In Brown v. Buhman, the US District Court of Utah, Central Division, Judge Clark Waddoups struck down a portion of the Utah Bigamy statute, removing the phrase “or cohabits with another person” as being unconstitutional.
The Utah Bigamy statute, Utah Code Ann. § 76-7-101, provides:
- (1) A person is guilty of bigamy when, knowing he has a husband or wife or knowing the other person has a husband or wife, the person purports to marry another person or cohabits with another person.
- (2) Bigamy is a felony of the third degree.
- (3) It shall be a defense to bigamy that the accused reasonably believed he and the other person were legally eligible to remarry.
As I have written before, there is nothing in the Bible that prohibits polygyny nor is there any condemnation for the practice. The practice is regulated in God’s Law, God took credit for giving King David multiple wives and Isaiah 4:1 says that polygyny will occur in the Millennial Kingdom.
It is my opinion that polygyny (in the form of a written cohabitation agreement (marital covenant)) is the only way for a man to avoid the dangers of Marriage 2.0. Likewise, it meets the needs of the High-N sluts who are (by their own choices) now wholly unsuitable for monogamous marriage. Such women self-selected to ride the carousel and share a man with other women. Fine, let them share. Three or four such women should band together, move in together and solve their interpersonal problems. Once they’ve done that they need to go husband hunting and when they find one they all agree is suitable, make him the offer of a lifetime.
This case will in all likelihood be appealed, but only because they’re elected officials and a majority of the voters think polygyny is wrong. As the Salt Lake Tribune put it: “[Judge] Waddoups was probably aware an appeal was likely and that’s why he took almost 11 months to write a 91-page opinion.” Having read the opinion, if the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals makes a hash of this and tries to overturn the ruling, I think this is headed for the Supreme Court. Waddoups reasoning is well cited and tight. The fact that the State basically didn’t even respond to any of the seven significant constitutional points raised by Brown is not going to help.
I call this a victory for privacy and a strong blow against Marriage 2.0