Utah Polygamist Invokes Ruling on Gay Sex

[private_ryan]

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-prosecuting-polygamy,0,7999530,print.story?coll=sns-ap-nationworld-headlines
By MARK THIESSEN
Associated Press Writer

December 1, 2003, 9:53 PM EST

SALT LAKE CITY -- A lawyer for a Utah man with five wives argued Monday that his bigamy convictions should be thrown out following a Supreme Court decision decriminalizing gay sex.

The nation's high court in June struck down a Texas sodomy law, ruling that what gay men and women do in the privacy of their homes is no business of government.

It's no different for polygamists, argued Tom Green's attorney, John Bucher, to the Utah Supreme Court.

"It doesn't bother anyone, (and with) no compelling state interest in what you do in your own home with consenting adults, you should be allowed to do so," Bucher said.
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-prosecuting-polygamy,0,7999530,print.story?coll=sns-ap-nationworld-headlines

[Creideiki]

1. Are they prosecuting him under some kind of adultery statute?

Otherwise, the state is essentially claiming a right to regulate people entering into the civil contract of marriage based on not being married. Granted, I grew up reading way too much Heinlein, but I don't see how the privacy statute helps. There's already no kind of law that says that the man can't be married to one woman and the two of them shack up with any other number of women.

[Murky Waters]

2. Good for him

"It doesn't bother anyone, (and with) no compelling state interest in what you do in your own home with consenting adults, you should be allowed to do so,"

True words.

[Occulus]

11. That's Sanscrotum's argument.

Did you turn left instead of right on your way here?

[0007]

20. Your right the 13 year old girl was nothing to this schmuck....

it didn't bother anyone. God! what a fucked up attitude.

[roguevalley]

3. BS. Having your thirteen year old niece marry her uncle is illegal

and there is no consent. This doesn't match up and is
a bogus argument. Don't use the gay marriage rights -
which is based on different arguments for this. This
isn't about consenting adults. He was prosecuted, if he
is the dorkwad convicted about a year or so ago with
forcing underaged girls into 'marriages', having them
shag their uncles.

Its a crock and I hope he stays in jail until he dies
and then burns in hell forever. Amen.

RV, going biblical. :)

[roguevalley]

4. Massachusetts was about inequity under the law, an imposing on a

minority non-compelling arguments that had no basis in
fact, instead, they were institutionalizing inequities
based on prejudice.

Preventing a man from shagging underaged girls -which
they almost always are- is not compelling under the
language of the mass. law. Taking one line out of a
reasoned argument is not justice. Putting his sorry ass
into jail is.

These guys have their fifteen wives and fourty-seven
kids and who do you think supports them? We do. Welfare
fraud is the grease that keeps the wheels turning.

[private_ryan]

5. the underage charge was only part of it

gays won by saying if straight people can marry why shouldn't we, and he's now saying, who are you to tell me I can only have one wife at a time?

On edit: "These guys have their fifteen wives and fourty-seven
kids and who do you think supports them? We do. Welfare
fraud is the grease that keeps the wheels turning."

should we sterilize poor people or just limit them to one kid unless they prove that they make x amount a year?

[SharonAnn]

6. Yes, I was astounded to learn that the jailed bigamist a few years

ago proudly talked about his polygamy being part of his religious views, on and on about that. Then, when asked how he supported them, he was quiet until the interviewer said "They're all on Aid to Dependent Children, aren't they?" He admitted it. Then, when asked about how he earned a living he said that he was unemployed.

[PennyLane]

15. BINGO!

He was marrying these gals and putting them on welfare! The court
probably wouldn't care if he had an entire harem, if he could feed and
clothe the lot! Those poor women were being used as pawns so he
didn't have to work for a living. What a charmed life!

[lazarus]

25. So there should be no welfare, then?

Or just welfare for couples? Polygamy is only okay if you can support them, but being on welfare is okay if you're a couple?

And how many kids should one be allowed on welfare under this system of yours?

That's the undercurrent I'm noticing here. And it's rather disturbing.

[Mal]

7. Enough red herrings for a month of Good Fridays

Rape (sex without consent or with underage) is not the issue. Incest is not the issue. Welfare Assistance (a couple of the replies earlier) is not the issue, and to say that anyone with multiple wives is on welfare is a gross generalization and requires substantial proof to stop it from being an outright lie.

The issue is, assuming knowing consent, should it be illegal to have multiple wives (or husbands)? The only reason for it to be illegal that I can see is religious Christian. Is it supportable to force Christian beliefs on people who follow others? If so, then explain why ALL Christian beliefs should not be forced upon everybody.

[Liberal Veteran]

8. Let me see if I can answer that.....

1. The SCOTUS decision that overturned sodomy laws was about NOT about anything other than the ability to have consensual sexual relations in the privacy of your home. It had nothing to say about marriage whatsoever. There are a lot people confusing the decisions:

a) Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the people had a fundamental expectation to privacy when it came to consensual sexual relations in the privacy of one's own home in a case called Lawrence and Garner v. Texas. THIS is what this moron is stating gives him the right to marry multiple people, but it's a hell of an extrapolation.

b) Supreme Court of the State of Mass. ruled that the state constitution did not allow the state to deny a marriage liscense to same gender couples. It cannot be cited because the Mass. constitution has no jurisdiction over the state constitution of Utah which specifically forbids polygamy.


A lot of people are confusing the two decisions and it behooves us to know which case he is citing in his defense.


Now on to your question. I have no moral objections to consensual polygamy and have no axe to grind on it. It is often lumped in with gay marriage, but given that the term "spouse" is fairly gender neutral and we have an entire body of law and precedent set that would not need modification to include same-gender marriages between two people.

When we start getting into the issue of polygamy, the issue becomes a lot more intriguing and we have no precedent or body of law to accodomate it. For example:

1. Who is next of kin in a polygamous relationship? firstwife? 2nd wife? Are the wives legally related at that point?
2. How does inheritance work? Do we liquidate everything and divy up the assets among them equally or by longest time?
3. Separation and divorce. What is communal property?

I am sure there are lots of other issues, but short of winging it (something the law is notoriously bad at), we need to address those issue in polygamous relationships.


That, in a nutshell is why, LEGALLY (not morally) you cannot lump same gender marriage and polygamy/polyandry into the same argument and expect it to come out well.

[Mal]

9. You are, of course, correct

that a decision entitling people to have consensual sex in private has absolutely nothing to do with polygamous marriages.

The problems you point out with polygamy after a break-up (through death or divorce) are real, but I feel beside the point. It would be best if, in the hypothetical event of it being legalized, the people legalizing it also set down some guidelines to solve these problems. It will certainly cause headaches, but what doesn't?

What I would really like is someone who feels it shouldn't be legal to explain to me why.

[Liberal Veteran]

10. I don't have any problem with it...

But I am not sure I am qualified to champion the cause either.

Mostly the point I was making had to do with the confusion over the case he was citing and at the same time pointing out that allowing polygamy would be a modification of the contractual terms of marriage that does not apply when argue arguing for same-gender relationships.

[demdave]

12. This has always been my assertion, why not polygamy????

Why is the government involved in adult relationships? What do we have lawyers for if they can't figure some equitable legally binding agreement for various situations? I understand seperations of relatives and the idea of legal age, but if my 5 best friends and I decide to share a bank account and get a group rate for insurance, why should the goverment have anything to say about it. Maybe we are just having a rowdy game of Yahtzee every night. :bounce:

[lazarus]

26. exactly

We don't limit business relationships to just two people, and that's all marriage is, as far as the government is concerned.

[Paschall]

18. I think the major argument against it...

...is that it is inherently biased against women.

How is the community able to ascertain that a wife truly consents to her husband's subsequent marriages? And what if she does not consent?

Here is an organization that is fighting the Mormon version of polygamy in the US. They maintain that--as practiced--polygamy violates women's basic human rights. See their "Danger Signs" page.

http://www.polygamy.org

That organization is supported by NOW. Here are a few documents at NOW on polygamy
http://www.now.org/search/search.cgi?query=polygamy&metaname=swishdefault&si=0

[0007]

21. Thank you Paschall for bringing this point to veiw.

Why are women still second rate citizens after getting the right to vote less than a hundred years ago?

"NOW has always been a voice for women and children in a world that has considered them second class. Many changes that have elevated this dispossessed population of our society have been brought about through the efforts of NOW. In keeping with their ongoing work, NOW passed a resolution in 1991, supporting TAP and condemning the practice of polygamy as a human rights violation."

[alittlelark]

14. this reply reeks of a pornofile

no offense intended if I am incorrect(?!) It sounds great. How intimate are you with the significant other(s) in your life? My college roomate ran away from home at 15 to avoid being married off to a family friend who was 53. Fortunately Kim was brilliant and landed in college after spending time with a Catholic runaway group.

If you want extra wives they should be of your own age and not forced by their family to 'wed' you.

[Mal]

22. I believe this is known as a "Strawman" attack

That is, changing my argument to a flawed facsimile, and then attacking that.
I said "knowing consent"
You said "If you want extra wives they should be of your own age and not forced by their family to 'wed' you."

Someone underage cannot give consent, someone forced does not give consent, so what does this have to do with me?
And as for "...they should be of your own age...", as long as they are NOT underage, and knowingly consent, what business is it of yours WHAT age they are?

Finally, "this reply reeks of a pornofile". What the hell does this mean? The word doesn't exist as far as I know. Do you mean -phile? Do you therefore mean someone who loves pornography? There's lots of people out there who do, and enjoying looking at naked adults is not a crime. Or do you mean pedophile? If you do, then not only is that without any merit or basis, but if you say anything more solid along those lines I will do everything I can to hurt you.

The only other arguments against polygamy raised in the other replies seem to be based upon the woman not consenting, and since I have already stipulated consent, there seems to be no-one able to argue the case against.

[SemperEadem]

24. why marry at all?

I mean, what is the point? One could shack up with 15 women and not be legally tied to any of them--you can still put your name on the baby's birth certificate and not be married to one another...

there is no need to marry more than one person... he could have one wife and a bunch of concubines and then the state can't say boo about it at all. I think his trying to force marriage into the equation is what's the problem. It's not necessary to marry.

[SemperEadem]

23. consanguinity is a very valid argument in this

too close a blood relative for it to be proper. I don't think anyone would be in favor of any child under the legal age of consent being forced into a marriage with the brother of her father/mother.

[oustemnow]

13. I'm pretty ambivalent about this ruling

It's difficult to know whether to pity or envy a man with more than one wife.

And, if Tom Grren has only one testicle, why does he need multiple wives?

Thanks, I'll be here all week. Don't forget to tip your waitress, and try the veal.

[truthisfreedom]

16. didn't the 13-year-old's parents have to approve of the marriage?

don't they have some accountability? if they didn't approve, or weren't present, or the marriage was non-legal, then the whole argument about "consenting adults" seems completely out of line.

i am baffled as to why the lawyer thinks he can use that phrase after the guy has already been convicted of child rape, which carries a sentence of life... what difference does it make if he gets off on the 5 year charge of bigamy when he's doing life?

is the lawyer just trying to establish precedent?

[w4rma]

17. IMHO, the court will rule against him, and I support that fully. (n/t)

[xchrom]

19. he has a snowballs chance in hell

[quaker bill]

27. Within limits

I generally agree. How freely consenting adults arrange their relationships is not the State's business.

Coercion and the involvement of minors is another story entirely. I have no problem with the State stepping in there.

On the welfare issue, I have no problem with welfare, but when it becomes something of an intentional 'lifestyle choice' the State should again be doing something. This is a difficult area of policy to implement though. Hard and fast rules, like 'welfare to work' and 'benefit limits' always seem to have adverse unintended impacts on certain individuals who should for reasonable cause be an exception.

I would tend to see someone that took on a large number of wives he cannot support as a place for the State to have some business. I just wouldn't want it to come at the hands of a policy that sweeps the disabled and other reasonable exceptions as current rules are reputed to do.