Now our covenant can become everlasting again!
Posted on 12/13/2013 11:27:18 PM PST by Zakeet
A federal judge on Friday struck down a key portion of Utah's bigamy laws as unconstitutional, siding with a reality television star and his four wives.
Polygamy is illegal in all 50 states. But Utah's law is unique in that a person can be guilty not just for having two legal marriage licenses, but also for cohabiting with another adult in a marriage-like relationship.
U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups said in a 91-page ruling issued late on Friday that the second aspect is unconstitutionally broad because it bars consenting adults from living together and criminalizes their intimate sexual relationships.
[Snip]
The ruling could make it harder to prosecute the thousands of Utah's fundamentalist Mormons who engage in the practice on religious grounds.
The mainstream Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints publicly abandoned polygamy in 1890 as Utah was seeking statehood.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
Now our covenant can become everlasting again!
“Polygamy is illegal in all 50 states”
one guy + one guy = legal
one guy + two woman = illegal
not as many campaign contributers apparently.
If you think about it, he’s right. How can the state regulate private relationships? Oh, wait, they do that all the time ... see “Christian baker forced to make wedding cake for homosexuals who can’t even get married to each other in his state.”
It’ll be here before I turn 60.
Mark Twain once debated with some Mormons that polygamy was wrong. Polygamy is a form of marriage in which a man has more than one wife at the same time. When asked to prove polygamy isn’t in harmony with Biblical teaching, Twain cited Matthew chapter 6 verse 24 (where it says we cannot serve two masters).
you’ll have polygamy by the time you’re 60, eh?
just curious....
will that mean you’ll need more of those nice blue pills to service all those extra females, or perhaps less pills since you’ll have more to choose from, or?
smile
smile
smile
Polygamy has a history where "gay marriage" does not. If you allow the shakier of the two, how in the world do you deny the other, especially as it'll be much more popular? It's not the 19th or 20th Century anymore.
faithhopecharity, really?
I never thought they would stop at queer marriage.
Now that odumbo has an Excutive Order Zar, Just wait a little while and odumbo will give the that poligimay will be legal in all states from hence forth.
Then watch the cow in the White House facial expressions..........Gonna be some fireworks there.
The sense of Genesis 2:24 is singular, and best illustrated by the example of Issac and Rebecca, even as the other patriarchs screwed it up.
> siding with a reality television star and his four wives. Polygamy is illegal in all 50 states. But Utah’s law is unique in that a person can be guilty not just for having two legal marriage licenses, but also for cohabiting with another adult in a marriage-like relationship.
Uh-oh, sounds like some damned libertarians again. Next thing you know they’ll want to legalize prostitution, end the War on Drugs, and throw our borders wide open!
|
Are you still killing your unborn? -- GOD |
CHOICE is a bitch; ain't it!
We HAVE to allow IT!
My brilliant bride’s response to this horrible story:
Siena Hoefling:
“Not only are the courts usurping our rightful power to govern ourselves, they are arbitrarily ignoring their own precedent on a whim. In the news today, a judge has overturned the Utah law against plural cohabitation. Yet the Utah law was in harmony with the 1894 federal law that attached statehood to the prohibition against polygamous relationships. The Utah law was also in harmony with Reynolds v. United States (1878), which dismissed a religious liberty claim to polygamy. Reynolds states that to allow every citizen the claim to any action in the name of the First Amendment would “permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.” This is the stare decisis principle which any judge would agree governs any similar case that follows.
But by arbitrarily ignoring precedent, and by “striking” and ignoring the laws passed by elected representatives in Utah and Congress, this modern judge is setting himself above the law, and de facto making citizens a law unto themselves.
Yet according to the United States Constitution, “We the People of the United States” are guaranteed a republican form of government. We have the right to make laws to govern ourselves, without arbitrary rule. That was the reason for the American Revolution in the first place.”
“Libertarianism run amok. More often than not, libertarianism causes the courts to go off the rails. I have come to regard libertarianism as a coercion. Libertarianism claims that we do not have the right as a people to make laws to govern society. Therefore, we MUST allow whatever it is the individual wants to do. It’s a claim that captures a lot of people. It has a semblance of the truth. But whatever the merits of any such arguments made by libertarians, the fact is libertarianism is not our form of government. We are a republic, according to the Constitution.”
“It’s a Constitution paid for by the blood of Americans, beginning with the Revolutionary War. The early patriots selflessly fought and died for independence from arbitrary human rule, and for the chance to establish their own laws to govern society. We have an obligation to preserve that inheritance to future generations.”
-——”Other nations have received their laws from conquerors; some are indebted for a constitution to the suffering of their ancestors through revolving centuries. The people of this country, alone, have formally and deliberately chosen a government for themselves, and with open and uninfluenced consent bound themselves into a social compact. . . .
“Our Union is now complete; our Constitution composed, established, and approved. You are now the guardians of your own liberties: We may justly address you as the decemviri did the Romans, and say: ‘Nothing that we propose can pass into a law without your consent. Be yourselves, O Americans, the authors of those laws on which your happiness depends.’” — Samuel Adams, On American Independence, 1776 -——
Not exactly. Polygamy means more than two marriage partners.
More than one wife is called polygyny, more than one husband polyandry.
Polygyny is of course MUCH the more common.
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.