In 2011, the Sister Wives Blog started out as a place to talk about the TLC reality show "Sister Wives", Kody Brown and his wives Christine, Robyn, Meri and Janelle. Today we not only discuss the show, we discuss Polygamy in our society, and the public perceptions of the Mormon Religion. We discuss "Polygamy USA" and will be covering "My 5 Wives."
This blog is geared towards the adult reader, so please, no one under the age of 18 years. Thank you!
I have to say this. Children are not protected in this society. I taught for years, and hope to again. I had a child in my classroom, we'll call her Sara. I knew Sara's mother from HS, she was a nut then. Sara would come to school with bruises and stories of Satanic Rituals. The Welfare did not listen to my case nor my principals. Later in the year, the mother came in high and literally yanked Sara out of the bus line and beat her against a concrete wall. Only THEN did she get taken from the mother. Sara came to live with me, I got my Fosters lic. She was so happy, so free for the first time. Going to church was so strange for her, and her tales of the Satanic stuff was harrowing. She loved being hugged and loved and just being a little girl. Sara was required to go to counseling, joint counseling with me. What was mom required to do? Not a damn thing but pick up her kid 90 days later. AND take her to the home she shared with one mane and 3 women! Sara begged me to stay, not a thing I could do. She went to live with this "group" and was brought back to me in 2 weeks black and blue. 90 days later, She had to go back, and they moved. Sara was never the same, I'm sure, being let down by the system. Society needs to take a long hard look at how children are treated. 17 children are not going to have a decent relationship with their dad. period. ESP. This dad. No way in hell he knows those kids like my husband knows mine. Oh, we might not live in a $300,000 home, or have much, but they have our TIME. What will this door to open the floodgates of child abuse? (enough of my rant)
AND, why haven't they been investigated for the crimes of perjury on Food Stamps and Bankruptcy papers? They want to live together, they want to be single. BLEEDING THE BEAST. Look it up, it's what they call it.
I will have to review this video. Just some preliminary comments : 1) Christine Allred is AUB "royalty" as she is a direct descendent of the founder of the AUB and she bears his last name. She is proud of her heritage and she wants to see polygamy decriminalized. 2)Decriminalization and legalization of polygamy are two separate issues. Decriminalization does not grant all the wives in the marriage the same rights. Only the legal wife (usually the first wife) has rights, and subsequent spouses only have a right to property if that has been arranged in a trust or will arranged by a lawyer. Legalization would grant each of the wives a right to the joint assets of the marriage. Fundamentalist Mormons are NOT interested in legalizing polygamy and probably would not participate in legal polygamous marriages if they were available, because legal polygamy would grant all the wives certain rights.
They picked the wrong family to champion decriminalization. People need to know just how twisted the Brown's family tree is, as well as the number of bankruptcies and other improprieties the adult members of this family have inflicted on society.
Friend of Flora, You are wrong. Decriminalization generally means that the law still prohibits the act, but the penalty is minor or waived in limited circumstances. For example, pot usage may be excused when it is for medical purposes or the crime may be demoted to a misdemeanor that only carries a fine, no jail time, and is not reported on the criminal records, similar to a traffic violation. In this instance, the Browns are seeking to have every law in Utah that prohibits plural marriage abolished. When something is not prohibitted, it is then allowed, as there is no in between. The only way that polygamy can be "decriminalized" is through the legislature, since only the legislature can specity exactly how it is practiced. For example, the legislature could make it legal only when it involves parties over 21 and no coercion and further state that it applies equally to men and women. If the Browns are successful, I can almost guarantee that the first thing Janelle, Christine or Robyn will do is apply for a marriage license. And I can almost guarantee that there will be many polygamist parents who will consent to their underage daughters marrying a polygamist man.
Female Attorney - The Browns are saying that they do not want to be legally married to each other. That is not what they want, or so they claim. They simply want decriminalization, not legal marriage.
Here is a statement from the Web site of Principle Voices, the advocacy group Anne Wilde co-founded with Mary Batchelor and Marianne Watson:
Decriminalization
We do not seek legal licensing for ''spiritual'' marriages. Decriminalization is not the same as legalization.
We do seek decriminalization of polygamy by: (1) the removal or appropriate alteration of laws specifically targeting polygamists (i.e. bigamy, child bigamy, cohabitation, etc.); and (2) the ultimate removal of Utah's constitutional prohibition against polygamy.
Yeah but the max is only five years as it is in Utah with no cases really be tried so i still dont see the extra benefits of decriminalizing for the browns or any other family. They do not want it outright legal because they still want the ability to gain access to benefits etc. They want to pick and choose laws.
Correct Anonymous at 5:30 AM. The Principle Voices do not want polygamy to be legal for all the partners in the marriage because then the subsequent partners would have legal rights. They just want decriminalization so that they can continue to have the non - legal plural wives collecting benefits like welfare and food stamps, but the husband could not be prosecuted for polygamy for non support of his plural wives. Note that the Principle Voices want laws which punish child bigamy (plural marriage to a child) struck down. They want an older man to be able to marry a young girl (some are as young as 12 or 13) without risk of charges of abuse. That is WRONG! The polygamy laws in Utah are RARELY used to prosecute anyone, unless : 1) an older man enters a plural marriage with a child, 2) a woman is coerced into a plural marriage she does not want, 3) there is flagrant abuse of welfare benefits, by the plural wives and the husband is not supporting his children and wives but is living with them in plural marriage, as in the case of Tom Green.
Jonathan Turley is the attorney for the polygamous Bin Laden family - as in Osama Bin Laden. He reports that he is taking this case pro - bono - but is he really ? Or is it that the Bin Ladens are paying the legal fees for Turley once again ? Have you figured out what is going on yet? Are you connecting the dots ? When you decriminalize polygamy for one religious group, you decriminalize polygamy for all religious groups, and you must permit immigration for polygamous wives of men already in this country. Do you understand what is going on here ? If you really do you would be quite alarmed.
If any one believes that Muslim plural wives will NOT apply for marriage licenses if Turley's suit is successful, they are deluding themselves. It is already happening in Amsterdam where polygamy is illegal. The clerks are giving marriage licenses to women who got married in other countries where polygamy is allowed. I am sorry, but I don't believe a word that is stated on Principle Voices. I have been an attorney for more than 20 years and I know that when a judge strikes down a law that makes an act illegal, the act then becomes legal. That happened in Roe v. Wade, and in the Lawrence v. State case. Principle Voices and Mr. Turley are just playing games with semantics in order to sidestep the fact that 85% to 90% of Americans oppose polygamy.
Maybe you are correct, female attorney. Maybe their ultimate goal is to legalize polygamous marriage and grant marriage licenses to polygamists - however I think that a lot of case law would have to be worked out to accommodate that - including property rights, social security rights, child custody, visitation, retirement, health insurance, etc.
I want to privately have sex and make a bunch of babies for you the tax payer to take care of. Anything else we can do for you, Mr. Brown? Over 150,000 debt washed away that increases our products price, Welfare galore, can we buy you a new van? Maybe get you on to have your house re-done "MOVE THAT BUS!" Just let us know what we can do to service you. Since we all don't even live as nice as you do, Mr. Lexus, 350,000 house! Have you hit a lick of work in the past year?
This Privacy issue bothers me. Privacy to do what for others? How would you know they are not doing something illegal? (not speaking of the Browns). If we get too much Privacy, how can law enforcement check into things? Privacy to cook meth while children present? It's a sad thing, but happens in my area quite often. WHAT exactly, would this privacy issue bring up in other aspects of law?
Legalizing polygamy will invite the growth of religious extremists, particularly Islamists. It will substantially increase the birthrate of people not interested in a democratic secular society.
Friend of Flora, YOU ARE SO RIGHT! It would be a nightmare for the family courts. But do you think Turley or the Browns care??? NO, they just want the right to be married to multiple partners. Then let the rest of us work out benefits. Hey, why should they care, when supposedly this all about the right to privately have sex with multiple spouses?
I have to say this. Children are not protected in this society. I taught for years, and hope to again. I had a child in my classroom, we'll call her Sara. I knew Sara's mother from HS, she was a nut then. Sara would come to school with bruises and stories of Satanic Rituals. The Welfare did not listen to my case nor my principals.
ReplyDeleteLater in the year, the mother came in high and literally yanked Sara out of the bus line and beat her against a concrete wall. Only THEN did she get taken from the mother.
Sara came to live with me, I got my Fosters lic. She was so happy, so free for the first time. Going to church was so strange for her, and her tales of the Satanic stuff was harrowing. She loved being hugged and loved and just being a little girl. Sara was required to go to counseling, joint counseling with me. What was mom required to do? Not a damn thing but pick up her kid 90 days later. AND take her to the home she shared with one mane and 3 women!
Sara begged me to stay, not a thing I could do.
She went to live with this "group" and was brought back to me in 2 weeks black and blue. 90 days later, She had to go back, and they moved. Sara was never the same, I'm sure, being let down by the system.
Society needs to take a long hard look at how children are treated. 17 children are not going to have a decent relationship with their dad. period. ESP. This dad. No way in hell he knows those kids like my husband knows mine. Oh, we might not live in a $300,000 home, or have much, but they have our TIME. What will this door to open the floodgates of child abuse?
(enough of my rant)
AND, why haven't they been investigated for the crimes of perjury on Food Stamps and Bankruptcy papers? They want to live together, they want to be single. BLEEDING THE BEAST. Look it up, it's what they call it.
I suggest if they want privacy to stay off a TLC show. Hypocrites.
ReplyDeleteI will have to review this video. Just some preliminary comments :
ReplyDelete1) Christine Allred is AUB "royalty" as she is a direct descendent of the founder of the AUB and she bears his last name. She is proud of her heritage and she wants to see polygamy decriminalized.
2)Decriminalization and legalization of polygamy are two separate issues. Decriminalization does not grant all the wives in the marriage the same rights. Only the legal wife (usually the first wife) has rights, and subsequent spouses only have a right to property if that has been arranged in a trust or will arranged by a lawyer. Legalization would grant each of the wives a right to the joint assets of the marriage. Fundamentalist Mormons are NOT interested in legalizing polygamy and probably would not participate in legal polygamous marriages if they were available, because legal polygamy would grant all the wives certain rights.
They picked the wrong family to champion decriminalization. People need to know just how twisted the Brown's family tree is, as well as the number of bankruptcies and other improprieties the adult members of this family have inflicted on society.
ReplyDeleteLike I said, I've read it all here on this blog. I don't know how to get the word out but tell my friends.
ReplyDeleteInteresting to hear, they could have a solid argument, but we’ll see? Good luck to them on that, I hope it works out.
ReplyDeleteThey just want to roam free, and still collect welfare as singles? Interesting.
ReplyDeleteFriend of Flora,
ReplyDeleteYou are wrong. Decriminalization generally means that the law still prohibits the act, but the penalty is minor or waived in limited circumstances. For example, pot usage may be excused when it is for medical purposes or the crime may be demoted to a misdemeanor that only carries a fine, no jail time, and is not reported on the criminal records, similar to a traffic violation. In this instance, the Browns are seeking to have every law in Utah that prohibits plural marriage abolished. When something is not prohibitted, it is then allowed, as there is no in between. The only way that polygamy can be "decriminalized" is through the legislature, since only the legislature can specity exactly how it is practiced. For example, the legislature could make it legal only when it involves parties over 21 and no coercion and further state that it applies equally to men and women. If the Browns are successful, I can almost guarantee that the first thing Janelle, Christine or Robyn will do is apply for a marriage license. And I can almost guarantee that there will be many polygamist parents who will consent to their underage daughters marrying a polygamist man.
Female Attorney -
ReplyDeleteThe Browns are saying that they do not want to be legally married to each other. That is not what they want, or so they claim. They simply want decriminalization, not legal marriage.
Female Attorney -
ReplyDeleteHere is the statement of Anne Wilde herself - she views decriminalization of polygamy as being their goal, not legalization.
http://blogs.sltrib.com/plurallife/2008/11/you-asked-about-decriminalization.htm
Here is a statement from the Web site of Principle Voices, the advocacy group Anne Wilde co-founded with Mary Batchelor and Marianne Watson:
ReplyDeleteDecriminalization
We do not seek legal licensing for ''spiritual'' marriages. Decriminalization is not the same as legalization.
We do seek decriminalization of polygamy by: (1) the removal or appropriate alteration of laws specifically targeting polygamists (i.e. bigamy, child bigamy, cohabitation, etc.); and (2) the ultimate removal of Utah's constitutional prohibition against polygamy.
Yeah but the max is only five years as it is in Utah with no cases really be tried so i still dont see the extra benefits of decriminalizing for the browns or any other family. They do not want it outright legal because they still want the ability to gain access to benefits etc. They want to pick and choose laws.
ReplyDeleteCorrect Anonymous at 5:30 AM. The Principle Voices do not want polygamy to be legal for all the partners in the marriage because then the subsequent partners would have legal rights. They just want decriminalization so that they can continue to have the non - legal plural wives collecting benefits like welfare and food stamps, but the husband could not be prosecuted for polygamy for non support of his plural wives. Note that the Principle Voices want laws which punish child bigamy (plural marriage to a child) struck down. They want an older man to be able to marry a young girl (some are as young as 12 or 13) without risk of charges of abuse. That is WRONG!
ReplyDeleteThe polygamy laws in Utah are RARELY used to prosecute anyone, unless : 1) an older man enters a plural marriage with a child, 2) a woman is coerced into a plural marriage she does not want, 3) there is flagrant abuse of welfare benefits, by the plural wives and the husband is not supporting his children and wives but is living with them in plural marriage, as in the case of Tom Green.
Tuck Furley
ReplyDeleteThis is a slippery slope and if they are successful (Not a snowballs chance btw)
Then all the various other fundy polygamists and muslims will have a hayday.
Expect to see muslims with all their little wives following behind them in a long line downtown.
Furley is so full of double speak. He is trying to put a ribbon on a road apple.
I bet all the 'innocent' convicts in prison want this attorney, heck they deserve their privacy too!?
ReplyDeleteI mean, if felon bigamists can have "privacy" during a TV show promoting it, why cant they have privacy when they deal drugs and shoot each other up?
Jonathan Turley is the attorney for the polygamous Bin Laden family - as in Osama Bin Laden. He reports that he is taking this case pro - bono - but is he really ? Or is it that the Bin Ladens are paying the legal fees for Turley once again ?
ReplyDeleteHave you figured out what is going on yet?
Are you connecting the dots ?
When you decriminalize polygamy for one religious group, you decriminalize polygamy for all religious groups, and you must permit immigration for polygamous wives of men already in this country.
Do you understand what is going on here ? If you really do you would be quite alarmed.
If any one believes that Muslim plural wives will NOT apply for marriage licenses if Turley's suit is successful, they are deluding themselves. It is already happening in Amsterdam where polygamy is illegal. The clerks are giving marriage licenses to women who got married in other countries where polygamy is allowed. I am sorry, but I don't believe a word that is stated on Principle Voices. I have been an attorney for more than 20 years and I know that when a judge strikes down a law that makes an act illegal, the act then becomes legal. That happened in Roe v. Wade, and in the Lawrence v. State case. Principle Voices and Mr. Turley are just playing games with semantics in order to sidestep the fact that 85% to 90% of Americans oppose polygamy.
ReplyDeleteYes, I want to write a post about Mr. Turley, with the "help of my friends". Soon!
ReplyDeleteThe right to privacy? Why be on TV? Most private situations are not having 100 children.
ReplyDeleteThe issue of decriminalization of polygamy should be put up for a vote - it would be voted down resoundingly.
ReplyDeleteMaybe you are correct, female attorney. Maybe their ultimate goal is to legalize polygamous marriage and grant marriage licenses to polygamists - however I think that a lot of case law would have to be worked out to accommodate that - including property rights, social security rights, child custody, visitation, retirement, health insurance, etc.
ReplyDeleteCNN's John King doesn't look to happy with Mr. Turley, like he thinks it's bullshit.
ReplyDeleteI want to privately have sex and make a bunch of babies for you the tax payer to take care of. Anything else we can do for you, Mr. Brown? Over 150,000 debt washed away that increases our products price, Welfare galore, can we buy you a new van? Maybe get you on to have your house re-done "MOVE THAT BUS!" Just let us know what we can do to service you. Since we all don't even live as nice as you do, Mr. Lexus, 350,000 house!
ReplyDeleteHave you hit a lick of work in the past year?
This Privacy issue bothers me. Privacy to do what for others? How would you know they are not doing something illegal? (not speaking of the Browns).
ReplyDeleteIf we get too much Privacy, how can law enforcement check into things? Privacy to cook meth while children present? It's a sad thing, but happens in my area quite often. WHAT exactly, would this privacy issue bring up in other aspects of law?
Legalizing polygamy will invite the growth of religious extremists, particularly Islamists. It will substantially increase the birthrate of people not interested in a democratic secular society.
ReplyDeleteI DARE the Browns to talk about how that will effect America from the Foreigners. BUT, they won't. They just want their damn cake and eat it too.
ReplyDeleteI thought Mr, Turley spoke very eloquently.
ReplyDeleteFriend of Flora, YOU ARE SO RIGHT! It would be a nightmare for the family courts. But do you think Turley or the Browns care??? NO, they just want the right to be married to multiple partners. Then let the rest of us work out benefits. Hey, why should they care, when supposedly this all about the right to privately have sex with multiple spouses?
ReplyDelete