Part of Utah's law against polygamy overturned -- What does this mean?
A fascinating ruling out of Utah going into the weekend, already drawing comment on this blog (upstate):
A Federal court judge overturned part of Utah's law against polygamy in a case emerging from the polygamous Brown family, stars of the reality TV program, "Sister Wives".
U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups held language banning polygamous cohabitation in the Beehive State's 1973 law to be unconstitutional. Nontheless, bigamy - the acquisition of multiple seemingly valid marriage licenses to enter into more than one legal marriage at a time - remains illegal in Utah. Considering the circumstances under which Utah entered the Union, all very interesting.
I think this blog from The SALT LAKE TRIBUNE addresses all the finer points...
Golly gee! The slippery-slope I predicted has started with the group I predicted.
How long until the legal age of marriage is lowered? This practice (along with polygamy) holds true for both Mormon (L.D.S.) and Muslim groups...(not all but some).
Mon, Dec 16, 2013 9:46am
Earl: What is it with you Christo-Nazis that keep complaining about how your own freedoms are being curtailed, as you tell everybody else how to live? Mind your own business and stop meddling in other people's sex lives. It was "good Christians" like you who drove Mormons out of Ohio, Missouri, Illinois (where they murdered the church's founder) and into Utah (then part of Mexico), and then forced Mormons to abandon a principle of their faith. All because you people can't stand the thought of anybody being different.
Mon, Dec 16, 2013 10:21am
bill: So you are ok with 10-year-old (and younger) brides then?
Mon, Dec 16, 2013 3:00pm
Earl: Since you are a fan of scripture, it puts the age at 13.
Mon, Dec 16, 2013 9:59pm
Well, we have homosexuals getting married, so what's the big deal about this? All we need now is for NAMBLA to join in on the fun.
Tue, Dec 17, 2013 11:55am
bill: Which "scripture" is that?...Christian, Muslim, Latter Day Saint? Chapter/verse?
Tue, Dec 17, 2013 1:23pm
Sorry, it's 13 for boys; 12 for girls, according to the Talmud. The girl must have reached puberty (Ezk: 16:7-8).
And the Bible specifically and repeatedly sanctions polygamy. Tradition in the Catholic Church has long held that Mary was 14 when she gave birth (probably 13 when she became pregnant).
Tue, Dec 17, 2013 2:00pm
I can't imagine too many American parents agreeing to their sons or daughters marrying at those ages...18 seems like a really young age to most.
Mike from Delaware
Tue, Dec 17, 2013 3:22pm
EarlGrey: I think we also need to remember that many women lost babies in childbirth and while carrying them [natural abortions]; also many women died during child birth. Plus, the more hands to help on the farm, thus larger families, etc., very different from our world. Really it's only since WWII where family size really started to shrink as those health issues, due to Science/Medical improvements, made childbirth less risky for both baby and mother. Far fewer children die as children now due to illneses, etc. [in the First World nations - sadly all this still happens in the Third World].
Watch the movie "The Nativity". Mary is pretty young [granted she doesn't look 13 or 14, but she still looks like a kid] who still likes to play with her friends, seemed so young to become a mother. That was an excellent movie.
Tue, Dec 17, 2013 3:38pm
Keep in mind, until the last century or so, 13 was almost half the average lifetime. There was no extended childhood. People were working and taking on what we'd consider adult responsibilities before puberty. Age of consent is a legal concept, specific to a particular culture. It's law, not some divinely established standard of morality.
It's only been a little more than 50 years since Sun Records recording artist Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13-year-old cousin ("Great balls of fire!"). Another cousin, televangelist Jimmy Swaggart, apparently didn't see a problem with it. Of course, Jimmy got defrocked after getting caught with hookers. Sort of strange, since Jesus hung out with hookers, too.
In any case, it has nothing to do with polygamy or gay marriage equality.
Mike from Delaware
Tue, Dec 17, 2013 5:48pm
The difference between Jesus hanging out with hookers & Swaggart is Jimmy wasn't just talking about the kingdom of God, he was sampling the wares.
Tue, Dec 17, 2013 6:14pm
MikeFromDelaware: How do you know Jimmy didn't talk about the Kingdom of God, and Jesus didn't sample the wares?
"All we need now is for NAMBLA to join in on the fun."
Otherwise known as the Roman Catholic Church.
Mike from Delaware
Tue, Dec 17, 2013 7:19pm
Billsmith: When I typed that I knew you'd ask that. Jesus was without sin so that's how we know he didn't sample the wares of the village hookers.
That would be rather gutsy for Jimmy Swaggart to be preaching fire & brimstone to the hooker while sampling her wares, but it is possible he did both.
Tue, Dec 17, 2013 11:23pm
Polygamy and gay-marriage equality are quite similar in modern society but, (as Bill said) of the two, only polygamy was an accepted Old Testament practice. Both groups want to be considered a societal norm...polygamists are currently viewed in society as odd/immoral, but, if our children start to be taught otherwise and we begin to see polygamist characters introduced as the norm in TV/movie roles...in only a few years polygamy will also be seen as a norm in our society. Mock away, but who in America would have imagined gay marriage would be considered a "right" even ten years ago? Who would have predicted a private businesses could be forced to serve customers with whom they disagree?
Wed, Dec 18, 2013 5:25am
It is ironic that many of the same people who rail about "liberty," "freedom," "the nanny state" and government "intrusion" when it comes to guns, tobacco, Big Gulp sodas, seat-belts, business regulations or health and safety laws (among others), do a 180 and want to regulate what happens in other people's bedrooms (possibly because so little happens in their own).
Jesus was without sin? Despite all his reported violations of the Torah and of civil law? Besides, Jesus was not married and if he "sampled" an unmarried hooker, he would not have violated Torah. I guess you still think that anything other than married, for purposes of reproduction only, missionary-position sex is a "sin." And you wonder why I say Christianity is a sick cult. Christianity abhors pleasure and exalts suffering. Sick. Meanwhile, there's that incident at the Temple. Jesus, guilty of assault and battery, blasphemy, inciting a riot, and disturbing the peace. You fundamentalists practice Nixonian logic ("if the president does it, it's not a crime"): If Jesus does it, it's not a sin.
Wed, Dec 18, 2013 9:15am
If Jesus was not sinless...then He died on a cross for nothing. Jesus debunked all the ridiculous man-made rules and religious traditions...but did not sin.
He did accomplish the perfect sinless life, died on the "cursed tree" and came back from the dead in three day's time. That is why He's worthy of worship and how He saved this world from the consequences of sin...death. If you believe He did "all of the above" then you too can have eternal life with Him, or you can mock/criticize/hate and take your chances on the afterlife...reincarnation, hell, or just a dirt nap. It's your choice, your life.
BTW, I personally don't care what others do in their bedrooms (that's between them and God..not me) but I also don't think that the Church (or any citizen of this country) should be forced to go against their religious beliefs/freedoms (isn't that supposed to be protected by the First Amendment?) Just as the Church is pro-life, it is also pro-marriage (marriage is a sacred ceremony/covenant established with God/Adam/Eve).
If the issue really is about equal rights/privileges/tax breaks...then allow the fed/states to make the distinction of couple vs. single status.
The other means to truly level the equality is to purge all marriage-related deductions/regulations/health-care from our state/federal systems... why do any of us really care what the state or fed think of our marriage? Marriage should have nothing to do with the state/fed and everything to do with God and your spouse. (Separation of Church/state).
Wed, Dec 18, 2013 9:36am
"Jesus debunked all the ridiculous man-made rules and religious traditions...but did not sin. "
No, actually he affirmed them. It was St. Paul and the goyim "fathers of the church" who debunked them.
"Marriage should have nothing to do with the state/fed and everything to do with God and your spouse. (Separation of Church/state)."
Really? Marriage existed before Christianity and before Judaism. It existed in pagan societies and where people never heard of your god. Marriage is about establishing inheritance rights in patrilineal societies where you have to know who the father is, and in establishing women as property of a man. Preachers can try and rewrite history and even scripture all they want but that doesn't change anything.
What myths and superstitions you buy into doesn't change anything about the hereafter either. All this sacrifice and resurrection BS was borrowed from pagan mystery cults. There was nothing new to any of it. Osiris rose from the dead long before Jesus time. And Zeus was knocking up virgins hundreds of years earlier, too. Jesus, if there was such a person, was an observant Jew and would not recognize most of the dogma Christians spout in his name. In fact, he would denounce it. He'd also be a socialist.
Wed, Dec 18, 2013 11:25am
So, when Jesus dared to heal on the Sabbath, kicked the money-makers from the Temple and hung out with the "dregs" of society he wasn't kicking against the man-made regulations and religious traditions? Yes, Jesus did hang out/associate with prostitutes, tax collectors and many others deemed "untouchables" by both culture and the "elite" religious leaders. He associated with the people who most needed/wanted His knowledge and compassion.
The covenant of Marriage began at the Beginning of Time if you believe in Creation/God/Adam/Eve/Bible. They were the first humans and (though there were no flower girls, rings, or candles at the "service") there was the covenant between God and them and His blessing of the union.
Wed, Dec 18, 2013 1:26pm
Earl: Clearly, your Sunday School teachers twisted scripture for their own purposes. If you consider the Torah to be "man-made rules" - even though Jesus said he did not - then I guess we can get rid of those commandments in courthouses. And the Torah includes Genesis, yet you are ready to cite that when it suits you. And what Jesus said about healing on the Sabbath had been said repeatedly by the great Pharisaic rabbis in previous decades, and now form part of the Talmud. You cherry-pick Moses and toss what doesn't suit you and hammer away with the rest.
Speaking of misquoting scripture: They were moneychangers, not "money makers", and they were not in the Temple; they were outside it. And they performed a necessary service for pilgrims who came from great distances to offer sacrifices at the Temple. Besides, I thought you were pro-capitalist but you think it's OK to assault somebody operating a legal business? Does that mean you'd approve if I went to one of those tobacco shops and started kicking butt?
Wed, Dec 18, 2013 1:45pm
You cherry pick Moses and toss what doesn't suit you and hammer away with the rest....looking in the mirror again?
...and they were MAKING MONEY by abusing the exchange rates for the "out-of-towners" coming to sacrifice. You accuse everyone but yourself for twisting the scriptures yet you are the biggest offender of this abuse. Watch out for planks!
Wed, Dec 18, 2013 3:29pm
Earl: Mr. Anti-socialist, pro-business does not think a business should be allowed to make a profit??? I look forward to read about you going downtown and trashing Chase or B of A. And then telling the cops it's OK because it's what Jesus did. I'll come visit you at the Ha Ha Hotel (Jesus said that's a good thing to do, too).
Wed, Dec 18, 2013 7:12pm
bill: FYI, Jesus wasn't anti-business He was furious at what had been allowed in the Temple area...set up a few ATMs in my church and then I would willingly trash them and willingly go to jail for destruction of property.
Wed, Dec 18, 2013 10:49pm
Sure am glad I only have about 1/3 of my life to go. I can hope to be out of this immoral mess in a few more years.
Thu, Dec 19, 2013 12:54am
Earl: Twisting again? The money-changers were not in the Temple or on Temple grounds. And don't tell me nobody stops on the way to your church to pick up some cash for the collection plate at an ATM. Your Jesus was nuts. I have explained to you the money-changers were necessary.
There's that commandment Christians choose to ignore: The one about graven images. You may not think it's much but observant Jews take it very seriously. The Temple could not accept coin with somebody's picture on it or even pictures of animals. I guess just one of those man-made rules Moses brought down from the mountain you're free to ignore. This was the "sin" Jesus died for, disrupting operations of the temple.
Thu, Dec 19, 2013 6:11am
For those of you who want to equate marriage equality with polygamy, and either with pedophilia, and talk of the slippery slope, people have been sliding down the slope for a long time. Including your hero, the greatest president in our lifetimes... It came out a couple years ago that in addition to his various flings (Ronnie was a busy boy in Hollywood), he had an affair with the then 15-year-old Elizabeth Taylor (about the time she was making "Life With Father," if you want to see how young she was). Ronnie was still married to Jane Wyman at the time, so adultery was involved, too. It's OK. He also cheated on Nancy (that part is understandable), and she cheated on him (including trysts in the White House living quarters with Frank Sinatra when Ronnie was out of town).
Ronnie, of course, did not come close to approaching Jack Kennedy's quality or quantity of conquests. Jack benefited from some early "abuse" with Hollywood royalty (as early as age 12) with Norma Shearer, Zsa Zsa (at 14), Ingrid Bergman (at 15) and skater Sonja Henie (also at 15) among others.
Thu, Dec 19, 2013 9:04am
bill: I will end this "debate" on this post...the "money-changers" were over-charging people in their EXCHANGE of currency...thus they were MONEY-MAKERS and crooks.
So, you are correct on the reason why the coinage was being exchanged (the graven images on the coins) but incorrect on the "sin" for which Jesus died. The "elite" religious leaders may have wanted him dead for the cleansing of the temple... but no sin was involved on the part of Jesus.
Thu, Dec 19, 2013 12:14pm
OK, Earl: Show me where in the gospels it says the money-changers were over-charging. And have you checked out the rates for currency exchanges at airports, banks or American Express offices lately?
I guess you don't consider assault, destruction of property, and disturbing the peace to be "sins."
Funny, it sounds like the Occupiers are pretty tame compared to Jesus, but for some reason you like Jesus and hate the Occupiers. Also sounds like Jesus was the first Occupier, based on what you are saying.
Add your comment: Attention: In an attempt to promote a level of civility and personal
responsibility in blog discussions, we now require you to be a member of
the WDEL Members Only Group in order to post a comment. Your Members
Only Group username and password are required to process your post.
You can join the WDEL Members Only Group for free by clicking here.
If you are already a member but have forgotten your username or password, please
Please register your post with your WDEL Members Only Group username and password below.