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

Skip to comments.

Attorney challenges Utah ban on polygamy, citesTexas sodomy case
WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Tuesday, January 13, 2003 | ALEXANDRIA SAGE, AP writer

Posted on 01/13/2004 12:25:03 AM PST by JohnHuang2

Attorney challenges Utah ban on polygamy, citesTexas sodomy case ALEXANDRIA SAGE Associated Press

SALT LAKE CITY - A civil rights attorney challenged Utah's ban on polygamy Monday, citing a Supreme Court ruling that struck down a Texas sodomy law.

The lawsuit says Salt Lake County clerks refused a marriage license to a couple because the man was already married to another woman, who had consented to the additional marriage.

In denying the marriage license, the county violated the plaintiffs' First Amendment right to practice their religion, attorney Brian Barnard said in the complaint.

The suit said polygamy is the plaintiffs' "sincere and deeply held religious tenet." The complaint does not say what religion the plaintiffs observe.

The suit argues that the Supreme Court protected defendants' privacy in intimate matters when it struck down laws criminalizing gay sex in June, ruling that two gay men who were arrested after police entered their apartment and found them having sex were "entitled to respect for their private lives."

Polygamy, a felony under Utah law, was 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.

Some fundamentalist Mormons continue to believe in polygamy, and an estimated 30,000 in the West practice it.

Lawyers representing other polygamists have recently cited the Supreme Court ruling. Last month, the attorney for Tom Green, a convicted bigamist and child rapist, argued his client's convictions should be thrown out in light of the case. The appeal of Rodney Holm - who was convicted of bigamy and unlawful sexual conduct with an underage girl - also cites the Texas case.

Brian Barnard, who represents the couple in the most recent case, said his suit isn't clouded by rape or sexual misconduct. The plaintiffs are identified as G. Lee Cook, an adult male; his wife, D. Cook, who had given her consent to the additional marriage; and J. Bronson, an adult female.


TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events; US: Utah
KEYWORDS: lawrencevtexas; polygamy
Tuesday, January 13, 2003

Quote of the Day by Caipirabob

1 posted on 01/13/2004 12:25:04 AM PST by JohnHuang2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
What sauce for a goose is sauce for two ganders and a goose....
2 posted on 01/13/2004 12:37:53 AM PST by freebilly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freebilly
What's
3 posted on 01/13/2004 12:38:11 AM PST by freebilly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Why am I not surprised? *sigh*

Thanks John.
4 posted on 01/13/2004 12:47:19 AM PST by kimmie7 (Chuck a chunka serious change to FR today!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Slippery slope...
5 posted on 01/13/2004 1:02:16 AM PST by Simmy2.5 (Dean...If you want the whole US to be like Gray Davis' California, VOTE FOR ME!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
The appeal of Rodney Holm - who was convicted of bigamy and unlawful sexual conduct with an underage girl - also cites the Texas case

thank you sandra day o conner

6 posted on 01/13/2004 1:06:20 AM PST by freepatriot32 (today it was the victory act tomorrow its victory coffee, victory cigarettes...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
I wonder what took them so long?
It must be the over burden court system.
7 posted on 01/13/2004 3:55:57 AM PST by sopwith (don't tread on me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Predicted by most freepers months ago with the Texas ruling... just waiting for someone who wants to marry their brother, sister, dog or cat.
8 posted on 01/13/2004 3:58:17 AM PST by rintense (Legal Immigration . Nothing else.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rintense
Predicted by most freepers months ago with the Texas ruling... just waiting for someone who wants to marry their brother, sister, dog or cat.

Correct. If sodomy and gay "marriage" are legal, why not polygamy? I might add that incest is legal in Sweden.

9 posted on 01/13/2004 4:05:28 AM PST by Siamese Princess
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Siamese Princess
The slide down the slippery slope is getting faster...
10 posted on 01/13/2004 4:07:35 AM PST by rintense (Legal Immigration . Nothing else.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Siamese Princess
Predicted by most freepers months ago with the Texas ruling... just waiting for someone who wants to marry their brother, sister, dog or cat.

In a recent letter to the editor in my small town newpaper someone in a serious tone suggested that he should be allowed to marry his dog if he wanted.

11 posted on 01/13/2004 4:30:00 AM PST by Senator_Blutarski
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: rintense
"The slide down the slippery slope is getting faster..."


I KNEW, KNEW, knew this was going to happen! Here comes the camel sliding down the slippery slope and his nose is heading straight for the tent and...
12 posted on 01/13/2004 5:41:49 AM PST by Maria S ("I will do whatever the Americans want…I saw what happened in Iraq, and I was afraid." Gaddafi, 9/03)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
The wrong approach is to base the case on religious freedom. The courts will not be sympathetic to that at all. Base it solely on the non-existent right to privacy (as the abortion and Texas sodomy case were done) and it should be a slam dunk in favor of the plantiff.
13 posted on 01/13/2004 5:52:43 AM PST by randita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Yay! Marriage Licenses for all who wants them...Here ya Go Kid nock yourself out... What? You want to marry your mother, your dog, cat, sister, and your Playstation? Well go right ahead its all LEGAL...
14 posted on 01/13/2004 5:57:08 AM PST by WritableSpace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
remember all the people on FR who were saying, 'Nah, that won't happen' when they were warned things like this would happen.
15 posted on 01/13/2004 5:58:18 AM PST by MEGoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
I can't understand why someone would want more than one wife. One is enough.
16 posted on 01/13/2004 6:05:29 AM PST by lardog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rintense
The Texas case dealt with the right to privacy .... in particular, private sex behind closed doors without the local cops peeking through the keyhole. But the Texas case did not involve legitimizing those sexual connections in the way that a legally recognized marriage does.

Marriage carries with it a LOT of legal baggage that casual sex doesn't; for example, confidentiality of husband-wife communications, rights of inheritance/support/property division, tax considerations, the right to bring a lawsuit for the death or crippling of the spouse, etc. etc. You don't get those legal considerations from a hot date.

The attempt to stretch the Texas case to apply to the legal ramifications of a bona fide marriage are inapposite and doomed.

17 posted on 01/13/2004 7:06:31 AM PST by DonQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
There's really no need to legally punish guys who have more than one wife. Multiple wives are punishment enough.
18 posted on 01/13/2004 7:13:25 AM PST by Modernman (Providence protects idiots, drunkards, children and the United States of America- Otto von Bismarck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DonQ
The attempt to stretch the Texas case to apply to the legal ramifications of a bona fide marriage are inapposite and doomed.

Normally, I would agree with this. But considering the wild rulings lately within the courts, nothing would surprise me.

19 posted on 01/13/2004 7:52:52 AM PST by rintense (Legal Immigration . Nothing else.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: DonQ
The Texas case dealt with the right to privacy .... in particular, private sex behind closed doors without the local cops peeking through the keyhole. But the Texas case did not involve legitimizing those sexual connections in the way that a legally recognized marriage does. Marriage carries with it a LOT of legal baggage that casual sex doesn't; for example, confidentiality of husband-wife communications, rights of inheritance/support/property division, tax considerations, the right to bring a lawsuit for the death or crippling of the spouse, etc. etc. You don't get those legal considerations from a hot date.

The attempt to stretch the Texas case to apply to the legal ramifications of a bona fide marriage are inapposite and doomed.

You're being much too logical. My reaction was the same as yours, when Rick Santorum said that striking down the Texas sodomy law would make it permissible to marry your mother, dog, etc. But the USSC majority decision explicitly referred to gay marriage. What we have here, is not logic or law, but an irrational mentality, hostile to legal precedent, yet common to the ruling elites, particularly federal judges and professors of law.

20 posted on 01/13/2004 12:55:29 PM PST by mrustow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: lardog
I can't understand why someone would want more than one wife. One is enough.

Some days, I think, more than enough.

21 posted on 01/13/2004 12:57:16 PM PST by mrustow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Too bad that Senator Rick Santorum is too kind to NOT issue a memo to the public
(and ESPECIALLY to the apathetic):

"I told you so."
22 posted on 01/13/2004 1:16:16 PM PST by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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