- Joined
- Nov 30, 2011
- Messages
- 5,586
- Reaction score
- 2,420
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups said in the decision handed down Friday that a provision in Utah law forbidding cohabitation with another person violated the First Amendment right of freedom of religion.
Utah makes it illegal to even purport to be married to multiple partners or live together.
Under Waddoups' ruling, bigamy remains illegal in Utah only in the literal sense, such as when someone fraudulently acquires more than one marriage license.
I would like to say that while I did not agree with DOMA, many users on this website predicted this exact situation would happen as a result. The gay community is winning victory after victory in the same sex marriage realm. However, every action has a reaction. This, I believe, is a reaction to that. This judge really has no precedent anymore to rule against polygamy. Nor does any other Federal judge really.
Polygamy advocate groups hail judge's ruling in Utah | Fox News
Some people really do mind, I don't. That said, it appears that it's simply cohabitation with multiple partners that is now legal, not polygamy.Why do you care if some wacky people in Utah want to marry each other? How does that even remotely effect your life?
Liberty much?
Yep. Technically, my housemates and I would be considered living illegally in the same house. It was an overly strict law and it was stupid. Nothing to do with "gay marraige" but hey the haters never hesitate to burn down those strawmen wherever they see them. And if they don't see one they'll build one and burn it down.Some people really do mind, I don't. That said, it appears that it's simply cohabitation with multiple partners that is now legal, not polygamy.
U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups said in the decision handed down Friday that a provision in Utah law forbidding cohabitation with another person violated the First Amendment right of freedom of religion.
Yep. Technically, my housemates and I would be considered living illegally in the same house. It was an overly strict law and it was stupid. Nothing to do with "gay marraige" but hey the haters never hesitate to burn down those strawmen wherever they see them. And if they don't see one they'll build one and burn it down.
Why do you care if some wacky people in Utah want to marry each other? How does that even remotely effect your life?
Liberty much?
I would like to say that while I did not agree with DOMA, many users on this website predicted this exact situation would happen as a result. The gay community is winning victory after victory in the same sex marriage realm. However, every action has a reaction. This, I believe, is a reaction to that. This judge really has no precedent anymore to rule against polygamy. Nor does any other Federal judge really.
Polygamy advocate groups hail judge's ruling in Utah | Fox News
You don't get to deny homosexuals rights because of the possible ripple effects. Fight for or against an issue based on its merits and its merits alone. One could also point to interracial marriage as a stepping stone for both of the aforementioned battles occurring presently. That does not in any way diminish the validity of that particular position.
Thanks for that. I was basing my comment strictly off positions that the OP referenced.This is not a ripple effect ruling from SSM anyway. The ruling was based on a case against sodomy laws, not marriage laws. Basically the ruling states that there is a limit to just how intrusive the government can be in private, personal matters. Marriage is a state, public institution in that you need a license to be considered legally married(among other things) and receive a whole mess of legal rights and responsibilities from marriage. This ruling does not bring us closer to state licensed polygamy.
The only issue I have with polygamy is that the laws set up by the Federal and state governments to handle marriages don't deal with polygamy at all, for example if a man is married to two when and one wishes to divorce him how is that handled? Also tax laws which have different rules/benefits for married couples don't work with polygamy either. But if Utah were to change its laws to add text to deal with such issues, fine go ahead by all means.
Aside from that if these people are simply getting married in their churches, ie marriages not recognized by the state, and then living together to raise a family, I got no problem whatsoever so long as the children can be taken care up which is where already existing organizations like child services comes into play.
Only if it were one of those polygamy communities which drive out males to deal with the male/female imbalance or otherwise verges on cult like control of its members, only then would I support the law getting into their lives.
Under Waddoups' ruling, bigamy remains illegal in Utah only in the literal sense, such as when someone fraudulently acquires more than one marriage license.
Guess they'll have rewrite them all now.
I would like to say that while I did not agree with DOMA, many users on this website predicted this exact situation would happen as a result. The gay community is winning victory after victory in the same sex marriage realm. However, every action has a reaction. This, I believe, is a reaction to that. This judge really has no precedent anymore to rule against polygamy. Nor does any other Federal judge really.
Polygamy advocate groups hail judge's ruling in Utah | Fox News
You're putting words in my mouth.No you wouldn't because polygamy could not be governed by the same laws as marriage between two individuals, its a simple matter of treating a marriage between a man and a woman the same as one between two men for all legal concerns. But I think it would be better served if new laws came out since at least 3 people are now involved instead of just two. You would need new laws, not rewritten laws.
Also, whats wrong with rewriting the law?
Call it the law of unintended consequences or if you must, for ever action there is a reaction. I have no problems with either gay marriage or polygamy. I believe government has no place in saying who can or can't be married. DOMA was wrong and so to is limiting how many wives or husbands one can have.
The only reason I see why government ever became involved is marriage is used for tax purposes. Heck it was until 1916 that Kentucky became the last state in the union to start keeping records on marriages. Before then it was a church responsibility or just writing it down in a family bible or something like that. Being it is no longer a crime is a step in the right direction.
Gotta read past the headline dude. The ruling was about cohabitation laws, not marriage.
You're putting words in my mouth.
I would like to say that while I did not agree with DOMA, many users on this website predicted this exact situation would happen as a result. The gay community is winning victory after victory in the same sex marriage realm. However, every action has a reaction. This, I believe, is a reaction to that. This judge really has no precedent anymore to rule against polygamy. Nor does any other Federal judge really.
Polygamy advocate groups hail judge's ruling in Utah | Fox News
Did you post the wrong story? Nothing you said had anything to do with the story you posted.
Pretty sure he just read the headline.
You're putting words in my mouth.
The only issue I have with polygamy is that the laws set up by the Federal and state governments to handle marriages don't deal with polygamy at all, for example if a man is married to two when and one wishes to divorce him how is that handled? Also tax laws which have different rules/benefits for married couples don't work with polygamy either. But if Utah were to change its laws to add text to deal with such issues, fine go ahead by all means.
Aside from that if these people are simply getting married in their churches, ie marriages not recognized by the state, and then living together to raise a family, I got no problem whatsoever so long as the children can be taken care up which is where already existing organizations like child services comes into play.
Only if it were one of those polygamy communities which drive out males to deal with the male/female imbalance or otherwise verges on cult like control of its members, only then would I support the law getting into their lives.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?