Polygamists Challenge Utah's Anti-Polygamy Law

[Shane for Wax]

Jul 24, 2011 7:09:57 GMT -5 erictheblue said:

Jul 24, 2011 0:11:23 GMT -5 Shane for Wax said:

Really? Hm. I coulda swore that was the basic argument for the civil rights movement.

What argument?

The argument that marriage [Remember, blacks and whites were not allowed to marry, too] is a civil right. As are many other things.

I may of course be misreading cestle's post about saying that poly marriage is not a civil right and can never be considered a civil right like gay marriage and interracial marriage.

Mrs. Antichrist got it right about what I was trying to say:

Jul 24, 2011 8:58:48 GMT -5 Mlle Antéchrist said:

The moral side of the issue doesn't become irrelevant just because you say it doesn't interest you. You don't get to pick and choose which arguments we're allowed to present based on your own interests.

The point I've been trying to make is that being overly legalistic ultimately defeats the purpose of justice -- y'know, the thing upon which the courts were created to serve in the first place?

Long story short, we're saying that entering into a consensual polygamist marriage should be a civil right, as defined by the Supreme Court, just as freedom from slavery should have been a civil right for blacks.

[Vene]

Still trying to redefine "civil rights" I see.

CIVIL RIGHTS: The rights of citizens to liberty and equality (for example, freedom to access information or to vote).

www1.umn.edu/humanrts/edumat/hreduseries/tb1b/Section3/hrglossary.html

Rights are recognized by the law, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a violation before the law was written. Otherwise I wonder why people are complaining about civil rights violations in the Middle East, China, and the like. This really is the same line of reasoning that says the persecution in Uganda is not a civil rights issue as they are fully justified in making homosexuality both illegal and punishable by death because their law says it is okay.

[lighthorseman]

Jul 24, 2011 10:28:46 GMT -5 Vene said:

Still trying to redefine "civil rights" I see.

CIVIL RIGHTS: The rights of citizens to liberty and equality (for example, freedom to access information or to vote).

www1.umn.edu/humanrts/edumat/hreduseries/tb1b/Section3/hrglossary.html

Rights are recognized by the law, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a violation before the law was written. Otherwise I wonder why people are complaining about civil rights violations in the Middle East, China, and the like. This really is the same line of reasoning that says the persecution in Uganda is not a civil rights issue as they are fully justified in making homosexuality both illegal and punishable by death because their law says it is okay.

Um... so you are suggesting that rights exist seperate to legal recognition?

[cestlefun17]

The argument that marriage [Remember, blacks and whites were not allowed to marry, too] is a civil right. As are many other things.

I may of course be misreading cestle's post about saying that poly marriage is not a civil right and can never be considered a civil right like gay marriage and interracial marriage.

No that is exactly my argument. Under current United States jurisprudence, a poly marriage cannot be considered a civil right. There is nothing in the case law to suggest that it is. I have yet to hear an argument from U.S. case law that suggests otherwise.

Vene...you are perfectly entitled to form your own personal opinions as to what constitutes a civil right. It's just that United States courts don't care. They don't care about your personal opinions any more than they care about my personal opinions. What is happening in Uganda has no binding authority on United States courts. I am only concerning myself with whether or not polygamous groups are due the civil right to be married under the Constitution of the United States and the binding interpretations thereof.

[Vene]

I know you're restricting yourself to a set of very silly parameters, it's easier that way then to look at the total effects of such logic.

[Shane for Wax]

Cannot be considered a civil right currently in the legal sense. But you're saying that there is no potential for it to be such to the courts or to the population at large. Which just boggles my mind.

And I'd say that they do care about personal opinions and beliefs judging by how they've ruled in favor of certain things for no apparent reason other than agreeing with asinine beliefs and opinions.

[cestlefun17]

Cannot be considered a civil right currently in the legal sense. But you're saying that there is no potential for it to be such to the courts or to the population at large. Which just boggles my mind.

I have yet to hear a legal argument that would mandate recognition of polygamous marriage. No one is citing any precedent! Whereas I have talked extensively about the similarly situated standard as well as the range of judicial standards that have developed since United States v. Carolene Products Co. (304 U.S. 144).

And I'd say that they do care about personal opinions and beliefs judging by how they've ruled in favor of certain things for no apparent reason other than agreeing with asinine beliefs and opinions.

You may disagree with certain court rulings, but nevertheless judges consider only the laws and precedent before them. They are no more interested in what you personally consider a "civil right" to be anymore than they are interested in how your day is going or what your favorite hobby is.

I know you're restricting yourself to a set of very silly parameters, it's easier that way then to look at the total effects of such logic.

I am restricting myself to the laws and Constitution of the United States of America. I'm very sorry if you find these parameters silly, but that isn't my concern.

[Vene]

I'm going to take that to mean you support the persecution of homosexuality in Uganda as it is clearly not a violation of their rights.

[cestlefun17]

I'm going to take that to mean you support the persecution of homosexuality in Uganda as it is clearly not a violation of their rights.

I am not familiar with laws, constitution, and case law of Uganda. So if there is no right to be gay in Uganda and nothing in their case law would suggest that (I don't even know if they are a common law country and would thus even have a case law), then no there is no civil right to be gay in Uganda. If I were a Ugandan, I would fight tooth and nail to either pass a law or constitutional amendment legalizing homosexuality.


Does that make it okay in the meantime? Absolutely not. And I am fortunate to live in a country where the freedom to privacy in intimate relations is a fundamental right (Lawrence v. Texas). There are legal arguments using United States case law that can show why sodomy laws must be struck down. This is entirely different than arguing that they should be struck down because of personal moral reasons.

When you sue the government, you must show that you have standing, have been legally injured as a result of government action, and must provide the court with a suitable remedy that will alleviate this injury. You must provide legal argumentation that justifies all of these aspects.

[Vene]

Jul 24, 2011 11:19:27 GMT -5 cestlefun17 said:

I'm going to take that to mean you support the persecution of homosexuality in Uganda as it is clearly not a violation of their rights.

I am not familiar with laws, constitution, and case law of Uganda. So if there is no right to be gay in Uganda and nothing in their case law would suggest that (I don't even know if they are a common law country and would thus even have a case law), then no there is no civil right to be gay in Uganda. If I were a Ugandan, I would fight tooth and nail to either pass a law or constitutional amendment legalizing homosexuality.

Sounds like promoting the gay lifestyle to me, enjoy your execution that totally doesn't violate your rights.

[cestlefun17]

If I don't have the constitutional right to freedom of speech and peaceful assembly in Uganda either, there is nothing that United States courts can do about it, nor does it have any bearing on U.S. case law regarding legal recognition of polygamous marriages. I'll just have to remember not to visit Uganda anytime soon.

[Vene]

It's really nice to know you don't support international civil rights. 'I've got mine' and such, right? So much easier to be lawful anal.

[cestlefun17]

The fact that Uganda's constitution provides no provision for the compulsory legalization of homosexuality, unlike the United States' is not the concern of United States courts nor does it have any bearing on U.S. case law.

It is incredibly unfortunate that Uganda treats its citizens this way, and they shouldn't treat them this way. I hope the situation can be corrected with diplomatic pressure, but again, U.S. courts cannot compel Uganda to do anything as the U.S. Constitution only applies to the United States of America (In re Ross, 140 U.S. 453, 464).

But I'm not interested in how things should be done or what should be considered civil rights. I'm not interested in the should's but in the is's.

[Shane for Wax]

That right there tells me you are someone who doesn't even care about fighting for rights in the slightest or even give a damn about others' inherent civil rights [Though you don't even believe there are such] being violated.

You want people to give you impossible explanations as to how people have inherent rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

[cestlefun17]

You want people to give you impossible explanations as to how people have inherent rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

All I want is for people to point to United States case law that could be interpreted that polygamous couples have the right to marry.

Here is an example of a legal brief: ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/ (click on document #1: "COMPLAINT for Declaratory, Injunctive, or other Relief"). It is a legal brief that argues why California's prohibition on same-sex marriage violates the U.S. Constitution. You can also read the final opinion in that case (Perry v. Schwarzenegger), which found in favor of the complainants. The judge does not use his personal consideration of what he would like to see as a matter of civil rights, but relies extensively on U.S. case law.