July 29, 2009
Friends,
The FLDS are gathering in peaceful protest outside the Matheson courthouse on Wednesday, July 29th, at 9 a.m., in response to Judge Lindberg's rulings last week that threw out the settlement agreement proposals mediated between the FLDS and the Utah Attorney General's office. Principle Voices is not taking a position on the Berry Knoll sale to be addressed in the hearing.
This issue is much bigger, and has far reaching implications for all who embrace plural marriage.
Principle Voices opposes:
1) any ruling that deprives polygamists of the right to organize or manage a trust with their own assets.
2) any ruling that declares a trust formed by polygamists as "promoting illegal activities", "invalid", un-Constitutional, or "illegal", simply because the organizers embrace plural marriage.
3) any ruling that deprives the FLDS (or any other polygamists) of the right to access their own assets or their right to self-governance. (By extension, substitute the name of any other group such as the Kingstons or the AUB, etc., in place of FLDS; we oppose any ruling or government action that would deprive any of those communities of their rights.)
4) any ruling or government action that establishes an inequity in the law that distinguishes, and diminishes, the rights of polygamists from the rights of other American citizens.
This is an historic and potentially life-changing event for our families and communities. Principle Voices and representatives of several polygamous communities will join the FLDS July 29, to show our support and stand in opposition to this travesty.
Mary Batchelor
Director
Anne Wilde
Community/media relations
principlevoices at comcast.net
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
Why is it appropriate to allow trusts to be set up to support the violation of the law?
Is it just because it is the crime of 'choice' for fundamentalist Mormons?
In any event, this is not a new development in trust law - just as polygamy has always been illegal in the United States, the prohibition on a trust being established to further illegal activity was established long ago.
Judge Lindberg is just applying the law.
BTW, if you look at the UEP Trust document, para. 2, second sentence, which states:
"It [the UEP trust] exists to preserve and advance the religious doctrines and goals of the Fundamentalist Church of Latter-Day Saints..."
As noted by their attorney, Amy Hennington, in a letter to a state agency in Texas, one of the tenets of the FLDS Church is polygamy, an illegal activity in all 50 states. To 'preserve and advance' a religious doctrine is to further the doctrine and tenets of the FLDS, which includes polygamy. The trust has been illegal since it's inception, just as the FLDS trust in Texas is illegal.
Protesting the judge's ruling will not change the law, nor make the trust a legal entity that can promote an illegal activity.
My post had so many typos in it that I decided to repost it. I've been really tired lately and running on fumes. Here is my response below:
To TXBlues:
Homosexuals have for years created trusts and contractual relationships in order to provide for their committed partners, because they have not been allowed an equal opportunity to marry and have the rights married couples have; more than that, their relationships were considered CRIMINAL until June 26, 2003 (when Texas enforced a criminal statute against two homosexual males and became the very state responsible for bringing THE case to the US Supreme Court which ultimately decriminalized homosexual - and private consenting adult - conduct (to its great chagrin).
Civil unions vary from state to state, and fall far short of the over 1500 marital benefits and rights afforded heterosexual married couples. They are not transferrable from state to state, and are not recognized in states that forbid civil unions or gay marriage (Utah, for example). Prior to Lawrence, precedent law of the land was Bowers v. Hardwick, which held that homosexuality could (and should) be criminalized.
This means that any trust formed by homosexual couples to support their rights as committed partners and which in any way "promoted" homosexuality (by supporting homosexual relationships), would be a "violation of trust law" for "promoting illegal activities."
I just don't agree with your "letter of the law" approach to right and wrong. The law is not always right, which is why it has to adapt, evolve and refresh itself. Injustice usually incites legal and social change.
The reality of the law is that throughout history, minority groups have been oppressed by the majority for a number of reasons, and horrific injustice has occurred over and over again because people with power (or people with numbers) can bully the powerless and get away with it. Just because the majority approves, doesn't make it right.
I believe the responsibility of the powerful is to protect the vulnerable and exercise that power with care.
Post a Comment