New Court Case Coming on Polygyny

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

See full article below or this site:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =137786593

The issue in this case will likely be the use of the terms. With Kody using the "state protected/established terms" (marriage, husband, wife) it might be more difficult to defend. But too the laws against adult consensual cohabitation/sexual relations have been overturned by the Lawrence V. Texas case by a 6-3 decision of the Supreme Court. Thus the Utah laws in that area may indeed be gutted and null and void already. Plus, the lawyer Turley is not trying to gain a new right unto "marriage" [see highlighted blue section below] but only trying to defend the legal rights of private consensual sexual relations, which the Supreme Court has supported in Lawrence v. Texas. And in the Law. v. Tx case the justices said this specifically about private sexual relations:

The present case does not involve minors. It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused. It does not involve public conduct or prostitution. It does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter. The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. “It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter.” Casey, supra, at 847, 112 S.Ct. 2791. The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual.

Four keys to that case were: (1) no coercion or injury to parties, (2) does not involve public conduct or prostitution, (3) no formal govt. recognition, (4) mutual consent of adults. Those are the four prongs of the Lawrence V. Texas case. The Brown family might struggle some if the state argues against them on point # 2 as they were public and used legal terms to define their otherwise natural unions. Time will tell if that aspect becomes an issue in this trial. The other aspect that might be argued is "injury to parties." The psychological piece might fall into this as some might try and argue emotional injury. Probably a weak position but will likely be argued.

The issue, however, is likely to go back to one of terms and intent. Another issue of how important terms are and can be, especially in the legal field (of theology too!). With a state's right to create and define their own terms (marriage which means a legal entity created by the state) that might be the one area that is not easily overcome by those using statist terminology even when they are truly not living a "married life" but a private natural covenant union life (or Christian cohabitation).
_____________


'Sister Wives' Family To Challenge Utah Bigamy Law
by THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

text size A A A SALT LAKE CITY July 12, 2011, 04:44 pm ET
A polygamous family made famous by the reality TV show "Sister Wives" plans to challenge the Utah bigamy law that makes their lifestyle illegal, a Washington-based attorney said Tuesday.

In an email to The Associated Press, attorney Jonathan Turley said he will file the lawsuit challenging Utah's bigamy law in Salt Lake City's U.S. District Court on Wednesday.

Turley represents Kody Brown and his four wives, Meri, Janelle, Christine and Robyn. Brown is only legally married to Meri Brown.

Originally from Lehi, the Browns, who have 16 children, has been featured on the TLC reality show since last fall. They moved out of Utah to Nevada in January after police and Utah County prosecutors launched a bigamy investigation. No charges were ever filed.

The Browns practice polygamy as part of their religious beliefs.

Bigamy is a third-degree felony in Utah. A person can be found guilty of bigamy through cohabitation, not just legal marriage contracts.

In a statement posted on his blog, Turley said the lawsuit will challenge Utah's right to prosecute people for their private relationships.

"We are not demanding the recognition of polygamous marriage. We are only challenging the right of the state to prosecute people for their private relations and demanding equal treatment with other citizens in living their lives according to their own beliefs," the statement reads.

According to the statement, the lawsuit seeks to protect a person's right to be left alone.

"In that sense, it is a challenge designed to benefit not just polygamists but all citizens who wish to live their lives according to their own values - even if those values run counter to those of the majority in the state," Turley wrote.

Turley said he believes the case represents the "strongest factual and legal basis for a challenge to the criminalization of polygamy" ever filed in the federal courts.

Utah attorney general spokesman Paul Murphy said the state is prepared to defend the bigamy statute in the Brown lawsuit just as it as it has done in the past.

"So far the courts have held that states do have an interest to regulate marriage," Murphy said.

Utah has not prosecuted a polygamist for bigamy since 2003.

That year, Rodney Holm, a former Hildale police officer was convicted of entering a religious marriage with a teenager when he was already married to her sister.

In 2001, Tom Green, who was married to five women and drew the attention of Utah authorities after promoting his lifestyle on national TV talk shows, was convicted on bigamy, criminal nonsupport and child rape charges. He spent six years in prison and was released in 2007.

Polygamy in Utah and across the Intermountain West is a legacy of the early teachings of Joseph Smith, founder of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Mormons abandoned the practice of plural marriage in the 1890s as a condition of Utah's statehood.

An estimated 38,000 self-described Mormon fundamentalists continue the practice, believing it brings exaltation in heaven. Most keep their way of life a secret out of fear of prosecution, although over the past 10 years an advocacy group made up mostly polygamous women has worked to educate the public and state agencies in Utah and Arizona about the culture.

The Browns have long said they believed making their life public on cable television was a risk worth taking if it helped advance the broader understanding of plural families. The lawsuit appears to be an extension of that belief.

"There are tens of thousands of plural families in Utah and other states. We are one of those families. We only wish to live our private lives according our beliefs," Kody Brown said in a statement released through Turley. "While we understand that this may be a long struggle in court, it has already been a long struggle for my family and other plural families to end the stereotypes and unfair treatment given consensual polygamy."

 

[MarvelousMarvin]

If the LDS church, in the mid-to-late 1800s, had based their belief in polygamy on the Bible rather than the false teachings of early Mormon leaders ("Celestial Marriage" and other garbage), they might have been able to win the battle that they lost in 1890. Maybe. But probably not, because the false pagan-Greco-Roman-Catholic monogamy-only doctrine was so deeply ingrained in Western culture and law.

In my Doctoral Dissertation, I chided Mark Henkel for apparently tying "polygamy rights" to "gay rights" with his famous, "If Heather can have two mommies, why not two mommies and a daddy" statement. It's a great sound bite - except for the fact that gay rights and Biblical Covenant Union rights have absolutely nothing in common. One is an abomination to God, the other is perfectly acceptable to God. In fact, He metaphorically describes Himself as a polygynist in three OT passages.

FLDS doctrine, even about plural unions, has only a little bit more in common with our beliefs, and so I hesitate to do anything that might appear to endorse their false doctrine and further the "Mormon" stereotype that most of us have been subjected to.

But...if the FLDS polygamists win in court, so do we.

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

But...if the FLDS polygamists win in court, so do we.

.

It seems like the attorney has the right approach in trying to argue not for formal recognition by the government but basically a free association right for all people. It is a legal step to more of a privitization position. Too this approach aligns well with the existing Lawrence v Texas case that is already the case law for all of the nation.

 

[Scarecrow]

I think it is very likely that this will result in the bigamy and anti-polygamy laws being overturned. I thought it would come from the case of Wendell Nielsen in Texas, but maybe the Browns will get there first. Obviously once polygamy is decriminalized there will be a push by many to have it legalized. I hope the government backs out of the marriage business and simply registers unions as people decide to enter into them just like they now do for a business with a president and one or more vice presidents.

Here is a link to Jonathan Turley's blog about this case:

http://jonathanturley.org/2011/07/12/br ... y-in-utah/

 

[MarvelousMarvin]

scarecrow wrote:

I hope the government backs out of the marriage business and simply registers unions as people decide to enter into them just like they now do for a business with a president and one or more vice presidents.

Two years ago, had I read what you wrote, scarecrow, I would have said you are wrong...but since studying what the Bible teaches rather than what other men say that the Bible teaches (I have been doing "the Berean thing" with various other doctrinal issues for the past 20 years, and just 17 months ago, finally got around to studying marriage doctrine...), I found that what the State calls "marriage" (actually, we should call it "Covenantal Union," Christian Covenantal Union," or something similar) is a private contract between two families. Neither the Church nor the State should have any finger in that pie at all, other than to record the contract after the fact and to enforce the provisions of that contract if one party or the other tries to break it, just as is done for sale of real estate and other business contracts.

Since the State is supposed to protect the innocent, it might be proper to have things like so-called "age of consent" laws (IMHO, it should be 18), but maybe things like that should more properly be done by each family patriarch, not the State.

Let's pray that the Lord's Will is done in these court cases.

 

[Doc]

A local church body is a spiritual union of believers. It does not need a license or government permission to exist. That spiritual union is defined by their commitment to one another and a public confession of faith. "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." - John 13:35.

Likewise marriage is the first, and really, original spiritual union. It does not need a license or government permission to exist.

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

Likewise marriage is the first, and really, original spiritual union. It does not need a license or government permission to exist.

:lol: True if we keep in mind one small point, that little "m" word was created by the statist government system with a new definition or different definition than the original idea as set forth from Scripture and that is what is causing so much of a ruckus among so many. So if we say a "union" is the first, and really original spiritual establishment then yes "it does not need a license or government permission to exist" because God by his providence or through nature can establish a natural or private union. But as is the state wants to retain rights to it's own word and definition that they created, basically like a copyright and patent law over any term someone could create today. Terms,terms, and terms, I know, it is frustrating. SIGH

But, the English language under the rule of the Roman Catholic/Government created this term and it was established with a definition where it was created by the government, governed by them, and even defined monogamously by them. Thus when people use that "m" word it is like taking their term and trying to use it in our private sphere when in reality it was created in their domain for their own use.

Granted, I spoke to a fella yesterday who works in copyright and patent law and he thinks it should be argued in the courts that such a common term has no business being a protected class term. I think a solid case could be made from that as one argument. But if we are strictly going by definitions then as is the government created a new term, defined it a certain way as a public government system that is conferred upon people and thus they defend it in a certain way, which to date seems to be the essence of monogamy (though allowing even for homosexual monogamy).

Originally though, as you so well stated, it was a "spiritual or mental or natural union" before there ever was a governmental process to it. Hopefully this case will aid in helping establish on even further ground people have the right to associate or assemble or naturally join together without interference by the government.

The issue, though, is going to be terms. Had Kody never used the terms controlled by the government, such as "wives," he would likely not have been subjected to as much pressure by the government. However, the cohabitation laws of that state might still have been an issue. But even had that been the issue the Lawrence V Texas case is absolutely clear about private sexual relations. Those laws have no constitutional backing at this point in history. It was his terms though that have caused him such a headache and only time will tell if using those terms will be the glitch in their argument.

 

[CecilW]

that little "m" word was created by the statist government system with a new definition or different definition than the original idea as set forth from Scripture and that is what is causing so much of a ruckus among so many.

Well, since it is used some 100+ times in scripture, I'm still satisfied to describe it as a Biblical Marriage. The state, latecomers to the scene that they are, can define their own version to their hearts' content!

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

Cecil, would you like to see the powerpoint we went through at the retreat? I think you'd love to see it. (Oh and as a side note, I used some of Dale Carnegie's stuff like you suggested from the last conference and taught a session on how to speak and relate to people through wisdom principles).

Anyway, what we did was examine the original words and then traced when the word "marriage" actually came into existence in the history of words. The English term "marriage" did not exist until around the 600 to 1100 AD era (Old English era created it). By that time when the new word was created it was already a different idea or definition to it because in that era the Roman Church was both the church and government and then unions were no longer commenced through private agreements but ONLY through legal govt. auspices.

The term marriage is thus itself the new term that is different than the original terms and definitions used by Christ and the writers of Scripture. When we say the word is used throughout the Bible we are dealing with English translations. In the 1362 the government courts in Europe adopted the English language for their rulings. Then in 1611 the KJV was produced and then in 1820's Webster solidified the English language here in America. Thus the legal government created term "marriage" was used and it was different than the ideas and even terms used before that era of time. So when you say the state are latecomers that is true, but they created a term and thus when we use that term we are actually using their novel term instead of the private or natural terms used by Christ. Why would we want to use their terms anyway? Sure who are just so used to it may do so out of habit and custom, which is understandable. But when we use their terms they want us to play by their rules in their sphere on their home court so to speak. Here is one of the slides we studied showing the differences in the two systems:

Judeo-Christian System
God in Providence joins man & woman; innate right

Or nature joins man and woman; innate right

Private and contractual

Cohabitation Or Private Oath commenced

Government System
People join through legal sanction

Conferred right

Licensure commenced system for control;

Term’s Owned / Protected category by Statute and Case Law

There are many many others we looked at where law scholars tells us that canon law developed the idea of government marriages where before in both classical Roman Law and biblical days it was private unions not marriages. For example, one scholar and slide we looked at was this: Remember in classical Rome their unions were “highly non-legal in nature” and were “entered into without any official control” (Dr. Goran Lind, Common Law Marriage, p. 36). But then the church gained power through Constantine and his subsequent rulers along with Augustine’s new Kingdom of God philosophy “the young Christian church endeavored to more extensively legalize marriage, in contrast to the classical Roman understanding that the state legal systems ought not to encroach upon the family’s autonomy but rather, in principle, stopping at the threshold to the home” (p. 89).

Too was this: "It may be confidently said that Roman matrimonial law was fundamentally different from its modern European equivalents, which in recent centuries have been subjected to alien influences, primarily canon law” (Goran Lind, Professor of Law University of Uppsala in Sweden, Common Law Marriage, p. 31)."

The point? Our terms are important and is used wisely can be an aid to the cause itself or hurtful to the cause, more in particular to the people who get pressure from legal officials who get upset that their terms are being used in a way they did not create it to be used. We are likely to be better off, and more precise, if we do not take a 11th or so century term that was newly created in English and take that back and place that into the Bible as the way to describe something that was not really the idea in the original writer's mind. In simplistic terms as it appears to many of us that it is a translational error by using the wrong term to convey something. If the term "marriage" had been created with the private unions definition to it then it would be technically correct. But technically speaking, if we are wanting to be precise with English and definitions of terms, the term "marriage" never meant in the 600-1100's, when it was created, what the idea or terms in the Bible meant. In their day it was a two word system too, which does make a difference now in legal contexts. Terms like:

συζεύγνυμι syzeugnymi = joined; yoked together, united (see Matthew 19:6)
γαμέω gameō = the act of joining; to join together, to meet and fit together, to combine; to unite closely or intimately; to align; (see Matthew 19:9)
ὁ ἀνὴρ αὐτῆς autes aner = the genitive or possessive form; her man; owned man (Matt. 1:19)
τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ autou gune = the genitive or possessive form; his woman; owned woman (Matt. 5:31)

These terms were replaced with legalized statist terms: marriage; husband, and wife. Though some use those terms in a generic or non-legal sense, those are more legalized terms than strictly biblical terms due to the culture we live in at the moment. We can see this is not just theory technical mumbo jumbo stuff either. It actually does make a difference in the lives of people, this Brown family for one. It is safer and even with legal support for someone to have private relations but when the term "marriage" or "wives" in the plural are used it creates a stir in the government sphere. Dr. Luck says that it is basically as if they have copyrighted the terms themselves to be used exclusively for their own purposes. He worked in patent and copyright law for years and he seems to be right in that regard for what the state is doing. It would be like someone creating a term or logo and then when others use it without their permission they sue for damages. The state is acting like that in a sense over their legalized terms that they created that we should have never used to begin when translating the Bible. Their legal terms are different than the biblical terms.

Food for thought if we are seeking to be precise and thorough as we build a wholesome biblical system as opposed to more modern system.