Utah senate unanimously moves to decriminalize polygamy

Does this mean all those gay “trouples” will be moving to salt lake city?

I live in Utah. This pisses me off because most people in Utah hate this crap. It's embarrassing.

Decriminalization does not mean making it legal. All it means is that law enforcement and the courts will be freed up to deal with far more serious issues such as jaywalking, spitting on the sidewalk, etc.

Why is it “embarrassing”, R2? Why should being a non-stereotypical family be an official CRIME and potentially give all the participants a CRIMINAL RECORD? That’s what’s “embarrassing” - over-criminalising consensual adult arrangements is draconian.

They should decriminalise consensual bigamy in general. It’s “embarrassing” that it’s still considered an official “crime”.

R1- the term is “throuple.”

No, There is nothing embarrassing about it at all.

Banning polygamy was a condition of joining the Union

Yes, I'm a 18-year-old girl and I really want to marry a 60 year old man. Wait, that's Hollywood not Utah.. My bad.

R4, polygamous groups usually also include underage girls being forced to marry older men, child abuse, no rights accorded to women, abuse and banishment of "excess" young boys and men as well as other evil things. Consensual situations aren't the problem.

They also take advantage of the system. Welfare, Medicare benefits for having so many children.

[quote] Welfare, Medicare benefits for having so many children.

And, R10? Many married [italic]couples[/italic] also have a whole wagon of children. And many husbands in "regular 2-person marriages" often cheat and fuck around without condoms, and produce illegitimate kids with babymamas on the side. Go ask the NFL or the NBA.

It's ridiculous hypocrisy. Most 'regular' marriages end in divorce anyway, and people keep re-marrying and re-marrying again, producing a wagon of kids along the way anyway. What does it matter if the spouses are at the same time or consecutive, one after the other after another. The end result is still the same. So there's not point criminalising it - it would be hypocritical. E.g. Alec Baldwin - 2 wives and 5 kids. Clint Eastwood - 2 wives plus uncountable number of mistresses, including (ca.) 3-4 baby mamas - producing 8 kids. The Duggars are monogamous but produced 17 kids.

So criminalising polygamous marriages clearly does not stop "monogamous couples" from producing a ton of legitimate and illegitimate kids with their side-pieces.

[quote] polygamous groups usually also include underage girls being forced to marry older men, child abuse, no rights accorded to women, abuse and banishment of "excess" young boys and men as well as other evil things.

Polygamous groups "USUALLY" include underage people, R9? What statistic do you base this on? Because there are gay polygamists and they don't generally fuck underage kids.

But, by that logic, well then let's criminalise going to "church" as well. Because organisations like the Catholic Church (which only support 'correct' "monogamous 2-person marriages") are even more rife with "evil" child abuse and dissing females as subservient to males. So let's hand out criminal records to everyone without exception who's going to church on Sunday and donating money to the Catholic Church.

So not my issue. No fucks to give.

Im more curious about their plan on banning porn in Utah. I wonder how they'll manage that?

We getting on the Internet like everybody else. Just cannot go into a store and buy it.

[quote]I haven't had time to even form an opinion.

But you did have time to post it on the Datalounge.

Thiz jez Utah, yez?

[quote]Sponsor says bill would help otherwise law-abiding polygamists gain access to critical services,

Yes, but I don't want polygamists to have access to critical services.

I don't want chaining of survivor benefits that continue for generations, rather than ending after the death of a single surviving spouse. I don't want people obtaining various "critical services" for multiple spouses and their children.

There is already a HUGE bias against single people when it comes to everything from benefits packages at employers to government services.

Have sex with whomever you want. But, we the SOLE purpose of legalizing polygamy is financial gain.

It's actually a great way to move them off welfare and all the fraud they commit.

[quote]It's actually a great way to move them off welfare and all the fraud they commit.

Legalizing fraud won't move them off welfare. The only reason it won't be "fraud" anymore is that it won't be illegal, not because incidence will decline.

Allowing these people to claim all forms of government and employer benefits legally will merely move the bar and expand the fraud.

There are two beneficiaries: Old men who want to marry young girls and create harems; financial fraudsters.

Finally, we have Sharia law in America! How many women are they allowed to marry?

My main comment is the guy married to 5 women. Is always a ugly old fatass.

They'll get taxed more, right?

What's the etiquette around wedding gifts in situations of this nature?

Re-reading the article, I can see the value in removing criminal penalties, especially for a 'crime' that is so common. I'm sort of surprised it passed because, as R2 indicates, that legacy is an embarrassment to so many people living in Utah.

Ewww, it's time for Californians to colonize Utah.

Study polygamy in Mormon cultures.

First off, polygamy in Utah is Mormon religious culture. They have the right to pursue their religious beliefs, however, their religious beliefs include sectioning off make teens, in order to not allow teenagers to fall in love and marry as adults. The husbands are chosen for the girls. Any man who is 95, can, by Mormon law, “claim” a girl as his wife, by claiming that God spoke to him, and told him that she was his new bride. The parents sign off on paperwork, submit it to the clerk at the courthouse, and suddenly, a 15 or16 year old is a wife.

Because their communities are clustered, most people are related to each other. You might be marrying a cousin, or an uncle, and as a result, there are higher chances if medical issues arising from procreating with relatives. Polygamists in these communities changed their surnames early on in order to avoid detection by law enforcement, so even if they claim to not be related, they usually are.

The women are impregnated almost immediately, because that is one more welfare check and snap card.

Women have absolutely no say in what they can wear, whom they can talk to, nothing. Their lives are all about 20 kids running around the house, endless laundry, cooking, housecleaning, etc.

This isn’t some forward thinking, key party in the upper income enclaves of Connecticut or New York. This is Utah, and these are Mormons. They subjugate, dehumanize, and sexually abuse teenaged girls, and women, and overburden the taxpayers with this lifestyle, based on their religion, and if I don’t want religious fundamentalists telling me what I can or cannot not do with my uterus as an adult over the age of 18, I don’t see how it makes sense to support legalizing a practice almost 100% ONLY practiced by Mormons, who ALMOST always marry teenaged girls to men who are likely their relatives, and 2 to 4 times older than them, and FORCED pregnancies from go, while living with several other women and being forced to share resources with them, childcare, and all subsidized by our taxes, while their church is one of the WEALTHIEST in our country, just because it’s hypocritical.

How is it hypocritical to FORCE women to have children? Hypocritical of what first criticism? The first criticism of the freedom of having CONSENSUAL relationships and CONSENSUAL sex, and living and loving as we please and with whom we please? That makes no sense, right? Because being FOR this is actually what is hypocritical, because the hypocrisy lies in believing in the inherent premise of consent, yet that is almost NEVER what this is, nor has it ever been.

This is child abuse, and forced breeding/labor/childcare with men teenaged girls do not love, but are forced to marry, on the spot, by the way, and they have ZERO choice in the matter, nor do they have zero choice in sexual intercourse, or in controlling their reproductive choices.

The “Brit” on here, claiming hypocrisy, is full of shit, and goes against his own assertion of freedom of choice, by suggesting or arguing that this is a matter of choice for both parties, as consenting adults.

What the legalization of this does, is drive cultural divisions deeper into religious sects, then setting precedent for religious freedom and beliefs, to control the bodies of women from cradle to grave. Just like all religious extremists insist on doing.

This isn’t hypocritical. This is immoral, profoundly abusive, and a huge blow against the protection of children, Roe vs. Wade, and the subsidizing of it all on the backs of taxpayers who understand what hypocrisy actually means.

Ugh!

Another “love story”.

No, you Californias take care of your own crap. You got plenty of your own problems. We got enough of you moving up here. But thanks.

The other issue is that once a boy is 16, there is a good chance that he will be driven to the desert and dumped by the side of the road. With one man having many wives, the male population has to be kept low. Abandoning young teenage boys is common and leads to numerous other problems.

I oppose any effort to reduce restriction and regulation of religious groups. The state would be doing the work of the people if it hounded these grifters and cult leaders entirely out of existance.

Not to worry, R31. I'll take one!

Donnie & Marie ...... & Mitt?

Wow, so fucked up. Absolutely should not be legal or decriminalized. All those kids and forced marriages! Are boys really abandoned like that at 16? Yuck all the family marriage too 😩

[quote] Are boys really abandoned like that at 16?

Yes, it’s a common practice in such communities.

[quote] Banning polygamy was a condition of joining the Union

It was very convenient for them that God changed his mind on the subject, thereby clearing the way for Utah to attain statehood. Same thing in the 70’s when He changed His mind and said that blacks were eligible to hold the priesthood, enabling the church to get the Justice Dept. off of their backs.

[quote]No, you Californias take care of your own crap. You got plenty of your own problems. We got enough of you moving up here. But thanks.

Resistance is futile.

You have seen what we have done to your neighboring states...

[quote] This pisses me off because most people in Utah hate this crap.

No, most Utahans (and yes, I'm going with the pre-Orrin Hatch spelling) don't. They [italic]love[/italic] "this crap" because it makes them feel like they're somehow victims and oppressed, and Mormons (who will forever and ever be known as nothing other than Mormons, so they can just eat this "call us Latter Day Saints" bullshit) love nothing — not even their lord and saviour Jesus Christ — more than alleging victimhood and crying about being oppressed (even when they're neither by a long shot).

If they want polygamous marriage, let them secede from the Union.

Is the defense against gay marriage that it is a ‘union between one man and one woman’?

(R39) I hate to shock you but not every person in Utah is Mormon. That's like saying everybody on DL is an dumbass like you. I've lived here for about 20 years. And most Mormons are very good people. What are talking about victim card? You have no idea what your talking about. I'm Catholic actually, and we love to play the victim card. Because we were all molested by priests. Let's talk about that shall we?

Just wait for the divorces, child custody, and support battles.

NEWS FLASH - they passed this because they were bribed by the Church elders to pass SOMETHING that will take away the scandal of sitting on tithe money and lying to their followers.

That's what's going on. Hey - the money got the laws changed. That's what's happening - not to obscure some major serious questions about how the church is managed.

[quote]They also take advantage of the system. Welfare, Medicare benefits for having so many children.

No where near what the Hasids get away with, including Section 8 housing.