Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Who didn't see this coming? Polygamy rights ..

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Who didn't see this coming? Polygamy rights ..

    DENVER (AP) - An effort to decriminalize polygamy by the family from TV show "Sister Wives" reached its highest level so far Thursday as federal appeals judges questioned a lawyer for Utah about whether the state needs to ban plural marriages.

    A three-judge panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver put some of its most pointed questions to Utah's attorney as it heard arguments on the state's appeal of a ruling that struck down key parts of a law banning polygamy.

    But they also asked how the law hurt Kody Brown and his four wives in a state with a longstanding policy against prosecuting otherwise law-abiding adults in polygamous marriages.

    Judge Nancy Moritz asked state lawyer Parker Douglas why the law is used so rarely if Utah claims it is needed to curb abuses such as underage unions.
    "Doesn't that sort of negate those state interests?" she said.

    Prosecutors do not bring charges often, but when they do, the law helps in gathering evidence and strengthening cases against those abuses, Douglas said. Polygamy can be associated with crimes such as sexual assault, statutory rape and exploitation of government benefits, prosecutors have said.

    Brown and his wives are urging the court to uphold a ruling that found key parts of Utah's bigamy law forbidding cohabitation violated the family's right to religious freedom.

    http://www.cbs8.com/story/31018592/j...ter-wives-case
    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.

  • #2
    I would rather have it remain a crime that fails to be prosecuted often, than the practice be de-criminalized. The Browns are flim flaming people by Mr Brown only having one marriage certificate but living in sin with three other women. He also fled across state lines with his three "extras". Is that still a federal offense?

    There is a reason why Polygamy was outlawed. Marrying children just past puberty should be a sex crime.

    Pruitt
    Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

    Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

    by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
      I would rather have it remain a crime that fails to be prosecuted often, than the practice be de-criminalized. The Browns are flim flaming people by Mr Brown only having one marriage certificate but living in sin with three other women. He also fled across state lines with his three "extras". Is that still a federal offense?

      There is a reason why Polygamy was outlawed. Marrying children just past puberty should be a sex crime.

      Pruitt
      I agree 100%, but it's only a matter of time now.
      Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Pruitt View Post

        There is a reason why Polygamy was outlawed. Marrying children just past puberty should be a sex crime.

        Pruitt
        Speaking in broad generalities, if the plural marriage in question is entered into by adults, then isn't the pedophilia argument moot?
        I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

        Comment


        • #5
          Plural marriage, pedophilia and or the age of consent are different issues.

          Why should polygamy be illegal?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by lynelhutz View Post
            Plural marriage, pedophilia and or the age of consent are different issues.

            Why should polygamy be illegal?
            Then why have any rules? Why even bother with marriage, why not recognize rape as just a good old fashion mating ritual our caveman ancestors did, so therefore our silly moralistic rules are just chauvinism raising its silly head.
            Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post
              Then why have any rules? Why even bother with marriage, why not recognize rape as just a good old fashion mating ritual our caveman ancestors did, so therefore our silly moralistic rules are just chauvinism raising its silly head.
              You're arguing different issues entirely. If all members of the group are adults, then there is NO p"underage" issue at all, period. If they entered into the agreement of their own free will, then where is the "crime"?

              Polygamy is no different than monogamy - just a philosophy about marriage held by some. If gays can marry and raise families, then so can polygamists, if you accept the Constitution. After all, we go out of our way to bend over backwards in order to accommodate Muslims in America, so how would you justify discriminating against a different religion?

              Personally, I wouldn't do it. Keeping Pax happy is a lifetime achievement objective for me - I cannot imagine trying to keep three other wives happy as well plus provide for the support of such an extended family.

              OTH, from a reproductive standpoint, polyandry (one wife - multiple husbands) makes a lot much more sense than polygamy, but in some of today's societies, in Africa or the Middle East, for example, where female children have little value and are often sold into slavery or the sex trade, polygamy makes far more sense.
              Last edited by Mountain Man; 21 Jan 16, 23:04.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post
                DENVER (AP) - An effort to decriminalize polygamy by the family from TV show "Sister Wives" reached its highest level so far Thursday as federal appeals judges questioned a lawyer for Utah about whether the state needs to ban plural marriages.

                A three-judge panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver put some of its most pointed questions to Utah's attorney as it heard arguments on the state's appeal of a ruling that struck down key parts of a law banning polygamy.

                But they also asked how the law hurt Kody Brown and his four wives in a state with a longstanding policy against prosecuting otherwise law-abiding adults in polygamous marriages.

                Judge Nancy Moritz asked state lawyer Parker Douglas why the law is used so rarely if Utah claims it is needed to curb abuses such as underage unions.
                "Doesn't that sort of negate those state interests?" she said.

                Prosecutors do not bring charges often, but when they do, the law helps in gathering evidence and strengthening cases against those abuses, Douglas said. Polygamy can be associated with crimes such as sexual assault, statutory rape and exploitation of government benefits, prosecutors have said.

                Brown and his wives are urging the court to uphold a ruling that found key parts of Utah's bigamy law forbidding cohabitation violated the family's right to religious freedom.

                http://www.cbs8.com/story/31018592/j...ter-wives-case
                Did you read the article you posted? Do you see what parts of the law were voided?
                “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
                “To talk of many things:
                Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
                Of cabbages—and kings—
                And why the sea is boiling hot—
                And whether pigs have wings.”
                ― Lewis Carroll

                Comment


                • #9
                  Why just polygamy? What about polyandry?
                  Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe (H G Wells)
                  Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens (Friedrich von Schiller)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by MarkV View Post
                    Why just polygamy? What about polyandry?
                    Why not?

                    In most jurisdictions laws regarding child support make marital status largely irrelevant and whether called marriage or not there are some people who have multiple partners and multiple children with multiple partners.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Actually, the illegality of polygamy remains intact. You may only legally hold a single marriage license at any one time.

                      Utah has a unique problem with this issue, which is why this mess is in their courts and now the Feds.

                      No one cares if you have a legal wife and two shack jobs, except in Utah. You can call them your wives, that can take your last name (legal name change), but they are not allowed spousal rights in any regard save child issues.

                      Domestic abuse statutes apply based on cohabitation regardless of relationship.
                      Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        With the introduction of gay marriage in places will we now have to cater for polypolly and polysandy?
                        Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe (H G Wells)
                        Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens (Friedrich von Schiller)

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                          Actually, the illegality of polygamy remains intact. You may only legally hold a single marriage license at any one time.

                          Utah has a unique problem with this issue, which is why this mess is in their courts and now the Feds.

                          No one cares if you have a legal wife and two shack jobs, except in Utah. You can call them your wives, that can take your last name (legal name change), but they are not allowed spousal rights in any regard save child issues.

                          Domestic abuse statutes apply based on cohabitation regardless of relationship.
                          STOP replying with rational points to this thread...... you'll ruin it....

                          “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
                          “To talk of many things:
                          Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
                          Of cabbages—and kings—
                          And why the sea is boiling hot—
                          And whether pigs have wings.”
                          ― Lewis Carroll

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                            Polygamy is no different than monogamy - just a philosophy about marriage held by some. If gays can marry and raise families, then so can polygamists, if you accept the Constitution.
                            I'd rather put it as "if you can marry, then so can everyone else". Saying that polygamists should be able to marry because gays can too, is accepting the "slippery slope" argument. There is nothing wrong with either, and if there is a law about marriage then it should be the same for everyone.
                            Wisdom is personal

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                              Actually, the illegality of polygamy remains intact. You may only legally hold a single marriage license at any one time.

                              Utah has a unique problem with this issue, which is why this mess is in their courts and now the Feds.

                              No one cares if you have a legal wife and two shack jobs, except in Utah. You can call them your wives, that can take your last name (legal name change), but they are not allowed spousal rights in any regard save child issues.

                              Domestic abuse statutes apply based on cohabitation regardless of relationship.
                              The Royal Navy actually went further back in the 70s when the RN Payroll system at HMS Centurion was modded to allow any sailor to have two women named on the payroll, one as a wife and the other as a common law wife and both could be assigned certain marital rights (although the wife got more). I sat in on a monthly mods request meeting when adding a third was up for consideration. This was rejected not for any moral reason but because of lack of system resources.
                              Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe (H G Wells)
                              Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens (Friedrich von Schiller)

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X