Marriage Equality: Federal Judge Strikes Down Polygamy Ban Based on Gay Rights


And yes. Turning gay marriage into a thing paves the way for legalizing polygamy. As everyone with a brain predicted. Polygamy, unlike gay marriage, was actually a thing. It has thousands of years of history behind it. So this was bound to happen.

If we’re not going to have any standards for marriage except “People in a relationship of some kind” then there’s no reason not to recognize polygamy. Or any of the crazier stuff coming down the pike. And that was why the left pushed the gay marriage scam to begin with.

The legalization of polygamy followed logically from the legal arguments against one man-one woman, as was predicted not just by me, but also by Professor Martha Nussbaum, one of the leading legal advocates for gay marriage, “Polygamy would have to be permitted.”

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.

And the argument for striking down a polygamy ban? Modernity. Of course. We’re all so modern now that we know marriage is no longer between a man and a woman. It can be between anything and anything. A man and a man. A man and three women. A man and a tree.

“To state the obvious,” Judge Waddoups wrote, “the intervening years have witnessed a significant strengthening of numerous provisions of the Bill of Rights.” They include, he wrote, enhancements of the right to privacy and a shift in the Supreme Court’s posture “that is less inclined to allow majoritarian coercion of unpopular or disliked minority groups,” especially when “religious prejudice,” racism or “some other constitutionally suspect motivation can be discovered behind such legislation.”

The judge cited the decision in Lawrence v. Texas, the 2003 Supreme Court case that struck down laws prohibiting sodomy. He quoted the majority opinion by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy that stated the Constitution protects people from “unwarranted government intrusions into a dwelling or other private places” and “an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression and certain intimate conduct.”

As same-sex marriage has gained popular approval and legal status in recent years, some have hoped — and some feared — that other forms of cohabitation might follow. Justice Antonin Scalia, in his bitter and famous dissent from the 2003 Lawrence case, said the nation was on the verge of the end of legislation based on morality, and was opening the door to legalizing “bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality and obscenity.”

And that’s obviously not going to happen. Just because we’ve legalized polygamy and gay marriage, does not mean that we are in any way going to legalize bestiality.

We absolutely draw the line there. At least until bestiality advocates get a few sitcoms to celebrate their special love, then Hollywood celebs announce they won’t get marriage until people and sheep can get married and then finally a few Federal judges give in.

Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University who represented the Browns in this case, disagreed with Justice Scalia’s reasoning and said in an exchange of emails that the case “is about privacy rather than polygamy.” He added, “Homosexuals and polygamists do have a common interest: the right to be left alone as consenting adults. There is no spectrum of private consensual relations — there is just a right of privacy that protects all people so long as they do not harm others.”

Except photographers and cakemakers who don’t want to participate in gay weddings. They can be sent to jail for a year. Because this is all about privacy and leaving people alone.

America. It was nice while it lasted.

  • Kurma

    I fail to see Daniel’s logic extending polygamy to relationship between man and tree, man and animals, etc – the key phrase here is “consenting adults”. As I understand it, a tree or an animal is incapable of giving consent.

    • gestr

      That’s because you’re thinking logically. Liberals don’t need no stinkin’ logic to make their laws. Otherwise, how could 2 people of the same gender get married?

      • Norman Dostal

        gestr-because its natural you moron-gay people have been aroudn since the dawn of time…

        • Softly Bob

          Yes, so has bubonic plague, but it doesn’t make it healthy or natural.
          I hope you don’t work in engineering, construction or anything involving repair, because you obviously don’t realize that square pegs don’t fit in round holes.
          You know that orifice between the buttocks?
          Yeah, well it’s what excrement comes out of – it’s not for sticking your tiny sausage in!
          Just thought I’d let you know….

        • JJ truth

          Clearly your IQ = 2. If two males marrying were natural they’d be able to produce children vice versa with two females. To ripped, ruptured bloody anuses is NOT natural at all. You are abominably foolish and quite annoying in the massive stupidity of your utterances. Even a chimp has more clarity & intelligence than you.

    • alericKong

      Leftist lawyers recently advocated allowing dogs to testify in court and extending human rights to chimps.

    • JJ truth

      A tree is a living thing, A man is a living thing. So in the mindset of nutty liberals any living thing is capable of consent and therefore capable of marriage. If you can give consent then you can marry any living thing. I’m assuming this was the logic of that poster a.k.a Daniel. I don’t blame the guy the left is full of insanity. All the years of dope have burned holes in the dope addled brains of the liberal left so that they don’t function properly anymore.

  • camp7

    if ya ain’t got morals, ya ain’t got much – left.

    Maybe there was something to that Judeo-Christian thingy.

    • Norman Dostal

      nope-the OT orders women to marry their rapist- Deut 22:28-pretty sure thats disgusting

      • Drakken

        Don’t you have a dog to marry? Anything and everything will no limits is the new normal.

      • JJ truth

        How convenient to leave out that the OT order the death of sodomites & bestiality people for reasons well known. The evil they do creates even more evil.

      • JJ truth

        A woman is NOT a child. and it never ordered her it ordered the rapist to make restitution and restoration to his victim even if it meant marrying her to give her his name, provision & protection for what he violated. He was ordered to marry her to provide for her the rest of his life.

      • Rick

        Hey knucklehead, read the whole chapter. Deut. 28:28-30 is talking about premarital sex. Under the Old Testament law if a man seduced a woman and had sex with her, he couldn’t toss her to the curb to where no one else would want to marry her because she had “been humbled.” He had to pay the father and marry her and he couldn’t ever get rid of her – he had to take care for her her whole life. This was a law that protected women, it didn’t enable rape!

        Furthermore, God’s laws for protecting rape victims in the Old Testament were stronger than ours and needless to say it was a very good deterrent. If you had the intellectual honesty to read TWO VERSES before verse 28 you would have seen that God’s way of dealing with rapists was execution.

  • Tan

    If things like this continue, soon it will get worse. I think the Left will eventually one day legalize child marriage and pedophilia. One day we will go too far. Then the real war between good and evil will begin. And anti-slavery groups will be labeled as “ageists” and “bigots” for protesting against child marriage and other wicked acts against children.

    • Waiting

      Like is carried out in many, if not all, ME and some African nations. Places where “marrying” children is standard practice, raping children is not against the law (sharia), and sending “immigrants’ here daily.

    • Norman Dostal

      come on, dumdum, pedophilia involves a victim-gay unions do not

    • JJ truth

      Its already legalized pedophilia when it granted homosexual adoptions knowing they represent the largest group of pedophiles.

  • antioli

    What a rip off it it could make. Imagine 6 wives getting welfare checks and the man of the house gets a piece of the action from each one.

  • Biff Henderson

    This will pave the way from Musloids refugees to bring in four wives and the whole brood to suck the welfare system dry. Then they’ll go after the discrimination Mohammadanians face not honoring Sharia divorce decrees so a refugee can bring in as many new wives as there are divorces.

    • JJ truth

      You forgot the “honor killings” that will begin taking place in massive numbers which will be legalized. God loves women and granted them freedom & equality in marriage. Seems men see women as objects for sexual pleasure and collect them in harems or see them as chattel property. Burning them as damaged good in dowry & honor killings. Shocking the number of women going along with this garbage. So any notions they have in thinking they are the smarter sex with the better leadership skills can be put to rest. Pathetic.


        And you forgot the part about people like you wanting to marry your washing machine or couch What will we do then??

  • Look_A_Squirrel

    So which wives get his Social Security when he kicks?

    • ldfrmc

      The one named on the marriage license.

      • Drakken

        If you have 5 wives on a marriage license, heck of a dilemma huh sparky?

      • JJ truth

        They will each have to split his social security—- it which won’t be much. Of course he can leave insurance policies & make a will and leave his assets & monies to any which one he wants. While the others can be left out in the cold and will mostly likely turn to welfare. They will have to get out here & work to support any of the bastard children in these living arrangements. A sexual harem is all that it is in truth. These stupid women are agreeing to enter slavery. When God has ordered their freedom in declaring “one man for one woman” there was never to be divorce as Christ clearly stated. One wife for life.

    • JJ truth

      It could be 3 males marrying one another. It could be 3 females marrying one another or any combination thereof, such is the insanity of unholy living. There is no excuse for this kind of perversity considering the ancients already proved it doesn’t work. How disgusting.

  • tagalog

    Remember how they mocked us when we objected that this kind of thing would happen if same-sex marriage was recognized? “Oh no, how can you be so silly?”

    • Norman Dostal

      because you were idiots for saying so and still are belieeing it will become national-sigh…

      • tagalog

        I know I still beliee it.

  • Skeptical_thinker

    If I understand the ruling it prohibits enforcement of laws the ban co-habitation. That is very, very far from a ruling in favor of polygamy. Who you live with is properly no one’s business. Cohabitants are legal strangers.

    Massachusetts has had same sex marriage for nearly ten years. There is no movement in support of polygamy there.

    • Norman Dostal

      thank you for the clarity

    • JJ truth

      In what way is homosexual marriage better than polygamy? It is even worse. But yes it too is legalized adultery. And yes there are degrees of sin. God didn’t tolerate bestiality & homosexuality & He commanded those who practice it be destroyed—death by stoning. In the case of Sodom & Gomorrah God did the killing Himself. Yes He tolerated the Mosaic error of allowing polygamy. Yet Jesus Christ came to clear up the matter once & for all, declaring God did not mean polygamy to be so. One wife for life Jesus reiterated that this was always the Lord God’s command. In the garden of Eden where the first marriage occurred the LORD GOD made one wife for Adam with the command that the 2 shall become one flesh. He did not make several wives for Adam but only one. Adam stayed with Eve until he died. They were perfect humans before the fall–much like Christ when he came to earth. They were sinless & conversed daily with God seeing Him in His full glory. After the fall this was no longer possible because of sin. But Adam & Eve got their marriage advice from the source the Great Creator who performed the 1st marriage. It matters not if there isn’t a polygamy movement at present in the state of Massachusetts. That doesn’t mean there won’t be in the future. The law of man works by precedent. The homosexual marriage laws are based upon removing “discrimination against consenting adults.” Polygamy can ride in under this same banner. Those who practice polygamy will burn in hell for their adultery. Christ has come & gone yet spoke truth to this matter that polygamists disobey. Unlike OT polygamists who didn’t know there is no excuse for these adulterers who practice polygamy.

  • Skeptical_thinker

    Does Justice Scalia really think that a law banning masturbation can be enforced?

    Most of the rest of Scalia’s strawmen were legal at the time he wrote that opinion.

  • ldfrmc

    The judge ruled the ban on “cohabitation” was unconstitutional. Nothing more.
    Mr. Brown has one marriage license to one other person.

    Cohabitation is not marriage or polygamy. You’ll get over it.

    • tagalog

      You’re right; in this context, cohabitation is having an adulterous relationship with someone who’s not your spouse. There may even be an issue of bigamy.

      And isn’t it sexist? Can women “cohabit” with multiple men?

  • 51franco

    The difference here is that the ban against polygamy is universal in American
    law whereas the ban on same sex couples was targeted against homosexual
    people, This means that polygamy hasn’t got a chance and same-sex
    marriage is probably inevitable nationwide.

    • JJ truth

      Your analysis is quite lacking. The cry of the homosexual movement is built upon “discrimination against two consenting adults” nothing more substantive than this. Granting marriage to sodomites based upon the above makes it impossible to deny polygamy. That’s the problem when man tries to play God the devil simply takes over. The reprobate are so stupid & annoyingly wicked.

      • 51franco

        Sir: I would no sooner argue with a “troll” than an alcoholic
        and who knows? – you might be both.

        • JJ truth

          Yawn.zzzzz You have neither the intellectual weight, the clear reasoning, the analytical ability nor, the moral capacity to argue or discuss any subject with me. You’re clearly my inferior excuses won’t cut it. Spare me the pathetic drivel.

  • Stogie Chomper

    All of this nonsense is part of a broad attack by the left in undermining traditional marriage and the family unit. I seriously doubt that the judge’s decision is constitutional. Marriage and laws regulating it are the province of the states, not the federal government. Utah should appeal.

    • Norman Dostal

      youre a moron-stop parroting and think please

    • JJ truth

      Real believers will steadfastly ignore the perverse left. Traditional people get married and stay married for better or for worse. They will not sacrifice unborn babies on the altar of modern worship of feminism, greed or sexual immorality. True believers are still free to send their children to Christian schools(which can be filled with perverts & the wicked) or even better they can home school their children. They can start businesses, work & do business with other believers and teach the truth of God’s word to the next generation of Christians by holding their own church services or start their own schools. Believers are commanded to ignore & reject the world and all of its foolishness, wickedness & its perversions which are driven by Satan—the enemy. We are in the world but not of it.

  • Eric Grant

    It Has Nothing To Do With Same-Sex Marriage. The issue of same-sex marriage appears exactly zero times in the decision striking down part of Utah’s anti-polygamy law. Waddoups makes no mention of the Supreme Court’s rulings on the Defense of Marriage Act or California’s Proposition 8 or any other judicial decision regarding same-sex marriage in his ruling. Instead, Waddoups cites the Supreme Court’s 2003 Lawrence v. Texas ruling striking down state anti-sodomy laws, citing “its focus on the deeper liberty interests at issue in the home and personal relationships.” Even social conservative blogger Rod Dreher admitted that the case had very little to do with the legality of particular marriages.

    It Doesn’t Actually Legalize Polygamous Marriages. Waddoups’ decision leaves intact Utah’s ban on obtaining multiple marriage licenses, so polygamy remains illegal “in the literal sense.” As the libertarian Volokh Conspiracy blog noted, the decision “in no way establishes a constitutional right to plural marriage.” Waddoups simply found Utah’s prohibition of cohabitation unconstitutional.

    Cohabitation Has Been Legal In Most Of The U.S. For A Long Time. Though targeted at individuals in plural relationships, Utah’s “cohabitation” ban was one of the few remaining in the U.S. Only three states – Mississippi, Florida, and Michigan – still have laws on the books banning cohabitation.

    • JJ truth

      There exists no constitutional right to same-sex marriage either yet still its been legalized in many states. You don’t have a clue you’re just babbling. In Washington D.C & NYC there are diplomats from other nations like Saudi Arabia, Yemen etc. who are living in polygamy under diplomatic immunity.

  • TMay

    There is something strange when the name of the case is not given nor the cite. The same thing occurred in the other article on the subject, as of this date and time.

  • Colin Rafferty

    Quoting Scalia: “legalizing … masturbation, adultery, fornication”

    When were these criminalized?

  • Norman Dostal

    The author is an imbecile and lying. You cannot be jailed for refusing gay service-that is called a CIVIL violation, not a penal one-and its the same as refusing a black or a jew. Polygamy is NOT legal federally-it will be repealed to the SC and it will fail-it is simply too complicated legally. LIES LIES LIES

    • JJ truth

      The author is very knowledgeable and writes the truth. There are at present in the Arizona courts a bakery owner and photographer being sued and facing fines and jail-time for refusing to service homosexual sodomites based on religious grounds.

  • Zorek Richards

    Go figure. Apparently the people were saying that
    legalizing gay marriage would open a pandoras box were right. Next up
    pedophilia. beastiality….etc etc etc

    • JJ truth

      Children don’t have consent also their brains are not fully developed making them incapable of consent. Which means we do not allow the left pedophilia and their Pandora’s box of evils. We fight the good fight.


      Yea, and people marrying their cars, garden gnomes, door knobs and Louis Vuitton purses!

      Oh, the horror of where this is all going!!

      • JJ truth

        Take your meds or just put on the straight jacket. You don’t even know what you’re posting and to whom you are posting. Smh what an idiot troll your are. I don’t have time to waste on the brain dead.

        • ROFLMAOAY

          Brain dead?

          You mean like someone attempting to equate providing equal rights under the law, as stated in our Constitution, to beastiality and pedophilia?

          Talk about an absolutely IDIOT! You take the cake JJ.

          • JJ truth

            Marriage is not a right. Let’s get that out of the way. Marriage is a legal privilege or advantage bestowed upon males & females for the recognized biological purpose of reproduction. Marriage is a sociological recognized form of sanctioning the biological reproduction of human beings. Reproduction is vital to sustaining the life of any town, village, county, city or nation Human reproduction is vital & necessary for the existence of the human race. Marriage creates an advantage of raising & nurturing children in families which are biological social units The biological family is the most basic form of human govt.. Biological families nurture and shape the future workforce & citizenship of any form of civilization. There is something to the blood ties & DNA. Marriage is ordained by nature which created the immutable law of biological reproduction & human development. This sacred blueprint must never be disturbed. Its a basic guide to life that even the dumbest animals understand. Yet LGBT dares to cross these natural boundaries & safeguards. Pure insanity! These among many are the bedrock reasons why marriage is so important. LGBT refuses to play any part in these vital purposes. They offer no useful, contributing function to human civilization There would be no human life it it were left up to LGBT Nobody is born LGBT its an acquired mental affliction through socialization. Everything about it is based on lies. The many must never be destroyed to cater to the few.

          • ROFLMAOAY

            My goodness you’re an ignorant one aren’t you JJ.

            Let’s first get this out of the way. Homosexual behavior is quite common in nature and has been observed in approximately 1500 species.

            Secondly, homosexual behavior has been documented in tribes across the world and here in north America before our ancestors ever stepped foot on the land. There is absolutely no proof that it’s a mental affliction or acquired.

            Specific to “marriage”, there are a total of 1,138 federal rights, benefits and privileges connected to marital status. The list includes thirteen categories of rights and benefits, including:

            Social Security and Related Programs, Housing, and Food Stamps

            Veterans’ Benefits


            Federal Civilian and Military Service Benefits

            Employment Benefits and Related Laws

            Immigration, Naturalization, and Aliens

            Trade, Commerce, and Intellectual Property

            Financial Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

            Sexual orientation, much like right/left handedness or tongue curling, is determined by natural, immutable biological factors such as genes or hormones, and therefore gay people should be entitled to the same legal rights and protections as other human beings.

            Until the legalities associated and provided through marriage are afforded to everyone, then denying others these “rights and privileges” is unconstitutional…period.

          • JJ truth

            You don’t get to throw around unproven statements. There are NO homosexual animals. You named no species. You failed to cite even 1 study. You failed to ID even 1 credible scientific journal. Animals are NOT homosexual, nor bisexual, nor lesbian or transgender. Castrated roosters still crow and cluck after hens because they are still attracted to hens proving gender is immutable. They just don’t have the appetite to spar with other roosters & can’t mate. Its the same with all castrated animals. A 20 yr. study conducted in the “Quarterly Review of Biology by professor William Rice at the University of CA. at Santa Barbara & professor, Urban Friberg of Uppsala University in Sweden found no gay gene. I could cite countless others. You are proved a liar. If scientists could ID a gay gene then women & couples could get abortions. Even devout Christians could have the embryo taken out & placed in an incubator where its chances to live are miniscule. Life isn’t sacred in an atheist worldview. Removing the defective, dysfunctional & the weak serves the greater good of all.
            2ndly, married couples can’t get welfare or get very little since 2 will exceed the income requirements. You are an inferior debater. Homos marrying to extract handouts would prove to be a massive drain on the system. The AIDS/HIV treatments, the rectal surgeries & the sex change operations they get on the govt. is already a massive drain of resources. What benefit do they offer? None. You make a perfect argument for why they don’t need marriage! The workforce still favors males with an advantage. There are still good paying jobs that require strength & offer job security. There are still plenty of good jobs for males that women can’t do well like unloaders/processors, dockworkers, heavy equipment operators, amateur & pro sports, firefighters, rail & equipment workers, roofers,stevedores, policemen, furniture & parcel delivery etc. Why should society discourage male productivity? Why should govt. encourage more dead beats on the system w/homo marriage? The govt.’s mission is to stimulate the economy to create more production which equals more taxpayers. There will not be enough workers to maintain the bloated welfare state. The entire nation will collapse n2 poverty drained of all its resources & a ruined environment to deal with. Future generations will have to implement a strict socialist system = to social Darwinism. It will demand ruthless efficiency to survive. Atheism doesn’t support gay marriage or a welfare state . No system of govt. can support it because its detrimental in the long run & it drains precious resources w/o a return on the investment. No matter which system of govt. everyone must produce a benefit for the state. LGBT offers no benefits that outweigh their massive negatives. The U.S govt. is an atheist apparatus now and as such there is no justification for it to support any kind of welfare state or a massive prison system. The mindless, unexamined policies of the past/present govt.(this includes the judiciary) will give future generations no choices other than to implement harsh systems. Heterosexuals produce children & form families the lifeblood of every nation. Heterosexual families are the best systems for creating & keeping alive children into adulthood. 2 parent hetero families are the best systems for child survival, for shaping children into productive adulthood at lowest cost to the state. Without the all important function of heterosexual reproduction the human race would die off the planet. Encouraging heterosexual marriage encourages families which produce functioning citizens who don’t burden the govt but contribute. This is the most important reason of all for all govt. systems to give married heterosexuals a privilege or benefit. They deserve one. All govt. has good reason to encourage & sanction heterosexual marriage. Without heterosexual reproduction & the family system that produces functional adults all world governments & nations will cease to be this planet would die. The govt. is insane willfully working against the best interests of the people. Your rights mean nothing. The constitution isn’t worth the paper its printed on if it subverts the will of the people & works against their best interests–it says this. The constitution gives people the right to dismantle the system if it no longer serves their best interests. The constitution grants the people the right to dissolve into separate nations & find a fairer form of govt. We are@ this point now.

  • notreallymahalia

    Can I marry a fictional character now?

  • JJ truth

    May God strike this nation dead. The evil in the hearts of mankind/womankind knows know boundaries. The church in America is full of cons, crooks, adulterers, sodomites & unbelievers who hate God. May the church in America be purge and persecuted to weed out the wicked who are full of evil & unbelief. The wicked, perverse & degenerate nation to ever exist on earth. Other wicked cultures knew not God there is no excuse for America. She will be burned with fire and thrown down with great wrath & fury–which is her just due penalty.