Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

News you can use....


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> News you can use.... Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
News you can use.... - 8/28/2014 10:27:30 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
Several news outlets have carried the shorter AP story, but it hasn't gotten much attention yet. A federal judge has issued a final ruling that strikes down parts of Utah's anti-polygamy law. After Brown and his four wives appeared on the TV show "Sister Wives," a county prosecutor threatened to charge him with bigamy. Now the county gets to pay his legal fees.

U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups has ruled that a provision of Utah's law forbidding cohabitation violated the Browns' freedom of religion. He ruled in favour of the family in December and has now said that Mr Brown and his wives can collect attorneys' fees. ~Mail Online

Anybody got any plans?

K.




< Message edited by Kirata -- 8/28/2014 11:10:10 PM >
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: News you can use.... - 8/29/2014 5:19:02 AM   
Spiritedsub2


Posts: 3316
Joined: 7/18/2012
Status: offline 		Men who want more than one wife have greater problems than legal ones

_____________________________

Don’t grieve. Anything you lose comes round in another form.
~ Rumi

Laughing Dolphin

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: News you can use.... - 8/29/2014 6:47:14 AM   
freedomdwarf1


Posts: 6845
Joined: 10/23/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


Several news outlets have carried the shorter AP story, but it hasn't gotten much attention yet. A federal judge has issued a final ruling that strikes down parts of Utah's anti-polygamy law. After Brown and his four wives appeared on the TV show "Sister Wives," a county prosecutor threatened to charge him with bigamy. Now the county gets to pay his legal fees.

U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups has ruled that a provision of Utah's law forbidding cohabitation violated the Browns' freedom of religion. He ruled in favour of the family in December and has now said that Mr Brown and his wives can collect attorneys' fees. ~Mail Online

Anybody got any plans?

K.




Interesting.

It calls into question whether the religious beliefs (I'm thinking Mormons and the Islamics here) outweigh the legal aspects of the laws of the country concerning marriage.
It could open a whole can of worms on a number of religious/legal differences.

For example, in religions where more than one wife is not only allowed, but is considered normal practice.
Where certain practices regarding family/legal matters and proceedings like Sharia law.
Ages of consent for wives and/or sex.
Equality of the sexes between religion and the countries' laws.

And once a precedent has been set in the US, how many other first-world countries (and other US states) are going to be put under pressure from the religious groups to expand that ruling to accommodate their religious beliefs.

It could be potentially very damaging for many states/countries,


_____________________________

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
George Orwell, 1903-1950


(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: News you can use.... - 8/29/2014 10:01:44 AM   
RockaRolla


Posts: 1153
Joined: 1/20/2014
From: South Florida
Status: offline 		This is one "freedom of religion" defense I can actually get behind!

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: News you can use.... - 8/29/2014 11:22:42 AM   
littleladybug


Posts: 1082
Joined: 5/30/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

It could open a whole can of worms on a number of religious/legal differences.

For example, in religions where more than one wife is not only allowed, but is considered normal practice.
Where certain practices regarding family/legal matters and proceedings like Sharia law.
Ages of consent for wives and/or sex.
Equality of the sexes between religion and the countries' laws.




From what I can see, this has nothing to do with legal, "papered" marriage to more than one person. I don't see this opening up any radical doors.

Though this case was argued under the rubric of "freedom of religion", fact of the matter is that it probably could also have been successfully argued under 14th Amendment right to privacy caselaw. The fact is that this man only has one legal wife. And, since Utah doesn't recognize common law marriage, the fact that he may "act married" to the other ladies in his life means precisely jack, legally speaking.

Without getting into the nitty gritty of constitutional law...essentially, the "rights" and "freedoms" granted under the Constitution are not absolute. The Government has the opportunity to show that their rule, whatever it may be, is important enough to trump whatever "right" is being claimed. With that being said, I would be incredibly surprised if any of the possibilities that you mentioned would even get off the starting block in the courts. It is highly, HIGHLY unlikely that any court in the US would rule in favor of a party who claimed that their religion say, allowed for marrying a party against their will. Could be a matter of age, or just simple "consent" from an older person. In determining these things, the court will look at the interest that the government has in making the rules that they do...balanced against the "right" that is being claimed. The government has a legitimate interest in protecting those who cannot protect themselves. It goes back to the old story....I have freedoms until such time as those freedoms smack another in the face.

Going back to this issue, I do wonder what the politics were with the AG bringing this case to begin with. Did he honestly think that, in this day and age, a federal court would NOT rule the way it did? If there are no multiple marriage licenses, and no chance to argue under "common law marriage", all this was was a way for him to argue that their "lifestyle" was wrong. How many people in the US live in situations like this? If people on this site are to be believed, quite a few. LOL Seriously though, if all parties are capable of consent...the time of the government thinking that it can dictate what people do in their own bedrooms came and went a long time ago.

With all of that being said, I really do not think that this is the start of the proverbial "slippery slope".

(in reply to freedomdwarf1)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: News you can use.... - 8/29/2014 11:47:28 AM   
freedomdwarf1


Posts: 6845
Joined: 10/23/2012
Status: offline 		Perhaps you missed something quite fundamental in the ruling....
"A judge has ruled that parts of Utah's law banning polygamy are unconstitutional, effectively decriminalizing the practice".
Admittedly, Utah doesn't even allow multiple partners to even live together; but that is another question.
As K also pointed out, "U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups has ruled that a provision of Utah's law forbidding cohabitation violated the Browns' freedom of religion"

The question of whether freedom of religion trumps state and federal laws comes under scrutiny.
In this case, freedom of religion appears to have done so.

It wouldn't take much of a bright spark to jump on the band wagon and start claiming that some laws are violating 'their' freedom of religion (and what they practice as part of that religion) and thus throw the whole freedom/state argument into the quagmire.

(PS: In case you hadn't realised, I'm not an American and I don't live in the US)

_____________________________

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
George Orwell, 1903-1950


(in reply to littleladybug)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: News you can use.... - 8/29/2014 12:13:04 PM   
littleladybug


Posts: 1082
Joined: 5/30/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

Perhaps you missed something quite fundamental in the ruling....
"A judge has ruled that parts of Utah's law banning polygamy are unconstitutional, effectively decriminalizing the practice".
Admittedly, Utah doesn't even allow multiple partners to even live together; but that is another question.
As K also pointed out, "U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups has ruled that a provision of Utah's law forbidding cohabitation violated the Browns' freedom of religion"

The question of whether freedom of religion trumps state and federal laws comes under scrutiny.
In this case, freedom of religion appears to have done so.

It wouldn't take much of a bright spark to jump on the band wagon and start claiming that some laws are violating 'their' freedom of religion (and what they practice as part of that religion) and thus throw the whole freedom/state argument into the quagmire.

(PS: In case you hadn't realised, I'm not an American and I don't live in the US)


Frankly, it makes no difference to me where you live or what nationality you are.

I don't think I missed anything in the ruling. Polygamy has NOT been decriminalized in Utah. Polyamory has. HUGE difference there. I'm not sure where you got that quote, but I question the reasoning behind it.

And, yes, this has to do with the "right to cohabitation"....which, as I said, could just as easily have been argued on 14th Amendment grounds. That whole "right to privacy" issue that Roe v Wade established. (And, honestly, it would have made far less of a headline if they had gone that route....some people just like the drama, I guess.) So, no, there's no need to think that the sky is falling in terms of "scary religious ideals taking over" from this decision.

Apparently, polyamory is legal in Utah. Which, frankly, shouldn't even be making headlines in this day and age.

(in reply to freedomdwarf1)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: News you can use.... - 8/29/2014 12:28:36 PM   
freedomdwarf1


Posts: 6845
Joined: 10/23/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: littleladybug


quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

Perhaps you missed something quite fundamental in the ruling....
"A judge has ruled that parts of Utah's law banning polygamy are unconstitutional, effectively decriminalizing the practice".
Admittedly, Utah doesn't even allow multiple partners to even live together; but that is another question.
As K also pointed out, "U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups has ruled that a provision of Utah's law forbidding cohabitation violated the Browns' freedom of religion"

The question of whether freedom of religion trumps state and federal laws comes under scrutiny.
In this case, freedom of religion appears to have done so.

It wouldn't take much of a bright spark to jump on the band wagon and start claiming that some laws are violating 'their' freedom of religion (and what they practice as part of that religion) and thus throw the whole freedom/state argument into the quagmire.

(PS: In case you hadn't realised, I'm not an American and I don't live in the US)


Frankly, it makes no difference to me where you live or what nationality you are.

I don't think I missed anything in the ruling. Polygamy has NOT been decriminalized in Utah. Polyamory has. HUGE difference there. I'm not sure where you got that quote, but I question the reasoning behind it.

And, yes, this has to do with the "right to cohabitation"....which, as I said, could just as easily have been argued on 14th Amendment grounds. That whole "right to privacy" issue that Roe v Wade established. (And, honestly, it would have made far less of a headline if they had gone that route....some people just like the drama, I guess.) So, no, there's no need to think that the sky is falling in terms of "scary religious ideals taking over" from this decision.

Apparently, polyamory is legal in Utah. Which, frankly, shouldn't even be making headlines in this day and age.

My location is relevant, because....
I don't know the 14th amendment (and why should I?).
Roe v Wade means nothing to me (and why should it?).

And I'm quoting a link that K gave which clearly states "polygamy", not "polyamory".
I guess you didn't bother reading the link??


And, more to the point, the case wasn't won on their infringement on the right to co-habit, it was won on "violated the Browns' freedom of religion". That is quite an important aspect of it - the fact it was based from a religious angle, not a personal/individual freedom aspect.


_____________________________

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
George Orwell, 1903-1950


(in reply to littleladybug)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: News you can use.... - 8/30/2014 9:41:14 AM   
littleladybug


Posts: 1082
Joined: 5/30/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1



My location is relevant, because....
I don't know the 14th amendment (and why should I?).
Roe v Wade means nothing to me (and why should it?).



If you're going to be speaking about US court cases based upon Constitutional law, it might behoove you to have some education on these other, seminal points.

I'll give it to you in a nutshell.

The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution was ratified shortly after the end of the US Civil War and the abolition of slavery. It's rather long, but the portion of the text that is most germane to this conversation is the first part, which reads as follows:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The "due process" and "equal protection" clauses are a full law school class unto themselves, but essentially, were used as a main arguing point in Roe v Wade- the 1973 case which established the "right to abortion". In that case, the US Supreme Court decided that there is a fundamental "right to privacy" established by the Constitution (in legal terms, "substantive due process"). In essence, it's the "Government, get out of our bedroom" argument.

The reason why I brought these issues up is that I don't believe that this case in Utah is anything to get concerned about in terms of the floodgates opening in the manner that you have suggested. This case could probably have also been argued successfully under the "substantive due process" case law. I'm sure there were reasons, other than legal, that it was argued under "freedom of religion", but at the end of the day, I absolutely do not see "freedom of religion" trumping the government's interest in a manner that would allow for underage children to be married, people being allowed to have multiple spouses, or the like.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

And I'm quoting a link that K gave which clearly states "polygamy", not "polyamory".
I guess you didn't bother reading the link??



Actually, I did read several articles about this case. Interesting that I had to fish some for them though. Why is that? Perhaps that it's really NOT a big deal?

Essentially, when the Utah law banning polygamy was written, it was overbroad. Not only did it ban having multiple spouses (polygamy), it also banned living with others (co-habitating) as if they were married. The latter could be construed as a type of polyamorous relationship. And, it's that polyamorous relationship that the government cannot touch. There has been no change to the underlying law that one cannot have more than one legal spouse at a time.

Upshot on the law in Utah:

Polygamy not OK.
Polyamory OK.


quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1
And, more to the point, the case wasn't won on their infringement on the right to co-habit, it was won on "violated the Browns' freedom of religion". That is quite an important aspect of it - the fact it was based from a religious angle, not a personal/individual freedom aspect.



As best I can guess, they were trying to make a point with it. One of the interesting things about the US legal system is that it's been around for a long time, so a lot of times there are different viable options on how to argue a case.

I can imagine that someone who does not agree with the matters which have come out of the "right to privacy" case law (abortion or the right to homosexual relations, for example) might not want to use that as the basis their argument, if they could avoid it.

This sounds to me like more of a "statement" than anything else. The decision in this case changes absolutely nothing fundamental regarding "freedom of religion".

EDITED to clean up the quoting.

< Message edited by littleladybug -- 8/30/2014 9:42:26 AM >

(in reply to freedomdwarf1)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: News you can use.... - 8/30/2014 9:52:34 AM   
dcnovice


Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Spiritedsub2

Men who want more than one wife have greater problems than legal ones

I once read that the best penalty for bigamy was having two mothers-in-law.

_____________________________

No matter how cynical you become,
it's never enough to keep up.

JANE WAGNER, THE SEARCH FOR SIGNS OF
INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE

(in reply to Spiritedsub2)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: News you can use.... - 8/31/2014 3:23:06 AM   
ShaharThorne


Posts: 11071
Joined: 2/24/2009
From: Somewhere in TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

I once read that the best penalty for bigamy was having two mothers-in-law.


Understatement...

_____________________________

Goddess of Yarn

You are making two and a half feet of irresistible, tubular sex! -Lola, Kinky Boots

Founder: Bitch with Tits

Whip me, beat me, make me feel cheap and have great sex

(in reply to dcnovice)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: News you can use.... - 8/31/2014 3:33:31 AM   
ShaharThorne


Posts: 11071
Joined: 2/24/2009
From: Somewhere in TX
Status: offline 		I don't watch the show, but I feel that the adults are of age and it is consental. What Jeffs and Alamo did (married underage girls and transport them over state lines) was not. Jeffs is still running his little cult while Alamo is facing a multimillion dollar lawsuit from 6 of the girls while serving 150 years. Frouke AR finally tore down the building Alamo's "church" was in or had got it on a tax sale.

As long as it is between 2 and more consenting adults, it is fine with me.

_____________________________

Goddess of Yarn

You are making two and a half feet of irresistible, tubular sex! -Lola, Kinky Boots

Founder: Bitch with Tits

Whip me, beat me, make me feel cheap and have great sex

(in reply to ShaharThorne)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: News you can use.... - 9/1/2014 5:14:06 PM   
Edwynn


Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline
-It calls into question whether the religious beliefs (I'm thinking Mormons and the Islamics here) outweigh the legal aspects of the laws of the country concerning marriage.-

If you say so. You seem to be with with those on the court (thankfully, not all of them) assigned the task of making as many issues as possible religious issues.

We've already rejected one notion of 'proper' marriage based on religious belief, by way of saying 'screw your frikkin' religion'. Don't ask me how this is happening but it is. I don't think that the Supreme Court has ever based the preponderance of judgements against marijuana usage, for example, based on any religious question, but rather from the standpoint of "you have an incredibly stupid government, you elected them, deal with it."

Muslims or Mormons do not harm society by marrying in multiple (though myriad psycho-social issues might be brought up in such discussion), whereas shooting girls for attending school most definitely is against the law in most countries simply because shooting people of any gender or age is against the law, no alternate qualifications of any sort allowed, 'religious' or otherwise.

The point missed in your focus on religion is that there are more than a few who might (and do, actually) go this route due to personal choice, no religion about it. If the SC somehow narrows it to a question of personal 'liberty,' or 'life choice,' etc., then there stands a chance.







(in reply to freedomdwarf1)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: News you can use.... - 9/1/2014 5:42:15 PM   
ExiledTyrant


Posts: 4547
Joined: 12/9/2013
From: Exiled
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Spiritedsub2

Men who want more than one wife have greater problems than legal ones


It's called masochism and on this site how can it be a problem?

Jus wunderin

_____________________________

Gnothi Seauton
To lead, first follow: Aurelius, Epictetus, Descartes, Sun Tzu, to name a few.

Semper fidelis (which sometimes feels like a burden)

(in reply to Spiritedsub2)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: News you can use.... - 9/1/2014 5:55:56 PM   
Spiritedsub2


Posts: 3316
Joined: 7/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ExiledTyrant


quote:

ORIGINAL: Spiritedsub2

Men who want more than one wife have greater problems than legal ones


It's called masochism and on this site how can it be a problem?

Jus wunderin

Would that make them dominant masochists? My head is swimming.

_____________________________

Don’t grieve. Anything you lose comes round in another form.
~ Rumi

Laughing Dolphin

(in reply to ExiledTyrant)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: News you can use.... - 9/1/2014 5:59:07 PM   
ExiledTyrant


Posts: 4547
Joined: 12/9/2013
From: Exiled
Status: offline 		Yep. I had friend years ago, may he rip, that was a maso Dom with wicked sado tendencies. His slave would cry ever time she had to hurt him... So, in a sense, he was double dipping when they played.

Jus sayin

_____________________________

Gnothi Seauton
To lead, first follow: Aurelius, Epictetus, Descartes, Sun Tzu, to name a few.

Semper fidelis (which sometimes feels like a burden)

(in reply to Spiritedsub2)
Profile   Post #: 16
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> News you can use.... Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.500