• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Federal Court Strikes Down Polygamy Law In Utah

ninamag said:
will utah formally apologize to all polygamists they have in the past persecuted?
Click to expand...

No. Not in this country. Any government body or participating law firm would stand by their previous actions as sanctioned and warranted.

I'm humbled by the way God has been glorified and we have gained freedom through His plan for the Brown family.
 
Ninamag said:
will utah formally apologize to all polygamists they have in the past persecuted?
how/what, if any, does/is tom green, exonerated by this?
Click to expand...

Hi Ninamag,

As for Tom Green, he was prosecuted for marrying an unaged girl. Before Tom went to jail, I met him and his entire family at their annual family picnic near Provo (if I remember correctly...it was somewhere in Northern Utah). It's too bad he made such a terrible error in judgement that landed him in jail. His wives and children were sweethearts and the fellowship during the picnic was a blessing too.

Point is, poly, though partly an issue at the time, was not the primary charge for his incarceration.

In Him,
Deborah
 
What great news, it has been a long time coming, I haven't read Jonathan Turleys's blog since the bad old days when this first started.

Isabella - Happy
 
So what does this mean for us? People living in Utah can have everyone living in one home wo/legal issues? Woun't common law rules still come into effect and then the bigamy law kick in?
 
JustAGuy said:
Woun't common law rules still come into effect and then the bigamy law kick in?
Click to expand...

Think about legal state approved marriages - even if you are legally married to one woman and go ahead and go through the motions of legally marrying a second. You are guilty of bigamy and the second marriage is deemed invalid in the eyes of the law. It is IMPOSSIBLE to create a common law marriage if you are still legally married to someone else.
 
Brilliant quote from the full judgement, see pages 67-68 (in-text citations removed here for readability). This is in the context of discussing WHY the state wishes to penalise polygamy.
But the court also feels compelled to identify an absurdity in the State’s position against religious cohabitation in this context of trying to “protect” the institution of marriage by criminalizing religious cohabitation. At a time of much discussion in society about problems arising from the decline in rates of people marrying or the increased age at which people decide to marry, the Statute penalizes people for making a firm marriage-like commitment to each other, even though they know that their religious cohabitation does not result in state-sanctioned or recognized marriages. As Plaintiffs trenchantly noted, the State’s position
would suggest that Kody Brown would have avoided any criminal exposure if he had simply maintained relations with multiple women, had children by them, but never expressed a belief in being spiritually bonded to them. Since he committed to these women and his children, the case is treated as undermining marriage by the Defendant and justifying criminalization under the statute.
Click to expand...
In fact, Defendant’s counsel confirmed this to be the case by identifying the relationship at issue in “Scenario 4” above as violating the Statute but not “Scenario 3”. “It is the state that is defining cohabitation and plural relationships as marriage and then criminalizing those private relationships as inimical to the institution of marriage. The Browns have not questioned the right of the state to limit its recognition of marriage and to prosecute those citizens who secure multiple marriage licenses from the state.” Encouraging adulterous cohabitation over religious cohabitation that resembles marriage in all but State recognition seems counterproductive to the goal of strengthening or protecting the institution of marriage. The court thus cannot believe that this approach constitutes a narrowly tailored means of advancing the compelling state interest of protecting the institution of marriage.
Click to expand...
I also recommend anyone interested in these matters reads the full judgement. It is very wordy legalese and some is rather difficult to follow. However it shows that the court has not made this decision on just some narrow point of law, but for many very different and highly compelling reasons. The court is highly critical of the law as it stood and goes deeply into the history behind the law.

The key thrust behind their argument, why they allow the law against bigamy to stand but remove the law against cohabitation, is essentially:
  • The government is right to ban bigamy (two legal marriage licences) to protect people from deceit.
  • When the Utah law prohibiting cohabitation was passed, civil marriage was recognised - in other words, cohabitation in itself could constitute a legal marriage. This clause was justifiable to ensure that all situations of bigamy were covered by the law.
  • Civil marriage is no longer recognised in Utah (hasn't been for about a century), so this clause is now obsolete and should be removed.
  • The government only seems to keep the law to selectively and highly arbitrarily prosecute people who all happen to follow a particular religious view, it is thus religious discrimination.

Very well argued. Will be extremely difficult to succeed in an appeal, as even if they can disprove a couple of points they can hardly counter every one of the reasons to strike down this law.

A very important day for Utah. Note that this just makes their law the same as it already is for most of the Western world, but it's certainly an improvement on what they had previously.
 
As Plaintiffs trenchantly noted, the State’s position "would suggest that Kody Brown would have avoided any criminal exposure if he had simply maintained relations with multiple women, had children by them, but never expressed a belief in being spiritually bonded to them. Since he committed to these women and his children, the case is treated as undermining marriage by the Defendant and justifying criminalization under the statute."
Click to expand...
wow, so it would have been best if he had just acted like a fornicating cad instead of like a husband and father.

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

this, alongside of the phil/DD flap, has the potential to rouse a few from their lethargy.

thanx for doing the heavy lifting on this, samuel :D
 
FollowingHim, You made a pretty good accessment of that Document, as to it being legalease. I also read the whole thing, just to see what hind of deception there was hidden in it. Like everything to do with Courts, it has great deception hidden in what it don't say.
Let's look at the first Deception; The Statute in Question was directed at one group of people, the Mormans. Then, how can the religon part come into play without violating the first Amendment to the Bill of Rights? Remember, in this Document, it is stated a date when the Morman Church bacame incorporated. All corporations are creatures of the STATE in which they're incorporated, therefore, the STATE has a right to make any rule it wants, to control itself, which is the Morman Church and it's members. Same thing happens today, to the Government Churches, under 501 (c) (3) Charter, You are bound by these contracts with the STATE, if You participate as a member in any of these corporations.
Same thing with the Marriage License, it's a 3 way contract with the STATE, the man, and the woman, joining in a partnership, for the purpose to produce Childern. The "Children" being a commodity, bought and sold through the securitization of the Birth Certificate, by the STATE. See; HJR 192, and related Public Law regarding the 1933 Bankruptcy of the UNITED STATES corporation.
The STATE frowns on a man and woman creating a potential commodity, that it can't capitolize on.
The License contract, or some other contract, is the only connection between You and the STATE.
Your Birth Certificate, is a contract between Your parents and the STATE, not You. Your Social Security Number is a contract between You and the STATE. Your Drivers license is a contract between You and the STATE. You are enslaved by the STATE, through Your contracts. The STATE securitizes every signature You put on anything for them. You are considered an enemy of the STATE, see; USC Title 50.
The Scriptures speaks of these contracts, As "have no other Gods before Me". When You contract with the foreign God, the STATE, You are enslaved by it.
The jibberish in the Document is there for the benefit of keeping the people in control. The STATE only has the control over You that You give Your consent for, no more.
I could probably write 90 pages on the doc. but, it would just scare the hee bee jeebes out of most people.

just My opinion. Me,
 
eternitee said:
JustAGuy said:
Woun't common law rules still come into effect and then the bigamy law kick in?
Click to expand...

Think about legal state approved marriages - even if you are legally married to one woman and go ahead and go through the motions of legally marrying a second. You are guilty of bigamy and the second marriage is deemed invalid in the eyes of the law. It is IMPOSSIBLE to create a common law marriage if you are still legally married to someone else.
Click to expand...

This really depends on how state laws are written. Vermont, for example, only recognizes common law marriage in probate court after death. I did a lot of research into Texas' common law marriage statute while living there. In Texas, if you introduce someone in public as a spouse, you're married. If you're already married, then you're now a bigamist under state law, and face up to 2 months in jail and some degree of a fine for a Class B misdemeanor. (My wife and I have a registered common law marriage in Texas.) All but 11 states have gotten rid of common law marriages and now that DOMA has been mostly struck down, states are not compelled to recognize other states' marriages if they are not legal in the state in which one resides. Ergo, if I had not registered my common law marriage, I would not have been recognized as married in Arizona or Idaho where I have lived since then. But, I could obtain a marriage license with another woman here in Idaho, theoretically, because Idaho does not recognize common law at all. (Although that would certainly open a whole new bag of interstate legal worms!)

Just my $0.02.
 
Bigamy is a third degree felony in Texas, which escalates to second degree or first degree if the spouse is under 17 or under 16. It was a Class A misdemeanor for many years, but was ratcheted up when the YFZ group moved to Texas. (The age for parental consent to marriage was raised at the same time.)

The Waddoups opinion is an excellent piece of work. Big props to the Browns' legal team, and much credit to Waddoups for devoting some serious time and effort to this decision.
 
eternitee said:
JustAGuy said:
Woun't common law rules still come into effect and then the bigamy law kick in?
Click to expand...

Think about legal state approved marriages - even if you are legally married to one woman and go ahead and go through the motions of legally marrying a second. You are guilty of bigamy and the second marriage is deemed invalid in the eyes of the law. It is IMPOSSIBLE to create a common law marriage if you are still legally married to someone else.
Click to expand...

It might be more accurate to say that it is impossible to create a VALID common-law marriage if you are still legally married to someone else, but I'm not sure that's what JAG is asking about. In Texas, for example, informal (common law) marriages have been specifically held to be sufficient to justify a bigamy prosecution, which I believe is the heart of JAG's concern. In Utah, there is--for now, pending appeal--some room to use "spiritual marriage" or "covenant wife" language as long as you are not claiming more than one state-sanctioned, "legal" marriage. In Texas, until we've heard from the 5th Circuit or the Supremes, it is still going to be more conservative to avoid words like "marriage", "marry", "wife", and "husband" in public unless you're willing to risk a felony prosecution. Same probably goes for the other common law states (besides Utah), depending on the language of the applicable statutes.
 
andrew said:
Bigamy is a third degree felony in Texas, which escalates to second degree or first degree if the spouse is under 17 or under 16. It was a Class A misdemeanor for many years, but was ratcheted up when the YFZ group moved to Texas. (The age for parental consent to marriage was raised at the same time.)

The Waddoups opinion is an excellent piece of work. Big props to the Browns' legal team, and much credit to Waddoups for devoting some serious time and effort to this decision.
Click to expand...

I caught that after you posted. I was confusing the Texas statute with one from another state. Oops! Thanks for the correction.
 
The Waddoups judgement that this thread is about actually discussed common law marriage as that is relevant to Utah as well as Texas, and makes the judgement that only two legal marriage licences is an offense of bigamy. If this precedent is applicable to Texas also, then this issue is already being addressed. I would highly recommend that you read the actual judgement, it is very well worth taking the time to read if this could at all be relevant to yourself or anyone you know.
 
FollowingHim said:
The Waddoups judgement that this thread is about actually discussed common law marriage as that is relevant to Utah as well as Texas, and makes the judgement that only two legal marriage licences is an offense of bigamy. If this precedent is applicable to Texas also, then this issue is already being addressed. I would highly recommend that you read the actual judgement, it is very well worth taking the time to read if this could at all be relevant to yourself or anyone you know. (emphasis added)
Click to expand...
It's not. It's more like guidance, or a sign of the times, or an indication of where things are headed. That decision is currently good in the 10th Circuit as an interpretation of the constitutionality of Utah law. It's a great decision and a great opinion, but until the reasoning and holding are adopted by the 5th Circuit (or the Brown case is ruled on by the Supremes), it's not binding in Texas. Still pretty good news, though, and still a pretty good pointer to where we're headed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top