Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage cited by polygamy case

GFR7

New member
Of course , it follows logically:

DENVER, CO, August 28, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) -- While gay "marriage" activists claimed that the Supreme Court's marriage decision wouldn't open the door to polygamy, five people from the show "Sister Wives" want the 10th Circuit Court to disagree.

"This case is about criminalization of consensual relations and there are 21st century cases rather than 19th century cases," said attorney Jonathan Turley in a filing. "It is clear that states can no longer use criminal codes to coerce or punish those who choose to live in consensual but unpopular unions."

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/s...y-marriage-ruling-in-bid-to-legalize-polygamy
 

aCultureWarrior

BANNED
Banned
LIFETIME MEMBER

What a coincidence, the same thing was written in an agenda 43 years ago.

8. Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers.
http://www.rslevinson.com/gaylesissues/features/collect/onetime/bl_platform1972.htm

And as SCOTUS ruled in Roe v Wade and Obergefell v Hodges: It's all a matter of the "right to privacy".
 

TracerBullet

New member
What a coincidence, the same thing was written in an agenda 43 years ago.

8. Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers.
http://www.rslevinson.com/gaylesissues/features/collect/onetime/bl_platform1972.htm

And as SCOTUS ruled in Roe v Wade and Obergefell v Hodges: It's all a matter of the "right to privacy".

43 years? But it didn't exist until 1991
 

GFR7

New member
What a coincidence, the same thing was written in an agenda 43 years ago.

8. Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers.
http://www.rslevinson.com/gaylesissues/features/collect/onetime/bl_platform1972.htm

And as SCOTUS ruled in Roe v Wade and Obergefell v Hodges: It's all a matter of the "right to privacy".
Even though Obergefell v Hodges says something about the right of "2 persons" to marry, because gender and procreation have been taken out of the equation (one man/sperm + one woman/egg to create human life) there is NO logical reason any longer to limit marriage to only two persons. And this is how polygamy will get in.
 

PureX

Well-known member
Polygamy is a non-issue. It doesn't matter whether it's legal or not because almost no one wants to engage in it except a few religious nuts. And they already engage in it, anyway.
 

bybee

New member
Polygamy is a non-issue. It doesn't matter whether it's legal or not because almost no one wants to engage in it except a few religious nuts. And they already engage in it, anyway.

Good points, however, I wonder if making it legal will open the door to more widespread acceptance? Especially if each of the wives qualifies for welfare assistance?:hetro::hetro::hetro::hetro::hetro:
 

PureX

Well-known member
Good points, however, I wonder if making it legal will open the door to more widespread acceptance? Especially if each of the wives qualifies for welfare assistance?
Even if polygamy doubles in the U.S., that will mean there are 60 polygamous households in the Utah instead of 30. It's still statistically invisible.

And welfare and public aid benefits are based on household need/income, not on individual need/income. So I don't see how multiple spouses would game the system.

In fact, I would think polygamy might have the opposite effect: in that one spouse could take care of the kids while all the others went to work, increasing the household income significantly.

I wonder why single women with kids don't choose to live together, already, for exactly that reason? They could even pay the woman that stays home and takes care of all their kids a wage for doing it, creating their own extended family. The kids would have more "siblings", would be watched over in the home, and all the moms would have jobs. It would require a big house but with everyone sharing expenses that would still be a relatively cheap way to live.
 

bybee

New member
Even if polygamy doubles in the U.S., that will mean there are 60 polygamous households in the Utah instead of 30. It's still statistically invisible.

And welfare and public aid benefits are based on household need/income, not on individual need/income. So I don't see how multiple spouses would game the system.

In fact, I would think polygamy might have the opposite effect: in that one spouse could take care of the kids while all the others went to work, increasing the household income significantly.

I wonder why single women with kids don't choose to live together, already, for exactly that reason? They could even pay the woman that stays home and takes care of all their kids a wage for doing it, creating their own extended family. The kids would have more "siblings", would be watched over in the home, and all the moms would have jobs. It would require a big house but with everyone sharing expenses that would still be a relatively cheap way to live.

I think that has merit.
 

aCultureWarrior

BANNED
Banned
LIFETIME MEMBER
Polygamy is a non-issue. It doesn't matter whether it's legal or not because almost no one wants to engage in it except a few religious nuts. And they already engage in it, anyway.

It wasn't the Mormons who were behind redefining marriage, it was the homosexual movement.

Regarding "almost no one wants to engage in it" : A very small percent of homosexuals will partake in the institution of marriage as well (it's that Judeo-Christian "commitment" thing that turns off many LGBTQueer's when it comes to marriage).

The point is that the institution of marriage has already been debased because of the recent SCOTUS ruling, opening the door for perverts like these to debase it even further.

polygamy.jpg
 

GFR7

New member
Polygamy is a non-issue. It doesn't matter whether it's legal or not because almost no one wants to engage in it except a few religious nuts. And they already engage in it, anyway.
Not true. HBO shows and articles show both the popularity and acceptance of polygamy and polyamory on the rise. Even a minority changes the tone of the culture.
 

Sitamun

New member
It's a known fact that fundamentalist Mormons supported gay marriage rights because they saw it as a stepping stone to possibly legalizing polygamy. It hasn't been hidden. I personally don't care. While I find the practice and those that follow it intriguing, I honestly don't see it as a stable existence. Not to mention the brainwashing and abuse that tend to flourish in those societies. As long as no one is forced into the situation, I mean why not?
 

aCultureWarrior

BANNED
Banned
LIFETIME MEMBER
It's a known fact that fundamentalist Mormons supported gay marriage rights because they saw it as a stepping stone to possibly legalizing polygamy. It hasn't been hidden.

If it hasn't been "hidden", you'll have no problem showing that the Mormon Church (or fundamentalist Mormons) was actively supporting the strange sex marriage movement.
 

GFR7

New member
I too figured this would happen. Should be interesting to watch.
I think it's inevitable, because the SCOTUS ruling on same sex "marriage" (despite the drivel about "two people") really is about consenting adults (revisionist view vs traditional view of marriage). Keep in mind, there is also a big polyamory movement , too (you'd be surprised at the people living this way without marriage)---in other words, maybe 3 women and two men all living together, sharing sex, parenthood.
 

Jose Fly

New member
So after reading up on this a bit, this is definitely going to be an entertaining case.

The Brown's (the polygamists) can't be prosecuted for bigamy, since the father (Cody) is only legally married to the first woman, and his relationships with the other women are merely "commitments". Even though Cody had private marriage ceremonies with all the women, they only sought a marriage license from the state for the first one.

However, the state of Utah argued that the nature of their relationship made them common law marriages and their relationship fit under the "cohabitation" prohibition in its anti-bigamy law. They maintained that portion of the law made it illegal to "participate in a wedding ceremony between a legally married individual and a person with whom he or she is cohabitating and/or to call that person a wife".

The cohabitation part of the law basically banned a married couple from cohabitating with another adult.

Interestingly, when the federal circuit court ruled on this, the judge really dug deep into the history of anti-polygamy laws. He found that the primary reason for their enactment and affirmation in the Supreme Court was to prevent "social harm". And what was that harm? "The social harm was introducing a practice perceived to be characteristic of non-European people—or non-white races—into white American society." IOW, the law had a racist basis, which he described as "unthinkable as part of the legal analysis in a modern Supreme Court decision".

But the main reason the judge struck down the cohabitation portion of the law was because it violates the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment because the point of that provision in the statute is “to infringe upon or restrict” people practicing religious cohabitation “because of their religious motivation.”

IOW, this was about religious freedom. And that raises an interesting question for this forum. A lot of conservative Christians here cite religious freedom in cases where Christians are on the receiving end of government action (e.g., fire chiefs fired for anti-gay rhetoric, clerks denying marriage licenses to gay couples, bakers not baking cakes for gay weddings).

Should polygamist Mormons also have the freedom to practice their religion without government interference?
 

Jose Fly

New member
I think it's inevitable, because the SCOTUS ruling on same sex "marriage" (despite the drivel about "two people") really is about consenting adults (revisionist view vs traditional view of marriage). Keep in mind, there is also a big polyamory movement , too (you'd be surprised at the people living this way without marriage)---in other words, maybe 3 women and two men all living together, sharing sex, parenthood.

Keep in mind that the Brown's aren't seeking full legal recognition of polygamous marriages (at least not in this case). The case this thread is about was when they sued the state of Utah on its ban on "cohabitation". The district judge agreed with the Browns and struck down that part of the law, while leaving the ban on polygamy in place. The reason this is still in court is because Utah appealed the decision to strike down the cohabitation portion.

If the Browns want to take on the laws against legally recognized polygamy, they have to start over.
 
Top