Was it all just a big lie?

LYLE JEFFS (polygamist)

PARKER DOUGLAS

SEAN REYES (UTAH A.G.)

Rep. MIKE NOEL (Rules Chair)

Was it all just a big lie?

Lyle Jeffs, Warren’s brother and stand-in leader of the FLDS, just pleaded guilty to the crime of Food Stamp (SNAP) fraud, and will serve years of prison time.  Like his brother Warren Jeffs, Lyle is a notorious polygamist with some 60 children (children who could not have been born to just one woman).  Warren was never charged with polyga-bigamy.

Utah has a law in place (at least since 1976) making polygamous cohabitation (bigamy) a third degree felony punishable by up to five years in prison.  Since 1976, two defendants, Thomas Green and Rodney Holm, have been convicted under the law and served time.  In 2003 (Lawrence v. Texas) the Supreme Court decriminalized all adult consensual (non-commercial) sexual cohabitation and intimacy.  

In 2013, Federal District Court Judge Clark Waddoups (in Brown v. Herbert) affirmed that polygamous cohabitation (in Utah) fell within the ambit of the Lawrence decision’s protections.  Despite the 10^th Circuit’s later overruling of Waddoups in 2016, Utah’s Attorney General, Sean Reyes, fought to protect the language of the now-reaffirmed bigamy statute by more tightly defining the elements of the crime of bigamy (falsely purporting to marry, and cohabitating).  He also convinced the Utah (2017) legislature to add an enhancement (second degree) to the crime, so that bad polygamous actors who ALSO commit abuse (upon wives or children) or tax- (or other types of financial) fraud can face up to 15 years in prison.

When asked by the Utah House Law Enforcement committee (on February 7, 2017) if, once the new statutory language were signed into law, the A.G. would proceed with immediate enforcement, the A.G.’s chief-of-staff, Parker Douglas, testified, “Yes”.  Douglas has since left his post at the Attorney General's office.

I have to wonder if during the years-long prosecution of the very-polygamous Lyle Jeffs, Utah's distinguished law enforcement community inadvertently forgot that Lyle practice(s)(d) polygamy (i.e. had/has multiple pretend wives) throughout the period of time when he appeared before Judge Ted Stewart and complied with Stewart’s order for him to be a Salt Lake County resident.

Did the A.G. overlook Jeffs’s continued bigamy, or did Reyes elect to break his promise to the Utah legislature because he is afraid of yet another polygamy law test case (see Green, Holm, Bronson,and Brown)?  

Did Representative Mike Noel and Parker Douglas argue so passionately for the preservation of the felony penalties for “good” AND “bad” polygamists out of a sincere commitment to begin prosecuting them, OR - was it because representatives of the LDS Church were breathing hotly down their necks to keep the felony penalty in place so that the Church can continue its frantic P.R. repudiation of “criminal” fundamentalist Mormon polygamists?

Hundreds of sincere plural families and their children held a protest rally in the rain at the Utah Capitol on February 10, 2017, pleading with their legislators to see through the disingenuousness of the Attorney General and his surrogates in the House.  On the last night of the session, A.G. Reyes held an urgent, dinner-time meeting with the State Senators to urge them to pass Mike Noel’s bigamy enhancement bill (HB-99).  He argued that he was pursuing a group of polygamous human traffickers, and that this amendment would give him the tools he needed to prosecute them.  At the midnight hour, the bill passed by one reluctant vote.  

Utah has tens of thousands of polygamists practicing their deeply-held religious beliefs and lifestyles in the open.  One has to wonder if A.G. Sean Reyes has simply forgotten all of his pre- and post-election promises to prosecute all (or even ONE) of them.

Was it all just a big lie?  If you are unsure, watch these brief clips from the last legislative session:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewuaMMTMg3Y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLx5oE0e7Xg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMNNu5ag5gY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sesOr5PO2vw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLu-5SLLFSw

Railway to Heaven

I have struggled for some time now over the LDS Church.  Since it is/was the primary church of the Restoration, I have some bittersweet feelings about it.  I had more of an association with it during my childhood, and it was quite different then.  I often wonder what all of its members will do when the tribulations commence, and they discover that their leaders have been quite fallible.

You often meet people who have given up on organized religion.  Often it is because the parish priest was a jerk or he molested the little girl down the street.  Sometimes it is because the church solicits money, and doesn't necessarily give much in return.  One problem with organized religion is that the organizers thereof are men, and men are often greedy, lecherous and vicious.  I met a guy once whose landlady was asked to evict him and his family by a bishop who had discovered that the guy was a polygamist.  Big corporate religions often have fangs and will brutalize anyone who stands in their way or who voices dissent.

What makes me the most nervous about the Mormon Church now is the self-preservation-at-all-costs approach.  In the early days, the Church bore revolutionary doctrines to the world.  Joseph Smith seemed to many to be a lunatic.  His polygamy must have contributed to his assassination.  He preached utopia, blood atonement, sanctification and a pre-existence.  He produced an ancient book of scripture.  He changed the world.

Nowadays the Church teaches people to build families, to be good, honest and chaste, and not to drink coffee.  It teaches people to embrace all races and creeds (except Fundamentalist Mormons).  It sends 80,000 missionaries into the world to spread the same message - a message that THIS is the church of the restoration, and that 75% of the original doctrines of that restoration were a mistake on the part of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.  Don't let that worry you - those old, obscure, mysterious doctrines were a fleeting aberration, a product of colonial times when men were barbaric.  It teaches the Taiwanese, the Argentines and the Finns to build Zion in their own homelands - to board a train that is going straight to the Celestial Kingdom.

Yes, get baptized, pay your tithing, answer the temple recommend interview questions the right way, get a mortgage and a three-bedroom, two-bath house, send your kids on missions and train them to marry only in the temple, and follow "the Prophet" at all costs and you will go directly to the Celestial Kingdom.

I read an article once that imagined the words of a Soviet-era Russian official.  He insisted that the Soviet Union erred in banishing all religions.  The Soviet Union should have welcomed the Mormon Church - after all, it taught its members to be unquestioningly obedient; to trust in the organization and not so much in God; to turn over their goods to the collective without question; to shun and tattle on defectors in their midst; to scramble for position and favor among the leading elite.  Yes, the Mormon Church fits well in a totalitarian environment.

The Church wants you to think that membership in it is a virtual guarantee of divine glory.  Jump aboard this train and you are on your way.  Stay on this railway to heaven at any cost and you will become a god, despite whatever may happen to others on the outside.  You will be given seven hot wives in the hereafter, so keep your mouth shut, pay your tithing, and comply with everything you are instructed, and all will be well in Zion.

Look out!

Here's The Thing: -

Here's the thing - -

The State of Utah has no attorney general right now.  The last two, Bishop Swallow and Shark Murtleff, are both being investigated by the feds for fraud and corruption. The latter made it his mission to exploit polygamists for political gain.  The former says he comes from polygamy and has nothing but warm feelings for its practitioners.  Either way, technically, their future successor is duty-bound to defend Utah's laws and appeal today's (12/13/13) ruling from the District Court striking down the cohabitation prong of Utah's idiotic bigamy statute.

But here's the thing - judge Waddoups' decision is so well reasoned and so constitutionally sound, that any appeal will be an uphill battle.  Since virtually none of the facts is in dispute, the only controversy is whether or not the language and execution of the bigamy statute are legally sound.

Waddoups voids the "cohabitation" prong as operationally unsound because by the nature of its enforcement it singles out a religious minority for disfavorable treatment (AND because it ignores the freedoms reiterated by the 2003 Lawrence decision).

More importantly, however, Waddoups takes his scalpel to the heart of Utah's polygamy foes by attacking the centerpiece of their arguments - compelling government interest.  Utah's bigamy statute defenders argue that the higher courts must not apply any heightened or strict scrutiny to the bigamy statute because it was framed under a clearly "rational" basis - namely the compelling state interest of protecting the institution of monogamous matrimony in Utah.  Aside from the fact that that argument is silly (does the fact that gay people walk Utah's streets injure the Judeo-Christian institution of holy matrimony?), Waddoups reminds us that since more than ONE of the Browns' constitutional liberties have been hurt, the review standard is driven by the "hybrid rights" doctrine developed in Employment Division v. Smith. Simply put, when both your 14th Amendment (due process) and 1st Amendment (free exercise) rights have been harmed, the level of scrutiny required of the appellate courts is now HEIGHTENED scrutiny.  Turley and Waddoups articulated no fewer than six constitutional harms inflicted upon the Browns by the statute and its enforcers. This means that the state can no longer cower behind the pathetic rational-basis argument about protecting traditional marriage at the expense of the Browns' freedoms.

Thus the court(s) has a duty to take a good hard look at the spirit and effect of the statute and to see if it survives constitutional analysis.  Kody Brown has four ladies.  He sleeps with all of them.  Many Utahns can be said to have done the same thing, just not calling their partners "wives".  Prosecuting Brown for using the wrong word violates his free speech liberties - not to mention his freedom of association and right to equal protection under the law.

Here's the thing - - I invite Utah's next AG to take a swing at the decision in the 10th Circuit.  Waddoups has covered every base in his 91 pages.  Any appeal has to draw on a strong legal argument refuting Waddoups and demonstrating the critical merits of criminalizing religious polygamists.  I submit that it cannot be done.  No self-respecting 10th Circuit jurist would dare disagree with one paragraph of Waddoups' ruling.

Think of it this way - - millions of Americans are deeply resentful of gay marriage.  Their religious sensitivities are mortified at its proliferation.  However, when you get right down to it, the anti-gay-marriage arguments are all groundless and emotional.  My favorite one is the one asserting that children do best when raised in a two (-gender) -parent home.  That makes a lot of sense.  The problem is that you cannot compel that.  If two lesbians are already raising a kid, it is unlikely that that kid's upbringing will deteriorate simply because the two mothers get a legal marriage certificate.  The argument falls apart.

Same thing with plural marriage.  Utah has had tens of thousands of polygs for 150 years.  Traditional monogamous matrimony cannot be demonstrated to have suffered as a result.  There is no rational way to argue that it has.  Perhaps monogamous marriage has suffered FAR MORE as a result of people getting divorced.  Yet the government makes no attempt to outlaw divorce.

So, I say to Gary Herbert and his prospective AG nominee, "Have at it!  Send Jerrold Jensen or Laura DuPaix to Denver to argue that polygamists hurt Utah by existing, and that they all need to go to prison.  See how far you get with that!"  The principal reason (and Waddoups observed this) why these arguments fall flat is because they are tendered in bad faith.  These AG lackeys have NO DESIRE to prosecute polygamists, they just want to wag the moralistic finger of LDS piousness to menace an unpopular minority.  Waddoups saw through it.

All the more delicious is the fact that Waddoups is a home-grown BYU graduate who finally saw through the hypocrisy and bigotry, and dared to buck the trend.  I almost wonder if he isn't going to get pulled in by his Stake President and threatened with disfellowshipment for making the LDS Church look (even more) like a fool.

See you in Denver, Laura.
--------------------------------

Polygamy Decriminalized - 12/13/13

http://jonathanturley.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/brown-summary-judgment-decision.pdf

It's Friday, the 13th.  Word came to me tonight that Judge Clark Waddoups just ruled in favor of Kody Brown in his challenge of Utah's bigamy statute.

I have dreamed of this day since I was very young.  I have many Utah friends who have lived for years under the specter of prosecution for felony bigamy, simply because they have several partners.

This is the very step which can finally get the Reynolds decision overturned.  Stay tuned.

Here is today's post from Jonathan Turley who argued the lawsuit in behalf of the Browns:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Federal Court Strikes Down Polygamy Law In Utah

Published, December 13, 2013 Constitutional Law , Courts , Criminal law , Free Speech , Lawyering , Media , Politics , Religion , Society , Supreme Court 15 Comments

 

It is with a great pleasure this evening to announce that decision of United States District Court judge Clarke Waddoups striking down key portions of the Utah polygamy law as unconstitutional. The Brown family and counsel have spent years in both the criminal phase of this case and then our challenge to the law itself in federal court. Despite the public statements of professors and experts that we could not prevail in this case, the court has shown that it is the rule of law that governs in this country. As I have previously written, plural families present the same privacy and due process concerns faced by gay and lesbian community over criminalization. With this decision, families like the Brown can now be both plural and legal in the state of Utah.  The Court struck down the provision as violating both the free exercise clause of the first amendment as well as the due process clause.   The court specifically struck down language criminalizing cohabitation — the provision that is used to prosecute polygamists.  The opinion is over 90 pages and constitutes a major constitutional ruling in protection of individual rights.

The decision affects a far greater range of such relationships than the form of polygamy practiced by the Browns. It is a victory not for polygamy but privacy in America. I wish to thank our legal team including our local counsel, Adam Alba, my students like Geoff Turley, my assistant Gina D’Andrea, and the many others who have assisted us through the years. I must also thank Judge Waddoups who showed remarkable principle and integrity in rendering this decision. This law has been challenged dozens of times in state and federal court over the many decades. It took singular courage to be the first court not only in this country but any recorded decision to strike down the criminalization of polygamy. In doing so, Judge Waddoups stood against prejudice and considerable hostility toward plural families. In a single ruling, he reaffirmed the wisdom of our Framers in creating a court with life tenure and independence under our constitutional system.  While the Supreme Court is often credited with the recognition of basic rights, it is often forgotten how the true profile of courage is found among those lower court judges who stood against prejudice and anger to follow the rule of law. It will be an honor to defend this  decision in any appeal by the State and we are prepared to do so as far as the Supreme Court to protect this legal breakthrough.

My final thanks is to the Brown family which has endured years to threats and investigation to bring this day about. They have secured for plural families the equivalent of Brown v. Board of Education in breaking through centuries of prejudice. They have also guaranteed that the promise of privacy recognized for same-sex couples in Lawrence v. Texas will also be extended to plural relationships. In recognition of the importance of this civil liberties case (and contrary to the statements of state officials), the Brown have made little reference to the case on their TLC show so not to distract attention from the merits of the case. They have earned this historic victory and both my respect and gratitude.

With this decision, abuse of spouses and children will continue to be prosecute regardless of whether they occur in monogamous or polygamous families. These protective services will only be strengthened now that many families can openly integrate into society and not fear prosecution merely because of their family structure.

The court struck down that part of the statute that criminalized co-habitation between consenting adults — allowing plural families to step out for the first time in their communities and live their lives openly among their neighbors.  What remains of the statute was narrowly construed by the Court to limit future prosecutions to traditional bigamy, i.e. individuals with multiple marriage licenses.

This historic ruling is a hard-won victory that will be defended with equal vigor in the coming months. If the State (as previously stated) intends to fight for this pernicious law on appeal, we will be prepared and honored to defend this ruling.  Accordingly, as we argued, the state can only prohibit and prosecute ”bigamy in the literal sense—the fraudulent or otherwise impermissible possession of two purportedly valid marriage licenses for the purpose of entering into more than one purportedly legal marriage.”

Kody Brown issued the following statement on the ruling:

The entire Brown family is humbled and grateful for this historical ruling from the court today. Like thousands of other plural families, we have waited many years for this day. While we know that many people do not approve of plural families, it is our family and based on our beliefs. Just as we respect the personal and religious choices of other families, we hope that in time all of our neighbors and fellow citizens will come to respect our own choices as part of this wonderful country of different faiths and beliefs. There are so many families who have waited for so long for this ruling and, on their behalf, we can only say: thank you, Judge Waddoups, for your courageous decision. We want to particularly thank our lead counsel Professor Jonathan Turley who represented us through the criminal investigation and then led the fight against this law. We also want to thank the team of lawyers and students from George Washington, including our local counsel Adam Alba. We are so honored and blessed to have been able to serve as the vehicle for this milestone ruling. Professor Turley has pledged to defend this decision on appeal and we are equally committed to fight to preserve this great victory.

Finally, many have asked what the next step will be. The Utah Attorney General’s office previously stated that they would defend this law on appeal. If that remains their intention, they will have a number of options. They can seek a reconsideration from Judge Waddoups. Such motions are rarely granted in an opinion that has been written with such care as this one. Alternatively, they can go directly to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. They will have to file notice of appeal with the Court and the matter will be put on a briefing schedule. Given the limited trial record, such an appeal could proceed without significant delay if the Utah Attorney General remains committed to an appeal. Once filed, the case will shift from Salt Lake City to Denver Colorado.

For the moment however we are all savoring this great victory that has come after such a long period of criminalization. This struggle began with the approval of the Enabling Act in July 16, 1894 when Congress made the outlawing of polygamy a condition for statehood. Utah has achieved something equally important today: true equality of its citizens regardless of their personal faiths or practices. It is a moment in which all Utahans should take pride and celebrate not in the name of polygamy but of privacy. So congratulations to the Browns and to the people of Utah on a truly momentous day.

Jonathan Turley
Lead Counsel
Here is the opinion: Brown Summary Judgment Decision
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Contradictions

You've all seen this sign, or one of the thousands like it.  The ecumenism of the Mormon Church is legendary.  Fifty thousand clean-cut missionaries are trotting the globe petulantly hoping to get you to the chapel.

Anybody and everybody is welcome.  Visitors become investigators, investigators become converts, and converts become members.  Members become tithe-payers, and tithe-payers pay for the fancy granite signs like this one boldly placed in front of your local LDS chapel.

I have some friends up in Utah who epitomize the perfect Mormon plural family.  The guy is a humble, hard-working husband.  He has two beautiful wives and a bundle of cute little kids.  He minds his own business and is loved by everyone who knows him.

Recently he shared with me a rather remarkable experience he had.  He moved into a Wasatch Front suburb a few years ago, and encountered some members of the local LDS ward.  He politely explained to them that he had two wives, and that he didn't want to cause a stir in the neighborhood.  They would keep largely to themselves and be respectful of the neighbor folks.

The ward members were taken aback by this revelation, but decided that such reticence was ill-placed.  They told my friend that he should not feel unwelcome and should certainly not hesitate to attend the ward's Sunday sacrament services (see the picture above).  He said, "Well, won't it be a little bit awkward  - me sitting there with the ladies on either side of me?  I don't want to make people feel uncomfortable."  "Silly," they pressed, "please come, we would love to have you!"

This humble, uncynical friend of mine decided to take them up on the invitation.  The next Sunday, husband, wife, wife, and toddlers all showed up for sacrament meeting.  When they got to the chapel, the ushers shepherded them to the front pews that had been deliberately vacated to make room for them.  Wow !!!!!!!  Such unprecedented glasnost. !!!

More remarkable still - the trio felt so welcomed, they came back to church again and again, and not just for several Sundays.  For TWO LONG YEARS this sweet family attended church faithfully, mingling and participating and sharing the fellowship and goodwill of people who embrace the restored Gospel.

The two ladies were so well received and respected by the ward members that they were eventually asked if they would accept some assignments and callings in the ward.

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPPPSSSSSSSSSS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I guess that upset the applecart.  As you can expect, word of this development wafted up into the nostrils of the dark blue suits at 50 E. North Temple, and the fat hit the shin.  The edict came down.  But wait, there's more. Not only did the General Authorities override the local leaders regarding giving Church callings to polygamists (of course), but they actually told them to ask this beloved family of longtime visitors that they were NOT ALLOWED TO COME TO SUNDAY CHURCH MEETINGS ANY MORE.

That was the end of my friends' attendance at Mormon Church meetings.  What can you say?

VISITORS WELCOME

It's A Trip-Wire

I understand that in his comments to Judge Waddoups in the recent hearing on the Kody Brown bigamy test case, Jonathan Turley used the term, "trip-wire".  Turley was talking about the Lehi police and how it was too late now for Utah County Attorney, Jeff Buhman, to walk back his threats of prosecution by capriciously "changing the department's policy".  Waddoups asked Jerrold Jensen how this latest play was not an attempt simply to avoid having the bigamy statute reviewed by the federal court.  Turley was using a metaphor to illustrate how, as soon as the Lehi police opened a public investigation into the "illegality" of the Browns' family arrangement, the trip-wire had been tripped.  The bomb had gone off, and the harm had been inflicted.  The cat was out of the barn.

I would like to be a fly on the wall when a Utah reporter asks the LDS Church spokesperson if the Church feels okay about the Reynolds decision getting tested in the 10th Circuit or in the SCOTUS.  I imagine an army of General Authorities writhing in discomfort. - - - -  "President Monson, since polygamy was ended in the Church because it was outlawed by the federal government - and seeing that it has now been decriminalized, will the Church resume its practice?"

The wall is cracking, and the wire has been tripped.

I see another interesting parallel in the world of Mormondom.  Even in Arizona, I have occasion to run across faithful LDS members.  When they learn of my lifestyle, they are inquisitive, and sometimes uncomfortable.  I guess that discomfort would be equivalent to the discomfort some might feel when sitting next to two conspicuously gay men on a train.  What is it about polygamy that makes Mormons squirm (even the men)?

I have a daughter in her early twenties who also knows several LDS people.  Sometimes she gets into discussions with them about the differences between modern and (her) traditional Mormon beliefs.  Inevitably, with my daughter's persuasiveness, one of her friends learns more than he or she planned to, and the conversation gets awkward.  She will ask her friend if she would like to learn more, and the answer is no.  What could be disturbing about hearing the teachings of Mormon founders like Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and John Taylor?

Oh, I know what it is.  They are paralyzed with a fear of learning the truth.  If your spouse were in the armed forces, and two uniformed soldiers came knocking on your front door one day, you too would prefer to turn them away and not hear tragic news.  That is human nature.

Whether they realize it or not, my daughter's friends are looking down at a trip-wire.  It is there, just inches away, threatening them with horror and oblivion.  If they listen more to the message of the fullness of the Restoration, they might suddenly realize that the Church has been lying for 122 years.  Sheer dread !!! Oh, no !!!  How can I live without the Church? - and my friends? - and the temple?   It would be the end of my life, or the world!

The Church has developed a clever decoy - the myth of continuing revelation.  Recent General Conference talks like this one reassure the faithful that the revelations from God have been flowing steadily (in an "ongoing stream") since 1820 until today (with Monson).  This is a deceit for at least two reasons:

1.  The many revelations given to presidents John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff (regarding plural marriage among other things) are concealed from members.  The Church presumes (correctly) that if its members read those revelations, they will leave the Church.  The Church repudiates the revelations to those key prophets. 

2.  After Wilford Woodruff's 1889 (farewell) revelation from God, not a single president of the Church has published (or even received, I believe) the text of A SINGLE revelation given to him by God, where God is the one doing the talking.

If LDS members venture ANYWHERE NEAR these jarring realizations, the bubble is burst, the wire is tripped, and the Wizard of Oz is exposed as a fraud.  So they recoil.  When they start to get that unnerving sensation that their fundamentalist friend might just be on to something, they clam up, shut down, and run for the hills - anything to avoid that trip-wire.

I hope you agree with me that this is sad.  An entire generation of millions is living under the ether of deceit and disinformation.  They are told, "We have a living prophet".  Tell me, dear reader, what revelations have you heard from Hinckley or Monson?  What prophecies have they delivered at the pulpit?  What exactly has our Heavenly Father said to them?  Can you get me a copy of it to study, ponder and pray about?

Bottom line - an ecclesiastical corporation has succeeded in convincing millions to flee from the truth.  They fear the trip-wire, the red pill (see The Matrix).  God told Joseph Smith that this would happen when He said,

 28 "And when the times of the Gentiles is come in, a light shall break forth among them that sit in darkness, and it shall be the fulness of my gospel;

 29 But they receive it not; for they perceive not the light, and they turn their hearts from me because of the precepts of men." (Doctrine & Covenants, Section 45)

Who Will Be Hurt?

North and south of our northern border, there are scores of political folks who have almost made it their life's mission to make sure that plural marriage will never be decriminalized.  If you pay any attention to the hysterical pleadings of the Canada A.G.s and their pseudo-expert scholars, you'll notice their fears that the decriminalization of polygamy will cause our modern western cosmopolitan society to come to a grinding halt - a vision akin to the plight of Will Smith's character in the "I Am Legend" movie.

If polygamy is decriminalized in British Columbia and Utah, will several of the nuclear reactors in the U.S. melt down?  Will half the population succumb to AIDS?  Will Barack Hussein Soetoro Obama win a second term?  Will the Federal Reserve be forced to agree to be audited?  Will the sex offenders on your street rape your daughters?  Will the sky fall in?  Will God be found to have died in the sixties as was once alleged?  Will the honeybees die off entirely?  Will California fall into the ocean?  Will crops cease to grow?  Will it be revealed that the 9/11 attacks were plotted by U.S. government insiders?  Will Mormons all lose their temple recommends?  Will it be discovered that no LDS Church president had a revelation from God after 1889?  Will the federal government run out of our money?  Will half of the Arab world be on our doorstep tomorrow?  Will the judicial system crumble under the sheer weight of family confusion?

Seriously, though, if polygamy is decriminalized (like homosexuality was in 2003), what bad stuff will happen?  Who will be hurt?  Will more teens be molested - or fewer?  If you hate polygamy, tell me what bad stuff will ensue as a result of decriminalization.  Will the government lose its ability to persecute us?  Will politicians have no more minorities to exploit?  Will Latter-day Saints have no one left to be creeped out about?  Will the Church have to stop marginalizing and vilifying us?  Will Thomas F. Monsoon have to start solemnizing pliggy weddings in the temples? - - - - - - Naahhhh !!!

I'm sorry, it would be one thing if there weren't already tens of thousands of polygs having virtually no bad impact on society - - if the politicians were really sincere in their criticism of us and actually had the courage to follow through with their threats and prosecutions. 

Frankly, I think the whole decriminalization argument is silly.  The question is not just - who would be hurt? - but rather - what would even change?  We won a de facto decriminalization with the gays through Lawrence in 2003.  The only thing that could change would be that people would not be so quick to call us criminals, to call us "polyg"s, to refuse us employment, to invade our schools, to confiscate our livelihoods, to snatch our children, to patronize us, to accuse us of being welfare cheats, to accuse of being child molesters, to laugh at our clothing, to accuse us of racketeering, to deny us the opportunity to be public servants, to spread silly rumors about us in the media without evidence, and to view us as lower than Nazi war criminals . . . . . . . . OR would those things change?

I say that not much would change, and no one would be hurt.  So, you decide.