‘Sister Wives’ Polygamous Family Plans to Challenge Utah’s Bigamy Law
- Posted on July 12, 2011 at 6:55pm by
Billy Hallowell
- Print »
- Email »
SALT LAKE CITY (The Blaze/AP) — A polygamous family made famous by the reality TV show “Sister Wives” plans to challenge the Utah bigamy law that makes their lifestyle illegal, a Washington-based attorney said Tuesday.
Bigamy is defined as “the act of entering into a marriage with one person while still legally married to another.”
In an email to The Associated Press, attorney Jonathan Turley said he will file the lawsuit challenging Utah‘s bigamy law in Salt Lake City’s U.S. District Court on Wednesday.
Turley represents Kody Brown and his four wives, Meri, Janelle, Christine and Robyn. Brown is only legally married to Meri Brown.
Originally from Lehi, the Browns, who have 16 children, have been featured on the TLC reality show since last fall. They moved out of Utah to Nevada in January after police and Utah County prosecutors launched a bigamy investigation. No charges were ever filed.
The Browns practice polygamy as part of their religious beliefs.
Bigamy is a third-degree felony in Utah. A person can be found guilty of bigamy through cohabitation, not just legal marriage contracts.
In a statement posted on his blog, Turley said the lawsuit will challenge Utah’s right to prosecute people for their private relationships.
“We are not demanding the recognition of polygamous marriage. We are only challenging the right of the state to prosecute people for their private relations and demanding equal treatment with other citizens in living their lives according to their own beliefs,” the statement reads. The New York Times has more:
The lawsuit is not demanding that states recognize polygamous marriage. Instead, the lawsuit builds on a 2003 United States 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.
According to the statement, the lawsuit seeks to protect a person’s right to be left alone.
“In that sense, it is a challenge designed to benefit not just polygamists but all citizens who wish to live their lives according to their own values – even if those values run counter to those of the majority in the state,” Turley wrote.
Turley said he believes the case represents the “strongest factual and legal basis for a challenge to the criminalization of polygamy” ever filed in the federal courts.
Utah has not prosecuted a polygamist for bigamy since 2001. Tom Green, who was married to five women and drew the attention of Utah authorities after promoting his lifestyle on national TV talk shows, was convicted on bigamy, criminal nonsupport and child rape charges. He spent six years in prison and was released in 2007.
Polygamy in Utah and across the Intermountain West is a legacy of the early teachings of Joseph Smith, founder of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Mormons abandoned the practice of plural marriage in the 1890s as a condition of Utah’s statehood.
An estimated 38,000 self-described Mormon fundamentalists continue the practice, believing it brings exaltation in heaven. Most keep their way of life a secret out of fear of prosecution, although over the past 10 years an advocacy group made up mostly polygamous women has worked to educate the public and state agencies in Utah and Arizona about the culture.
The Browns have long said they believed making their life public on cable television was a risk worth taking if it helped advance the broader understanding of plural families. The lawsuit appears to be an extension of that belief.
“There are tens of thousands of plural families in Utah and other states. We are one of those families. We only wish to live our private lives according our beliefs,” Kody Brown said in a statement released through Turley. “While we understand that this may be a long struggle in court, it has already been a long struggle for my family and other plural families to end the stereotypes and unfair treatment given consensual polygamy.”
Popular Stories
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 585 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 413 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 412 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 374 Comments
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 368 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 412 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 413 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 368 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 151 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 303 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 412 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (199)
Veritas
Posted on July 12, 2011 at 7:55pmMy question is, how do you make one woman happy, much less, four??
Report Post »becauseitmatters
Posted on July 12, 2011 at 9:19pmI don’t know, but I do know that I would NEVER share my husband.
He is alllll mine! :) I’ll share cookies, but not my priceless husband!
Report Post »notmeatglennbeckdotcom
Posted on July 12, 2011 at 7:51pmLet me guess – One legal marriage and 3 other single mothers. Kids get health care through the CHIP program, mothers get care through WIC, family gets food stamps through AFDC and the mom collects $ from the state per kid and the sperm donor, ahem, father takes the funds from each for the greater good. You end up with 16 whacked out kids and dysfunction everywhere.
This example is of a white family and we are appalled yet this happens about every minute in the black and hispanic communities. I think they call them Baby-Daddys.
ONLY – in America!
Until we address the breakdown of the family in this country we will drift closer to Rome and further from Philadelphia.
Report Post »CatB
Posted on July 12, 2011 at 8:23pmI don’t think so .. don’t know about the kids health insurance .. many many “traditional” families get that .. but up until one wife was fired for lifestyle coming out … and them having to move they did state that they don’t receive benifits from the government. One wife was a stay at home .. but the father and other wives worked outside the home.
Report Post »KICKILLEGALSOUT
Posted on July 12, 2011 at 8:28pmI knew it was only a matter of time. As soon as Gay marriage became a right and protected by the law that opened the door for all forms of sexual orientation, polygamy, bigamy, incest, child marriage etc.
Our system is too corrupt and must be taken back by the American people like we had to do when we took our freedom from the tyranny of the English government. Government has run wild for too long and our constitution and laws have been twisted so far they don’t mean anything today to the elites that now have unlimited power to do as they wish. It’s time to remove all these evil politicians, judges, activists, lawyers, illegal foreign invaders and anyone else who is violating our freedoms and our laws.
Report Post »tower7femacamp
Posted on July 12, 2011 at 8:34pmGET the Govt out of our Private lives
as long as everyone is 18 and wants to live a certain life style
then I say that is called Freedom..
too many times Religion enslaves us.
Report Post »ShyLow
Posted on July 12, 2011 at 9:03pmWhite women won’t even touch a white man anymore,unless he is 80 years old and a porn mogul or already married or deals drugs…Just legalize prostitution and get it over with already…Women will not police themselves anymore…They have sank lower than prostitutes…They have no honor or respect for themselves or their families…Get the brothels ready for the modern day American white females…They’ve been begging for it…
Report Post »the hawk
Posted on July 12, 2011 at 9:49pmI Think if you can afford 3-4 wifes go for it, state wont have to pay the bill ! Must have the income or Means though ! give some of these slackers some incetive to Work!
Report Post »HisNameWasRobertPaulson
Posted on July 12, 2011 at 10:58pm@ KICKILLEGALSOUT – “I knew it was only a matter of time. As soon as Gay marriage became a right and protected by the law that opened the door for all forms of sexual orientation, polygamy, bigamy, incest, child marriage etc.”
So consenting adults that enter into a relationship is on the same lines as incest and child marriage? Are you insane or just doltish?
Polygamy isn’t a sexual orientation either. You really need to understand what you are talking about before you start posting this kind of misinformation.
Report Post »Kiddle
Posted on July 12, 2011 at 11:54pmI just could never ever do this. They seem like good people, and God bless them but, nope, no way no how! Can’t get past the “icky” factor on this one!
Report Post »riseandshine
Posted on July 13, 2011 at 3:31amhisnameisrobertpaulson…Did it really matter that much?…who cares?…you do obviously.
Report Post »Master_and_Commander
Posted on July 13, 2011 at 3:37amhaha these days Philly isn’t exactly such a good place either… lol but yes, your right
Report Post »Eliasim
Posted on July 13, 2011 at 7:09amHey, the people who practice polygamy are already three-quarters the way to being Muslim. Additionally people who have more than one wife must be marrying their bodies more than their spirit. Otherwise why not marry one?
Report Post »Bill
Posted on July 13, 2011 at 10:00amWhy did you bring up race?
Report Post »BoiseBaked
Posted on July 13, 2011 at 10:45amPolygamy. For the woman who doesn’t have enough self-esteem to get her own man. For the man who is overcompensating for a dark, deep secret.
Report Post »obama-mecca-me-sick
Posted on July 13, 2011 at 10:52amThis must be passed so the Muslims and their many wives will be better excepted in the USA. Next pedophilia will be legal , so they can still marry 9 year old brides. Our culture used to be destroyed in baby steps and now it’s giant leaps. Welcome to the post America “New World Order.”
Report Post »PhantomsPhorever
Posted on July 13, 2011 at 12:54pmWhy would any man want more than one woman telling them to get off the couch and go take the trash out?
Report Post »SimpleTruths
Posted on July 13, 2011 at 2:05pm@SHYLOW
Report Post »I don‘t what world you live on but I’d get the hell out of there.
ArizonaMom3
Posted on July 13, 2011 at 2:29pm@HisNameWasRobertPaulson
Report Post »KICKILLEGALSOUT was generous in his attempt at political correctness as he used the more polite term “orientation” more accurately described as sexual “perversion” but the point he made is not lost and is spot on. The door has been opened and the assault on marriage and the family is full steam ahead as our laws and constitution are twisted beyond recognition.
ilovepotatoes
Posted on July 13, 2011 at 9:10pmMr Glenn Beck is Mormon? Man i had no idea . . . now i have to re think EVERYTHING!!
Report Post »Live_Free_orDie
Posted on July 13, 2011 at 10:18pmwow…bitchin’ times four. WTF are you crazy???
Report Post »NancyO
Posted on July 14, 2011 at 8:11amI think you will find that there are very few, if any, Mormons on the dole. Their culture and traditions demand that they care for each other in times of distress, and that includes providing food, comfort, financial aid and whatever is needed for the preservation of their compatriots.
Report Post »notatoomah
Posted on July 14, 2011 at 8:27amTOWER7FEMACAMP:
You are not enslaved by religion, you are enslaved by sin. Satan has already won if you don’t believe he exists, and you haven’t seen slavery until you get to Hell. Hell is a real place, and these blasphemers (the Bible speaks against their “lifestyle”) are going there too.
Report Post »Iman Barak Hussein
Posted on July 14, 2011 at 9:00amthe fat one is obviously the cook.
Report Post »ArizonaMom3
Posted on July 14, 2011 at 10:25am@JOYFULMOM
Report Post »If there’s one thing we all know about Glenn – it is that he does his research, THOROUGHLY!
It is nice you are praying for him honey but maybe you could consider praying for his safety instead.
I just took a good look at the sites you shared and I have never come across so much misinformation and flat out lies.
Research is best done through information shared by an unbiased party with no personal agenda.
Amazing how many are filled with hate and go about spreading their hate under the guise of “love.”
(by their fruits ye shall know them)
Amazing too how many times I see profiles such as yours “joyfulmom” whose comments shared and opinions expressed run so contrary to the moniker they have chosen for themselves.
hmmm mmmm, spreading the joy…
Quite sad actually…
santababy52
Posted on July 14, 2011 at 8:55pmIt is my belief that most LDS believers rarely take government help and are supported by their churches. They all have large families with strong family values. Though I do not believe in their Joseph Smith theology, polygamy, and many other issues in their doctrine, I guess I really am enough Libertarian where I don’t understand where they are hurting a single. solitary soul. Why should they not live that way if all are in agreement? Another government intervention in private lives as far as I’m concerned. Get government out of our private lives!
Report Post »UpstateNYConservative
Posted on July 12, 2011 at 7:43pmHow full of crap this ‘right to privacy’ thing has gone. In every instance, it has become public policy and granted Federal funds. And where does government get its money, except from the taxpayers?
Children out of wedlock? We have welfare to cover that bedroom privacy.
Abortion? Planned Parenthood and everything else.
Contraception (for those bother to use it)–PP and everything else.
Gay marriage? One state is going to give its gay public service unions a raise to defray the costs of Federal tax penalties since the IRS doesn’t recognize gay marriages.
The ‘right to privacy’ never stays in the bedroom. All the liberal social experimentation, claiming ‘rights’, invariably comes at taxpayers’ expense.
Report Post »Marengo Ohio Patriot
Posted on July 12, 2011 at 8:14pmEntitlements….NO WAY>>> but face it… Government has no right to tell this man and his wife(S) how to live!! It’s their business..Stay out of it!!
Report Post »UpstateNYConservative
Posted on July 12, 2011 at 9:42pmThe states have that authority, to define marriage. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t be forcing gay marriages down the throats of the vast majority of people who find it abhorrent. This whole mess about ‘rights’ goes both ways and I, for one, am sick to death of 2% of the population telling me what I can eat, how much tax I must pay on soda and cigarettes for my ‘sins’, and every other thing. You can bet that there will one day be ‘special tax offsets’ for people who choose to live polygamously.
And that‘s the problem you don’t get: Any ‘rights’ of the bedroom and ‘privacy’ invariably cost the taxpayers. Every one of these little groups demands special treatment, usually in the form of stipends from the Treasury.
Modern libertarianism as as dictatorial as you can get, where taxes are imposed on the majority to give handouts to a vocal minority.
Report Post »UpstateNYConservative
Posted on July 12, 2011 at 9:44pmAnd another thing: I’m sick of hearing about the sex lives of strangers. And that’s all these people (like radical gays) are about: sex.
Report Post »troutfur
Posted on July 13, 2011 at 5:24am@M. Ohio Patriot: Damn Straight! 10th Amendment issue! Let the States decide!
Report Post »Eliasim
Posted on July 13, 2011 at 7:04amThey are corrupting it, as if to make privacy seem unimportant.
Report Post »Dillon843
Posted on July 12, 2011 at 7:43pmI have seen the show a few times. It kinda gives me the creeps really.I don’t care how they live but IMHO 1 wife is plenty and often times to many let alone having 4 of them underfoot
Report Post »Love glenn protect glenn
Posted on July 13, 2011 at 8:10amI need 3 other sister wives. We have a lot of house work, back yard farming ranching stuff, …..to be done. Besides, my husband can teach them how to protect the property, we will be more secure in this coming chaos. If some of the sisters have to work, at least their children are taken care, they can come home to home cooked meals. Man always need more sex than women, that is why dr. Laura always says, have sex with your husband. But, we, at least this woman, have had pms, child birth, full time job, night school, parents to take care, driving kids every where, weeding….. Sorry, but I am tired. Do I want my husband to be frustrated? Go to prostitutes? Or, have clean sex at home?
Report Post »Love glenn protect glenn
Posted on July 13, 2011 at 8:42amOh, yes, while conducting tea party community organizing activity, I realized there are many single women, young and old, out there very scared about the coming unglue of our society, I say, survival first, formality later. Look to nature, natual law will help us survive, not man made laws. It is the man made laws which created the massive entitlement system, kicked the fathers out, dismantling the family. The Same man made laws which created thi ponzi scheme called Social security, so people stopped having children to take care of them for old age, people started to live alone, every is looking to the gov. To take care of us. Now, the gov. Says, oops, but we have already separated from the family community safety nets. Multiple wives is a logical way to ensure survival of the family.
Report Post »godlovinmom
Posted on July 13, 2011 at 1:39pmLoveGlenProtectGlen…are you serious…or trying to be funny? I’m not sure…
Report Post »santababy52
Posted on July 14, 2011 at 9:02pmI haven‘t known nor heard of a man yet that didn’t practice “polygamy” at least once in his life, but it is usually referred to as “having an affair” or being unfaithful. Men are statistically and predictably unable to keep “it” under control. Touche’
Report Post »OhioMarcus
Posted on July 12, 2011 at 7:36pmis it any more wrong to deny them to marry more than one person, than to allow same-sex marriage? No, and by allowing same-sex marriage and saying marriage is not just for one man and one woman, we are opening the floodgates to anything
Report Post »ValiantDefender
Posted on July 12, 2011 at 7:49pmIf the Govt got out of Marriage altogether, then Gays wouldn’t want it (its just for tax status, right?) or could come up with their own institution.
Polygnists aren’t really redefining marriage. There many righteous prophets of the old testament who practiced it. To the person who says that the New Testament doesn’t condemn it, but does require men to be the Husband of One wife to be a Bishop…look up the original translation. The word it comes from is closer to “first” than one. With this in mind, a bishop could be polygamist…but shouldn’t be a divorced man, nor single.
Report Post »LOOKING_BOTH_WAYS
Posted on July 12, 2011 at 7:51pmyup… and next inline will be polygamous Gays ……………lmao
Report Post »Steverino
Posted on July 12, 2011 at 7:56pmQuestionable joke:
Report Post »A guys walks into a bar, sits down, and begins complaining about his 4 wives.
The guy next to him looks up from his beer, aghast, and says:
“THAT’S BIGAMY!!!”
The guy replies, “big of you, HELL! It’s big of me! I have to support them and put up with them!!!”
Ba-doom-pa. I’ll be here all week. Don’t forget to tip your waitresses.
Steve
busterpuddles
Posted on July 12, 2011 at 8:30pm…and to finish the thought that Ohio Marcus gave me, one may not be more wrong than the other, but both are sin and one of those is an abomination according to God. Like it or not.
Report Post »Evil_Conservative
Posted on July 12, 2011 at 7:36pmSure?! why not?! Gays can marry. So why not threesomes? foursomes? whatever? if you want to swing why even bother with marrage? Tax reasons? Novelty? lol.
Geez, this immoral culture is getting out of control. We are all going to hell.
Report Post »rose-ellen
Posted on July 12, 2011 at 8:36pmI wanr ro see the muslims get their do.here we hypocritically claim allegiance to the God ordained civilized practice of monogamy yet divorce and serial monogamy run rampant. men divorce wives to get younger wives and then divorce them when tired of them and do it again.perhaps those barbaric muslims are on to something in recognizing the human males’ desire for multtiple sexual partners.Less family breakups and divided children and false promises and so on.perhaps polygamy is more authentic for many people and like gayness should be recognized and validated instead of denied yet practiced.Ideally monogamy is sacramentaly in conformity with Christ and should be the highest standard of marriage but hey we all can‘t attain to it and we’re not all christian or jewish and so lets be honest and legitimize what humans have been practicing since time immemorial and only till the advent of christendom banned in the west. we ‘re not a christian theocracy after all.
Report Post »an80sreaganite
Posted on July 12, 2011 at 7:32pmIf a man can marry a man and a woman can marry a woman, why can’t a man marry two women? Or a woman multiple men? Or my dog? What’s the diff?
Report Post »Evil_Conservative
Posted on July 12, 2011 at 7:40pm@an80sreaganite
Report Post »lol. we gave almost the exact same comment at almost the exact same minute. Do i have a long lost clone?
SgtB
Posted on July 12, 2011 at 10:40pmThe difference is the dog cannot provide its consent or sign a contract and marriage is just a contract to devote yourself to another person and must be signed by both parties. So animals are out of the deal. But if you want to screw your goats, they are your property. Just be careful and don’t get kicked in the nuts!
Seriously, the solution to all of this mess is not to keep making laws and regulations. We have had a congress and a judicial system making laws almost daily for nearing on 300 years. We have too many laws. If gov‘t and everyone else would get out of other people’s lives so long as they aren’t manipulating you through force or coercion, we would all be better off.
Report Post »Jennine
Posted on July 12, 2011 at 7:30pmI myself could never engage in a polygamous relationship. It’s beyond me. But the Roman romanticism that Western civilization has been raised on has not always been. Marriage, in ancient cultures, was very much about survival, increasing your tribal numbers quickly, and practicality. While I don’t think polygamy fits into our advanced culture nowadays, I’m not nearly as repulsed by it as I am by people like Hugh Hefner, who just sleep with multiple women, peddle them to friends like objects, exploit their sexuality, and toss them out the door once they become bored with them. If polygamy is creepy, promiscuity is so much worse. At least this guy commits to caring for his own.
Report Post »flagkeeper
Posted on July 13, 2011 at 3:33pmWell said. Even“serial monogamy” still makes baby daddys and there is no binding or obligation. Still worse to me.
Report Post »HogansHero
Posted on July 12, 2011 at 7:30pmThis one is easy to criticize. We don’t prosecute adultery in this country. Although I disagree with his beliefs, I don’t disagree with this battle. He is not trying to make it legal to marry multiple spouses by law, only make it non-prosecutable. This is very different from the gay marriage issue. They are not trying to redefine marriage. The Brown‘s don’t seem to care if their marriage is recognized by the government, but only to let alone to live as they wish.
So unless we are also desirous to prosecute the adulterers of this nation who also have multiple partners, then we should also not prosecute those such as the Browns.
Report Post »flagkeeper
Posted on July 13, 2011 at 3:52pmWow! Lots of astute points today by Blazers. I’m impressed. I agree with you. The prosecution is in effect labeling this as worse than adultery, fornication, same sex marriage, etc., though I think this is in part for Utah to demonstrate it is not “turning a blind eye” to the FLDS and other quasi mormon sects. Anything less would be seen as complicit to those who do not understand the doctrine of plural marriage and only picture dirty old men chasing little girls. The fact is, no man is doing himself ANY favors by taking on more than one wife, and I would be wary of the man who sees it a a good time. These are wives not, booty calls. What he is doing is sinful, no doubt, but that is between him and God. Let us reason. Has having Uncle Sam as “husband” to many women really better??? They need actual men less and less, as we see today. I think it is worse.
Report Post »ArizonaMom3
Posted on July 14, 2011 at 12:28pmhear, hear
Report Post »JimCDew
Posted on July 12, 2011 at 7:28pmAs I have previously posted, marriage is a religious rite. not a constitutional right. If a religious authority recognizes such relationships then they are vialid in that religion and the State cannot interfere in denying such practices without violating the ban on the State “denying the free exercise thereof” so long as an innocent party is not harmed..
Report Post »Ironbalut
Posted on July 12, 2011 at 7:59pmHowever, as far as the State is concerned, marriage is considered a legal contract between two people. The contract could be modified to include more than two people, if the State would allow it.
Report Post »the hawk
Posted on July 12, 2011 at 10:00pmThats exactly why the state must be left out ! they want to be third party in the marriage so they have power over property and the children of the marriage !
Report Post »foobear
Posted on July 12, 2011 at 7:27pmUtah has the strictest anti-bigamy laws in the country, where the state can declare that you’re living in a common law marriage without even going through the process of going to the courthouse and/or having a religious ceremony.
So I say: good for them! The state should not be in the business of regulating marriage or religion. We’ve come to use marriage as a shorthand for a lot of civil contracts, which is the reason we have this mess to begin with. Things like hospital visitation rights, division of property, immigration laws, etc., have all been tied into the edifice of marriage, and these are all things that have nothing to do with marriage, protecting families, or helping to raise kids in a stable household.
As far as what the Bible says on Polygamy, you all should read:
http://bible.org/article/morality-biblical-polygyny
As distasteful as it is, I can think of several examples where it would be a moral good. Terri Schiavo’s husband murdered her, for example, so that he could marry a second woman. He didn’t believe in divorce.
Report Post »the hawk
Posted on July 12, 2011 at 10:08pmThet had to agree to those laws for Christiandom to allow the to Join the U.S.
Report Post »psst
Posted on July 12, 2011 at 7:27pmWhy the hell not.
Report Post »This IS the age of Anything goes.
If men can marry men and women marry women, ya gots to know that some will soon demonstrate and agitate for their rights to marry their dogs or whatever.
US is going to hell in a handbasket anyway at the rate US is going.
Remember a cupla stories some years where a cupla horses had kicked their lovers(not horses) to death.
I had posted some of the links to these stories quite awhile back but my post got spiked.
When we get Sharia law, some of the Moslem so called Royalty will move here w/ their harems anyway.
KickinBack
Posted on July 12, 2011 at 7:22pmMust make him feel like a man..er, I mean monkey. Marriage is just one institution that seperates us from the animals. Tree-climbin’, knuckle-draggin’, alpha male. Feels good to de-evolve doesn’t it? Time to go beat my chest and paint a silver stripe down my back, I hear the chicks like that.
Report Post »Winston Smith 1984
Posted on July 12, 2011 at 7:21pmIf marriage can be defined as official and legal between 2 Gay Men or 2 Gay Women….then the federal law will soon need to “DEEM” the Utah law a “3 degree felony” as illegal for polygamous Husband/Wives…or will it be Wives and one Husband or 2 children and 1 guy or 5 women. Where does this end. I dont know I am so confused…“War is Peace” and “We must spend more in order to save more”…. but for me….2 + 2 will always = 4.
Report Post »the hawk
Posted on July 12, 2011 at 10:04pmSeems upside down yeah ? And we think the Muslums are nuts ?
Report Post »caexpat
Posted on July 12, 2011 at 7:21pmTo each there own. He’s a better man then me .One wife is all I can handle!
Report Post »CatB
Posted on July 12, 2011 at 7:24pmLOL .. it is funny .. often the wives will “join up” and support each other against the husband …
Report Post »Steverino
Posted on July 12, 2011 at 8:01pmHear, Hear! I’ve always said one wife is PLENTY for me!
Report Post »libh8er
Posted on July 12, 2011 at 7:18pmI really don’t see the problem with this. He is only actually married to one of them. The others are in name only so there isn’t any bigamy involved. I am conservative and I know this is more of a liberal view. Maybe it’s just a moral thing.
Report Post »Baron_Doom
Posted on July 12, 2011 at 7:35pmOne of the biggest arguments against the Old Testament Bible is that it allowed bigamy. Now the same people who preached against the Bible are going to side with this polygamist. Ironic, isn’t it?
Report Post »TH30PH1LUS
Posted on July 12, 2011 at 7:11pmWhat is the religion that Mr. Brown and his wives practice that “requires” multiple wives?
Scripture shows that the ORIGINAL God-ordained design was 1 man & 1 woman. Polygamy is not the brainchild of Joseph Smith, it is much older than that. Scripture does not condemn polygamy, but prohibits men who are married to more than 1 wife from roles of spiritual leadership in the church.
Report Post »Teapartier70
Posted on July 12, 2011 at 7:09pmIts important to note that these people are not in good standing in the Mormon Church.
Report Post »Huguenot Descendant
Posted on July 12, 2011 at 10:59pmIt’s important to know they are not apart of the Mormon Church. Anyone who practices polygamy is excommunicated from the church immediately. We do not practice polygamy nor have we since the 1800‘s and I am sick of those who don’t do their research and say we do. It is forbidden within the LDS church.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on July 12, 2011 at 7:08pmRight to privacy, 1st Amendment right to practice one’s religion, , the right of two consenting adults to be left alone in their bedroom, more power to them. The irony is that Mormons are so anti-gay marriage, yet it is the same legal theories that Homosexuals have made that will aid the Mormons returning to what Joe Smith taught.
Report Post »Aerocog
Posted on July 12, 2011 at 7:18pmSome Mormon sects do, and in Mormon culture this are radical spilinter groups. Please don’t be ignorant
Report Post »LibertyGoddess
Posted on July 12, 2011 at 7:27pmThey aren’t even “Mormon Sects”, they clung to the polygamy part and nothing else…more like Father Abraham offshoots.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on July 12, 2011 at 7:31pmAerocog
Posted on July 12, 2011 at 7:18pm
Some Mormon sects do, and in Mormon culture this are radical spilinter groups. Please don’t be ignorant
___________________________________
Read your history, Joe Smith got his freak on with multiple wives, as did Bringham Young. It was only when attempting to repair relations with the US and join as a State, did the Prophits hear from God that more than one wife was a no-no (same with God changing his mind in the 1970′s about African Americans).
Baron_Doom
Posted on July 12, 2011 at 7:38pmWhat do you mean with regards to God changing his mind in the 1970′s about African Americans?
Report Post »Jennine
Posted on July 12, 2011 at 7:41pmI don‘t know a single Mormon who’s looking forward to a day when polygamy is legal. Even if it were legal, it wouldn’t change the religious law forbidding it, and Mormons who went for it would be excommunicated.
Report Post »HappyStretchedThin
Posted on July 12, 2011 at 8:01pmEncicom, you should quit pretending you care about what people believe about God and His will. You don’t understand the first thing. You stand virtually alone against billions of Christians who know that at one time God demanded animal sacrifice, and now He doesn’t. It’s not inconsistency, it’s authority…another concept you have extreme difficulty with.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on July 12, 2011 at 10:48pmBaron_Doom
Posted on July 12, 2011 at 7:38pm
What do you mean with regards to God changing his mind in the 1970′s about African Americans?
_____________________________________
http://lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/2?lang=eng
The Mormons exclude most people of black African descent (regardless of actual skin color) from Priesthood ordination and from participation in temple ceremonies. These practices continued until September 30, 1978, when church President Spencer W. Kimball, acting in his office as Living Prophet declared that in early June 1978 he had received a revelation from God to extend the priesthood to all worthy male members and, therefore, to extend temple ordinances to all worthy members.
Report Post »Huguenot Descendant
Posted on July 12, 2011 at 11:06pmOhh Enicom is that you spreading your lies again? Mormons do not practice polygamy nor will they ever again. Anyone who practices polygamy while being a Mormon is excommunicated from the church immediately.
You are a dang lying Liberal Progressive Enicom, the worst of the worst and you know it. You have brought yourself to a new low and continue to build upon your lies. If you truly knew the Mormons currently you would know that not one LDS member practices polygamy. It is a disgrace to the church.
Also look up your history you lying communist dirt bag. The LDS church didn’t allow just anyone to practice polygamy. Only a certain few could so it was not some common thing among the church as you and many other liars love to try and make it believe so. Go do your own research on a non anti Mormon site as we know you get your facts from.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on July 13, 2011 at 10:27am@Huguenot Descendant
“Mormons do not practice polygamy nor will they ever again.” But they did, the founder, got his freak on with multiple wives (including child brides), they only stopped when they sough tot join the Union (condition to joining).
“The LDS church didn’t allow just anyone to practice polygamy. Only a certain few could…” So according to your reading of history, only the fes old geezer in leadership roles, Joe Smith’s inner circle, could take multiple child brides.
” It is a disgrace to the church.” Yet this disgrace was one of the founding principals of the Mormons and the reason they were forced to move out of community after community
Report Post »rpp
Posted on July 12, 2011 at 7:05pmOnce the queers demanded marriage be redefined into the unrecognizable, anything can happen. Many who predicted that polygamous or polyamourous marriages would have to be recognized as a result were publicly laughed at. Privately, the ones doing the laughing were planning this all along. These people are just another groups of sexual deviants.
Report Post »welovetheUSA
Posted on July 12, 2011 at 7:05pmKinda like gay marriage…they have a partner and 20 other affairs a month….seems reasonable.
Report Post »heavyduty
Posted on July 12, 2011 at 7:04pmFine if they want to fight the law. Then just move them out of the country, like to Egypt or somewhere they can have multiple wives. Simple solution.
Report Post »Chuck Stein
Posted on July 12, 2011 at 9:22pmAll they had to do was move to neighboring Nevada — and they did. Utah also has good old fashioned anti-sodomy laws but I never heard of homosexuals (is that even a word anymore?) having to move out of Utah to avoid prosecution.
Report Post »Lonescrapper
Posted on July 12, 2011 at 7:02pmWho are you to deny them the right to marry whoever they LOVE?
Report Post »CatB
Posted on July 12, 2011 at 7:20pmI have watched the show .. first out of curiousity … and then because I don’t see where they are hurting anyone .. they don’t take public aid .. they love and provide for their children … the women have a built in support system … really find it quite interesting … not my thing — but if it works who is anyone else to tell them how to live?
Report Post »rose-ellen
Posted on July 12, 2011 at 7:40pmMarriage can be defined however the lawmakers choose to define it.Why not polygamy,why not bigamy? Appeal to tradition is not valid as gay marriage legalized by state governments reveals.So it’s just a matter of getting enough people who want it to convince just enough people in the right places of power[first the media culture then the judges and legislatures] to legitimaize it.Hope they do!As a catholic i live by my faith but don’t expect non christians to in a secular democracy.
Report Post »kindling
Posted on July 13, 2011 at 12:42amThe law of Sarah says the wife seeks the new wife. She gives the next wife to her husband. The wives agree to any new wife so they are all expected to get along. Instead of only 2 parents the children have more eyes watching and caring. It is a great way for sisters that are close to stay that way. I think it is great.
Report Post »LibertariansUnite
Posted on July 12, 2011 at 7:00pmWow, so maybe marriage shouldn’t have the government involved? So we do not get problems like these?
Report Post »Shocker!
Jennine
Posted on July 12, 2011 at 7:46pmAmen to that. If marriage wasn’t legislated at all, if everyone married according to their own religion or lack thereof, if we weren’t taxed or regulated according to marital status, gay marriage and polygamy wouldn’t be an issue. We’d all live and let live without oppressing the rest of society with our individual beliefs. As it stands, if we don’t get our personal standards involved in the legislative process, we end up getting run over by the other guy and have the entire rule of our society dictated to us by our opponents. LEAVE US ALONE, government.
Report Post »mossbrain
Posted on July 12, 2011 at 8:11pm“We’d all live and let live without oppressing the rest of society with our individual beliefs”
Ha what a laugh, most of you would probably be in favor of the death penalty for smoking pot.
Report Post »becauseitmatters
Posted on July 12, 2011 at 9:13pmHey MOSSBRAIN,
Your screename suits you well. ;)
Report Post »Chuck Stein
Posted on July 12, 2011 at 9:25pm@ becauseitmatters – absolute ditto
Report Post »Inbred Jed
Posted on July 12, 2011 at 6:59pmFreaks
Report Post »CatB
Posted on July 12, 2011 at 7:23pmActually no .. if you watched the show once you would see they are quite “normal” … and the kids seem happy and provided for. Many other “traditional” couples could take lessons.
Report Post »docmd
Posted on July 12, 2011 at 7:34pmNo kidding the Archbishop of said gay rights now then multiple partners ….. When will it end ? Remember that immorality by the Romans is what led to their fall ………
Report Post »Jennine
Posted on July 12, 2011 at 7:34pmI guess Abraham and Israel were the exceptions? Polygamy was once a tribal practicality, based in survival and the care of the many. While it may squick out those of us in the West who have been raised on Roman, Shakespearean romanticism, it’s not of itself evil or irresponsible. It just isn’t a great fit for a modern age.
Report Post »rose-ellen
Posted on July 12, 2011 at 8:16pmIt is a violation of the equal protection clause to redefine marriage by going outside our tradition and laws,to include gays but not to include people whose lifestyle choices are to have multiple spouses. and also on religious freedom grounds;now that marriage can be redefined to include gays then muslims,mormons and whoever, can legitimately claim that their freedom of religion is unjustly[arbitrarily] curtailed in not redefing marriage to include multiple spouses.Once that cat is out of the bag[marriage redefined to include non traditional meanings]then polygamy and bigamy justly should also be included in a nontraditional new definition which legitimizes peoples lifestyle choices and perceived sexual needs].of course animal or child marriage can remain excluded because no consent can be given and human institutions still remain human instituions.Marriage has not here been binding based on the rites of marriage in all religions;in muslims rites multiple wives are valid yet we never recognized such rites as valid[after wife number one] The same with other religions[indigenous ones where women have more then one husband[in Tibet i believe].Sacramentality has not been suficient to recognize legally a marriage.Now that tradition is out the window it can be raised as legitimate that if a religion reognizes multiple spouses as sacramentaly valid in their rite,then we are obligated to do so also[tradition no longer an obsticle as the gay train has left the station].
Report Post »encinom
Posted on July 12, 2011 at 10:41pmLook, there’s no debating that the holy book of the majority should dictate all the secular laws for everyone else. The Bible states in Genesis that marriage is between a man and his mutated rib, which is as painful as it sounds, but at least the Constitution allows it.
In time, God expands this beautiful concept into a union between a man, his swinging wife, and her abused servant. Under His divine plan, marriage blossoms into a sacred contract between a rich rapist and his victim, a king and 700 fine, foxy ladies, a man and his brother’s widow, and occasionally a man and his own daughters when the wine is alright. Somewhere in there, you are also allowed to marry a pie if the pie is willing to convert.
Report Post »