Federal Judge Strikes Down Utah Anti-Polygamy Law

[Trigger Time]

I think its funny. You have one group shaking their fists in the air and wanting to change laws to fit what they believe in and force feed it to everyone or else. Then you have another group that just wants the right to believe an live their own way.

so continues the same fight for thousands of years now.

ill just sit back laugh and watch everyone **** each other up.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Ummm...you really think that same sex marriage is going to lead to beastiality and legalised pedophilia?

Given that all three were outlawed based on the same standard, it seems perfectly plausible.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Given that all three were outlawed based on the same standard, it seems perfectly plausible.

Well, bestiality is still legal in about a dozen states and wasn't illegal in Indiana until 2007. Looking at map overlays, it looks like about half the places that are ok with a velcro glove lifestyle also allow gay marriage or civil unions, and about half don't. I'm thinking there's not much correlation there, but if there is since bestiality being legal predates gay marriage, it runs the other way.

For those interested in the maps (for whatever reason, I'm not judging):

Map of the Day: Bestiality-Friendly States | Mother Jones

Justices Flirt With Throwing Out Prop 8 Gay Marriage Case

 

[IndyDave1776]

Well, bestiality is still legal in about a dozen states and wasn't illegal in Indiana until 2007. Looking at map overlays, it looks like about half the places that are ok with a velcro glove lifestyle also allow gay marriage or civil unions, and about half don't. I'm thinking there's not much correlation there, but if there is since bestiality being legal predates gay marriage, it runs the other way.

For those interested in the maps (for whatever reason, I'm not judging):

Map of the Day: Bestiality-Friendly States | Mother Jones

Justices Flirt With Throwing Out Prop 8 Gay Marriage Case

I didn't mean to imply that I necessarily believed in a direct correlation, but rather see it as a plausible expectation subject to the political whims of the moment. One inconvenient problem of excluding morality, especially that rightly or wrongly held to be of religious origins, is that in the absence of a cohesive standard we revert to whatever 51% agree upon at any given time. Personally I would argue that this standard being prevalent in generations past was more a reflection of the general thoughts of the average citizen rather than theocratic legislation per se, but given that we no longer live in such a prevailing culture, nothing would really surprise me working in parallel in the direction of amorality or in contradictory directions such as you have cited.

It is also important to remember that what 51% agree upon today based on subjective and malleable justifications may be entirely different from what may be accepted tomorrow based on the same criteria. I did not mean to indicate a belief that once the door is set slightly ajar that rampaging married homosexuals would be invading our homes and molesting the children and pets (as I know some would argue) but rather that in a society which no longer recognizes an objective standard of morality, there is no intrinsic justification for prohibiting any of these or any number of other behaviors. I could even argue that, particularly in the case of a male animal/female human, one could offer the justification that such contact is mutually consented provided that the human in question participates, well, passively given that the critter could simply walk away without...participating. On the other hand when the prevailing culture subscribed to the prohibition against men with men, women with women, or either with beasts supplied in one convenient location, the whim du jour was basically irrelevant.

In the end, the legislation will reflect the values of the culture voting for the legislators--and those values cannot be externally imposed. This is why John Adams made the following remark:

Because we have no government, armed with power, capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other

My conclusion on the matter is that regardless of the personal beliefs of any of us, legislation will reflect the values of culture supporting the legislature which will revolve on whim and not objective standard in the event that the culture rejects objective standards therefore making such a general assumption entirely tenable regardless of the direction in which the breeze blows at any given moment.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I didn't mean to imply that I necessarily believed in a direct correlation, but rather see it as a plausible expectation subject to the political whims of the moment. One inconvenient problem of excluding morality, especially that rightly or wrongly held to be of religious origins, is that in the absence of a cohesive standard we revert to whatever 51% agree upon at any given time.

Granted, but who's objective morality do we impose over the 51%? Bigamy laws didn't make the books in many (if not most) states until the 1970s. As shown, bestiality laws still aren't on the books in a lot of states. On the other hand, interracial marriages were illegal and deemed "wrong" by many a few decades ago. People we'd view as pedophiles today were perfectly normal when life spans were shorter, less education was required to make it in the world, etc. We deem a 14 year old a child, but isn't that a pretty modern viewpoint? Some countries, as I learned firsthand, demand proof that the people to be married are of the same religion or its illegal for them to marry. Do we want that in the states, as that is a very traditional viewpoint based in the same sources of morality we're delving into?

I think my concern is the way some folks try to tie all these things together. Like a person can't have an opinion on gay marriage that differs from their perspective on NAMBLA or whoever represents the folks who are for animal sex and still be consistent in their beliefs.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Granted, but who's objective morality do we impose over the 51%?

I would say that we are on the same page, and that the above question you raised is exactly the issue which will need to be resolved. It will be interesting, but I doubt it will be pretty!

 

[Kutnupe14]

You mean the type that has been recognized as legitimate by most all of civilization for thousands of years?

Is that the my wife is my property part?

 

[MisterChester]

The way that marriage should be defined according to US law is a union of two consenting persons of legal age. See? No animals, no polygamy, heterosexual marriages aren't ruined.

 

[Kutnupe14]

The way that marriage should be defined according to US law is a union of two consenting persons of legal age. See? No animals, no polygamy, heterosexual marriages aren't ruined.

US law shouldn't be defining marriage, but at least your stance is somewhat fair.

 

[Birds Away]

"Marriage" is a religious distinction. In so far as the gubmint is concerned they should pass a law for civil contracts between individual adults. They should not refer to it as marriage but as a civil union, regardless of who is involved. If someone wants to get "married" let them do so as they wish because it would have no standing in law or the courts.

Here, I'll just put this back in here.

 

[random_eyes]

Hmmm, polygamy seems to introduce some potentially interesting income tax and courtroom scenarios. If person A marries person B, then person B marries person C, might person A share liability for some future income tax debt of C? Does it change whether A is aware of C? Can A be coerced to testify against C under state or federal spousal privilege laws? If A marries B, then B marries C, then C marries A, does that lock in more privileges?

Can I marry my Corporation? Can two corporations marry?

 

[PeaShooter]

two consenting adults marrying each other is a fundamentally different issue than an adult marrying a child who is unable to consent. or an adult marrying a goat. I can't help but question the thought processes of anyone who equates these issues.

Do you guys really think that we will someday see United States politicians successfully running on a platform of pedophilia? Really? Really?

The politicians don't have to worry about it. The courts will do it for them....

 

[Brian S.]

I have 3 points: 2 specific, 1 general.

1. The "argument from tradition" that says marriage is "this" therefore it should remain "this" is just absurd, and is not an argument at all.

2. The "slippery slope" argument is arbitrary at best. The idea that "allowing" two consenting male adults to marry will lead to people marrying animals or children is a non sequitur. These behaviors are not related, no matter how much you want them to be.

2. The whole issue of defining marriage and the ridiculous "slippery slope" nonsense is easily addressed using existing contract law.

• Each party would need to be of age of majority. Children can't enter into contracts.
• Each party would need to be an actual living human. You can't marry a desk, a lamp or your phone. Each party must be able to give voluntary consent.

These two items alone would eliminate all of the questions of marriages involving bestiality, pedophilia or the like. Can't marry a kid, can't marry a goat, can't marry your girlfriend's corpse, etc. They would have to be adults of sound mind acting voluntarily.

This WOULD mean of course, that same-sex couples would be allowed to marry, and polygamy would be allowed as well. However, guess what? These situations involve consenting adults and it's nobodies damn business if a dude wants to marry 2 women and 3 other dudes. States properly should abandon the notion of defining marriage at all, beyond the above guidelines. It should be treated as any other civil contract and the legal "power to marry" should be removed from those who currently possess it. All marriage ceremonies would be a matter of preference and would have no legal effect.

I think that this is like so many other issues in that people conflate the concepts of legality with morality. While these sometimes overlap, that is (or it SHOULD BE at least) coincidental.

This is how marriage should be treated in a free country. No one is forbidden or encouraged to engage in voluntary legal association with another and the government has no place trying to "steer" our so-called "society" toward what any group or groups deem morally acceptable so long as they aren't violating anyone else's rights.

I don't know if this goes beyond the scope of this thread but it seemed like as good place as any to post it.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I have 3 points: 2 specific, 1 general.

1. The "argument from tradition" that says marriage is "this" therefore it should remain "this" is just absurd, and is not an argument at all.

If you can't understand the hazards in allowing the redefinition of language, perhaps you should review the argument that the Second Amendment affords only the National Guard the right to arms. Allowing any two (or more) consenting individuals the right to pool their worldly possessions and responsibilities and redefining language are two entirely different things aside from the fact that this is not good enough for those individuals who won't stop pissing and moaning until they are described under the word 'marriage'.

2. The "slippery slope" argument is arbitrary at best. The idea that "allowing" two consenting male adults to marry will lead to people marrying animals or children is a non sequitur. These behaviors are not related, no matter how much you want them to be.

It may be in your reckoning, but that doesn't change the fact that rarely is a change made which stops there. You may recall that homosexuality and polygamy were both defined as deviate conduct and were also considered mental illnesses, not unlike pedophilia and bestiality. You really think those people are going to simply stay in the closet after watching another mental illness and criminal behavior get transformed into a right? You really think that there will not at minimum be an earnest effort to start a 'farmer in the dell' effect with other persons/behaviors not presently accepted socially or legally? You may also recall that we have at least one Supreme Court justice on record as believing that the age of consent should be 12--far from what most of us consider 'adult'.

2. The whole issue of defining marriage and the ridiculous "slippery slope" nonsense is easily addressed using existing contract law.

• Each party would need to be of age of majority. Children can't enter into contracts.
• Each party would need to be an actual living human. You can't marry a desk, a lamp or your phone. Each party must be able to give voluntary consent.

These two items alone would eliminate all of the questions of marriages involving bestiality, pedophilia or the like. Can't marry a kid, can't marry a goat, can't marry your girlfriend's corpse, etc. They would have to be adults of sound mind acting voluntarily.

This WOULD mean of course, that same-sex couples would be allowed to marry, and polygamy would be allowed as well. However, guess what? These situations involve consenting adults and it's nobodies damn business if a dude wants to marry 2 women and 3 other dudes. States properly should abandon the notion of defining marriage at all, beyond the above guidelines. It should be treated as any other civil contract and the legal "power to marry" should be removed from those who currently possess it. All marriage ceremonies would be a matter of preference and would have no legal effect.

I think that this is like so many other issues in that people conflate the concepts of legality with morality. While these sometimes overlap, that is (or it SHOULD BE at least) coincidental.

This is how marriage should be treated in a free country. No one is forbidden or encouraged to engage in voluntary legal association with another and the government has no place trying to "steer" our so-called "society" toward what any group or groups deem morally acceptable so long as they aren't violating anyone else's rights.

I don't know if this goes beyond the scope of this thread but it seemed like as good place as any to post it.

I agree with you that the contractual sharing of property and responsibility should be just that--and available to whomever may wish to enter into such a contract. Marriage, by contrast, is a religious function which had no state involvement until Louis XIV usurped that role while feuding with the Catholic Church over who was the supreme political authority in France. As previously mentioned, I consider the political redefinition of the English language to be a very dangerous thing given that anything is subject to change and/or nullification including (again, as previously mentioned) the Constitution itself if the terms from which it is constructed can be redefined to mean whatever the legislators and/or judges want them to mean after the fashion of Humpty Dumpty claiming that his words mean exactly what he wants them to mean.

While the polygamists have no problem issue here, the homosexuals campaigning for 'equal' rights are not happy with equal operation under the law but insist on redefining language. I am not sure whether this is a matter of demanding what they perceive as state sanction of their choices or is another issue I haven't considered, but the redefinition of a term into something it has never been defined to include seems to me to indicate an agenda different than simply wanting the same rights as everyone else. In a similar way, during the era of civil rights activism, black citizens were resolute in their rightful demand for equality. Never once did they demand to be redefined as white, or demand to have white redefined as not being color-specific. Why then are these people so hell-bent on the redefinition of a term the definition of which has been stable throughout human history? It suggests to me that they do not merely want equality but official imprimatur on their choices.

 

[Brian S.]

I agree with you that the contractual sharing of property and responsibility should be just that--and available to whomever may wish to enter into such a contract. Marriage, by contrast, is a religious function which had no state involvement until Louis XIV usurped that role while feuding with the Catholic Church over who was the supreme political authority in France.

I think you have that backwards. When you go further back in history you find that marriage didn't involve religion (or love for that matter) at all. It was a means to bind families together to gain and maintain power and to carry on the name.

While the polygamists have no problem issue here, the homosexuals campaigning for 'equal' rights are not happy with equal operation under the law but insist on redefining language. I am not sure whether this is a matter of demanding what they perceive as state sanction of their choices or is another issue I haven't considered, but the redefinition of a term into something it has never been defined to include seems to me to indicate an agenda different than simply wanting the same rights as everyone else. In a similar way, during the era of civil rights activism, black citizens were resolute in their rightful demand for equality. Never once did they demand to be redefined as white, or demand to have white redefined as not being color-specific. Why then are these people so hell-bent on the redefinition of a term the definition of which has been stable throughout human history? It suggests to me that they do not merely want equality but official imprimatur on their choices.

Words are just tools. Nothing more. Their definitions are in a constant state of flux based upon usage. The term "marriage" is no different. The idea that the way it has been defined throughout history hasn't changed is just false. While I'll agree that it has certainly been defined as heterosexual in nature, the rest of the parameters have changed many times. The commonality of polygamy has morphed in different regions over different time periods. Marriages used to be mainly based procreation for the purposes of carrying on the family heritage. This reason has become outdated in the modern west. Arranged marriages, while still practiced in certain cultures, are dead in the west. It wasn't until the 18th century that marriage for love even began to become popular. Love was widely considered to be incompatible with marriage.

Their HAVE been times that in certain cultures homosexuality was not quite as taboo as it became under the tyranny of the church during the middle ages. Same-sex relationships did exist and while maybe not always publicly embraced, were not persecuted either. The reason that this didn't lead to homosexual marriage is simply a matter of them being incompatible with the nature of marriage AT THE TIME. It simply made no sense for two men or two women to marry. THIS is why gay marriage never was. By the time of the institution of religion (combined with enlightenment thinkers' influence) had transformed marriage into something resembling what it is today, they had also saturated the west with their anti-homosexual Christian morality.

Times have changed. When considering the legal definition of marriage independent of religious moral considerations (as the LEGAL definition SHOULD be), homosexuality is perfectly compatible with modern marriage. Their is no rational reason to exclude it. Certainly not to preserve the "integrity" of a word. The Christians' attempt to lay claim to the word or the institution is just silly and intellectually dishonest.

 

[HotD]

More marriage mutation. Marriage will always be one man + one woman. Besides, I've found that one wife is enough for me to handle.

How is that? How many wives did David have?

Bigamy and polygamy was legal in Utah before statehood, and is still lawful in may parts of the world.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Words are just tools. Nothing more. Their definitions are in a constant state of flux based upon usage.

OK, I get it. You are happy to have a situation in which binding standards (like the Constitution, for example) are impossible because words, as Humpty Dumpty said, 'mean exactly what I want them to mean, no more and no less' and are willing to let the government do the defining.

 

[CountryBoy1981]

I have 3 points: 2 specific, 1 general.

2. The "slippery slope" argument is arbitrary at best. The idea that "allowing" two consenting male adults to marry will lead to people marrying animals or children is a non sequitur. These behaviors are not related, no matter how much you want them to be.

You seem to have no concept of the legal ramifications. The right to marriage has been deemed a fundamental right. As such, the state law that regulates marriage must be necessary to promote a compelling state interest, a/k/a strict scrutiny. Under strict scrutiny, the challenger of the law almost always wins. The marriage framework under strict scrutiny has been held up by tradition. Once you break tradition the gates open and the state bears the burden the burden to prove that any marriage law promotes a compelling government interest (extremely hard to prove). E.g., the state would have to prove that to prevent a man from marrying his dog is justified because allowing it to happen would harm society. Can anyone tell me the actual harm to society or is the only argument against based on tradition/moral law? By rejecting tradition and judicially (did not say legislatively) striking down tradition, the courts open a real can of worms.

 

[CountryBoy1981]

The sanctity of marriage (tradition) has always been the compelling government interest to uphold marriage laws. Once the courts erode tradition, there is no longer a legal framework to uphold other marriage restrictions. The justification then becomes the majority opinion, not law. I think we already know how majority rules turns out.

I personally believe that the state/government should get out of the marriage business all together. People shouldn't have to be licensed to be married. But so long as the state is regulating marriage, any action taken by the courts ends any legal justification for who can marry who(s), what, etc.

 

[HARVEYtheDAMNED]

I honestly wish the marriage debate would end. So much conservative political capital is spent at the most arbitrary of issues.

Tradition is not a valid reason for anything. Besides, people have been getting married before Abrahamic religion was even a thing. Gay/Polygamist marriages hurt no one. It's perfectly OK to find it gross, disgusting, immoral, etc. That's your opinion and while I don't agree, I don't care whatsoever to change your mind.

It honestly surprises me that conservatives are attempting to enact such pointless pieces of legislation on this matter, considering that's a point of criticism often brought up when deconstructing the liberal position.