Federal judge strikes down Utah law on polygamy, citing precedent on homosexual affairs
December 16, 2013
A federal judge has struck down major portions of a state law banning polygamy in Utah, saying that it is unconstitutional for the state to regulate sexual conduct within a household.
In a 91-page decision in the Brown v. Buhman case, issued on December 13, Judge Clark Waddoups uphold the state law against polygamous marriages, and ruled that Utah could punish residents who sought multiple marriage licenses. But he said that the state cannot take action against polygamous groups whose members live together without contracting multiple marriages.
Cohabitation does not constitute marriage, Judge Waddoups ruled. In reaching his decision he cited the precedent set by the 2003 Lawrence case, in which the US Supreme Court ruled that laws against sodomy in Texas were unconstitutional because they allowed for “unwarranted government intrusions into a dwelling or other private places.” The state has no legitimate interest in the sexual activities of a man who lives with multiple female partners, the judge said.
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: John J Plick -
Dec. 16, 2013 10:12 PM ET USA
The state has no interest in "regulating" sexual behavior within a household no matter how bizarre or sadistic? How can any man with any degree of intelligence even consider that irregular sex does not have a destructive effect on the individuals who practice it as well as on the society within which they practice it? Unless of course "that man" might already be practicing such behavior himself?
Posted by: [email protected] -
Dec. 16, 2013 7:24 PM ET USA
Just have been waiting for this shoe to drop. Next incest will be alright and pedophilia will not be a problem. We have bitten into the bad apple.
Posted by: jg23753479 -
Dec. 16, 2013 2:15 PM ET USA
Waddoups makes a distinction here that won't hold: the state can't regulate group sex but can regulate marriages? Why? The Lunatic-Left is not only amoral, it is incomprehensible.