home

Utah Upholds Bigamy Ban

By TChris, Section Court Decisions
Posted on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:11:18 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

Polygamy has been in the news lately, perhaps because the HBO series Big Love has focused public attention on the practice. Polygamist Warren Jeffs made the FBI's 10 Most Wanted List, and Sean Hannity wonders whether efforts to capture him will lead to a Waco-style standoff. Polygamist leader Winston Blackmore, who reportedly has 28 wives, contends that all polygamists aren't as bad as Jeffs, and complains that he's being persecuted by Canadian authorities.

In the meantime, the Supreme Court of Utah ruled Tuesday (pdf) that the state's prohibition of bigamy is constitutional. The decision, which arose in the case of a former police officer who married two sisters, echoes a U.S. Supreme Court decision from 1878 (pdf) upholding Utah's law against a claim that the prohibition infringed on the free exercise of religion.

As reported here, Utah Chief Justice Christine Durham dissented from this week's decision, concluding that Utah's law unconstitutionally intrudes into the "free exercise of religion and the privacy of the intimate, personal relationships between consenting adults." Some speculate that the U.S. Supreme Court might be ready to revisit the bigamy/polygamy question in light of its decision in Lawrence v. Texas that states have no power to prohibit gay adult couples from having private sexual encounters. A state's power to regulate marriage exceeds its power to regulate the sexual conduct of consenting adults, so the Supreme Court may decide to avoid this difficult issue for now, despite renewed interest in the topic of multiple marriage.

< Kennard Conviction Vacated | Hayden Confirmation Hearings >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Utah Upholds Bigamy Ban | 28 comments (28 topical)
    Re: Utah Upholds Bigamy Ban (none / 0) (#1)
    by Punchy on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:33:11 AM EST
    in the case of a former police officer who married two sisters Now that I've very nearly reverse-ate my lunch reading this...a couple of comments: 1) The cop has knowing broke the law. Was he a cop during this time? Does Utah allow criminals to be cops? 2) Aside from polygamy...WHO marries their sisters? Who does this? Isn't this against the law, too? 3) Utah may be the most backwards state in the Union if this stuff is going on...

    Re: Utah Upholds Bigamy Ban (none / 0) (#2)
    by Dadler on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:37:54 AM EST
    If consenting adults want to marry a hundred people, I could care less. When female children are abused and essentially sold into marriages with adults, then I have a problem. However, what solution is there here? Throwing these people in jail for having different "families"? I'd prefer and effort to address the and ameliorate the legacy of child abuse and pedophelia. Make it clear that real men can go out and find other wives who aren't 12 years old and afraid for their lives. That real men DO. You can support a person's right to live a different live while still prohibiting what should be.

    Re: Utah Upholds Bigamy Ban (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:46:49 AM EST
    Punchy asked (May 18, 2006 10:33 AM) 2) Aside from polygamy...WHO marries their sisters? Who does this? Isn't this against the law, too? Probably the same people who don't read carefully before posting. No use of any possessive pronoun in the original post. The cop married two women who are sisters to each other. They did not marry each other. They are not the policeman's sisters.
    Apparently they wanted to be both sisters-in-law as well as sisters-in-blood. No mention of incest, although Freudian types may have a field day on that score.

    Re: Utah Upholds Bigamy Ban (none / 0) (#4)
    by HK on Thu May 18, 2006 at 10:01:43 AM EST
    I don't really care if other people want to have multiple spouses. Not for me, but who am I to dictate about other people's relationships. Frankly, though, I think it's madness. It's difficult enough maintaining a marriage with just one other person in it... Like Dadler said, the key issue is if these are all consenting adults. And I think there are two separate issues there; vulnerable adults can get themselves in undesirable situations, so it's not just children we need to be concerned about. But I don't know what the solution to that would be. If people want to live in such multi-faceted relationships, surely they could make some provision for themselves legally whereby their assets are co-owned and their wills reflect their mutual equality? I know this doesn't cover every aspect of the situation, but it is a way of living how they want to live without fighting what is clearly a losing battle over it.

    Re: Utah Upholds Bigamy Ban (none / 0) (#5)
    by Dadler on Thu May 18, 2006 at 10:17:01 AM EST
    And let's be honest, the origin of this practice is men looking to f*ck more than one woman and justify it, nothing more and nothing less. i know the mormon theological rationale behind having lots of kids, but traditional polygamy is nothing more than men (ab)using women through institutional force. Libido as theocracy.

    Re: Utah Upholds Bigamy Ban (none / 0) (#6)
    by HK on Thu May 18, 2006 at 10:33:11 AM EST
    I think you're right there, Dadler. Even though I believe that people should be able to live how they want to live if they don't hurt anyone else, I think in the case of polygamy the hurt is well hidden. I imagine there are wonen who genuinely like this kind of set-up, but they must be few and far between. The majority of women surely must feel used and have a very low self esteem.

    Re: Utah Upholds Bigamy Ban (none / 0) (#7)
    by roy on Thu May 18, 2006 at 10:33:55 AM EST
    Marital practices among consenting adults are nobody else's business. It's true for homosexuality, true for plural marriage, and true (if icky) for incest. Trouble is, polygamy is often just a euphemism for enslavement of girls. This is a profound evil, but it clouds the issue. Like with so many other problems, our society is willing to limit consentual behaviors in order to make things difficult for -- or at least take a symbolic swing at -- those who do real harm. Forcing a 12-year-old girl to "marry" her uncle, using her as breeding stock, and threatening to kill her if she leaves her "family" would be illegal without banning polygamy among consenting adults. Random aside, I recommend Under the Banner of Heaven for book people. It focuses primarily on a religiously inspired multiple-murder, but it's broader treatment of polygamy in Utah is also very good.

    Re: Utah Upholds Bigamy Ban (none / 0) (#8)
    by Dadler on Thu May 18, 2006 at 10:48:30 AM EST
    Roy, Agreed. Which is why I don't think it's right or useful to make it illegal for people to marry multiple people. And people who also live in relative isolation are always harder to reach, in terms of help for incest and abuse victims. Just a terrible consequence of being aq human being in a cold, indifferent, irrational universe. But we have the capacity to try, that's the real miracle. That we CAN try.

    Re: Utah Upholds Bigamy Ban (none / 0) (#9)
    by Dadler on Thu May 18, 2006 at 10:58:11 AM EST
    Although, I have to add, we're all such socially and familialy constructed creatures, anything we're not conditioned to find "normal" we don't, and fear almost "naturally" -- with things MUCH less odd than polygamy. Opinions, language, gesture, appearance, sexual preference. You name it. Isolation is really the problem here. How to help those to are geninely being abused, when they live so far(physically OR emotionally) from others who could help them: neighbors, friends, co-workers, etc. The less it is marginalized, in reality, the more likely we are to be able to help those who need it.

    Re: Utah Upholds Bigamy Ban (none / 0) (#10)
    by Punchy on Thu May 18, 2006 at 11:18:27 AM EST
    No use of any possessive pronoun in the original post. The cop married two women who are sisters to each other. They did not marry each other That may be the truth, but I'm sorry, the statement is ambiguous. The lack of a possessive does not eliminate the option that he married two of his own siblings. Dog me for not reading the pdf, but don't question my reading of the sentence.

    Re: Utah Upholds Bigamy Ban (none / 0) (#11)
    by Slado on Thu May 18, 2006 at 11:51:45 AM EST
    It is not illegal for a man to live with two sisters, another man, five 18year old men, five 18year old women etc... Is it the position of some that the state should sanction marital rights between anyone but two individuals? (I'll leave gay marriage aside). Why is one's personal need to feel inclusive translated into changing our marriage laws? I agree that what two, three or four consenting adults want to do in thier own lives is not my problem but it also isn't the governments problem and we shouldn't change our laws to reflect eveyr possible living situation that someone can think up. We have in our society dertermined that for fiscal reasons the "state" can grant marriage rights to a man and a women. If the state then says it is illegal to hold this liscence with more then one person who can have a problem with that? The state isn't going to arrest you for having multiple sex partners. It's going to arrest you for conning the state and holding more then one license.

    Re: Utah Upholds Bigamy Ban (none / 0) (#12)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 18, 2006 at 12:11:01 PM EST
    I only care about polygamy if the partner is under 18, but most states allow marriage under 18 with parental consent. 5 wives, 10 wives, I could care less --- unless they are on the dole because they cannot support them. Which of course will happen whether they are legally married or not, correct? And before the argument is raised that "most in this country are against it", let us remember that many in this country still would vote against racially diverse marriages. Please protect me from violent crime and the 17000 murders that happen each year, that is how I would prefer to see my tax dollars spent.

    Re: Utah Upholds Bigamy Ban (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 12:18:12 PM EST
    The issue with Utah's law isn't merely about bigamy. Utah's bigamy statute criminalizes merely cohabitating with one while married to another. Polygamists here in Utah don't try to legally marry more than one woman at a time. They cohabitate. State law makes cohabitating (generally defined by Utah courts as common residence with "conjugal association") with one or more women, while married to another, illegal. THAT is what strikes many as unconstitutional. Morover, in Utah the bigamy statute is selectively enforced. Note that in the Holm case his second "spiritual wife" was sixteen years old. There are thousands of polygamists here (in Utah) who the government ignores so long as their relationships do not involve child abuse or welfare fraud.

    Re: Utah Upholds Bigamy Ban (none / 0) (#14)
    by Johnny on Thu May 18, 2006 at 12:43:27 PM EST
    It is not illegal for a man to live with two sisters, another man, five 18year old men, five 18year old women etc...
    Soon to be in certain 'burbs of St. Louis. Slado, it is not a question of conning the state. If it were, corporate heads would be rolling left and right due to their incredible ability to scam the gov't out of billions of dollars through tax loopholes and offshore banking. This is strictly about control and imposing one version of religious morality on the people. No other versions need apply. Monotheistic, mysogynistic dogma that embraces the conquering and pillaging of the world step forward please.

    Re: Utah Upholds Bigamy Ban (none / 0) (#15)
    by Peaches on Thu May 18, 2006 at 12:53:04 PM EST
    polygamy? Please... One wife is quite enough for me. THe list of chores and yard/field work is already large enough, thank you. And think of the nagging. I can barely sustain one commitment, but two, three.. Who would ever think up such a concept? they had to be a masochist. I love my wife, I do, I really do, but, one more of her would put me completely over the edge.

    Re: Utah Upholds Bigamy Ban (none / 0) (#16)
    by squeaky on Thu May 18, 2006 at 03:22:52 PM EST
    Oh well, I will have to spring for tickets to Saudi Arabia now. Sixteen tickets can get pricey, but I will make it up from what I hear are very low gas prices over there. Didn't really like the idea of having Hatch as a Senator anyway, he is such a lying a$$hole. King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz al-Saud is much nicer. Anyone know where I can buy a used tent?

    Re: Utah Upholds Bigamy Ban (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 05:20:32 PM EST
    It's not surprising that people who support gay marriage would also have no problem with polygamy. In fact, opponents of gay marriage have long predicted that legalizing gay marriage would lead to a repeal of the ban on polygamy. Thanks to the folks posting here for their candor.

    Re: Utah Upholds Bigamy Ban (none / 0) (#18)
    by roy on Thu May 18, 2006 at 06:07:49 PM EST
    FfJ, I won't speak for others, but for me it's not "no problem" with polygamy. I have a problem with it, it's disruptive to society. Thing is, rights take precedence over making society look the way I want it to.

    Re: Utah Upholds Bigamy Ban (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 08:47:57 PM EST
    It isn't obvious to me that the states are in any way obliged to recognize polygamist marriages, any more than they are obliged to recognize gay marriages. But at the same time, it doesn't seem to me that the states have compelling interests in preventing married people from cohabitating with people other than their spouses that can't be addressed in less restrictive ways. Not that that is necessarily the measure... Utah's bigamy law is basically the equivalent of telling gay people that if they LIVE TOGETHER they're going to jail.

    Re: Utah Upholds Bigamy Ban (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:13:21 PM EST
    Where to begin? As a former resident of Mohave County, Arizona (where Warren Jeffs' polygamist enclave is based), I know too much about the evils of polygamy. It is NOT about three or four (or more) consenting adults sharing a loving family life. It IS about child abuse, child rape, incest, inbreeding, and welfare fraud. It is about exiling young men so they cannot compete with church elders for teenage brides. It is about Taliban-like suppression of women - no rights, no education, no freedom. It is about cultural, financial, and religious isolation so severe that even those who wish to leave are unable to do so. And until recently, it has been about the police forces in Hilldale UT and Colorado City, AZ, owing more allegiance to Warren Jeffs than to the law, and returning runaway 13-year olds to their 50-year old husbands. (Yes, these were certified peace officers, and until recently no one took action against their certification.) There is more to the story - those who think of polygamy as value-neutral should know the whole tale before saying "It's no one else's business." It's like heroin - some people may enjoy it, some people are hooked and can't get it, but in the end it ruins and ends many lives.

    Re: Utah Upholds Bigamy Ban (none / 0) (#21)
    by rdandrea on Fri May 19, 2006 at 06:04:43 AM EST
    3) Utah may be the most backwards state in the Union if this stuff is going on...
    Utah is not backwards at all. It just has some fairly weird people. There's no more weirdos per capita than any other state, and they're no weirder than weirdos from other states, some of them are just weird in a different way.

    Re: Utah Upholds Bigamy Ban (none / 0) (#22)
    by Slado on Fri May 19, 2006 at 07:09:01 AM EST
    Several good points. Charlie I think you are confusing cohabitation with rape and incest. The state of Utah probably wouldn't have a problem with several couples sharing a house as long as they weren't doing all the things that jmmapp described in his post. If you haven't read "Under the Banner of Heavan" then you don't have any idea what is being done under the banner of cohabitation. Some on this site seem to beleive that there is a slippery slope between the state coming down hard on the things jmmapp describes and the state coming after gays and adulterers. This is a ridiculous assumption and a poor excuse to defend the rights of bigamists and polygamists.

    Re: Utah Upholds Bigamy Ban (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri May 19, 2006 at 09:36:19 AM EST
    Actually, living in Utah and reading the daily paper tells one all about "what is being done under the banner of cohabitation." (It is also true though that not every polygamist household involves child brides, lost boys, or white slavery). Otherwise, though, you are correct about Utah's selective inforcement of the bigamy law. As I said, 'There are thousands of polygamists here who the government ignores so long as their relationships do not involve child abuse or welfare fraud.' However, while the state obviously has criminal laws regarding these particular social ills, and they are brought to bear against polygamists who violate them, the state also prosecutes them under the bigamy law - the one that criminalizes married people cohabitating with people who are not their spouse. Just because the statute is selectively enforced against bad people - and the good people who otherwise live their lives in violation of the statute are left alone - doesn't make the statute constitutional. Quite the opposite, in fact. Post Lawrence v. Texas, it's inconceivable that a state law that intrudes on the privacy of one's personal relationships in this way could possibly be constitutional.

    Re: Utah Upholds Bigamy Ban (none / 0) (#24)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri May 19, 2006 at 09:41:35 AM EST
    I am sorry Slado/jmmapp, I missed the posts where people on this site were advocating rape and incest, could you please cut and paste them so that we can all see them? If a consenting adult wants to cohabitate at their own expense I have ZERO issue with it. All religions brain wash, some are more severe and/or more appalling than others, but I really don't care. Show me a religion that embraces evolution and clearly illustrates the fallacies in the bible and that religion will get a free pass. In two thousand years christianity will be as laughable as the GrecoRoman gods are now. Anyone participating in rape/incest or other crimes against children should be punished equally. And if EVERY bigamist is raping and incesting than your argument is valid, however I have yet to see any evidence validating this accusation. I cannot imagine having more than one wife and I cannot imagine trying to love all wives and children equally, but I have never been exposed to it. Is the argument that all polygamists and bigamists are rapists and pedophiles??????

    Re: Utah Upholds Bigamy Ban (none / 0) (#25)
    by Slado on Fri May 19, 2006 at 10:03:29 AM EST
    Jvl, To answer your question of course they all aren't. But what percentage is acceptable enough for you before you ban the practice? 50% 75% 25%? Again I have no problem with an adult doing whatever they want when it doesn't hurt others. But I do have a problem with marriage laws being changed to inlcude anything other then two spouses which TL's last comment suggests. If Utah's laws are not technically valid then I would actually agree that they should be changed as I presume charley is indicating but the simple fact remains that those who are being prosecuted as of now aren't innocents and are guilty of crimes that I presume you find disgusting.

    Re: Utah Upholds Bigamy Ban (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri May 19, 2006 at 12:25:31 PM EST
    There is here a compelling state interest. The fact is, in many of Utah's polygamist communities taking child brides is common. The question is whether criminalizing bigamous cohabitation is the least intrusive way to deal with the problem.

    Re: Utah Upholds Bigamy Ban (none / 0) (#27)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri May 19, 2006 at 12:33:23 PM EST
    Slado, I don't know what I find is a suitable %, and I don't think one exists so it is a hard argument to participate in. Based on the 25% rule, and incorporating the fact that 1 in 4 African American males are in the criminal justic system, does that mean we criminalize being an african american man? I find the practice of taking child wives appalling, and incest grosses me out but I am not willing to say it should be criminalized. I think the median age for marriage in most states with parental consent is 16, and being that marriage is between one woman and one man, I would argue that anyone who weds before 18 is breaking the law as they cannot possibly be considered men and women. Really, I simply do not care if Peter wants to marry Paul and if Susie and Jan and Kelly want to marry Joe as long as they are all of legal age to consent. Not for me mind you, but again I have no issue with it. It would be nice to see if there is an independent study on the prevalence of this and the prevalence of child abuse for all poly/bigamists...

    Re: Utah Upholds Bigamy Ban (none / 0) (#28)
    by Peaches on Fri May 19, 2006 at 12:43:55 PM EST
    If you haven't read "Under the Banner of Heavan" then you don't have any idea what is being done under the banner of cohabitation.
    This book will certainly give someone pause when considering polygamy. It is a good read and gives a lot of good historical background on the formation of the Mormon church and the roots of polygamy (basically, Joseph Smith had to justify his infedility to the congregation) although Krakauer has recieved his share of criticism from the mormon community.

    Utah Upholds Bigamy Ban | 28 comments (28 topical)