Final ruling issued against part of polygamy ban

[DonViejo]

Source: ASSOCIATED PRESS

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.

###

Read more: http://www.salon.com/2014/08/28/final_ruling_issued_against_part_of_polygamy_ban/

[Louisiana1976]

1. As Dorothy Parker once said, "Hogamous, higamous, Men are polygamous, higamous, hogamous,

women monogamous."

[Warpy]

3. Naw, Dot was wrong. Women cheat nearly as much as men do

Most polygamous men are serial polygamists who go from wife to younger wife to younger wife, emotionally and usually financially abandoning a whole series of families. That's where most welfare mothers come from.

I don't honestly mind the concept if successive wives are adults, former wives and their children aren't abandoned, that the family is earning enough to support itself, and that present wives get veto power over new wives they can't stand.

I knew a non religious polygamous family back in Mass. The women eventually got fed up and chucked the husband out but kept living with each other. That part had worked out rather well for them since chores were all shared.

I take a "not my circus, not my monkeys" attitude toward most things covering private lives. Unless they're hurting somebody or bullying me to join in the "fun," I honestly don't give a rip.

[rickyhall]

2. What if your religion allows you to marry livestock? Is that okay?

Just asking. I think beastiality is legal in some red states.

[Warpy]

4. Look up "consent"

That should clarify things a great deal.

[candelista]

6. Odd reason against bestiality.

That it's bad for the beast. Does a beast have the right to informed consent?

[Warpy]

8. No, the point is that the animal in question can't consent

or withhold consent because our communication skills with other species don't cover that.

It's bad for the beast because the beast is being forced. There is no question of consent being given, the beast is incapable of it.

That also goes for the dead, the juvenile, the comatose, and the dead drunk among our own species.

[candelista]

12. What if it gives signs of "consent"?

Wiggling its hindquarters invitingly, coming back for more, etc. Then would bestiality be OK?

[Warpy]

14. No, because "signs" are open to wide interpretation

Think about how many disgusting pigs who walk around looking like men think a woman who has a little too much to drink has consented because, well, "signs."

He simply discards the other signs like her screaming hell no and puking all over him.

Consent is unambiguous. "Signs" are a fantasy.

[candelista]

15. LOL!

I still don't think you've got it about what's wrong with bestiality. But OK, that's your view.

[davidpdx]

9. Bahhh?

[angrychair]

5. I think you

I think you forgot the with your livestock comment otherwise you may type something again and leave no doubt.
As far as I am concerned, if CONSENTING adults want to marry, in whatever number and combinations, why do so many insist on controlling other human beings lives? I get so sick of this crap of people think they should have a say in something that is none of their damn business. That think their OPINION is the best and ONLY path to a safe and happy society. Interracial marriage, homosexual marriage, polygamy...please move on....nothing to see here.

[candelista]

7. Here's the problem with polygamy: rich attractive guys will hog the women.

Leaving fewer around for the rest of the guys. You don't want that to happen, do you?

There are other, related problems too, including the natural tendency of polygamous communities to kick-ban young men of marriageable age.

[egold2604]

10. I am appalled. What is next? Necrophilia between consenting adults?

[Chan790]

11. Um.

1.) Dead people cannot consent. Prior consent does not in this instance qualify as on-going consent.

2.) Simulation of necrophilia may be creepy but it's not illegal.

[Xithras]

13. The ruling isn't about marriage. Living with ANYONE you're not married to was illegal.

It's illegal in Utah to live with anyone you're not married to. Gay, straight, monogamous or polygamous, the law said that cohabitating with a person you're not married to is a crime.

Utah doesn't enforce the law against monogamous couples, but two college sweethearts shacking up in Salt Lake are actually committing a crime that could net them several years in prison. Only the kindness of the states prosecutors keeps that from happening.

The lawsuit centered around two very valid legal points. First, the state was selectively enforcing a law against one group while allowing others to blatantly and openly violate it every day. That runs afoul of every Americans rights to equal protection, and is clearly illegal. Second, the argument stated that the state had no right to ban consenting adults from cohabitating. If two, three, four or more people wanted to pitch in and get a place together, the state has no grounds to prohibit them from doing so. The right to pick your own home, and the roommates you'll share it with, is pretty fundamental to being a free society.

Utah argued that these laws were required for them to combat polygamy, but their argument basically boiled down to, "Your constitutional rights are secondary to our social interests." The court, thankfully, didn't accept their argument.

Bigamy (actually marrying more than one person) remains illegal everywhere in Utah.