Bigamy laws of Texas challenged...

[mrscottyl]

I thought the charges against him were for bigamy...if they are dropping the bigamy charges what then are they charging him with?

Sorry for being so late in getting back to your question Scarecrow. Here is the scenario we are most likely, and I stress most likely, looking at: except in one possible case, the state of Texas has not used bigamy charges, pleading them down. Thus in this case, the state may dismiss this charge altogether. Either they are afraid of the statute being over turned, or they are just no interested in prosecuting bigamy. All of his wives are older than 18, with the youngest being 24 and I believe the older is 74. The only thing he is charged with is bigamy, so I do not see how they can reduce it any further, so the only option in that case would be to dismiss altogether.

Scott

 

[Scarecrow]

Either way I see it as a win.

If they pursue bigamy charges it is likely that the bigamy laws will be overturned, if they drop the charges it is more evidence for us that the government is unwilling, unable, and afraid to defend the bigamy laws. This does not address the issue we want resolved but continues to weaken it little by little. The more polygamy and bigamy is brought to the attention of the public, the more they are forced to think about it. The more people think about it, the more they have to question their own prejudices against it and the more they soften their stance on it. It is like a block of ice standing on end, slowly melting. Eventually there will be nothing left to it and those attempting to argue against it will have nothing but water flowing through their fingers.

 

[macike]

What About A Direct Assault - iowa

Either way I see it as a win.

I would think this is closer to a loss. If the case is dropped there can be precedent set for the future. The poly community goes into the background and needing to hide under a rock.

I would think that a couple + 1 should try a direct assault. Go and apply for government permission, then sue when denied. Obvious you need the right people to do this, and I am NOT that person at all. I would also think that a non-christian couple +1 would also be the best place to start. That way they can argue in clear mind the anri-relligious side of the law. I would think the best place to challenge would be Iowa. There the courts completely tossed out the anti-gay marriage laws. To me the issue is simple as freedom and liberty to live your life the way you see fit.

I know people do not want to coattail the gay issue, however the two are linked. People use the poly as the reason to now allow gay marriage. I also know that just because something is legal does not make it moral (abortion comes to mind). But having the legality solved opens the door for debate, many churches will ignore it others will decide you know maybe, you can't be an elder or deacon, but we would love to have your kids.

 

[Scarecrow]

Hugh McBryde makes the same argument...that someone needs to apply for a license for a second wife then sue the state when they deny the license. From what I remember Hugh seemed to think that the state would have to defend the individual seeking the right to marry a second wife because the state would be denying a fundamental human right (or something like that...I don't remember now)...I agree with you that Iowa would be a good place to start...unfortunately I don't know anyone in Iowa, much less anyone in Iowa with the moxy to take on the government...I think an interesting situation might be one where a woman left (legally divorced) her (christian) husband and he remarried...then later she wanted to reconcile with him. Should he be forced to divorce his second wife so that he could reconcile (remarry) his first wife, or ignore the scriptures he claims to follow and believe in?

1 Corinthians 7:10-11 To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.

It does not say that the man is to remain unmarried, only the woman. Should his wife leave him and he takes another wife he would still be obligated to his second wife in the event that his first wife returned to him and wanted to be reconciled. I would think that this would provide an argument for the free practice of religion under the first amendment - after all it is a command from "(not I, but the Lord)". In this scenario wouldn't the state be preventing a man from freely practicing his religion; preventing him from obeying a direct command from his God?

 

[Scarecrow]

Update from Kent Schaffer

I emailed Kent Schaffer after I read statements that the challenge to the bigamy laws was being dropped. I just received this reply:

"It is not being dropped. It is being carried with the trial which is going to occur in the spring of 2011. We decided not to pursue the challenge pretrial for a number of strategic reasons."

In other words they decided not to challenge the bigamy laws in order to have them found unconstitutional and have the case dismissed before the trial, but rather will argue the unconstitutional aspects of the bigamy laws during the trial. The intent to challenge the bigamy laws constitutionality is not being dropped, rather the method they will use to confront their constitutionality has been modified.

 

[Scarecrow]

Kent Schaffer suggested the following method of getting updates on the Texas trial:

"Not that I am aware of. One thing you can do is go to google alerts and type in wendell's name. that way, every time his name appears in a blog or newspaper, you will get and email notifying you. That is the only way I know of to get updates. Other than that, we are set for trial on August 22."

Wendell Nielsen is the name of the defendant.