Salt Lake Trib: Three people in Utah file suit to marry as a trio

[Psephos]

SALT LAKE CITY - Until 1963, interracial marriages were illegal in Utah. Residents who suffered chronic epileptic seizures and were not sterilized also were barred from marrying in the state. And, until 1993, anyone who had syphilis, gonorrhea or HIV could not make that walk down the aisle.

Now, in 2005, three Utahns who want to unite as husband, wife and wife say their preferred form of marriage also should be allowed.

They are asking the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse a federal judge's rejection of their challenge to state prohibitions against bigamy and polygamy.

"The fact much of American legal culture is based on monogamy does not justify a ban on polygamy," their attorney, Brian Barnard, of Salt Lake City, wrote in a brief filed this month with the Denver-based appeals court.

<snip>

[Mojorabbit]

1. Cool! eom

[FormerRepublican]

2. I wonder what they'd say if I wanted to marry two husbands?

The polygamists here are notoriously one sided on the issue. Personally, I despise the whole idea because it's generally used in practice as an abuse toward women. Willingness on the woman's part is often not involved. There's been a lot of prosecutions of the men because of forced marriage (rather than polygamy), including with underage children.

What consenting adults do is none of my business. But when some of the adults are NOT consenting, or there are children involved, I get a little testy.

[Selteri]

13. LOL I personally would be all for it to be legal.

But if the trio suing is from a certain boarder town I suspect it would be a one sided issue. The way I look at it, if a trio or quad are secure enough in their relationship to have 2 husbands or wives and live with it in what are really modern standards where everyone has full rights and responsabilities... well then I have no problem with it. I don't see how someone can do it and maintain their sanity unless they REALLY REALLY love all the other members in whatever strange love geometry they choose to partake in.

I also think Gay Marriage should be legal along with the right for people to get kinky as they want to in a safe and consensual manner.

I do think that any legalization of Polygamy would require the inclusion of how to handle polygamous relationships so that they are not thinly veiled attempts to subjugate either gender

[stevedeshazer]

3. Why do those Utahns hate America?

Next thing you know, it'll be snapping turtles and man-on-dog. Oh, wait....

[Canuckistanian]

4. So what happens if the 2 women divorce the man?

Isn't that a same-sex marriage?

And perfectly legal if they get their way!

[aquart]

5. And why not a harem of 20 women.

Their preferred form of marriage is known as adultery.

[pinto]

6. I smell a scam... n/t

[VegasWolf]

7. Exactly! Must protect the "sanctity" of marriage.

:puke:

[GoddessOfGuinness]

8. I think it should be allowed with limitations

on tax exemptions and welfare benefits. And the consenting partners should be at least 21.

[TaleWgnDg]

9. Sensationalist bullsh*t spew . . . pure hyperbole, period.

.
This is sensationalist bullsh*t spew . . . pure hyperbole, period.

It's my professional guess that such a case is brought b4 a court merely to sensationally target and hit negatively same-sex marriage. To pile onto the "cons" against same-sex marriage. To set a base, a foundation, if you will, for a federal constitutional amendment in the eyes of the public. Oh, wow, two males and female?! Or two females and a male? Why not a dog and a male or female? Why not (name the number of people)??!!

In any event, bigamy and its illegalities have been ruled upon by the U.S. Supreme Court back in 1878. See, Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145 (1878) (where SCOTUS ruled against bigamy (polygamy) even if it is a religious tenet, i.e., Church of the Latter-Day Saints (Mormons)).

And, anything that that jack*ss Antonin Scalia has added in attempts to overturn the Reynolds precedent and its progeny is merely more extremist waxing and whining hyperbole. See, Romer v. Evans, 517 US 620 (1996), (dissent of Scalia, joined by Rehnquist and Thomas), and Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), (dissent of Scalia, joined by Rehnquist and Thomas).

BTW, bigamy is defined in law as the marriage of a person to another wherein an earlier marriage has not been dissolved by a court-of-law or dissolved by death of a spouse. Bigamists are known to marry more than two people.


Rally outside Massachusetts StateHouse, 2004, re same-sex marriage proponents (L) and opponents (R).
.

[PSPS]

10. HAHA. Great picture!

Is that guy on the left laughing at that funny sign?

[TaleWgnDg]

11. What the hell can you do when presented w/ such bs? but laugh!

[FormerRepublican]

12. No, Utah actually has quite a contingent of Polygamists.

They're a break off sect of the Mormon church. They get prosecuted all the time here because of their rather revolting marriage practices (as I said, forced marriages, forced marriages to underage children, child abuse, etc). The point of their legal action is to legitimize polygamy so they can't be prosecuted for it.

Believe me, even if they managed to make polygamy legal, the same sex marriage prohibition would still be firmly in place. Any attempt to overturn it would be opposed by BOTH mainstream Utahns and the polygamists.