Free Republic
Browse · Search
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."

TOPICS: Culture/Society; US: Utah
KEYWORDS: cult; deviance; eunumpluribus; lawrencevtexas; marriage; polygamy; utah
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-48 last
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 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...
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...
"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 weren't really there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-48 last

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