| |
News: Polygamists protest Utah bill - make Polygamy a Felony Crime
Member Since: 1/7/2010
Posts: 4,967
|
Polygamists protest Utah bill - make Polygamy a Felony Crime
We are not criminals! Angry polygamous families invade Utah state capitol in protest at bill that would outlaw multiple marriages
- About 150 polygamy advocates and their children gathered in Utah's Capitol Monday evening
- They want lawmakers to let stand a 2013 court ruling that essentially de-criminalized polygamy in Utah
- Bill supporters say it will narrow the law by specifying someone must both purport to be married to a second spouse and live with them to be breaking the law
- Previously, either action alone was a violation
Polygamy advocate Hannah Willams, left, joins others gathering at the Utah State Capitol to protest a lawmaker's proposal that would make polygamy a felony crime again
Quote:
About 150 polygamy advocates and their children gathered in Utah's Capitol Monday evening to protest a lawmaker's proposal that would make polygamy a felony crime again.
The group held signs that read, 'Families not felons,' 'I love all my moms,' and 'Cohabitation should not be a felony,' as polygamist advocates gave speeches defending their families.
They want lawmakers to let stand a 2013 court ruling that essentially de-criminalized polygamy in Utah.
|
Polygamy advocate Joe Darger speaks Monday. About 150 pro-polygamy activists and their children protested, holding signs and giving speeches criticizing the proposed law
Quote:
Enoch Foster, who said he lives near Moab in eastern Utah with his two wives, said making polygamy a felony crime violates the constitutional rights of consenting adults who choose that lifestyle.
'I cannot say that's my wife. That is a violation of my freedom of speech. It's a violation of my freedom of association. It's a violation of my freedom of religion,' Foster said.
He told Fox 13: 'If they're mistresses I couldn't be prosecuted, but because I claim them as wives and we're a family I can be prosecuted and I'm a felon.'
Foster and organizer Joe Darger said keeping polygamy a felony drives those communities underground and makes people afraid reporting crimes like underage marriage because they could be prosecuted themselves.
Darger told KUTV: 'The idea that just because I am a polygamist man, that I am [also] a perpetrator, is a myth. It's a stereotype.'
|
Polygamy advocate Enoch Foster, center, poses with his wives Catrina, left, and Lillian, right, as she hold their baby Adonijah on Monday. He said making polygamy a felony crime violates the constitutional rights of consenting adults who choose that lifestyle
Quote:
Supporters of the bill say that it will narrow the law by specifying that someone must both purport to be married to a second spouse and live with them to be breaking the law. Previously, either action alone was a violation.
The Utah House passed the bill last week, and it will next be considered by the state Senate.
|
Quote:
Sponsor Republican Rep. Mike Noel of Kanab says that change should be enough to nullify a lawsuit filed by the polygamous family from the reality TV show Sister Wives.
Kody Brown and his four wives won a legal victory when a federal judge ruled in their favor in 2013 and struck down key parts of the state's bigamy law as unconstitutional, but the state appealed at the case is now before a federal appeals court.
Noel told KUTV: 'And our state Constitution says polygamy is banned, and our attorney general has said the statute must be protected.'
|
Polygamy advocates want lawmakers to let stand a 2013 court ruling that essentially de-criminalized polygamy in Utah
Quote:
The FLDS is just one of several different groups in Utah that practice polygamy. There are a total of about 30,000 people who live in polygamous communities in Utah.
The belief that polygamy brings exaltation in heaven is a legacy of the early Mormon church. The mainstream Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints abandoned the practice in 1890 and strictly prohibits it today.
On Monday, a jury concluded that two polygamous towns in Arizona and Utah violated the constitutional rights of nonbelievers by denying them police protection, building permits and water hookups.
The verdict Monday in the civil rights case marks one of boldest victories by the government in its efforts to confront what critics have long said was a corrupt regime in Colorado City, Arizona, and Hildale, Utah.
The towns were accused of doing the bidding of the FLDS. The towns deny the allegations.
The seven-week trial provided a rare glimpse into the communities that for years have been shrouded in secrecy and are distrustful of government and outsiders.
|
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz42KaUNJmv
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/7/2015
Posts: 3,830
|
Should be obviously allowed, what is this mess 
It's clearly their business and not that of a state constitution.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/1/2013
Posts: 18,649
|
actually, i'm pretty hesitant about this one. a lot of polygamist relationships are really unhealthy for the woman and involve a man taking advantage of multiple women rather than any kind of love. so i think they're right in theory, but in practice i think something needs to be done about the current system, but not this extreme of a step. so i guess i can't entirely say with 100% confidence that i oppose this law. and i think this is where "let people do what they want" goes too far, because this actually hurts someone.
also, this is definitely not a violation of freedom of religion, considering polygamy isn't an absolute requirement to being a mormon.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/7/2015
Posts: 3,830
|
Quote:
Originally posted by accelgors
actually, i'm pretty hesitant about this one. a lot of polygamist relationships are really unhealthy for the woman and involve a man taking advantage of multiple women rather than any kind of love. so i think they're right in theory, but in practice i think something needs to be done about the current system, but not this extreme of a step. so i guess i can't entirely say with 100% confidence that i oppose this law. and i think this is where "let people do what they want" goes too far, because this actually hurts someone.
also, this is definitely not a violation of freedom of religion, considering polygamy isn't an absolute requirement to being a mormon.
|
I think it's a highly subjective view, but objectively looking - it really is a choice for those people to do so and the women are not obligated to remain in such a relationship. I don't really understand polygamy, but I respect the fact that it is the way of life for some. So any state-level solutions should not be applied to this as it only brings grief to them.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/15/2013
Posts: 21,846
|
It's always men with multiple wives, never women with multiple husbands Kinda fishy imo. But whatever floats their boat
"I <3 all my moms"
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/30/2011
Posts: 11,666
|
Quote:
Originally posted by accelgors
actually, i'm pretty hesitant about this one. a lot of polygamist relationships are really unhealthy for the woman and involve a man taking advantage of multiple women rather than any kind of love. so i think they're right in theory, but in practice i think something needs to be done about the current system, but not this extreme of a step. so i guess i can't entirely say with 100% confidence that i oppose this law. and i think this is where "let people do what they want" goes too far, because this actually hurts someone.
also, this is definitely not a violation of freedom of religion, considering polygamy isn't an absolute requirement to being a mormon.
|
1. Polygyny isn't the only type of polyamorous relationship.
2. Let people should make their own mistakes. Who's to say they aren't satisfied anyway?
3. Divorce lawyers exist for a reason.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/10/2011
Posts: 14,820
|
Polygamy is natural, you see it an animals, and our ancestors would have done it.
Also, I believe it's possible for someone to be in love with more than one person. Why can't three people be in a marriage together? Just because the Bible says marriage is only one man and one woman? We need to use our brains, not go by what a book says lol.
I think polygamy should be legal as long as there is no physical abuse (this goes for 2-person marriages too), and as long as all people in the marriage have to agree if a new person is added to the marriage. I'm sure there are polygamists who are nice people.
Quote:
Originally posted by accelgors
also, this is definitely not a violation of freedom of religion, considering polygamy isn't an absolute requirement to being a mormon.
|
Polygamy is actually a sin in the "main" mormon church (LDS) and also the RLDS I believe. If you are married to more than one living partner you get excommunicated.
But there are other branches or mormonism like the FLDS which still do polygamy in a big way, but that's quite a small sect, even if it's quite famous (and they way they practice polygamy is NOT good, since there is abuse involved and the women don't get a say in who else their husband gets married to).
A lot of muslims practice polygamy too, but the ones living in the Western world usually only marry one person.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/7/2015
Posts: 2,318
|
Well If anybody can marry, who I am to judge 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/7/2015
Posts: 3,830
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Samuel
It's always men with multiple wives, never women with multiple husbands Kinda fishy imo. But whatever floats their boat
"I <3 all my moms" |
It's always men with multiple wives because men are polygamists out of nature. It's also quite logical as women invest incomparably more energy in having an offspring, so she naturally looks for a good father and a man has enough energy and sperm to impregnate many women. That's how it looks like from a biological/evolutional point of view.
This diminished because of cultural norms but still not everywhere in the world and not completely. Psychological tests show that tendentions to have monogamist relationships among heterosexual men, if they exist, always stem from nurture, not from genes.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 37,384
|
Damn , my state is a mess 
Quote:
Originally posted by accelgors
actually, i'm pretty hesitant about this one. a lot of polygamist relationships are really unhealthy for the woman and involve a man taking advantage of multiple women rather than any kind of love. so i think they're right in theory, but in practice i think something needs to be done about the current system, but not this extreme of a step. so i guess i can't entirely say with 100% confidence that i oppose this law. and i think this is where "let people do what they want" goes too far, because this actually hurts someone.
also, this is definitely not a violation of freedom of religion, considering polygamy isn't an absolute requirement to being a mormon.
|
Polygamy is actually banned by the mormon church and has been for over a century. But you're right, most polygamist women are completely taken advantage of and have little or no rights. A lot of them get married to men FAR older than them and don't really have any choice to escape, and that makes it different than more consensual forms of polyamory (in a lot of cases, not all obviously)
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/21/2005
Posts: 19,258
|
Oh my f***ing...
Don't get me started. There was this Facebook page about this and it went on for many comments and I don't want to get into it again, but long story short, I'm AGAINST it. More than two people is NOT love. It's selfish and you're a "****."
We were granted ONE heart, not multiple. If you want to share your life with more than one partner and call it love, then go ahead, but once sex is involved it's NOT love anymore. I could go on and on but I'm stopping myself. 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/7/2012
Posts: 41,067
|
Being in a polyamorous relationship is fine imo, even if they're raising children but when one person is trying to legally get married to multiple people, that is when I have an issue with it. Be in a relationship with multiple people, fine. Call them your spirit wives or whatever, fine. But try to break the law and actually legally get married to multiple people? Not fine
Quote:
Originally posted by Samuel
It's always men with multiple wives, never women with multiple husbands Kinda fishy imo. But whatever floats their boat
"I <3 all my moms" |
I remember they asked that polygamist that was on TLC how he would feel if one of his wives wanted to have another husband and he said that he wouldn't feel comfortable with it. Like how hypocritical can you get
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/21/2005
Posts: 19,258
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Tsuko
Polygamy is natural, you see it an animals, and our ancestors would have done it.
Also, I believe it's possible for someone to be in love with more than one person. Why can't three people be in a marriage together? Just because the Bible says marriage is only one man and one woman? We need to use our brains, not go by what a book says lol.
I think polygamy should be legal as long as there is no physical abuse (this goes for 2-person marriages too), and as long as all people in the marriage have to agree if a new person is added to the marriage. I'm sure there are polygamists who are nice people.
Polygamy is actually a sin in the "main" mormon church (LDS) and also the RLDS I believe. If you are married to more than one living partner you get excommunicated.
But there are other branches or mormonism like the FLDS which still do polygamy in a big way, but that's quite a small sect, even if it's quite famous (and they way they practice polygamy is NOT good, since there is abuse involved and the women don't get a say in who else their husband gets married to).
A lot of muslims practice polygamy too, but the ones living in the Western world usually only marry one person.
|
Because it goes against everything the heart stands for. It has NOTHING to do with religion. It's common sense. If you can have sexual relationships with more than one person within a "marriage" it destroys everything we believe in. The heart isn't just an organ. It's considered a symbol of love for a reason.
I LOVE my family. I LOVE my friends. I LOVE my pets. Do you see me having a sexual relationship with all of them to show my love toward them? No. Love has more than one meaning and when sex comes involved, it's between two people. Otherwise you are sinning and committing adultery.
People just want to make an excuse to sleep with more people to not be labeled or stereotyped, but it's not working in their favor.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/6/2014
Posts: 19,122
|
A criminal offense?  literally Government going too far
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/10/2012
Posts: 14,915
|
All I know is I love Sister Wives
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/7/2015
Posts: 4,169
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Departure
Because it goes against everything the heart stands for. It has NOTHING to do with religion. It's common sense. If you can have sexual relationships with more than one person within a "marriage" it destroys everything we believe in. The heart isn't just an organ. It's considered a symbol of love for a reason.
I LOVE my family. I LOVE my friends. I LOVE my pets. Do you see me having a sexual relationship with all of them to show my love toward them? No. Love has more than one meaning and when sex comes involved, it's between two people. Otherwise you are sinning and committing adultery.
People just want to make an excuse to sleep with more people to not be labeled or stereotyped, but it's not working in their favor.
|
...
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/6/2014
Posts: 13,097
|
It's not up to you to decide what the definition of "love" is for other people.
It's none of my business, let them do what they want as long as everyone involved are consenting adults. Kinda hypocritical that most of the people against this are conservatives who claim to believe in "limited/small government" and yet they think the government should be regulating people's love lives
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/21/2005
Posts: 19,258
|
Gay marriage is just the beginning of a slippery slope and this is what I feared.
Next people will want to marry their pets. What's wrong with that? While you guys can't see the harm in more than two people, SOME will NOT see the harm in marrying their pets. When does it stop? Sometimes you have to turn to LOGIC.
I aced logic, while most (from what I saw) struggled with the concept. I know what I'm talking about. While I don't consider gay marriage a bad thing (I am gay), but because of the slippery slope, people will use that in their favor to demand other legal rights. It's more about using common sense and knowing when to stop.
My argument against this has nothing to do with religion. It's more about what's in the heart. Who says a married couple can't be friends with loved ones and be in a relationship with them? Oh. Oh, because they want to have sex with them. That's not love. That's perversion. Sorry.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/21/2005
Posts: 19,258
|
Quote:
Originally posted by KatyLegendperry
It's not up to you to decide what the definition of "love" is for other people.
It's none of my business, let them do what they want as long as everyone involved are consenting adults. Kinda hypocritical that most of the people against this are conservatives who claim to believe in "limited/small government" and yet they think the government should be regulating people's love lives
|
No it's not, but it's not love. If people want to sin, I'm not going to stop them from it. But it's NOT love and that's not an opinion, it's common sense.
If you had a heart, you'd understand. Don't you love your family, friends and pets? Do you want to have sex with them? Probably not, but you still love them. So why all of a sudden does this scenario make it ok?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/7/2015
Posts: 4,169
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Departure
Gay marriage is just the beginning of a slippery slope and this is what I feared.
Next people will want to marry their pets. What's wrong with that? While you guys can't see the harm in more than two people, SOME will NOT see the harm in marrying their pets. When does it stop? Sometimes you have to turn to LOGIC.
I aced logic, while most (from what I saw) struggled with the concept. I know what I'm talking about. While I don't consider gay marriage a bad thing (I am gay), but because of the slippery slope, people will use that in their favor to demand other legal rights. It's more about using common sense and knowing when to stop.
My argument against this has nothing to do with religion. It's more about what's in the heart. Who says a married couple can't be friends with loved ones and be in a relationship with them? Oh. Oh, because they want to have sex with them. That's not love. That's perversion. Sorry.
|
Marriage is a legal union between parties who can consent to such a union. This cannot and will never include animals because they do not have the cognitive ability to make these kinds of decisions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
