As reported in today's SL Trib, the 10th Circuit dismissed for lack of standing a challenge by three individuals (husband, first wife, and second-wife-to-be) who were denied a marriage license by the Salt Lake County Clerk's Office for the proposed second marriage. Sounds like a rejected script for a Big Love episode. For legal news junkies, here's a link to the court's opinion, which appears in the short post describing the case over at Religion Clause.
Interestingly, the court rejected the plaintiffs' "fear of prosecution" allegation by pointing out that Utah's criminal laws against polygamy are not being enforced. The state agrees with this. Here's a quote straight out of the SL Trib article: "The ruling also noted the Utah Attorney General Office's stated policy of focusing on crimes within polygamous communities that involve child abuse, domestic violence and fraud, rather than enforcing the law against consenting adults."
Huh. It seems to have escaped the attention of the mainstream media and society at large that laws against plural marriage are no longer being enforced against consenting adults in Utah. Or anywhere else? Here's another intriguing quote from the article: "The ruling makes clear that a credible threat of prosecution is one of the hurdles that must be cleared by any challenge of the state's civil and criminal bans on polygamy." So absent a threat of prosecution, no one has standing to challenge a law that is on the books but (apparently) will not be enforced. Sort of a legal Catch-22.
I wonder if the state would start taking the same approach to enforcing the speed limit on state highways? No enforcement unless there is an independent infraction like reckless driving.
Posted by: Dave | Aug 30, 2007 at 03:17 PM
Dave,
I spoke on just this topic at Sunstone.
Polygamy laws are currently in more or less the same place as sodomy laws were, pre-Lawrence. They are used as additional offenses, but not enforced as stand-alone violations. This creates some interesting results.
Posted by: Kaimi | Aug 30, 2007 at 03:22 PM
It seems the focus should be on the Bible, and what Christ said about the matter. One man and one wife ( Matthew 19).
So much nonsense about celestial marriage and temple sealings. Read what Christ said in Mark 12:24.
Posted by: Arthur | Aug 30, 2007 at 04:59 PM
Arthur, let's hope Utah state officials are reading my weblog and will re-orient the Utah State Code to conform with biblical pronouncements. I can't wait for the first stoning of a shopowner who keeps his shop open on Sunday. Or is it Saturday? And they can just cut out that whole section of the code dealing with divorce (following NT pronouncements). Or just make it effective with an oral statement by the husband (following OT practice). There will be a wholesale revolution in banking when the usury prohibition is reinstated. And so forth.
Posted by: Dave | Aug 30, 2007 at 05:08 PM
As a someone who just took out another set of law school loans, I'd be okay with prohibiting usury :)
Posted by: JKC | Aug 31, 2007 at 07:43 AM
You might consider taking a few steps back and applying a little common sense. I've yet to see "God" accredited as the author of any flavour of the bible.
A bit of a red flag if you think about it.
Cheers
Posted by: Nocturnal | Aug 31, 2007 at 08:03 AM
My understanding was that polygamy laws are almost impossible to enforce. Anyone know more on this?
Posted by: Seth R. | Aug 31, 2007 at 02:04 PM