Polygamous judge wants to keep his post

[jlujan69]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051103/ap_on_re_us/polygamous_judge

Should he stay or should he go?

 

[CHARLES H]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051103/ap_on_re_us/polygamous_judge

Should he stay or should he go?

he broke the law no matter what it was. a traffic violation should probably be excused,but not a high level mistomenor or felony.

 

[belladonic-haze]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051103/ap_on_re_us/polygamous_judge

Should he stay or should he go?

It's about time we stopped bugging in people's personal lives! Let him stay. It is his and her (their) choice.

 

[CHARLES H]

It's about time we stopped bugging in people's personal lives! Let him stay. It is his and her (their) choice.

it's still against the law. no way around it. if i stole your car would that be my personal choice?

 

[belladonic-haze]

it's still against the law. no way around it. if i stole your car would that be my personal choice?

If I conscented...yes


Those women have a choice. If he is that good to maintain three wives and they are all happy...I do not see the crime. I know it is the law, but laws can be changed..........If something is the law, it doesn't mean it is a good law or a reasonable law.

But my opinion was asked.....stay or go...and I say stay. Who am I to judge the judge?

 

[CHARLES H]

If I conscented...yes


Those women have a choice. If he is that good to maintain three wives and they are all happy...I do not see the crime. I know it is the law, but laws can be changed..........If something is the law, it doesn't mean it is a good law or a reasonable law.

But my opinion was asked.....stay or go...and I say stay. Who am I to judge the judge?

well until it is changed he is guilty. as a judge he is held to a higher standard than normal citizenry. he knew he was wrong and choose to disobey.

 

[belladonic-haze]

well until it is changed he is guilty. as a judge he is held to a higher standard than normal citizenry. he knew he was wrong and choose to disobey.

Things won't change until someone stands up and makes that change...

 

[CHARLES H]

Things won't change until someone stands up and makes that change...

who will stand up for this change. who wants more than one wife? don't get me wrong the obvious would be great,but the nagging............one wife is enough for me.

 

[Norseman]

he broke the law no matter what it was. a traffic violation should probably be excused,but not a high level mistomenor or felony.

What law did he break?

 

[wanderingone]

What law did he break?

Since the judicial conduct committee found him to be polygamous he broke the law against having more than one spouse.

Technically....when nobody was fooled into believing they were marrying into a monogamous marriage, and only ONE of the "marriages" is legal I'm not sure he can really legally charged....but ethics is another issue... a person can have sanctions imposed by a governing body in their profession without facing legal charges.

hmm.. does Utah have "common law" marriage laws? I wonder how it effects a person who is legally married to one person who lives with someone else in a state where merely living together for a period of time makes on married?

But anyway I'm wandering down a side trail ...if he's a judge and he's found to be in violation of the legal statutes in his state I'm thinking an ethics committee would wonder how he could possibly judge according to the laws that he himself is not adhering to.

 

[MethodMan]

... can one be if he can pick and choose what Law he can follow?

I tell you what. If I had been put away by this guy in a non-jury trial, I would be seeking apeals.

 

[horuhe00]

Separation of Church and State

If you are taking the 10 commandments out of the courts, then you have to accept a man with more than one wife

 

[Petunia]

He broke the law.. so he should be removed. He married three sisters. What if the three sisters decided to each marry three of his brothers? Can we say 'all in the family'.

 

[MadeInOz]

1 word:

Gornski...

If you don't obey the law, do you deserve to be the one dealing it out?

 

[praying]

He broke the law.. so he should be removed. He married three sisters. What if the three sisters decided to each marry three of his brothers? Can we say 'all in the family'.

He married 3 sisters! Those 32 kids will have a heck of a time understanding the family tree.

In my family two brothers married two sisters and boy oh boy trying to keep track ain't easy.

 

[MaddiesDad]

He has no place in a judges chamber,get him out of there.

 

[MidnightBlue]

hmm.. does Utah have "common law" marriage laws?

Interesting point. My first take on this was that if they haven't registered the marriages with the civil authority, he can't be a polygamist under the law. But it turns out that Utah does recognize common law marriage. The requirements are:

For a common-law marriage, a man and woman must (1) be capable of giving consent and getting married; (2) cohabit; and (3) have a reputation of being husband and wife. (Common Law Marriage Fact Sheet)
​

So that would provide the basis for finding him to be a polygamist.

 

[Maynard Keenan]

"(1) be capable of giving consent and getting married"

Since he was already married, he was incapable of legally marrying the other women, so they could not be married under common law. Polygamy laws refer to legal marriage. If you think its right to have 7 wives, thats fine as long as you dont start registering them all as legal wives.

 

[wanderingone]

"(1) be capable of giving consent and getting married"

Since he was already married, he was incapable of legally marrying the other women, so they could not be married under common law. Polygamy laws refer to legal marriage. If you think its right to have 7 wives, thats fine as long as you dont start registering them all as legal wives.

But I think in terms of the common law marriage laws it means capable as in physically, mentally, emotionally capable.. if it meant legally capable wouldn't it allude to that?

Oops.. looked up Utah statutes... (why I don't know cause strangely this stuff fascinates me)

(1) A marriage which is not solemnized according to this chapter shall be legal and valid if a court or administrative order establishes that it arises out of a contract between two consenting parties who:

(a) are capable of giving consent;

(b) are legally capable of entering a solemnized marriage under the provisions of this chapter;

(c] have cohabited;

(d) mutually assume marital rights, duties, and obligations; and

(e) who hold themselves out as and have acquired a uniform and general reputation as husband and wife. (2) The determination or establishment of a marriage under this section must occur during the relationship described in Subsection (1), or within one year following the termination of that relationship. Evidence of a marriage recognizable under this section may be manifested in any form, and may be proved under the same general rules of evidence as facts in other cases.

http://www.law2.byu.edu/Wardle/New_Fam/family_law_utah.htm

 

[Norseman]

But I think in terms of the common law marriage laws it means capable as in physically, mentally, emotionally capable.. if it meant legally capable wouldn't it allude to that?

It didn't allude to being physically, mentally or emotionally capable. All it said was that you must be capable. He wasn't.