Post a Comment On: Frankly Speaking

The Utah Supreme Court upheld it's long-standing ban on polygamy today. While it's not suprising that they did so, what is surprising is the fact there were actually Justices on the Court who dissented with the majority opinion.

The thing that made my jaw drop was the following quiver of information "Chief Justice Christine Durham issued a dissenting opinion saying Holm's bigamy conviction should not be upheld. She said that applying the bigamy law to marriages solemnized only in religious ceremonies "oversteps lines protecting the free exercise of religion and the privacy of intimate, personal relationships between consenting adults." Unbelievable. Folks, frankly speaking, we live the year 2006. Now granted, some of us are little cooky on what we find 'sexually appealing' however, it has been clearly defined for the last 120 years in both Federal and State Court that bigamy is (in most cases) a felony offense. However when we have these rougue Judges who ignore case law and issue opinions that are factually against the law, it's clear that some people still are not getting the hint. What's more, this opinion was written by a Judge in Utah - a state where anybody who has a remote idea of allowing Gay Marriage is riduculed and cast out of mainstream society. Re-read the quote above and frame it in the context of gay marriage and think, how is gay marriage any different than polygamy using the Justice Durham's logic?