Who would of thunk that Utah, of all places, could be in the mainstream of forging legal victories for sexual freedom?

I could see some avenues if they prove successful for legal P4P to go main stream.

Who'd of though even 20 years ago that gay marriage and legal pot would arrive by now

A couple of points below:  

1.  Religious freedom (like all of our freedoms) is limited.  
 The first amendment grants freedom of speech, yet you cannot publish a bounty on someone's life, that's conspiracy to commit murder.  You cannot slander or libel someone.  The first amendment also grants freedom of religion. But some religions believe in human sacrifice.  That's murder.   Some gun nuts like to think the second amendment is unlimited--no, it's not.  So Point #1, our freedoms are limited by laws when there's a compelling government interest at stake.  Point #1 isn't even debatable, it's a truism.  

2.  In regard to polygamy, is there a compelling government interest to ban this practice?
 The point is debatable. As a matter of social policy, I think polygamy should be banned.  The practical effect of polygamy is that a few wealthy men will claim numerous young wives.  Many young men who would like to get married will go without a spouse, causing social instability.  Marriage tends to civilize young men & provides a social/legal foundation for raising children. The govt encourages people to be married--e.g., in IRS tax policies.  So the government does have a compelling interest here.   --z

Polyamory, not polygamy, is the real issue. IMHO.

-- Modified on 1/23/2016 11:00:27 AM

Utah had to pledge it was outlaw polygamy in order to join the Union. Not sure if that meant for all time.

 Just to clarify:  
 Polyamory =   being in love or romantically involved with more than one person at the same time.  
 Polygamy = having more than one husband/wife at the same time.  

 Not sure I agree with you here, Fisher.   If five women are in love with you and they all want to live with you, there's not much the govt can do.  One cannot police the human heart.  But when you go to your county courthouse to get five marriage licenses, that's a legal process & the govt has every right to limit marriage licenses to one per citizen.  --z

figuring out what the purpose of having the state involved with lasting relationships, marriage or otherwise, is probably a worthy pursuit in general.

For what it's worth, a number of societies do allow polygamy, and seem to be getting along for better or worse.

And also for what it's worth, it wasn't too long ago that one could be arrested for living with even one person (Co-habitation was the name of the crime.) let alone five.  

So at least there's been some progress

 

 One could make a libertarian argument here--that govt shouldn't be involved in marriage at all.  But in the U.S., you cannot rewind two centuries of legal precedent.  Marriage is a critical legal entity in so many different areas:  tax law, wills & estates, child custody. Even in criminal law, there's the 'marital privilege' that protects any communication between a married couple from being used as evidence.  Under marital privilege, a prosecutor cannot force a married person to testify against a spouse.  These are important legal precedents that cannot be wished away.    

 I think polygamy is bad social policy.  And I'm not impressed by the  'religious freedom' argument that justifies some guy in the Utah desert getting half a dozen sister-wives.  Polygamy is typically a symptom of repressive patriarchal communities where women have little power.  Name a polygamy community where it's common for a women to have half a dozen 'brother-husbands'.  The entire argument is ridiculous.    As stated earlier, marriage is an important legal agreement.  But what you're describing above is hardly marriage.  Take all five of your sister-wives down to the courthouse to get married.  The county clerk will make you choose just one. After you pick your favorite, let's see if the rejected four still love you, lol.  --z

There are some important differences between polygamy and its problems in religious sects as opposed to legalizing it in general. I am not arguing for or against legalization, but the differences matter.

(Before proceeding, let me apologize for using economic terms like “shortages” and “supply” with reference to women. Women are not a commodity, but since that is how religious polygamist sects tend to treat them, I hope you will bear with me as I use the terms here.)

Religious polygamist sects indeed do experience shortages of women. It has serious consequences, most of them not good. But the sects tend to be small, closed communities. It’s doubtful that people in society at large would enter into polygamy in sufficient numbers to cause a supply problem.

Religious polygamist sects, at least Mormon-based ones, make polygamy mandatory. A man with but one wife is not worthy of Heaven, and a woman who doesn’t accept sister wives will be “destroyed,” according to Mormon scripture. All of that, and the competition to be more righteous than the next guy by accruing more wives, accelerates the creation of shortages. By contrast, legalized polygamy will not be mandatory. I doubt that people will embrace it in droves, so, again, it is not likely to have much effect on overall supply.

Finally, religious polygamist sects only allow men to have multiple wives. Legalized polygamy today would most likely also allow women to have multiple husbands. That could help balance the supply. It could also provide women a bargaining chip that women in polygamist sects don’t have: “If you go and get more wives, honey, I’ll just go and get myself more husbands.”

My principal objection to religious polygamy is that it makes the practice mandatory, a commandment from God. It is used to brainwash and bully adults into participating, like it or not. Worse, children are raised with the brainwashing. This complicates the “consenting adult” argument, at least when consenting adults have kids. Non-religious polygamy might—might—stand a better chance of avoiding the brainwashing side of things. It would be interesting to see.

 A secular democracy has no need to accommodate the crackpot philosophy above.  As stated earlier in this thread, there are limits to religious freedom.  Like one marriage license per citizen.   And whoever "destroys" a woman will be caged like an animal.  It doesn't matter what fairy tale religion they believe in.    I wonder what world you're living in.  Just about any married woman would laugh at your ridiculous scenario.  She can barely put up with one husband.  And where are the men who want to be 'brother-husbands' to a dominant queen bee.   You really need to get out more.  --

I ran into a few members of one at a fair one day, and after getting to know them a bit, they opened up about their lives, and from what I could tell, things seemed pretty damn attractive.

About 3 men and 3 women (changes from time to time), share child raising, chores, income production, and have some far out orgies too.  They have been together about five years.

Granted it's a little slice of the population, but what a slice.

If I had it to do all over again, this is how I'd have done it