Polygamy Laws: How would one challenge them in the courts?

[Dante]

Hmm... how would one challenge this in the courts? A person cannot have more than active marriage license.

1878
Location: The Endowment House (Where Reynolds married his second wife)

Facts of the Case:
George Reynolds, secretary to Mormon Church leader Brigham Young, challenged the federal anti-bigamy statute. Reynolds was convicted in a Utah territorial district court. His conviction was affirmed by the Utah territorial supreme court.


Question:
Does the federal anti-bigamy statute violate the First Amendment's free exercise clause because plural marriage is part of religious practice?

Conclusion:
No. Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite, writing for a unanimous court, held that the statute can punish criminal activity without regard to religious belief. The First Amendment protected religious belief, but it did not protect religious practices that were judged to be criminal such as bigamy. Those who practice polygamy could no more be exempt from the law than those who may wish to practice human sacrifice as part of their religious belief.


Reynolds v. United States The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

----- ----- -----

As part of Reynolds’s legal defenses, he argued that the law was unconstitutional. He asserted that it violated his First Amendment right to free exercise of religion. He believed that his religious duty required him to marry multiple women: the penalty for refusing to practice polygamy was eternal damnation. He was convicted. Eventually his case came before the Supreme Court.

The Court upheld his conviction and Congress’s power to prohibit polygamy. The Court reasoned, “Congress cannot pass a law for the government of the Territories which shall prohibit the free exercise of religion. The first amendment to the Constitution expressly forbids such legislation….Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.” In other words, while Congress could not outlaw a belief in the correctness of polygamy, it could outlaw the practice of it.

Reynolds v. United States 1878 - Bill of Rights Institute​

 

[Dante]

Hmm...

Federal Judge Strikes Down Part Of Utah s Polygamy Ban The Two-Way NPR

As the Salt Lake Tribune reads the decision, U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups says the part of the law that prohibits cohabitation between adults to whom they are not legally married violates both the First and 14th Amendments.
Federal Judge Strikes Down Part Of Utah s Polygamy Ban The Two-Way NPR

----------------

A statement from Reyes' office on Wednesday said attorneys are reviewing the decision.

Federal Judge Clark Waddoups in December struck the section of Utah's bigamy statute that can be applied when someone "cohabits with another person" to whom they are not legally married. Utah law made such a union a felony punishable by up to five years in prison. Waddoups said the ban violated the First and 14th amendments to the Constitution.
Utah Local News - Salt Lake City News Sports Archive - The Salt Lake Tribune​

 

[HenryBHough]

A mind small enough to get all wrapped up in deciding who can or cannot marry and in what quantities is small enough to be blown out the nose unnoticed.

 

[Freewill]

Hmm... how would one challenge this in the courts?

1878
Location: The Endowment House (Where Reynolds married his second wife)

Facts of the Case:
George Reynolds, secretary to Mormon Church leader Brigham Young, challenged the federal anti-bigamy statute. Reynolds was convicted in a Utah territorial district court. His conviction was affirmed by the Utah territorial supreme court.


Question:
Does the federal anti-bigamy statute violate the First Amendment's free exercise clause because plural marriage is part of religious practice?

Conclusion:
No. Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite, writing for a unanimous court, held that the statute can punish criminal activity without regard to religious belief. The First Amendment protected religious belief, but it did not protect religious practices that were judged to be criminal such as bigamy. Those who practice polygamy could no more be exempt from the law than those who may wish to practice human sacrifice as part of their religious belief.


Reynolds v. United States The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

----- ----- -----

As part of Reynolds’s legal defenses, he argued that the law was unconstitutional. He asserted that it violated his First Amendment right to free exercise of religion. He believed that his religious duty required him to marry multiple women: the penalty for refusing to practice polygamy was eternal damnation. He was convicted. Eventually his case came before the Supreme Court.

The Court upheld his conviction and Congress’s power to prohibit polygamy. The Court reasoned, “Congress cannot pass a law for the government of the Territories which shall prohibit the free exercise of religion. The first amendment to the Constitution expressly forbids such legislation….Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.” In other words, while Congress could not outlaw a belief in the correctness of polygamy, it could outlaw the practice of it.

Reynolds v. United States 1878 - Bill of Rights Institute​

1. He was born that way.
2. It is his right.
3. Government should stay out of his bedroom

What he has going against him: He has to be crazy, more then one wife?

 

[Dante]

A mind small enough to get all wrapped up in deciding who can or cannot marry and in what quantities is small enough to be blown out the nose unnoticed.

Poor Henry, is he mistaking Dante's discussion of law with support of a social issue?

D'Oh!

 

[Dante]

Hmm... how would one challenge this in the courts?

1878
Location: The Endowment House (Where Reynolds married his second wife)

Facts of the Case:
George Reynolds, secretary to Mormon Church leader Brigham Young, challenged the federal anti-bigamy statute. Reynolds was convicted in a Utah territorial district court. His conviction was affirmed by the Utah territorial supreme court.


Question:
Does the federal anti-bigamy statute violate the First Amendment's free exercise clause because plural marriage is part of religious practice?

Conclusion:
No. Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite, writing for a unanimous court, held that the statute can punish criminal activity without regard to religious belief. The First Amendment protected religious belief, but it did not protect religious practices that were judged to be criminal such as bigamy. Those who practice polygamy could no more be exempt from the law than those who may wish to practice human sacrifice as part of their religious belief.


Reynolds v. United States The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

----- ----- -----

As part of Reynolds’s legal defenses, he argued that the law was unconstitutional. He asserted that it violated his First Amendment right to free exercise of religion. He believed that his religious duty required him to marry multiple women: the penalty for refusing to practice polygamy was eternal damnation. He was convicted. Eventually his case came before the Supreme Court.

The Court upheld his conviction and Congress’s power to prohibit polygamy. The Court reasoned, “Congress cannot pass a law for the government of the Territories which shall prohibit the free exercise of religion. The first amendment to the Constitution expressly forbids such legislation….Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.” In other words, while Congress could not outlaw a belief in the correctness of polygamy, it could outlaw the practice of it.

Reynolds v. United States 1878 - Bill of Rights Institute​

1. He was born that way.
2. It is his right.
3. Government should stay out of his bedroom

What he has going against him: He has to be crazy, more then one wife?

Another one incapable of intelligent and rational discussion?

 

[Dante]

Hmm...

...part of the law that prohibits cohabitation between adults to whom they are not legally married violates both the First and 14th Amendments.

"Utah law made such a union a felony punishable by up to five years in prison. Waddoups said the ban violated the First and 14th amendments to the Constitution.

"Waddoups let stand the portion of the statute that prevents someone from having more than one active marriage license.

Federal Judge Strikes Down Part Of Utah s Polygamy Ban The Two-Way NPR​

 

[Freewill]

Hmm... how would one challenge this in the courts?

1878
Location: The Endowment House (Where Reynolds married his second wife)

Facts of the Case:
George Reynolds, secretary to Mormon Church leader Brigham Young, challenged the federal anti-bigamy statute. Reynolds was convicted in a Utah territorial district court. His conviction was affirmed by the Utah territorial supreme court.


Question:
Does the federal anti-bigamy statute violate the First Amendment's free exercise clause because plural marriage is part of religious practice?

Conclusion:
No. Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite, writing for a unanimous court, held that the statute can punish criminal activity without regard to religious belief. The First Amendment protected religious belief, but it did not protect religious practices that were judged to be criminal such as bigamy. Those who practice polygamy could no more be exempt from the law than those who may wish to practice human sacrifice as part of their religious belief.


Reynolds v. United States The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

----- ----- -----

As part of Reynolds’s legal defenses, he argued that the law was unconstitutional. He asserted that it violated his First Amendment right to free exercise of religion. He believed that his religious duty required him to marry multiple women: the penalty for refusing to practice polygamy was eternal damnation. He was convicted. Eventually his case came before the Supreme Court.

The Court upheld his conviction and Congress’s power to prohibit polygamy. The Court reasoned, “Congress cannot pass a law for the government of the Territories which shall prohibit the free exercise of religion. The first amendment to the Constitution expressly forbids such legislation….Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.” In other words, while Congress could not outlaw a belief in the correctness of polygamy, it could outlaw the practice of it.

Reynolds v. United States 1878 - Bill of Rights Institute​

1. He was born that way.
2. It is his right.
3. Government should stay out of his bedroom

What he has going against him: He has to be crazy, more then one wife?

Another one incapable of intelligent and rational discussion?

Well yes, I usually find that the case with you but think about.

1. If you believe men are part of the animal kingdom then having one mate is a rarity for the higher animals. So a man wanting a "herd" of woman is more natural then a man wishing to plow another man.

2. If rights can be created out of thin air just by saying it. Then the man's argument, as you asked, would be it is his right. Then he just needs to interject that one sentence into everything he says until believed.

3. Do you disagree? Why is there laws against polygamy? Whether or not it is in line with his religion is immaterial. If he be crazy enough to have more then one wife why is it the business of the government to stop him?

 

[Publius1787]

Hmm... how would one challenge this in the courts? A person cannot have more than active marriage license.

1878
Location: The Endowment House (Where Reynolds married his second wife)

Facts of the Case:
George Reynolds, secretary to Mormon Church leader Brigham Young, challenged the federal anti-bigamy statute. Reynolds was convicted in a Utah territorial district court. His conviction was affirmed by the Utah territorial supreme court.


Question:
Does the federal anti-bigamy statute violate the First Amendment's free exercise clause because plural marriage is part of religious practice?

Conclusion:
No. Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite, writing for a unanimous court, held that the statute can punish criminal activity without regard to religious belief. The First Amendment protected religious belief, but it did not protect religious practices that were judged to be criminal such as bigamy. Those who practice polygamy could no more be exempt from the law than those who may wish to practice human sacrifice as part of their religious belief.


Reynolds v. United States The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

----- ----- -----

As part of Reynolds’s legal defenses, he argued that the law was unconstitutional. He asserted that it violated his First Amendment right to free exercise of religion. He believed that his religious duty required him to marry multiple women: the penalty for refusing to practice polygamy was eternal damnation. He was convicted. Eventually his case came before the Supreme Court.

The Court upheld his conviction and Congress’s power to prohibit polygamy. The Court reasoned, “Congress cannot pass a law for the government of the Territories which shall prohibit the free exercise of religion. The first amendment to the Constitution expressly forbids such legislation….Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.” In other words, while Congress could not outlaw a belief in the correctness of polygamy, it could outlaw the practice of it.

Reynolds v. United States 1878 - Bill of Rights Institute​

They would challenge on the 14th Amendment. The legal reasoning between gay marriage and polygamy are identical. If one is allowed you must allow the other.

 

[Dante]

Hmm... how would one challenge this in the courts?

1878
Location: The Endowment House (Where Reynolds married his second wife)

Facts of the Case:
George Reynolds, secretary to Mormon Church leader Brigham Young, challenged the federal anti-bigamy statute. Reynolds was convicted in a Utah territorial district court. His conviction was affirmed by the Utah territorial supreme court.


Question:
Does the federal anti-bigamy statute violate the First Amendment's free exercise clause because plural marriage is part of religious practice?

Conclusion:
No. Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite, writing for a unanimous court, held that the statute can punish criminal activity without regard to religious belief. The First Amendment protected religious belief, but it did not protect religious practices that were judged to be criminal such as bigamy. Those who practice polygamy could no more be exempt from the law than those who may wish to practice human sacrifice as part of their religious belief.


Reynolds v. United States The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

----- ----- -----

As part of Reynolds’s legal defenses, he argued that the law was unconstitutional. He asserted that it violated his First Amendment right to free exercise of religion. He believed that his religious duty required him to marry multiple women: the penalty for refusing to practice polygamy was eternal damnation. He was convicted. Eventually his case came before the Supreme Court.

The Court upheld his conviction and Congress’s power to prohibit polygamy. The Court reasoned, “Congress cannot pass a law for the government of the Territories which shall prohibit the free exercise of religion. The first amendment to the Constitution expressly forbids such legislation….Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.” In other words, while Congress could not outlaw a belief in the correctness of polygamy, it could outlaw the practice of it.

Reynolds v. United States 1878 - Bill of Rights Institute​

1. He was born that way.
2. It is his right.
3. Government should stay out of his bedroom

What he has going against him: He has to be crazy, more then one wife?

Another one incapable of intelligent and rational discussion?

Why is there laws against polygamy? Whether or not it is in line with his religion is immaterial. If he be crazy enough to have more then one wife why is it the business of the government to stop him?

Why? Because people have the right to pass laws? Religious practice is material because that is a ground it was challenged on. The government of, by, and for the people is the government

 

[Dante]

Hmm... how would one challenge this in the courts? A person cannot have more than active marriage license.

1878
Location: The Endowment House (Where Reynolds married his second wife)

Facts of the Case:
George Reynolds, secretary to Mormon Church leader Brigham Young, challenged the federal anti-bigamy statute. Reynolds was convicted in a Utah territorial district court. His conviction was affirmed by the Utah territorial supreme court.


Question:
Does the federal anti-bigamy statute violate the First Amendment's free exercise clause because plural marriage is part of religious practice?

Conclusion:
No. Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite, writing for a unanimous court, held that the statute can punish criminal activity without regard to religious belief. The First Amendment protected religious belief, but it did not protect religious practices that were judged to be criminal such as bigamy. Those who practice polygamy could no more be exempt from the law than those who may wish to practice human sacrifice as part of their religious belief.


Reynolds v. United States The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

----- ----- -----

As part of Reynolds’s legal defenses, he argued that the law was unconstitutional. He asserted that it violated his First Amendment right to free exercise of religion. He believed that his religious duty required him to marry multiple women: the penalty for refusing to practice polygamy was eternal damnation. He was convicted. Eventually his case came before the Supreme Court.

The Court upheld his conviction and Congress’s power to prohibit polygamy. The Court reasoned, “Congress cannot pass a law for the government of the Territories which shall prohibit the free exercise of religion. The first amendment to the Constitution expressly forbids such legislation….Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.” In other words, while Congress could not outlaw a belief in the correctness of polygamy, it could outlaw the practice of it.

Reynolds v. United States 1878 - Bill of Rights Institute​

They would challenge on the 14th Amendment. The legal reasoning between gay marriage and polygamy are identical. If one is allowed you must allow the other.

nope: You totally misread what the case is about. Same sex marriage 14th argument was about the right to marry.
The polygamy 14th argument was about challenging a cohabitation law. It was ruled silly for a marriage license.

As the Salt Lake Tribune reads the decision, U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups says the part of the law that prohibits cohabitation between adults to whom they are not legally married violates both the First and 14th Amendments.

The paper adds:
"Utah law made such a union a felony punishable by up to five years in prison. Waddoups said the ban violated the First and 14th amendments to the Constitution.​

"Waddoups let stand the portion of the statute that prevents someone from having more than one active marriage license.

Federal Judge Strikes Down Part Of Utah s Polygamy Ban The Two-Way NPR​

 

[Publius1787]

Hmm... how would one challenge this in the courts? A person cannot have more than active marriage license.

1878
Location: The Endowment House (Where Reynolds married his second wife)

Facts of the Case:
George Reynolds, secretary to Mormon Church leader Brigham Young, challenged the federal anti-bigamy statute. Reynolds was convicted in a Utah territorial district court. His conviction was affirmed by the Utah territorial supreme court.


Question:
Does the federal anti-bigamy statute violate the First Amendment's free exercise clause because plural marriage is part of religious practice?

Conclusion:
No. Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite, writing for a unanimous court, held that the statute can punish criminal activity without regard to religious belief. The First Amendment protected religious belief, but it did not protect religious practices that were judged to be criminal such as bigamy. Those who practice polygamy could no more be exempt from the law than those who may wish to practice human sacrifice as part of their religious belief.


Reynolds v. United States The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

----- ----- -----

As part of Reynolds’s legal defenses, he argued that the law was unconstitutional. He asserted that it violated his First Amendment right to free exercise of religion. He believed that his religious duty required him to marry multiple women: the penalty for refusing to practice polygamy was eternal damnation. He was convicted. Eventually his case came before the Supreme Court.

The Court upheld his conviction and Congress’s power to prohibit polygamy. The Court reasoned, “Congress cannot pass a law for the government of the Territories which shall prohibit the free exercise of religion. The first amendment to the Constitution expressly forbids such legislation….Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.” In other words, while Congress could not outlaw a belief in the correctness of polygamy, it could outlaw the practice of it.

Reynolds v. United States 1878 - Bill of Rights Institute​

They would challenge on the 14th Amendment. The legal reasoning between gay marriage and polygamy are identical. If one is allowed you must allow the other.

nope: You totally misread what the case is about. Same sex marriage 14th argument was about the right to marry.
The polygamy 14th argument was about challenging a cohabitation law. It was ruled silly for a marriage license.

As the Salt Lake Tribune reads the decision, U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups says the part of the law that prohibits cohabitation between adults to whom they are not legally married violates both the First and 14th Amendments.

The paper adds:
"Utah law made such a union a felony punishable by up to five years in prison. Waddoups said the ban violated the First and 14th amendments to the Constitution.​

"Waddoups let stand the portion of the statute that prevents someone from having more than one active marriage license.

Federal Judge Strikes Down Part Of Utah s Polygamy Ban The Two-Way NPR​

I don't need to look at the case. What's the difference between the 14th Amendment argument for gay marriage and the 14th Amendment argument for polygamy? Nothing.

 

[Publius1787]

Hmm... how would one challenge this in the courts? A person cannot have more than active marriage license.

1878
Location: The Endowment House (Where Reynolds married his second wife)

Facts of the Case:
George Reynolds, secretary to Mormon Church leader Brigham Young, challenged the federal anti-bigamy statute. Reynolds was convicted in a Utah territorial district court. His conviction was affirmed by the Utah territorial supreme court.


Question:
Does the federal anti-bigamy statute violate the First Amendment's free exercise clause because plural marriage is part of religious practice?

Conclusion:
No. Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite, writing for a unanimous court, held that the statute can punish criminal activity without regard to religious belief. The First Amendment protected religious belief, but it did not protect religious practices that were judged to be criminal such as bigamy. Those who practice polygamy could no more be exempt from the law than those who may wish to practice human sacrifice as part of their religious belief.


Reynolds v. United States The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

----- ----- -----

As part of Reynolds’s legal defenses, he argued that the law was unconstitutional. He asserted that it violated his First Amendment right to free exercise of religion. He believed that his religious duty required him to marry multiple women: the penalty for refusing to practice polygamy was eternal damnation. He was convicted. Eventually his case came before the Supreme Court.

The Court upheld his conviction and Congress’s power to prohibit polygamy. The Court reasoned, “Congress cannot pass a law for the government of the Territories which shall prohibit the free exercise of religion. The first amendment to the Constitution expressly forbids such legislation….Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.” In other words, while Congress could not outlaw a belief in the correctness of polygamy, it could outlaw the practice of it.

Reynolds v. United States 1878 - Bill of Rights Institute​

They would challenge on the 14th Amendment. The legal reasoning between gay marriage and polygamy are identical. If one is allowed you must allow the other.

nope: You totally misread what the case is about. Same sex marriage 14th argument was about the right to marry.
The polygamy 14th argument was about challenging a cohabitation law. It was ruled silly for a marriage license.

As the Salt Lake Tribune reads the decision, U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups says the part of the law that prohibits cohabitation between adults to whom they are not legally married violates both the First and 14th Amendments.

The paper adds:
"Utah law made such a union a felony punishable by up to five years in prison. Waddoups said the ban violated the First and 14th amendments to the Constitution.​

"Waddoups let stand the portion of the statute that prevents someone from having more than one active marriage license.

Federal Judge Strikes Down Part Of Utah s Polygamy Ban The Two-Way NPR​

I don't need to look at the case. What's the difference between the 14th Amendment argument for gay marriage and the 14th Amendment argument for polygamy? Nothing.

"What's the difference between the 14th Amendment argument for gay marriage and the 14th Amendment argument for polygamy?" Everything. One is the right to a marriage contract. The other is about a religious view on how many existing marriages one can enter into.

The argument you alluded to in the latter was the exact same argument Christian conservatives made against gay marriage. Hence they are the same.

 

[Dante]

Hmm... how would one challenge this in the courts? A person cannot have more than active marriage license.

1878
Location: The Endowment House (Where Reynolds married his second wife)

Facts of the Case:
George Reynolds, secretary to Mormon Church leader Brigham Young, challenged the federal anti-bigamy statute. Reynolds was convicted in a Utah territorial district court. His conviction was affirmed by the Utah territorial supreme court.


Question:
Does the federal anti-bigamy statute violate the First Amendment's free exercise clause because plural marriage is part of religious practice?

Conclusion:
No. Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite, writing for a unanimous court, held that the statute can punish criminal activity without regard to religious belief. The First Amendment protected religious belief, but it did not protect religious practices that were judged to be criminal such as bigamy. Those who practice polygamy could no more be exempt from the law than those who may wish to practice human sacrifice as part of their religious belief.


Reynolds v. United States The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

----- ----- -----

As part of Reynolds’s legal defenses, he argued that the law was unconstitutional. He asserted that it violated his First Amendment right to free exercise of religion. He believed that his religious duty required him to marry multiple women: the penalty for refusing to practice polygamy was eternal damnation. He was convicted. Eventually his case came before the Supreme Court.

The Court upheld his conviction and Congress’s power to prohibit polygamy. The Court reasoned, “Congress cannot pass a law for the government of the Territories which shall prohibit the free exercise of religion. The first amendment to the Constitution expressly forbids such legislation….Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.” In other words, while Congress could not outlaw a belief in the correctness of polygamy, it could outlaw the practice of it.

Reynolds v. United States 1878 - Bill of Rights Institute​

They would challenge on the 14th Amendment. The legal reasoning between gay marriage and polygamy are identical. If one is allowed you must allow the other.

nope: You totally misread what the case is about. Same sex marriage 14th argument was about the right to marry.
The polygamy 14th argument was about challenging a cohabitation law. It was ruled silly for a marriage license.

As the Salt Lake Tribune reads the decision, U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups says the part of the law that prohibits cohabitation between adults to whom they are not legally married violates both the First and 14th Amendments.

The paper adds:
"Utah law made such a union a felony punishable by up to five years in prison. Waddoups said the ban violated the First and 14th amendments to the Constitution.​

"Waddoups let stand the portion of the statute that prevents someone from having more than one active marriage license.

Federal Judge Strikes Down Part Of Utah s Polygamy Ban The Two-Way NPR​

I don't need to look at the case. What's the difference between the 14th Amendment argument for gay marriage and the 14th Amendment argument for polygamy? Nothing.

"What's the difference between the 14th Amendment argument for gay marriage and the 14th Amendment argument for polygamy?" Everything. One is the right to a marriage contract. The other is about a religious view on how many existing marriages one can enter into.

The argument you alluded to in the latter was the exact same argument Christian conservatives made against gay marriage. Hence they are the same.

What? The arguments were not the same. What argument did Christian conservatives make in court?

 

[Publius1787]

They would challenge on the 14th Amendment. The legal reasoning between gay marriage and polygamy are identical. If one is allowed you must allow the other.

nope: You totally misread what the case is about. Same sex marriage 14th argument was about the right to marry.
The polygamy 14th argument was about challenging a cohabitation law. It was ruled silly for a marriage license.

As the Salt Lake Tribune reads the decision, U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups says the part of the law that prohibits cohabitation between adults to whom they are not legally married violates both the First and 14th Amendments.

The paper adds:
"Utah law made such a union a felony punishable by up to five years in prison. Waddoups said the ban violated the First and 14th amendments to the Constitution.​

"Waddoups let stand the portion of the statute that prevents someone from having more than one active marriage license.

Federal Judge Strikes Down Part Of Utah s Polygamy Ban The Two-Way NPR​

I don't need to look at the case. What's the difference between the 14th Amendment argument for gay marriage and the 14th Amendment argument for polygamy? Nothing.

"What's the difference between the 14th Amendment argument for gay marriage and the 14th Amendment argument for polygamy?" Everything. One is the right to a marriage contract. The other is about a religious view on how many existing marriages one can enter into.

The argument you alluded to in the latter was the exact same argument Christian conservatives made against gay marriage. Hence they are the same.

What? The arguments were not the same. What argument did Christian conservatives make in court?

Are you asking me because you are unaware? Figures.

 

[Dante]

nope: You totally misread what the case is about. Same sex marriage 14th argument was about the right to marry.
The polygamy 14th argument was about challenging a cohabitation law. It was ruled silly for a marriage license.

As the Salt Lake Tribune reads the decision, U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups says the part of the law that prohibits cohabitation between adults to whom they are not legally married violates both the First and 14th Amendments.

The paper adds:
"Utah law made such a union a felony punishable by up to five years in prison. Waddoups said the ban violated the First and 14th amendments to the Constitution.​

"Waddoups let stand the portion of the statute that prevents someone from having more than one active marriage license.

Federal Judge Strikes Down Part Of Utah s Polygamy Ban The Two-Way NPR​

I don't need to look at the case. What's the difference between the 14th Amendment argument for gay marriage and the 14th Amendment argument for polygamy? Nothing.

"What's the difference between the 14th Amendment argument for gay marriage and the 14th Amendment argument for polygamy?" Everything. One is the right to a marriage contract. The other is about a religious view on how many existing marriages one can enter into.

The argument you alluded to in the latter was the exact same argument Christian conservatives made against gay marriage. Hence they are the same.

What? The arguments were not the same. What argument did Christian conservatives make in court?

Are you asking me because you are unaware? Figures.

You are terribly mistaken in your belief that the arguments for gay marriage and polygamy are identical

 

[Publius1787]

I don't need to look at the case. What's the difference between the 14th Amendment argument for gay marriage and the 14th Amendment argument for polygamy? Nothing.

"What's the difference between the 14th Amendment argument for gay marriage and the 14th Amendment argument for polygamy?" Everything. One is the right to a marriage contract. The other is about a religious view on how many existing marriages one can enter into.

The argument you alluded to in the latter was the exact same argument Christian conservatives made against gay marriage. Hence they are the same.

What? The arguments were not the same. What argument did Christian conservatives make in court?

Are you asking me because you are unaware? Figures.

You are terribly mistaken in your belief that the arguments for gay marriage and polygamy are identical

Hmmm ... .. .. a contradiction.

 

[Dante]

Poor Publius1787 The laws concerning privacy versus laws concerning marriage licenses. While bigots like Scalia (and you?) might fear acceptance of what people already do behind closed doors, the slippery slope is just an ant hill on the grassy knoll.

Can't imagine what kind of a nut worries about legalizing “bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality and obscenity." Bigamy, Prostitution, adult incest, and adultery, and bestiality are illegal and good luck arguing to make any of those legal.

masturbation? fornication? obscenity? Scalia and you live in the dark ages. You represent an American Taliban

The judge cited the decision in Lawrence v. Texas, the 2003 Supreme Court case that struck down laws prohibiting sodomy. He quoted the majority opinion by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy that stated the Constitution protects people from “unwarranted government intrusions into a dwelling or other private places” and “an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression and certain intimate conduct.”

As same-sex marriage has gained popular approval and legal status in recent years, some have hoped — and some feared — that other forms of cohabitation might follow. Justice Antonin Scalia, in his bitter and famous dissent from the 2003 Lawrence case, said the nation was on the verge of the end of legislation based on morality, and was opening the door to legalizing “bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality and obscenity.”

Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University who represented the Browns in this case, disagreed with Justice Scalia’s reasoning and said in an exchange of emails that the case “is about privacy rather than polygamy.” He added, “Homosexuals and polygamists do have a common interest: the right to be left alone as consenting adults. There is no spectrum of private consensual relations — there is just a right of privacy that protects all people so long as they do not harm others.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/15/us/a-utah-law-prohibiting-polygamy-is-weakened.html?_r=0​

 

[Publius1787]

Poor Publius1787 The laws concerning privacy versus laws concerning marriage licenses. While bigots like Scalia (and you?) might fear acceptance of what people already do behind closed doors, teh slippery slope is just an ant hill on the grassy knoll.

Can't imagine what kind of a nut worries about legalizing “bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality and obscenity." Bigamy, Prostitution, adult incest, and adultery, and bestiality are illegal and good luck arguing to make any of those legal.

masturbation? fornication? obscenity? Scalia and you live in the dark ages. You represent an American Taliban

The judge cited the decision in Lawrence v. Texas, the 2003 Supreme Court case that struck down laws prohibiting sodomy. He quoted the majority opinion by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy that stated the Constitution protects people from “unwarranted government intrusions into a dwelling or other private places” and “an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression and certain intimate conduct.”

As same-sex marriage has gained popular approval and legal status in recent years, some have hoped — and some feared — that other forms of cohabitation might follow. Justice Antonin Scalia, in his bitter and famous dissent from the 2003 Lawrence case, said the nation was on the verge of the end of legislation based on morality, and was opening the door to legalizing “bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality and obscenity.”

Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University who represented the Browns in this case, disagreed with Justice Scalia’s reasoning and said in an exchange of emails that the case “is about privacy rather than polygamy.” He added, “Homosexuals and polygamists do have a common interest: the right to be left alone as consenting adults. There is no spectrum of private consensual relations — there is just a right of privacy that protects all people so long as they do not harm others.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/15/us/a-utah-law-prohibiting-polygamy-is-weakened.html?_r=0​

Indeed, Poor me. Nice rant. You sure showed me.

 

[Dante]

Poor Publius1787 The laws concerning privacy versus laws concerning marriage licenses. While bigots like Scalia (and you?) might fear acceptance of what people already do behind closed doors, teh slippery slope is just an ant hill on the grassy knoll.

Can't imagine what kind of a nut worries about legalizing “bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality and obscenity." Bigamy, Prostitution, adult incest, and adultery, and bestiality are illegal and good luck arguing to make any of those legal.

masturbation? fornication? obscenity? Scalia and you live in the dark ages. You represent an American Taliban

The judge cited the decision in Lawrence v. Texas, the 2003 Supreme Court case that struck down laws prohibiting sodomy. He quoted the majority opinion by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy that stated the Constitution protects people from “unwarranted government intrusions into a dwelling or other private places” and “an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression and certain intimate conduct.”

As same-sex marriage has gained popular approval and legal status in recent years, some have hoped — and some feared — that other forms of cohabitation might follow. Justice Antonin Scalia, in his bitter and famous dissent from the 2003 Lawrence case, said the nation was on the verge of the end of legislation based on morality, and was opening the door to legalizing “bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality and obscenity.”

Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University who represented the Browns in this case, disagreed with Justice Scalia’s reasoning and said in an exchange of emails that the case “is about privacy rather than polygamy.” He added, “Homosexuals and polygamists do have a common interest: the right to be left alone as consenting adults. There is no spectrum of private consensual relations — there is just a right of privacy that protects all people so long as they do not harm others.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/15/us/a-utah-law-prohibiting-polygamy-is-weakened.html?_r=0​

Indeed, Poor me. Nice rant. You sure showed me.

well you are consistently wrong