‘Sister Wives’ stars: Polygamy law challenge called demand for equality.

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by appleguy123, Jul 12, 2011.

  1. appleguy123 macrumors 603

    appleguy123

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Location:
    15 minutes in the future
    #1
    More @ Source

    What do you guys think about this? After some reflection, I think I support the Browns here. The private relations of consenting adults shouldn't be any of the law's business, IMO.
     
  2. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #2
    It's fine with me. I've never had a problem with polygamy. It would be far better for the folks involved to have legal options.
     
  3. appleguy123 thread starter macrumors 603

    appleguy123

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Location:
    15 minutes in the future
    #3
    Have you seen the show? I have a few times, and the women have almost no say in the relationship. He is basically their master.

    But I don't think that what he's doing should be illegal if the women consent to it.
     
  4. dukebound85 macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #4
    How would issues like medical treatment be affected if there are multiple spouses to make the call?
     
  5. appleguy123 thread starter macrumors 603

    appleguy123

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Location:
    15 minutes in the future
    #5
    In the article, it says that he doesn't want polygamy to be legalized like a real marriage, but he doesn't want to be persecuted for living with multiple women.

    He is only legally married to his first wife. The others just live and copulate with him.

    While some people don't support gay marriage(I'm not equating them in any other way beside that they are both not illegal in every state), I doubt that many want gays to be actively persecuted for their activities.
     
  6. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #6
    I have not seen the show. I am certainly not in favor of the subjugation of women.
     
  7. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #7
    Personally, I think whatever arrangement that consenting human adults want to commit themselves to is okay by me.

    Male, female, one or more ... whatever.
     
  8. flopticalcube macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #8
    That's two separate issues. Polygamy is between consenting adults, even if one of them behaves like a pig and abuses the situation. That could and does happen in many relationships.
     
  9. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #9
    Polygamy as has already been pointed out can only result in unequal treatment of women. The Reformed Mormon Church basically runs its young men out of town once they reach their late teens because they create competition for all the old men who have been adept at concentrating the wealth.

    We'd ultimately end up with a situation like China or India where there is a huge surplus of young men. Such a situation can only lead to mass social unrest.

    Ultimately, homo sapiens are not polygamists. At best we're two parent families or even villages where children are raised semi-communally.
     
  10. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #10
    I don't much care what goes on in the bedroom but when it comes to religious based polygamy, sorry, but women should not be subjugated for the sake of 'beliefs'. Legalizing such relationships also creates enormous questions about inheritance. If there are children, then the legal issues get even more complicated.
     
  11. AP_piano295 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2005
    #11
    I've seen that in one man one woman families being a crappy person is hardly reserved for any one demographic.

    I'm as tolerant as they come and part of that is realizing that being white, black, gay, strait, polygamist, monogamist. Has very little to do with you being a good or bad person.

    Just because a few people have bad relationships should everyone be penalized?
     
  12. Mr. Chewbacca macrumors 6502a

    Mr. Chewbacca

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Location:
    Dallas TX
    #12
    My concern would be financial. I would hope we wouldn't expect insurance companies to cover four wives.

    I'm a bit confused as to what law they're breaking now. Only one is the legal wife and the rest are girlfriends as far as the state is concerned.
     
  13. appleguy123 thread starter macrumors 603

    appleguy123

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Location:
    15 minutes in the future
    #13
    We've have examples of women being subjugated and abused in polygamy, especially the compounds recently raided.

    If you have indoctrinated the women into a religion that glorifies polygamy(I haven't researched the subject, but Kody claims to be a mormon fundamentalist), can you call it informed consent, or have the women been bamboozled into something that isn't good for them?
     
  14. AP_piano295 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2005
    #14
    When did we decide that polygamy only involved multiple wives?

    But I do see your point and it isn't unfounded. Some cultures famous for promoting polygamy have a history of abusing the custom.

    Also the laws in this country have always focused on a two person marriage (which makes sense for many reasons). Legalized polygamy opens up a host of legal problems.

    Further no one's rights are exactly being infringed upon one isn't "born" a polygamist. Everyone is interested in other people, marriage is the decision to commit yourself to one person in a legal sense. If you wan't other's in your bedroom or lives than it is your choice but legal marriage is between two people.
     
  15. appleguy123 thread starter macrumors 603

    appleguy123

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Location:
    15 minutes in the future
    #15
    @ap, are you sure that it isn't illegal?

    The whole point of his case is to stop his circumstance(legally married to one, the others his girlfriends) from being illegal.
     
  16. Gelfin macrumors 68020

    Gelfin

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2001
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #16
    I tend to agree about the relations, but marriage is a contract under the law, and I've long said that the people who want plural marriages recognized under the law bear the responsibility for clarifying the law to address the additional legal issues introduced by that arrangement. Easy example: suppose the husband is in a coma, and the two wives disagree about medical decisions. To whom is medical power of attorney granted?

    I should also point out that I am uncomfortable with arrangements by which young women are pressed into the harems of influential community elders, as often seems to be the case. That stretches the definition of "consenting adult" past the breaking point in my opinion.
     
  17. Andeavor macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    #17
    Well, that's the whole point, isn't it? And that wasn't even reserved for polygamists.
     
  18. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #18
    Perhaps, like a harem, there is a senior wife.

    If not, secret ballot, majority rules. ;)
     
  19. AP_piano295 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2005
    #19
    I fail to see how his behavior could be illegal. Consenting adults are allowed to do basically whatever they wan't with each other last time I checked.

    If a married couple wan'ts another consenting adult to be part of their relationship I don't believe that is illegal.
     
  20. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #20
    I have no problem with it as long as he is only legally married to one person (and only receiving any tax, insurance and legal benefits for one person).

    If he wants to live with a bunch of women who don't care who he screws each night, then more power to him. He's living every straight guy's dream :D
     
  21. Gelfin macrumors 68020

    Gelfin

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2001
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #21
    Perhaps not in St. Louis, but that's actually not quite as hard an arrangement to find as you may have been led to believe.

    Maybe I'm getting old, but I generally find one of 'em at a time is complicated enough.
     
  22. CorvusCamenarum macrumors 65816

    CorvusCamenarum

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Location:
    Birmingham, AL
    #22
    Another article over at the NYT

    What's really interesting is that they're using Lawrence v. Texas as a basis for their challenge. I also have to disagree with Professor Pizer's analysis. Her logic seems to boil away to:

    1. Gays are super awesome, so they should have whatever they want.
    2. [Fundamentalist] Mormons are creepy, so screw them.
     
  23. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #23
    How do you get that from this?

     
  24. CorvusCamenarum macrumors 65816

    CorvusCamenarum

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Location:
    Birmingham, AL
    #24
    You must have missed the preceding paragraphs:
    [/quote]Such arguments, often referred to as the “parade of horribles,” are logically flawed, said Jennifer C. Pizer, a professor at the law school at the University of California, Los Angeles, and legal director for the school’s Williams Institute, which focuses on sexual orientation law.[/quote]

    The parade she refers to references Scalia's dissenting opinion in Lawrence, that doing away with sodomy laws will result in doing away with other bans on Bad Things, including but not limited to same sex marriage and polygamy/polyandry.

    What we need to understand here is that law is not based in logic, but in experience and prior precedents. The question remains, then, why we should restructure family law for one group but not another. The only conclusion currently available is that we like gay people, so we'll do it for them, but we don't like wacko Mormons, so we won't do it for them.
     
  25. Gelfin macrumors 68020

    Gelfin

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2001
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #25
    Same-sex marriage requires no restructuring of family law.
     

Share This Page