Polygamy

Federal Judge Rules Utah Anti-Polygamy Law Unconstitutional

Effectively decriminalizing the practice

|

A U.S. District Court judge has sided with the polgyamous Brown family, ruling that key parts of Utah's polygamy laws are unconstitutional.

Judge Clark Waddoups' 91-page ruling, issued Friday, sets a new legal precedent in Utah, effectively decriminalizing polygamy. It is the latest development in a lawsuit filed by the family of Kody Brown, who became famous while starring in cable TV channel TLC's reality series "Sister Wives." The showentered a fourth season at the end of the summer.

NEXT: Tonight on The Independents: At the Intersection of Public Policy and Sexytime!

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. And it begins!

    1. Can’t wait til Team Blue goes nuts over how this is damaging to women. Of course Team Red will be filled with moral outrage as well.

    2. It began when “same sex marriage” was allowed.

    3. my friend’s mom makes $63 an hour on the computer. She has been out of work for seven months but last month her payment was $18465 just working on the computer for a few hours. Go to this web site and read more http://www.cash29.com/

  2. You mean the same law the federal government made Utah pass in order to be made a state?

    1. Yep. The same federal government that said the southern states couldn’t leave the union, didn’t leave the union, had to be forced to return to the union, were no longer states in the union, and were required to do things only states in the union can do before they could become states in the union again. All in what, 16 short years?

      1. The national government correctly claimed the states could not legally leave the union and said those attempting it were in a treasonous state of rebellion to the rule of law, which national government in a morally proper and constitutional fashion prosecuted a war to end that treasonous rebellion, and then said those states could not have representation seated in the Congress until they had satisfied the conditions imposed to end the state of rebellion to true law–yes, in 16 years, that national government…

        Not one thing contradictory about it when you don’t lie and misrepresent history and the constitution in failing to make your preposterous point.

        1. correctly claimed the states could not legally leave the union

          [Citation Needed]

          Not one thing contradictory about it when you don’t lie and misrepresent history and the constitution in failing to make your preposterous point.

          Fixed it for you, shithead.

  3. Will a federal judge declare that West Virginia’s existence is illegal and that secession is indeed constitutional?

    1. No, because it was perfectly constitutional. The legal government of Virginia agreed to the secession of territory and the creation of the new state. Treasonous cheaters don’t get to complain about those following the just rule of law.

      1. Treason? Citation needed AGAIN, lying shithead. Fuck off bootlicker.

  4. Does this also mean the slippery slope is not a fallacy?

  5. is a violation of both the First and 14th amendments.

    You mean the same 14th amendment passed by Congresses and states that opposed Utah’s polygamy?

    So how is gun control and the NSA unconstitutional now?

    1. Oh, come on, Winston. Just pick one of your women to be your “official” wife, and make sure that you do right by the rest of them in your will. Also, Power of Attorney, and such.

  6. “The Law? Let me tell you something, Mr. Kemper. The law is there to prevent crime. We Men of sense are there to prevent foolishness. It is I, and not the law, that will prevent you from marrying my niece. And her sister. And that blue-eyed ninny down the road with whom they associate. Thank you again for the honor of your visit!”

  7. No sane man want more than one wife. The truly sane, want no wife at all. At least now, after 29 years of marriage, I no longer fear death. It has given me the balls to push the limits and take risks, like averaging 100 MPH from Harrisburg to Pittsburgh on the turnpike. The worst that could happen was that I’d be dead, and there are fates worse than death.

  8. Read the fine print folks. The judge did not strike down the ban on polygamy itself. The court struck down a clause in the Utah law that purported to ban multiple cohabitation — that is, living together without a formal marriage. That being the case, I am not surprised that the law was struck down. I am suprised that it took this long.

  9. Volokh has three (so far) commentaries on this. The decision is quite narrow. The part struck said that it is illegal for X to cohabit with B if already legally married to A ONLY if X presents himself as married to B.

    It is still illegal for X to try to get a marriage license for B while legally married to A, just as in every other state. The only thing struck was the unique Utah language saying that cohabiting and saying it is marriage is illegal if legally married to someone else.

  10. If polygamy were to be legalized, polyandry had better also be included as well. All of this, of course, after we’ve settled the legality of same-sex marriage (in favor of it, of course).

    1. There is nothing that can be refused as long as it is between consenting people over the age of 16. Marriage is effectively dead.

      1. Marriage is as alive and well as it has ever been. It is the involvement of the state with it which is in dire peril, as it should be.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.