A federal judge did not strike down Utah’s law against bigamy in the “Sister Wives” polygamy case. He invalidated the portion of the law that barred people from living together. From the Salt Lake City Tribune:
In the final portion of his ruling Wednesday, [Judge] Waddoups found the Utah County Attorney Jeff Buhman violated the Browns’ constitutional rights when he oversaw a 2010 investigation into whether the Brown family was committing bigamy…In court filings and oral arguments before Waddoups, attorneys for Utah have argued polygamy is inherently harmful to woman and children and the state had an interest in deterring it.
The Browns filed their lawsuit in July 2011, arguing Utah’s law violated their right to privacy. The family’s argument relied primarily on the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down the Texas law banning sodomy, which was celebrated by gay rights advocates.
I have no doubt that the ban against polygamy will be struck down, maybe in my lifetime. Prepare yourselves for the courts to declare the ban against close relatives marrying unconstitutional. Get ready for adult perverts to publicly and shamelessly argue, in court, for lowered age of consent laws so they can “marry” children. Crazy? Not so long ago, the very idea, let alone the fact, of two men getting “married” was ludicrous — an unthinkable perversion of the union God created.
Homosexuals argue that not being allowed to call themselves married, or the government not recognizing their “married” status, violates their right to Equal Protection, which states: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
As marriage is the union between one man and one woman, men and women not presently married are free to marry other adults who aren’t closely related. The law is applied equally. Homosexuals don’t want to marry opposite-sex adults, but they can. That is equal protection. A man who wants to marry his biological sister might not want to marry a woman who isn’t closely related, but he can. That is equal protection.
If homosexuals can impose their will and judicially change what a word means and have the government recognize it, by the same rationale the definition will change again to include three or more people or brother and sister or mother and son, and so on.
Not all discrimination is wrong or illegal. We discriminate every day — against food we don’t want to eat or clothes we don’t want to wear or people we don’t want to associate with. The law also discriminates, because the law makes distinctions among classes of people and behavior. If we render any and all distinctions in law illegal, chaos would ensue.
As I stated in a previous post, maybe Christians should let the state call marriage whatever it wants and focus on the spiritual aspects of the union that reflect the holy covenant God intended marriage to be.