Friday, January 22, 2016

Seriously !!! ???

A friend sent me two articles from a Utah Fox television station.  The first is a great recap of the events of yesterday at the 10th Circus Court of Appeals in Denver.  Jonathan Turley represented the Kody Brown family in its lawsuit against Utah's bigamy statute.  The reporter, Ben Winslow, told me that much of the court hearing focused on standing.  Again, Utah's Parker Douglas (in his appeal) argued that the Browns were never at risk of being prosecuted for their polygamy, so they had no standing to complain of being harmed by the statute.

We find in another report today by Ben Winslow that there is purportedly a mystery anti-polygamy bill lurking in the Utah legislature that seeks to "re-criminalize" people who live with others and purport to be married. 

"It wouldn't make cohabitation a crime unless they were 'purporting' to be married," [Parker] Douglas told FOX 13 outside of court. "I think it clarifies who might be covered by the law. The reason for it is to give the public precise knowledge of what is criminal and what is not." 

I'm a bit confused.  Isn't this precisely the same statutory language that Judge Waddoups annihilated on December 13, 2013?  What is cohabitation anyway?  Is it - "RESIDING WITH - ", or is it - "HAVING SEX WITH - "?  I still don't know.  I don't think they know.  Besides, who the hell can enforce that kind of lunacy?  And what does purport mean?  If I say my second lady partner is a wife, then is that speech prohibited?  Under the First Amendment, are there still certain phrases I may not utter?  Before the legalization of gay marriages, were gays criminalized for saying "husband" or "wife"?  

One of the justices in the three-judge panel asked Parker Douglas if he wasn't trying to " . . have his cake and eat it too?"  In other words, is Utah trying to create a situation where no polygamist can EVER challenge the law because the State can always say that it has no plans to prosecute anyone under the law?  It always comes up with the same two STUPID excuses -  

1                   1.   "The State has a legitimate interest in regulating marriage."

 Well, yes, of course it does, you idiots, but polygamists don't get multiple marriages, so they don't violate the state's marriage regulations.  How on earth can you "regulate" who lives or stays with "whom"?

2.   "The State has a longstanding policy of not charging polygamy as a crime alone, unless it was in concert with other crimes like underage marriage or abuse.

A very smart attorney told me last week that this policy has a problem of "overbreadth" - - in other words the State can selectively pick and choose which "other crimes" it will prosecute using the polygamy (they mean bigamy) charge as an enhancement.  As I asked before, would a pimp be charged with prostitution AND bigamy?
If you have read even a few of my blogposts, you are aware that I simply want to make sense of things.  The only thing that makes sense to me is that no self-respecting attorney would go through these contortions to preserve a law that the State will never dare to enforce, unless there were some big fat Church breathing down his neck to keep the damned law in place so that it can stigmatize and villainize Fundamentalist Mormons.

I still wish that Judge Walter Steed had sued the State.  He was removed from his judgeship after many years because of his large family (see this earlier post

I can't read the tea leaves, but if the justices read Judge Waddoups' 2013 ruling, they have to realize that Utah is straining at something absurd.  Look at it this way: 

A. Utah wants a bigamy statute to remain in force to prosecute cohabiting adults who think of themselves as spouses, even though in the eyes of the law they CANNOT BE SPOUSES.
B.  A polygamous family steps forward and sues the State because the State classifies the family as felons.
C.  Utah says that the family members cannot challenge the law because the law was only preserved to menace them into silence, and that the State never had any intention of enforcing the law against them.

Does that seem fair?  Does that seem legal? Does that seem Constitutional?  Well, that is the reality of the situation we are in, folks.

Before nationally-permitted gay marriage, detractors argued that (married) gay couples would pollute the neighborhood and corrupt the children.  We all know that that is stupid, because, marriage certificate or not, the outcome is the same.

Jonathan Turley is dead-on.  This case is about freedom of SPEECH, freedom of ASSOCIATION, and freedom of RELIGION.  If the Browns are turned away for lack of standing (as were Bronson and the Cooks), who next can challenge the statute?  The State knows that EVERY person it charges with bigamy, Bob Foster, Mark Easterday, Steve Bronson, Tom Green, Rodney Holm, and whomever, will very likely fight back.  Tell me why Utah never charged David Kingston or Warren Jeffs with bigamy?  Utah is desperately afraid of triggering another test case which could overturn Reynolds.  The State is LYING !!!

This is not a test of Utah's bigamy statute, rather it is a test of the I.Q. of the three 10th Circuit justices.  If they rule against Kody, you will know that there is great stupidity afoot.  Alternatively, the Church has improperly influenced the Court.