WillySteed*ChristineMarie*KolleneSnow*AudienceMember*EdKociela AuthorPlygsAnswersQuestions *JewelryAtGuilt* DickJaneFlipbook*Spoilers*Tweets*RebeccaMusser*My5WivesGreat Stories*BuyTeamKolleenTshirtTodayDon'tMissOut!!!Review!!

Wednesday, July 25, 2012

Judge questions dismissal of 'Sister Wives' lawsuit challenging Utah bigamy law





SALT LAKE CITY — A federal judge wants to know whether Utah County's assertion that it would not prosecute the polygamous family featured in "Sister Wives" is a ruse to avoid a legal challenge of the state's bigamy law.

U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups' blunt questions had a state attorney on his heels for much of a 45-minute hearing Wednesday as he tried to defend Utah County Attorney Jeff Buhman's recent policy change regarding the statute.

"Is the act of the Utah County attorney simply an attempt to avoid the issue of what consenting adults can do constitutionally?" Waddoups asked assistant attorney general Jerrold Jensen.

In May, Buhman said in court documents that his office had adopted a formal policy not to prosecute the practice of bigamy unless it occurs in conjunction with another crime or if a party to the marriage or relationship is under 18.

The change came about 18 months after Buhman's office said it was investigating and might prosecute Kody Brown and his four wives under Utah's bigamy law. The Browns later filed a lawsuit, claiming the statute violates their constitutional rights to due process, equal protection, free exercise of religion, free speech and freedom of association.

Jensen contends that because the Browns won't be prosecuted, their lawsuit is moot and should be dismissed.
"Is the act of the Utah County attorney simply an attempt to avoid the issue of what consenting adults can do constitutionally?"
–Clark Waddoups

Calling it an "important issue to many people," Waddoups took the case under advisement and said he would rule as soon as possible.

The judge noted that other than in court documents, Buhman did not publicly announce the change and there's nothing to preclude him or a future county attorney from enforcing the law. "That goes to the sincerity of this policy," he said.

Jensen said Buhman, who did not attend the hearing, should be taken at his word.

"I don't think you can question the sincerity of the adoption of this policy," Jensen told the judge.

Jensen said after the hearing that he would call Buhman to the witness stand if the ruling goes against the state.

The Browns' attorney, Jonathan Turley, said the "faux" policy does not repeal the bigamy statute and that Buhman still considers it constitutional and enforceable. He never explains the reasons for not prosecuting people for bigamy, but is willing to do so if it's connected to another crime, Turley said.

"It's clearly an effort to avoid a ruling in this case," he said.

The law, Turley said, still "dangles like a Damocles sword" over the Browns.

Brown, who did not attend the hearing, filed a court declaration Tuesday saying despite the "policy" change, his family still feels threatened and that Buhman has never withdrawn his statements labeling them as criminals.

"We continue to suffer harm as a result of the criminalization of our plural family and the public attacks made against my family with reference to this law," he wrote.

Please read the rest at:
http://www.ksl.com/?sid=21406358&nid=148&title=judge-considers-dismissal-of-sister-wives-lawsuit-challenging-utah-bigamy-law

(Written by Dennis Romboy, KSL.com Utah)

72 comments:

  1. This is, from a legal perspective, the obvious next step for the Browns. Turley is a constitutional lawyer. This has to go to the Supreme Court, because the anti-polygamy law is written into the Utah Constitution, and the only way it could be struck down is 1) through a state amendment (difficult to do, and impossible in the short term, given that a Mormon is running for President or 2) the Supreme Court strikes it down.

    This will be the second time polygamy comes up before the Supreme Court, and they've already ruled it illegal once before. Will be interesting to see how it played out. Watch to see who files "amicus" briefs -- ie, which groups of people take which side. I don't think it's obvious who will be on "for" polygamy and who will be "against" politically, because the lines are pretty murky.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I seems to me that any ruling against the "law of the land" will be held unconstitutional. Private rights exist until they conflict with "law of the land". Since the 1960's there have been "bedroom rights" argued. It seems to me that the only "out" the Browns will have is that their marital status beyond Meri and Kody are consensual extra-marital affairs. That may be a justification, not for polygamy but for fooling around which isn't illegal. I am very interested in how this plays out in the courts!!

      Delete
    2. GEML, good points, I was about to come in here and post something similar. While looking up the history of constitutional challenges w/r/t polygamy, I came across this quote on the wikipedia article about polygamy, which I though was relevant to this article:

      "Stanley Kurtz, a fellow at the Hudson Institute, lamented the modern arguments increasingly being made by various intellectuals who call for de-criminalizing polygamy. Kurtz concluded, 'Marriage, as its ultramodern critics would like to say, is indeed about choosing one's partner, and about freedom in a society that values freedom. But that's not the only thing it is about. As the Supreme Court justices who unanimously decided Reynolds in 1878 understood, marriage is also about sustaining the conditions in which freedom can thrive. Polygamy in all its forms is a recipe for social structures that inhibit and ultimately undermine social freedom and democracy. A hard-won lesson of Western history is that genuine democratic self-rule begins at the hearth of the monogamous family.'"

      On another note, the one thing I find pretty odious is polygamists trying to ride the coattails of the same-sex marriage movement. While many try to make a "slippery slope" argument, there are not a lot of great logical arguments that SHOULD like the two practices. It is bothersome that a group of people who generally seem to condemn same-sex couples are trying to use that group's momentum to further their cause.

      Delete
    3. And of course, it's all trendy to say that marriage is about selecting partner, but in reality, it is and always has been about the legal exchange of property. Anyone who has been through a nasty divorce (especially one with family court and a custody battle) can tell you how ill equipped we are now to handle divorce with monogamous marriages. Imagine going through that with a polygamous one? There isn't a state in the country that is, from a legal perspective, prepared for that. I'm having a hard time seeing the SC inflicting that upon the states, actually. This is one of the reasons that it is fundamentally (pardon the pun!) different from the same-sex argument. Choosing to marry someone of the same sex, from a legal point of view, still treats marriage (from the old-time property exchange point of view) as transfer of wealth from one person to another person in a traditional fashion, while polygamy changes the whole game.

      Also, let's be pretty blunt -- even more than the Mormon fundamentalists, this is a Muslim cultural practice (not a norm, by an means, since only about 50,000 Muslims are practicing in the US -- slightly higher than the number of Mormon fundamentalists.) Given the current political (small p) climate, it's hard for me to see anything that favors the expansion of Muslim culture right now.

      But as I said, that's why it's not a given who will come out in favor and who will come out opposed. If nothing else, it will be interesting to watch. I'll make the popcorn......

      Delete
  2. This case is going all the way, no matter what the lower courts say, and the Browns might find some strange allies along the way. They didn't do a press conference about gay marriage because anyone gives a fig about who King Kody thinks should marry.

    I still think it would be great if Utah issued warrants. Nevada wouldn't care, and they could cry on camera about how unfair it is to have some meanie issue a warrant after you knowingly break the law on TV, for my viewing amusement. They could then talk about how important their values are, while refusing to show up to defend them. Then they would actually have to be careful about showing up in random Twitter pics watching kids' movies in Utah.

    Nothing is going to happen in time for the election. I bet both sides are happy about that one.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "We continue to suffer harm as a result of the criminalization of our plural family and the public attacks made against my family with reference to this law," Hmmm, could the attacks on your family (and mainly towards you Kody Brown) could be because you are on a reality TV show? This man just makes me soooo angry!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Me too!
      Never brought up is the consequences and complications.
      Do they still get all the free welfare?
      This is huge issue.
      I have no problem with gay marriages, except for the fact that this group is banking on that helping them.
      WHY are the Browns so special that they can break the law and be on a TV show?
      If Kody's ego was big in Lehi, it must be hard to get through a door now.
      Most mainstream Midwest communities don't even know the basics of the Mormon religion, if you can call it that.

      Delete
    2. I didn't want to post this (preaching, choir, broken record)... But Kody & Ko feeling threatened my ass! They never felt threatened, the whole move to Vegas was nothing but a dog and pony show and it was because Kody loves the glitz and glam of Vegas a lot more than life in "hick town" Lehi. Besides, the thought of getting nice, large, free and separate houses for all his concubines probably helped, too.

      Delete
    3. Peanut Butter FritosJuly 25, 2012 at 10:39 PM

      HAHAHA! Some sheriff told some local paper you what you already knew? And now he's a big old bully??? Everyone knew it was illegal, and you chose to go on national TV anyway. I'd think it was your poor decisions here, buddy, that are causing "harm."

      Poor Kody. Always being persecuted. Always someone else's fault. Guess somebody made him "marry" all these women and then go on national TV to flaunt breaking the law.

      Delete
  4. What harm does Kody think they are suffering? I haven't seen any harm. No one was coming to arrest them in UT so they didn't need to move to NV. Also, now that they've been told they would be left alone they haven't seen fit to move back to UT so where is the harm?

    This is a bunch of BS of Kody's part so that they can get some money for damages from UT.

    ReplyDelete
  5. SO - if polygamy is to become legal, won't the Browns and all other polygamists who utilize state aid literally be biting the hand that feeds them? They will have to declare the father on state forms - or have the state find out about it - when the forms ask for who the parent is.Also, ALL income to the home will be counted - meaning much less that they will qualify for in benefits.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Purple Shirt.
    Same purple shirt?
    Closet of purple shirts?

    The ladies look nice, though.

    (imho)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I guess they are sick of their jewelry. I don't blame them. I wouldn't wear that stuff either.

      Delete
    2. They do look nice, but they also very look miserable, esp sobbin robbin

      I have to go back and listen to the video, as I have not done so yet, maybe that will explain it.

      Delete
    3. I may be wrong, but believe the pic is a clip from a older interview.

      Delete
    4. The video here stops right when the interview starts. They all look much slimmer. But may be it is from time ago before they started expanding.

      Delete
    5. Peanut Butter FritosJuly 25, 2012 at 10:43 PM

      That looked live-ish to me, though they didn't talk, which is weird. Maybe because Robyn was holding the mic and they cut off the crying. If that's recent, Christine looks great. You go girl!

      Delete
    6. Not sure of the time of this one either. But did notice Kodouche is sporting a goatee. Is that a past style for him or a new one?

      It does look as if they are sitting in some office/studio waiting area?

      Delete
    7. This is the same interview where activists, familiar with many of the cases of child abuse present in the polygamous community in Utah, noticed a very interesting person in the background of the Brown's interview. Details here: http://tripleap.blogspot.com/2010/11/gone-in-60-seconds.html

      Delete
    8. Wow, very interesting! I read the comments on your blog about those children - horrifying. Can't see anyone in the background in this clip though - is this the right segment?

      Delete
    9. Here is the link to the extended interview. At the 58 second mark you'll see the woman in the background we're talking about: http://www.ksl.com/?sid=12603468&nid=148

      Delete
    10. Peanut Butter FritosJuly 26, 2012 at 2:34 PM

      I always wondered why nobody seems to have any (non-high school) friends on the show. I just thought normal people would be humiliated to be associated with these losers on TV...

      Delete
    11. You're right, Mister Sister, that's a 2010 interview. Things sure have changed a lot in two years, including flapping their mouths about going on TV even though polygamy is illegal.

      Love Christine's quote, "We are law-abiding citizens."

      Delete
  7. Kodouche is still "suffering"? How can he say they're still suffering and persecuted when they now have McMansions, business ventures and vacations every other week.

    They are a family of delusional grifters.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Ok, It seems here are a lot of you here that are well educated and pretty much know what you are talking about. I am not real religious. Even though I was raised a christian. I stay away from organized religion b/c of things like things. I know that as Americans we have our right to practice our religion as we want. But I have been reading a lot on the tlc Sister wife forum and it has been upsetting me. There are a few people on there that are pro plig,Fundies and people not even from here talking about how our country tramples on the pligs beliefs. ( Makes no sense b/c I am guessing that in most other countries polygamy is illegal.) Would there be anyone willing to explain to me exactly what Freedom of religion means? I know we can believe what we want and as long as our practices don't hurt others. My main worry is that if polygamy is legalized that some crackpot will then start his own religion and want to marry sheep. I am also thankful that some on here have brought up some non religious reasons for polygamy to be illegal. I am tired of people saying that us "Christians" imposing and enforcing our beliefs on non christians. Thanks to Mister Sister, Cj, Terrasola, And Mister Sister for starting this blog. Where we can state our opinion and not get labeled as one who is full of hate for people who are different.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To address a few of your points:
      1. You are absolutely right that freedom of religion does not equal freedom to do whatever the f--- you want under the guise of "religion." Otherwise you have the possibility of people committing human sacrifice, doing illegal drugs, or even shoplifting in the name of their religion. Laws are passed to protect society, and our country decided over 100 years ago that polygamy was not good for society.
      2. There really is no "slippery slope" from polygamy to animal marriage. Human beings can consent to marriage, but animals cannot. Again, social laws against bestiality would override someone's religious desire to marry a sheep or whatever, lol.

      The hypocrisy of these groups is stunning. You can't just pick and choose what laws to follow. It's like these people are saying "hey, freedom of religion is great! We love that part of the constitution! Hey everyone, we have freedom of religion LOOK AT US! STOP PERSECUTIN' HATERS" *commits welfare fraud, breaks polygamy laws, goes bankrupt*

      Delete
    2. Actually, the Freedom of Religion is one of the most curtailed freedoms under the Bill of Rights. It is by now means as well stated as the Second amendment, and the Fourth Amendment (search and Seizure) has been severely infringed upon under the Homeland security creation and the Supreme Court hasn't blinked too much of an eye. So none of this is really that obvious to anyone.

      But at root, the way the courts have determined freedom of religion in the past has been more along the lines of freedom of through and freedom of expression (as in rights of speech) and less along rights of practice, especially when those practices go against laws of the land. Native American religions, for instance, often include rituals and practices that include drugs that declared illegal, and are therefore banned practices in the US. And this holds true even though reservations are technically less regulated than the rest of the United States and these were sacramental religious practices that go back centuries.

      So just because you can argue that this has indeed been part of a strong religious practice, that doesn't mean the court's hands are tied. Precedent says this goes against the Browns. Current political winds say this goes against the Browns.

      But the Supreme Court can be weird, which is what makes life interesting.

      Delete
  9. What i have a problem with, is their practice of bleeding the beast. However, that is more of a problen woth the welfare system in general. I do not agree with them basically exploiting that in our face on television.

    ReplyDelete
  10. You are right Kody, you really are in "HARM."

    Top 10 Reasons Kody is in Harms Way:

    10- His hair might get messed up while driving around in the new business bonus car
    9- The potential danger of being hit by a car while walking between Robyn and Mary's home
    8- Kody hears and believes a rumor that mock tapioca pudding could cause impotence
    7- While frolicking around on someone else's land acting like a fool, there was the potential danger for him to trip on a rock
    6- Kody realizes that Robyn's cold sores really are contagious
    5- Fear of forgetting a wife's birthday, since they each have there own
    4- Divorced women
    3- Filing a 4th bankruptcy
    2- Fearful of what Robyn will do to him when wife #5 comes along
    1- Finally, the constant emotional fear, harm, and pain (not to mention stink) that his butt sweat causes him

    ReplyDelete
  11. OMG!! Im sick of the nonsense the Browns keeps spewing that they live their daily livws in fear, blah, blah, blah bs!! According to Twitter they LOVE Vegas & are all happy, go, lucky & living large, racking up more debt just so they can Refile Bankrupt in a few more yrs! Only thing they fear is losing their TLC & LIV $$ train & being financially strapped again that will force their scheming trashy asses back to Lehi as failures! Utah or our US govt needs to grow some balls & step in & prosecute the Browns for welfare & bankruptcy fraud & polygamy! Matter of fact, prosecute everyone who is BREAKING THE LAW! Afterall POLYGAMY IS ILLEGAL!
    Damn, I should move there & draw welfare & while I'm at it, grow some weed, not in my basement but openly in my back yard & maybe I'll grow some coca plants too! Hell, might as well make some moonshine, since Utah looks the other way when ur openly breaking the law!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Caramel Brownie,

      Now don't be shy...tell us how you REALLY feel !!! :-))))

      Agree!! The Browns have really overplayed and overstayed their "poor us" song and dance.
      Time for them to either slither away with all their ill gotten spoils or become legitimate spokespeople and start waving that Plyg banner with some credibility and intelligence. As of now, they are nothing more than caricatures for their cause.

      Delete
    2. I agree and I'm sure people have already said this but I am starting to see the hidden agenda of this show. They pick an "ultra Hip surfer dude" plig who in my opinion is not very threatening. Then they give the public a "fake" view on polygamy and get the public to love them. then they pull this we are being punished for our beliefs. Even though they are ILLEGAL. and the the general public that have only watched a few episodes and DO NOT do research support them.I may not be the best educated or articulate ( As you can tell by my wording and compostion) But have enough common sense to know that if your going to go around supporting or being against something you need to do research. And I feel that the only reason Utah made a feeble attempt at legal action was to save their ass. b/c they have let people get away with it. I was also researching last night and found on Rebecca Kimbel's website. that even though the brown's say that the kids have choices the girls DO NOT!!! If the girls don't follow polygamy they will be destroyed. I am moving to Utah With CB. and we can use our drug profits to fight these people!!!!

      Delete
    3. They are also trying to that they are so this and that, example, education.
      I would like to see statistics on how many actual polygamy members 18-22 that get a college education, when it's a well known fact from ex AUB members, they do not.

      Delete
  12. If you take a good look at our Constitution it seems that Polygany should be accepted legally. We are allowed to arm ourselves, protest against the "man" and even the words illuminated on your screens right now were typed there in freedom. BUT... we vote for our political leaders to ensure that the freedoms we enjoy are not infringing on another persons freedom.
    Legalizing polygamy allows for men to live as they are more than the wives that they take. It is not a value that America has ever stood for and frankly, I do not think we ever will see it as being legal.
    Kody is a turd. He can barely manage his own life yet he has placed himself into a position of leadership for all of his children and wives. His drama is nauseating.
    When the family lived in the large house in Lehi, does anyone believe for a second that the folks in his community did not understand that a polygamist family lived there? How was his family in harm. That house screamed polygamists from the outside yet Kody feels that they must go on TLC and be PAID to cry to any listening ears about how sad it is that he may not break the laws that he chooses to even though no charges were being brought up against him and if he would of kept his life off of TLC he never would of had any issues.
    What an idiot..."Boo hoo...I want it to be legal that I can have as many wives as I want yet I could barely support just one" He should of came to the table ready for a fight with all of his ducks in a row having NEVER EVER used assistance to support his children.
    He is a doofus. He makes me gag.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think the dangers of legalized polygamy in terms of infringing on another person's freedom outweigh the potential for ending some of the welfare abuse.

      We are protecting married people by keeping polygamy illegal. If it is legal there is no protection for the other spouse. My husband could marry 4 other people (I live in MA so it doesn't have to be wives) and my share of the communal property is eroded without my consent.

      On the flipside, as tempting as the welfare fraud argument is, there is nothing to prevent people living in "polygamy" to actually legally marry, thereby continuing the practice. Our constitution (I hope) will never force legal marriage on anyone.

      That said, the judge is right, Utah shouldn't withdraw in a game of legal chicken. Neither should a law be only enforced sometimes by "policy". You don't need to prosecute polygamy in cases of child- brides or welfare fraud, those are crimes in and of themselves. the hardest part of the polygamy laws is what is an appropriate punishment? I would say an IRS audit.

      Delete
    2. I wonder how he would feel if it were made legal and his 'wives' could have multiple have multiple husbands? How long would it be before the next interpretation of 'God's word' regarding the matter from their religion's viewpoint would be inclusive of polyandry?

      Just saying, might want to be careful what you wish for Kodingle!

      Delete
    3. I'm not at all convinced that our Constitutions says that polygamy should be legal. There are a LOT of practices that fall under religious traditions, many of which go back culturally far longer than Mormon polygamy, that will never be upheld by the Supreme Court. Given the ugly picture of child brides, potential incest, welfare fraud, AND the unspoken but ever-present specter that this is a Muslim practice, I'm skeptical of this passing right now. Oddly enough, it might have made it through the 1970's SC easier than the 2010's court.

      Delete
    4. Math problems: I too have questions about the mess that "communal property" would become if polygamy became legalized.

      Speaking hypothetically, if Kody had legally married his wives, how much property would each own? Is it only Kody who sees his share split with each new wife, since he's the one getting married, or do the preexisting wives also take a hit? Why should the preexisting wives have to see their shares split when they don't get to acquire new spouses for themselves?

      For example, if Kody and Meri each owned 50% of the marital property when they were married, what were the percentages after Janelle came in? Was the property split into even thirds, or did the distribution become Meri 50%, Kody 25% and Janelle 25%? Seems to me that the latter scenario is a better idea for the wives -- if the man solely takes the hit each time a new wife comes in, he might not be so eager to accumulate so many.

      Delete
    5. Yay for IRS audit!!! That's the best idea I've seen on this whole blog!

      Delete
    6. Oh yeah an IRS audit for Kody & Ko would be lovely.

      Delete
    7. so instead of multiplying his love ( gag me with a spoon) his property would be divided 4 ways? lmfao.

      Delete
    8. I actually wish that there was a group or facebook page where there would be room for us to talk.

      Delete
    9. Have been toying with it. However, many don't want their real names out there, whether they are pro or con. It's a vulnerable place.

      Delete
    10. I have one, which is a "secret FB group," for anyone who has already made their mind up that they are anti decriminalization and anti polygamy. But that's the membership requirement, that you be a committed anti polygamy activist and want to be involved in such a way as to actually help the situation. If interested, please don't hesitate to contact me. I can be reached through Facebook or through the AAAP website at www.PolygamyIsAbuse.com and our contact form, where you can leave as much or as little information about yourself as you like. Thanks, kD.

      Delete
    11. I was thinking the same thing, bcuz then all of us that just likes to lurk on the KB FB page & twitter, we'd all be blocked/deleted....Lol

      Delete
    12. To me, the greatest danger is to the children.

      How would a court determine custody issues? Can you imagine the nightmare of shared custody in a polygamous divorce situation?

      The real damage of religious polygamy is to a child's psyche. Girls learn that their only value is as property and being a brood mare. They have no right to self-determination and their only route to "salvation" is via a man. They are always "less than". Boys who are good at math and observation will quickly figure out that they most likely won't have a chance at a wife and family. And, of course, long time readers know about the pervasive sexual, physical and emotional abuse that is rife in polygamous communities. This is the reason that British Columbia Justice Baumann ruled against polygamy ... and good that he did for the children's sake (and of course for women, too).

      Delete
  13. Whats good for the gander.....July 26, 2012 at 1:43 PM

    LOC- you are right because, in order for the law to be equitable, they will have to allow women to marry more than one man. A polygamy law that only allows one sex to have more than one spouse will be struck down as inequitable. Let see how Lodouche likes it then.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can you imagine Kody having to share his Robchin?
      I could see it now, Kody curled up in a ball on Meri's couch crying about how Robchin is with her other husband...he is a lunatic.

      Delete
  14. From what I understand, they are not asking for polygamy to be made legal. If it were legal, then Koduche could legally marry Meri, and legally marry Janelle, legally marry Christine, legally marry Robun.

    They want the current status of their relationships decriminalized. Only if it were legal would issues of inheritability arise. Granted, it is the first step to legalization

    I'm not a lawyer so I stand to be over ruled.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As soon as someone here can document a single solitary country on the face of this entire earth where polygamy is either legal or decriminalized, where the condition of women is equal to men, I'll buy that it's a good idea.

      I will not be holding my breath but go to it! Search! Show me one.

      Delete
    2. I'm noticing a change in the mood of this blog to hardcore antipolygamist. Too bad you weren't around when that Charly guy and his wife Jacky were posting. I think it's interesting when all sides of an issue are given attention so people can decide which side to take or even to not take a side. Can't we just discuss a topic or discuss the issues of polygamy without being challenged on every point?

      Delete
    3. Agree with you Lily. Posters, please post your thoughts, pro or con, and some need shorten their thoughts - make room for all opinions. Otherwise, your posts may be deleted. As we have always said, you can agree to disagree, but do NOT constantly respond to all that disagree.

      Delete
    4. I remember "Sorry Charley".....where are they now?

      Delete
    5. "I remember "Sorry Charley".....where are they now?

      I'm hoping they came to their senses and are no longer scoping out the polygamy dating sites for a sister wife. Maybe Anderson Cooper will have an update about them on his show someday!

      Delete
    6. Not sure why these replies are posted under my posting, as I thought I was on topic, brief, and to the point.

      Mods--please pm if I have gone astray.

      Delete
    7. No,jane! Lily asked something, and answered her.It wasn't directed at any one person, a group as a whole.

      Delete
    8. I'm more a finance type than a legal lady, does decriminalization become the "gray" area. Not legal, but official "look the other way"?

      I am not necessarily against this gray area. Would it allow a better control over abuses (welfare/financial as well as personal)? Would it help people get out if they wanted to? Or does it make it even harder to prosecute those that marry children? I don't know the answer, but I am looking forward to other's thoughts.

      I do try and keep in the back of my mind polyamorists - some of whom in my mind are living as married people with multiple adults - different than my standard of 2 adults, but no obvious harm to society.

      OTOH why is the Kody klan trying to decriminalize polygamy? Is there serious risk of prosecution? Or is this a step towards legalization and (in their minds) social acceptance?

      Delete
    9. math Problems,
      For all intents and purposes polygamy is already decriminalized in Utah and Arizona, where authorities are perfectly aware of tens of thousands of people breaking the law. This is, indeed, about legalization. The law is never enforced. The claim that abuses would be reported if it were either decriminalized or legalized is ridiculous. The abuses are inherent to polygamy itself. That's demonstrable through more than 170 empirical research studies done in other polygamous societies, worldwide.


      A comparable analogy I frequently use is American slavery. We all know some slave owners were better than others. We all know the conditions of some slaves were better than others; a house slave's position was preferable to a field slave's. Some slave owners never employed physical abuse of their slaves, and extended much trust to them and in some instances even treated them as something like family. See Thomas Jefferson...


      Just because not all slave owners were abusive, is it an effective argument for tighter government regulation of slavery rather than its total abolition? Of course not, slavery was inherently abusive because it created an unequal class of human beings. Polygamy does the exact same thing. Harriet Beecher Stowe knew that, too.


      The Canadian Supreme Court Justice ruled that polyamory was not affected by the country's prohibition on polygamy.


      The stated aim of the Browns is to challenge the constitutionality of this nations laws against polygamy. They are looking for a SCOTUS case. That's why they have Turley representing them.

      Help with the assistance fraud and abuse? LOL! Yeah, they get "help" with that already. Check this out, our tax dollars at work: http://tripleap.blogspot.com/2009/06/saftey-net-culturally-guided-plans-for.html

      Their state's own top law enforcement officer gave public instruction on how to get benefits without getting your owner, who obviously can't be bothered to feed you or your children, into trouble. He showed them how to break the law. What a joke.

      Delete
    10. Boots: thanks for the link. I would support a culturally-tailored welfare system that helps FLDS women and children leave and stay out of polygamy. Shelters and counselors specifically for women fleeing polygamy, and so on. Programs such as food stamps, Medicaid and other aid for current polygamists, thus subsidizing this illegal practice? Heck no. I suspect that we could reduce 80% of polygamy within a decade if the welfare gravy train stopped rolling into Colorado City.

      I am astounded at the arrogance of these poly-men. Not only do they think their studliness is too great to be wasted on just one woman, they think the taxpayers should fund the ego trip. I want a swimming pool in my backyard but I don't expect the government to pay for one.

      Delete
    11. I stopped being "astounded" by all of these men a while back.

      Utah took federal money for a program almost exactly as you describe, and then they promptly put polygamists in charge of the program. That link I posted led you straight to a flier produced by that program: with your tax dollars. The program, while taking tens of thousands of federal dollars, never helped a single woman or complaining child leave polygamy.

      Instead, they provide free professional counseling for polygamous families. They "especially serve" the women of polygamy who are thinking about leaving. The ones who do leave? They often get help until they can find a new plural family to join... Y'know, kind of like Robyn.

      Delete
  15. I honestly, thought that's what everyone was doing, discussing & expressing their opinions.
    Ultimately, I think the Federal Govt needs to step in & start making the State of Utah, Colorado,Arizona & any other states that KNOWINGLY have multiple polygamists communities setting up & literally taking over cities in their states. Kind of hard to enforce laws esp, when Judges,state officials, police, etc...are the main enforcers/protectors of those polygamist communities/cities! Allowing them to cohabitate, abuse the welfare/medicaid system, etc...
    There must & should be SOME ACCOUNTABIILTY somewhere!

    Those state officials,whether it be, Governors,Judges,DA, Senators, Police officials, etc... took an oath to HONOR,SERVE, PROTECT people, OBEY, & to UPHOLD the laws of this nation & their governed jurisdiction.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree Caramel. This board always was against the way the 'Browns' live, mostly because of the welfare fraud, scamming the gov't, and the way the wives are treated. I don't see it as a board to 'embrace' polygamy. There are other boards for that. Kodouche is a terrible example of the 'good' things about polygamy, and that is why we here are offended by this man. He needs to be held accountable for his brood, financially, morally, and civilly.

      Delete
  16. I was also thinking Kristine looked way thinner. They all look more polished. Meri's hair looks different too. I assumed the interview was newer and was possibly regarding the court ( fleecing) case. But if my pseudo husband told America I was fat and unattractive, and I was involved in a reality show, I would prob drop a few pounds too

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would drop about 200Lbs, the Kodster.

      Delete
    2. Think this interview is in Lehi before the dramatic "flight" to Las Vegas

      Delete
    3. Yes, it was several years ago

      Delete
  17. I think it's the first step toward decriminalization, and do not profess to be any expert. But how on earth can they be worrying so much about Kody Brown's families welfare, and not how it will effect those in the FLDS? Pretty wild to me Jeffs crazy rants and the treatment of his "group" and animals are all over the news, and would even consider this until all was thought through so much more. I am amazed we are not looking at the welfare of these children.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Let's hope they can & will use Jeffs cult as a prime example of WHY POLYGAMY SHOULDN'T BE DECRIMINALIZED! Also, I think it's gonna take more than just using the Brown's & Dargers as prime examples of modern polygamy, b/c not very accurate to use 2 families of the 10 thousand families living the polgamy lifestyle. That's not even 1%, so they're gonna have to expand their demographics a lil bit further than these 2 families. I may be wrong, but I believe, that majority of the polygamists are old school & not as "modernized" as the Browns or Dargers appear to be. Also, the rest of America needs to fully & truly understand,that before TLC, the Browns were struggling financially & buried in a mountain of debt which consisted of multiple bankruptcies. So, I believe that America isn't getting a fair & balanced look into the real world of the polygamy lifestyle. They need to feature ALL forms of polygamy, not just the "modernized" super sugar coated version! When they give America a detailed inside edition look into ALL multiple polygamist communities, that do exist, only then, can America be able to make an informed decision about polygamy.
      So what if the Browns or Dargers don't marry child brides, or kick their sons out at 16, there's plenty more polygamists that do, & that's what majority of their uninformed zealous fans just don't seem to understand!

      Delete
    2. What upsets me is the ones that feel so sorry for the Browns use the show as their reference for polygamy. They think that This family is different than The FLDS. And don't stop to think that if The brown's got their way ALL polygamists would be entitled to live this way. I bet if the show was a Muslim family people may think differently.

      Delete
  18. Haven't quite figured out what side Judge Waddoups is on. Does anyone know about him, his background, etc.? Seems he is leaning toward the Browns. What do you guys think?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Many insiders know or believe that many politicians and ones in law enforcement say they do not believe in polygamy, then look the other way.

      Delete