Here we go...

[Scarecrow]

"Nielsen’s case could raise significant legal issues on appeal — his wives were not minors. Authorities in Utah and other states have been reluctant to prosecute bigamy alone for fear that it could lead to the ultimate decriminalization of polygamy under religious freedom grounds."

http://fox13now.com/2012/03/30/ex-flds- ... or-bigamy/

I also saw this playing out as it has so far. With the laws what they are Wendell is guilty. Now the real assault on these unconstitutional laws can begin...

...next step appeal the verdict on the grounds that the bigamy and anti-polygamy laws are unconstitutional; violating a person's personal liberty and religious freedom. It is very likely that a Federal Judge will rule that the bigamy and anti-polygamy laws are unconstitutional.

Without the fear of breaking the law a man could then apply for a "license" for a second wife. When turned down he could challenge the State for equal protection for his wives.

 

[T-C's Rebeka]

I think there is a large legal gap between the decriminalization of unlicensed bigamy and allowing legally licensed bigamy. Those are two very different issues, legally.

The biggest hurdle is getting the higher court to hear the case. Since it appears he is guilty of the law then he has to show that his "due process" or civil rights were violated as that is the only way he can request an appeal. It is not the Court's "problem" if they don't "catch" everyone who violates the law (i.e. other cohabiters) so that can not be used as a reason. If they can show unequal enforcement where other individuals were not prosecuted, then maybe they could have a case but that is very thin. The best bet would be that they show that his rights were violated somehow.

I think the best approach is to follow on the footsteps of the anti-sodomy case and push the sexuality freedom/privacy right since that has positive legal standing. The USA has a long list of "religious freedoms" it has banned, some we don't pay attention to because they are not Christian practices and the ACLU has lost in court over them because the "benefit or detriment of the State" out weighs the individual religious freedom.

 

[Scarecrow]

I agree completely. Taking the same route as the sodomy case is the best course of action in my opinion. I am sure that already discussed that before even going to trial. I believe the bigamy and anti-polygamy laws will be ruled unconstitutional...THEN the next step is to work o the individual states to recognize plural marriage. The best places to start are the states that already recognize gay marriage, and Utah, Colorado, and Arizona are also target states.

 

[Froggie]

In the link I provided in the other thread, http://usmarriagelaws.com/search/united ... ndex.shtml I found this little clause:

The following states, have no statutes against fornication, adultery, or cohabitation, and they also do not recognize common-law marriages.

California
Hawaii
Nevada
Oregon
Washington

The following states have laws against cohabitation.

Alabama
Alaska
Arkansas
Florida
Massachusetts
Mississippi
Nebraska
North Carolina
South Carolina
Virginia
West Virginia
Wyoming

The way I interpreted this to read is that the first set of states (the short list) does not really give a flying flip if you want to have multiple families living together, and all the adults sleeping together in mutual consent, so long as you do not get the relationship legally licensed or try to claim monetary benefits, such as tax deductions, health benefits, food stamps, etc.; and so long as you pretty much mind your own business and don't let it become a problem for anyone else.

The second list I post here, I presume to mean that if you want to have multiple partners, then they need to live in separate residences, and you all just "visit" each other. Again, it cannot be legally drawn up on paper, or any kind of benefits claimed. Just keep it all on the "down-low," and you'll be okay.

Of course, that's my own interpretation. I'm not a lawyer, nor do I have any schooling in the law.

 

[Scarecrow]

Interesting that the "short list" is all West coast...hmmm

 

[Froggie]

This is only another page on the original site I linked to: http://usmarriagelaws.com/search/united ... ndex.shtml

But it fully defines the terms "bigamy" and "polygamy" in more depth, giving more credence to what I said before: as long as you don't get your relationship drawn up on paper, and try to claim legal/state benefits, and just mind your own business, nobody really gives a rat's behind-- particularly in those five few states mentioned.

 

[Oreslag]

In the link I provided in the other thread, http://usmarriagelaws.com/search/united ... ndex.shtml I found this little clause:

The following states, have no statutes against fornication, adultery, or cohabitation, and they also do not recognize common-law marriages.

California
Hawaii
Nevada
Oregon
Washington

I live in Washington and you can find the revised code online (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=26.04.010). In this state, a marriage is defined as a civil contract. The changes noted for 2012 take gender out of the law, thereby permitting same-sex marriages as well. In any case, defining it as a civil contract simplifies much and explains why (at least in terms of legal viewpoint) there are no statutes against fornication, adultery, or cohabitation as well.

 

[captainjonathan]

(1) Marriage is a civil contract between a male and a female who have each attained the age of eighteen years, and who are otherwise capable.

I grew up in politics and a family full of lawyers. This is the only line in the Washington State code that is subjective. The other line that states one man one woman is a game of semantics. As long as the women are not claiming marriage to each other one can legally argue that each marriage stand on its own as a union between one man and one woman. The issue with the subjectivity of the first line is the preclusion of capability. Does having another marriage make you incapable of entering a second civil union? That is where we must fight the law.

As we look at the enemy of our souls it is important to remember that he is devious and ORGANIZED. Some would call it conspiratorial. I would tell you yes. He has had a conspiracy since the dawn of man for us to go down with him. The point behind this is as earth is his domain right now and he is orchestrating all he can. Why would you expect that he would not defile any type of Godly marriage. The very fact that it is called a civil union is a spit in the face of God who designed this to be a HOLY COVENANT. In the name of using the govt to forbid sin, we handed control of morality over to govt, and we wonder why it is failing?

Oh well before I go too far....