WillySteed*ChristineMarie*KolleneSnow*AudienceMember*EdKociela AuthorPlygsAnswersQuestions *JewelryAtGuilt* DickJaneFlipbook*Spoilers*Tweets*RebeccaMusser*My5WivesGreat Stories*BuyTeamKolleenTshirtTodayDon'tMissOut!!!Review!!

Monday, July 11, 2011

Breaking News - ‘Sister Wives’ husband to challenge Utah’s polygamy law !

The family is the focus of a reality TV show, "Sister Wives," that first appeared in 2010. Law enforcement officials in the Browns’ home state, Utah, announced soon after the show began that the family was under investigation for violating the state law prohibiting polygamy.
On Wednesday, the Browns are expected to file a lawsuit to challenge the Utah law that makes polygamy illegal.
The lawsuit is not demanding that states recognize polygamous marriage. Instead, the lawsuit builds on a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down state sodomy laws as unconstitutional intrusions on the "intimate conduct" of consenting adults. It will ask the federal courts to tell states that they cannot punish polygamists for their own "intimate conduct" so long as they are not breaking other laws, like those regarding child abuse, incest or seeking multiple marriage licenses.
Brown has a civil marriage with only one of his wives; the rest are "sister wives," not formally wedded. The Browns are members of the Apostolic United Brethren Church, a fundamentalist offshoot of the Mormon Church, which gave up polygamy around 1890 as Utah was seeking statehood.
Making polygamous unions illegal, they argue, violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment, as well as the free exercise, establishment, free speech and freedom of association clauses of the First Amendment.
"We only wish to live our private lives according to our beliefs," Brown said in a statement provided by his lead attorney, Jonathan Turley, who is a law professor at George Washington University.
The connection with Lawrence v. Texas, a case that broadened legal rights for gay people, is sensitive for those who have sought the right of same-sex marriage. Opponents of such unions often refer to polygamy as one of the all-but-inevitable outcomes of allowing same-sex marriage. In his dissenting opinion in the Lawrence case, Justice Antonin Scalia cited a threat to state laws "based on moral choices" against "bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality and obscenity."
The head of the Roman Catholic Church in New York, Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan, made a similar comparison on his blog Thursday in an essay criticizing the state’s legalization of same-sex marriage and the possible "next step," which could be "another redefinition to justify multiple partners and infidelity."
Such arguments, often referred to as the "parade of horribles," are logically flawed, said Jennifer C. Pizer, a professor at the law school at the University of California, Los Angeles, and legal director for the school’s Williams Institute, which focuses on sexual orientation law.
The questions surrounding whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry are significantly different from those involved in criminal prosecution of multiple marriages, Pizer noted. Same-sex couples are seeking merely to participate in the existing system of family law for married couples, she said, while "you’d have to restructure the family law system in a pretty fundamental way" to recognize polygamy.
Turley called the one-thing-leads-to-another arguments "a bit of a constitutional canard," and argued that removing criminal penalties for polygamy "will take society nowhere in particular."
The Supreme Court supported the power of states to restrict polygamy in an 1879 case, Reynolds v. United States. Turley suggests that the fundamental reasoning of Reynolds, which said polygamy "fetters the people in stationary despotism," is outdated and has been swept away by cases like Lawrence.
Douglas Kmiec, a law professor at Pepperdine University in California, said today’s courts might not agree with the sweeping societal conclusions of the 19th-century courts, but noted that more attention has been paid in recent decades to the importance of internal family issues as part of the public policy sphere. Questions of child abuse and spousal domination, he said, "could figure into a judicial examination of polygamy.
"We’re more sensitive to the fact that a household can be quite repressive," he said, and so reservations about polygamy "might be even more profound."
Turley disagreed, noting that "there are many religious practices in monogamous families that many believe as obnoxious and patriarchal," and added, "The criminal code is not a license for social engineering."
 THOUGHTS?

40 comments:

  1. Told you they had a political agenda.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yes you did. UGH! I don't agree with it, i'll say it upfront. What's next? Marriages? They say they are AUB. Can't make up their minds.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Classic Doublespeak - a video which says they are independents, and press releases which say they are AUB

    ReplyDelete
  4. Oh boy, I can't wait for this. I wonder if Nancy Grace will interview Kody? Kind of strange though...challenging Utah when living in Nevada. And who's paying the legal fees?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Watch and see... Principle Voices, the FLDS, the AUB, the Kingston Group, the Harmstons....

    ReplyDelete
  6. So what's the big deal. They are not asking for marriage, they are asking as adults to cohabitate and not be arrested.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This is premeditated and has been a long time coming. They are AUB. They just want to create a faux distance from all of these negative polygamy things to create a nice facade on polygamy and then move in for the law change.
    Can't blame them, I suppose the fact that they only care about themselves and will do nothing to get what they want probably makes them quite American these days.

    ReplyDelete
  8. What about Hugh Hefner? When he lives with 3 YOUNG women that's just fine. When these what to have a family, it's a big deal.
    Will the others follow? Probably, but they are all going to hell if they don't get out of the LDS so it doesn't matter to us.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Nancy Grace, that would be GREAT! I love her...she'd chew them up.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I hate to admit it, but there's a couple that comment on here that seem to know more than we do. These might actually be scary people.
    What other agenda could they have besides marriage? A polygamist president?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Prediction - the case will be thrown out of court, or it will not be heard by the judges, and the Browns know it. This is another Brown / Safety Net / Principle Voices publicity stunt. The state constitution of Utah forbids the practice of polygamy in perpetuity as a condition of statehood. The mainstream LDS church runs the state of Utah, and the social acceptance of mainstream Mormons and the LDS church is based upon their rejection of polygamy. The mainstream LDS church will not allow a resurgence of polygamy as it threatens their ability to gain new members or retain members already in their church.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Sorry Browns, but if you really felt that strong about challenging Utah's polygamy statutes, WHY DID YOU RUN AWAY to another state? Oh yeah, it was because Kody was a "successful" advertising exec with poorly maintained vehicles and a 60K Lexus sports car (he got it cheap when it fell off the truck, no doubt)that has BALD TIRES! Another baby on the way, with NO VISIBLE MEANS OF SUPPORT but still able to rent 4 houses for his broodmares. Unemployed, but living off his retirement that only amounted to $1900 according to his bankruptcy filing. But he's always wanted to live in Vegas, and that's where Robyn's family is located so why not, right?

    Meanwhile, we are supposed to believe this guy is the poster child for legalizing polygamy because he and his families were driven out of Utah by the mean old Lehi police, based on season 2 of Sister Wives.

    I don't think so.

    ReplyDelete
  13. They weren't driven out, remember, last post said they wanted to go! They can't make up their minds!!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  14. People need to care what happens behind lcosed doors. Look at poor Caylee Anthony.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Legalize gay marriage...legalize plural marriage....Will we be legalizing marriage to animals and marriage to young children soon too?

    ReplyDelete
  16. I predict that not only will the case be thrown out of court, but that the Browns will be assessed attorneys fees for wasting the court's time. If they want to change the law, they should work with the legislature not the courts. In Canada, the leader of the polygamist cult in Bountiful is arguing that he does not owe Canada taxes because he is a religious organization. Then he turns around and says that it would be detrimental to disclose how his "religion" is practiced. The Canadian judge not only required him to testify and disclose everything about his cult, he assessed fees against him for bringing the motion AND the evidence in tax court can be used against him in any future criminal prosecution. Something like that will happen in this case.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Won't they be shooting themselves in the feet? If Utah were to legalize their cohabitation, wouldn't Christine have to list Kody as her SO if they move back? Wouldn't it make it more difficult to get welfare? I'm sure they will find a loophole. I really don't care as long as they aren't playing the welfare system. These people are just so random. Keeping track of what page they are on is like a watching a fly in a room. Seriously, make an outline and stick with it.

    ReplyDelete
  18. The loophole is the want to not be arrested for screwing around and making cult babies, not pushing the marriage issue tells you it's not s "religious" thing. They can still collect welfare!

    ReplyDelete
  19. I tell you, this family is getting scarier by the minute. I will re show some tapes to see what other lies we catch them in. Polygamy should NOT BE LEGALIZED.

    ReplyDelete
  20. It's another wonderful way for the cult to get their names in the papers, to start stirring up interest in the show, and to promote polygamy. You need to remember, these aren't the only polygamists. Many are cruel to their wives and will be flocking here if we allow it. As far as being compared to the gays community, they should be appalled. they don't teach children they must follow them into their lifestyle or be damned.

    ReplyDelete
  21. http://www.jpost.com/JewishWorld/JewishNews/Article.aspx?ID=228736&R=R1

    New Jewish group wants to restore polygamy

    ReplyDelete
  22. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsfaithblog/52176637-180/ban-attorney-circumcision-francisco.html.csp

    Mormon polygamy arises in debate about proposed circumcision ban

    ReplyDelete
  23. I don't know if this is a lie, but it is something that has bugged me. Kody said on the Oprah show (after Meri revealed that she had been fired because of the reality show) that his professional relationships had NOT suffered because his co-workers, once they found out he was a polygamist, were very understanding. But then he tells People magazine that his professional relationships had suffered because customers were choosing to take their business elsewhere. I don't know about you, but I would resent a co-worker who is causing my company to lose business due to an illegal lifestyle that he is flaunting on a reality TV show. So it seems that Kody had to be slanting the facts to suit his agenda.

    ReplyDelete
  24. W/R/T Meri losing her job. We still don't know if she lost her job or a promotion. In interviews, they said job. On the show, it sounded like it was a promotion or a different job than she had been doing, but she had not lost her job.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I love the fact that the Brown's are popularizing polygamy. I wonder if the people who feel this kind of lifestyle should be legalized feel the same way about the polygamists in Texas... You know, the ones who marry 14 year old girls? Should that be legal? Don't pedophiles deserve the same rights as gays and polygamists? Sadly, America is going the way of ancient Greece and the Roman Empire. For those too ignorant to understand what that means, do your homework!!!

    ReplyDelete
  26. You know, a commenter on here has taught me so much about this, I read and read and read. It's scary. It's not a personal attack on the Brown's themselves, it's the cult behind it all that scares me.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I told you the Browns had an agenda. Ultimately the mainstream LDS church based in Temple Square in Salt Lake City Utah will call the shots in this case. Most of the judges on the Utah Court are faithful mainstream LDS Mormons with temple recommends. A Temple "recommend" means the bearer of the "recommend" can attend services in the temple in Salt Lake City. If the judges do not act in accordance with the will of the current President of the mainstream LDS church, their temple "recommends" will be withdrawn - that is tantamount to excommunication. These judges will do whatever they are told to do by the current LDS church president. You can bet on it.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Can they even file suit in Utah if they're currently living in Nevada? Technically, they're not currently affected by Utah's law against co-habitation.

    **I wonder if the people who feel this kind of lifestyle should be legalized feel the same way about the polygamists in Texas... You know, the ones who marry 14 year old girls? Should that be legal? Don't pedophiles deserve the same rights as gays and polygamists?**

    I'm on the fence about legalizing polygamy, although I do believe that Utah's anti co-habitation laws are wrong. However, there's a lot of difference between accepting a relationship between multiple consenting adults and one between an adult and a minor child or a young woman who has been pressured into consenting. One of my main concerns about legalizing polygamy is that it would lead to an acceptance of underage marriages.

    ReplyDelete
  29. merisnewneighborJuly 12, 2011 at 6:50 PM

    Lots of underage marriages. Lots of marriages coming from places we're not even thinking about. Isn't it strange they don't want to be seen as legally wed? I still see that as a factor for welfare fraud. It sounds so harmless, yet, it isn't. So much more to it than meets the eye. And I like the folks! Why aren't they filing that here in Nevada? Because we don't prosecute cohabitation? Polygamy is illegal in all states.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Cynical Jinx- I wonder if Gloria Allred is related to Christine?

    ReplyDelete
  31. Jan_Tine, I've wondered the same thing. I checked her website but it has no mention of her marriage and subsequent divorce, at all. Oops, once I googled I see why - nasty bankruptcy hearing in 1992. But I think if Meri ever wants to divorce Kody, Gloria's her gal.

    ReplyDelete
  32. They are really getting full of themselves. Christine has been preaching this for years. SO hypocritical to make a season out of running, then fight after your run. "I fought the law but the law one" remember that song. Let's hope it plays that way.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Well, we see that's going nowhere.

    ReplyDelete
  34. I really don't get all the arguments against the Brown family, et al, and welfare/foodstamps. In the first place, Mormons have their own form of welfare and the vast majority never use government welfare in any way. They call it "Relief" and their own Deseret Industries provides everything a family could need from cleaning products to the best instant mashed potatoes I've ever tasted in my life! Even if they do resort to foodstamps and Medicaid they had three adult family members who were, until recently, gainfully employed. They paid into the system just like everyone else, why shouldn't they use the safety net they paid into?

    ReplyDelete
  35. Not when they act like, conveniently, they are living alone and single, with no other form of financial help except themselves. Christine acted like she was living alone trying to live on 2000 a year. AND, getting paid by TLC at the same time. That's the problem folks have. No one says folks shouldn't get the help when they need it, but you can't have it both ways, with 10 cars, 3 employed, but your saying your a loley single mother of 5.

    ReplyDelete
  36. They don't want to legalize their marriage so that they can continue the food stamp trick. Maybe not the Browns, but the FLDS who pay it to their leader.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Cali,
    You need to review your data. Brooke Adams found that 44% of the FLDS people in Colorado City / Hildale were on food stamps and Medicaid. That figure is several times higher than the general population of both mainstream LDS Mormons and all the other religious groups in the area. Fundamentalist Mormons have NOTHING to do with Deseret Industries (run by mainstream LDS church) or other welfare assistance programs established by the mainstream LDS church. Fundamentalist Mormons consider mainstream LDS folks to be apostates, and mainstream LDS folks excommunicate fundamentalists. Deseret Industries does NOT supply welfare assistance to fundamentalist Mormons.Fundamentalist Mormons take welfare benefits from the US government, and they call it "BLEEDING THE BEAST."

    ReplyDelete
  38. And don't they have stores where they can turn that into cash? And give it to their leader?

    ReplyDelete
  39. Cali, you're confusing the mainstream Mormon Church (Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints) who are non polygamists, with Mormon Fundamentalists, who practice polygamy. It is the mainstream church that has a welfare system, not Mormon Fundamentalists. The latter usually have huge families to support on insufficient funds.

    ReplyDelete
  40. They don't want to talk religion, but they want to PLAY with the law? I'm so confused.

    ReplyDelete