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

To: Dubya
I agree with others who like the sentiment of the law, but doubt its Constitutionality.

As for polygamy, I think Utah gave it up as a condition of statehood. I could be wrong about that, but I'm pretty sure that they weren't getting in otherwise.

15 posted on 07/25/2004 6:25:19 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Here since 28 Oct 1999, #26,303, over 189 threads posted, and somehow never suspended.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: PatrickHenry

It is lawful. Watch and see. We Republicans are going to take back our country from the liberals and judges.


16 posted on 07/25/2004 6:28:03 PM PDT by Dubya (Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father,but by me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

To: PatrickHenry; Sam Cree; Dubya; GatorGirl; maryz; afraidfortherepublic; Antoninus; Aquinasfan; ...

See http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds_poly.htm


In actions reminiscent of the "same-sex marriage" debate which started in the late 1990's, the Mormon practice of polygyny was countered by the federal Morrill Act of 1862 and the Edmunds Act of 1882, both of which prohibited the practice within the U.S. The Church claimed that the federal government had no jurisdiction to regulate marriage and other internal church practices. They also claimed that the act was a violation of Mromon's First Amendment rights. In 1879, the US Supreme Court declared that the Morrill Act was constitutional, that the government had a right to enforce marital standards, and that polygyny was a barbarous practice.

The federal government canceled the citizenship rights of polygamous Mormons. They were no longer allowed to vote, run for public office, or serve on a jury. Eventually, the government disincorporated the Church and began to confiscate its assets. In 1890, the Supreme Court determined that the government could take away citizenships from all members of the church.


17 posted on 07/25/2004 6:31:38 PM PDT by narses (If you want ON or OFF my Catholic Ping List email me. +)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

To: PatrickHenry
As for polygamy, I think Utah gave it up as a condition of statehood. I could be wrong about that, but I'm pretty sure that they weren't getting in otherwise.

That would be correct and the feds gave Utah a choice, accept the federal definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman or join Mexico.

That is the precedent for the federal governments defining marriage while states regualte it. All the rest of the states rights bs is simply that bs.

Marriage is and has been defined by the feds as the union of one man and one woman.

18 posted on 07/25/2004 6:33:23 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

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