home

Polygamist Utah Judge Tries to Keep His Seat

By Jeralyn, Section Judiciary
Posted on Sun Mar 06, 2005 at 11:13:41 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

A Utah judge with three wives, one legal, two spiritual, is suing to keep his seat on the bench.

Judge Walter Steed, who serves in the polygamous border town of Hildale, is legally married to one woman but considers himself spiritually married to two others, and he has 32 children. Steed is a member of the reclusive Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which dominates Hildale and Colorado City, Ariz.

The Utah Judicial Conduct Commission wants him off the bench. The Utah Supreme Court will now decide.

One issue is Steed's contention that the law allowing prosecutors to pursue people who consider themselves plurally married but aren't legally married is unconstitutional.....Utah's attorney general and the Washington County attorney previously declined to file criminal charges against Steed.

Utah. The state that until 2004 allowed executions by firing squad. On a related note, when Utah debated the bill to abolish firing squads last year, it was clear that the move was not prompted by humanist concerns.

During the Senate debate on Thursday, Sen. Ron Allen, a Democrat, said allowing murderers to choose firing squads so they can "go out in a blaze of glory" makes heroes of criminals and causes victims' families more pain.

But Sen. Dave Thomas, a Republican, argued that media circuses are "exactly what we want" in executions. "We don't want these sentences to be carried out in the dead of night so no one knows," said Thomas, adding that lethal injection is painless and "the easy way out."

What country is Utah in again?

< The Causation Factor Between Drugs and Crime | Joe Lieberman Disappoints Democrats >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Polygamist Utah Judge Tries to Keep His Seat | 42 comments (42 topical)
    Re: Polygamist Utah Judge Tries to Keep His Seat (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 12:04:57 AM EST
    Funny. I imagine those arguing for the difference between civil marriage and religious marriage in this case would also be the ones who would argue against that difference when applied to gay people.

    Re: Polygamist Utah Judge Tries to Keep His Seat (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 12:54:15 AM EST
    I don't have a problem with consensual polygamous marriage.

    Re: Polygamist Utah Judge Tries to Keep His Seat (none / 0) (#3)
    by Ray Radlein on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 01:31:29 AM EST
    In the absence of a bigamous second legal marriage, I'm at somewhat of a loss as to what the individuals in a "spiritually polygamous" marriage could reasonably be charged with. How many states still have criminal adultery statutes? How many have criminal alienation of affection laws (and on what legal theory would the state have standing to pursue action therein)? I also strongly suspect that any laws which might be brought to bear would run directly afoul of Lawrence v. Texas. There are places along the Utah-Arizona border where "polygamy" is a cover for a variety of truly apalling human rights violations; but I don't see any reason why the state should stick its nose into any consensual relationship of (n) adults which happens to involve less than (n/2) state-sanctioned marriages. I'm also reminded of Ambrose Bierce's definition of "Bigamy" as "A crime for which the wisdom of the future will adjudicate a punishment called 'trigamy.'"

    Re: Polygamist Utah Judge Tries to Keep His Seat (none / 0) (#4)
    by scarshapedstar on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 02:33:17 AM EST
    Huh. Dave Thomas thinks that people should be painfully killed in public in order to frighten the civilian population. What do Republicans call that when Muslims do it? I forget...

    Re: Polygamist Utah Judge Tries to Keep His Seat (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 05:26:09 AM EST
    Hmmm... if there is no gay or mixed race angle, I guess the defense of marriage and family values are not in danger. I am inclined to think the state has no business in marriage contracts, but I am not keen on polygamy. May be one of my cultural biases.

    Re: Polygamist Utah Judge Tries to Keep His Seat (none / 0) (#6)
    by Lora on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 06:24:03 AM EST
    More power to him...IF his wives have no objection, and he can legally SUPPORT 32 children ...(dear god...10.7 kids apiece? or a few more wives in the wings? lol)

    Re: Polygamist Utah Judge Tries to Keep His Seat (none / 0) (#7)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 06:44:02 AM EST
    Unless all those wives interfere with his work, why shouldn't he keep his job? I find polygamy icky as well, but that's an opinion. Why isn't consensual polygamy allowed under grounds of religous freedom? To each his own I say, I sure don't like people telling me how to live.

    Re: Polygamist Utah Judge Tries to Keep His Seat (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 07:00:13 AM EST
    Two of the main issues with polygamy that bring up the occaisional necessity of the involvement of law enforcement are: 1) social services fraud, and 2) statutory rape. Many such Spiritual Spouses claim to government agencies that they are single parents - since they are not legally married - and file for various types of government benefits. With regard to statutory rape, people outside of Utah may not realize that many plural wives are "spiritually married" at the age of 13 or 14.

    Re: Polygamist Utah Judge Tries to Keep His Seat (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 07:02:23 AM EST
    I have a problem with polygamy. Many wives in these so-called consensual marriages are minors. Some are blood relatives of the other wives or even the husband. Many of these families depend on government support to subsidize their dozens of children -- it's part of their plan to "bleed the beast." Fundamentalist cults based on Mormonism (which even the Mormon church disowns) where polygamy flourishes are highly coercive -- this isn't a matter of free choice for the women involved. Read Under the Banner of Heaven by Jon Krakauer.

    Re: Polygamist Utah Judge Tries to Keep His Seat (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 08:24:20 AM EST
    All you people on this site that are so tolerant of others sure have a lot to say on this. No one is saying that statutory rape is ok, or fraud. If it is consentual then what's the problem. And for those of you that find this "icky", how are you any better than those who find same sex marriage as 'icky'? It's about freedom.

    Re: Polygamist Utah Judge Tries to Keep His Seat (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 08:57:05 AM EST
    A little research shows that Judge Steed is a part-time judge. He earns US$250 a month for his judicial duties. His full-time job is as a truck driver for a company called Royal Direct. According to his bio (which can be found at: http://www.utcourts.gov/judgesbios/justgal5.htm), Judge Steed "received ten years of schooling in the St. George public schools, and completed his high school education at the Colorado City Academy." So we're talking about a high-school educated truck driver administering justice in Hildale, UT. I find that as disturbing as his marital status. That he's under-educated doesn't mean he's unintelligent, of course. But I'm just not convinced that high school, ranching and truck driving adequately prepares one to deal with the nuances of the law.

    Re: Polygamist Utah Judge Tries to Keep His Seat (none / 0) (#12)
    by Che's Lounge on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 08:57:43 AM EST
    This guys a real religious zealot. He wants to enforce the laws of his state, but not if they apply to his religious beliefs. WOW. Maybe HE doesn't have any underage girls as wives (right now-how old was everyone when they got hitched?), but others of his ilk do. Does his "spiritual" marriage, which is an obvious dodge, include intimate relations and financial support? And he sits in judgement of others?

    Re: Polygamist Utah Judge Tries to Keep His Seat (none / 0) (#13)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 09:50:17 AM EST
    Bocajeff...I'm the one who called it icky, and as well as jswift, I must admit I find male homosexuality icky as well (lesbians...nothing icky about them!). But as I said previously, these are opinions that should have no bearing on how someone is treated in the eyes of the law. This is why I support gay marriage and consensual polygamy between willing adults. Damn right, it's about freedom. Freedom across the board as long as your freedom doesn't harm others. That's why I feel the judge shouldn't lose his job over this. I just won't be moving to Utah. Though I agree some of these crazies live in strange, cult like communities with de-facto religous totalitarians running the show, as long as no one is being held against their will, what are you gonna do? It's all part of freedom. If someone is held against their will, charge the community leader with kidnapping or unlawful inprisonment. Or statuatory rape if involving minors. Other than that, leave the crazies be. Last word, true freedom can be icky at times, but I wouldn't have it any other way.

    Re: Polygamist Utah Judge Tries to Keep His Seat (none / 0) (#14)
    by pigwiggle on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 09:57:18 AM EST
    “The icky-ness arises from my upbringing in a bigoted society.’ Chicken and Egg; likely the society is anti-homosexual and anti-polygamy by virtue of a common innate distaste for homosexuality and polygamy. These are values that are almost universal among disparate cultures. Anyway, this is entirely irrelevant. People should be free to enter into any kind of consensual arrangement they please without interference from the state or others, as much as this does not directly infringe upon the liberty of a third party. Really the root of the same sex marriage debate, and to a lesser extent the polygamy debate, is the differential treatment the state gives to heterosexual married couples. The state regulates arrangements insurance companies, employers, etc. are allowed to make with an individual who is married. One more opportunity for me to point out the folly of the state mandate that arises from a broad reading of the ‘general welfare clause’. It is the height of hypocrisy to use the general welfare to justify action on the progressive agenda through the state, only to cry foul when a regressive agenda is enacted by the same means.

    Re: Polygamist Utah Judge Tries to Keep His Seat (none / 0) (#15)
    by desertswine on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 10:57:33 AM EST
    32 kids!!! Judge Steed is aptly named.

    Re: Polygamist Utah Judge Tries to Keep His Seat (none / 0) (#16)
    by Dadler on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 11:15:42 AM EST
    between consenting (and, obviously, age of consent) individuals, polygamy should be no one's business but the family's. any crimes committed BY polygamists are like crimes committed by anyone else. i don't see the problem here. live and let live.

    Re: Polygamist Utah Judge Tries to Keep His Seat (none / 0) (#17)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 12:31:22 PM EST
    Well said Dadler.

    Re: Polygamist Utah Judge Tries to Keep His Seat (none / 0) (#18)
    by glanton on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 04:30:38 PM EST
    Lisa is right a great many of these 'marriages' are coercive and involve minors. It amounts in those cases, not to statutory rape, but plain rape. _Under The Banner of Heaven_ cties a lot of sources and serves as a pretty airtight look at these cults. On the other hand if it is between consensual adults and a guy can handle that many women I say go for it.

    Re: Polygamist Utah Judge Tries to Keep His Seat (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 04:52:03 PM EST
    Polygamy is icky, but should be allowed. Marrying a minor is icky too, should it be allowed too? How about brother/sister marriage? Mother/son? Father/daughter? Brother/brother? Guy/guy? Gal/gal? Sister/horse? Where do you draw the line? Nowhere? Or where you personally decide it should be? How do you decide?

    Re: Polygamist Utah Judge Tries to Keep His Seat (none / 0) (#20)
    by Kitt on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 05:30:33 PM EST
    To 'Sarcastic unnamed one' I know this was more than likely meant "tongue in cheek" Sister/horse? but my nephew recently told us he wanted to marry their cat. Of course he has William's Syndrome and has no concept of marriage, although he certainly has the concept of love down pat.

    Re: Polygamist Utah Judge Tries to Keep His Seat (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 06:00:38 PM EST
    I draw the line between marriage and schmarriage. Marriage is a life-long agreement between two consenting adult human beings who are not blood relatives to share their lives as equal partners in sickness and health, wealth and poverty, etc. Schmarriage is everything else. Getting married for a green card is schmarriage. Marrying to duck statutory rape charges is schmarriage. Marrying a duck (or any other animal) is schmarriage. I'd like to propose a Federal Schmarriage Amendment... (proposing to an amendment would fall into the category of schmarriage)

    Re: Polygamist Utah Judge Tries to Keep His Seat (none / 0) (#22)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 07:21:10 PM EST
    Anything between two or more consenting adults, ok no matter how icky. Anything involving minors, criminally icky. Animals...grey area. As long as they aren't abused or harmed, I guess it's cool. Everybody draw their own line and mind their own damn business.

    Re: Polygamist Utah Judge Tries to Keep His Seat (none / 0) (#23)
    by pigwiggle on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 07:06:40 AM EST
    “Marriage is a life-long agreement between two consenting adult human beings who are not blood relatives to share their lives as equal partners in sickness and health, wealth and poverty, etc.” So Lisa is open minded; well, sort of. The arbitrary limit she chooses to set is ‘blood relatives’. Progressive, just not too progressive. Hypocrisy lustrare. kdog- Minors cannot consent, nor animals.

    Re: Polygamist Utah Judge Tries to Keep His Seat (none / 0) (#24)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 07:35:02 AM EST
    Agreed on children pig. I said it should be criminal to mess with kids. Animals, they cannot verbally consent, but I know my dog likes it when I scratch his belly through non-verbal communication. Should that be illegal? If someone enjoys jacking off horses, and the horse seems to like it, who cares? And if the horse doesn't like it, the horse will let them know right quick. Smaller animals, like rabbits for example, I guess would have a harder time defending themselves. Like I said, grey area. Besides, animals don't have the same protections under the law as humans. That's enough, I'm starting to gross myself out.

    Re: Polygamist Utah Judge Tries to Keep His Seat (none / 0) (#25)
    by Che's Lounge on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 08:04:49 AM EST
    Polygamy is not the issue for me. The sexism of Mormonism is. Girls are indoctrinated early in life by the religion in order to be coerced into the obviously male-dominated "traditional" marriage later on.

    Re: Polygamist Utah Judge Tries to Keep His Seat (none / 0) (#26)
    by Che's Lounge on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 08:06:51 AM EST
    This is also why judges should be agnostic.

    Re: Polygamist Utah Judge Tries to Keep His Seat (none / 0) (#27)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 10:06:24 AM EST
    Yes, sister/horse was meant to lighten things up a bit. Pigwiggle's the only one so far who's consistent, that is, non-hypocritical. If you have no standards, you cannot be hypocritical. Likewise, if you have standards, any standards at all, you will at some point in time be hypocritical. We are all fallible human beings. Polygamy is illegal. Marrying and/or sexual relationships with minors is illegal. If your position is that polygamy is icky but should be left up to the people involved, and you dislike hypocrisy, then the same should go for minors. Coerced sex and/or marriage of any age is illegal. Shouldn't that be enough?

    Re: Polygamist Utah Judge Tries to Keep His Seat (none / 0) (#28)
    by pigwiggle on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 10:48:50 AM EST
    “If you have no standards, you cannot be hypocritical.” I have one clean standard; the state has no business regulating behavior of any individual such that the behavior does not directly infringe on the liberty of another. “Likewise, if you have standards, any standards at all, you will at some point in time be hypocritical. We are all fallible human beings.” The fallibility is in the ideology, not necessarily the person. That is, once the person find that their ideology includes conflicting planks they have the choice to revise their ideology. If they don’t then they are unreasonable. That entire load aside, I have little interest, unlike others here, in directing the lives of strangers. The notion becomes considerably more repugnant at the thought of giving license to others to direct my life. Really, how can you expect to impose arbitrary restrictions on strangers without them seeking the same for you?

    Re: Polygamist Utah Judge Tries to Keep His Seat (none / 0) (#29)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 11:27:00 AM EST
    pigwiggle, no arguments from me on your ideology. It's pure. I respect it. It's consistent. The only other pure ideology regarding standards is your's exact opposite - complete submission to a higher moral authority, like the Bible. You don't see much of that on this site. Most of us, me included, are somewhere in between the two and are therefor at times caught with conflicting planks, and can be, as you say, unreasonable. Of course, none of this means that your word on a subject is the final word...not that I believe you would expect that to be the case.

    Re: Polygamist Utah Judge Tries to Keep His Seat (none / 0) (#30)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 12:41:37 PM EST
    Coerced sex and/or marriage of any age is illegal. Shouldn't that be enough?
    Agreed there. But then consensual sex or marriage of any type should then be legal. Children are not able to consent to sex or marriage under the law, and I agree with that.

    Re: Polygamist Utah Judge Tries to Keep His Seat (none / 0) (#31)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 12:58:12 PM EST
    kdog - the point is that you think polygamy, which is against the law, is icky, but should be legal. Yet you think underage marriage/sex, which is also against the law, is icky, but should not be legal. How do you rationalize the two conflicting planks? How do you decide where to draw the line on this, or any, issue?

    Re: Polygamist Utah Judge Tries to Keep His Seat (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 01:54:23 PM EST
    Pig, you said:
    So Lisa is open minded; well, sort of. The arbitrary limit she chooses to set is ‘blood relatives’. Progressive, just not too progressive. Hypocrisy lustrare.
    You're joking, right? Being in favor of incest is progressive position? Um, I gotta disagree.

    Re: Polygamist Utah Judge Tries to Keep His Seat (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 02:22:58 PM EST
    So fellas, what is good for the goose is good for the gander right? Now seriously check out the history of Utah and polygamy... http://www.econlib.org/library/YPDBooks/Lalor/llCy1055.html Then ask if he should keep his job. Ciao

    Re: Polygamist Utah Judge Tries to Keep His Seat (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 02:35:23 PM EST
    Marriage is a life-long agreement between two consenting adult human beings who are not blood relatives to share their lives as equal partners in sickness and health, wealth and poverty, etc.
    There are no such things as humans "who are not blood relatives"; you can, of course, draw an arbitrary line at any degree of consanguinity you wish to, but there certainly is no consistent historical standard; IIRC, the standard set by the Church at one point in the middle ages was that seventh cousins couldn't marry; in some historical societies 1st cousins or even siblings or other immediate family members could.

    Re: Polygamist Utah Judge Tries to Keep His Seat (none / 0) (#35)
    by pigwiggle on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 02:54:54 PM EST
    “You're joking, right? Being in favor of incest is progressive position? Um, I gotta disagree.” Well, I’m not going to get into what is and isn’t progressive. The point is, don’t get too touchy about another’s arbitrary standard when you have your own. Explain how it would be fair to allow marriage between two unrelated men but not two related men. Additionally, not favoring a law restricting a behavior does not necessitate supporting or favoring that behavior. You could say I disfavor, to be generous, male homosexuality, but I wouldn’t be in favor of outlawing male homosexuality.

    Re: Polygamist Utah Judge Tries to Keep His Seat (none / 0) (#36)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 04:00:08 PM EST
    Arbitrary lines are drawn. Accept it. It's a fact of living in a society. Legal driving age is 16. Voting, 18. Drinking booze (in most states), 21. I'm of the opinion that these lines, while arbitrary, have some value and serve some purpose for the greater good. Once you accept that arbitrary lines are a fact of life, the debate becomes about where those lines should be drawn and why. The gay marriage argument is about examining the value of an existing line and moving that line to include more couples. Asserting that there should be no line whatsoever is fine, but it adds nothing to the debate, IMO. It's like saying that there should be no social mores, and there should be no laws that reflect social mores. Uh, so much for rule of law, then. You may be quite principled (congratulations) but I'm more interested in practicality, i.e. securing marriage rights for gays and lesbians, i.e. moving the arbitrary line. That would be a progressive victory, IMO. Twisting the gay marriage debate into a referendum on coercive polygamy, bestiality and incest is exactly what our friends on the far right do. It's not progressive -- it's a smear and an idiotic diversion from the real issue.

    Re: Polygamist Utah Judge Tries to Keep His Seat (none / 0) (#37)
    by glanton on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 04:20:47 PM EST
    Pigwiggle, Lisa, sarcastic unnamed one and k-dog all are on fire! Excellent debate. All in all, Lisa's expressed views match mine pretty well. Expanding marriage rights to homosexual couples seems to me a very slight movement of that arbitrary line, though obviously a lot of people disagree with me emphatically. I have a hard time understanding why. Maybe saracstic unnamed one, you can help me out here. The case against polygamy as it is currently practiced in Colorado City and other places along those borderlands involves, not consensual adults, but rather culturally-enforced sexual behavior against underage ladies and therefore a form of rape. I.E., it hurts people. How does homosexual marriage hurt people, again? And more importantly, I hope everyone realizes that almost 100% of the politicans (and probably the people who post here) who so vehemently oppose gay marriage also expressed outrage at _Lawrence v Texas_. The battle it indeed multilayered but at bottom involves homosexuals' right to openly exist and legitimately participate in our society. I have raised this point on numerous occasions, hoping a conservative would address it, but nobody wants to touch it. Someone like Dubya wants to come across as not hating gay people, but only succeeds if you turn a blind eye to their policy-related positions. Opposition to _Lawrence v Texas_ amounts to hating gay people, plain and simple. The marriage issue remains in communion with this solid fact.

    Re: Polygamist Utah Judge Tries to Keep His Seat (none / 0) (#38)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 05:16:02 PM EST
    they are not conflicting planks. are you arguing children can consent? Is there not a fundamental difference between fully formed and maturing homosapiens? i draw the line by my conscience, same as everyone else. my conscience says any behavior that does not directly harm another person should not be punished criminally. Whether it offends me or not is irreleveant.

    Re: Polygamist Utah Judge Tries to Keep His Seat (none / 0) (#39)
    by Ray Radlein on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 10:10:53 PM EST
    On the other hand if it is between consensual adults and a guy can handle that many women I say go for it.
    Can we spot the hidden assumption here? :-) At least one of the families I know who are in stable polyamorous relationships is MMF. FWIW.

    Re: Polygamist Utah Judge Tries to Keep His Seat (none / 0) (#40)
    by pigwiggle on Wed Mar 09, 2005 at 06:32:02 AM EST
    Lisa- “Asserting that there should be no line whatsoever is fine, but it adds nothing to the debate, IMO. It's like saying that there should be no social mores, and there should be no laws that reflect social mores. Uh, so much for rule of law, then.” Correct, I am saying that there should be no laws based solely on common social mores, save one; maximum personal liberty, and the protection of infringement on that liberty. Strictly applied this relieves nearly every arbitrary limit, allowing people to set their own, and additionally protects folks from having the exercise of another’s liberty infringe directly on their own. This would not destroy the rule of law, but rather the law would focus almost exclusively about informed consent and contract. People should be free to enter into any arrangement they wish, whatsoever, no matter how offended your puritanical sensibilities may (or may not) be. Of course this doesn’t remove all arbitrariness; we still need to decide who is capable of conformed consent, but this is all, once we have decided this all else takes care of itself. But what about the current state of justice and the rule of law? You wish to set arbitrary limits when none are allowed. The equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, an ideal that is most certainly just, provides that we all enjoy equality under the law. Not just unrelated hetero/homosexual couples. “I'm more interested in practicality, i.e. securing marriage rights for gays and lesbians, i.e. moving the arbitrary line. That would be a progressive victory, IMO.” And a liberal victory would be and end to the legal bonanza provided to heterosexual married couples; a practical move that would end this debate once and for all, for everyone; homosexual, heterosexual, polyandrist, polygynist, everyone.

    Re: Polygamist Utah Judge Tries to Keep His Seat (none / 0) (#41)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Mar 09, 2005 at 09:04:54 AM EST
    kdog, don't be disingenuous The legal "age of consent" is an arbitrary line. It is not, and never has been, intended to be the definition of a "fully formed and maturing homosapien." There are many "fully formed and maturing homosapiens" of age 17 years, 364 days or less, as you well know. The legal definition of marriage as being between 2 people and not 3 or 4 or more, is another arbitrary line. You argue for the leglization of polygamy because they should have the right to be free to marry as long as they don't "directly harm another person." Yet you argue against the leglization of underage marriage - that they should not have the right to be free to marry - despite the fact that many could do so without "directly harming another person." Would it kill you to admit the real reasons you support one freedom but not the other? Or should I just ask you why you hate freedom?

    Re: Polygamist Utah Judge Tries to Keep His Seat (none / 0) (#42)
    by glanton on Wed Mar 09, 2005 at 09:31:55 AM EST
    Ray, Touche. My bad.

    Polygamist Utah Judge Tries to Keep His Seat | 42 comments (42 topical)