Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Utah Challenge to Polygamy Law Cites SCOTUS Ruling on Sodomy
AgapePress ^ | January 13, 2004 | Fred Jackson and Jody Brown

Posted on 01/13/2004 4:46:16 PM PST by Federalist 78

The warnings issued last summer in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling throwing out a Texas sodomy law are now coming true.

The high court ruled in Lawrence v. Texas that the state's sodomy law was unconstitutional, arguing the state had no right to curtail the sexual behavior of consenting adults. The case involved two men who were arrested after police entered their apartment and found them engaged in homosexual sex. (See Earlier Article)

Many pro-family groups warned that the decision would open the door to legalizing all kinds of other sexual perversions. In fact, one Republican lawmaker -- U.S. Senator Rick Santorum -- predicted in late April that if the Supreme Court struck down the Texas sodomy law, "then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything."

Now comes word from Utah that a civil rights attorney is challenging the state's ban against polygamy. The lawsuit says Salt Lake City clerks refused a marriage license to a couple because the man was already married to another woman who had consented to the additional marriage.

Mark Shurtleff, attorney general for Utah, tells Associated Press that the lawsuit goes beyond the Supreme Court ruling. "Any time you involve marriage, family, children -- fundamental units of society -- the state does have a compelling interest in what that is," he says. "[Polygamy] happens to be a felony crime here [in Utah]."

But Brian Barnard, the lawyer representing the trio, alleges that denial of a marriage license to his clients violates the First Amendment right to practice their religion. He says his clients are claiming a religious right to what the lawsuit describes as a "sincere and deeply held religious tenet."

"Practicing polygamy for religious reasons is a crime -- it's a felony," he acknowledges. "What my clients want to do is to have that law taken off the books."

Although the Mormon Church officially condemns polygamy, it is estimated that 30,000 Mormons still practice it.



TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; US: Utah
KEYWORDS: lawrencevtexas; polygamy; scotus
The Texas statute undeniably seeks to further the belief of its citizens that certain forms of sexual behavior are "immoral and unacceptable," Bowers, supra, at 196–the same interest furthered by criminal laws against fornication, bigamy, adultery, adult incest, bestiality, and obscenity. Bowers held that this was a legitimate state interest. The Court today reaches the opposite conclusion.
Today’s opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct. I noted in an earlier opinion the fact that the American Association of Law Schools (to which any reputable law school must seek to belong) excludes from membership any school that refuses to ban from its job-interview facilities a law firm (no matter how small) that does not wish to hire as a prospective partner a person who openly engages in homosexual conduct. See Romer, supra, at 653.

1 posted on 01/13/2004 4:46:17 PM PST by Federalist 78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Federalist 78
One Thing Leads To Another - The Fixx 1983

"... why don't they:

"Do what they say, say what you mean
One thing leads to another
You told me something wrong, I know I listen too long
But then one thing leads to another.

. . ."

2 posted on 01/13/2004 4:56:47 PM PST by BenLurkin (Socialism is Slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Federalist 78
This lawyer is arguing that the polygamy ban in Utah has to be struck down because of a RELIGIOUS right?

What's he going for, a 9-0 SCOTUS decision against his client?

The Libs on the Court will rule against him because religion won't cut any ice with them & the Conservatives on the Court disagree with Lawrence v. Texas.

If the lawyer had argued his client was a Wiccan or a rock-worshiper or just believed in free love he might have had a chance. He just needs to convince Sandra Dee O'Connor and he wins.
3 posted on 01/13/2004 5:13:32 PM PST by You Dirty Rats
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Federalist 78
Polygamy though strange is hardly a perversion. Not much difference in polygamy and a relationship where a man has a mistress or several of them . Hardly a perversion.
4 posted on 01/13/2004 5:33:40 PM PST by sgtbono2002 (I aint wrong, I aint sorry , and I am probably going to do it again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sgtbono2002
Anyone happen to have a list of biblical patriarchs handy? How many wives did Abraham have? David? Solomon?
5 posted on 01/13/2004 5:42:00 PM PST by Renfield
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Federalist 78
The following is from Salvation

a. Cain the Wicked

In our last lesson, we left our first family, Adam and Eve, on the outside of paradise looking in - exiled by their sin and disobedience, their failure to live up to the demands of God's covenant.

The chapters that follow (see Genesis 4-5) show us the "fruits" of Adam and Eve's original sin: We see that human seed now is mixed between the good and evil. The tension between the two seeds - already prophesied by God in the garden (see Genesis 3:15) - shapes much of the remainder of Genesis, especially the book's first 11 chapters.

The "first fruits" of Adam and Eve - their son Cain - is born of bad seed; his younger brother, Abel, of good. Cain kills Abel, becomes the world's first murderer. As Adam and Eve, the first children of God, rejected the Fatherhood of God, their bad seed rejects the family of man that God intended to create. This is symbolized in Cain's pitiless, spiteful words to God: "Am I my brother's keeper?" (see Genesis 4:9).

Cain's wicked line grows and one of his descendants becomes the first to take two wives - a perversion of the order of marriage God established in the garden (see Genesis 2:21-24) - and boasts of his murderous, vengeful ways (see Genesis 4:23-34).
6 posted on 01/13/2004 5:42:48 PM PST by reed_inthe_wind (I reprogrammed my computer to think existentially, I get the same results only slower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Federalist 78
Here in the pioneering state of Massachusetts, we have gays, lesbians, and bisexuals pushing for the right to commit themselves to a partner just as heterosexuals traditionally do. Well this homophobe (I'm proud to so say) wonders how do bisexuals practice commitment to a partner? Anyone out there know?
7 posted on 01/13/2004 5:47:40 PM PST by LoneRangerMassachusetts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sgtbono2002
The Decline of a Nation Nations most often fall from within, and this fall is usually due to a decline in the moral and spiritual values in the family. As families go, so goes a nation.

An excerpt:

Beyond Gay Marriage

Why is state-sanctioned polygamy a problem? The deep reason is that it erodes the ethos of monogamous marriage. Despite the divorce revolution, Americans still take it for granted that marriage means monogamy. The ideal of fidelity may be breached in practice, yet adultery is clearly understood as a transgression against marriage. Legal polygamy would jeopardize that understanding, and that is why polygamy has historically been treated in the West as an offense against society itself.
In most non-Western cultures, marriage is not a union of freely choosing individuals, but an alliance of family groups. The emotional relationship between husband and wife is attenuated and subordinated to the economic and political interests of extended kin. But in our world of freely choosing individuals, extended families fall away, and love and companionship are the only surviving principles on which families can be built. From Thomas Aquinas through Richard Posner, almost every serious observer has granted the incompatibility between polygamy and Western companionate marriage.


AMERICA'S NEW, souped-up version of polygamy is called "polyamory." Polyamorists trace their descent from the anti-monogamy movements of the sixties and seventies--everything from hippie communes, to the support groups that grew up around Robert Rimmer's 1966 novel "The Harrad Experiment," to the cult of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh. Polyamorists proselytize for "responsible non-monogamy"--open, loving, and stable sexual relationships among more than two people. The modern polyamory movement took off in the mid-nineties--partly because of the growth of the Internet (with its confidentiality), but also in parallel to, and inspired by, the rising gay marriage movement.
The flexible, egalitarian, and altogether postmodern polyamorists are more likely to influence the larger society than Mormon polygamists. The polyamorists go after monogamy in a way that resonates with America's secular, post-sixties culture. Yet the fundamental drawback is the same for Mormons and polyamorists alike. Polyamory websites are filled with chatter about jealousy, the problem that will not go away. Inevitably, group marriages based on modern principles of companionate love, without religious rules and restraints, are unstable. Like the short-lived hippie communes, group marriages will be broken on the contradiction between companionate love and group solidarity. And children will pay the price. The harms of state-sanctioned polyamorous marriage would extend well beyond the polyamorists themselves. Once monogamy is defined out of marriage, it will be next to impossible to educate a new generation in what it takes to keep companionate marriage intact. State-sanctioned polyamory would spell the effective end of marriage. And that is precisely what polyamory's new--and surprisingly influential--defenders are aiming for.

The family law radicals

STATE-SANCTIONED polyamory is now the cutting-edge issue among scholars of family law. The preeminent school of thought in academic family law has its origins in the arguments of radical gay activists who once opposed same-sex marriage. In the early nineties, radicals like longtime National Gay and Lesbian Task Force policy director Paula Ettelbrick spoke out against making legal marriage a priority for the gay rights movement. Marriage, Ettelbrick reminded her fellow activists, "has long been the focus of radical feminist revulsion." Encouraging gays to marry, said Ettelbrick, would only force gay "assimilation" to American norms, when the real object of the gay rights movement ought to be getting Americans to accept gay difference. "Being queer," said Ettelbrick, "means pushing the parameters of sex and family, and in the process transforming the very fabric of society."
Promoting polyamory is the ideal way to "radically reorder society's view of the family," and Ettelbrick, who has since formally signed on as a supporter of gay marriage (and is frequently quoted by the press), is now part of a movement that hopes to use gay marriage as an opening to press for state-sanctioned polyamory. Ettelbrick teaches law at the University of Michigan, New York University, Barnard, and Columbia. She has a lot of company.
Marriage is a critical social institution. Stable families depend on it. Society depends on stable families. Up to now, with all the changes in marriage, the one thing we've been sure of is that marriage means monogamy. Gay marriage will break that connection. It will do this by itself, and by leading to polygamy and polyamory. What lies beyond gay marriage is no marriage at all.



8 posted on 01/13/2004 5:48:31 PM PST by Federalist 78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Renfield
POST #8 & Homosexuality, Adultery & Other Sexual Sins frame
9 posted on 01/13/2004 5:50:25 PM PST by Federalist 78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: sgtbono2002
You know that part in the Bible where it says that "a man cannot serve two masters"? Maybe that's where the objection to polygamy is!

Just because some scum sucking lawyer wants to cite Lawrence in his cockamamie reasoning doesn't mean that it will carry the day, however. Outside of several hundred desert dwellers in Utah, Idaho, and Nevada, nobody else in this country really wants polygamy. More Americans know a gay person than know a polygamist.

10 posted on 01/13/2004 5:59:53 PM PST by hunter112
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: LoneRangerMassachusetts
I assume, then, that you have never had an affair (nor any of the rest of you)? Or have always been faithful to your partner, practicing serial monogamy rather than bigamy or polygamy?

I have remained faithful, but I know a lot of people who have not. Odds are, lots of you have strayed, even if only once.

How do bisexuals practice commitment to a partner? The same way, I imagine, that the rest of us do.
11 posted on 01/13/2004 7:07:13 PM PST by WhaddaboutThisOne?
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: WhaddaboutThisOne?
Oh thank you for wisely pointing out the awkward way I presented the question.

My question is not on fidelity. I can understand a heterosexual couple. I can understand a homosexual couple. I have trouble with understanding a bisexual couple. In the case of bisexuals are we accepting them as marriage candidates in some unspoken form? I'm serious. What is it that they want?

12 posted on 01/13/2004 7:45:39 PM PST by LoneRangerMassachusetts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: LoneRangerMassachusetts
In the case of bisexuals are we accepting them as marriage candidates in some unspoken form? I'm serious. What is it that they want?

I don't know, as I'm not a bisexual (nor could speak for all of them, I'd bet). But I do know that I didn't have to affirm that I was not a bisexual when I applied for my marriage licence.

But that's not your question either, is it?

I'd suspect that, at some point, if a bisexual person commits to one partner, whether in a heterosexual or homosexual relationship, then (presuming they remain faithful) that's it for fooling around with people of a different sex than their partner.

Maybe I'm still missing your point?

13 posted on 01/14/2004 6:29:22 AM PST by WhaddaboutThisOne?
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: You Dirty Rats
The Utah lawyer should just substitute the word polygamy for homosexual and in all the briefs and he has a winning argument.

"If 12 people have a committed loving relationship then they should be legally allowed to marry. 12 people should have the same legal protections as any other two person couple. What 12 people do in their private bedroom is nobody else's business."
14 posted on 01/20/2004 11:13:29 AM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | 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
Topics · Post Article

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