SALT LAKE TRIBUNE: …Waddoups’ ruling attacks the parts of Utah’s law making cohabitation illegal. In the introduction, Waddoups says the phrase “or cohabits with another person” is a violation of both the First and 14th amendments. Waddoups later writes that while there is no “fundamental right” to practice polygamy, the issue really comes down to “religious cohabitation.” In the 1800s — when the mainstream LDS Churh still practiced polygamy — “religious cohabitation” in Utah could have actually resulted in “multiple purportedly legal marriages.” Today, however, simply living together doesn’t amount to being “married,” Waddoups writes.
“The court finds the cohabitation prong of the Statute unconstitutional on numerous grounds and strikes it,” Waddoups later writes.
Utah’s bigamy statute technically survived the ruling. However, Waddoups took a narrow interpretation of the words “marry” and “purports to marry,” meaning that bigamy remains illegal only in the literal sense — when someone fraudulently acquires multiple marriage licences… (more)
EDITOR: We thought the right to multiple spouses would take a major, multi- year campaign and, here it is, like ripe fruit falling from a tree.
The introduction of a second ‘spouse’ into a household is not necessarily adverse. Many families are unnecessarily broken up due to the law and social stigma against de facto bigamy.
Under certain circumstances, not that uncommon, another spouse would be welcomed by both wife and husband.
The next step is to make bigamy legal so that the “co-habitant” can also share marriage legal benefits, provided both original spouses agree.
Let the government keep its nose out of the citizen’s bedroom.
Amen! But let it not be subsidized by the tax laws.
“Let the government keep its nose out of the citizen’s bedroom.”
I don’t disagree, but where does that leave pedophiles?
EDITOR: Good clarification. The same applies to rape and murder. These are crimes against individuals. The actions are not consential.