 |
| Cody Brown and his four wives, who brought up the lawsuit |
Yesterday, the United States District Court in Utah ruled that the state's law banning polygamy was
unconstitutional. Although most of the several thousand Mormons who believe or actually practice polygamy live in Utah, Utah is one of the strictest states in laws regarding polygamy—cohabitation, living together in a polygamous relationship, is even outlawed. Polygamists had argued that it violated their privacy and religious freedoms. With this new ruling, a man still cannot have more than one marriage license, meaning he still cannot marry more than one wife, but he can now
legally live with more than one partner.
Do you think that the previous anti-cohabitation law violated the First Amendment right to freedom of religion? The court ruled that
it did, citing the changing interpretation of the Constitution and the strengthening of individual freedoms in recent years; the state is expected to appeal the decision. Seeing as same-sex relationships have gained increased rights in past years, should polygamy and other forms of cohabitation that were once prohibited be legal as well?
9 comments:
My stance towards polygamy is similar to my stance on gay marriage. While I wouldn't necessarily care to engage in a polygamist or homosexual relationship, it's not my place to judge whether others should or shouldn't be allowed to do so. I wouldn't support action to legalize polygamy, but I wouldn't do anything to stop it, either.
From a more logistical standpoint, National Geographic wrote an article about Mormon polygamy in Utah that studied the effects on communities there. Logistically, polygamy is not ideal because--on average--with 4 women married to a single man, 3 out of every 4 men are left without spouses. Unmarried men are considered unsuccessful "lost boys".
On the other hand, the polygamist communities were reported to be very close knit since extended families connected many members.
I can't say I'd ever want to be in a polygamist relationship, but I would feel it would not be right to persecute polygamists for choosing to live a lifestyle that they believe to be right.
I think Travis makes a great point. It shouldn't be the job of the government to dictate the gender or number of people someone can love. I also don't necessarily believe that it should matter whether polygamy is being practiced as part of a religious ritual or not.
I'm not sure if there is scientific evidence to say that polygamous relationships/families are better suited than monogamous relationships/families, but I don't think they should be persecuted regardless.
I also would not really care for a polygamous or homosexual relationship, but as a soon to be voting citizen, I don't think it's my place to limit someone else's freedoms and potentially make them unhappy.
I completely agree with Travis on this. Who are we to judge someone on how he wants to live? Taking a more libertarian stance on this, I would even go so far as to say that it should be flat out legalized. In my opinion it's not the government's business to be regulating such social issues. It directly affects only a microscopic fraction of the population, but these people should still be treated equally under the constitution. If they want to practice their religion to such an extent, and it doesn't negatively effect other people, then I say let them do it. Of course many of us would see this issue and think that polygamy is weird and gross and it should be illegal, but really how is it so different from how others think of gay marriage? Both polygamy and gay marriage challenge social norms (arguably to a similar effect), so what would make one acceptable and the other social taboo?
The anti-cohabitation clause of the anti-bigamy law was, as the court ruled, constitutionally sound in its definition, but unconstitutionally enforced. The law itself makes no regard to whether the matter is religious or not, but the enforcement of the law errs in targeting solely religious cohabitation. Legally, I'm pretty sure there is precedent at the moment to rule legal polygamy a right, but this ruling allows for non-legal polygamy (as long as they don't all legally claim to be married).
If anything, though, I'd like Title 76 Chapter 7 Sections 103 & 104 struck down, since they criminalizes extramarital sexual activity and adultery. I feel that these are even more intrusive than the bigamy statute (101), but I feel that these have essentially been abrogated through the prosecutors' reluctance to use the clauses.
Like others, I also agree with Travis on this topic. I was previously unaware that it was illegal to live in a home with more than one spouse, irregardless of your marital status. I do not think that that was fair because it should be up to the individuals involved where they want to live.
Similar to gay marriage, the government shouldn't discriminate on who people want to live with or be married to and I think it is a step in the right direction. The way people live their lives shouldn't be monitored by the government unless they are harming others.
Like the others above me, I agree that the government really shouldnt hold these restrictions on people. Its not like polygamous relationships effect my day to day life, or have any effect on me at all on that matter. Like Travis said, I dont think its right to force polygamists to conform to a lifestyle they do not believe in. As long as everyone involved with the relationship knows theres polygamy going on and that theyre all ok with it, we should just let them do their own thing. Like people said above me I think polygamous relationships will begin to progress in ways similar to how gay marriage has in recent years.
I completely agree with several people above that it is not the government's job to regulate polygamy, especially how many spouses one lives with. I don't necessarily think that this law impeded on religious freedom rights, because living with more than one partner or polygamy is not always associated with Mormonism. Although, I do think it impedes on the 9th Amendment, which is that the government does not have the right to take away rights just because they are not stated in the Constitution. In abortion cases, like Roe v. Wade, the right to privacy began to fall under the 9th Amendment because they argued that women had the right to do what they want with their bodies. SImilarly, I think this relates to the polygamy debate because I think families have the right to privacy in that they have the right to decide how they construct their family and who they chose to live with.
I think we need a better definition of polygamy--this posts title implies that polygamous marriage is now legal in Utah, when in reality only cohabitation is legal.
I wonder how anti-cohabitation laws were/are enforced; it seems like neighbors would be encouraged to turn in "offenders."
While monogamy seems to be regarded as synonymous with morality in the US, I feel that cohabitation doesn't produce the same knee-jerk reaction as polygamy. Thoughts?
Also, I'd be interested to read the fed court's opinions; while the right of a state to ban cohabitation seems to be technically allowed by the text of the Constitution, it seems anti-Constitutional in philosophy.
Post a Comment