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

Skip to comments.

3 Utahns try to open door for polygamy (more grease on the slippery slope)
The Salt Lake Tribune ^ | 11/27/05 | By Pamela Manson

Posted on 11/28/2005 7:46:22 PM PST by ChildOfThe60s

Legal challenge: Salt Lake City lawyer Brian Barnard says the ban is unconstitutional By Pamela Manson The Salt Lake Tribune

Salt Lake Tribune Until 1963, interracial marriages were illegal in Utah. Residents who suffered chronic epileptic seizures and were not sterilized also were barred from marrying in the state. And, until 1993, anyone who had syphilis, gonorrhea or HIV could not make that walk down the aisle. Now, in 2005, three Utahns who want to unite as husband, wife and wife say their preferred form of marriage also should be allowed. They are asking the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse a federal judge's rejection of their challenge to state prohibitions against bigamy and polygamy. "The fact [that] much of American legal culture is based on monogamy does not justify a ban on polygamy," their attorney, Brian Barnard, of Salt Lake City, wrote in a brief filed this month with the Denver-based appeals court. Barnard argued that a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down a Texas law that prohibited sexual conduct between same-sex couples "provides individuals with protection from state intrusion as to intimate relationships." On Dec. 22, 2003, G. Lee Cook tried to obtain a marriage license from the Salt Lake County Clerk's Office to wed a woman, identified in court papers as J. Bronson. Cook's legal wife was identified as D. Cook. G. Lee Cook wrote on the application that he already was married and told clerks that he wanted to legally marry a second wife. The clerks refused to issue a marriage license and refunded a $50 fee. The three - who are all more than 45 years old and say polygamous marriage is a requirement for their exaltation and eternal salvation - filed suit in federal court against the clerks. The legal action seeks to overturn an 1879 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, Reynolds v. United States, that upheld Utah's ban on polygamy. In February, U.S. District Judge Ted Stewart rejected the argument that the prohibition on polygamy is an unconstitutional violation of religious and privacy rights and ruled that the state has an interest in protecting monogamous marriage. Stewart also ruled that even the 2003 opinion in Lawrence v. Texas over the sodomy law did not grant a right to plural marriage, noting that the laws against bigamy and polygamy do not preclude private sexual conduct. Under Utah law, Barnard says, married people living in a sexual relationship with someone who is not their spouse is guilty of bigamy, and deceit or a second marriage ceremony are not required elements of the crime. But although that provision makes it illegal for a married man to live with a girlfriend before his divorce is final, the law has been used to target polygamists, he contends. There is no compelling governmental interest that makes the prohibition against religious polygamy constitutional, he argues in the brief. Utah also officially abandoned plural marriage, in part, lawyers for the state say, because of social problems associated with polygamy; the exploitation of women and girls; and the encouragement of responsible procreation. Barnard counters that the state does not regulate exploitative relationships between other couples, and if there were a compelling reason to promote responsible procreation, Utah would step into all family situations. Yet, there are no sanctions against an unwed mother who rears children alone, and there is no statute barring parents from divorcing and raising their children in separate households. "The state does not restrict nor ban 'serial polygamists,' individuals who repeatedly marry, conceive children and divorce a series of spouses." pmanson@sltrib.com


TOPICS: Culture/Society; US: Utah
KEYWORDS: cult; deviance; eunumpluribus; lawrencevtexas; marriage; polygamy; utah
More proof that once we broaden the definition of marriage, there is no limit to combinations kooks will think of. Next up, pets and inanimate objects as mates.
1 posted on 11/28/2005 7:46:25 PM PST by ChildOfThe60s
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ChildOfThe60s

Doesn't even have to involve people--my cockatiel can marry my cousin's VCR.


2 posted on 11/28/2005 7:49:44 PM PST by Buck W. (Yesterday's Intelligentsia are today's Irrelevantsia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ChildOfThe60s

It'd be nice if you'd format and/or summarize.


3 posted on 11/28/2005 7:49:57 PM PST by Mamzelle (victory was declared in your absence)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ChildOfThe60s

I think I might agree, but the lack of paragraphs made me blind before I could finish reading.


4 posted on 11/28/2005 7:49:58 PM PST by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ChildOfThe60s
I wonder why Utah denizens are Utahns and not Utahans. (It'd be pronounced the same.)
5 posted on 11/28/2005 7:50:46 PM PST by Xenalyte ("Every day should be the best day ever!" -Frank DellaPenna, Cast in Bronze)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ChildOfThe60s

"Next up, pets and inanimate objects as mates."

Actually, I wager that the next step will be blood kin. I expect that in the next five to ten years siblings or other near kin (aunts and uncles with nieces/nephews, first cousins, etc.) will attempt to "marry". You are very correct in stating that once one widens the definition of marriage, the freaks will pop-up in droves.


6 posted on 11/28/2005 7:51:30 PM PST by Army Air Corps (Four fried chickens and a coke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Hey if homosexuals want to marry, then I should have a right to have 10 wives if I want. ;)


7 posted on 11/28/2005 7:52:25 PM PST by oolatec
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle

Oops, sorry about that. I was not paying proper attention.


8 posted on 11/28/2005 7:53:43 PM PST by ChildOfThe60s (If you can remember the 60s......you weren't really there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ChildOfThe60s
sooooo..... does this mean that in Utah, a woman can have 3 husbands?? (who each are a variation on Matthew McConaughey, live for doing dishes, and are genetically disposed to sending flowers on every Important Occasion?)

JUST WONDERIN, OKAY???

;)

9 posted on 11/28/2005 7:54:51 PM PST by wigswest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone

Apologies. I read the regular version and then copied the print version. It is kind of bad, isn't it?


10 posted on 11/28/2005 7:55:22 PM PST by ChildOfThe60s (If you can remember the 60s......you weren't really there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: oolatec

I agree- let me help you out...take my wife...please


11 posted on 11/28/2005 7:56:02 PM PST by nicko (CW3 (ret.) CPT, you need to just unass the AO; I know what I'm doing- Major, you're on your own.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: oolatec
I should have a right to have 10 wives if I want. ;)

Ewww. That in itself would be proper punishment for doing something that dumb. /snicker

12 posted on 11/28/2005 7:58:01 PM PST by ChildOfThe60s (If you can remember the 60s......you weren't really there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ChildOfThe60s

I can't really answer your question because I have to pretend that I'm blind based on my first comment. My seeing eye dog is typing this response, by the way.


13 posted on 11/28/2005 7:59:14 PM PST by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ChildOfThe60s
Utah abandoned polygamy to become a state, and the Mormans abandoned it, because Congress was about to disincorporate the religion, and effectively shut it down in a financial sense.
14 posted on 11/28/2005 8:01:39 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Victoria Delsoul

Pingaroo


15 posted on 11/28/2005 8:02:49 PM PST by Army Air Corps (Four fried chickens and a coke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: oolatec

Foolish.... unwise.


16 posted on 11/28/2005 8:03:35 PM PST by clee1 (We use 43 muscles to frown, 17 to smile, and 2 to pull a trigger. I'm lazy and I'm tired of smiling.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ChildOfThe60s
Until 1963, interracial marriages were illegal in Utah. Residents who suffered chronic epileptic seizures and were not sterilized also were barred from marrying in the state.

And, until 1993, anyone who had syphilis, gonorrhea or HIV could not make that walk down the aisle.

Now, in 2005, three Utahns who want to unite as husband, wife and wife say their preferred form of marriage also should be allowed.

They are asking the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse a federal judge's rejection of their challenge to state prohibitions against bigamy and polygamy.

"The fact [that] much of American legal culture is based on monogamy does not justify a ban on polygamy," their attorney, Brian Barnard, of Salt Lake City, wrote in a brief filed this month with the Denver-based appeals court.

Barnard argued that a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down a Texas law that prohibited sexual conduct between same-sex couples "provides individuals with protection from state intrusion as to intimate relationships."

On Dec. 22, 2003, G. Lee Cook tried to obtain a marriage license from the Salt Lake County Clerk's Office to wed a woman, identified in court papers as J. Bronson. Cook's legal wife was identified as D. Cook. G. Lee Cook wrote on the application that he already was married and told clerks that he wanted to legally marry a second wife. The clerks refused to issue a marriage license and refunded a $50 fee.

The three - who are all more than 45 years old and say polygamous marriage is a requirement for their exaltation and eternal salvation - filed suit in federal court against the clerks. The legal action seeks to overturn an 1879 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, Reynolds v. United States, that upheld Utah's ban on polygamy.

In February, U.S. District Judge Ted Stewart rejected the argument that the prohibition on polygamy is an unconstitutional violation of religious and privacy rights and ruled that the state has an interest in protecting monogamous marriage.

Stewart also ruled that even the 2003 opinion in Lawrence v. Texas over the sodomy law did not grant a right to plural marriage, noting that the laws against bigamy and polygamy do not preclude private sexual conduct.

Under Utah law, Barnard says, married people living in a sexual relationship with someone who is not their spouse is guilty of bigamy, and deceit or a second marriage ceremony are not required elements of the crime. But although that provision makes it illegal for a married man to live with a girlfriend before his divorce is final, the law has been used to target polygamists, he contends.

There is no compelling governmental interest that makes the prohibition against religious polygamy constitutional, he argues in the brief.

Utah also officially abandoned plural marriage, in part, lawyers for the state say, because of social problems associated with polygamy; the exploitation of women and girls; and the encouragement of responsible procreation.

Barnard counters that the state does not regulate exploitative relationships between other couples, and if there were a compelling reason to promote responsible procreation, Utah would step into all family situations. Yet, there are no sanctions against an unwed mother who rears children alone, and there is no statute barring parents from divorcing and raising their children in separate households.

"The state does not restrict nor ban 'serial polygamists,' individuals who repeatedly marry, conceive children and divorce a series of spouses."

pmanson@sltrib.com

17 posted on 11/28/2005 8:05:09 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wigswest

" JUST WONDERIN, OKAY???"

Yeah why not. If it worked for Zaa Zaa Gabor and Liz Taylor it should work for everybody.

This system could solve China's bride problem.


18 posted on 11/28/2005 8:06:01 PM PST by beaver fever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ChildOfThe60s

I think Polygamy is protected under the Penumbra Article of the Constitution.


19 posted on 11/28/2005 8:06:19 PM PST by NavVet (“Benedict Arnold was wounded in battle fighting for America, but no one remembers him for that.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nicko

LOL, I could say something,,,but,,,i won't...lol


20 posted on 11/28/2005 8:06:44 PM PST by meanie monster (http://sa3bin.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ChildOfThe60s
I heard that men talk about 1000 words/day whereas women use 4000/day. Anyone wanting more then one wife gets what they ask for.

Can you imagine coming home and having three wives saying "Honey, we need to TALK".

21 posted on 11/28/2005 8:10:48 PM PST by freedomlover (This Fall a Woman will be the Mother of a Mouse)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ChildOfThe60s

Another reason we need a marriage defined as between one man and one woman...


22 posted on 11/28/2005 8:10:52 PM PST by yldstrk (My heros have always been cowboys-Reagan and Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ChildOfThe60s

More proof that paragraphs are our friends.


23 posted on 11/28/2005 8:11:13 PM PST by freedomlover (This Fall a Woman will be the Mother of a Mouse)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Army Air Corps
The three - who are all more than 45 years old and say polygamous marriage is a requirement for their exaltation and eternal salvation -

The three, meaning... a husband, wife and wife. Is there a wife, husband and husband, too? Yikes, this whole thing is so perverted.

24 posted on 11/28/2005 8:17:42 PM PST by Victoria Delsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: freedomlover
And as Rodney Carrington says, "We need to talk doesn't mean we need to talk, it means you need to sit and listen while I tell you all the ways you've been up."
25 posted on 11/28/2005 8:17:45 PM PST by Mr. Blonde (You know, Happy Time Harry, just being around you kinda makes me want to die.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Torie

Thanks for the post. My eyes are grateful.


26 posted on 11/28/2005 8:18:16 PM PST by Victoria Delsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ChildOfThe60s

Polygyny has more historical precedent than 'gay marriage'.


27 posted on 11/28/2005 8:21:50 PM PST by supercat (Sony delinda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Victoria Delsoul

See my post #6.


28 posted on 11/28/2005 8:23:03 PM PST by Army Air Corps (Four fried chickens and a coke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: ChildOfThe60s
For the love of God, one wife is enough!

More seriously, there's a Wisconsin brother and sister convicted of incest who are appealing, arguing that Lawrence invalidates such laws. I believe the first level appeal was rejected, but the judge sure had to do some fancy legal wrangling to avoid that conclusion.

29 posted on 11/28/2005 8:26:28 PM PST by pierrem15
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Army Air Corps

Double yikes, but you got a point.


30 posted on 11/28/2005 8:29:18 PM PST by Victoria Delsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Victoria Delsoul

"Double yikes, but you got a point."

Read post #29. Ick!


31 posted on 11/28/2005 8:31:10 PM PST by Army Air Corps (Four fried chickens and a coke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Army Air Corps

Ick is right. Man oh man!


32 posted on 11/28/2005 8:32:44 PM PST by Victoria Delsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: pierrem15

"More seriously, there's a Wisconsin brother and sister convicted of incest who are appealing, arguing that Lawrence invalidates such laws."

I think that I'm gonna vomit...


33 posted on 11/28/2005 8:34:03 PM PST by Army Air Corps (Four fried chickens and a coke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: ChildOfThe60s
say polygamous marriage is a requirement for ... eternal salvation

I'm still trying to figure out how one of us guys could say that with a straight face! LOL

Then I'm trying to figure out how they get these women to believe it. Alcohol?
34 posted on 11/28/2005 8:37:58 PM PST by F15Eagle (1 John 5:4-5, 1 John 4:15, John 11:25, John 14:6, 1 Tim 2:5, John 3:17-18, John 20:31, 1 John 5:13)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: oolatec

You better have a LOT of money first!;))


35 posted on 11/28/2005 8:43:22 PM PST by Frank_2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ChildOfThe60s

Polygamy usually consists of predatory older men preying on young and vulnerable while hiding behind religion.


36 posted on 11/28/2005 9:09:14 PM PST by tkathy (Ban the headscarf. (All religious headdress). The effect will creat a huge domino effect..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wigswest
"does this mean that in Utah, a woman can have 3 husbands?"

This is an interesting concept. By your proposal, I need to act like a husband only two days a week (conjugal rights, helping out in the kitchen, reading to the kids, putting down the toilet seat). And, on the other five days I can run around like a single guy -- meaning, staying out until closing time with buddies, playing golf all weekend, flirting with other girls, etc.

Sign me up! Sounds like the perfect marriage!

[just kidding, dear, I really didn't mean iiiiit ... ouch! ouch! Don't you know a joke when you see one? ouch!]

37 posted on 11/28/2005 9:12:05 PM PST by tom h
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Army Air Corps
The only way states are gonna get out of this legal straightjacket that Lawrence created is to start arguing -- and codifying into law -- a "compelling interest" argument that the state has in protecting, preserving, and institutionalizing marriage as between one man and one woman.

Anything else becomes a religious argument, and though I personally stand behind that 100% (uh, except in the Mormon context), it obviously won't stand in courts anymore.

38 posted on 11/28/2005 9:12:52 PM PST by alancarp (Will hack code for oil)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Army Air Corps
You are very correct in stating that once one widens the definition of marriage, the freaks will pop-up in droves.

Two widowed sisters might marry for the benefits. No sex, just married.

39 posted on 11/28/2005 9:19:03 PM PST by poindexter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: tom h
LOL, the flowers! You forgot the FLOWERS!!!

oh yeah, and the dancing...

oh, and could one of you guys pick me up a sixpack of chocolate on the way home??

;) ;)

40 posted on 11/28/2005 9:38:21 PM PST by wigswest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: oolatec

i would surmise that you feel that having only one wife is not.. generous..


41 posted on 11/28/2005 9:47:48 PM PST by sheik yerbouty ( Make America and the world a jihad free zone!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Victoria Delsoul
Is there a wife, husband and husband, too?

Yes.. It is called "polyandry"..
A Man with multiple wives is actually called "polygyny"..

Polygamy actually refers to the overall practice of a person of either sex having multiple spouses..

42 posted on 11/28/2005 10:11:06 PM PST by Drammach (Freedom; not just a job, it's an adventure..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: poindexter
Two widowed sisters might marry for the benefits. No sex, just married.

Uh...what makes you assume the "no sex" part? Remember who we are dealing with here.

43 posted on 11/29/2005 5:40:08 AM PST by ChildOfThe60s (If you can remember the 60s......you weren't really there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: wigswest

Now that would be nice and adding to that they always think your beautiful no matter what, you are never fat, so that never ending question do these pants make me look fat will be gone forever! lol


44 posted on 11/29/2005 7:19:34 AM PST by red irish (Gods Children in the womb are to be loved too!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ChildOfThe60s
3 Utahns try to open door for polygamy

I am of mixed minds about polygamy: On one hand, you have multiple expenses and headaches -- on the other hand, there is the group sex.

45 posted on 11/29/2005 7:20:56 AM PST by Lazamataz (When life gives you lemons, kick it in the shins and take its wallet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.
"Doesn't even have to involve people--my cockatiel can marry my cousin's VCR."

You know that might not be so bad...

Then again even an artificial woman might turn out to be cold as ice as in this ELO song.

Yours Truly, 2095
[2095, 2095, 2095, 2095
I love you, sincerely
Yours truly, yours truly...]
I sent a message to another time
But as the days unwind, this I just can't believe
I sent a note across another plane
Maybe it's all a game, but this I just can't conceive.
[Can you hear me?]
I drive the very latest hovercar
I don't know where you are
But I miss you so much till then
I met someone who looks a lot like you
She does the things you do
But she is an IBM.

2095, 2095, 2095, 2095
I love you, sincerely
Yours truly, yours truly...
She's only programmed to be very nice
But she's as cold as ice
Whenever I get too near
She tells me that she likes me very much
But when I try to touch
She makes it all too clear.
She is the latest in technology
Almost mythology
But she has a heart stone
She has an I.Q. of 1001
She has a jumpsuit on
And she's also a telephone.

2095, 2095, 2095, 2095
I love you, sincerely
Yours truly, yours truly...
[CHORUS:]
Is that what you want? (Is it what you want?)
Is it what you really want? (Is it what you really want?)
Is that what you want? (Is it what you want?)
Is it what you really want?
I realize that it must seem so strange
That time has rearranged
But time has the final word
She knows I think of you, she reads my mind
She tries to be unkind
She knows nothing of our world
Although her memory banks overflow
No one would ever know
For all she says: "Is that what you want?"
Maybe one day I'll feel her cold embrace

And kiss her interface
'Til then, I'll leave her alone.
I love you, sincerely
Yours truly, yours truly...
[REPEAT CHORUS]
"Is that what you want?"

46 posted on 11/29/2005 11:21:48 AM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ChildOfThe60s

My point is that we seem to have removed any societal oversight over the reason for the institution of marriage. Now, any collection of people can get married for any reason.


47 posted on 11/30/2005 7:04:27 AM PST by poindexter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: poindexter

You are correct. The opinion of the left is that society should have nothing to say about such things.

Which is inconsistant with their facist approach to anything said or done that is not of liberal origin.


48 posted on 11/30/2005 5:05:20 PM PST by ChildOfThe60s (If you can remember the 60s......you weren't really there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | 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