Suit Challenges Constitutionality of Utah Ban on Polygamy

Salt Lake Tribune ^ | January 12, 2004 | Alexandria Sage

[mrobison]

SALT LAKE CITY — A leading civil rights attorney prepared Monday to file a federal lawsuit challenging Utah’s ban on polygamy, citing the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that struck down a Texas sodomy law.

The suit says Salt Lake County clerks refused a marriage license to plaintiffs G. Lee Cook, an adult male, and J. Bronson, an adult female, because Cook was already married to D. Cook. That woman had given her consent to the additional marriage.

In denying the marriage license, the county violated the plaintiffs’ First Amendment right to practice their religion, attorney Brian Barnard says in the suit.

The suit, an advance copy of which was obtained by The Associated Press, does not mention what faith the plaintiffs observe, except to say polygamy is a ‘‘sincere and deeply held religious major tenet.’’

The suit argues that the Supreme Court ruling last June in Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down laws criminalizing gay sex, protects the defendants’ privacy in intimate matters.

Polygamy, a felony under Utah law, was a part of the early beliefs of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but was abandoned more than a century ago as the territory sought statehood.

The Utah Constitution bans polygamy and the Mormon church now excommunicates those who advocate it, but it is believed that thousands in Utah continue the practice.

[Jim Noble]

Why a man would want more than one wife at a time dwelves into sanity issues, IMO.

Yes, the sane man's debate is zero versus one.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Or in general, M to F relationships, M>=1, F>=1, (M+F)>2. E.g. 3 wives, 2 hubbies. This gets messy fast.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Going on 30 years with the same woman. I'd be dead by now if I had two or three...

[theFIRMbss]

>Why a man would want more than one wife at a time dwelves into sanity issues, IMO.

Well, suppose you are already hitched to Britney and Christina, then you find out about young Stacie Orrico... You need legal options...

[Zack Nguyen]

So you are prepared to legalize prostitution, bestiality, incest (as long as it's consensual) and dramatically lowering the age of consent (because after all, a girl of 12 or 13 is mentally capable of makign a decision whether or not to have sex.)

You have to be prepared for these things, if we as a society have decided to there is no reason to regulate sex as long as it's "consensual."

[Professional Engineer]

ROFLOL

[sure_fine]

I'm so confused... me too mrobison, how do they prove they are gay?

[mrobison]

And, then, there are those who are plain apostate.

[AdamSelene235]

A good day for Libertarians!

Open borders, sodomy, polygamy, oh my!!

[Eris]

Yes, no, yes (assuming parties are over 18) and no.

[camas]

that way the two women can talk to each other and leave the poor man alone.

[meema]

OK, 'Courts',...What are you going to do NOW?!?!

[Condor51]

Here's one reason;
About a year ago(?) there was a guy in Utah being prosecuted for polygamy (a Mr. Green? who even appeared on O'Reilly) - he had something like 15 wives and about 35 kids total as I recall. He was unemployed and all 15 separate wives & kids were ALL ON WELFARE!!

That's reason enough - period.

[Zack Nguyen]

Thanks for your answer. Why would you legalize prostitution but not bestiality? Why would you legalize consensual polygamy between consenting men and women, but not lower the age of consent?

[Dead Corpse]

Under old Gaelic law, a man could only have as many wives as he could afford to feed.

Sounds good to me. We need to end welfare anyway.

[Eris]

I'd venture to guess there's more one-man/one-wife married couples on welfare than polygamists.