirical evidence, and I think over time it will be demonstrated that sexual preference among humans is in fact over a continuum, rather than everybody being hard wired one way or the other.

85 posted on 12/01/2003 7:30:13 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

There will be no slippery slope. It's all about gays. No court will rule for poly, incest, or anything else.

It ends at gay marriage. Pure politics in the courtroom. Other groups do not have a chance with their agendas. It would be a losing proposition for the activist courts! They are not about to limit their power now.
86 posted on 12/01/2003 7:32:18 PM PST by At _War_With_Liberals
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: TYVets
Ya, when Young had two wives, he decided that 5 or so was preferable.
87 posted on 12/01/2003 7:39:23 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Dan from Michigan
A guy can have more than one wife soon?

Nagging . . . in stereo.

88 posted on 12/01/2003 7:40:59 PM PST by AmishDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Bookmark
89 posted on 12/01/2003 7:45:52 PM PST by Devil_Anse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Kay Soze
I tend to think polygamy would be better (esp considering the high number of children) for the overall health of families than gay marriage.

By the way, how can those who advocate gay marriage abhor polygamy (and they say they do)? Doesn't their much used slogan "different strokes for different folks" come in to play here as well?
90 posted on 12/01/2003 7:50:10 PM PST by faithincowboys ( Zell Miller is the only elected democrat in America who isn't committing treason.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: linksduster
What has the ruling to do with what two people do in private and in a room?

Marriage is certainly not private nor totally dependant on what two people do in a room.

I see benefit for enterprising individuals to marry in great numbers and in many different circles.

Everything from selling citizenships on through criminal activities will be circumvented with new and ever evolving definitions of marriage.
91 posted on 12/01/2003 7:52:24 PM PST by Kay Soze (Liberal Homosexuals kill more people than Global Warming, SUVsí, Firearms & Terrorism combined.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Kay Soze; GatorGirl; maryz; *Catholic_list; afraidfortherepublic; Antoninus; Aquinasfan; Askel5; ...
Ping.
92 posted on 12/01/2003 7:52:55 PM PST by narses ("The do-it-yourself Mass is ended. Go in peace" Francis Cardinal Arinze of Nigeria)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
Here's how to stop this redefinition of marriage.

We marry our children.

This will eliminate all inheritance taxes.

And the ever decreasing supply of tax money will kill the inertest of liberals to promote re defining marriage. Just as their interest in prescription drug benefits died once they learned that it helps the rich and corporate America.


93 posted on 12/01/2003 8:04:01 PM PST by Kay Soze (Liberal Homosexuals kill more people than Global Warming, SUVsí, Firearms & Terrorism combined.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: LibertarianInExile
You do know you don't have to go to church to get married, right?

Who signs the marriage license?
94 posted on 12/01/2003 8:05:04 PM PST by Quick1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
The guy will lose & the Supreme Court won't grant cert. Bank it!

Lawrence vs. Texas already determined that -

-what two (or more for that matter) consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is not the concern of the government.

What is the difference between a 3 men, 1 man and 2 women, 2 women and 1 man or 3 women?

Surely you cant claim that gays have a right to privacy and polygamists don't.

95 posted on 12/01/2003 8:06:46 PM PST by expatguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Torie
In my view, the greatest impediment toward Western society abandoning the conceptual dichotomy of sexual orientation arises from the modern perceptual association of male homoeroticism with effeminacy. If there is one singular constant found throughout all of recorded history and across every known culture, it is that men in general will go to extraordinary measures to conform with the prevailing norms of masculinity, and that they will mentally or publicly deviate from those only under extraordinary circumstances.

At least in my assessment, this is the ultimate foundation of every cultural order, with all else predicated upon and extending from that.
96 posted on 12/01/2003 8:17:42 PM PST by AntiGuv (When the countdown hits zero, something's gonna happen..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: scripter
BUMP
97 posted on 12/01/2003 8:18:35 PM PST by GrandMoM ("Without prayer, the hand of GOD stops, BUT, with prayer the hand of GOD moves !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: expatguy
-what two (or more for that matter) consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is not the concern of the government.

The obstacle they would face is that marriage is not confined to the privacy of one's own home...

98 posted on 12/01/2003 8:18:56 PM PST by AntiGuv (When the countdown hits zero, something's gonna happen..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
And the cradle of Western civilization, Greece, had all of those "gay" Spartan warriors. And so it goes. I agree with you that the culture does influence how those inside the edges of the continuum will conduct themselves. That is why I agree with you, that the loosening of the stigma, will probably increase the incidence of homosexual behavior.
99 posted on 12/01/2003 8:23:51 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Torie
The ancient Greeks did not associate homoeroticism with effeminacy. Quite the contrary, they rather clearly considered it essential to normative masculinity (at least, the Spartans did). It has actually been conjectured that homosexuality may have been what led to the demographic collapse of the Spartan population in the 2nd Century BC leading to its decline into irrelevance.

Both the ancient Greeks and Romans were quite hostile to even the slightest expression of effeminacy. The Athenians in particular would exile an adult citizen who took the 'passive' role in homosexual intercourse (the Spartans evidently did not have that issue). The association of the 'active' homosexual role with effeminacy is a quite modern 19th Century innovation.

100 posted on 12/01/2003 8:36:29 PM PST by AntiGuv (When the countdown hits zero, something's gonna happen..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-178 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson