Suit Challenges Constitutionality of Utah Ban on Polygamy

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

[Eris]

but isn't it odd that we will protect the right of animals not to be degraded, but we don't seem to care if people are degraded through prositution or sodomy? (IMHO, giving "consent" doesn't mean an activity has dignity.)

They may well be degrading themselves, but that's not a thing for the law to punish or not.

"The free man owns himself. He can damage himself with either eating or drinking; he can ruin himself with gambling. If he does he is certainly a damn fool, and he might possibly be a damned soul; but if he may not, he is not a free man any more than a dog." - G.K. Chesterton, 1935

How can you define what is an "adult" and what is not?

How did we reach 18 as a consensus? Because most under 18 aren't capable of making those rational decisions.

[Cboldt]

U.S. Supreme Court, regarding polygamy:

Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333 (1890). ''Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries. . . . To call their advocacy a tenet of religion is to offend the common sense of mankind. If they are crimes, then to teach, advise and counsel their practice is to aid in their commission, and such teaching and counseling are themselves criminal and proper subjects of punishment, as aiding and abetting crime are in all other cases.'' Id. at 341-42.

The Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States, 136 U.S. 1 (1890). ''[T]he property of the said corporation . . . [is to be used to promote] the practice of polygamy--a crime against the laws, and abhorrent to the sentiments and feelings of the civilized world. . . . The organization of a community for the spread and practice of polygamy is, in a measure, a return to barbarism. It is contrary to the spirit of Christianity and of the civilization which Christianity had produced in the Western world.'' Id. at 48-49.

Above courtesy of Findlaw ... FindLaw Constitutional Law Center: U.S. Constitution: First Amendment

What is interesting to me is that, upon reading the opinions, each of them is essentially based on the conclusory assertions recited above, and no more than that. "Against the laws of all civilized and Christian countries ..." was all it took.

[AdamSelene235]

, I feel like we are truly living in the times of the Romans.

Just relax, man.

No need to worry until you notice currency debasement, feminization of society, terroristic attacks by barbarians, a collapse of traditional morality, runaway fantasy legislation, etc.

[sully777]

My definition of "age of consent" is my killing anyone that touches my children. I think that's a reasonable definition readily enforcable.

(Sigh) Aunt Dora's box is opened. (Yes, I know it's Pandora).

[AdamSelene235]

Why a man wants a mistress, or mistresses above and beyond his wife is equally puzzling.

Women have a 9 month period of, uh, "down time".

[D Rider]

Sounds like somebody has been reading George Gilder. ; )

[mrobison]

When I marry you, can I have other wives, too?

Britney said it's okay.

[Zack Nguyen]

They may well be degrading themselves, but that's not a thing for the law to punish or not.

In certain circumstances I would respectfully disagree. I think that the multiplied damage to society that takes place in prostitution, et al, is of such a nature as to demand a forceful response by governing authorities.

How did we reach 18 as a consensus? Because most under 18 aren't capable of making those rational decisions.

This is something of an about face in the logic here. Government force shouldn't be used to stop people from degrading themselves, but government force ought to be used to enforce an arbitrary definition of what an "adult" is.

[sully777]

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

The purpose [of polygamy] is to ensure that an individual Mormon family is very large, with 15+ children per adult male."

IMO, NOW WE MUST DELVE INTO SANITY ISSUES OF HAVING 15 CHILDREN!!! Ah chihuahua.

[Eris]

Age of consent like age of majority is by definition a legal term, so yes, it's up to law to define it.

As for prostitution's damage - society isn't hurt when some sad sack pays $100 (whatever the going rate) for a roll in the hay.

His family may be and that's for his wife to make his life hell. But otherwise it doesn't steal your money or break your bones.

[Zack Nguyen]

As for prostitution's damage - society isn't hurt when some sad sack pays $100 (whatever the going rate) for a roll in the hay.

LOL. (I am reminded of Young Frankenstein.) On the contrary, I think society is devastated. The casual selling of something that should be sacred between a husband and wife is debasing an activity that is very powerful indeed, and can terrible consequences on society, particularly amongst the very young.

Age of consent like age of majority is by definition a legal term, so yes, it's up to law to define it.

That's my point - if the ability to "consent" is all that matters, then the law has no business defining it because it's different for everybody. This would mean that, in order to follow the logic that says government cannot regulate anything that is "consensual", a judge would have to look individually at every case and decide if both of the parties actually gace consent or not.

[Salman]

The inevitable result...

A necessary result.

It's already legal for a man to live and fornicate with several women. It is only illegal for him to live that way and claim that God approves. It's not the business of the state to confer divine approval.

The institution of marriage has been harmed and all else is just a symptom of that, not a cause. "Gay" marriage and what have you.

George Bernard Shaw of all people, a socialist and a critic of the institution of marriage, did not consider polygamous marraige to be real marriage. To be precise, he did not consider a Muslim with a harem to be a married man.

It's in one of his prefaces. I'll take the trouble of looking it up if someone is interested.

[sully777]

Women will tell you, angrily I might add, that it's 10 to 10 1/2 months (40 to 42 weeks divided by four weeks in a month) gestation.

People have sex when there is pregnancy with no problems. Actually, most pregnant women have hormonal surges that make them more (how do I make it family-safe?) frisky after the initial three month doldrums.

[AdamSelene235]

People have sex when there is pregnancy with no problems.

Thanks for the tip.

They don't get any more *pregnant*, ya know. If you're trying to make alot people in a hurry, polygamy makes sense.

[sully777]

"They don't get any more *pregnant*, ya know. If you're trying to make alot people in a hurry, polygamy makes sense."

LOL. Which brings us back to the issue of sanity for having 10-15 children. I lost my mind after two. My parents lost their mind long before I came along as the fifth.

Biblical story of Jacob should be a warning light not a welcoming beacon to young men everywhere. "Hey, give me those mandrakes. My turn to milk the bull tonight."Let's just look at Osama's family and realize that polygamy and large families are breeding grounds for the insane. LOL.

[AdamSelene235]

Which brings us back to the issue of sanity for having 10-15 children. I lost my mind after two. My parents lost their mind long before I came along as the fifth.

If you were living in a Western Socialist kleptocracy, you likely were required to spend much of your time supporting the children of others in addition to your own. If half your wages and time don't go to the support of other people's children, I doubt having additional children would be so burdensome.

[mvpel]

At least in the case of prostitution, it's been legal in Nevada for a very long time, and they haven't sunk into the ocean or anything.

And does it make sense that in Michigan, when my present-day wife and I got busy when I was 17 and she was 22, it was legal, while in California she'd have been sent to jail as a statutory rapist?

[Eris]

Well, people who aren't married give it away for free everyday - should the law criminalize that too?

Law is there to protect the rights of individuals. A minor cannot give consent because they lack the maturity to recognize the consequences of their actions.

Having the standard be consent among adults doesn't deteriorate that - if anything it strengthens the need for people to respect the age of consent and majority.

[tahiti]

"Actually he has a better shot with that ever elusive 14th amendment...

I happen to agree with Justice Goldberg in the 1965 concurring opinion of Griswold v Connecticutt, the right to privacy emanates and resides in the 9th amendment.

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Whom and how many people citizens wish to be married to is a right retained by the people.

[taxcontrol]

Yep, ya just knew that one was coming.

{Now if I could only get the wife to agree, there is this nice young ..... naw, it would never work}