Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
December 14, 2013 - 7:04 PM
By MARTIN GRIFFITH, Associated Press
Advocacy groups for polygamy and individual liberties on Saturday hailed a federal judge's ruling that key parts of Utah's polygamy laws are unconstitutional, saying it will remove the threat of arrest for those families.
I have not read the 90+ page decision. However, from what I have read (from other sources) is that the law in question was written too broadly, such as making it illegal for even unmarried men and women to live together. It will be interesting to read the whole decision (which I hope to do in the next week, if possible).
I have not read the 90+ page decision. However, from what I have read (from other sources) is that the law in question was written too broadly, such as making it illegal for even unmarried men and women to live together. It will be interesting to read the whole decision (which I hope to do in the next week, if possible).
Good for them in not needing a paper from the government to prove their commitment and "marriage" to each other.
Accordingly, in Part II below the
court finds the Statute facially unconstitutional and therefore strikes the phrase “or cohabits with
another person” as a violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United
States Constitution and as without a rational basis under the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment, both in light of established Supreme Court precedent
So the cohabitation section was ruled unconstitutional. So far nothing about marriage.
Quote:
) Finally, outside of the briefing schedule ordered by the
court, Defendant filed a Reply (Dkt. No. 73) in which he, for the first time, provided academic
discussion about “social harms” arising from religious cohabitation in Utah, though no
admissible evidence was proffered with his Cross-Motion, Response, or Reply, or in oral
argument on the motions held on January 17, 2013.
No evidence was presented to show the "social harms" of cohabitation.
Quote:
Polygamy. Preliminarily, the court finds that “polygamy” fails to qualify as a
fundamental right under the Glucksberg analysis. In truth, the court disagrees with Defendant’s
assertion that Plaintiffs are arguing that the fundamental rights analysis (under Lawrence)
requires “the State to sanction their polygamous marriages.”
So the court ruled there is no fundamental right ot state sanctioned polygamy.
Quote:
To the contrary, “[t]he Browns have not questioned the right of the
state to limit its recognition of marriage and to prosecute those citizens who secure multiple
marriage licenses from the state.” But in the
interest of completeness on this issue of such acute importance in the State of Utah, the court
briefly considers actual “polygamy” under the Glucksberg framework before moving on to the
“carefully described” liberty interest in religious cohabitation that Plaintiffs are claiming.
And the Browns were not even asking for state sanctioned polygamous marriage, but the right to cohabitation.
Quote:
The court therefore finds that, as with assisted
suicide, no fundamental right exists under the Glucksberg framework to engage in polygamy;
that is, to enter into a second purportedly legal matrimonial union when already legally married.
Many people who currently practice “polygamy,” however, including Plaintiffs, do not have any
expectation that their purported marriages will be legally recognized even though they describe
their often religiously motivated cohabitation as “marriage,” “polygamy,” or “plural marriage.”
Still not arguing for state sanctioned polygamous marriage.
Quote:
The court finds the cohabitation prong of the Statute unconstitutional on numerous
grounds and strikes it. As a result, and to save the Statute, the court adopts the interpretation of
“marry” and “purports to marry,” and the resulting narrowing construction of the Statute, offered
by the dissent in State of Utah v. Holm, 2006 UT 31, ¶¶ 131-53, 137 P.3d 726, 758-66, thus
allowing the Statute to remain in force as prohibiting bigamy in the literal sense—the fraudulent or otherwise impermissible possession of two purportedly valid marriage licenses for the purpose
of entering into more than one purportedly legal marriage.
The court ruled that cohabitation is not illegal, but having more than one legal marriage at a time is illegal.
Sounds like a good judgement to me.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
