Utah Polygamist Invokes Ruling on Gay Sex

[Mentalist]

Utah Polygamist Invokes Ruling on Gay Sex

By MARK THIESSEN
Associated Press Writer

December 1, 2003, 7:38 PM EST

SALT LAKE CITY -- A lawyer for a Utah man with five wives argued Monday that his polygamy 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.

full article: http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-prosecuting-polygamy,0,7999530,print.story?coll=sns-ap-nationworld-headlines

[La_Serpiente]

1. Nonsense

Polygamy is already banned in Utah. It is engrained in the state constitution as oppose to Mass.

[Liberal Veteran]

2. What an absurdity.

I don't even know where to start. This guy really needs to think about getting a better lawyer.

[Mentalist]

4. Why

is it absurd? I am just confused as to why he didnt try to bring in the Mass Court ruling as a side issue.

[Liberal Veteran]

6. It's absurd because a marriage is civil contract....

...that is not confined to privacy of a bedroom.

And the ruling that consensual sexual activities between adults in the privacy of their own home made no statement whatsoever on the marriage.

You do understand that marriage isn't just about what you do in your bedroom, don't you?

[Mentalist]

8. see

see post #5

[Liberal Veteran]

11. Post number 5 does not address the issue.

Saying the recent ruling that overturned sodomy laws which said nothing about marriage, gay or straight has any relevance to the issue of a polygamous marriage.

The only thing that the overturning of sodomy laws would say is that he can have as much sex with as many willing women as he wants in the privacy of his own home.

Unless you are trying to make the argument that the Supreme Court made gay marriage legal and nobody bothered to tell me.

[StopThief]

29. That's an interesting point.

Are you aware that the Massachusetts Supreme Court cited Lawrence in the second paragraph of the opinion? They must have thought there was some relevance.

[Liberal Veteran]

30. Yes, but the second paragraph of the decision...

...discusses what they are NOT there to decide and they quoted in the third paragraph of the decision specifically that Lawrence DID NOT address the matter of civil marriage whatsoever.

[DarkPhenyx]

13. Why should he?

The two issues aren't that far apart really. Consenting adults, privacy of the home.

remember, when you are defending your position beware that you don't deride the same issue in other people.

[Liberal Veteran]

19. Are you trying to make a case that sex and marriage are synonymous?

Marriage is a civil contract that involves a host of rights and responsibilities and liabilities.

Sex on the other hand is just a physical act that doesn't involve the law at all as long as it's consensual and in a private setting.

The absurdity is that court made a ruling that you cannot outlaw consensual sexual activity in the privacy of person's home. It said nothing about marriage.

Any claim to the contrary would be like me saying the same SCOTUS decision would allow me to open a meth lab in the privacy of my bedroom, which obviously it did not.

[Toucano]

3. Actually, this is good news.

Let's get this irrational argument out of the way. The sooner it's debunked and invalidated, the sooner they can stop with all the slippery slope arguments.

That's one possibility, anyway.

[Mentalist]

5. I buy the slippery slope argument

I do. For if it is determined that the government does NOT have the authority nor the power to define marriage, then by what power and authority would the government have to prevent polygamist marriages?

This question is seperate from "should gays be allowed to marry". The answer to that is simple.

The real question though is as I put it above. Does government have the power and authority to define marriage. I firmly believe it does.

[Liberal Veteran]

9. And what, pray tell, does the sodomy ruling have to do with marriage...

...which is a civil contract?

[Mentalist]

10. My slippery slope

argument was clearly directed at the Mass Ruling, and if you couldn't see that I either should have been clearer or you should have looked harder.

[Liberal Veteran]

14. Um, the supreme court of Mass has no authority in Utah....

...and that ruling is not the one they are talking about.

They are referring to Lawrence and Garner v. Texas decision, not the Mass decision.

In effect, the only relevance would be if the person was trying to make a case that he can have much sex with as many men or women in his own home as he wants.

Lawrence and Garner v. Texas did not address the issue of marriage at all, therefore, trying to say it has some relevance to the issue of being able to have multiple spouses is an absurdity.

[Mentalist]

15. It is absurd

in this case. But answer my question regarding governmental power and authority in regardes to defining marriage. Does it have that legitimate power and authority?

[Maeve]

21. Marriage in the secular world is a contractual arrangment

And therefore, the government may regulate it as it does any other contract. However, it is also expected that the regulations will follow rules of balance and equality.

[Liberal Veteran]

23. That is not the issue that he is challenging, now is it?

I won't be dragged into a secondary issue on a red herring that Lawrence and Garner v. Texas has any relevance to the issue of marriage at all. It doesn't.

I personally don't care one way or another if a person wants one wife or 4 wives or three husbands. It's an interesting arrangement that should be argued by someone who understands the complexities involved better than I. And I do some issues that would cause the state some problems:

1. Which wife is next of kin in the event of a medical necessity.
2. Inheritance rights.
3. Joint credit and property rights.
4. Division of assets in the event of a divorce of a single spouse (would she get 1/4?).

Off the top of my head, I see an entire body of law needed to be changed to accomodate multiple spouses. But it is a separate issue that must be argued on it's own merits and feasibility.

That would not be the case with same gender relationships in which cases the exact same body of law that pertains to current marriage law would apply.

Simply put allowing same gender marriages would require no modification of the currents laws or precedents as they stand in how these issues are handled in a court of law.

As for the morality of it, If a man wants 700 wives and 300 concubines, then he has my blessing. It didn't stop King Solomon. Legally however, it would require some interesting modifications to current marriage laws.

[Silverhair]

25. But what if they all move to MA, & then file suit? n/t

[Liberal Veteran]

26. They very well could, I suppose, but it's irrelevant to the story.

I don't see why people are having such a hard time understanding this issue.

1. Man in Utah is invoking Lawrence and Garner v. Texas ruling that struck down laws against consensual sex in the privacy of their own home as a defense of polygamy.

2. Lawrence and Garner v. Texas said NOTHING, nothing at all about marriage.

Now if he wanted to move to Mass and invoke their state supreme court's recent ruling that said the state constitution did not forbid same-gender relationships, then that would at least make some semblance of sense in his defense.

From where he is right now in Utah arguing in defense of a polygamous relationship (or which I couldn't care less about the morality of), neither Lawrence and Garner v. Texas (argued before SCOTUS) nor Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health (argued before the Mass Supreme Court) have any legal relevance to this case.

[Silverhair]

35. True.

I asked the question that I did because of my personal enjoyment of playing around with ideas to see where they lead, even when they may be impractical.

[Toucano]

16. Which court

ruled that government doesn't have the right to define marriage?

I think the MA court ruled that government doesn't have a compelling reason to deny same sex couples the same right to the benefits of marriage solely because of their gender. Doing so actually violates the MA constitution, according to the court.

It wasn't argued that the government doesn't have a compelling reason to deny marriage rights to multiple participants. Indeed, government may have a compelling reason do this. There is historic and cultural precedent for polygamy, so the state must have a compelling reason to prohibit it.

If I am wrong, could you please direct me to a source so I could understand better? Thanks.

[Mentalist]

20. No Court

ruled that. None.

I simply posed a question.

[Toucano]

22. Okay. Got it.

You were framing a hypothetical. I reread and understand now. D'oh!

At first, I thought you were supplying a logical example to support the slippery slope argument.

I would tend to agree with your slippery slope if it's based on that imaginary ruling.

[Maple]

7. If consenting adults

want to enter into a polygamous marriage....why not?

Go fer it, I sez.

[karlschneider]

12. It's odd, nobody ever bitches about polyandry...

:eyes:

[Toucano]

17. Now that you mention it!

RRRRRRRR
RRRRRRR
polyandry
RRRRRR
RRRRR
GOD
RRRRRRR
RRRRRRR
RRRRRR
hell

[Maple]

27. Most people don't know

what polyandry is...or even that the concept exists.

[sujan]

18. what's wrong with polygamy?

if it's consensual?

[prole_for_peace]

28. but it isn't always consensual.

sometimes these girls are married off to an older man when they are still children. other times they are pressured and beaten until they give in to the marriage. the women in these marriages always say how great it is and that there is no jealousy and stuff but have you noticed that they always look all extra spaced out in the interviews. like they are drugged or hypnotized. i guess it could be brain washing. and like a 50 year old man wants to marry a 16 year old girl and add her to his other 5 wives for any reason other reason than sex. the other ones have gotten old and worn out from having his children. it is time for a hot new wife.

[sujan]

34. no

I am not condoning this guy's actions. He did marry underaged girls.


But in general, what's wrong with it?

[Lexingtonian]

37. property division and the welfare of the children...?

Basically, you can do whatever you like as a private person. You can do any of a variety of things- have sex (if you're at or above the age of consent), have bizzaro ceremonies all you like, wear leather thongs or scuba gear, and involve any people who can and do consent with proper understanding.

The state regulates marriages not because it cares about marriages per se; it gets involved because it get tends to stuck with the fallout- dependents and their manifold problems- when marriages fail.

The problems when a nominally monogamous marriage fails are pretty well understood, demonstrated, and worked out. The laws (and in-laws and outlaws) are pretty voluminous, but property and child responsibilities are devolved upon the individual divorcees in some halfway adequate fashion. No one claims it really works until and unless the partners work it out among themselves, it's simply by experience better than the alternatives previously tried and just doing nothing.

The problems of divorce and inheritances and child abuse and such get very much more complicated once you increase the number of parties involved in the marriage contract. For one thing, many cultures/societies that admit polygamy don't give all the spouses of one gender equal status. In some societies there is a First wife and all others are secondary, in some the wives form a hierarchy, in some the hierarchy is formed by psychological warfare rather than date of marriage or first childbirth or birth of a son or choice of the husband. Before you know it, an American civil court stands before a web of obligations and demands and retaliations and extra-judicial/religious rules and laws that make their usual ten year knock down/drag outs look easy.

Don't forget that Brigham Young had something like eighty wives and over two hundred children (he knew few of them by name). Imagine if he lost his job nowadays. Or if three or four of the children were discovered to have been neglected by Social Services, if not sexually abused by one of their half-brothers. Imagine Brigham Young had died and left a bankrupt conglomerate of businesses behind with a couple of thousand creditors large and small. Oh, wait....

[Silverhair]

24. Didn't waste any time did they? We had a thread on that last

week, or was it the week before? Well, it's here now, and the issue just got bigger.

[Mattforclark]

31. He is absolutely right, too

IMHO

[Liberal Veteran]

32. I beg to differ....

Morally, he may be correct. But marriage IS a civil contract and we have no body of law to address polygamous relationships.

The case he is citing may say he has the right to have as much sex as he wants with whomever consents to have sex with him in the privacy of his own home, but it says nothing at all about the civil marriage contract which does in fact involve the state to a certain degree.

[Yupster]

33. I do believe that if

it becomes the law that any two consenting adults have the right to marry, then

the logic that any three consenting adults also have the right to marry could hardly for long be stopped. I just don't see how logically it could be stopped.

The argument would be "because marriage is only for two people," but I believe that falls tto the counterargument of "why?"

I see a future where seven people A - G are married to each other.

If person H is married to persons A, B, C, and E, but not D, F, or G.

If person J is married to A, C, D, and two others, X and W, but not B.

If person K is married to persons X, W, B, and G, but not A.

Then how long will it take the train to reach Springfield.

[burning bush]

36. Something you may not know about Tom Green...

He was convicted on 4 counts of bigamy for being married to 5 women at the same time.

However, it was argued that Green was only legally married to one woman.

The prosecuter, rightly or wrongly, argued that Green cohabited with the other 4 women, and under Utah's common law rules he should be considered legally married to them as well. The argument was effective, and green was convicted.

So here we have the government saying you cant live with your wife and your girlfriend, even though you do not marry the girlfriend.

Here's why I brought all this up.

Pretend "Ted" is a bi-sexual male. He marries "Sue" and he and Sue live with Ted's lover, "Bob" for a number of years. Is Ted now the common law spouse of Bob? If so, Should Tedm be considered a bigamist?

Should common law relationships apply to Gay/Bi-sexual men and women? If so, should bigamy laws apply to non-hetero sexual relationships?

What is the real purpose behind criminalizing plural relationships?

just a little food for thought.