• 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.

Utah Senate unanimously moves to decriminalize polygamy

cnystrom said:
https://www.chicagotribune.com/colu...0200221-kdfs7p6fyzc7phoicllruw646a-story.html
Click to expand...

"Most people would no more want multiple spouses than they would want multiple heads."

Freudian slip that.

"Americans have mostly come to accept nonmarital cohabitation, divorce and same-sex marriage. No district attorney goes after men and women who enter into open marriages that allow sex with others. Even in conservative circles, policing intimate relations is not seen as an important or even valid government responsibility."

That's an excellent summary of the present legal climate.

"We might adopt the wisdom of Abraham Lincoln. His Republican Party was officially against polygamy. But in a meeting with a Mormon emissary, President Lincoln recalled that as a farm boy, he sometimes encountered a fallen log that “was too hard to split, too wet to burn, and too heavy to move, so we plowed around it. That’s what I intend to do with the Mormons. You go back and tell Brigham Young that if he will let me alone, I will let him alone.”

Wisdom.
 
rockfox said:
"We might adopt the wisdom of Abraham Lincoln. His Republican Party was officially against polygamy. But in a meeting with a Mormon emissary, President Lincoln recalled that as a farm boy, he sometimes encountered a fallen log that “was too hard to split, too wet to burn, and too heavy to move, so we plowed around it. That’s what I intend to do with the Mormons. You go back and tell Brigham Young that if he will let me alone, I will let him alone.”
Click to expand...
Love that. Abraham Lincoln was a wise one who had a way with words.
 
I just don't like the idea of oh it's decriminalized but it's immoral.
Click to expand...

I have been following the debate in Utah, even got to spar on Twitter with one of the leaders of the opposition.

The legal arguments are never about morality. That would mandate a particular religious viewpoint, which would be the death of any legislation. The debate instead focuses on issues of harm and harm reduction, sometimes with a side discussion of freedom of the individuial vs. the needs of society.

The high point so far has been the leader of the opposition, who takes a strong stance that polygamy is slavery, making up a nametag that said SLAVE and putting it in front of the only black member of the committee.
 
Jeff Ray said:
The legal arguments are never about morality. That would mandate a particular religious viewpoint, which would be the death of any legislation. The debate instead focuses on issues of harm and harm reduction, sometimes with a side discussion of freedom of the individuial vs. the needs of society.

The high point so far has been the leader of the opposition, who takes a strong stance that polygamy is slavery, making up a nametag that said SLAVE and putting it in front of the only black member of the committee.
Click to expand...

All legal arguments are fundamentally moral ones. In order to win the pro-poly folks have to find an argument that overcomes the argument that poly hurts women. They've settled on poly being inevitable and the law hurts women in poly because it prevents them from seeking help for abuse.
 
Yesterday the bill was passed (unanimously) out of the Utah House committee and moved to the full House for vote. The committee made changes, so if the House passes it, it will still have to be reconciled with the Senate version.

While in committee, several anti-polygamy witnesses supported the bill. Also, Buhman (from Brown v. Buhman) not only supported it, but said polygamy should probably just be fully decriminalized, not just reduced to a misdemeanor.
 
Jeff Ray said:
Also, Buhman (from Brown v. Buhman) not only supported it, but said polygamy should probably just be fully decriminalized, not just reduced to a misdemeanor.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by this? Fully decriminalized would be the same as reducing to a misdemeanor. Do you mean he said polygamy should be fully legalized?
 
What do you mean by this? Fully decriminalized would be the same as reducing to a misdemeanor. Do you mean he said polygamy should be fully legalized?
Click to expand...

My apologies, I conflated two different tweets.

Several of the attendees to the Senate hearing were live-tweeting the proceedings. "@TheDargerFamily" tweeted this:

"Prosecutor Buhman telling committee law is unconstitutional as written. No matter your thoughts on polygamy that is the most powerful reason to change the law."
 
One of the no votes came from Rep. Kyle Andersen, R-North Ogden. He cited statistics from a nonprofit that helps people who have left polygamy showing most exit their communities with no assets, a sixth grade education and have suffered an abuse.

Reducing penalties for polygamy “makes no sense,” Andersen contended. He noted possession of child pornography continues to be a problem, but no one is arguing to lessen those offenses.
Click to expand...
Ummm, Mr. Anderson, child pornography is harmful and abusive, and this proposal does NOT reduce the penalty for those who participate in abuse. I suspect they are referring to Sound Choices, when they are talking about "a nonprofit", which is an organization which paints with a broad brush when it comes to polygamy, but ignores the fact that abuse can and does happen in monogamous homes as well.
 
Last edited:
Frank S said:
Just to add to your comment @tps26 - here are some comments for and against the signing - put out by The Salt Lake Tribune...

Click to expand...
Oh, yeah, sure, that woman who spoke third knows "thousands" of people she could name who have married half-siblings and turned out deformed children. Sure she does!

Some of the other comments also seem to ignore the fact that child abuse is also a huge problem among monogamists.

Wonderful news that, at least in Utah, people can more safely bring their lives out into the sunshine. The light of day will solve many of the problems some are worrying about.
 
Keith Martin said:
Oh, yeah, sure, that woman who spoke third knows "thousands" of people she could name who have married half-siblings and turned out deformed children. Sure she does!
Click to expand...
She should talk to #9 Anne Wilde, because they can't both be correct.
 
So I guess, there are lessons we can learn from Utah, that can be applied in the remaining 49 states, and perhaps in other countries around the world. For one, you don't have to have a Democrat majority in the state legislature in order to win the right to practice polygyny. For another, as a Conservative, I am not a huge fan of using the court system to overturn laws that are enacted democratically, but if it can spur democratic changes to the law, I suppose it is a means that does not grossly offend that Conservative principle too much, and for all you Libertarians out there, I know that deep down, you hold to a lot of the same Conservative principles that I hold to. Third, it is obvious that laws against polygamy, have no Constitutional support whatsoever, and while I understand that the framers of our Constitution never intended to allow polygamy, the principles that they stood for, are inconsistent with denying consensual polygamy.
 
Just ask Californians how that direct democracy works when talking about a bullet train to nowhere. Even we libertarians like the courts when they step in to make things constitutional. It's legislation form the bench that is anathema.
 
Mojo said:
Just ask Californians how that direct democracy works when talking about a bullet train to nowhere. Even we libertarians like the courts when they step in to make things constitutional. It's legislation form the bench that is anathema.
Click to expand...
Do they not put propositions like that on the ballot?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top