Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Well, sort of, and it might not last the next round of appeals, but for the moment elements of polygamy are legal, so start that big family while the window is open!

Kody Brown and his four wives are best known for starring on TLC’s Sister Wives, but the family has also been battling a long-standing legal case. Yesterday, the Browns’ attorney, Jonathan Turley, announced that the final decision of United States District Court Judge Clarke Waddoups came down in favor of the Brown family.

As Turley wrote on his blog, “Previously, Judge Waddoups handed down an historic ruling striking down key portions of the Utah polygamy law as unconstitutional. Only one count remained: the Section 1983 claim that state officials (notably prosecutor Jeffrey R. Buhman) violated the constitutional rights of the Brown family in years of criminal investigation and public accusations. He has now ruled for the Browns in what is now a clear sweep on all counts.”

Essentially, the Browns, who had previously had to leave their home in Utah, can now be both plural and legal in the state. “The Court struck down the provision as violating both the free exercise clause of the first amendment as well as the due process clause,” Turley wrote. “The court specifically struck down language criminalizing cohabitation—the provision that is used to prosecute polygamists.”

And in regards to the Attorney General potentially appealing the case, Turley said, “We are prepared to defend this and the prior ruling in Denver, Colorado before the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.”

Great. Now some donkey-caves will get multiple wives, while I'm single. Hope they get multiple headaches, multiple nights of blueballs, all the wives become lesbians and deal with multiple divorces.



....it's been a bad morning.

Good for them.

As long as they can figure it all out correctly when it comes to taxes and contracts, I'm all about it.

Wanna marry a goat? Go for it!

I do hope, of course, a woman takes this up as marries multiple males. You know. For equality.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Great. Now some donkey-caves will get multiple wives, while I'm single. Hope they get multiple headaches, multiple nights of blueballs, all the wives become lesbians and deal with multiple divorces.



....it's been a bad morning.

I would be bothered by that too, were it not for the fact that any woman who would be receptive to a relationship like that has self-selected out of the pool of people I would want to have a relationship with.

It's another vector for matchmaking. It's a good thing.

Good. I don't see any reason why this shouldn't be allowed.

good.

I thought it was already legal what with all the mormon heavy states and such.

good for them, if you want to have multiple spouses, same gender spouses, or marry a chair, go for it!


personally I think even one spouse might be too many...

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Great. Now some donkey-caves will get multiple wives, while I'm single. Hope they get multiple headaches, multiple nights of blueballs, all the wives become lesbians and deal with multiple divorces.



....it's been a bad morning.

They will also get multiple mother in laws. And I'm sure they approve of their daughters marrying one guy. Think of thanksgiving when all 4 mother in laws are in the same house with him.

oh god... multiple in laws...


gods way of punishing polygamists?

Good, the state should stay out of private covenants between consenting adults.

In Utah's case...that law was probably in placed to thwart polygamy.

But, in other states, that same law was probably meant to prevent Bordellos from popping up all over the place.

It's the same laws that Sororities may have issues with housing permits in neighboring colleges.

It's sad when you have to chase down link after link from the original story that quotes another story that quotes another story that finally actually links to the ruling. But once you do you realize that the ruling doesn't actually have anything to do with polygamy at all and it didn't do anything to actually make it legal. Matter of fact, the ruling specifically states that it is still illegal:

As a result, and to save the Statute, the court adopts the interpretation of
“marry” and “purports to marry,” and the resulting narrowing construction of the Statute, offered
by the dissent in State of Utah v. Holm, 2006 UT 31, ¶¶ 131-53, 137 P.3d 726, 758-66, thus
allowing the Statute to remain in force as prohibiting bigamy in the literal sense—the fraudulent
or otherwise impermissible possession of two purportedly valid marriage licenses for the purpose
of entering into more than one purportedly legal marriage.

Of course it helps to realize that the family at the center of the case is not actually legally polygamous in the first place. It's a single married couple that lives with other women in the household. The "sister-wives" are all just women that act like they are married to him and they all have a religious reason for doing so. But there are no other legal marriages in that household. And nothing in this case had anything to do with being allowed to legally marry more than one of the wives. The reason they went to court because the state had a ridiculous standard for polygamy: cohabitation = polygamy.

And that is all this ruling did was to strike down laws against cohabitation. The state can't pass a law that says that it is illegal to marry one person and live with other people while pretending that you are all married to each other.

So the title of the thread should be "Pretending to be (legally) married to more than one person at a time and shagging up together in the same house is now legal in the jurisdictions covered by this district court thanks to reality TV".

But I admit it's not as catchy

Well, OP did say "sort of".

So reality TV is now influencing law......
Damnit, Im making a prediction. within the next 5 year we will have a show about people hunting convicted death row inmates for sport.

 Ouze wrote:
Well, OP did say "sort of".

I just thought it was worth pointing out...

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
So reality TV is now influencing law......
Damnit, Im making a prediction. within the next 5 year we will have a show about people hunting convicted death row inmates for sport.

I'll call it in 4 years, until the real-life Running Man remake.

As pointed out I did say "sort of" and that there are more rounds of appeal to go.

 d-usa wrote:
Of course it helps to realize that the family at the center of the case is not actually legally polygamous in the first place.

They are a polygamist family in every way but the legal sense, sure; RAW vs. RAI and all that.

 Ahtman wrote:
As pointed out I did say "sort of" and that there are more rounds of appeal to go.

 d-usa wrote:
Of course it helps to realize that the family at the center of the case is not actually legally polygamous in the first place.

They are a polygamist family in every way but the legal sense, sure; RAW vs. RAI and all that.

And the legal sense is the one that matters. In the legal sense they are not a polygamist family, and in the legal sense polygamy is still illegal according to the ruling itself.

 d-usa wrote:
And the legal sense is the one that matters.

And since we are talking about a court ruling all I can say is a great big "duh".


Still, it seems strange to think they aren't a polygamist family either just because they skirt the definition. Do they fit the legal definition of polygamy? No. Are they a polygamist family? Yes.

Since the thread is about polygamy being made legal and it hasn't been I reckon we can wrap it up now.