'Sister Wives': Polygamy law challenge called demand for equality

Originally posted by SirMike

'Sister Wives': Polygamy law challenge called demand for equality

www.sltrib.com

Utah’s complicated history with polygamy will start a new chapter Wednesday when an attorney for a reality-show family files a lawsuit that could send the state’s ban on plural marriage to the U.S. Supreme Court.

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.

(visit the link for the full news article)


If they chnage polygamy to a point its' not a crime eventually enough people will lobby governemtn, protest and begin to call those appossed to it bigots and intolerance people. Opponents will be called Polyphobes.

This is how we went from homosecxualsaity being regarded as abnormal to it being legalised, and truned into full blown marriage. It's stil abnormal but now you can't say that or be villified.

The same thign will happen will polygamy if they modify the lawe to make it cease to be a crime. Look back in twenty years and see.

Next on the table will be sex with animals... and don't laugh, homosexuality was regarded as bad in 1952 and look at it now, it's taught in schools !

Originally posted by Openeye

"..... There are many polygamists who attempt to live normal lives, who on the outside appear just as normal as anyone else. But they have to hide who they are because of persecution. How can anyone condone this!? ....."

Are you kidding? So people appear normal on the outside to hide whats in the inside and that regarded as persecution. So the name sleeping with his daughter appears normal and he regards it as his right t have sex with her.. and thats persecution.

Remember it s all about the individuals perception. If enough people rallied agianst incest, eventually it would become legal.

We are a sick species.

Originally posted by xxsomexpersonxx
I'm all for Polygamy. As long as the members are consensual, and treated equally. It is not the governments place to say it's only ok to love one person.

Oppression of women, and not given them choices/rights, which is often compared with Polygamy, is a different story. Forced Marriages, Domestic abuse, ect, should be illegal, not the non-harmful act of becoming close to multiple people.

And the is a strong dividing line between gay marriage and polygamy and Animal marriages and child marriages. Neither Animals or children have full citizen rights(to be recognized as one body), and neither are able to consent.

The arguement in favor for gay marriage, and polygamy, is that consenting people who harm no one shouldn't have the law telling them their harmless acts are illegal. Or any less legal than the more socially acceptable alternatives(straight marriage). Not that anyone can do anything they want to animals or children.

Ah, but there is a problem with your argument. There are people who believe animals should have rights, should be able to bring a lawsuit against someone, etc. Of course, any sane person knows a human being would be speaking "for" the animal. However, that doesn't stop the animal rights people.

There are also people that are pushing for "rights of the child", wanting to make children have the same rights as adults, even to go against their parents in basic decisions. Not abusive parents, mind you, ANY parents. Basically, kids brainwashed in schools could tell their parents to shove off, and the government would back them.

So, when the animals and children all have these new rights, what happens to your argument?

Besides which, groups like NAMBLA have stated for years they think children should be "allowed" to consent.

Originally posted by Annee
Who paid for the study.
What was the purpose of the study.
What geographic area was this study done in.
What age group is this study?
Basically - - you've found statistics that support what you want to support.

1. American Law and Economics Association.
2. Demographics.
3. Four American states, although I do not remember which ones.
4. No specific age group was targeted.

I also have statistics from NCHS that corroborate with the data, although they're old (1990). I like how, despite this website motto's being "deny ignorance", you discredit official statistics and peer-reviewed studies that contradict your myths without presenting any counter-evidence. You simply refuse to believe anything that contradicts your cherished myths. If you have statistics that support your position, I'd like to see them. Otherwise, accept the fact that you're wrong. Women file for divorce 70% of the time, and they do it mostly because they're 'unhappy' eat-pray-love-style.

Originally posted by mjfromga
If a gay marriage can be legally recognized, why not polygamy? Why not relatives (if they are rendered sterile)?

Why render them sterile?

Originally posted by getreadyalready
It seems so odd to me that in the days of internet porn, and bikini models on billboards for everything from beer to real estate, we have actually devolved into such a repressed view of sexuality? I really just don't understand it.

We haven't really "devolved into it". We merely kept them from the past while the rest of the things moved on.

Originally posted by unityemissions
I always asked, "why", and it got me in a lot of trouble.
Still, I just can't understand polygamy. It doesn't seem to be logical for our current state of civilization.

I can't fully reason it all in one go. It's more of an intuitive feeling than any one solid point, but I wish I could assure you that it's not mere social mores which are leading me to towards this.

That I can explain. One of the maxims of game theory is "Five minutes of alpha is better than a lifetime of beta." The reason why soccer players, actors and politicians can get any women they want, despite they being married, is that women do not mind sharing a man with another woman, provided that the sexual market value of the man is high enough.

Due to this fact, our current state of civilization already have polygamy. We only have other names for it, "mistresses", "adultery", you name it. And since law is already moving itself towards "protecting the rights" of the women on those relationships, even if they are illegal, it is a short step to make them legal.

Women acting on behalf of their hypergamous instincts would want the possibility of sharing an alpha with another woman as an available choice to them, possibly free of stigmas or drawbacks.

reply to post by SirMike


once a woman is 18 i don't care how many "sister wives" she has. if a woman is stupid enough to believe that they can't get into their heaven unless they are maried to a man with mutiple wives, that is up to them.

oh this is really alot more complicated than it looks on first glance. the president of the church of latter day saints, was told by the federal government that mormons could no longer legally practice polygamy and if they insisted it would have huge ramifications. so the pres of the church got busy and prayed about it. he then received what he called a revelation or word from god, that the church should go along with the government and ban polygamy in their state, which they did. however, one sect (reorganized latter day saints) felt that this was unrighteous capitulation and continued the practice in secrecy or by simply moving across the border into mexico.

this is why the pres of the mormon church decided to go after the issue of gay marriage, as he knew it would lead to the mormons questioning whether or not they should go back to the practice of polygamy, which he claimed to have received prophetical word against.

what.a.mess.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by getreadyalready
You can't put the worm back in the can.

Did you really just write that in a discussion about gay marriage? LOL

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by silent thunder

So whats the take on this ... good or bad? And is this the start of state recognized polygamist marriages just like gay marriage is being now being recognized?

Polygamy should never have been banned/outlawed in the first place. It was part of a religious belief. This country was founded on Freedom of belief. Imposing only one wife - - - was in violation of religious freedoms.

Beyond that - - - I see zero correlation between polygamy and same gender marriage.

Current laws/tax codes - benefits etc - - - are written for a marriage of two people. Gender of those two people changes nothing already in place.

edit on 12-7-2011 by Annee because: (no reason given)

So polygamy has one more valid argument against it than gay marrige then (Since Polygamy has just one valid argument against it)

As for polygamy becoming legal, I fully support it.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Openeye

 

What are you saying? That it is in our nature to only marry one person (a female or a male) and have children? Or that it is better for society to be that way?

Either argument is without basses, and all of the studies I have seen to support that only a man and and a women can raise children are extremely bias.

I agree. Animal species that are monogamous are naturally monogamous. There is no command structure demanding they be monogamous, they are just naturally that way. Humans are obviously not genetically designed to be monogamous.

As for raising children, the more adults in the mix the better! Several people have pointed out that children used to be raised by parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, neighbors, etc. It used to take a village to raise a child, but nowadays it is mostly single mothers or government entities raising them. Even the two-parent households lean heavily on daycare and schools to raise their kids for them. It is a very sad time for child-rearing. If a committed gay couple or a group of polygamists offer to raise a kid, then it will be a drastic improvement from the current norm!

I agree 100% that there needs to be many loving adults in a child's life. Raising babies is hard work. The OP was refering to the sister wives deal on television. Did you see the show? There are 5 adults parenting 19 children. In a daycare setting that would be illegal. As the children are ranging in age, it is not an issue because the older kids are parenting the younger ones. This is not fair or right in any sense. More wives, more children and one husband. How much "father figure" influence can each child really claim? Pretty sure the dude has to work??! You can't argue the polygamist group concept either. No matter what there will always be way more children than adults.

reply to post by wildoracle13


Have you ever met Mormon kids? They are outstanding! Polite, intelligent, well-behaved. Our FBI is full of Mormon's because they are educated, multi-lingual, and have squeeky clean records!

Sorry, but you will have to provide some examples of Mormon kids from large families getting into trouble, before I will even begin to believe the lifestyle is anything but successful.

Please find me an example of a kid from a large, loving family that got into more trouble than your average kid from your average family.

reply to post by DaMod


Thanks for the time you took to talk about LDS corruption related to government. I am far too familiar with this issue and have to quit the topic before I violate T&C. I am an aunt to a stolen child orchestrated by a mormon adoption agency and lobbyist for said agency that also held a position within Utah Supreme court. He is good buds with Orrin Hatch and an active member of the LDS church. And a high powered lawyer. Needless to say, there are disturbing things happening in that state that have yet to come to light. If you are interested in the case I am refering to, google "babyselling.com". For a more recent case search "baby emma" Also, we have been cooperating with Dateline NBC since 09. They will be airing our stories sometime in September. I will be authoring a thread on this topic to hopefully bring awareness to the deepest levels of corruption by the state of Utah. This is why I feel that polygamy is just another egg in the basket.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by wildoracle13

 

Have you ever met Mormon kids? They are outstanding! Polite, intelligent, well-behaved. Our FBI is full of Mormon's because they are educated, multi-lingual, and have squeeky clean records!

Sorry, but you will have to provide some examples of Mormon kids from large families getting into trouble, before I will even begin to believe the lifestyle is anything but successful.

Please find me an example of a kid from a large, loving family that got into more trouble than your average kid from your average family.

I really don't feel it has anything to do with mormon kids getting in trouble. You are looking in the wrong direction, I believe. What you will find are stories of children who become confused and struggle emotionally/intellectually/socially as adults who "deny ignorance" and try to integrate back into society for whatever reason. If they try to change their lifestyle or beliefs, they are ostricised from community, family and friends. It's no different than a CULT, a jonestown or what have you. Then you throw in the family dynamic that we are discussing (Polygamy) and that's a whole deeper and more complex layer of confusion. I'm sure you have read stories of people who have escaped this kind of thing. Sad.

The Final Word of Beezzer


I would not want to be in a gay marriage. I like women.
I would not want to be in a polygamous marriage. 3 wives? Nag X 300%.

But I would not stop someone from being in either type of "union".

Pesonal liberties, freedoms, and all that.

Originally posted by Openeye
Do you think if polygamy became legal a large portion of men would go out of their way to have multiple wives? More than likely...no.

I read an article with a survey - - a while back. (no I don't remember where and I do not have a link)

It was about how women would feel having a "sister wife". Surprisingly - most responded Yes. The women felt they would have more freedom for their own interests - - if taking care of the man - home - kids was shared with another woman.

The one rule that must be kept is - - - the women are the final rule. The man can bring someone into the relationship - - but the woman/women have final say if she stays.

A group marriage has to be run democratically. If a person is creating issues and those issues can not be solved - - that person must leave.

There is a big difference between gay marriage and polygamy. Just because they are both about marriage does not make them one and the same.
This has nothing to do with religion. The reason that the government gives the right to marry is because of considerations such as inheritence, the right to make medical decisions, and custody.
If there is a breakdown in the marriage, or the death of a spouse, it ends up in government courts over who shall inherit the state, and who receives custody of the children. If your married to someone ten years or more, you have the right to collect thier social security. It also gives the spouse the right to claim their pension if they pass.
That is why a marriage license is a contract between the spouses and the state. And depending on particular state laws, what can break that contract.
Only a religious marriage is a contract between the couple and God. You can have a religious contract, it just won't be recongized by the state if there is a dispute.
Gay marriage proponents seek this ability for the above mentioned reasons. If a person took care of their partner for 20 years, then that person becomes very ill and hospitalized, the partner, despite having the majority of their lives caring for this partner and knowing them best, has no say over the medical care of said partner. If the partner dies, teh family who may not have even been involved with the person, still inherits the estate. The opposite is also true, if a spouse suffers abuse, they can quickly dissolve the union but still receive the benefits of the spouse. When you don't have a contract with the state, someone ends up with nothing.
Gay couples still have to have children the same way as everyone else, and still have to go through the rigors of adoption. They still have to claim two parents. IF something should happen to the one partner, then the other automatically gets custody and any pension or social security plans.
The only thing chaning here is teh sex of one of the parents.
With polygamists, it gets more convoluted. They are breaking a law. Whether they like that law for religious reasons or not, they are knowingly breaking a law. Some religions require animal sacrifice, but you can't abuse an animal or slaughter it simply because of freedom of religion.

So you have a husband who is only legally married to once spouse, who now has to provide for four or more ro however many they may be.
Under state law, that husband can only leave his estate to the one wife. Who is to say she doesn't take it and run and leaves the other wives and children struggling for income?
If something should happen to that one husband, how is the remaining family to provide for themselves. What if he suddenly can't work. Now you have 20 children and 4 wives on state assistance.

So either way, it becomes a problem for the state.

So what if this man suddenly decides to leave all the wives and run to the seashore to sell minnows for a living? He does not have the resources to sustain the large family unit he created. and they are left destitute. Many already live destitute because few can provide for such a large family. You now have the wives working.

How do you divide up property if something happens to one of the spouses?

Not to mention the complications if there are mortgages, loans, businesses, and taxes.
The contract with teh state allows a couple to enter a business partnership.
so then how does this figure if there is more then one spouse?

Not to mention, that since they are breaking a law, there are often children who are unaccounted for, who don't recieve proper education, who don't have social security, and thereore don't exist.

I consider polygamy a willful attempt at breaking the law, and putting minors and women into situations that they may not consider or prepare for, that can leave them destitute. It is to blatantly put the children in a very difficult position socially. It is one step from making women property again, and removing any rights that they may have under protection of the state.
Religious reasons or no, it is neglect of the worst kind.

Originally posted by Leahn

I like how, despite this website motto's being "deny ignorance", you discredit official statistics and peer-reviewed studies that contradict your myths without presenting any counter-evidence.

Studies have a purpose.

Another study on the same issue might result in different results - - depending on the need of the research.

Surveys/studies are designed to bring about specific data.

You are using/choosing this specific study - - because it supports a position you want to hold.

Studies are tools.

Originally posted by john316saves

Originally posted by Annee

You can't put the worm back in the can.

Did you really just write that in a discussion about gay marriage? LOL

Yes!

Intentionally

Originally posted by wildoracle13
What you will find are stories of children who become confused and struggle emotionally/intellectually/socially as adults who "deny ignorance" and try to integrate back into society for whatever reason. If they try to change their lifestyle or beliefs, they are ostricised from community, family and friends. It's no different than a CULT, a jonestown or what have you. Then you throw in the family dynamic that we are discussing (Polygamy) and that's a whole deeper and more complex layer of confusion. I'm sure you have read stories of people who have escaped this kind of thing. Sad.

Which Mormon group are you talking about?

My husband's family are all Mormon. I was in it for 5 years. It was a wonderful experience.

No one ever forced me or even tried to force me to do anything.

If you are talking about the Jeff Warren group or "fringe fundamentalists" - - - that's a whole different situation.

reply to post by wildoracle13

I'm sure you have read stories of people who have escaped this kind of thing. Sad.

I have read those stories. Those stories are the rare exceptions, and often times fabrications. I happen to know from personal experience that these kids aren't having any trouble integrating. Their main problems are shock and disgust at how poorly educated and uninformed the rest of the population is.

I have some very good Mormon friends with 7 to 10 kids per family, and the families are terrific! They are economically secure, they help with the cooking, they help with the dishes, they make straight A's in school, they attend church, they are polite, and they can't understand how the rest of the country can survive with such backwards thinking and carelessness.

I also have some close friends in the FBI, and I am not exaggerating when I say that the FBI is largely Mormon. Most of these kids graduate college at very young ages, they speak multiple languages, they are clean-cut, polite, healthy, and have clean records. They are certainly not struggling to integrate into society, and they are certainly not victims of any cult mentality. They are just good, wholesome people.

One doesn't have to be Mormon to be a good person. I am not a Mormon. But, it is false to believe their lifestyle is in any way inferior to ours. All evidence points to exactly the opposite. These large, inter-connected, and involved families are having more success than the rest of us. They are doing something right!

reply to post by wildoracle13


Reading comments like this: The question is if Mormons believe that they are Aliens does this mean Our kids were abducted by Aliens ? Makes you Wonder!

From the website you linked. Doesn't really help the credibility of those claiming "stolen adoptions".

Blaming the whole of Mormons for this is very disingenuous.

Plus - - the fight for "birth fathers" to keep children the mother gives up for adoption - - - is not isolated to one state.