Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
'Sister Wives' Family Challenges Utah Bigamy Law  
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12427 posts, RR: 25
Posted (2 years 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3211 times:

Another political hot potato involving marriage rights as well as Mormanism:

Quote:

The polygamous family, stars of the TLC show "Sister Wives," has sued Utah and the county they fled from, hoping to persuade a federal judge to overturn the state's bigamy law as unconstitutional.

The case could potentially decriminalize a way of life for tens of thousands of self-described Mormon fundamentalists, most of whom live in Utah where bigamy is a third-degree felony punishable by up to five years in prison.

The state, meanwhile, has publicly said it won't prosecute consenting adult polygamists unless there are other crimes involved, but insists the law doesn't overreach.

Seems to me one day polygamy will be legal, just not sure when.


Inspiration, move me brightly!
69 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinealberchico From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 2916 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (2 years 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3201 times:

TLC actually made a reality show on polygamy ?   

Anyone remember when they had the extreme machines series ???



short summary of every jewish holiday: they tried to kill us ,we won , lets eat !
User currently offlinestealthz From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5689 posts, RR: 44
Reply 2, posted (2 years 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3194 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Revelation (Thread starter):
Seems to me one day polygamy will be legal, just not sure when.

One man treating several women as his property to aquire and dispose of at will.

There is a medieval concept whose time has come again!!

Retrograde court challenges and legislation may make it legal.. it still a concept that should stay in the dark ages!!



If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12427 posts, RR: 25
Reply 3, posted (2 years 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3190 times:

Quoting stealthz (Reply 2):
One man treating several women as his property to aquire and dispose of at will.

There is a medieval concept whose time has come again!!

These days it seems to be quite the opposite.
Guy meets girl, they marry, they divorce, he's broke, she's set for life, in many cases.

Do you know what the real penalty for polygamy is?
Two wives!



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineNorthStarDC4M From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 3005 posts, RR: 37
Reply 4, posted (2 years 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 3164 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

I personally think Government should get out of marriage completely.


Polygamy, Polyandry, Gay Marriage, who cares... make it all a common law arrangement done by testaments and legal documents.

Fixes so many problems in society for equality.

-DONE-



Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9911 posts, RR: 26
Reply 5, posted (2 years 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 3163 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting NorthStarDC4M (Reply 4):
I personally think Government should get out of marriage completely.


Polygamy, Polyandry, Gay Marriage, who cares... make it all a common law arrangement done by testaments and legal documents.

      

Could not agree more.



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5504 posts, RR: 8
Reply 6, posted (2 years 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 3142 times:

Quoting NorthStarDC4M (Reply 4):
Polygamy, Polyandry, Gay Marriage, who cares... make it all a common law arrangement done by testaments and legal documents.

Fixes so many problems in society for equality.
OK, so who is the "number one"? Who gets to make the life decisions? There can only be one.

And that person is the true "partner". The theory behind a union via either marriage or whatever is that the parties are "equal" (yes they can view that they have different levels and responsibilities within the marriage but LEGALLY by view of law, they are each equal to make decisions for the other if incapacitated). That isn't ever the case in a group, some have more authority than others, some join later than others and so have varying levels of "accrued interest" in whatever value is create in the group, etc. Once you go beyond the first "pair" is starts to get complicated but there is always a "core" pair that are above the rest.

This is where a true "union" of people is at its core between two people.

Tugg

[Edited 2012-07-27 09:17:54]


I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9911 posts, RR: 26
Reply 7, posted (2 years 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 3109 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tugger (Reply 6):
This is where a true "union" of people is at its core between two people.

Who am I to judge whether a true union is between two people, three people, or 24 people?

Quoting tugger (Reply 6):
OK, so who is the "number one"? Who gets to make the life decisions? There can only be one.

I see no reason why three people can't agree on life decisions. It migth be harder, but just because something is difficult doesn't mean I want to deny someone the right to do it.

There are people who have open marriages, people who have multiple girl/boyfriends, people who are bisexual, whatever. I don't really see this as any different.

Hell, at least with three people, you can have a majority!



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9524 posts, RR: 42
Reply 8, posted (2 years 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 3095 times:

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 7):
Hell, at least with three people, you can have a majority!

A menageority.


User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9911 posts, RR: 26
Reply 9, posted (2 years 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 3073 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting David L (Reply 8):
Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 7):
Hell, at least with three people, you can have a majority!

A menageority.

You came out of hibernation to say THAT???!!!



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (2 years 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 3068 times:

Quoting alberchico (Reply 1):
TLC actually made a reality show on polygamy ?

Anyone remember when they had the extreme machines series ???

Both TLC and The History Channel have turned into crap.

What gets me about that show is they get this surfer looking guy who has this "It's cool man" air about him. Why not someone like Warren Jeffs, looks like a troll, who has sex with underage girls? Or stories about how young men in these polygamy groups are excommunicated over the slightest infraction because the older men see them as a threat? Guess that would not get the ratings they like.


User currently offlinebhill From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 963 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (2 years 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 3046 times:

Well, if it is ever legalized, ya better keep track of the gene pool....


Carpe Pices
User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9524 posts, RR: 42
Reply 12, posted (2 years 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 3020 times:

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 9):

I am suitably chastised. However, as I recall, you didn't like the King of Queens, either.   


User currently offlinedcaviation From United States of America, joined Aug 2011, 198 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (2 years 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 3018 times:

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 10):
Why not someone like Warren Jeffs, looks like a troll, who has sex with underage girls? Or stories about how young men in these polygamy groups are excommunicated over the slightest infraction because the older men see them as a threat?

They have show about him and young men in these polygamy groups. Its on Nat Geo and its called "I survived Cult".


User currently offlineSmittyOne From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (2 years 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 2993 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 6):
OK, so who is the "number one"? Who gets to make the life decisions? There can only be one.

And that person is the true "partner". The theory behind a union via either marriage or whatever is that the parties are "equal" (yes they can view that they have different levels and responsibilities within the marriage but LEGALLY by view of law, they are each equal to make decisions for the other if incapacitated). That isn't ever the case in a group, some have more authority than others, some join later than others and so have varying levels of "accrued interest" in whatever value is create in the group, etc. Once you go beyond the first "pair" is starts to get complicated but there is always a "core" pair that are above the rest.

This is where a true "union" of people is at its core between two people.

Tugg

All this may be true, but "Who cares" is the point. At the end of the day it should be THEIR problem, not the people's problem. I resent the fact that the gov't I'm funding would waste its time on dictating the nuts and bolts of how people should live their lives.

My view is that if someone is stupid enough to accumulate more than one person who could potentially cut off his/her life support, then that is the price they pay for legitimizing multiple bedtime options!


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6595 posts, RR: 9
Reply 15, posted (2 years 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 2979 times:

What about allowing that, but banning the cult ?


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9911 posts, RR: 26
Reply 16, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2970 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting David L (Reply 12):
I am suitably chastised. However, as I recall, you didn't like the King of Queens, either.

If you're talking about the show, you are correct. Terrible. Don't remember a reference here, though.

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 10):
What gets me about that show is they get this surfer looking guy who has this "It's cool man" air about him. Why not someone like Warren Jeffs, looks like a troll, who has sex with underage girls? Or stories about how young men in these polygamy groups are excommunicated over the slightest infraction because the older men see them as a threat? Guess that would not get the ratings they like.

So they can't show people living supposedly happy lives? They have to show the bad side of everything?



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19516 posts, RR: 58
Reply 17, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2967 times:

If people want to live in polygamous or polyandrous or polyamorous relationships, I have no problem with it.

I do have a problem with legally sanctioning such relationships without having a clear framework in place for who gets to make decisions on whose kids, property, divorce, etc. Bipartite marriages can be pretty uniform from that perspective. But once you get into multipartite marriages, it gets really confusing. What happens when the single husband dies, leaving five wives? Who inherits what? Can they remarry? It's a total mare's nest from a legal perspective and that's the only reason that I don't support legally recognizing these unions. "Morality" and "tradition" are irrelevant to me. Polygamy *is* traditional in a lot of the world and was traditional even in Judeo-Christian history. How many wives did Solomon have? Let's not even get into the concubines.

If they want to make their own legal arrangements, that's fine. But a marriage is a cookie-cutter arrangement based around two people.


User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9911 posts, RR: 26
Reply 18, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2962 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 17):
If they want to make their own legal arrangements, that's fine. But a marriage is a cookie-cutter arrangement based around two people.

I hate to say it Doc, but you know what that sounds like, right?

"Marriage is a cookie-cutter arrangement based around a man and a woman."



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19516 posts, RR: 58
Reply 19, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2948 times:

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 18):
I hate to say it Doc, but you know what that sounds like, right?

"Marriage is a cookie-cutter arrangement based around a man and a woman."

Sounds like it, but it isn't. I just laid out some very cogent legal and logistical reasons why it shouldn't be done. Opponents of gay marriage, under oath, have been unable to list even one.

Now, if someone can come up with a general arrangement that will allow any number of consenting adults of any gender to enter into a group marriage while dealing with all of the complications I've mentioned (and those I haven't), I'll lead the parade supporting it. Good luck to whomever that may be.


User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9911 posts, RR: 26
Reply 20, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2940 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 19):
Sounds like it, but it isn't. I just laid out some very cogent legal and logistical reasons why it shouldn't be done. Opponents of gay marriage, under oath, have been unable to list even one.

I understand. But sound bytes are sound bytes....



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12427 posts, RR: 25
Reply 21, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2917 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 17):
But once you get into multipartite marriages, it gets really confusing. What happens when the single husband dies, leaving five wives? Who inherits what? Can they remarry?

There must be some things that can be learned even from ancient times, or from what is done currently in places like Saudia Arabia.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 17):
It's a total mare's nest from a legal perspective and that's the only reason that I don't support legally recognizing these unions.

Bipartite marriage is a total mare's nest from a legal perspective, and yet there's a thriving services community out there set up to handle it. I think you should reconsider your point on this topic, it doesn't make much sense to me.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19516 posts, RR: 58
Reply 22, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2908 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 21):
ere must be some things that can be learned even from ancient times, or from what is done currently in places like Saudia Arabia.

The trouble is that if you only legalize polyGAMY, but not polyANDRY or polyAMORY, you now have gender discrimination. Let's posit that it's essentially inevitable that gay marriage will become legal within the next few years. It's not going to fly to allow a man to marry three wives, but not a woman to marry three husbands, or three men to get married. So at that point, any historical examples fly out the window.

Furthermore, the historical examples of how marriage law was handled was pretty medieval (now that's begging the question, innit?   ). In some systems, a wife could be divorced by saying "I divorce you!" three times. In others, a man could whip or beat a nagging wife (oh, how many men wish that were still the case?   ). Certainly, it wasn't a marriage of equals.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 21):

Bipartite marriage is a total mare's nest from a legal perspective, and yet there's a thriving services community out there set up to handle it. I think you should reconsider your point on this topic, it doesn't make much sense to me.

A marriage is a single agreement between two consenting adults. Because there are only two adults, if they break up, they wind up single. Their stuff and children (and divorce is mostly about "stuff" and children) must be divided between two people. That makes matters relatively simple. And even then, divorce and marriage law are a horrible mare's nest as it is.

So now you have to deal with what to do when Mary and Jack want to stay together, but Pat wants to go his/her separate way. Or what happens when all three want to break up? There are an enormous (possibly infinite?) number of potential combinations and thus, complications. Can you imagine how byzantine the law would have to be?

Like I said, if someone can come up with a viable legal solution, I'll lead the parade for legal recognition. I just doubt that anyone can.


User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8220 posts, RR: 8
Reply 23, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2899 times:

Quoting Revelation (Thread starter):
The state, meanwhile, has publicly said it won't prosecute consenting adult polygamists unless there are other crimes involved, but insists the law doesn't overreach.

This is going to be pretty bad time for Mormons to bring this up. They have a Mormon running for President and a lot of the religious right are going to be far from impressed. Let's see if it becomes a plank on the GOP Platform.   

As for me, I found it can be a challenge to keep one wife somewhat happy for 43 years. No way would I want multiple wives. But then I must admit that I was fortunate to have been able to marry a woman who was smarter than I am and who would be impossible for me to match. If some Mormons needs multiple wives then I believe that they just did an incompetent in selecting the first one.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7877 posts, RR: 52
Reply 24, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2899 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 6):
And that person is the true "partner". The theory behind a union via either marriage or whatever is that the parties are "equal" (yes they can view that they have different levels and responsibilities within the marriage but LEGALLY by view of law, they are each equal to make decisions for the other if incapacitated). That isn't ever the case in a group, some have more authority than others, some join later than others and so have varying levels of "accrued interest" in whatever value is create in the group, etc. Once you go beyond the first "pair" is starts to get complicated but there is always a "core" pair that are above the rest.

I don't know, that could happen, but there can be a completely dominant and submissive person in a bigamous relationship... I say let consenting adults do whatever. If a woman wants to give up power and enter into a polygamous marriage (or bigamous marriage for that matter,) let her, it's her choice.

I think the government should get out of the business of marriage all together. Let people set their inheritance for whoever. I can set it for my mom and dad if I want, for my future wife, for my friends... who cares. Marriage will just be a word... churches can perform marriages to whoever they want, a man can decide to "marry" a man (for marriage will be a ceremony, defined by him.)

If someone wants to marry dogs or toasters, who cares!? Under the system I wrote, the government wouldn't write down anything about marriages, it's just what you say it is. He obviously wouldn't be able to set his inheritance to his dog or toaster, as they are not consenting adults, and as long as he doesn't sexually abuse his dog, that can be his husband/wife. Or toaster wife. Who cares.

The only problem I could see is when you get to insurance and job benefits... obviously jobs will want 1 clearly defined spouse, otherwise a pilot could just "marry" all his/her friends and get them all non-rev privileges. I'll have to think about that one.

To sum up, it would give more freedom to people... they could define what marriage is for them. Religious institutions can continue to marry man and woman or man+women, men+woman, man+car, etc. The toaster weirdos will probably be weird regardless if they "marry" their toasters or not...



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
25 Pyrex : I find it profoundly ironic that people that were getting their panties in a twist about objections to the usage of the word marriage "equality" in th
26 vikkyvik : Just an FYI (which you may already know): "fundamentalist Mormon" groups that believe in polygamy are not part of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latte
27 Post contains images flyingturtle : Well, in Switzerland we have a government that works exactly like this. I know three people who are in a relationship together. Two males are in a re
28 mariner : I started the NZ thread (and used the words marriage equality) and I'm not opposed to it if that's what people want to do. I would expect strong lega
29 LMP737 : I stand corrected. They already have that show, it's called Sister Wives. Why don't they have a weekly show that shows the other side of this story?
30 DocLightning : I know that, and that's why it's not going to fly unless it's legalized for as many adults of whichever gender they like.
31 kiwirob : Surprised at you Doc how the hell can you support gay marriage and not polygamy. What give gays more right to marriage than folks who want to marry m
32 LMP737 : The second you do that be prepared for the s%t storm from the religous right. Including Mr Sister Wives guy.
33 usflyer msp : I encounter this everyday at work. In MN we have Somali men who will have three wives, only be legally married to one of them and the other two will b
34 vikkyvik : Because that's not how TV stations work. "Oh, we can't put that show about marriage on TV unless we put a show about divorce on there too!" or "We sh
35 Ken777 : The question is if the voters can identify and accept the difference. There is a difference in the Jewish faith - conservative and reform Muslims? Th
36 DeltaMD90 : That's pretty closed minded, don't you think? There is even an example earlier in this thread describing the relationship between two men and a woman
37 Aesma : The thing is that "progressive" people that want to live with several people (polyamory) don't care about marriage, that thing of the past. So people
38 Post contains images DeltaMD90 : Wow now I really see that both sides of the gay marriage debate have hypocritical stances. So much for open mindedness! (not just you Aesma, there se
39 vikkyvik : What about all the straight, monogamous couples who don't care about marriage? Should the state break them up?
40 Revelation : Personally, I don't see the difference between a guy wants one woman to screw and to do the housework vs many women to screw and to do the housework,
41 DocLightning : Because Aesma is "one side of the gay marriage debate?" No, he isn't. So hop off that train because it's not sitting on the rails. It is not hypocrit
42 IMissPiedmont : I was having a discussion with someone just the other day regarding polygamy. She didn't understand my point that legaly there is no such thing. Marri
43 DeltaMD90 : If you looked at my posts, I even pointed out that there are more complications with polygamy, I even said: and I was commenting on: So the state sho
44 DLPMMM : The government should not recognize ANY form of marriage...man-woman, same sex, multiple partners... Marriage is s religious construct that should ha
45 Post contains images DeltaMD90 : That's what I was trying (and failing) to say myself, well put!
46 PPVRA : Here's another vote for no state involvement in marriages. And no preferential tax treatment, either.
47 DocLightning : Agreed. But they do. And until they don't, then they should recognize gay marriage, but not multipartite marriages. And frankly, we're never going to
48 KiwiRob : Woopee I'm in a straight marriage as well, so is the Iragi muslim down the road from me, however he has two wives, they all appear to get on pretty w
49 Aesma : I live in a country where there is an active fight against cults (for example scientology) and most people are fine with it. I live in a country wher
50 Ken777 : Look at the tax codes and you can see it is not restricted to a religious affair. Also consider the reality of a civil ceremony to marry two people,
51 DLPMMM : That is exactly my point! It USED to be a religeous affair (and the government should have kept their noses out of it then as well) The legal "bond"
52 KBJCpilot : Technically true but it is a matter of opinion. The "New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage" is still part of LDS doctrine and is described in the
53 KBJCpilot : Pretty good guess there, Mariner. There were a few reasons that the LDS Church abandoned polygamy. One was to achieve statehood. The second was to pr
54 mariner : Does anyone ask him (I mean publicly, the press) what attitude he has to polygamy? mariner
55 DeltaMD90 : That's just skirting around the issue. Fight the cults, don't deny rights for harmless, innocent citizens. Polygamy does not equate to cults, does no
56 DocLightning : If my several carefully constructed arguments haven't convinced you, then I don't know what else to say. If your argument is that "normalcy" defines
57 Ken777 : You need to remember about the separation of Church and State in the US. The State has the right to pass laws related to marriage. The State has allo
58 DocLightning : And the other thing is that there is no law stopping polygamists from marrying two, ten, or ten thousand (god help that man) wives. The law stops any
59 DeltaMD90 : Don't you miss out on legal/financial benefits though?
60 DocLightning : Well, yes. And when it becomes legal within a couple of years, we will go sign the necessary paperwork. The only place it really affects us is on our
61 DeltaMD90 : Not trying to pose a loaded question, and I don't think I have seen you answer this, but what happens to a family with 1 husband and 2 wives, multipl
62 DocLightning : They are subject to the laws of the United States. If they don't like it, they don't have to come. That's fine, but it's not legally a "marriage," wh
63 MD-90 : The specific term is polygyny. Mormons called it plural marriage since they never endorsed one woman marrying multiple men (obviously that would spoi
64 DeltaMD90 : Agreed... I think we are arguing the same thing actually... are you against the government being involved in marriages?
65 Pyrex : Having kids is not in itself a positive. If the people who are having kids are the people who, all things considered, should not be breeding, but are
66 mariner : Directly, yes, but the divorce was only the tipping point. Indirectly there were many more cogent reasons for the split with Rome than that, to do wi
67 DocLightning : You are talking about making a "group" out of nothing. It makes perfect sense if you support the ObamaCare idea that there should be no pre-existing
68 Pyrex : You don't need to support Obamacare to defend that. The spouse can get access to the group at their own employer. Stay at home mom? Tough shit, nobod
69 gemuser : Doc, I'd want a site on that. I don't think you are correct. Almost all countries recognize a validly preformed marriage on citizens of a country whe
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Germany's Electoral Law (still) Unconstitutional posted Wed Jul 25 2012 09:18:00 by NoUFO
Terrorist Acts Against Orthodox Family In Egypt posted Sun Jan 2 2011 17:56:23 by RussianJet
Human Rights Law Is An Ass posted Fri Dec 17 2010 04:52:49 by skidmarks
'Arizona Style' Immigration Law Proposed In Texas posted Mon Nov 8 2010 13:00:13 by windy95
New Super Strict Drink Drive Law In BC posted Fri Oct 8 2010 20:45:26 by YVRLTN
The 10 Commandments: Not The Basis Of Western Law posted Sat Aug 28 2010 01:45:17 by tugger
Judge: No To Controversial Parts Of AZ Law posted Wed Jul 28 2010 10:49:03 by Longhornmaniac
President Obama Signs Financial Reform Into Law posted Wed Jul 21 2010 12:21:44 by propilot83
TFA Harder To Get Into Then Law School! posted Tue Jul 13 2010 20:48:07 by marsciguy
Alabama City Supports AZ Immigration Law posted Wed Jul 7 2010 18:59:19 by TSS