Utah Polygamy Ban Challenged; U.S. Supreme Court's Sodomy Ruling Is Cited

[rodbarnett]

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) - When the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Texas' law against sodomy last year, at least one justice foresaw the likes of Brian Barnard.
Justice Antonin Scalia warned that the ruling would unleash a wave of challenges to state laws against "bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity."

Sure enough, Barnard, a civil rights attorney, has brought a lawsuit challenging Utah's ban on polygamy. And some legal experts say the case could have a fighting chance because of the Supreme Court's gay-sex ruling.

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGAFOH2WWPD.html

[cprise]

1. What does gay sex have to do with multiple matrimony?

If those people want to have sex with each other outside of marriage, no one is stopping them.

This is a ploy by the Right wing to attack gay civil rights.

[Fridays Child]

6. The general theory is that no sexual relationship between consenting...

...adults should be subject to legislation.

[Liberal Veteran]

12. And so it isn't.

This guy can have as many hoochie mamas as he wants legally, but he can only marry one legally and gay people cannot marry any of their same-gender partners in the US.

[slksln]

14. but the gov't has a legitimate concern.

The biggest problem that states as well as the federal government have with multiple marriages is that they won't want to apply the federal benefits given to a married couple to more than just a couple. Four or more people in a marriage would have tax decreases and other benefits which would otherwise only be applicable to two people.

My thing is, our government tends to be broke enough as it is. We don't need to make them give relief to the same person multiple times.

There is a much better case for same sex marriage than there is for multiple marriage. If only because its the difference between saying, "if that guy can marry a woman, I should be able to as well, gender is not an issue as far as legal benefits are concerned." and saying, "Well that man is married to that woman, I should be able to marry him too, just because he's already legally married doesn't mean he shouldn't be able to do it more than once."

It seems to me like it'd be like making a case against not being able to get multiple tax refunds.

[Fridays Child]

25. The language governing such issues could simply be changed to...

"...the marital community," which is how divorce laws in most states already refer to the partnership. Thus, whether the partnership includes two members or two hundred, the benefits would remain the same. This would make American polygamy consistent with other polygamous cultures, wherein only those who can afford to do so will take multiple spouses.

[shimmergal]

45. Yes, but it doesn't work that way.

For example, I was able to draw social security benefits on my deceased ex-husband's account (this kicked in five years earlier than
social security based on my own earnings.)

However, if his other ex-wife had also been eligible to draw benefits based on his account (i.e. if they'd been married for 10 years or more), the same payment would have been divided between the two of us.

Wouldn't have cost the Soc. Sec. fund any more, except for the minuscule time-cost of processing an extra check.

[Toots]

38. So what does marriage have to do with that

Marriage is a legal arrangement for mutual ownership of property and to give a name and place to children. Marriage is not a sexual act.

[gate of the sun]

53. I agree with this

the theory anyway.....We don't need the government telling us what to do......

[Sandpiper]

13. It may seem that way

But I assure you it is not a ploy by the right wing. Utah was founded by Mormon settlers and one of their cherished practices at the time was the practice of plural marriage. They battled the US government over this for decades, ultimately losing the battle and giving up the practice of plural marriage in 1890.

While The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints no longer sanctions the practice of plural marriage, there are still a number of splinter groups in the mountain west that keep plural marriage alive.

[Damn Hippie]

2. Masturbation?

Is ILLEGAL in some states?!?

I'm confused, am I the perpetrator or the victim?

[fob]

7. Y OU are the PERP, We (Society at large) are the VICTIM

Which means you can be charged as "assaulting" 284,999,999 people! You're the most prolific criminal in history.

At least that's the answer if you're a fundamentalist nutbag!

[Damn Hippie]

18. Let's see now...

That's about 3000 counts, times 284,999,999 victims...

Man, am I in trouble! (Do you think I'll do "hard" time?)

[gimme a break]

31. I heard a comedian say

that he should sue Hustler for his carpel tunnel (or however you spell that) in his right wrist.

[Toots]

39. Well you certainly can't be a Republican ~ We all know they

Never Ever do anything like that. Pure as the driven snow they are.

[platinumPens]

40. Oh Puh-leeeeeze!! LOL!

[TrogL]

3. Inherent logical fallacy

Appeal to consequences

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/conseq.htm

[Muddleoftheroad]

4. I expected this

And it will hurt us a great deal in November.

[htuttle]

5. How?

I suspect many Americans will be struck with the same question, "What does polygamy in Utah have to do with sodomy?"

Given the rest of what's happening in the world, one must be highly insulated indeed, to be more worried about this than other, more important issues.

[Muddleoftheroad]

10. Many

It will be a GOP rallying cry. To change marriage, they will argue, will open the floodgates to changing marriage even more. How can we allow one different type of marriage without allowing another?

[Liberal Veteran]

15. Apples and oranges.

The SCOTUS ruling on sodomy had NOTHING to do with the issue of marriage at all.

That's why this case will be laughed out of court.

[Muddleoftheroad]

17. Sure

I trust SCOTUS a ton these days.

[Liberal Veteran]

24. Whether you trust them or not, they are not always wrong.

And they were not wrong to say that state has no compelling interest in legislating sexual activity between consenting adults in the privacy of their own home.

No matter how you slice it, this is a bizarre argument. Claiming striking down sodomy laws somehow should allow polygamy is like claiming that allowing Penthouse Magazine to show naked women means I am allowed to rape at will.

There is no logic to this argument and that is why it will not get very far. Since the sodomy ruling did not allow gay marriage it surely does not allow polygamous marriage.

If he wanted to make an argument that this means that laws forbidding adultery should be struck down, THAT would be a logical argument.

This is not even remotely logical.

[Muddleoftheroad]

27. They are not always right either

[htuttle]

16. I don't think that argument will work...

...unless the listener was already planning on voting Republican.

I don't doubt that the argument will be made, but to be honest, it sounds like gibberish to me.

[Muddleoftheroad]

19. Lots of people oppose changes in marriage

I do not, but I see a lot of it in the African-American community. If the lines are blurred even a bit more by something like this, it could harm us -- a lot.

[htuttle]

23. If this were peacetime, and the economy wasn't in the toilet, perhaps

But with things like they are right now? I highly doubt the issue will get much more traction than it already has.

I could be wrong, but I think the hungrier and more worried people are, the less they vote around issues like this.

[Muddleoftheroad]

28. There I disagree

It is the kind of distraction that could work if played right.

[trent21]

30. We already do that with heterosexual marriages

"How can we allow one different type of marriage without allowing another?"

Good question. How can you? That is exactly what we're doing now with our recognition of heterosexual marriages only

[BattyDem]

50. You're probably right about the GOP's reaction ...

but it's an illogical conclusion - of course, that's never stopped them before.

Sodomy is a sexual act - marriage is a legal contract. Sodomy and polygamy have absolutely nothing to do with each other. The SC decision on sodomy applies to everyone, not just homosexuals: all consenting adults are free from government interference in their bedrooms ... period. Equal protection under the law.

By allowing same-sex couples to marry, we would not be "changing" marriage, we would simply be allowing adults to choose who they want to marry - which would give everyone equal protection under the law. We wouldn't tolerate it if the government told us what religion or race our spouse had to be, so why should there be rules about gender?

The gay marriage/polygamy comparison is absurd. If gay people were allowed to marry, it would mean that every consenting adult would have the right to be married to the one person of their choice at any given time - which is the same right that heterosexual couples have. Right now, their are different rules for different types of couples, which is blatant discrimination. However, there is no "discrimination" against polygamists because no person - gay or straight, black or white, Christian or Jew, male or female - is allowed to be married to more than one person at a time ... which means the law is being applied equally to everyone.

[Liberal Veteran]

9. Actually this will be laughed out of court.

Given that the state is involved in a marriage contract and the state is not involved in consensual sexual behavior the two have absolutely nothing in common.

Now if the Supreme Court had ruled gay marriage legal, this person might be able to use that as a basis for a challenge, but marriage is not solely limited to a sexual act in the bedroom.

[Poseidon]

29. How dare you, Muddle.

Troops in Iraq did not give their lives so that you could dismiss the concerns of gay and lesbians in America. Their rights are being systematically denied, and now you want them to just go back in the closet and shut up? We will not lose in November because of guns, gods, and gays, and even if we do, it was the right thing. What if LBJ had told Martin Luther King to shut up in 1964, because his agenda might not "play well" in the South? LBJ was more courageous than that, and we lost the Deep South for his trouble. It was worth it, and this struggle is paramount in the struggle for equal rights for ALL Americans.

[Bridget Burke]

33. But the Supremes DIDN'T allow Gay Marriage.....

Or Civil Unions, or whatever. The cops busted into the apartment of a gay couple (following an erroneous lead) & arrested them for what they were doing in bed. The Court said the cops were wrong.

Hets can have as many partners as they wish; there are no laws against it. Although the behavior of these specific polygamists borders on illegal, the laws in question deal with coercing underage girls into borderline incestuous unions.

"Marriage" had nothing to do with the original ruling.

[yellowcanine]

8. Scalia: Brother-Sister Sex is next!

All of those adult siblings out there just waiting for the SCOTUS to bless their yearnings for each other!
Dang - and I missed my chance to hit on my sister at the family reunion because my brother beat me to it.
Yeah, right. Idiots.

[Muddleoftheroad]

20. More realistically

How can we make it illegal. If marriage is no longer solely for procreation of the species, how can we differentiate between one couple and another?

[Toots]

41. Is that all you believe marriage is about?

What if two people don't ever want kids? Should they not be allowed to get married and share benefits. Your argument is based on Religious merit and not legal merit.

[Muddleoftheroad]

47. That is my point

Traditionally, the role of marriage has been kept between a man and woman because of the issue of children. Once we change that -- both in hetero couples and in gay couples -- then what are the new rules?

[ldf]

55. sorry, but....

i think that marriage came into being as a business arrangement.

[alonso_quijano]

11. Good.

Maybe this will be an unpopular opinion, but I believe that the government has no business defining marriage one way or another. Allow all consenting adults--opposite- or same-sex, two or more than two--to register as domestic partners, with all the rights and responsibilities that are now called "marriage." But let marriage itself be the purview of private organizations, citizens, and churches.

If Baptist churches want to perform marriages only between men and women, fine.
If Unitarian churches want to perform same-sex marriages, fine.
If Mormon churches want to perform polygamous marriages, fine.

[roguevalley]

21. BWAHAHAHA! They are so pathetic. Consider what might be a

boomerang effect:

Since this is marriage and they can't get involved in a relationship for whatever reason they may give, then marriage is irrelevent. They would not have a foot to stand on to ban same-sex marriage. If it is
wrong to meddle in the poly style, it would be wrong to meddle in all
marriage, straight or gay.

[slksln]

22. I agree with you...

in principle.

But I don't see a way to make multiple marriages "fair" (not that that's stopped anyone in the past) under the current system of benefits. Either one or more of the partners would be excluded from the benefits of marriage, or the multiple partners could claim so many exemptions and whatnot that it could be so easily exploited as to sink the government out of more money to groups of people not really committed to each other. The same happens with couples getting married solely for the benefits, but it would become exponential with the possibility of multiple partners.

And I say again the last thing our government needs is (less money and) more debt.

[cprise]

26. Also think of domestic and divorce law

If polygamists assume modern liberal civil rights for individuals, then larger groups could easily become embroiled in paralyzing legal conflicts involving X number of adults and all their children.

The tendency would be to supress civil rights (probably for women in particular) to keep things quiet and from the possibility of getting out of hand.

A legal system designed to handle a 1:1 relationship is nowhere near equipped to deal with X:Y relationships, unless the legal rights of the parties involved are assumed to be extremely restricted (as in repressive, Right-wing societies).

[Judi Lynn]

32. One more polygamy story from Utah!

Utah polygamist pleads guilty to incest
By Alexandria Sage, Associated Press Writer, 1/26/2004

SALT LAKE CITY -- A member of Utah's polygamous Kingston clan was sentenced Monday to a year behind bars for taking as his wife a 15-year-old cousin, who was also his aunt. ~ :crazy: ~

Jeremy Ortell Kingston pleaded guilty to incest in an arrangement with prosecutors. The felony charge will be reduced to a misdemeanor if Kingston successfully completes three years' probation.

Kingston was 24 when he took LuAnn Kingston as his fourth wife in 1995. Family members say he has at least 17 children.

At a hearing in October, Kingston told the judge: "I had a relationship, a sexual relationship, with LuAnn for about four years. That relationship ended about four years ago."
(snip/...)

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/01/26/utah_polygamist_pleads_guilty_to_incest/

[gate of the sun]

54. this is wrong

they force these girls for the most part and they are not consenting adults...I met a girl who told me a story of her mother who grew up in one of these polygamy was married off to some old man and the girl was a product of this marriage, she had many brothers and sisters Her mother ran away with her when she was a teenage...The girl was very bitter and tramatized by what had happened to her mother.

[platinumPens]

34. I've read through this thread and still see no logical connection

between consensual sex (sodomy) and polygamy. The analogy seems absurd. There is nothing to prevent people from promiscuity, or sleeping with as many partners as they wish, but I do see a problem with supporting and property rights and inheritance with marrying all of them.

Wasn't one of the problems with that big time polygamist who went to jail, Tom Green ??, that his wives and children were all on welfare and double dipping in welfare benefits? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought there was also some fraud involved there, and the very problem with the idea of supporting multiple wives.

[pinto]

35. good point. Marriage is about two people, whatever their sexes.

[Muddleoftheroad]

36. Why?

[pinto]

37. why not?

[Muddleoftheroad]

43. Exactly

There appears no clear reason for it to be either. Except we as a society deem it such.

Funny, that's what folks say already about marriage.

[htuttle]

42. A marriage license is a secular legal contract

A Marriage License, which is what we are all talking about here in reality, is an economic contract between two people to share incomes, liabilities, property, and child custody rights. When there are more than two people named in the 'contract', you are talking about a Corporation, not a partnership. The rights and responsibilities of corporations are slightly different than those for non-incorporated partnerships.

You know, lots of people get married at the courthouse totally without a church. Marriage in the legal sense has very little to do with religion, love, etc... It's about economics.

Perhaps at some point, an acceptable legal contract for multiple partners could be devised, but it's likely to be different than a regular marriage license. Heck, whole groups of people could then get 'married' to take advantage of someone's health insurance! But that's not what is being talked about regarding a marriage between two people of the same sex. In an economic sense, a gay marriage is identical to a heterosexual marriage.

And once again, the Supreme Court ruling had nothing to do with gay marriage, it was about that area of human sexuality known as 'sodomy' (which covers an amazing number of practices, btw), whether gay or hetro.

[Muddleoftheroad]

44. The Supremes

Their actual made gay marriage a hot button issue this election. Now gay marriage AND polygamy or polyandry or whatever are also at issue.

If the marriage contract can be changed in one case, it can just as easily be changed in the other. Clearly, BOTH concepts have a constitutency.

[Amager]

46. But the marriage contract was not changed in the sodomy case

That's why this polygamy case makes no sense to use that as a precedent. Or maybe that's not what you meant?

[Muddleoftheroad]

48. They raised the issue

Now we must face it. The Supremes and their proper choice on gay rights has given new life to the issue of gay marriage. Now we must deal with the concept of changing traditional marriage. What are the new rules? Why?

[Amager]

51. I'm not following you. The previous USSC decision on gay rights

had nothing to do with marriage and the marriage issue was not raised in that case. No rules have been changed.

The only thing the USSC decided was that the law banning consensual sodomy was unconstitutional. That's all.

[Freddie Stubbs]

52. But if a court ruled that a ban on same sex marriages was unconstitutional

They may have a case.

[Democat]

49. This is a right wing ploy

Don't believe anything they say as they are only saying it to get more talk radio anger in an election year.