Sister Wives Initiate Lawsuit

[nittanygirl]

People should just hush up already. This is how they choose to live their lives, and as far as I've seen on the show (though of course I don't know them personally) they are not horrible crazy people.

That said, they did choose to be apart of the show and had to have known that it would cause some drama. But, as I'm guessing was the purpose of the show, I have learned a lot about their lifestyle. Far be it from me to judge them.

Then again, I thought they moved to Vegas, so who cares about Utah anymore?

[AnchorAlum]

Well, in most states according to the law, since he's only married to one woman, he's not a true "bigamist", correct?

How many children are born out of traditional wedlock in this country today? Among some cultural subgroups, up to 70%. Are the parents of these children in jail because they're not married? Not that I'm aware of.

I think that these women are a few bricks shy of a load because of their choices, but they seem to take good care of their children and the family as it is currently made up.

I think Cody or Kody or whatever his name is thinks he's the cock of the walk. He is the cock of the walk in his house, but not so much everywhere else.

Where did he work, and what did he do to support his harem and offspring? Whatever it was, he got there and back in a two seater sport car that made HIM look "good". I have read extensively that many of these rogue polygamists work the system to get welfare and food stamps. If that is the case with this bunch, then I say hang em high.

[katydidKD]

Originally Posted by nittanygirl

Then again, I thought they moved to Vegas, so who cares about Utah anymore?

I was surprised about that too, but they said they did the show so their kids (if they choose to live polygamy) and others do not have to live in fear/shame. I'm assuming this lawsuit is along those same lines.

[katydidKD]

Originally Posted by 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.

I completely agree with you, but that's Utah. The state was created for and by Mormons and still operates that way. Draconian liquor laws, the polygamy witch hunt, etc.

[Drolefille]

I think important here is they're not arguing for legalization of polygamy in the sense of state recognition, they're arguing for decriminalization of polygamy as long as it doesn't involve legal bigamy or having two marriage licenses.

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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



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.

Like my relationship(s) should I move in. Thankfully they're not in Utah. But polyamorists in Canada have been watching BC's (I think) attorney general NOT prosecute polygamists for bigamy and have/were going to file a request with the courts to clarify whether polygamy was being decriminalized there. It would ease a lot of poly people's minds if they knew they wouldn't get charged by a zealous state's attorney afterall. (Hell in Virginia, where one of the bf's is, there's still an adultery law, that someone actually pled guilty to in '03 or so.)

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.

Considering what people who live in Utah report, many taxpayers HAVE polygamy happening in their neighborhood. It's just that it's "Sister Wives/Big Love" style and not Warren Jeffs style, typically.

[ElieM]

does this law in Utah also apply to two people who are separated but not divorced from their legal partners and live together?

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by ElieM

does this law in Utah also apply to two people who are separated but not divorced from their legal partners and live together?

Lawyer could be more specific, but I'd guess yes it COULD be applied, but probably wouldn't.

[katydidKD]

Originally Posted by 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.

^ made me think of this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJYn3BoZkcQ

[KSig RC]

I guess I'll just take another step beyond Kevin's point ... historically, the two main legal reasons for outlawing polygamy have been:

1 - The high incidence of multiple marriages and marrying extremely young women, along with the attendant pressures to marry; and

2 - The difficulty of creating a legal accord between more than two people in the same sense of marriage.

Additionally:

-The Christian definition of "marriage" as one man and one woman.

So considering that we have considerably more resources to protect children, and we are in a position to open legal definitions of marriage across the board ... is it time to rethink polygamy?

[agzg]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

I guess I'll just take another step beyond Kevin's point ... historically, the two main legal reasons for outlawing polygamy have been:

1 - The high incidence of multiple marriages and marrying extremely young women, along with the attendant pressures to marry; and

2 - The difficulty of creating a legal accord between more than two people in the same sense of marriage.

Additionally:

-The Christian definition of "marriage" as one man and one woman.

So considering that we have considerably more resources to protect children, and we are in a position to open legal definitions of marriage across the board ... is it time to rethink polygamy?

I think #2 might be a problem, still. And obviously the FLDS proves time and again that they have a problem with #1.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

I guess I'll just take another step beyond Kevin's point ... historically, the two main legal reasons for outlawing polygamy have been:

1 - The high incidence of multiple marriages and marrying extremely young women, along with the attendant pressures to marry; and

2 - The difficulty of creating a legal accord between more than two people in the same sense of marriage.

Additionally:

-The Christian definition of "marriage" as one man and one woman.

So considering that we have considerably more resources to protect children, and we are in a position to open legal definitions of marriage across the board ... is it time to rethink polygamy?

I respect that the legal issues might be beyond complex to work out, but I'd rather appreciate being able to be somehow legally recognized as having a stake in my relationships. That said, simply the decriminalization of both adultery and polygamy would be fine. They rarely are able to arrest FLDS polygamists for polygamy anyway, but instead for welfare fraud or child abuse.

Both of those are still illegal, child abuse in particular. Since manipulation and abuse occur in monogamous and heterosexual relationships it's hard to lay the blame at the feet of polygamy even if that is its historical existence in the US.

I'm not pro religious fundies, but the antipolygamy law was primarily an anti-LDS law. As much as they're on my shitlist and I think their religioun is, um, out there, that's not a really good reason to target them. Child abuse is though, and that should be prosecuted.

[AlwaysSAI]

Cohabitation implies that the parties are having sexual intercourse while living together, but the definition would not apply to a casual sexual encounter.

So, I'm going waaaaaaaaaaay out on a limb here and I've only seen the show a handful of times.

If memory serves me correctly each wife has her own wing in the house where she lives with her children, correct?

Whose to say, that the sexual encounters with the "spiritual" relationships aren't casual? He never spends two consecutive nights with one woman, right? Commitment implies consecutive nights in the same bed.

[katydidKD]

Originally Posted by AlwaysSAI

So, I'm going waaaaaaaaaaay out on a limb here and I've only seen the show a handful of times.

If memory serves me correctly each wife has her own wing in the house where she lives with her children, correct?

Yes, however they had to move to Las Vegas because they were living in fear of Utah's investigation/being arrested/the family being split up. Now they live in four separate houses in the same neighborhood.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by AlwaysSAI

So, I'm going waaaaaaaaaaay out on a limb here and I've only seen the show a handful of times.

If memory serves me correctly each wife has her own wing in the house where she lives with her children, correct?

Whose to say, that the sexual encounters with the "spiritual" relationships aren't casual? He never spends two consecutive nights with one woman, right? Commitment implies consecutive nights in the same bed.

No I don't think commitment implies consecutive nights in the same bed. That pretty much is pulled out of no where.

And the fact that he specifically said he's spiritually married to the other women on national TV puts lie to any argument to the contrary.

[AlwaysSAI]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

No I don't think commitment implies consecutive nights in the same bed. That pretty much is pulled out of no where.

I know. I was just.....trying to think of an argument.