Issue: Polygamy
Date: April 16, 2004 -- with Official Postscript:  August 14, 2004
Author: Ken Larsen

The Utah Constitution forbids polygamy. But an amendment is not required. The Utah Constitution also says "the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land." (Article I, Section 3) Since the ban on polygamy clearly violates the 14th Amendment, it is null and void, and polygamy is constitutional. All it needs is a Court that can read plain English.

When I am elected Governor, my current understanding of the State Constitution means that my oath of office will require me to order the County Clerks to issue marriage licenses without discrimination on the basis of religion, including those who may belong to the Same Sex Church. I will also be required to order that all law enforcement officers in the state must refrain from enforcing unconstitutional laws forbidding consensual adult relationships. The Constitution is written in English. A Governor does not need a Judge to translate it for him any more than I need a clergyman to translate the Bible for me. Also, I think it is perfectly within the role of the Government to decide minimum ages for marriage with and without parental consent. And, I think it is also within the role of Government to determine that a person should demonstrate an ability to support an additional family before taking an additional spouse. If the proposed Taliban Marriage Amendment passes, It will violate the National Constitution, rendering it unconstitutional. It would be as unconstitutional as a state amendment returning blacks to slavery. If we want the Constitution to stand when others don't like it, we've got to let it stand when we don't like it.

In view of the proposed Utah Amendment and the national attention to this issue, I suggest that every voter ask all the other gubernatorial candidates to take as clear a stand as I have on this issue in general and on the amendment in particular. If because of me, the other candidates, including Utah's future Governor, are confronted with this issue it will be well worth any votes I might lose. See how I can win without getting elected?
________________________________________________________________________________

Official Postscript:  August 14, 2004

It has been brought to my attention that requiring financial assets only for those who want plural spouses is discriminatory.  I agree.  It is not fair to require financial responsibility for those who want plural spouses and not require it for everyone.  Until we can reform our current welfare laws, it might be appropriate to require it for anyone who wants to raise a family, regardless of how they arrange it.  Maybe those who do not wish to submit to a financial check should somehow be allowed out if they voluntarily accept a lower standard of potential welfare protection.  And, since marriage is a serious contract, it should be reserved for people capable of making serious contracts.
________________________________________________________________________________



Ken Larsen, Candidate for Governor
Personal Choice Party