I know a lot of people against gay marriage have cited a slippery slope regarding polygamy and this may be an indication of that. One big difference though regarding this ruling and gay marriage rulings is the basis of this is freedom of religion while most gay marriage rulings have been under equal protection. My own opinion is that I would be OK with polygamy provided that it was gender neutral and all parties had their rights protected. That said polygamy is a much larger step in the law than gay marriage because there are more than two parties and all of our laws and institutions regarding marriage are set for two parties. http://news.msn.com/us/final-ruling-issued-against-part-of-polygamy-ban Final ruling issued against part of polygamy ban SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — A federal judge in Utah has issued a final ruling that strikes down parts of the state's anti-polygamy law in a lawsuit filed by the family that appears on the TV show "Sister Wives." U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups ruled in favor of the stars of the TLC reality show in December, but he held back on a final ruling as he weighed whether Kody Brown and his four wives could collect attorneys' fees. Waddoups ruled in their favor on that issue Wednesday, capping a landmark decision for the family that sued Utah in 2011 after a county prosecutor threatened to charge them following the premiere of the TV show. It wasn't immediately clear how much the Browns could collect in attorneys' fees. Waddoups had ruled that a provision of Utah's law forbidding cohabitation violated the Browns' freedom of religion. Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes said in February he intended to appeal the ruling once it was made final. His office had no immediate comment Wednesday. The Brown family was overwhelmed and thankful for the ruling, said their attorney, Jonathan Turley. "This was a historic ruling that I believe will stand the test of time," Turley said. He said the family would continue the legal battle to an appeals court or even the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary. The Browns said they were forced to leave Utah for Las Vegas in 2011 in fear of prosecution. Turley said Wednesday he didn't know if the Brown family would return in the wake of the ruling. "The important thing is that they now can move back to Utah," Turley said, adding that the family has missed the state. "They now have the choice." Fundamentalist Mormon polygamists believe polygamy brings exaltation in heaven. The mainstream Mormon strictly prohibits the practice.
Do you have a mental block on basso threads or something? http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=257878
Probably so. I don't have him on ignore but I admit to ignoring most of his threads. Mods please lock or combine.
Were they USE to be set for two parties of opposite genders? I am trying to wrap my head around what protections are needed for all the parties involved. What 'additional' protections would it require? Rocket River
Opposite genders don't really make much difference to laws and institutions regarding access to benefits, custody, inheritance and taxes. The genderless term "spouse" can be used without really changing the functioning of the laws. That is a much different case when you have more than two parties. For example how do you decide custody in a situation where there are more than two parents? Another situation would be health benefits that companies now pass on to spouses. Would they extend those on to multiple spouses and if so would they tier the benefits to reduce costs? There are a lot of issues that our current laws and institutions aren't set up to deal with polygamist families.
Not a lawyer (and don't play one on TV), but is one aspect to this exclusivity? Is marriage seen as a legal arrangement between two parties with an aspect of exclusivity? If yes, wouldn't that explain why polygamy wouldn't be recognized by the law while marriages between any two parties would?
The question would be . . . why have exclusivity . . . . Can you have exclusivity between three parties or more? [I think like 3 telecoms share some patents or some such ] Rocket River
This is just my personal opinion but I don't have any inherent moral objections to polygamy if the rights of all parties can be guaranteed. So yes I agree that it will be much harder to have legal polygamist marriages but if that is the way the culture is going I wouldn't be bothered if those were legalized.
The article says that the ruling addresses "the part of the law that prohibits cohabitation." I have not looked into the exact details of the law, but, on principle, why shouldn't people be allowed to live with whoever they choose regardless of whether the state recognizes them as married and grants them all of the benefits, and duties, of marriage? For example, as far as I know, no part of any of the recent gay marriage ban laws actually prohibits two partners who may or may not wish to be married from living together. The debate is over whether to recognize these two people as "married."
If I can put your mind at rest I don't envision a Brave New World where everybody belongs to everyone else. In matters of sexual preference and decisions on marriage I would still respect individuals right to choose who they want to be with and not call for a free love society. I don't want to have a gay marriage or a polygamist one but if that is the choice of consenting adults who aren't exploiting each other then it doesn't affect me and the relationships I want to have.
I do have basso on ignore, and for good reason. I'll post in this thread if it remains and I think I have something to contribute, but merge it with a basso thread and you'll have at least one member who isn't going to bother. Just an FYI. As for the topic, it's an interesting ruling. I'm wondering how it will fare as it moves up the legal food chain.
