I’m not doubting your assertion; however, I’ve seen just the assertion made time after time. Is there any documentation that proves the federal government made that requirement of the territory?
Yes, and that’s what makes this case interesting. He found the Utah law violates the US constitution.
You misunderstand me. My point is that the OP seems to think that Utah’s conservatism informs the judge’s actions. My point is that he’s a federal judge and thus the state hue (so to speak) is irrelevant. Yes, I realize that the judge declared the state law unconstitutional, but the constitution to which he refers is the federal, not state, constitution.
I didn’t read it the same way, but I’ll let JC speak for himself.
You might enjoy “Under the Prophet in Utah” by Frank J. Cannon. (Free on Project Gutenberg.) Cannon was the delegate from Utah who went and negotiated with the U.S. Senate over terms of recognition. He brokered the deal whereby the Mormons would publicly renounce polygamy and the Senate would recognize Utah.
I don’t think it was a formal bit of legislation. It was just a deal made between the parties. But without the deal, the U.S. Senate wasn’t going to let Utah become a state.
Right, but I don’t know that that’s relevant. The Utah polygamous groups almost never try to be legally married to all their wives. The anti-polygamy law that the state uses (or used) against them is the cohabitation law. Now that that’s gone, you’re going to see a lot less prosecution of polygamous groups.
Thanks. I think I will enjoy reading that.
And even after Utah was admitted as a State, the Senate were real pricks about seating the State representation.
What “exploding ultra-religious populations” in New York and New Jersey"?
Did you hear this from the same person who predicted that Jews on the West Bank will soon outnumber Palestinians?
How much prosecution under that law was there? Most of the prosecutions we hear about are not for polygamy, but for sexual assault on minors.
What I was talking about is some fundamentalist sect actually wanting to be able to legally marry more than one wife. This needn’t be of the Warren Jeffs type, but maybe of the more “mainstream” Sister Wives type.
The senators from the state in question traditionally get a say, at least, in the selection of district court judges. Judge Shelby, while an Obama nominee, was apparently recommended by Orrin Hatch and supported by Mike Lee (who nonetheless voted against him in committee for other reasons). I think that it’s fair to say that the culture of Utah informs his worldview, even if it’s not directly related to the legal arguments he was making.
**SSM: Now Utah. How long for all?
**Methinks Alabama’s gonna make y’all wait a while.
I’m guessing this was a reference to ultra-orthodox Jewish sects such as are found in place like Kiryas Joel.
I can’t imagine any evidence that Hasidic Jewish populations are growing remotely fast enough to cause NY and NJ to reverse gay equality in either state.
I like your choice of the word ‘poof’. I suspect that it does not have the same meaning as queer, which it does in the UK which gives a different meaning to the sentence.
According to online resources its use to mean gay is much better established in UK English.
It is fifty years since my US Civics class at high school, but what happened to “full force and favour” or whatever it is called requiring states to recognise each others laws?
“Full faith and credit”; memory fades.
“Full faith and credit.” There isn’t precedent for applying the FFC clause to marriages; it was never, for example, applied to interracial marriages pre-Loving. (cite)
But given the politics of Scotus then (and politics always affects decisions) and now (or soon) why should full faith and credit not apply?
This - combined with Pjen’s comment above - is the crux of the matter. The country can’t go on long-term half SSM and half not. The momentum is there for SSM to spread across the country, the question is how long.
“A House divided against itself cannot stand”
Capt