Utah Polygamist Invokes Ruling on Gay Sex

AP ^ | December 1, 2003 | MARK THIESSEN

[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.

[Tempest]

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. . .

[TYVets]

The man

[freedom4me]

Why is Bush to blame for the Supreme Court's decision to strike down the Texas sodomy law?

[linksduster]

"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

[Torie]

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.

[At _War_With_Liberals]

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.

[Torie]

Ya, when Young had two wives, he decided that 5 or so was preferable.

[AmishDude]

A guy can have more than one wife soon?

Nagging . . . in stereo.

[Devil_Anse]

Bookmark

[faithincowboys]

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?

[Kay Soze]

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.

[narses]

Ping.

[Kay Soze]

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.

[Quick1]

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

Who signs the marriage license?

[expatguy]

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.

[AntiGuv]

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.

[GrandMoM]

BUMP

[AntiGuv]

-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...

[Torie]

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.

[AntiGuv]

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.