The Browns are fighting "anti-bigamy" law.

[officer2002]

The family who was the subject of a reality series Sister Wives is fighting Utah's anti-bigamy law. I put <anti-bigamy> in quotes because I could be proved guilty it I was wealthy enough to take in another woman as a charity case but did not marry her.

[officer2002]

I have not heard of any Appeals Court or Supreme Court rulings about polygamy since the Ferguson ruling.
I hope that they are successful. In this case polygamy might not be the right term to use. Kody Brown is only legally married to one wife. They are not trying to force us to approve of them with a marriage certificate for the second wife. They want to be left alone.
What is most disturbing to me is the proof of marriage by co-habitation. That means helping the poor by taking a woman in by a family which has space and money could get someone prison time.
I do not see how polygamy is harmful to society. Polygamist children know who their father is and have a relationship with him.
One reason that I am against anti-polygamy laws is that the motivation behind them was to persecute the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

[officer2002]

http://xfinitytv.comcast.net/blogs/2011 ... T_hero_hot

[SailingCyclops]

I have not heard of any Appeals Court or Supreme Court rulings about polygamy since the Ferguson ruling.

I don't believe it's the business of the government to regulate private living arrangements. That's a personal choice which government has no right to interfere with. If two men, two women, two men and one woman, or any combination thereof want to cohabit as a family, they have the right to do so, and have the right to enjoy the same legal and financial benefits of any other "marriage" arrangement. Anti-polygamy laws are as unjust as anti-gay marriage and anti-interracial marriage laws.

One reason that I am against anti-polygamy laws is that the motivation behind them was to persecute the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

Haven't the Mormons disassociated themselves from polygamy, as they have from racism? I look at this as a purely human rights and freedom issue. Arrangements and practices which do no harm shouldn't be illegal.

Bob

[dusk]

I would also argue that in a society where both sex are equally emancipated there is no objective reason to stop people from living in such marriage constellations. I guess one would require some kind of rules for partial divorces. Odd thing

In a culture like the Middle East where you can not say that women are emancipated enough I think there should be a blanket ban in order to protect women rights. Polygamy is in such cultures often not a fair agreement that both parties agree too and it is unfair towards the female population.

[ThatGirlAgain]

I have not heard of any Appeals Court or Supreme Court rulings about polygamy since the Ferguson ruling.

I don't believe it's the business of the government to regulate private living arrangements. That's a personal choice which government has no right to interfere with. If two men, two women, two men and one woman, or any combination thereof want to cohabit as a family, they have the right to do so, and have the right to enjoy the same legal and financial benefits of any other "marriage" arrangement. Anti-polygamy laws are as unjust as anti-gay marriage and anti-interracial marriage laws.

Marriage related laws ultimately about protecting children and property: Who is responsible for what under which circumstance. When more than two people are involved that can get quite sticky. I happen to agree that government should not put limits on what arrangements people might want to make, as long as the proper protections are in place. I could imagine a scenario where a group wanted to make some unorthodox arrangement and presented a customized contract to a judge to ensure that the proper protections were in place. Not a perfect solution but hopefully better than the non-solutions available now.

[Angel]

The family who was the subject of a reality series Sister Wives is fighting Utah's anti-bigamy law. I put <anti-bigamy> in quotes because I could be proved guilty it I was wealthy enough to take in another woman as a charity case but did not marry her.

Good! Polygamy is not the problem but rather the ways some have practiced it is the problem. The Brown's family practice it in a consensual, non-abusive, non-cultic way in that they're not hiding from anyone, isolating their families on compounds, forcing their kids into it (some of the kids have already expressed that they don't want polygamy when they grow up and marry), etc. If people refer back in history, the ways monogamy was practiced used to be horrible, as well and still are if you look at some of the Middle Eastern countries. It's also ironic that people are already practicing non-monogamous behavior when it comes to all the cheating, alternative lifestyles, and serial divorce/remarriages. This shows that for some people monogamy doesn't last long or that monogamy is not as natural as some think, and it's only socially 'imposed' on us.

[eutychus]

When it comes to the modern definition of marriage, that being the one cited by Judge Vaughn Walker, the guy who made California's Proposition 8 illegal and sent it on up the appeals court foodchain, polygamy doesn't stand a chance. He writes, “Marriage requires two parties to give their free consent to form a relationship, which then forms the foundation of a household. The spouses must consent to support each other and any dependents. The state regulates marriage because marriage creates stable households, which in turn form the basis of a stable, governable populace...The right to marry has been historically and remains the right to choose a spouse and, with mutual consent, join together and form a household.�

"Two parties" kind of slams the door in the face of polygamists.

But then he claims historical precedence for this understanding, yet he ignores other aspects historically understood to define marriage. He was kind of picking and choosing what historically understood aspects of marriage he wanted to highlight so as to make it sensible for him to declare the will of the people unconstitutional. Should a polygamy case come before him, I'm sure he'd find historical precedence to support polygamy, regardless of how such a move would contradict earlier rulings. Maybe the polygamists CAN have their Kate and Edith too.

[Angel]

When it comes to the modern definition of marriage, that being the one cited by Judge Vaughn Walker, the guy who made California's Proposition 8 illegal and sent it on up the appeals court foodchain, polygamy doesn't stand a chance. He writes, “Marriage requires two parties to give their free consent to form a relationship, which then forms the foundation of a household. The spouses must consent to support each other and any dependents. The state regulates marriage because marriage creates stable households, which in turn form the basis of a stable, governable populace...The right to marry has been historically and remains the right to choose a spouse and, with mutual consent, join together and form a household.�

"Two parties" kind of slams the door in the face of polygamists.

But then he claims historical precedence for this understanding, yet he ignores other aspects historically understood to define marriage. He was kind of picking and choosing what historically understood aspects of marriage he wanted to highlight so as to make it sensible for him to declare the will of the people unconstitutional. Should a polygamy case come before him, I'm sure he'd find historical precedence to support polygamy, regardless of how such a move would contradict earlier rulings. Maybe the polygamists CAN have their Kate and Edith too.

There can be a difference between saying how many people can be in a marriage and how many marriages someone can have, at one time. Mormon polygamists actually practice polygamy as plural (or multiple) marriage. That's practicing polygyny by having each wife in a separate marriage and that way there's 2 people per marriage. That seems to fit what you're saying regarding 'two parties' until you also include 'bigamy' which completely is when poly is cancelled out even as plural marriage. Multiple marriages is probably how those in the Bible practiced polygamy as well if they stuck with the 2 person marriage rule.

An underlying reason why some Conservatives consider heterosexual monogamous marriage as being traditional marriage, despite evidence in history of other forms, is because they think all the other forms are bad. They believe allowing polygamy would erode monogamous marriages when there's no evidence to validate their worries (or cultural bias). In the societies where polygamy was practiced, monogamous marriages was still the predominant form.