What Are They Sniffing?

Today is January 6, 2016.  In two weeks (January 21), the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver will hear arguments in the Kody Brown polygamy case appeal.  Utah Attorney General, Sean Reyes, is following through on his promise to try to preserve Utah's ridiculous anti-bigamy statute.

Watch or read this:

http://fox13now.com/2016/01/06/utah-says-it-wouldnt-prosecute-sister-wives-for-polygamy/

I'm confused again.  Clearly one of the three-member panel of justices questioned Utah's attorneys to ask if it would be (or would have been their intention) to prosecute the Browns for their conspicuous violation of the bigamy statute.  Utah's attorneys said "No."

They coughed up the old excuse that they would not charge people for their mere practice of plural cohabitation, unless it was coupled with some other crime (ostensibly those crimes attributed to polygamist clans).  That sounds awfully selective, because I don't think they would add a bigamy charge to a drug dealer's prosecution if he had two concurrent girl friends.  I have to think that the justices are confused, too.

I can hear it now ------- ........

".......  Mr. Douglas, am I understanding correctly that the state of Utah has NO INTENTION of prosecuting polygamists like the Browns?"

"Yes, your honor."

"........  and you are asking this Court to uphold a law that Judge Waddoups overturned - a law that you virtually never intend to enforce?"

"Yes, your honor."
------------------------------------------
The other excuse the state is straining at is the "lack of standing" excuse.  It is arguing that the Browns have no business coming before the courts because they were not hurt by the bigamy statute (since they were never prosecuted).  I get it now - make a law that menaces 30,000 citizens with the threat of prosecution for their religion, then never enforce it - so that none of them can ever claim harm or standing before the courts to challenge the legitimacy of the law.

I have news for Utah.  Tom Green got five years for his polygamy, and he still lives with several wives.  Why in the Dickens did you let him out?  He is re-offending (as are the ladies).  You CAN'T let polygamists out of prison.  You have to keep them in until they die - LIFE SENTENCES !!!!

Maybe that's the TRUE reason Utah wants to refrain from prosecuting polygamists - there simply aren't enough prison cells.  Maybe there are powerful people in the Church who need polygamy to remain a crime so they can call me a sinner for emulating the Church's founders.

Here's the thing - homosexuals get to marry in all 50 states.  Back in the dark ages between 1986 and 2003 when it was a crime to be homosexual, states had a similar dilemma - how do you put 10 million gays in prison?  Silly, right?  If a pedophile molested a young boy, nobody thought of adding the charge of HOMOSEXUALITY to the pedophilia prosecution as an enhancement.

We poor polygs have inherited the curse.  We are not allowed to be.  We are not allowed to breathe, speak or think. If you are a polyg in Utah, you are a de facto felon, your thoughts are forbidden, your religion is criminal, and you have to live in the shadows and shame.

What is Utah sniffing?  What lawyer in his right mind would stand before the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals and beseech the justices to restore a statute that criminalizes people for their thoughts, religion, and sexual orientation/lifestyle, when the state government has repeatedly proclaimed its commitment to never enforce the law against them (except selectively)? 

Seriously folks, these public officials are in FRICKING LA-LA LAND !!!  They remind me of the goons who marched into the AUB's church meeting in 1944 and arrested two of Rulon Allred's wives for playing the piano and teaching Sunday School.  Rosa Parks highlighted the lunacy of such bigoted statutes by insisting on sitting in the forbidden part of the bus.  Is it finally our time to prove the absurdity of the persecution of our culture?

Go Jonathan !!!  Show the Court what losers, liars and fools these officials are.

To Appeal Or Not To Appeal

Utah Governor Gary Herbert

I'm not a lawyer, though I play one in my dreams.  I'm also not a politician, so I won't be going to hell.  Nevertheless, I want to look more closely at the question of whether the future Attorney General of the pretty, great state of Utah should or will appeal the decision in Brown v. Buhman which decriminalizes my polygamous brethren in Utah.

First, an appeal would require a good attorney.  When Laura DuPaix defended the state in the Holm case, she blubberingly argued with Chief Justice Christine Durham that Rodney Holm was in fact married to Ruth Stubbs, even though there was no legal marriage in place between them.  If the state cannot find anyone smarter than her or Jerrold Jensen to plead before the 10th Circuit, it should quit while it is behind.

Secondly, an appeal would, in this case, be a bizarre legal anomaly, because the gist of it would be as follows:

 "Dear 10th Circuit justices, Judge Clark Waddoups recently decriminalized polygamy in Utah.  Utah vehemently disagrees with the ruling and wants the polyga-bigamy statute reaffirmed.  These evil, criminal polygamist outlaws must not be permitted in our State.  We have said before that we have ABSOLUTELY no intention of EVER prosecuting any of them, we just desperately want you to restore the law so that we can go back to calling them criminals and so that we can feel better." 

Thirdly, Waddoups spent many pages of his published Brown ruling demonstrating how racist and reprehensible the Reynolds decision was.  For the 10th Circuit to reverse him in Brown, it will have to come out in full support of Reynolds, an opinion which should have died 100 years ago along with Davis v. Beason (1890) ( - denied Mormons' voting rights) and Late Corp. (also 1890) - in which the court said: 

"The organization of a community for the spread and practice of polygamy is, in a measure, a return to barbarism. It is contrary to the spirit of Christianity, and of the civilization which Christianity has produced in the western world."  [to hell with Church/State separation! {R.O.}]

Those two odious rulings faded into ignominy without ever needing to be overturned.

Fourthly, the new AG may perhaps not win on appeal.  Yesterday's evisceration of Utah's bigamy/polgamy ban, applies ONLY to Utah.  If a 10th Circuit appeal were to fail, then the decision would reach at least many of the other western states that have also somewhat half-heartedly prohibited polygamy. A subsequent appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court could result in the voiding of Reynolds nationwide and the end of all anti-polygamy laws.  I wonder if the LDS Church(/Gary Herbert) really wants to take such a risk.

Fifthly, if a 10th Circuit appeal resulted in the reversal of Waddoups, Utah would find itself in the same asinine situation in which the province of British Columbia, Canada, now finds itself.  Chief Justice Robert Bauman issued hundreds of pages of contortions in his ruling that polygamy must continue to be criminalized in Canada - the main argument of which was that polygamy is "inherently" harmful - - it hurts Canadians - just like knives and automobiles do.  I semi-sincerely expected the RCMP to raid Winston Blackmore's and Jimmy Oler's homes the next day and incarcerate them.  On the contrary, the reaffirmation of the law (SB-293) has not resulted in any indictments - so the the whole thing was a joke.  I'm sure that B.C. realizes that if it goes after a polygamist, the whole appeal process will likely start all over again.  

If Utah won a reversal of Brown on appeal, it would face the same absurd dilemma.  If it were to flex the claws of the reaffirmed statute (and its anti-cohabitation prong), it would be obligated to go straightway over to Joe Darger's house in Herriman and arrest Joe, Alina, Vicki and Valerie Darger (not to mention the Brown tribe in Las Vegas).  After all, Joe has confessed numerous times to felony bigamy on television and in his book, Love Times Three.

There is the $39,000 question - would Utah still doggedly refrain from prosecuting polygamists, or would it start a new round of convictions, imprisoning ten thousand religious cohabiters?  How would that go over with the liberal public?  Is there enough prison space?  Are there enough foster families?  Or would Javert lose his bloodlust and jump off a bridge into the Seine?

If I were Jonathan Turley, I would be champing at the bit to go to Denver and take a second whack at Utah's corrupt Attorneys General before the 10th Circuit.

Again, this is an exquisite dilemma for the governor, the Church, and the next A.G.  I trust they will approach it with a minimum of wisdom, compassion and inspiration.

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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Something Fishy

I think there must be something fishy going on.  It has been almost a year since the last hearing in the Kody Brown bigamy statute challenge case.  Federal District Court Judge Clark Waddoups has had this case for AGES !!  It was clear that he would rule in the Browns' favor.  Maybe he has gotten cold feet.

This case is HUGE.  Jonathan Turley is positively wetting himself in anticipation of overturning one of American history's greatest judicial injustices.  What is with this protracted delay?

You KNOW that there are political and government officials in and out of Utah who don't want polygamy to be decriminalized.  That would make them look like the fools they are.  Have these officials had quiet ex parte discussions with Waddoups to try to get him to change or at least delay his ruling?  That would be unthinkable (unless you look at what happened after the 1953 Short Creek raid and internment debacle).

I can see it taking two months, or maybe even six, for Waddoups to write up his decision, but this is starting to get silly.  Not too long ago, I gave him till the end of the day - - - - he didn't obey me!

As of last week, now 15 states perform gay marriages.  Why cannot Utah stop criminalizing the very existence of people who have two or more bed-partners?

I guess I should not have been so naive as to think that this would go smoothly.

Renn. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Update:
I want to soften my cynicism.  As of 12/13/13 (31 days after this original post), Judge Waddoups came through with a resounding repudiation of Utah's bigamy statute.  I guess he just wanted to give me a Christmas gift.
Renn.

Strange

Strange - I think reporters do not know how to describe the twin towns of Colorado City and Hildale.  Some refer to them as the "polygamous town".  What is a 'polygamous town'? - a town which is married to more than one spouse?  Is San Francisco a "homosexual town"? - a town that mates with a different town of the same gender.

I saw a news report the other day which noted that 87% of "black" Americans support the re-election of president Barack Obama.  Why is that?  Is it because black people feel that our country is better led by a person whose skin is black?  Is it because Barack Obama is a socialist, and black people gravitate towards socialism?  Who knows?

Here's another interesting factoid.  You do not own your vehicle.  "Wait !!!", you say, "I have a Certificate of Title!".  Well, a certificate of title is not THE title.  It is a piece of paper that certifies that there is a title, and you do not have it.  The REAL title is the MSO (Manufacturer's Statement of Origin).  Read the following from the Government's Border Protection website: 

"What documents are considered valid proof of ownership for Customs and Border Protection (CBP) purposes when exporting a vehicle / car from the U.S. which does not have a title?

If the vehicle or car you intend to export does not have a title, a manufacturer's statement of origin (MSO) is considered valid proof of ownership."

 --------------------------

When you buy a new car, the dealership sends the MSO to the State.  The state keeps the MSO and continues to own the vehicle.  You are merely the renter of the car, as evidenced by the annual rental payment you must make in the form of a registration fee.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

In other news, there will soon be a hearing to address whether Kody Brown's challenge of Utah's bigamy statute is now moot because Utah County has decided not to prosecute the Browns for their plural purporting and cohabiting. This is an interesting twist.  My sense is that Waddoups will rule that the Browns still have standing to challenge the law because the law still menaces them and they were harmed by a long-lingering threat of investigation and prosecution.  I believe that Waddoups will decide that the law clashes with the 2003 Lawrence decision and is now void.

HOWEVER . . . . . . . 

If the next Attorney General (presumably Bishop John Swallow) elects (or is commanded by the Mother Church) to appeal Waddoups' decision to the 10th Circuit in Denver, the panel may choose to disagree with Waddoups (as it did with Ted Stewart in the Bronson v. Swensen case) and assert that, absent an arrest and a trial, the Browns suffered no "harm" and thus have no standing to bring the challenge.

Just like Obaminacare, folks, this is all political. Powerful people want us polyg's to be outlaws at all costs.  It's easier to abuse people if their faces are on a 'Wanted' poster.

Excuse my cynicism again, but there appears to be nothing new under the monogamous (?) sun.  I'm still waiting for Canada to arrest Winston Blackmore and James Oler.  I'll probably turn blue from holding my breath.

Utah has a Safety Net for polygamists - put in place to rescue a disenfranchised population.  The Safety Net and its sponsors have announced a policy of not seeking the decriminalization of plural relationships.  After all, why would you jeopardize your public funding and agenda by arguing for a disenfranchised population to stop being disenfranchised?

Strange!

 

When Kody Comes Home

Today it was reported by the Associated Press that Jeff Buhman, the Utah County prosecutor has FINALLY made up his mind what to do about the Browns' bigamy case.  He has completed his "investigation".  He has decided that, though guilty of bigamy, the Browns will not be charged, and that his policy (like that of the Attorney General) will be to prosecute bigamy only when there is a "victim" or fraud.

So what now? Do we all sigh a big sigh of relief?

Buhman is asking that Kody Brown's civil rights lawsuit against him be dropped because, now that the county's policy is to not prosecute polygamists, the case is "moot".  This is ridiculous.  It's much like saying, "I'm not hitting you any more, so you shouldn't complain about my hitting you."  One element of 'standing' in a Constitutional challenge is that the parties need to have been harmed or threatened with harm.  Clearly the Browns felt sufficiently threatened that they relocated to Sin City.  The judge (Waddoups) agrees.

The other silliness in this situation is that, however sincere Buhman is in his determination not to prosecute Kody and the four wives, the stupid bigamy statute is still firmly in place and still threatens most Utah families.

OKAY !!! - you and I both know that these idiots are smart enough to absolutely never use this lame statute on consenting adult polygamists, because that would do exactly what Jonathan Turley is doing right now - it would create a watertight test case to challenge the statute on the basis of Lawrence v. Texas (June 2003). The Church dreads this. When the Lawrence decision thoroughly decriminalized gay sex ("sodomy"), Utah did not instantly repeal its sodomy statutes, yet they are VOID nonetheless.  Well, the language of  Lawrence did not confine itself solely to homosexuality - it in fact decriminalized ALL consensual adult intimacies.  This (as Snortleff so eloquently argued in his Amicus brief in Lawrence) reaches all such conduct and inevitably VOIDS Utah's anti-polygamy codes.

Truth is, in spite of Lawrence, Sharkleff and Buhman have for a very long time preferred to "menace" the Browns and their fellow polygamists with the specter of prosecution.  If you are always flinching and cringing under the threat of incarceration, maybe you'll cloister yourself away somewhere in a dark, isolated corner of the state and keep your mouth relatively shut. As a stigmatized, marginalized minority, you can be more easily trampled on, and all the supercilious, pious Church-folk can go to bed at night peacefully knowing that those filthy polygs are second-class citizens - outlaws - lepers - nothing like our brave polygamous pioneer ancestors.

So here's the problem - if the Browns take Buhman at face value, they could perhaps venture back across the state line and resume residence in Lehi, reassured that arrests are now not imminent.  How does this protect them however from the prosecutors in the other counties they might visit?  Two other county prosecutors have charged polygamists in recent years. You get my point.

Let's cut through the fluff.  If no self-respecting prosecutor (besides Sean Reyes) will seriously pursue consenting adult polygamists, why is it SO DOGGONED important to keep that dumb, utterly-unenforceable bigamy statute in force?

Because the Church DREADS this one simple question:

Elder Soandso, now that polygamy is no longer a crime in the United States, will the Church resume its once suspended solemnization of plural marriages and stop excommunicating members who embrace it?