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

Friday, October 7, 2011

Kody Brown, His 'Sister Wives,' and the Return of Polygamy

Tinseltown is seeking to mainstream polygamous relationships. Having long ago forsaken the favorable depiction of monogamy characterized by such shows as the long-running Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet (1952-1966) and Father Knows Best (1954-1960), Hollywood producers are outdoing themselves in portraying polygamy as just another lifestyle that should be accepted by Americans.
HBO's fictional series entitled Big Love was one of the shows which began the polygamy love affair among Hollywood producers.  The show was followed by the reality series Sister Wives, starring the perennially grinning Kody Brown.  Brown is legally married to one wife, but "spiritually" wed to three other spouses who live pseudo-harmoniously as one big, happy family with sixteen children.  He is the latest calendar pinup for the sexually liberated left, which seems hell-bent on redefining marriage to the point of eliminating it altogether.
The real polygamous Brown family, having replaced TV's fictionalized Big Love family as the poster-family for polygamy, are now suing to make their choices legally legitimate, seeking to decriminalize "consensual" polygamous relationships -- ironically, in Utah, of all places.
For those unfamiliar with the history of Utah, the state has been a stronghold of the Mormon faith since Brigham Young traveled to the American West in order to continue his and his followers' belief in polygamous practices without interference from the law.  Young was husband to 55 wives, a few of whom appear in this photograph.  He sired 57 children.


The Mormon Church repudiated the actual practice of polygamy and wife-sharing in 1890 in order to join the Union.  Though most Mormons are monogamous, outlying fundamentalist, polygamous Mormon sects still flourish in Utah and other states. Mr. Brown is one of the Mormon fundamentalists who justify the taking of multiple wives as an expression of faith.

Brown's lawyer, Jonathan Turley, has defended Brown's polygamous household in an article from the New York Times entitled "One Big, Happy Polygamous Family."

Mr. Turley writes that there are many polygamists in the U.S., among them fundamentalist Mormons and Muslims. It seems both groups are finding government intrusion into their personal lives insufferable.

Turley believes that just because Mr. Brown's family does not look like those of other Utah families, it doesn't mean they are criminals; rather, it simply means that "[p]olygamy is just one form among the many types of plural relationships in our society[.] ... Homosexuals and polygamists do have a common interest: the right to be left alone as consenting adults." The Browns, he continues, "want to be allowed to create a loving family according to the values of their faith."

There are red-light indicators that Mr. Turley's arguments in defense of Kody Brown's polygamous family are being taken quite seriously.

For instance, according to a recent survey taken of Canadian Mormons, fully half would like to see the re-institutionalization of multiple marriages as a holy practice of their faith.

Second, as noted by Nina Bernstein in her New York Times article entitled "In Secret, Polygamy Follows Africans to New York," the influx of Muslim immigrants into New York City (and elsewhere) has meant that many have brought their polygamous practices with them. She writes that most of the women in polygamous households, of which there are thousands in NYC alone, have spoken bitterly of polygamy.

They said their participation was dictated by an African culture of female subjugation and linked polygamy to female genital cutting and domestic violence. That view is echoed by most research on plural marriages, including studies of West African immigrants in France, where the government estimates that 120,000 people live in 20,000 polygamous families.

But in a milieu such as NYC, imbued as it is with multi-culturalism and a "don't ask, don't tell" mentality concerning sexual mores, no one is paying much attention to the establishment of polygamous households. Further, Bernstein ominously notes, "[I]f the household breaks up, the wives' legal status is murky at best, with little case law to guide decisions on marital property or benefits."

The push for gay marriage was based on the monogamous principle, which was used as a model for allowing same-sex unions. But whatever the motives and longings of those espousing gay marriage, as Justice Antonin Scalia memorably noted in his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas (which struck down anti-sodomy laws), the decision would mean a sexual free-for-all, opening the door for the legalization of "bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality and obscenity."

While the left may sneer at Justice Scalia's list of predictions, it is fair to ask just what the consequences of the establishment and legalization of polygamy in the West would be. For rest assured: the practice would not long remain an exotic and titillating source for TV reality shows, but would multiply quickly, bringing many woes with it.

First, legal polygamy would guarantee that women in the West in polygamous relationships would begin to resemble third-world women in multiple marriages. The achievements of the struggle for women's rights in Europe, the Americas, and indeed around the world would be blown to smithereens, for the premise of equal rights for men and women begins with the equality monogamous marriage provides as a bedrock for equal rights for men and women before the law.

Monogamous marriages have never been and never will be perfect; however, for all the vicissitudes and inequities associated with monogamous marriage over the centuries, the truth of the matter is that monogamy has been the foremost reason for the elevation of women to equality with men. The one-on-one relationship ratifies equality in social conduct and before the law. Polygamy destroys the hope of equality at the core level, making the relationship between the man and the women inherently unequal, to copy a phrase from Plessy v. Ferguson. As in the case of Dred Scott v. Sanford, it automatically consigns human beings -- in this case, women -- to a status less than men and thus not as fully human as men.

Multiplicity of partners automatically ensures unequal treatment before the law, whether it is "consensual" or not. The first duty of the law is that another person not be permitted to do harm. Polygamy automatically does harm to the woman, even when she consents to be one of multiple spouses.

The fact of the matter is that the destruction of monogamous marriage and the institutionalization of polygamy will automatically result in the reduction of women to mere concubines, with all the evils attendant to that lesser status. Historically, wherever polygamy has reigned, women and children suffer, and male dominance, in the real sense of that often overused and misapplied term, is guaranteed. Male dominance means sexual dominance, among other things. The woman is reduced to a plaything, her capacities as a being equal to man subsumed under the male. Her influence and significance are divided among a plurality of wives and concubines -- a fate scarcely contemplated by sentimental theorists who go on about "consenting adults."

One need only read the stories of polygamous relationships in the Old Testament, written thousands of years ago, to see clearly the absolute misery the practice caused for all involved -- a reason Christ called for marriage to reflect the initial created order of Adam and Eve. The exhortations of the Hebrew prophets to honor the wife of one's youth plus Christ's articulation of the monogamous principle have been a bedrock on which women's rights have been forwarded.

The misery of women mired in polygamous relationships is stunningly depicted in the brilliant film Raise the Red Lantern (1991), starring Gong Li. Director Yimou Zhang avoids idealization of concubinage and polygamy, preferring the cold eye of realism. He depicts the vicious rivalry among the wives, the betrayals leading to the death of rivals, the dismissal and denigration of the aging concubines, and the downward trend toward pedophilia as younger and younger women are desired. His unrelenting cinematic eye focuses on the utter sexual and economic captivity of the wives and is the perfect riposte to current liberal dementia concerning polygamy.

But one does not need to read Old-Testament stories or view Zhang's film to understand that women are basically little more than sexual slaves when polygamy is a societal practice. The point is reinforced time and again by societies dominated by religions allowing polygamy. Attendant to the misery and subjection of women is the unequal treatment concerning their children, who are also completely under the dominance of fathers.

Just as pertinent, in our own country, the glamorization and defense of polygamy typical of liberal defense lawyer Turley has been shown for what it really is -- a dangerous fiction.

The ugly reality was exposed during the recent, notorious trial of Warren Jeffs, who is the head of the Utah-based Mormon Fundamentalist LDS Church. Jeffs' sect believes that polygamy brings exaltation in heaven. Cynics believe that Jeffs found exaltation of quite another variety by sexually abusing underage girls. The prosecutors exposed polygamy's horrors before a traumatized jury, playing a tape in which Jeffs had recorded himself -- before onlookers -- raping a twelve-year-old "spiritual bride." Jeffs is but one example of aging men who choose younger and younger "brides" to add to their harems.

Regardless of the exposure of the realities of polygamy and the disgust with which the jury reacted to Jeffs' prurient sexual practices, liberals continue to push for polygamy as just an "alternate lifestyle" without fully comprehending the deleterious, indeed catastrophic consequences to society.

It is to be doubted that the left has contemplated, for instance, that polygamy would mean the death of the Western concept of romance. The Platonic ideal of the other half and the Christian ideal of monogamy have informed romantic literature for centuries. Polygamy kills the romantic idea that somewhere there is a man or woman who completes a relationship. Ironically, romance between one woman and one man is a subject Hollywood delights in portraying time and again, following one of the unconscious and subliminal foundations of Western society. Polygamy destroys romance.

To paraphrase a quote from Mustapha Mond, leader of the radical new sexual order in Aldous Huxley's prescient Brave New World, written in 1933:

He waved his hand; and it was as though, with an invisible feather whisk, he had brushed away a little dust, and the dust was Orpheus and Eurydice; some spider webs, Tristan and Isolde, Romeo and Juliet. Whisk. Whisk -- and where was Dante and Beatrice, Abelard and Heloise? Whisk -- and those specks of antique legends, Lancelot and Guinevere? Whisk, the other half; whisk, eternal fidelity. Whisk. Whisk, whisk.

We are told by liberals and "moderate" Republicans time and time again that social issues should take a backseat to economic issues. The fact of the matter is that the two are inextricably intertwined. Wherever polygamy is encouraged and wherever it becomes dominant, there will be poverty -- economic, political, and spiritual.

The basic principle of monogamous marriage between one man and one woman constitutes one of the moral foundations on which the entire societal edifice rests. Along with the principle of the right to life, the principle of monogamous marriage demands the support and protection of not just the Church universal, but also the state.

The solution to the present confusion over the issue of marriage lies with those committed to the Judeo-Christian principle of monogamous marriage. Since the mainline churches and liberal Jewish synagogues are rapidly capitulating to the demands of gay marriage activists -- most recently the Presbyterian Church USA -- evangelicals and Catholics must fight for monogamous principle that has characterized the West for hundreds of years. Both should and must unite to stand up for the monogamous marriage covenant, lobbying with an intensity that matches or excels the mad obsession of those radicals who seek to overturn one of the foundational mores of Western civilization.

Those who believe in sexual faithfulness between partners should also join the fight. Faithfulness to one's partner is one of the last remaining vestiges of the principle of monogamy. It is still honored, at least as a virtue to aspire to, among gay rights activists and some other liberals. The idea of faithfulness as a virtue would vanish overnight were polygamy to become a law of the land.

The West would be racing even faster toward a sexual free-for-all, a world in which "everyone belongs to everyone else," as Huxley notes.

There would come a time, as Mustapha Mond reminds his eager students, when the very concept of monogamy would appear hopelessly antiquated. Why, he says, can you believe that at one time, people had different ideas? Can you imagine that at one time not everyone belonged to everyone else?

If a coalition of those who oppose polygamy is not gathered, and if the fight for the monogamous principle is not enjoined, the rapid installation of polygamy in the West, with the inevitable ills attendant to it -- among the worst being a catastrophic setback of women's and children's rights -- will continue apace.

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/09kody_brown_his_sister_wives_and_the_return_of_polygamy.html

16 comments:

  1. Great article. I completely agree about how nasty this is and how dangerous it is to women. That said, I'm not sure throwing Kody is jail is the solution.

    I think the solution is, in part, the show. We need to show our daughters how pathetic the whole situation is, how it beats down women, how disgusting it is. We need to not associate with these deviants, and to REFUSE to view this as normal.

    That's the most dangerous part. This isn't normal, and Kody is really trying to make us view it as a "normal" lifestyle choice.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Great article! Who is the author? This is spot on. Polygamy is being "re branded" in pretty new packaging, but when you look inside the wrappings, it's still abuse.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I respectfully disagree with both of your posts. The fact is it is possible to live in a balance multiple partner (polgamy not polyamorous) relationship with no harmful effects. The browns may not be that family but it is no more harmful than any other choice of lifestlye if it is handled correctly.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I am sorry Anonymous, but I must respectfully disagree with your opinion.

    Point #1, the article upon which we are commenting explains that the practice of polygny (1 male, multiple females) - and I would argue all forms of polygamy and polyamory - has at its core systemic inequalities and power imbalances. These relationship forms do not include, preserve, and promote the key societal value of equality of all persons. They provide the opportunity for that value to be eroded, erased and replaced with something that is anathema to the Constitution, Charter of Rights, and other foundation documents of western countries.

    Point #2: No harmful effects to whom? I am highly skeptical that it can be proven that there are no harmful effects to the key stakeholders in such relationships (spouses, children, grandchildren, parents, society). Until a scientifically valid study can prove to me that "there are no harmful effects: I will rely on my powers of observation, knowledge of human behaviour, and decades of experience with law enforcement / national security / defence and other such organizations, which tells me otherwise.

    By the way, this experience has shown me:
    * Those who have nothing to hide, hide nothing (polygamy in general and the Browns in particular: FAIL); and
    * The best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour and the best predictor of criminal behaviour is a history of criminal behaviour (polygamy in general and the Browns in particular: FAIL).

    I could continue, but you get the message. I am sorry Anonymous, but I do not trust this lifestyle or the Browns.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I was referring in general and not to the specific articcle. The specific article makes it points but they are very conservative points fo r the most part. I believe that it will depend on the person as to whether it can succeed. i do not belive that this cghoice is right for all, in fact it is probably not right for some who make it but I do not see a complete meltdown that this article claims will happen if this is allowed.
    Labeling polygamy as "abuse" and "disgusting" is the part I disagree with

    discalimer * I am not, nor have ever been a part of LDS, FLDS, UAB etc*

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think this is a very dangerous article; full of half-truths and very biased. And equating female genital mutilation with Muslim polygamy is laughable and totally innaccurate; female genital mutilation is a majority practice in many countries in Africa where Muslims are a tiny minority not to mention that FGM isn't allowed in Islam anyway, also polygamy is found in most African countries and this is mainly amongst non-Muslims, on the whole. Another thing is when it is mentioned about polygamy in France; it is not mentioned that many polygamous families have been forcibly broken up by the authorities for the supposed good of the wives, yet none of the wives have ever been consulted on whether this is what they want. Many wives have been absolutely heartbroken and children estranged from fathers, because of this practice, and hey its ok for French men to have mistresses but its not ok for a man to be committed in marriage to more than one woman, right?

    ReplyDelete
  7. 57 children? Can he even name them? Can they ever remember anything about him beyond his name, and recognizing his picture? So sad.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Poppycock, I've read this article several times. Can you tell us where the author has equated female genital mutilation with Muslim polygamy?

    I've seen the movie Raise the Red Lantern and I agree with the author that it creates a very sombering view of polygamy in 1920's China. Much like Kody Brown's Lehi arrangment, the wives live in separate residences connected together within a castle. Whenever the husband is visiting a wife's residence, the servants place a red lantern outside her door, hence the film's title. Hopefully, Kody won't start THAT practice!

    I've also just finished the article written by Nina Bernstein. In that article, the women interviewed said they were not given any warning that their husband was bringing another wife into the home. And they were far from being the happy polygamous family as depicted in fiction (Big Love) or real life (TLC's Sister Wives). I'll check with MS about excerpt the NYTime article here for everyone.

    Finally, I (and I'm sure others) would like to read about the polygamous families in France being torn apart because they practiced polygamy. Can you provide us with a link to the stories?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hi Guys! Lively Conversation!
    This article was by Fay Voshell - Sorry!
    Cynical, what article? If you find it, please put it up.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Jinx,
    I am sure this is the part that poppycock meant
    "Second, as noted by Nina Bernstein in her New York Times article entitled "In Secret, Polygamy Follows Africans to New York," the influx of Muslim immigrants into New York City (and elsewhere) has meant that many have brought their polygamous practices with them. She writes that most of the women in polygamous households, of which there are thousands in NYC alone, have spoken bitterly of polygamy.


    They said their participation was dictated by an African culture of female subjugation and linked polygamy to female genital cutting and domestic violence. That view is echoed by most research on plural marriages, including studies of West African immigrants in France, where the government estimates that 120,000 people live in 20,000 polygamous families."

    ReplyDelete
  11. Very nicely written, although I don't agree with this author on everything. Liberalism is under critiques these days in the business of professional philosophy.

    Tolerance is one of liberalism's most important values, but in the real world, tolerance can't be absolute. We really do have to question whether we're being too tolerant, and thus enabling a persistent problem. If we're going to critique liberalism, I'm all over that, but let's take it one step at a time. We're in a post-liberal era now, and that's going to become more evident in the future, I believe. But breaking out of the paradigm in order to question it will be slow and painful.

    I don't make comparisons between gay marriage and polygamy. They are completely different matters. But I'm coming from a secular position which is the only position that can apply to everyone. The public forum is where we discuss things that affect us all, so religious arguments have limitations in that they don't have much influence on non-believers. I treat religion as a private matter, unless there's some kind of corruption. At that point it affects us all because human rights are in danger. This is when someone's religious beliefs become a public matter. After all, we can't just slap the label of "religious practice" on something that causes abuse and suffering. That's where we draw the line.

    When it comes to the question of legalizing or decriminalizing polygamy, it gives our arguments credibility when we don't favor or disfavor any private religious sources. We're all biased, obviously, but the pure logical arguments are going to win the day in the public sphere.

    Liberalism is divided between left-leaning liberals, who like to see themselves as "progressive," and right-leaning libertarians, who push for minimal government involvement in just about any social aspect. If you ask me, they're both missing the bigger picture.

    Having said all of that, I think it's safe to say that polygamy sounds pretty foreign to the ears of most Christian folks. The problem is that they are using religion to argue for justification of polygamy and if that's the method I use to discredit their claims, I end up with nothing more convincing on my part. It's a way of keeping things on a level playing field.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hi everyone. I've put up a post of the NYTImes article by Nina Bernstein. It makes for very interesting reading.

    ReplyDelete
  13. cynical jinx, it says the NY times article you posted found that research found that polygamy in African communities in France and NY goes along with domestic violence and FGM.

    'They said their participation was dictated by an African culture of female subjugation and linked polygamy to female genital cutting and domestic violence. That view is echoed by most research on plural marriages, including studies of West African immigrants in France, where the government estimates that 120,000 people live in 20,000 polygamous families.'

    I have read the NY times article and this quote was lifted directly from it; which is shoddy journalism IMHO. While I do think the NY times article is still biased at least it in itself points out that polygamy is often a cultural as opposed to religious practice in an African context, the above article does not do this.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Here is one article about the practice of splitting polygamist families in France

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/thousands-of-families-in-despair-as-france-enforces-ban-on-polygamy-689622.html

    I am sure there are others, I have also seen a BBC doc on it but it was some years back now so cannot remember what it was called.

    ReplyDelete
  15. way to much to respond to this early in the morning. I will also have to think on this to ensure my response is articulate and well thought out.

    So, at this point I will simply say I disagree with several points in the article.

    ReplyDelete
  16. 55 wives? how crazy is that?
    I guess they all felt really special.
    Geez

    ReplyDelete