Polygamists Win in Court Using Trail Blazed by Same-Sex Marriage

Last December U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups issued a ruling effectively decriminalizing polygamy in Utah.

Under Utah law, a person may not file for more than one marriage license or cohabit with more than one “spouse.” The law is intended to prevent both state-recognized polygamy and the unofficial polygamy practiced by some people in which a man is legally married to one woman, but has other “wives” to which he is not legally married.

Kody Brown and his wives, stars of the reality TV show “Sister Wives” depicting their polygamous lifestyle, filed suit against the State of Utah over the law, and last December Judge Clark Waddoups struck the portion of the law preventing people from living together in polygamous relationships; Judge Waddoups did, however, leave the portion of the law preventing a person from filing for more than one marriage license. Since most polygamous groups do not typically file for multiple state marriage licenses anyway, this effectively decriminalizes polygamy in the State of Utah.

A stay was placed on Judge Waddoups’ initial ruling last year, pending a decision on whether or not Utah owed the Browns any financial compensation. This week, Judge Waddoups ruled the State of Utah must pay the Browns’ attorney fees, and put the full force of his December ruling into effect.

This ruling is significant, because the logic employed by Judge Waddoups decriminalizing polygamy is the very same logic being used to advance same-sex marriage around the country. Gay activists have long dismissed claims that same-sex marriage would lead to polygamy as “fear mongering.” However, Judge Waddoups’ ruling owes a lot to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Lawrence v. Texas ruling which has been used over and over again in court to argue against everything from the federal Defense of Marriage Act to state marriage amendments.

Judge Waddoups’ ruling largely hinges on the following: (more…)

NY Farmers Fined for Refusing to Host Same-Sex Wedding

A couple who owns a farm in New York has been fined $13,000 for refusing to host a same-sex wedding ceremony two years ago.

The Times Union writes,

“The operators of a well-known agro-tourism farm in Schaghticoke have been fined $13,000 by the state for their refusal almost two years ago on religious grounds to host a same-sex wedding ceremony.

“The Human Rights Commission concluded that Robert and Cynthia Gifford, who operate Liberty Ridge Farm, violated the rights of Jennifer and Melissa McCarthy who had the right to marriage under New York’s 2011 passage of same sex marriage.

“Cynthia Gifford in 2012 told the couple she would have a problem allowing their wedding ceremony on the farm due to her Roman Catholic religious beliefs.”

Here we have private property owners who run a business–in this case, a farm–being fined by the government for declining to open their property up for an event that violates their religious beliefs–a same-sex wedding ceremony.

This is the kind of situation that almost inevitably comes up any time government begins writing special rights and privileges into the law based on sexual-orientation. In this case, the so-called “right” of a same-sex couple to get married is trumping a family’s First Amendment right to freely practice their religion as well as their property rights and any rights they have as business owners to choose with whom and how they engage in commerce.

Even though Arkansas does not recognize same-sex marriage, if cities begin passing so-called “nondiscrimination” ordinances like the one currently up for consideration in Fayetteville, churches, family businesses, business owners, private schools, and others could face criminal prosecution and expensive court battles simply for declining to open their property for same-sex ceremonies or receptions as this family in New York did.

No one should be fined or otherwise penalized for declining to have a part in something they find morally objectionable.