Sister Wives Initiate Lawsuit

[Ghostwriter]

Is this the "slippery slope" or just another weird story?

The family made famous by the TLC show Sister Wives is expected to file a lawsuit on Wednesday challenging Utah’s anti-bigamy law, which makes it a third-degree felony to marry or cohabit with someone other than one’s legal spouse. An attorney for the family said they’re not asking Utah to recognize polygamous marriage; they just want to be left alone.

http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2011/...anti_biga.html

So that begs the question: how can one demand to be left alone if you are on a "reality" show?

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

So that begs the question: how can one demand to be left alone if you are on a "reality" show?

I agree that they are announcing their lifestyle and can be interpreted as presenting legal (and moral) challenges. I can't remember whom but I believe they aren't the first people whose appearance in a reality show has potentially legally bitten them in the ass.

Is he legally married to all of the women?

[agzg]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

So that begs the question: how can one demand to be left alone if you are on a "reality" show?

I think they've had some run-ins with the police because of the show which brought on the suit. Utah is the only state, I think, whose bigamy law is like this. Most others just cover "legal" marriage. But they mentioned on the show that they have to be ultra super careful about dr. visits for all of the wives except the first while they're pregnant because he could be arrested in the hospital for bigamy with the way the current law is.

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Is he legally married to all of the women?

No, only the first. The others are "spiritually" married to them.

I think Kody Brown is a Grade A douchecanoe but I think their suit might have merit. If they're not legally married to one another, what's the difference if they live together or not? As it's written, some could take the Utah law as meaning that married adults can't have a roommate.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by agzg

As it's written, some could take the Utah law as meaning that married adults can't have a roommate.

Probably not - the key is the (legal) definition of "cohabitation," which goes like this:

n. living together in the same residence, generally either as husband and wife or for an extended period of time as if the parties were married. Cohabitation implies that the parties are having sexual intercourse while living together, but the definition would not apply to a casual sexual encounter. Legal disputes have arisen as to whether cohabitation would refer to same sex partners, which is important to those involved since "cohabitation" is the basis of certain rights and privileges under various laws, regulations and contracts. The findings of the courts vary on this question, but the trend is to include long-standing homosexual relationships as cohabitation.

That's not to say the law is rock-solid, and will (or should) stand up to legal challenge, but it takes a bit more ... specific situation to get there.

[agzg]

Good to know.

[DrPhil]

So that law doesn't apply to roommates unless the roommates are having a sex fest during an extended living arrangement.

Extended...ha...get it?

I too think Kody Brown is an asshat. I stopped keeping up with the show and one of the reasons is that he annoys me.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

So that law doesn't apply to roommates unless the roommates are having a sex fest during an extended living arrangement.

Well, they need to be living in "marriage-like" circumstances, so apparently they need to argue in a very cliched manner as described by bad stand-up comics everywhere. She should have lots of shoes, and he should be lazy and never help with the housework. And so on.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Well, they need to be living in "marriage-like" circumstances, so apparently they need to argue in a very cliched manner as described by bad stand-up comics everywhere. She should have lots of shoes, and he should be lazy and never help with the housework. And so on.

That would be difficult to prove legally, correct?

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

That would be difficult to prove legally, correct?

I believe jurors would be instructed to apply a specific test in this situation, under the Court's ruling in the fabled "White People Drive Like This, Black People Drive Like THIS" Case.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

I believe jurors would be instructed to apply a specific test in this situation, under the Court's ruling in the fabled "White People Drive Like This, Black People Drive Like THIS" Case.

Cars ride by with the boomin' system.

[Kevin]

I think it's an interesting case on a lot of levels. Lawrence v. Texas kind of opened the way for this lawsuit when it held that under the 14th Amendment, morality alone couldn't justify the government's intrusion into the bedroom.

The ACLU has an interesting article on the subject for background purposes:
http://www.acluutah.org/bigamystatute.htm

At any rate, on an equal protection level (I don't know if this is discussed here), I can't really see how such a prohibition on polygamy in the cohabitative sense, could even be found to have a rational basis. How is it that it would be perfectly legal for married people to engage in orgies with other married people just so long as no one cohabitates... but if cohabitation happens, it's a third-degree felony?

I'm not one to stand in the way of encouraging swinging, but I'm having a hard time figuring out why the taxpayers of Utah would GAS whether polygamy was happening in their neighborhood.

[Barbie's_Rush]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

That would be difficult to prove legally, correct?

Not if he's fathering children with more than one of the woman he lives with.

[katydidKD]

If he fathers plenty of children with women he does not live with, that is completely fine. Makes no sense. Let them live in peace as long as the children are taken care of and not abused, and the women entered the relationship of their own free will (and can leave should they choose) its not/shouldn't be a problem.

[katydidKD]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I'm not one to stand in the way of encouraging swinging, but I'm having a hard time figuring out why the taxpayers of Utah would GAS whether polygamy was happening in their neighborhood.

A majority of taxpayers in Utah are LDS. LDS Church members face a lot of discrimination/get a lot of flack because people think they encourage polygamy, or associate them with FLDS/Warren Jeffs. This is why Utah has such stringent polygamy laws, and why the LDS church excommunicates you if you are found practicing it. They are tired of being associated with it/publicly condemn it out of frustration with the public's confusion/perception

[Kevin]

If LDS is worried about public perception of their church, polygamy is kind of down on the list of concerns they ought to have. And that said, I have a problem with a state passing criminal statutes to protect the reputation of a religious institution.