“Sister Wives” clan to challenge constitutionality of Utah’s polygamy law

posted at 9:35 pm on July 12, 2011 by Allahpundit

Who’s angrier about this? Traditional marriage activists, or gay rights activists who don’t want to see the debate about same-sex marriage dragged down the slippery slope when they’re trying to build on momentum from New York?

Nationally-known constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley said the lawsuit to be filed in U.S. District Court in Salt Lake City will not call for plural marriages to be recognized by the state. Instead, it asks for polygamy between consenting adults like his clients, former Utahn Kody Brown and his wives, to no longer be considered a crime.

“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,” Turley said in a press release. The Browns star in the TLC network show “Sister Wives.” There is no word yet on whether they will appear in a press conference scheduled for Wednesday…

The complaint to be filed Wednesday, Turley said, presents seven constitutional challenges to the state’s bigamy law. It is largely based on the right to privacy.

“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,” said Turley, a member of the faculty at George Washington University.

If the distinction between decriminalization and state recognition seems confusing (which it did to me at first), it helps to know that Utah’s bigamy statute includes cohabiting with one person when you’re legally married to another. And in fact, this guy is only legally married to one woman; the other three are, er, “sister wives.” Basically, he’s arguing that he doesn’t care if the state recognizes them as legal spouses or not, just that he doesn’t want the cops to come knocking and lock him up when they find out. In that sense, his court claim mirrors the current legal regime in most states where gay marriage is banned but gay sex is constitutionally protected.

So, no lawsuit to legalize polygamous marriage — yet. But legal precedents have a funny way of building on each other:

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…

The questions surrounding whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry are significantly different from those involved in criminal prosecution of multiple marriages, Ms. 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.

Professor 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.”

Ah, but they’re not asking to change family law, just to take polygamy out of the penal code. The family law case will be the next lawsuit. FYI, the Supreme Court already upheld laws against polygamy — 130 years ago, rejecting a Mormon challenge based on the Free Exercise Clause. So there’s precedent here if SCOTUS wants it when it eventually hears a case along these lines. Two important footnotes, though. One: The Court’s language in Lawrence v. Texas, a decision authored by Anthony Kennedy, was famously broad in its implications (a point noted by Scalia in dissent at the time), so there’s no telling whether that earlier precedent is still good law. And second, Lawrence itself overruled a much more recent precedent in Bowers v. Hardwick to arrive at its holding. So yeah, there’s quite a fair chance that the Brown clan might pull this off.

Exit question: Speaking of people who aren’t eager to watch this court/media battle play out, how excited do you think Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman are right now?

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Allah you traffic whore….

drballard on July 12, 2011 at 9:36 PM

Bring out your dead(clang!)

drballard on July 12, 2011 at 9:37 PM

(crickets chirping)

Seven Percent Solution on July 12, 2011 at 9:37 PM

Allahpundit..You sly dog you!..:)

Dire Straits on July 12, 2011 at 9:38 PM

Sister wives.
I just told my wife about this amazing discovery….well..I am the couch….again.

Electrongod on July 12, 2011 at 9:38 PM

insert the word “on” in the appropriate space.

Electrongod on July 12, 2011 at 9:39 PM

They’re partying in St George tonight.

JohnGalt23 on July 12, 2011 at 9:39 PM

If gays can get married why not polygamists?

terryannonline on July 12, 2011 at 9:40 PM

And not a looker in the bunch. Arrrrr . . .

keep the change on July 12, 2011 at 9:40 PM

Worth pointing out that the same people bringing this lawsuit almost certainly vigorously oppose gay marriage.

RightOFLeft on July 12, 2011 at 9:40 PM

You’d think that one wife would be bad enough.

keep the change on July 12, 2011 at 9:41 PM

If gays can get married why not polygamists?

terryannonline on July 12, 2011 at 9:40 PM

Exactly. Spread the seed around. Makes new taxpayers for Obama.
/

Electrongod on July 12, 2011 at 9:42 PM

Fact is, every single argument for homosexual marriage, fully applies to polygamy, consanguinity, etc. etc. – basically any combination and/or number.

Progressive homosexual activists who said that wouldn’t happen, were simply lying.

Rebar on July 12, 2011 at 9:43 PM

or gay rights activists who don’t want to see the debate about same-sex marriage dragged down the slippery slope when they’re trying to build on momentum from New York?

marriage for me but not for thee!

Equality!

Adults!

Consenting!

Or something!

artist on July 12, 2011 at 9:43 PM

You’d think that one wife would be bad enough.

keep the change on July 12, 2011 at 9:41 PM

Sacrifices
/

Electrongod on July 12, 2011 at 9:43 PM

Will Code Pink “glitter’ politicians against polygamist marriage?

Firefly_76 on July 12, 2011 at 9:43 PM

…gay rights activists who don’t want to see the debate about same-sex marriage dragged down the slippery slope when they’re trying to build on momentum from New York?

SITYS

or make that,

See We Told You So

INC on July 12, 2011 at 9:44 PM

If gays can get married why not polygamists?

Simple.

B/C marriage is a special recognition between, ehm, 2 adults.

And the number 2 comes from the idea of reproducing.

Wait a minute.

artist on July 12, 2011 at 9:44 PM

Trying to figure out why one would want more than one wife? I have never watched the show but my gut feeling says to run like I stole something before signng up for multiple wives!

bluemarlin on July 12, 2011 at 9:47 PM

Any man that can stand 4 womens in his house is damn near a saint.

Aquateen Hungerforce on July 12, 2011 at 9:47 PM

Admittedly, the statute seems a little overbroad. Even if one were to concede that the state has an interest in regulating (prohibiting) civil marriages between multiple consenting adults, why on earth should they be able to prohibit cohabitating with another consenting adult when you’re married?

crr6 on July 12, 2011 at 9:47 PM

If the Asians wake up, they’ll wish to come to America, bring their robots/dolls, and file for bennies.

Lefties would hand bennies out and register robots/dolls to vote.

Schadenfreude on July 12, 2011 at 9:48 PM

Electrongod on July 12, 2011 at 9:43 PM

LOL!..Good to see you!..:)

Dire Straits on July 12, 2011 at 9:49 PM

…so it begins…

Knott Buyinit on July 12, 2011 at 9:49 PM

The cops in UT don’t enforce any of it. Either they’re in it, or they’re paid off. These communes can be seen from the I-15, between Salt Lake City and Nevada, and cops drive by there as the days are long. They do it “for the children”.

Schadenfreude on July 12, 2011 at 9:50 PM

If gays can get married why not polygamists?

terryannonline on July 12, 2011 at 9:40 PM

Because polygamy actually does harm to society, but homosexuality doesn’t. Also, polygamy actually does affect current marriages, but gay marriage doesn’t.

RightOFLeft on July 12, 2011 at 9:50 PM

Big Love lives on!!!

Knucklehead on July 12, 2011 at 9:51 PM

…so it begins…

Knott Buyinit on July 12, 2011 at 9:49 PM

So it continues, really. As AP pointed out, polygamists have been arguing their conduct is constitutionally protected for well over a century.

crr6 on July 12, 2011 at 9:51 PM

I hope they win… and after they win, I hope they setup a community where they can register their “plural partnerships”…

ninjapirate on July 12, 2011 at 9:51 PM

Schadenfreude on July 12, 2011 at 9:48 PM

well, China’s going to need the dolls with a 120:100 gender imbalance. can’t be discriminating against those consenting human-robot relationships. /s

Firefly_76 on July 12, 2011 at 9:52 PM

I don’t understand why its illegal to begin with. Who cares? Why does everyone have to be in everybody elses bedroom all the time. As long as the people are all legal age, who cares?

thphilli on July 12, 2011 at 9:53 PM

This is exactly the problem with the “gay marriage” business. Once you destroy the idea that marriage is between one man and one woman there is no logical argument to stop the “marriage” of any sort of configuration.

Warner Todd Huston on July 12, 2011 at 9:53 PM

Because polygamy actually does harm to society, but homosexuality doesn’t. Also, polygamy actually does affect current marriages, but gay marriage doesn’t.

Where is your proof? These are just common tates of the controlling elite who say GAY IS GOOD and POLYGAMY IS BAD… all emotivism.

ninjapirate on July 12, 2011 at 9:53 PM

Hmmmm – they have a point.

Not that I agree with them but if the gay marriage thing is getting passed – why not this?

gophergirl on July 12, 2011 at 9:54 PM

Progressive homosexual activists who said that wouldn’t happen, were simply lying.

Rebar on July 12, 2011 at 9:43 PM

I knew gay marriages supporters were lying the minute they got all riled when traditional marriage supporters bring up polygamy. They get upset because they know we have a point!

terryannonline on July 12, 2011 at 9:54 PM

Anyone for this is for inbreeding. Just look at the children sometimes. It’s a travesty.

Schadenfreude on July 12, 2011 at 9:54 PM

Because polygamy actually does harm to society, but homosexuality doesn’t. Also, polygamy actually does affect current marriages, but gay marriage doesn’t.

RightOFLeft on July 12, 2011 at 9:50 PM

You make absolutely no sense.

terryannonline on July 12, 2011 at 9:55 PM

tates = tastes

ninjapirate on July 12, 2011 at 9:55 PM

Trying to figure out why one would want more than one wife? I have never watched the show but my gut feeling says to run like I stole something before signng up for multiple wives!

bluemarlin on July 12, 2011 at 9:47 PM

It’s actually a very interesting show. I can’t stand the guy but the whole sisters wives thing is kind of interesting.

Plus I keep trying to guess which one of the wives will be the first one to bolt.

gophergirl on July 12, 2011 at 9:55 PM

terryannonline on July 12, 2011 at 9:54 PM

Gay marriage has NOTHING to do with this. The guy just says that the government shouldn’t be controlling what is going on in his bedroom. He isn’t fighting for polygamist marriage.

Or are you saying the government should regulate what gay people do in their bedrooms?

thphilli on July 12, 2011 at 9:56 PM

The cops in UT don’t enforce any of it. Either they’re in it, or they’re paid off. These communes can be seen from the I-15, between Salt Lake City and Nevada, and cops drive by there as the days are long. They do it “for the children”.

Schadenfreude on July 12, 2011 at 9:50 PM

You can blame that on the Short Creek Raid in 1953

Knucklehead on July 12, 2011 at 9:56 PM

Because polygamy actually does harm to society, but homosexuality doesn’t. Also, polygamy actually does affect current marriages, but gay marriage doesn’t.

RightOFLeft on July 12, 2011 at 9:50 PM

Not buying it. Young men who don’t have wives in these communities end up being kicked out. The only reason I can see to interfere is when you have young girls under 18 forced into plural marriages, especially with much older men. Sure, there is a dark side of polygamy where women grow up in these societies and can be brainwashed into accepting it, but I don’t see how that counterbalances personal liberty. These sister wives seem to know what they’re in and ‘like’ it.

How does polygamy affect current marriages in ways that gay marriage wouldn’t? Partners leave each other all the time in marriage. I’ve had a couple of friends whose Dads left their Moms to be in gay relationships…

Firefly_76 on July 12, 2011 at 9:57 PM

Because polygamy actually does harm to society, but homosexuality doesn’t. Also, polygamy actually does affect current marriages, but gay marriage doesn’t.

RightOFLeft on July 12, 2011 at 9:50 PM

Why? They’re consenting adults seeking a committed relationship. What kind of moral guardian are you to say who can love whom?

This is the civil rights issue of our time.
/

KingGold on July 12, 2011 at 9:57 PM

crr6 on July 12, 2011 at 9:47 PM

I think prosecutorial discretion plays a role here. The legal challenge seems to be that if you write the statute too narrowly, you’d never be able to prove that polygamists are actually married. The only solution is to write the statute too broad and leave it up to prosecutors when to bring charges. You’d know better than I would, am I looking at this wrong?

RightOFLeft on July 12, 2011 at 9:57 PM

So if we have gay “marriage”, why not polygamy? Do you want to be accused of being a BIGOT, Allah? And if polygamy is okay, why not bestiality being recognized as “marriage”?

Just wait until NAMBLA chimes in.

GarandFan on July 12, 2011 at 9:58 PM

It’s actually a very interesting show. I can’t stand the guy but the whole sisters wives thing is kind of interesting.

Plus I keep trying to guess which one of the wives will be the first one to bolt.

gophergirl on July 12, 2011 at 9:55 PM

The series finale was a couple weeks ago. I won’t tell you what happened.

Knucklehead on July 12, 2011 at 9:58 PM

Man will those gays never quit – now they’re inventing polyamorous marriages!

Jeddite on July 12, 2011 at 9:58 PM

If they all want to live in the same house together – whatever. But if they scam taxpayers for welfare, food stamps, etc., hell no.

Most of these men can’t afford to support so many wives and children, so the “sister wives” that are not legally married get to go on welfare as single mothers.

I say that if you want to have them all, you have to support them all.

Common Sense on July 12, 2011 at 9:58 PM

GarandFan on July 12, 2011 at 9:58 PM

Because like children, animals cannot consent. You guys do understand this distinction right? Its pretty paramount in our justice system.

thphilli on July 12, 2011 at 9:59 PM

I knew gay marriages supporters were lying the minute they got all riled when traditional marriage supporters bring up polygamy. They get upset because they know we have a point!

terryannonline on July 12, 2011 at 9:54 PM

What exactly is your point? Is it that: 1) Any affirmative argument for gay marriage applies with equal logical force to polygamy, or 2) the legalization of gay marriage will necessarily lead to the legalization of polygamy.

Because those are two very different arguments.

crr6 on July 12, 2011 at 9:59 PM

The series finale was a couple weeks ago. I won’t tell you what happened.

Knucklehead on July 12, 2011 at 9:58 PM

I thought they had another year or do you mean they filmed it?

One bolts – I knew it! Bet it’s Janelle or Meri.

gophergirl on July 12, 2011 at 10:00 PM

Because those are two very different arguments.

crr6 on July 12, 2011 at 9:59 PM

With “progressive” judges and legislatures, 1) leads into 2) quite neatly, I should think.

KingGold on July 12, 2011 at 10:00 PM

You make absolutely no sense.

terryannonline on July 12, 2011 at 9:55 PM

I’m sorry. I’d like to express it more clearly, but I don’t see anything unclear about what I wrote.

RightOFLeft on July 12, 2011 at 10:00 PM

Admittedly, the statute seems a little overbroad. Even if one were to concede that the state has an interest in regulating (prohibiting) civil marriages between multiple consenting adults, why on earth should they be able to prohibit cohabitating with another consenting adult when you’re married?

crr6 on July 12, 2011 at 9:47 PM

Because the state was trying to eradicate polygamy and most polygamists skirted the law by keeping wives in different houses that they rotated among. It was a reaction to a specific problem. And they can prohibit a lot of civil arrangements because they are a state.

alwaysfiredup on July 12, 2011 at 10:01 PM

Gay marriage has NOTHING to do with this.

If you are going to redefine marriage….why is this couple excluded from the redefining?

terryannonline on July 12, 2011 at 10:01 PM

Get govt out of all marriage. You want to marry 17 lesbian wives who are also married to 29 gay men? Go for it my friend.

angryed on July 12, 2011 at 10:01 PM

Can’t wait for the father and adult son who want to marry.

artist on July 12, 2011 at 10:01 PM

Why shouldn’t it be legal?

El_Terrible on July 12, 2011 at 10:02 PM

Anyone for this is for inbreeding. Just look at the children sometimes. It’s a travesty.

After Lawrence, can adult incest really be banned? Considering the inherent eugenics homosexuals practice when they procreate without being in a previous heterosexual relationship(sperm/egg banks, IVF, surrogacy) and that birth defects can be caught soon enough so that the baby can be aborted(we’re in a pro-choice society now), why should adult incest/inbreeding be discouraged?

ninjapirate on July 12, 2011 at 10:02 PM

What exactly is your point? Is it that: 1) Any affirmative argument for gay marriage applies with equal logical force to polygamy, or 2) the legalization of gay marriage will necessarily lead to the legalization of polygamy.

Because those are two very different arguments.

Frankly, both 1 and 2 are my points.

terryannonline on July 12, 2011 at 10:02 PM

crr6 on July 12, 2011 at 9:59 PM

That are both logical and plausible.

alwaysfiredup on July 12, 2011 at 10:03 PM

Hugh Heffner and Charlie Sheen have nothing to worry about because they don’t claim to be married to the multiple women living in their homes with whom they share beds. Ditto unmarried men who have children with multiple women. Just men who claim to have religious reasons for multiple sexual alliances.

I’m not in favor of polygamy, just can’t reconcile the contradictions.

obladioblada on July 12, 2011 at 10:03 PM

terryannonline on July 12, 2011 at 10:01 PM

Did you read what Allah wrote at all before commenting?

>And in fact, this guy is only legally married to one woman; the other three are, er, “sister wives.” Basically, he’s arguing that he doesn’t care if the state recognizes them as legal spouses or not, just that he doesn’t want the cops to come knocking and lock him up when they find out.

Do i need to explain why this is not a marriage issue to you? I think AP spelled it out in pretty clear terms.

thphilli on July 12, 2011 at 10:03 PM

If you are going to redefine marriage….why is this couple excluded from the redefining?

terryannonline on July 12, 2011 at 10:01 PM

Exactly. If they’re adults, and they love each other, why not? That’s the standard isn’t it?

El_Terrible on July 12, 2011 at 10:04 PM

ninjapirate on July 12, 2011 at 10:02 PM

I thought about those too. What if one had been previously were sterilized or they “promised” to forgo having children? There’s no good reason to prohibit it.

Firefly_76 on July 12, 2011 at 10:04 PM

Wow, didn’t see this coming

/s

pedestrian on July 12, 2011 at 10:04 PM

If they all want to live in the same house together – whatever. But if they scam taxpayers for welfare, food stamps, etc., hell no.

Most of these men can’t afford to support so many wives and children, so the “sister wives” that are not legally married get to go on welfare as single mothers.

I say that if you want to have them all, you have to support them all.

Common Sense on July 12, 2011 at 9:58 PM

If they want to scam for welfare they will do it whether single or married. It’s no harder to get welfare for a married mother vs a single mother. It’s all based on income and household. And if they live in the same household, whether married or not the same welfare will be had.

angryed on July 12, 2011 at 10:04 PM

Because polygamy actually does harm to society, but homosexuality doesn’t. Also, polygamy actually does affect current marriages, but gay marriage doesn’t.

RightOFLeft on July 12, 2011 at 9:50 PM

How does polygamy harm society? Because it makes you feel icky? Because you don’t think women should share a man? How does homosexuality benefit society? Maybe it reduces the level of promiscuity from the anonymous drop trou in the bathroom stall. Probably it reduces fecal disease that way. I’ll give you that. How does polygamy affect current marriages? Are these “sister wives” being seduced away from their current husbands? I doubt it. How does homosexuality not affect current marriages? Ever heard of the hubby caught in a gay tryst? Both are against long standing societal norms. Biggest difference is one involves a perverted sex act.

Ted Torgerson on July 12, 2011 at 10:04 PM

They might have a stonger argument if they’d stuck to their original principles which dictated that a man could have as many wives as he could support.

What I saw in Colorado City was houses never finished being built (to avoid paying property taxes) and women and children on welfare and food stamps, not so much because the husband couldn’t support them but because they could live better if the taxpayers did. And since the state/county employees up there belong to that system, it went unchallenged.

I have heard that state authorities, in AZ anyway (the community extends across the Utah state line into Hildale), were trying to do something but I never heard that they did…

Shay on July 12, 2011 at 10:05 PM

Basically, he’s arguing that he doesn’t care if the state recognizes them as legal spouses or not, just that he doesn’t want the cops to come knocking and lock him up when they find out.

thphilli on July 12, 2011 at 10:03 PM

then he should move to a different state. There’s no right to cohabit with 4 women anywhere in the Constitution, not even in the “privacy penumbras”.

alwaysfiredup on July 12, 2011 at 10:06 PM

I was @ a wedding of the son-of-a draft-dodger(husband’s distant cousin) in 2009 and among the guests were a he-she and …a threesome.
Man and Woman get married. Woman thinks another guy is hot and wants to shag him. She tells Husband she wants new Guy to move in. Husband agrees. 8 years-at the time-later Woman is still legally married to Guy#1 but considers both Guy 1 and Guy 2 to be her husbands and Guys see it the same way.
Really.

annoyinglittletwerp on July 12, 2011 at 10:06 PM

Basically, he’s arguing that he doesn’t care if the state recognizes them as legal spouses or not, just that he doesn’t want the cops to come knocking and lock him up when they find out.

Do i need to explain why this is not a marriage issue to you? I think AP spelled it out in pretty clear terms.

thphilli on July 12, 2011 at 10:03 PM

I don’t care if wants the state to recognize his spouses. I’m just saying if gays can marry why not this polygamist couple?

terryannonline on July 12, 2011 at 10:06 PM

Ted Torgerson on July 12, 2011 at 10:04 PM

Perverted according to you.

thphilli on July 12, 2011 at 10:06 PM

Get govt out of all marriage. You want to marry 17 lesbian wives who are also married to 29 gay men? Go for it my friend.

angryed on July 12, 2011 at 10:01 PM

My live is complicated enough. I have to make a livin’.
Hold the phone!
Can they work too?
Nah, I will not stray.
*wife monitoring what I am typing…OUCH!!*

Electrongod on July 12, 2011 at 10:06 PM

terryannonline on July 12, 2011 at 10:06 PM

I agree. They both should be allowed to marry. It harms no one and it should be none of our business.

thphilli on July 12, 2011 at 10:07 PM

Mitt’s father (George) was born to American parents in Mormon colonies in Mexico because Mitt’s ancestors fled to Mexico because of the United States opposition to polygamy laws.

They returned to the U.S. because of the Mexican revolution.

bw222 on July 12, 2011 at 10:07 PM

Hey, why not polygamy? If same sex marriage is a kumbaya thing, let’s go all the way. My main quail dog, a Brittany Spaniel, is one pretty thing, and sweet, too. And, if any guy out there wants to marry her, well, who am I to stand in the way? You can have her except during hunting season, my only condition.

TXUS on July 12, 2011 at 10:07 PM

Most of these men can’t afford to support so many wives and children, so the “sister wives” that are not legally married get to go on welfare as single mothers.

I have to wonder, if polygamy was normalized with the condition that polygamist unions must be self sufficient… 50 years afterwards, would there be more same sex couple or more polygamist couples?

I think the polygamists should win but I bet they lose… I bet SCOTUS will refuse to take up the case.

ninjapirate on July 12, 2011 at 10:10 PM

TXUS on July 12, 2011 at 10:07 PM

Do you guys who bring up bestiality seriously not understand why its completely different or are you just playing dumb to stir the pot?

thphilli on July 12, 2011 at 10:10 PM

That are both logical and plausible.

alwaysfiredup on July 12, 2011 at 10:03 PM

1) is somewhat dubious, but much more defensible than 2). Arguing that gay marriage necessarily will lead to polygamy is a classic example of the slippery slope fallacy, i.e., it assumes that the legalization of gay marriage, in and of itself, makes the legalization of polygamy more likely than it otherwise would be. It also assumes that legislatures are required to act with perfect logical consistency, i.e., that if the arguments for A all support doing B, legislatures must do B. We all know that isn’t the case.

crr6 on July 12, 2011 at 10:10 PM

Polygamy fails to create a situation of equality among the individuals. The marriages are not capable of delivering an equal union. It is a situation where one man is married to X wives, not a situation where x persons are married to X-1 persons. The most inherent evils of polygamy is in the lack of equality and consent among all involved parties. In a gay marriage of two individuals, you do not have this inequality.

I am skeptical if any polygamous couple is genuinely equal in the eyes of each other, I highly doubt these individuals love the other wives as much as the average lesbian couple.

amazingmets on July 12, 2011 at 10:10 PM

Because the state was trying to eradicate polygamy and most polygamists skirted the law by keeping wives in different houses that they rotated among. It was a reaction to a specific problem. And they can prohibit a lot of civil arrangements because they are a state.

alwaysfiredup on July 12, 2011 at 10:01 PM

Right, my point is that they’re not just prohibiting civil arrangements (marriage) here, they’re prohibiting people living together.

crr6 on July 12, 2011 at 10:12 PM

TXUS on July 12, 2011 at 10:07 PM

pimping out Brittany will get you in hot water with PETA.

Firefly_76 on July 12, 2011 at 10:12 PM

Can’t wait for the father and adult son who want to marry.

Chirp.

artist on July 12, 2011 at 10:12 PM

I thought they had another year or do you mean they filmed it?

One bolts – I knew it! Bet it’s Janelle or Meri.

gophergirl on July 12, 2011 at 10:00 PM

The series is all over, it is no more. Nobody bolted but Bill was shot dead.

Sorry.

Knucklehead on July 12, 2011 at 10:12 PM

You can have her except during hunting season, my only condition.

TXUS on July 12, 2011 at 10:07 PM

You don’t hunt 24/7 do you?
We can compromise.
Weekends and holidays and alternate Christmas’s, she’s all mine…it’s a she right? I have standards.
/

Electrongod on July 12, 2011 at 10:13 PM

amazingmets on July 12, 2011 at 10:10 PM

But so what? If a second woman wants to enter an existing marriage with full consent of everyone involved and do nothing but serve tea to the man and rub his feet and receive verbal abuse from the original wife, its certainly not an equal partnership, but should she not be allowed to do what she wants? Who does it harm for her to make an adult decision even if we do not agree with it?

thphilli on July 12, 2011 at 10:14 PM

I agree. They both should be allowed to marry. It harms no one and it should be none of our business.

thphilli on July 12, 2011 at 10:07 PM

Well at least you are being consistent. Most gay marriage supporters throw a hissy fit if you bring up polygamy in a discussion of gay marriage.

terryannonline on July 12, 2011 at 10:14 PM

It also assumes that legislatures are required to act with perfect logical consistency, i.e., that if the arguments for A all support doing B, legislatures must do B. We all know that isn’t the case.

crr6 on July 12, 2011 at 10:10 PM

huh? your point is an argument for not/not allowing gay marriage — legislatures can act inconsistently. If they fail to do so in the case of gay marriage it is unconstitutional; why wouldn’t that also be the case here?

Firefly_76 on July 12, 2011 at 10:14 PM

The series is all over, it is no more. Nobody bolted but Bill was shot dead.

Sorry.

Knucklehead on July 12, 2011 at 10:12 PM

Different show – I think you are thinking of Big Love.

gophergirl on July 12, 2011 at 10:15 PM

Polygamy fails to create a situation of equality among the individuals.

amazingmets on July 12, 2011 at 10:10 PM

Why not? Especially if it is a gay poly “couple.”

Look for some new books in your nearby elementary school, “My Three Mommies.”

What happens in the existing polygamous marriages when the man dies? Do all the wives go to bars together looking for a new husband?

pedestrian on July 12, 2011 at 10:16 PM

thphilli on July 12, 2011 at 10:14 PM

It certainly is her choice; if it truly is her choice. Frequently in these communities, however, the women are emotionally or psychologically coerced into plural marriages. It can be very difficult to leave. Not saying we shouldn’t allow it … but perhaps there needs to be a common sense approach to “consent.”

Firefly_76 on July 12, 2011 at 10:17 PM

Well at least you are being consistent. Most gay marriage supporters throw a hissy fit if you bring up polygamy in a discussion of gay marriage.

terryannonline on July 12, 2011 at 10:14 PM

It’s a red herring, for the reasons spelled out above. If you want to argue gay marriage is bad, then just argue gay marriage is bad. Don’t tell me gay marriage is bad because, well, you think (without evidence) that it will lead to something else that is bad.

crr6 on July 12, 2011 at 10:17 PM

Different show – I think you are thinking of Big Love.

gophergirl on July 12, 2011 at 10:15 PM

I am………..sorry.

Knucklehead on July 12, 2011 at 10:17 PM

amazingmets on July 12, 2011 at 10:10 PM

Are you saying people are forced into polygamous relationships against their will?

If they’re not worried about their own equality, why are you?

Do you think people who have submissive/domineering relationships should be managed by the government to insure they are actually “equal” in their relationship instead of one of being more dominant than the other?

If not, please explain the difference to me.

ButterflyDragon on July 12, 2011 at 10:17 PM

Who cares what consenting adults do in their bedroom? I personally couldn’t care less if multiple consenting adults wish to become married.

Revenant on July 12, 2011 at 10:18 PM

Having just one wife has nearly killed me. I can’t imagine having more than that.

JellyToast on July 12, 2011 at 10:19 PM

Because polygamy actually does harm to society, but homosexuality doesn’t. Also, polygamy actually does affect current marriages, but gay marriage doesn’t.

RightOFLeft on July 12, 2011 at 9:50 PM

Tell me how polygamy damaged society in the Old Testament days?

How does polygamy damage society by any means other than robbing Beta males of potential mates?

The fact is … Joseph Smith claimed polygamy was given to him as a revelation from God in the early 1800′s. The Mormon religion was only “devised” in the 1830′s and within 20 years – the Mormons created a theocracy in Utah based on the institution.

Mind you – you claim that polygamy DAMAGES society and I’m giving you proof that Joseph Smith actually created a society based on it – and he did it in less than two decades.

And – it’s not like he “recruited” a bunch of polygamists at that time either. He “converted” normal Christians all around the globe – who scrambled here to join his “society”. So these people – who were not accustomed to polygamy and who had, in fact, belonged to a society that frowned upon it – took to it pretty quickly.

And that goes for men as well as women.

Not trying to defend polygamy here – but, at some point – the Government has to get out of this game. I’ve made a complete conversion on this issue. The root of the problem is government dictating marriage law and getting involved in it – and actually subsidizing it through tax breaks. If we married people weren’t sheltered from the taxes … we might be more outraged at how much we’re paying in taxes.

HondaV65 on July 12, 2011 at 10:20 PM

I am………..sorry.

Knucklehead on July 12, 2011 at 10:17 PM

Don’t be – easy to mix-up.

I was all excited to get some scoop though LOL!

gophergirl on July 12, 2011 at 10:20 PM

Arguing that gay marriage necessarily will lead to polygamy is a classic example of the slippery slope fallacy, i.e., it assumes that the legalization of gay marriage, in and of itself, makes the legalization of polygamy more likely than it otherwise would be. It also assumes that legislatures are required to act with perfect logical consistency, i.e., that if the arguments for A all support doing B, legislatures must do B. We all know that isn’t the case.

crr6 on July 12, 2011 at 10:10 PM

Except that’s exactly what the hell is happening right before our eyes. We have polygamists capitalizing on gay marriage in New York to achieve exactly the same recognition of deviancy.

KingGold on July 12, 2011 at 10:20 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3