Utah Enemies
If Tom Green (not the actor in bad comedy movies) is guilty of polygamy, then why aren't his wives? Are they not just as guilty? How can he be guilty and they not? It is like convicting ONE person of conspiracy! That is assuming that there are marriages at all between any of them. It may not be easy being Mr. Green, but if what they are guilty of is living out in the desert in their own homes by themselves, in "common law" marriages, then what Utah is really punishing him for is a living arrangement. As far as his bringing children into the world with several different women, the United States Supreme Court keeps telling us that procreation is a fundamental right. If it is not, then neither is abortion. And if he is guilty of nonsupport because the women use public assistance, then why aren't the mothers equally guilty? They too are not supporting their children if they use tax supported benefit programs. Prosecuting him for criminal nonsupport renders him less able to support his children. It appears that part of the motivation for this prosecution is pressure by the feminazis, who want cohabitation by a man with more than one woman to be made into a first or second degree felony. One of the problems with the American political system is that it attracts those who want to control other people's lives and punish them for not living the way they want everybody to live. Thus Prohibition. Marijuana laws and the War on Drugs. Seat belt and motorcycle helmet laws. The assault on SUV's. Sodomy laws used against homosexuals. God forbid that we adopt a live and let live approach that allows us the freedom to swing our arms any way we see fit as long as we do not whack our neighbor's nose.
The Department of Human Services Office of Recovery Services operates the Child Support Services program.
If a Mormon in Utah tithes to the church but fails to pay child support, is he found in contempt for using the money to support his church per church doctrine when he could have sent that money to the state agency? And why are good Mormons tolerating state laws that put him in such a position?
Article 1 Section 1 of the Utah Constitution proclaims inalienable rights, including the right to possess and protect property and freedom of speech.
Article 1 Section 3 of the Utah Constitution proclaims the supremacy of the United States Constitution.
Article 1 Section 6 of the Utah Constitution provides for the individual right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, while allowing the Legislature to define the lawful use of arms.
Article 1 Section 7 of the Utah Constitution is the state Due Process Clause.
Article 1 Section 9 of the Utah Constitution prohibits excessive fines and bails and cruel and unusual punishments.
Article 1 Section 16 of the Utah Constitution prohibits imprisonment for debt except in cases of absconding debtors.
Article I Section 21 of the Utah Constitution prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude.
Article 1 Section 24 of the Utah Constitution declares that all laws of a general nature shall have uniform application. Apparently does not apply to the bigamy laws applied against Tom Green but not his wives.
Article I Section 26 of the Utah Constitution declares that the provisions of this Constitution are mandatory, unless by express words they are declared otherwise. So which provision has the express words declaring that the Utah Constitution is not mandatory in cases of child support? Or in case of Tom Green?
Feel free to e-mail me at [email protected] with any information that you have to share.
If the back button does not take you there, click Home to go to the Index page of this Antipeonage Act Website, click Enemies for the main Enemies page, click Letters for the Letters page, and click Allies for the Allies page. Or you can use the Antipeonage Act Site Map.