Polygamist Plans Suit to Challenge Polygamy Law

[jimnyc]

I told everyone this shit would start happening if they catered to and extended additional rights to the queers. Now batting: polygamy. And I'll gurantee you that this isn't the last lawsuit that will be filed by the abnormal who want acceptance and "equal rights".


The polygamist family portrayed on the TLC reality show "Sister Wives" said all along its main goal in going on national television was to gain public acceptance of its lifestyle.

Now family patriarch Kody Brown, his four wives and 16 children and stepchildren are moving from the court of public opinion to the court of law, arguing that criminalizing their lifestyle is unconstitutional.

"This is not an effort to endorse polygamy," said Jonathon Turley, the family's attorney. "What it is is an effort to reaffirm privacy."

The law banning polygamy dates back to a Supreme Court decision in 1879 that called it "an offense against society." The court said it is not protected by religious freedom, just as "human sacrifice" is not protected.

On Wednesday, the Browns are expected to file a federal lawsuit to challenge the polygamy law in their home state of Utah, where they came under investigation for violating the state law that prohibits polygamy.

Turley, who is not a polygamist, is making the case that a lifestyle many Americans abhor should actually be tolerated.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/sister-wives-polygamist-plans-suit-challenge-polygamy-law/story?id=14051846

[Gunny]

I told everyone this shit would start happening if they catered to and extended additional rights to the queers. Now batting: polygamy. And I'll gurantee you that this isn't the last lawsuit that will be filed by the abnormal who want acceptance and "equal rights".



http://abcnews.go.com/US/sister-wives-polygamist-plans-suit-challenge-polygamy-law/story?id=14051846

There's no such thing as the "slippery slope". Even when in most cases it can be proven.

Just ask a Dem. They can spend half a page telling you why you're wrong while saying absolutely nothing.

[CSM]

It will eventually get to pedophiles but hopefully not in my lifetime.

[Gunny]

It will eventually get to pedophiles but hopefully not in my lifetime.

They're already at it, IMO. The fact NAMBLA can even exist is offensive to me.

It's against the law to be sexual predator/pedophile but not against the law to form an organization that supports the lifestyle so long as they claim they aren't actively participating said lifestyle.

Yeah, I hope I don't live to see the complete slide into Euro-mediocrity brought on by clowns that apply no common sense to the law.

[CSM]

They're already at it, IMO. The fact NAMBLA can even exist is offensive to me.

It's against the law to be sexual predator/pedophile but not against the law to form an organization that supports the lifestyle so long as they claim they aren't actively participating said lifestyle.

Yeah, I hope I don't live to see the complete slide into Euro-mediocrity brought on by clowns that apply no common sense to the law.

Unfortunately, common sense is not so common. Apparently, a good portion of the population of this country has suffered an attack by the liberal/progressive mind-meld wizards.

[darin]

If the threshold, as Homophiles state, is "Love between consenting adults", then Polygamy should stand.

[KarlMarx]

If the threshold, as Homophiles state, is "Love between consenting adults", then Polygamy should stand.
I think that it won't be a stretch to predict someone will soon be challenging incest laws, too.

[mundame]

I haven't been here for awhile; hi, again, everyone. It's nice to see you.

Jimnyc, I'm pleased to see you made the same analysis I did about polygamy getting legalized about three days after homosexual marriage.

Polygamy does, after all, have more historical and religious basis than men marrying men! If homosexual marriage is legalized, how is it possible to stop polygamy?


I would like to go farther and see what you think of this, jimnyc and others. I have long assumed that Mitt Romney's candidacy for the presidency is a put-up job by the Mormon Church to achieve exactly this --
legalized polygamy, a basic, crucial tenet of the Mormon Church and its scriptures that the Feds outlawed in the 1890s and had to send troops to Utah to enforce.

Mitt's father George Romney ran for president, too, but he washed out quickly. He probably wasn't legal to run: George was born in Mexico, in a Mormon community sent out to preserve polygamy, one of three such communities the Church itself deliberately sent out against more fortunate times for their practices.

Mitt is a "DNA Mormon," a family that came over the plains with Brigham Young. I think the Romneys have been moles for many years and note ------

Romney won't take that marriage pledge. That sure doesn't surprise me! Of course he won't take it: the whole point of his achieving the White House is to re-establish polygamy. As -- note -- he got homosexual marriage established first in the nation when he was governor of Massachusetts.


It all fits, it's a plot, IMO. There's no way I'll support Romney for president; if I have to, I'll sit out the election.

[logroller]

The tradition of marriage has a long history of legalized INEQUALITY between a man and wife. Polygamy, where man has many wives, certainly fits the bill. But I've struggled to fully understand the egalitarian good (well, the public bad, more determinantly). Nothing wrong with a little individual experimentation, so long as it doesn't affect me.

Here's a great article on the history of marriage; it's long, but in depth. Here's an excerpt:

A coda: "marriage" is just a word, and today the legal significance of the word -- as housing or describing the place of legal sexual expression, shared property, and, most importantly, core obligations for the care of children -- is much reduced from what it once was...What matters is what matters. And marriage is a word that today, as in the past, matters politically, legally, culturally, and for individuals as they construct meaning in their lives.
http://hnn.us/articles/4400.html

[darin]

. I have long assumed that Mitt Romney's candidacy for the presidency is a put-up job by the Mormon Church to achieve exactly this --
legalized polygamy, a basic, crucial tenet of the Mormon Church and its scriptures that the Feds outlawed in the 1890s and had to send troops to Utah to enforce.

Mitt's father George Romney ran for president, too, but he washed out quickly. He probably wasn't legal to run: George was born in Mexico, in a Mormon community sent out to preserve polygamy, one of three such communities the Church itself deliberately sent out against more fortunate times for their practices.

Mitt is a "DNA Mormon," a family that came over the plains with Brigham Young. I think the Romneys have been moles for many years and note ------

Romney won't take that marriage pledge. That sure doesn't surprise me! Of course he won't take it: the whole point of his achieving the White House is to re-establish polygamy. As -- note -- he got homosexual marriage established first in the nation when he was governor of Massachusetts.


It all fits, it's a plot, IMO. There's no way I'll support Romney for president; if I have to, I'll sit out the election.

I believe your suspicions are absurd.

[MtnBiker]

Liberals cringe at the idea of defining marriage being one man and one woman. But if it is not defined as one man and one women what is it? Some would say that gay people should have the right to marry. Well then should not polygamist also have a right. If polyamists have a right to marry then could not 8 men marry 12 women at the same time? Imagine a marriage of 20 loving people, buying gifts for the happy new couple, oh I mean the group of 20, would be a bitch. But they could be their own coed softball team.

[logroller]

Liberals cringe at the idea of defining marriage being one man and one woman. But if it is not defined as one man and one women what is it? Some would say that gay people should have the right to marry. Well then should not polygamist also have a right. If polyamists have a right to marry then could not 8 men marry 12 women at the same time? Imagine a marriage of 20 loving people, buying gifts for the happy new couple, oh I mean the group of 20, would be a bitch. But they could be their own coed softball team.

COED softball team??? We're destroying the institution of softball-- the lesbians should feel slighted:laugh:

[Gunny]

I haven't been here for awhile; hi, again, everyone. It's nice to see you.

Jimnyc, I'm pleased to see you made the same analysis I did about polygamy getting legalized about three days after homosexual marriage.

Polygamy does, after all, have more historical and religious basis than men marrying men! If homosexual marriage is legalized, how is it possible to stop polygamy?


I would like to go farther and see what you think of this, jimnyc and others. I have long assumed that Mitt Romney's candidacy for the presidency is a put-up job by the Mormon Church to achieve exactly this --
legalized polygamy, a basic, crucial tenet of the Mormon Church and its scriptures that the Feds outlawed in the 1890s and had to send troops to Utah to enforce.

Mitt's father George Romney ran for president, too, but he washed out quickly. He probably wasn't legal to run: George was born in Mexico, in a Mormon community sent out to preserve polygamy, one of three such communities the Church itself deliberately sent out against more fortunate times for their practices.

Mitt is a "DNA Mormon," a family that came over the plains with Brigham Young. I think the Romneys have been moles for many years and note ------

Romney won't take that marriage pledge. That sure doesn't surprise me! Of course he won't take it: the whole point of his achieving the White House is to re-establish polygamy. As -- note -- he got homosexual marriage established first in the nation when he was governor of Massachusetts.


It all fits, it's a plot, IMO. There's no way I'll support Romney for president; if I have to, I'll sit out the election.

I doubt the Church of LDS would attempt such a thing. If anything, they'd have a far better chance at success aligning themselves with the Dems to get some queer ideal of marriage even put on the table.

After all, who has supported corrupting the term "marriage" and who has attempted to keep it as it's supposed to be?

[Gunny]

The tradition of marriage has a long history of legalized INEQUALITY between a man and wife. Polygamy, where man has many wives, certainly fits the bill. But I've struggled to fully understand the egalitarian good (well, the public bad, more determinantly). Nothing wrong with a little individual experimentation, so long as it doesn't affect me.

Here's a great article on the history of marriage; it's long, but in depth. Here's an excerpt:

http://hnn.us/articles/4400.html

The "tradition of marriage" has a long history. Any "legalized inequality" is because the government has got its fingers in the till where they don't belong, as usual.

I, for one, do not confuse marriage with a legal contract between a man, woman, and a nowadays hedonistic, immoral government bowing to the whims of a hedonistic and immoral society.

Our government's out of control sticking its nose where it doesn't belong, and definitely where catering to the tyranny of the minority is concerned.

[mundame]

If polyamists have a right to marry then could not 8 men marry 12 women at the same time? Imagine a marriage of 20 loving people, buying gifts for the happy new couple, oh I mean the group of 20, would be a bitch. But they could be their own coed softball team.

That's called polyamoury, I believe. Heinlein describes it as a Lunar institution in "The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress."