Bigamist cites gay sex ruling

[arcticpenguin]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/West/12/02/prosecuting.polygamy.ap/index.html


The nation's high court in June struck down a Texas sodomy law, ruling that what gay men and women do in the privacy of their homes is no business of government.

It's no different for polygamists, argued Tom Green's attorney, John Bucher, to the Utah Supreme Court.

"It doesn't bother anyone, [and with] no compelling state interest in what you do in your own home with consenting adults, you should be allowed to do so," Bucher said.
...
Green, who is not affiliated with any church, was convicted of four counts of bigamy and one count of criminal nonsupport of his 30 children in August 2001.

Besides his five-year sentence, he faces up to life in prison after being convicted of child rape for having sex with one of his five wives when she was 13.
I see a flaw here; he's talking about "consenting adults", but then involves a 13 year old girl.

Otherwise, it's a very interesting and complex topic.

[Tony]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/West/12/02/prosecuting.polygamy.ap/index.html


I see a flaw here; he's talking about "consenting adults", but then involves a 13 year old girl.

Otherwise, it's a very interesting and complex topic.

I support polygamy, as long as children aren't involved.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/West/12/02/prosecuting.polygamy.ap/index.html


I see a flaw here; he's talking about "consenting adults", but then involves a 13 year old girl.

Otherwise, it's a very interesting and complex topic.

What's the difference between Bigamy and Polygamy?

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Grammatron


What's the difference between Bigamy and Polygamy?
Bi = 2
Poly = many

[UnrepentantSinner]

If Green wants to have a wife and 4 mistresses, good for him and the stupid brow beaten women that would put up that ************.

If Green wants to marry 5 women, then the Texas Sodomy ruling doesn't apply. Why? Because screwing and living together only applies to the privacy of the bedroom. Marriage is a legal institution is applicable outside the bedroom.

This is a pathetic attempt by a group of pathetic people to justify Tom Green having a harem.

[daenku32]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
If Green wants to have a wife and 4 mistresses, good for him and the stupid brow beaten women that would put up that ************.

If Green wants to marry 5 women, then the Texas Sodomy ruling doesn't apply. Why? Because screwing and living together only applies to the privacy of the bedroom. Marriage is a legal institution is applicable outside the bedroom.

This is a pathetic attempt by a group of pathetic people to justify Tom Green having a harem.

Actually, the Sodomy ruling applies to the means he was found guilty. He was only committing Bigamy because Utah treated his relationships to the other women as 'commonlaw marriage'. This is not something that is applied-for in a form of marriage license, but is designated to people based on their living conditions.

So this was the government stepping into HIS house, and declaring that he was Legally married to those women.

If this case stands, ANYONE who is married and lives with a member of the opposite sex and is not the spouse, in Utah, can be convicted of Bigamy.

Cohabitation laws will get nulled, thanks to the sodomy ruling.

After all this, I do still hope he gets convicted of child rape. At lease that conviction will not criminalize a lot of people who have hurt no one.

And btw,

Bigamy just means ILLEGALLY marrying another, when already Legally married.

Polygamy doesn't say anything about the legality, just that there are many people involved in the marriage.

[Upchurch]

The best argument I've heard against bigomy/polygomy is the complexity of the legal issues involved during divorce, doubly so if there are children involved.

As it is now, while still painful and difficult, our legal system is set up to handle division of assets for two people during divorce. If there are more people involved, more sticky issues come up. Assuming that three people are married and one decides to leave, are the other two responsible for alimony or is the one who is leaving? Or if the marriage is made of one straight man and two straight women, if the man decides to leave the relationship, are the two straight women still married to each other?

And what if a child is involved? Custody battles are harsh and tramatic for children as it is, how hard would it be on a child to be torn between 3, 4, or 5 five parents?

In my mind, the argument for homosexual marriage is not applicable to polygamous marriage because homosexual marriage can be treated in the exact same manner that heterosexual marriage is, but polygamous marriage can't.

[The Don]

According to the source article, he did marry them

"He preys on young girls," assistant Utah Attorney General Laura Dupaix said. "This case is about a man who marries young girls and calls it religion."

Some pro-polygamy sites refer only to common law wives

I guess there's a tax implication of polygamy as spouses get to inherit tax-free.

Child abuse aside I don't have a big problem with it


"Whats the penalty for bigamy ?"

"Two mothers-in-law"

eye thang-ewe ladiesangennelmen

[Marc]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
I see a flaw here; he's talking about "consenting adults", but then involves a 13 year old girl.


The 'consenting' part is in question too. Girls are taught their whole lives to obey, they are assigned husbands in the polygamus colonies, resistance is punished.

Also these people purposly have large families, larger than they can honestly support. Leading to a drain on welfare, which they are rather proud of. They call it Bleeding the Beast (US government)

There are of course not arguments against polygamy, just the practices of those who engage in it currently.

[Skeptic]

This is a pathetic attempt by a group of pathetic people to justify Tom Green having a harem.

But that's just the problem. Of course he has the right to live with anybody he wants; the question is, should this be recognized officially as marriage?

I cannot see how one CAN regonize officially gay unions as marriage, and NOT recognize polygamous (or incestous, for that matter) unions as marriage as well. If the sex of the partners is no objection, why should their number or familial relation be?

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Upchurch


And what if a child is involved? Custody battles are harsh and tramatic for children as it is, how hard would it be on a child to be torn between 3, 4, or 5 five parents?

In my mind, the argument for homosexual marriage is not applicable to polygamous marriage because homosexual marriage can be treated in the exact same manner that heterosexual marriage is, but polygamous marriage can't.

Dont you have the same problems wh gay marriages. Your gonna end up with kids who have 4-5 parents. (like mellisa ethridge.)

As for custody battles. The other moms would be considered step moms. Thats nothing new.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Tmy

Dont you have the same problems wh gay marriages. Your gonna end up with kids who have 4-5 parents. (like mellisa ethridge.) I'm not familiar with Mellisa Ethridge's story, but the child portion was only part of my argument. Regardless, my father-in-law has been married 5 times, but never did my wife loose 4 parents (step or otherwise) all at once growing up.

And no, I don't have the same problem with gay marriages. I don't see the connection.

[Tmy]

Mellissa married a women. They had a baby, and the sperm donar was whats-his-name Crosby from Crosby Stills Nash. Now she and her mate are divorced. I think her ex has custody but mellisa is an adoptive parent, and I dont know what Crosby is (other than the kids bio father). Already this kid has a bunch of parents. Who knows what inheritence rights he has and with who.

If you haev gay marriages wh kids invlved your gonna have at least 3 parents involed. Hows that not like bigamy?

[daenku32]

Originally posted by The Don
According to the source article, he did marry them


The 'source' is the prosecutor. A little bias there?

What he did was: As he met women willing to marry him, he divorsed the old wife and married the new one. While he personally did still call them his 'wifes', and lived with them in the same manner, he was NOT married to them in the traditional legal sense. No different from same sex couples or any other unmarried couple calling their 'significant other' their wife, even if they are not really Married.

The ONLY reason they caught him, was because the Government effectively called his relationship a legal marriage, and it did so against his will. He was forced into a legal marriage CONTRACT.

In Utah, the government can now declare your girlfriend as your Wife, even if you did not say "I Do". And even if you don't want to say "I Do".

And the only way to get rid of these forced marriages is by going to the Judge.

The Common Law (or Cohabitation Law) was introduced in the 80s, so it's not even deeply rooted into the legal system.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Skeptic
This is a pathetic attempt by a group of pathetic people to justify Tom Green having a harem.

But that's just the problem. Of course he has the right to live with anybody he wants; the question is, should this be recognized officially as marriage?

I cannot see how one CAN regonize officially gay unions as marriage, and NOT recognize polygamous (or incestous, for that matter) unions as marriage as well. If the sex of the partners is no objection, why should their number or familial relation be?

Straw.*

The union of 2 people is marriage (and I'm averse to gay marriage, though in favor of gay civil unions). Allowing gay couples to commit to themselves civilly does not mean we need to condone any sort of broad reinterpretation of "marriage" to mean anything people like Tom Greene want it to mean.

He's an adulterer as far as the word marriage goes. If he wants a harem, he needs to discuss that with his first wife and see if his subsequent concubines are o.k. with it. Period.

* Can you point out where in my post I suggested that polygamous marriages were acceptable?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Tmy
If you haev gay marriages wh kids invlved your gonna have at least 3 parents involed. Hows that not like bigamy? False dichotomy. Adoption.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Upchurch
False dichotomy. Adoption.

Why is that false. Adoption only gives legal rights. It doesnt matter how many times my dad marries, all the step moms in the world do not have parental rights to me. Just my mom and dad. So in a bigamist union the child still has one legal mom and one legal dad. (who are also the bilogical parents. sans any prior adoption).

Im always confused by gay marraige advocates who are against poligamy.

traditionalists base the marriage laws on historical, religious, societal grounds. They drew a line and said marriage is "tween a man and women". Same sex marraige advocates come along and say "hey, move the line to include same sex." Both lines are arbitrary. So how can you keep out the poligamist. Especially when its peoples nature to have more than one partner + its accepted by many religions.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Tmy
Why is that false.I didn't say it was false, I said it was a false dichotomy (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html) (a.k.a. false dilemma or fallacy of excluded middle). You said that if a gay couple has kids, there are at least three parents involved. While it is certainly possible that there will be three parents involved, there won't necessarily be three parents involved. Case in point, a gay couple that adopts a child.
Im always confused by gay marraige advocates who are against poligamy.Although it is a situation I would never want to see a child in, you've made your point about gaurdianship. What about alimony, divorce and inheretence rights? If one of member of the relationship is put in the hospital, who has power of attorny? There are a slew of legal issues that are undefined for a polygamous marriage.
Same sex marraige advocates come along and say "hey, move the line to include same sex." Both lines are arbitrary. So how can you keep out the poligamist. Especially when its peoples nature to have more than one partner + its accepted by many religions. And laws can be re-written to account for polygamous marriages. They haven't yet, but they could.

I suppose you've made a good case for both gay and polygamous marriages...

[WildCat]

What is in the water in Utah? This doesn't happen anywhere else in the USA.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by WildCat
What is in the water in Utah? This doesn't happen anywhere else in the USA.
State of Utah
Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Water Quality (http://waterquality.utah.gov/)

[Upchurch]

That's just funny

[Ed]

Hmmm Tom Green ... Upchurch .... Hmmmmm

http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Dec/12022003/images/ut_greenpolyg.jpg

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by daenku32

The ONLY reason they caught him, was because the Government effectively called his relationship a legal marriage, and it did so against his will. He was forced into a legal marriage CONTRACT.

In Utah, the government can now declare your girlfriend as your Wife, even if you did not say "I Do". And even if you don't want to say "I Do".

And the only way to get rid of these forced marriages is by going to the Judge.

The Common Law (or Cohabitation Law) was introduced in the 80s, so it's not even deeply rooted into the legal system.

Caveat: I have not read the underlying article.

I just want to make a general comment on common law marriages. Generally, you are not exactly "forced" into a marriage, precisely -- unless you live with someone and hold them out as your spouse. Some states also require that you share assets or take other, affirmative steps to publically give the impression that you are, in fact, married.

That is not quite the same as the government kicking in your door and finding you watching a movie with someone and declaring that you are therefore married.

A good rule of thumb is: if she is not actually your wife, don't tell people that she is. This rule is designed (1) to protect the rights of people dealing with the couple who lend money or take other action on the belief that there is a marriage (and therefore both people would be responsible for the debt), and (2) to protect the "spouse" who may be left high and dry if a split occurs -- especially if that spouse is a woman who has had a child (this was, I think, not as important as reason no. 1 for the law's development).

I had notheard of it being used for a bigamy prosecution and have some doubts regarding it being used that way -- it was certainly not the intent behind the law, IIRC.
YMMV.

[Schizobunny]

Originally posted by Tony


I support polygamy, as long as children aren't involved.

Me too.

[Schizobunny]

Who or how many people someone marries is none of our business because it is not hurting anyone. The government is getting into something it shouldn't be in. If it is a child though than it is hurting someone and should be illegal.

[Skeptic]

I don't recall who exactly said this, so I am knowingly committing the "fallacy of distribution" here (treating a group of people as if they were one person, or vice versa), but still...

When I posted in the "gay marriage" thread about how this would necessitate legalizing polygamy and incest as well, the general response was that there's nothing wrong with polygamy, either.

Now in this thread, the responses seem to be the opposite: that that polygamy is something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than gay marriage.

Of COURSE polygamy is not the same as gay marriage (one of them is a union of two men, the other, of a man and many women). But they are the same in the legal sense of being forms of union not recognized before as legal marriage. If you recognize one, what legal reason can you give to not recognizing the other?

[The Don]

Originally posted by Skeptic

Of COURSE polygamy is not the same as gay marriage (one of them is a union of two men, the other, of a man and many women). But they are the same in the legal sense of being forms of union not recognized before as legal marriage. If you recognize one, what legal reason can you give to not recognizing the other?

Errrm.... if you define marriage to be the union of two people.

Otherwise the gay marriage thing could also form the basis of interspecies marriage.

Original defintion of marriage : Union of two people of opposite genders
Revised definition of marriage : Union of two people



Under no circumstances does that lead to : Union of several people


Should it be legal for Man 1 to be married to Women A, B and C and Man 2 to be married to Women C, D and E ?

Could you just have a pool of people in which men 1,2 and 3 are all married to each other and women A, B and C ?

This WOULD have a profound impact on things like inheritence, pension entitlement, justice (in the UK (I think) you cannot impel a person to provide evidence against their spouse)