Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Polygamist Judge Ordered Off Utah Bench

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
Judi Lynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 05:11 AM
Original message
Polygamist Judge Ordered Off Utah Bench
Update 4: Polygamist Judge Ordered Off Utah Bench
By DEBBIE HUMMEL , 02.24.2006, 07:50 PM

A small-town judge with three wives was ordered removed from the bench by the Utah Supreme Court on Friday.

The court unanimously agreed with the findings of the state's Judicial Conduct Commission, which recommended the removal of Judge Walter K. Steed for violating the state's bigamy law.

Steed said he was disappointed with the decision.

"I had hoped that the court would see my case as an opportunity to correct the injustices that are caused by the criminalization of my religious beliefs and lifestyle," Steed said in a statement.
(snip/...)

http://www.forbes.com/business/businesstech/feeds/ap/20...



Polygamist judge ordered removed from bench by Utah Supreme Court

~snip~
...Steed has served for 25 years on the Justice Court in the polygamist community of Hildale in southern Utah, where he ruled on such matters as drunken driving and domestic violence cases.

A year ago, the commission issued an order seeking Steed's removal from the bench, after a 14-month investigation determined Steed was a polygamist. Bigamy is a third-degree felony in Utah, punishable by up to five years in prison and up to $5,000 in fines.

Judge Steed's relationship with his three plural wives for more than 20 years clearly runs afoul of the prohibition, the ruling said. When the law is violated or ignored by those charged by society with the fair and impartial enforcement of the law, the stability of our society is placed at undue risk.

The initial complaint against Steed was filed with the commission in November 2003 by Tapestry Against Polygamy, a group founded by former polygamous women who help others leave the secretive religious colonies.
(snip/...)

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20060224-1552...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Charlie Brown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 05:19 AM
Response to Original message
1. This is wrong and illegal
I don't see any difference between this and firing a homosexual.

The state has no business dictating religious norms.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 05:53 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Maybe you should read more about how they practice it in Utah.
Also, note who was behind the request for the removal.

I suppose it would be against your belief to stop the Jim Jones followers from drinking poisoned Kool-Aid?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LoZoccolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 08:08 AM
Response to Reply #3
8. I suppose you would be for imprisoning Falun Gong practitioners.
Analogies blah blah blah blah.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 07:13 PM
Response to Reply #8
53. Ask me about Falun Gong in about 15 years.
I went to only one Amnesty International meeting and there was a representative from Falun Gong looking for signatures. They swore they were just an exercise group -along the lines of Richard Simmons. That was about six years ago. So, tell me, how much of that story held up?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LoZoccolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 09:01 PM
Response to Reply #53
56. I don't understand what the point of this post is.
Edited on Sat Feb-25-06 09:05 PM by LoZoccolo
You'll have to spell it out for me, because I'm not getting it.

I have to admit ignorance about much of Falun Gong other than people get in trouble for practicing it in China; I just threw it out as a religious group that's facing a crackdown by a government.

Do you think they should be imprisoned, tortured, or killed by the Chinese government?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 09:54 PM
Response to Reply #56
59. So, how often do you beat your wife?
Your first two sentences aren't consistent with your last statement. If you really want to get titillating, the question you should be asking me is, "if the Falun Gong turn out to be an organized group that is capable of overthrowing the Chinese government, would I be willing to support them?"

The answer is, no. And there was a strong possibility that this exercise group, as it was described to me at the time, could eventually have that kind of reach. Just like the Christian Right have managed to take over this country by coming in under the religious freedom radar. The point is, that if it's just an exercise group, why is it so necessary for them to be so organized and networked?

Maybe you should get more information on the matter. It does give you an unsettling feeling when you actually talk to a member. Just feels like there are some important things they're leaving out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theHandpuppet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 06:29 AM
Response to Reply #1
6. Oh? Are people born polygamists?
Edited on Sat Feb-25-06 06:30 AM by theHandpuppet
Being gay is not a choice, religious practice, nor a lifestyle.

Personally, I think adult persons should be able to marry as they choose, even if that includes multiple partners. But to compare polygamy to homosexuality is an argument which I personally find offensive.

Edited to add: And I'll bet the old judge is against gay marriage, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
etherealtruth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #6
14. My problem with this ...
... is that I don't want the definition of marriage based on religious dictates or practices. Which it is, in this case ... I agree with you, the old judge would likely be against gay marriage and he would likely base his opinion on the same religious ideas that he believes support his polygamy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Charlie Brown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #6
28. Everyone's offended by something
I find your argument that the state should control how people marry offensive (I'm also gay), so please don't play that card with me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalFighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #28
47. It isn't so much that the state controls marriage it is the church...
that is the problem.

The church has no business dictating who can or can't be married when it involves state recognition.

The church does have the right to specify requirements for anyone wanting to be married in their church.

A new religion can be created that includes the right of same sex couples to marry
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theHandpuppet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #28
60. What in the world are you talking about?
Edited on Sat Feb-25-06 10:06 PM by theHandpuppet
Did you even READ my post? Here it is again, in case this is a simple matter of misinterpretation on your part:

Being gay is not a choice, religious practice, nor a lifestyle.

Personally, I think adult persons should be able to marry as they choose, even if that includes multiple partners. But to compare polygamy to homosexuality is an argument which I personally find offensive.

Edited to add: And I'll bet the old judge is against gay marriage, too.


Got it now??


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Charlie Brown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #60
61. Alright, I misread your post
and for that I'm sorry. Go in peace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theHandpuppet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 11:07 PM
Response to Reply #61
62. No prob.
I think you and I are on the same wavelength on this issue. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WinkyDink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #1
22. Let's see: Choice versus Biology. Yeah, no difference at all.
Law-breaking vs. no laws to break. Yep, no difference.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Charlie Brown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 03:35 PM
Response to Reply #22
30. b/c all law breakers deserve to be ostracised and fired
including gays who marry in Arkansas, where it's a felony?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WinkyDink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. He's a JUDGE.
Edited on Sat Feb-25-06 03:41 PM by WinkyDink
As for your example: Do you want the Arkansas law changed? If you want the law changed, then there goes your argument about LAWS and their importance.
And since gay "marriage" can't occur in Arkansas, how can it be a felony? It would merely be a case of free speech ("I now pronounce you....").
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Charlie Brown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. The Arkansas law is in the state constitution
Edited on Sat Feb-25-06 03:46 PM by Charlie Brown
it cannot be changed by a state judge.

Conservatives argue that the justices in Massachusetts and Vermont "broke the law" by permitting gay marriage/unions. I'd hate to see that perspective applied to them.

In any case, we don't know where this guy stands on legal issues. The argument that his personal beliefs would dictate his rulings is the same as saying a Catholic/Jewish judge would always rule according to their ideology, and not on the dimensions of the case.

On edit: if this were a married gay judge in Arkansas, would you support firing him?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim Sagle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 05:23 PM
Response to Reply #1
49. Whadda buncha shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 05:52 AM
Response to Original message
2. No man's seed is worth the cost to society to maintain
so many households when we have over-population.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catrina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 04:29 PM
Response to Reply #2
34. But couldn't that argument be applied to divorce, also?
I really don't see much difference in having multiple wives through the divorce process and keeping them all at the same time. Both include multiple families. The cost of both to society is huge ~

Divorce also often alienates children from one parent or the other, causing life-long emotional problems. I have no idea of the effects of polygamy on children, so can't compare them.

I suppose all of these issues depend on the people involved and whether they are making their choices freely ~ it just seems sort of hypocritical to outlaw one and legalize the other. Maybe I haven't thought it through enough. I'm open to opinions ~

Oh, there is one difference I just thought of. Should polygamy be legal, it should work for both men and women.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 07:15 PM
Response to Reply #34
54. Yes, divorce takes a toll on children, so why would you want polygamy?
Do the children of polygamist want to see their fathers less than any other child in America?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BR_Parkway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 06:08 AM
Response to Original message
4. I wish this guy would yell often and loudly "Sanctity of marriage, just
like they had in the Old Testament"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
opihimoimoi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 06:15 AM
Response to Original message
5. They should change the Law to reflectFREEDOM: to have more than one spouse
Women could have as many husbands as she wants..and if the husbands get old...she should have the option of divorcing them at will.

Men should have the same op

Gays too.

Such is FREEDOM
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trixie Donating Member (696 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #5
18. you can divorce at will
I don't get your post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
opihimoimoi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. In Bibical times, only MEN could initiate D....women were like "trapped"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no_hypocrisy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 07:18 AM
Response to Original message
7. What's the difference b/n polygamy and getting married & divorced 3 times?
He's been "successful" in his marriages for 20 years.

The kids have been financially supported, and not put on state assistance.

No moral/societal problems of adultery and/or divorce here.

The polygamous relationship(s) wasn't hidden.

How has his personal life affected his ability to judiciate? It hasn't.

If he technically broke a malum prohibitum penal code, he hasn't hurt anyone but himself, his wife/wives, and/or his children. Society is unlikely to transform itself to his example. Just fine him, make him choose his favorite wife, but let him stay on the bench. I honestly don't see a contradiction with this guy breaking a law and upholding the law FOR HIS COMMUNITY which is okay with his decision.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trixie Donating Member (696 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #7
24. oh I disagree
His wives and children are most certainly harmed. Just because you raise a girl to accept this kind of life does not mean it is any less than abuse. The children are harmed because the girls are raised to think (by their model) that she can only expect to be part of a harem and the boys are raised to believe that women don't matter. Nice society huh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #24
27. That's how I see this. Beside it's ILLEGAL
so screw this clown. A judge yet...what a hypocrite, he KNOWS the law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Charlie Brown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #24
29. Yes, just like gay foster parents "harm" their keeps
Those kids will become perverts, get AIDS, have no respect for morality, blah, blah, blah.

Some of you have a big double standard when it comes to keeping the state out of peoples' private lives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trixie Donating Member (696 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 04:28 PM
Response to Reply #29
33. That is the dumbest thing I ever heard
So basically any law that protects women and children should be written off to protect gays. Apples and oranges. I am all for protecting two people of any sex to legally be family.

By your theory we should not have laws for pedophilia because it would harm polygamists and their religion. Maybe we should allow rape because in some states sodomy is outlawed. Makes no sense.

Polygamy is bad for society. In the US it drains the welfare system. Polygamy is built on welfare fraud and lying. No forward society practices polygamy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Charlie Brown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 04:32 PM
Response to Reply #33
35. If we object to polygamy on "moral grounds"
we will have nixed the principal argument of the gay rights movement for the past generation, namely, that the gov't should not dictate how consenting individuals live in private.

Pedophilia is a different ballpark altogether, as it involves minors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trixie Donating Member (696 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. polygamy involves minors
You don't think they get these multiple wives after the women have graduated college do you? No, they are spoken for as young as 8 years old. Usually married at 12 or 14. Most certainly these women are in a prison-like home until the are forced to marry.

I would think you would be the last person to want to intermix gays and polygamists. Why open yourself up to a group of enslavers and pedophiles. Gay men who have children usually have a high level of income and can maintain the care of a child to a high extent. Polygamists abuse and neglect children. Don't go there!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #35
38. If you don't object to it on moral grounds, something's wrong with you
THese are MINOR girls, or adult women, FORCED into these marriages, with no escape. Why? Because local judges, sheriffs, etc. think this is okay. THis is a system set up to abuse females. This is the type of polygamy practiced in this area of the country, not free choice communal living.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Charlie Brown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #38
39. I've been told just that by people who disagree w/my own identity
Child abuse is illegal. You and your pro-state friends are building a big straw-man.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #39
41. "Pro-state friends"? WTF are you talking about?
Edited on Sat Feb-25-06 05:04 PM by LostinVA
I'm GAY. I've been fired from jobs for being gay, I'm female... I have no idea why you think I'm some kind of Freeper. Child abuse is illegal, isn't it? But it's not in polygamous communities in Utah, Arizona, etc. Your answer shows you literally know nothing, or very little, about this. If you did, you would never, ever say this. If you say this form of polygamy is okay, then you are saying that child abuse, sexual slavery, and misogyny is alright. This is morally disgusting.

I'm a Democratic Socialist, and violent anti state's rights, so don't even try your little tricks with me.

Since you refuse to even listen to what the FACTS are, not opinions, I'm putting you on IGnore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trixie Donating Member (696 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #39
42. No. I just don't understand you at all
Why encompass yourself with these disgraceful people? Are you a gay man that could care less about women? I don't think so. I hope not anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #42
44. Thank you, Trixie -- I'm flummoxed as well
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Charlie Brown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 05:06 PM
Response to Reply #42
46. I don't think the state should involve itself in adult consenting relation
Edited on Sat Feb-25-06 05:07 PM by Charlie Brown
I don't support polygamy and don't think it should be legally regoznized, for the reasons you cite. However, the same reasons some of you support criminalizing polygamy are exactly the rational I hear from conservatives for criminalizing homoseuxality (child mollestation, etc.). I won't jump on that bandwagon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #46
48. So, you don't agree with it, think it's abusive, but still say it
Should be legal? Sorry. As much as I want to have my long-term relationship with my SO recognized by my state, I refuse to do it on the backs of abused minors and women. I can't. You need to blame these people for abusing polygamy, not people like me. THEY are the ones who give the anti-gay crowd ammo. And, you know what? If it wasn't polygamy, it would be something else... and it usually is.

And, "consenting" adults? The huge majority aren't. They are either minors or women forced into this life. Just because you're an adult doesn't mean you have control over your life. Even in the USA. Even in 2006.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #29
37. Totally different -- and I'm gay
This society abuses their girls. They are made to enter into polygamous marriages, often as minors, and even sometimes to relatives. This community is not quite as whacked as Warren Jeffs, but it can be pretty damned close on many counts. Keeping females as chattel is not the same as me wanting to marry my SO of 10 years. In polygamous immunities in Utah, AZ, etc., local officials from judges to sheriffs to mayors are part of this abusive lifestyle and cannot and will not help those who wish to escape it. That's what you have here.

And, they aren't married. The women and children don't have a huge amounts of rights under Utah law.

This isn't a bunch of 30-year-old women wanting to enter a polygynous marriage, it's sinister.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gormy Cuss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 08:42 AM
Response to Original message
9. Whether laws against polygamy are right isn't relevant here.
Edited on Sat Feb-25-06 08:45 AM by Gormy Cuss
He has sworn to uphold the law. Polygamy is a felony and he knows it. He should not be on the bench.

On edit: the state has no intention of prosecuting him so it's just a matter of him losing a part time job. The state will probably have to look outside of town to find a nonpolygamist for this bench.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
etherealtruth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 09:42 AM
Response to Reply #9
12. What's the difference between him...
... and the judge (in the south, his name and state escape me in my groggy state)that broke the law by refusing to remove the "Ten Commandments" from the court house?

I don't see a difference ... just two judges obeying the laws they choose to obey.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gormy Cuss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 09:59 AM
Response to Reply #12
15. No difference. Neither belongs on the bench.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mend Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 09:18 AM
Response to Original message
10. Did these women married to him ever have any other opportunity
in life to grow as people, to travel, to learn and to teach or was their fate sealed by being born Mormon? That fate: sexual provider in rotation and yearly reproducer with housekeeping chores. What's the outlook for the daughters in this family?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fasttense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 09:42 AM
Response to Original message
11. He has 32 children. I don't believe for a moment they are Not on Welfare
or some kind of public assistance. It doesn't address that in the article. You can't raise 32 children in a middle class lifestyle now-a-days with only one breadwinner. These three "sisters" wives can't have time for a job. They are busy pushing out babies and taking care of them. He gets a new wife every ten years, when the old wife gets old and ugly. These women are brain washed and duped by religious fanatics into accepting a humiliating and repulsive lifestyle.

Sometimes I think women will accept any form of abuse in the name of religion. Sigh......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kiraboo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 09:47 AM
Response to Original message
13. Yup. If somebody's religion demanded a weekly ritual
involving the blood sacrifice of, say, a cat, would that be okay too? In this country there are limitations on all our freedoms, period. Polygamy involves much more than the marriage of an adult man to more than one woman of legal, mature age. In fact, it doesn't involve that at all. Read up on the practice as it exists today. It will make your hair stand on end. It is more akin to sex slavery than gay marriage. Seriously.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Copperred Donating Member (554 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 10:18 AM
Response to Original message
16. Whether you like it or not...polygamy should be legal.

Just another piece of hypocrisy.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WinkyDink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #16
23. Why should it be legal? How are laws against polygamy hypocrisy?
Am I back in the 60's again?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trixie Donating Member (696 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #16
25. Is this the Taliban speaking?
You have got to be kidding. The enslavement of women is never right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #16
40. No, it shouldn't, when it involves minors
And when -- as another poster said -- it is basically sex slavery. This is NOT free choice polygamy. The way it is practiced is abusive, evil, and destroys girls and women.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
catabryna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 10:44 AM
Response to Original message
17. I really don't have a problem with polygamy...
as a concept so long as it involves consenting adults... However, I don't think that most of those posting about this topic understand the true nature of this community.

Here's a short article which explains the community in a short form.

http://www.janabommersbach.com/pm-fea-may04.htm

I've kept up with the FLDS for the past 10 years. If you question anything in the article, I'd suggest you do a google search for articles that have been in the Arizona Republic and the New York Times. This group is much more than a bunch of men marrying multiple wives.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #17
43. I know -- I can't understand the posts on this thread saying
it's okay. I REALLY hope they are just ignorant about what polygamy means in these communities.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lovuian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 11:43 AM
Response to Original message
19. Pretty soon Utah won't have any men who aren't polygamists
its rampant and being tolerated look at this guy....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemoTex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 11:45 AM
Response to Original message
20. I just finished Jon Krakauer's "Under the Banner of Heaven .."
Under the Banner of Heaven : A Story of Violent Faith is a real eye-opener about the Mormon religion. Plural marriages were and are often a cover for pedophilia. It is not uncommon, according to Krakauer, for older men to take very young girls (14) as one of their plural wives. Some have even "married" the very young daughters of other wives. Joseph Smith's (the founder of Mormonism) first wife was adamantly opposed to plural marriage, but that did not stop old Joe. Community outrage over plural marriages is what killed Joseph Smith in the end, and what sent Brigham Young west to the Utah Territory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Trillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #20
26. Isn't that something that the communes circa '60s also found?
"Community outrage over plural marriages is what killed Joseph Smith in the end, and what sent Brigham Young west to the Utah Territory."

IIRC, psychologists have found the communes of the 1960s resulted in lots of interpersonal jealousy and some other undesirable traits that often resulted in the breakdown of the community.

In polygamy, wives could become a status symbol by their number: How many wives and children can your local CEO support? One day, those wives could even be currency: only women produce offspring.

Nah, I don't believe polygamy is a good idea for women's rights, or for genetic diversity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 05:06 PM
Response to Reply #20
45. Great book
And, some girls are made to marry uncles, stepfathers, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VegasWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 05:28 PM
Response to Original message
50. What next? Are they going to fire judges for rolling on the floor,
speaking gibberish in tongues, or kissing snakes? I think not! Where does religious freedom stop?

:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barbaraann Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 05:37 PM
Response to Original message
51. IMHO, a man can only have one wife--more than one makes them concubines.
And concubines are disposable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fasttense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 07:12 PM
Response to Original message
52. If you look at societies that accept more than one wife
for the common man, it eventually leads to civil unrest. The old guys with all the money buy themselves thousands of little girls to have sex with. The young guys who haven't earned any money yet get zip. All the women are taken by the rich guys. Women become a commodity (again), and the poor young man can't afford them. What's a healthy, energetic young heterosexual man to do with no sexual outlet? Why start revolts, commit suicide bombings, civil unrest. It is predictable, evident and continues today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rocktivity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 08:15 PM
Response to Original message
55. Perhaps bigamy SHOULDN'T be illegal--but like it or not. it IS
and the state simply cannot endorse one of their own judges breaking the law.

:headbang:
rocknation

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tatertop Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 09:16 PM
Response to Original message
57. Mormon Polygamists: slave holders, pedophiles, woman abusers
He knew the law, he broke the law.
Lock this fucker up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 09:24 PM
Response to Original message
58. What a screw up system
:nopity:
:bounce: :nopity:
:woohoo: :nopity: :bounce:
:bounce: :nopity: :bounce: :nopity:
:woohoo: :bounce: :nopity: :bounce: :bounce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Nov 22nd 2017, 05:19 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC