http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... titutional
More men are opting out of wanting to get married than women. Polygamy would even up things a bit.
Polygamy Legalized in Utah?
-
_Bazooka
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 10719
- Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 4:36 am
Re: Polygamy Legalized in Utah?
Dallin H Oaks has done his part by being eternally married to two women.
That said, with the Book of Mormon, we are not dealing with a civilization with no written record. What we are dealing with is a written record with no civilization. (Runtu, Feb 2015)
-
_The Erotic Apologist
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 3050
- Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 8:07 pm
Re: Polygamy Legalized in Utah?
How long before Utah lowers the age of consent to fourteen years old?
Surprise, surprise, there is no divine mandate for the Church to discuss and portray its history accurately.
--Yahoo Bot
I pray thee, sir, forgive me for the mess. And whether I shot first, I'll not confess.
--Han Solo, from William Shakespeare's Star Wars
--Yahoo Bot
I pray thee, sir, forgive me for the mess. And whether I shot first, I'll not confess.
--Han Solo, from William Shakespeare's Star Wars
-
_palerobber
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 2026
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 7:48 pm
Re: Polygamy Legalized in Utah?
from the OP's link:
In a game-changer for the legal fight over same-sex marriage that gives credence to opponents’ “slippery slope” arguments, a federal judge has now ruled that the legal reasoning for same-sex marriage means that laws against polygamy are likewise unconstitutional [...] The Lawrence case lays the foundation that has been cited for a decade now in court to make the case for a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. If government cannot forbid homosexual conduct, this argument goes, then neither can it deny those who define themselves by homosexual behavior to officially recognize any such relationship as a marriage.
no advocate for marriage equality has advanced this absurd argument, and no court decision thus far in favor of marriage equality has rested on such "legal reasoning". this "senior legal analyst" is surprisingly ignorant of the topic upon which he's writing.
In a game-changer for the legal fight over same-sex marriage that gives credence to opponents’ “slippery slope” arguments, a federal judge has now ruled that the legal reasoning for same-sex marriage means that laws against polygamy are likewise unconstitutional [...] The Lawrence case lays the foundation that has been cited for a decade now in court to make the case for a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. If government cannot forbid homosexual conduct, this argument goes, then neither can it deny those who define themselves by homosexual behavior to officially recognize any such relationship as a marriage.
no advocate for marriage equality has advanced this absurd argument, and no court decision thus far in favor of marriage equality has rested on such "legal reasoning". this "senior legal analyst" is surprisingly ignorant of the topic upon which he's writing.