Jump to content
IGNORED

Browns Sue Utah


ErinIsSik

Recommended Posts

I did a search and couldn't find a thread about this. Please delete if I am wrong. [link=]http://news.yahoo.com/sister-wives-family-challenges-utah-bigamy-law-072501794.html[/link]

I saw that this morning. What these thickheads don't realize is that bigamy is usually carried out by men who marry women without divorcing the previous one, often for financial gain. To make that legal would be a really bad thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never understood why what they're doing is illegal. He's only legally married to his first wife. Honestly I'd rather have him living in one house with all the wives and more importantly his children.

It seem like a much better solution than someone who has 6 kids from 4 different mothers and never sees them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Browns are probably suing just for the publicity. I don't get Utah though--legally you can't have a household with more than one person that you call your wife,even if you aren't legally married, which to me is just stupid. The state seems to have a "don't ask, don't tell" policy though, quietly tolerating polygamy. Who approves all those huge houses with separate wings, including several master bedrooms and kitchens? The Browns seemed suprised that they couldn't find houses like that in Las Vegas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Making it illegal to consider another person your spouse is IMO both wrong and religiously discriminatory. Cohabitation for unmarried couples is legal in the U.S., so if consenting adults want to do that and consider it a marriage within their religion, and the only thing making it illegal is their religious belief that it's a marriage... yeah, to me that is pretty unambiguous.

Bigamy isn't about how relationships are considered. The Browns are being fame whores.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not surprised by this. The Browns are famewhores, but some of the family members are likable compared to people like the Duggars or Kardashians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Browns are probably suing just for the publicity.

That's my guess.They need money from their televised famewhoring TV show, book, and so on to support their 21-member family and lifestyle. Judging from what's been posted online about their financial records, they sure can't do it on their own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what they do in France is what we should do (although asking Americans to anything like the French except eat will never fly).

In France, everyone has to have a civil marriage for that marriage to be legal in France. Then you do what you like within your religion, if you want.

So in the U.S. we could have one legal, civil marriage between one consenting adult and other consenting adult, of whatever sex. That is the marriage that is recognized for legal purposes. Then, if you like, you can have whatever religious ceremony you want for yourselves if that is recognized within your religion ( don't do it if you're a Catholic without an annulment, a religious Jew without a get... go ahead and do it if your church recognized polygamy). Child support wouldn't be an issue, as it (sort of) isn't now--if you are the biological parent of a child, regardless of your marital relationship (such as now happens with, say, women on welfare who have to state who the biological father is so the state can go after him), you are obligated to support the child. If you want to be the second or third not legal wife, that's your choice. You gain your religious beliefs and lose legal rights. And that's your choice.

We are so entangled with religion for a society that supposedly separates civil and religious life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never understood why what they're doing is illegal. He's only legally married to his first wife. Honestly I'd rather have him living in one house with all the wives and more importantly his children.

It seem like a much better solution than someone who has 6 kids from 4 different mothers and never sees them.

Utah is a common law marriage state. By living with and saying he is married to all 4 women, Cody is by the legal definition married to all of them. The state of Utah can use this in court to say that the Cody was in a common law marriage and thus committed bigamy. It was done in the past in the case of Tom Green.

Common law marriage in Utah is the recognition by the Courts that a relationship between a man and a woman is a legal and valid marriage even if no legal wedding ceremony--religious or civil--took place.

The Utah Code regarding common law marriage states that parties may petition the court to recognize a contract between a man and woman who

* are of legal age and capable of giving consent;

* are legally capable of entering a solemnized marriage under the provisions of this chapter;

* have cohabited;

* mutually assume marital rights, duties, and obligations; and

* who hold themselves out as and have acquired a uniform and general reputation as husband and wife.

http://www.utcourts.gov/lawlibrary/blog/2009/09/common_law_marriage_in_utah.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what they do in France is what we should do (although asking Americans to anything like the French except eat will never fly).

In France, everyone has to have a civil marriage for that marriage to be legal in France. Then you do what you like within your religion, if you want.

So in the U.S. we could have one legal, civil marriage between one consenting adult and other consenting adult, of whatever sex. That is the marriage that is recognized for legal purposes. Then, if you like, you can have whatever religious ceremony you want for yourselves if that is recognized within your religion ( don't do it if you're a Catholic without an annulment, a religious Jew without a get... go ahead and do it if your church recognized polygamy). Child support wouldn't be an issue, as it (sort of) isn't now--if you are the biological parent of a child, regardless of your marital relationship (such as now happens with, say, women on welfare who have to state who the biological father is so the state can go after him), you are obligated to support the child. If you want to be the second or third not legal wife, that's your choice. You gain your religious beliefs and lose legal rights. And that's your choice.

We are so entangled with religion for a society that supposedly separates civil and religious life.

I think that all the marriages should be civilly recognized, to protect the second and third spouses if it comes to divorce. I don't really like the idea that a woman who gave up her education and career for a religious marriage should be penalized if it comes to divorce just because she was naive and trusting. Fundies would absolutely use something like that to keep women more enslaved, even the monogamous ones. They'd get the religious marriage but wouldn't bother with the state and then if the husband could always hold it over the wife's head that if she doesn't please him he could leave at any moment and she wouldn't be entitled to any alimony or half the estate. This is exactly why states have laws for "common law" marriages, because a disadvantaged partner shouldn't be left penniless just because a lack of foresight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw that this morning. What these thickheads don't realize is that bigamy is usually carried out by men who marry women without divorcing the previous one, often for financial gain. To make that legal would be a really bad thing.

They're doing it because they don't give a shit about anybody else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what they do in France is what we should do (although asking Americans to anything like the French except eat will never fly).

In France, everyone has to have a civil marriage for that marriage to be legal in France. Then you do what you like within your religion, if you want.

So in the U.S. we could have one legal, civil marriage between one consenting adult and other consenting adult, of whatever sex. That is the marriage that is recognized for legal purposes. Then, if you like, you can have whatever religious ceremony you want for yourselves if that is recognized within your religion ( don't do it if you're a Catholic without an annulment, a religious Jew without a get... go ahead and do it if your church recognized polygamy). Child support wouldn't be an issue, as it (sort of) isn't now--if you are the biological parent of a child, regardless of your marital relationship (such as now happens with, say, women on welfare who have to state who the biological father is so the state can go after him), you are obligated to support the child. If you want to be the second or third not legal wife, that's your choice. You gain your religious beliefs and lose legal rights. And that's your choice.

We are so entangled with religion for a society that supposedly separates civil and religious life.

It is true that in France the separation of church and state means that the state doesn't hold by any religious marriage.

BUT, polygamy is illegal in France, so the Browns wouldn't be better off here.

The arguments usually advanced against polygamy are a) it's abusive to women (in France polygamy is not related to Mormon fundamentalism but to African Muslims, and it's often said these women are cut away from society, education, learning French - given the type of polygamy in France it's often hard to speak about consenting adults) b) they then register as single mothers and get state money accordingly, whereas they are not single at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if they legalized bigamy where all parties were to sign legal contracts? that would solve the issue of a guy marrying someone else without the first wife's knowledge. I believe that if we let the consenting adults engaging in polygamy out into the open then it would be easier to find the people abusing polygamy as a way to sexually abuse little girls and kick boys out onto the street for being competition.

I know people in non-religious polyamory situations that are far more complicated than what the Browns do. As far as TLC families go the Browns are the ones I like the most. They send their kids to school and although they are pretty weird they seem a lot more with it than the Duggars and Bates. I'm sure any of Cody's wives could talk Michelle under the table. And the fact that Browns believe in college and are ok with women having careers is refreshing. I'd rather be a Brown than a Duggar... I even suspect that if a Brown kid came out of the closet he'd be better off than a gay Duggar. I could be wrong, people aren't the same on tv as they are in real reality. (heck, I like the Browns more than the average Mormon I see on the street peddling the BOM)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think you could legalize polygamy in the US because it would be a legal nightmare--insurance, Social security and retirement benefits, child custody (if a father dies, do the unrelated other moms raise the kids or do they go to the biological family), is it grounds for divorce if you hate your sister wives, and so on. But if someone wants to enter into a religious commitment to be a second or third spouse, it's their choice. Got to admit I don't have a lot of knowledge about common law states--to me that's a throwback to the days when the preacher only came around every few years or you couldn't make the trip to where the officials were. WIth modern palimony and child protection, I don't see the point. But I guess where it is legal it does complicate the situation.

I wasn't really thinking about Muslim polygamists in France but just the idea of separating religious marriages from civil ones--but then I think pretty much everything religious should be separated from the public sphere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see how they can have it both ways. They want certain rights but they also have taken welfare claiming single mother status and be able to have mutliple bankrupies less then 7 years apart claiming single status. If Kody is willing to write the state of Utah(and wyoming) a check for all the food stamps, medical benefits and any other benfits they family got because they were "single mothers" and pay back they creditors for the 3 bankrupcies that were not joint, then I say the 5 of them can have a nice cermony on the steps of the captial.

I have nothing against whatever type of family arrangement you want as long as the kids are treated well and happy. My huge pet peeve is the medical benefits abuse. It is very hard to get insured in Utah, with only 3 private insurances with strict rules and high rates(my policy for 4 costs with BCBS cost 2.5 times what JB would pay in AR for his family of 19). The area of Utah I live in the speciality doctors that rotate MUST see medicad before private insurance. Nothing makes me more angry then a brand new van/SUV of polygamist pulling in and taking all 10 spots for the month. Sometimes I have to wait a year or more while I pay over 1k a month for insurance(or drive 600 miles for a 30 minute appointment) while the polygamist get mediciad with a loop hole and get excellent local care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think you could legalize polygamy in the US because it would be a legal nightmare--insurance, Social security and retirement benefits, child custody (if a father dies, do the unrelated other moms raise the kids or do they go to the biological family), is it grounds for divorce if you hate your sister wives, and so on. But if someone wants to enter into a religious commitment to be a second or third spouse, it's their choice. Got to admit I don't have a lot of knowledge about common law states--to me that's a throwback to the days when the preacher only came around every few years or you couldn't make the trip to where the officials were. WIth modern palimony and child protection, I don't see the point. But I guess where it is legal it does complicate the situation.

I wasn't really thinking about Muslim polygamists in France but just the idea of separating religious marriages from civil ones--but then I think pretty much everything religious should be separated from the public sphere.

Let's not forget inheritance rights and end-of-life decisions! Those kinds of things are exactly what a marriage license addresses. It's not a touchy-feely declaration of love or a guarantee that the couple will be swooning over each other until they both die. It's an assignment of rights and responsibilities. Period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think you could legalize polygamy in the US because it would be a legal nightmare--insurance, Social security and retirement benefits, child custody (if a father dies, do the unrelated other moms raise the kids or do they go to the biological family), is it grounds for divorce if you hate your sister wives, and so on. But if someone wants to enter into a religious commitment to be a second or third spouse, it's their choice. Got to admit I don't have a lot of knowledge about common law states--to me that's a throwback to the days when the preacher only came around every few years or you couldn't make the trip to where the officials were. WIth modern palimony and child protection, I don't see the point. But I guess where it is legal it does complicate the situation.

I wasn't really thinking about Muslim polygamists in France but just the idea of separating religious marriages from civil ones--but then I think pretty much everything religious should be separated from the public sphere.

In Utah, its suppose to be in place to go after the polygamists. But, the Attorney General seems quite content to leave the FLDS alone. Like I said, it was used in the Tom Green case mostly flashed his ass at the law and told went on TV when he married an underage girl.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a proposal recently (I forgot the state) to allow more than 2 people to be declared legal guardians. This would mean that fathers wouldn't have to legally disown a child in order for them to benefit under a step father as well as cover unusual parenting situations. I think it addresses that some kids are lucky enough to have more than 2 parents who want to take care of them. As someone who had just the one parent I envy those kids.

Also, I don't think it should only be married people who get to decide about inheritance and visitation. We should all get to decide who we want to inherit whether it be our spouse or someone else. And we should all get visitors when we are sick regardless of the familial status or marital status of the people we want visiting or making decisions. Sometimes you don't want your spouse making your medical decisions.

As for medical insurance, that issue could easily be fixed by giving EVERYONE medical insurance. I don't think its cheating the system to have your kids covered when you qualify. And its a shame that you have to have a job that provides insurance or are married to someone with that sort of job. Right now I'm marrying a guy whose company does not offer spousal benefits or children's benefits. So I'm SOL while I"m in school because we can't afford to pay 600 a month for my insurance.

All of the arguments against group marriage are arguments that keep the status quo of giving married people special privileges that single people don't get. We should all have those privileges whether we're married or not.

I hate to get preachy, but even as someone soon to be married I'm riled up by the idea that if you're not lucky enough to get married you're denied certain rights. I still don't get why grown adults can't just legally declare what they want to do and how and just let it be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think you could legalize polygamy in the US because it would be a legal nightmare--insurance, Social security and retirement benefits, child custody (if a father dies, do the unrelated other moms raise the kids or do they go to the biological family), is it grounds for divorce if you hate your sister wives, and so on. But if someone wants to enter into a religious commitment to be a second or third spouse, it's their choice. Got to admit I don't have a lot of knowledge about common law states--to me that's a throwback to the days when the preacher only came around every few years or you couldn't make the trip to where the officials were. WIth modern palimony and child protection, I don't see the point. But I guess where it is legal it does complicate the situation.

I wasn't really thinking about Muslim polygamists in France but just the idea of separating religious marriages from civil ones--but then I think pretty much everything religious should be separated from the public sphere.

I think that polygamy and polyamory should be legal. Yes, it makes laws complicated. So what? Laws are already complicated. Life is complicated. Since when has "it's too hard" been a valid excuse to deny people rights?

Polygamy happens. Keeping it illegal won't stop that. Making it legal will protect those involved. As a society we have an interest in protecting people in the event of divorce and it's wrong to let someone become a pauper because her marriage was complete in every way but the state never recognized it.

In the best case scenario, polyamory, it should be legal because it's wrong to deny rights to those people. In the worst case, semi-coercive FLDS polygyny, making it legal will do far more good for those women than keeping it illegal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think you could legalize polygamy in the US because it would be a legal nightmare--insurance, Social security and retirement benefits, child custody (if a father dies, do the unrelated other moms raise the kids or do they go to the biological family), is it grounds for divorce if you hate your sister wives, and so on. But if someone wants to enter into a religious commitment to be a second or third spouse, it's their choice.\

This is why I'm leery of legalizing polygamy.

Does Wife 1 have the right to demand visitation with WIfe 3's biological children, if she divorces the father, because she helped raise them?

How do child support and asset issues get decided, especially in states that insist on a 50-50 split?

Will the kids get screwed over on things like college scholarships, because their household is so convoluted?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I think that polygamy and polyamory should be legal. Yes, it makes laws complicated. So what? Laws are already complicated. Life is complicated. Since when has "it's too hard" been a valid excuse to deny people rights?"

Sorry, but I don't see entering into a legal polygamous marriage as a "right." Civil marriage is a legal construct and as someone noted, it's basically society's acknowledgements of rights and responsibilities. And as such, it affects others, not just the adults involved. As society now has the technical ability to identify biological children and the legal ability to demand that parents support those children regardless of the marital relationship of their parents, supporting children shouldn't be an issue--you father them, you support them. But as for the rest? Consider the death of the father (assuming polygamous family with one man and several wives, as that seems to be the norm here?) Do the children have the right to be raised by their biological family, such as grandparents or aunts and uncles, or do nonrelated sister wives, as someone said, have the "right" to raise the child? If the guy dies, do the other wives become collectively legally responsible for all of the children from all of the wives? What happens if a child is neglected or someone fails to pay the bills? How do you allocate death benefits--is it something that is given to say, all three wives and it's up to them to divvy it up--and could the children from one union sue because they feel they are being treated unfairly? Or would each "wife" get benefits--and how is that fair to the other millions of people who pay taxes to support that but then get only benefits for their own one spouse if they die? As someone else noted, what about end of life decisions--who gets to decide whether to pull the plug? If one sister wife works outside the home and generates a majority of the family income, how much of that are the other wives legally entitled to if she decides to leave the marriage? Would she have to pay alimony? Would the sister wife who did most of the child care be entitled to compensation?

I don't see it as denying people rights the same way that denying same sex couples (or in the past, interracial couples) the right to marry. Society does have the right to define the limits and obligations of civil contracts--what it can't, or shouldn't do, is then deny those rights to enter into such a civil contract to people unfairly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I think that polygamy and polyamory should be legal. Yes, it makes laws complicated. So what? Laws are already complicated. Life is complicated. Since when has "it's too hard" been a valid excuse to deny people rights?"

Sorry, but I don't see entering into a legal polygamous marriage as a "right." Civil marriage is a legal construct and as someone noted, it's basically society's acknowledgements of rights and responsibilities. And as such, it affects others, not just the adults involved. As society now has the technical ability to identify biological children and the legal ability to demand that parents support those children regardless of the marital relationship of their parents, supporting children shouldn't be an issue--you father them, you support them. But as for the rest? Consider the death of the father (assuming polygamous family with one man and several wives, as that seems to be the norm here?) Do the children have the right to be raised by their biological family, such as grandparents or aunts and uncles, or do nonrelated sister wives, as someone said, have the "right" to raise the child? If the guy dies, do the other wives become collectively legally responsible for all of the children from all of the wives? What happens if a child is neglected or someone fails to pay the bills? How do you allocate death benefits--is it something that is given to say, all three wives and it's up to them to divvy it up--and could the children from one union sue because they feel they are being treated unfairly? Or would each "wife" get benefits--and how is that fair to the other millions of people who pay taxes to support that but then get only benefits for their own one spouse if they die? As someone else noted, what about end of life decisions--who gets to decide whether to pull the plug? If one sister wife works outside the home and generates a majority of the family income, how much of that are the other wives legally entitled to if she decides to leave the marriage? Would she have to pay alimony? Would the sister wife who did most of the child care be entitled to compensation?

I don't see it as denying people rights the same way that denying same sex couples (or in the past, interracial couples) the right to marry. Society does have the right to define the limits and obligations of civil contracts--what it can't, or shouldn't do, is then deny those rights to enter into such a civil contract to people unfairly.

Guess what? These situations already happen. Making polygamy illegal doesn't make these issues magically disappear. So what about a child who was raised by multiple polyamorous parents and barely knows their biological aunts, uncles and grandparents? Is it always better to take them away from the parents they know and place them with people they don't know as well? And you can't just avoid dealing with this by not recognizing the marriage because this is happening right now.

And what about death benefits for the husband? Ok, so let's say there's a man and he legally marries one woman and the state recognizes it. Then say he marries a second woman through his church but the state never recognizes it. The marriage is real to all three of them, and the second wife gives up her job to focus on the family. Then the man dies. Should she get anything or not? Are you really saying that she should not be entitled at all to the death benefits? You may disagree with her decision or think she is naive for making it, but it seems a little harsh to just let her fend for herself and get nothing. Again, this already happens. The law has to deal with it. Recognizing that marriage will make it better for the people involved. Not recognizing it doesn't make the issue go away; it only screws over someone whose only crime was being a bit naive. And what about end of life decisions? They're already complicated as hell. I have two parents living, one of which I am estranged from. If I were in a coma, which one would get to decide to pull the plug? I'm not married and I don't have kids. I can't "divorce" my father because I was 20 when we became estranged so I didn't need legal emancipation. But what about two parents who are both on good terms with their child but disagree? What about single people who have multiple children? Who gets to make end of life decisions then? The law already deals with this stuff. And say there is a family with two wives, and one of them gives up her career to raise both her children and the other wife's children. Are you really saying that she should not be entitled to any compensation in the event of a divorce?

You're not denying these people the option of getting married. They're getting married already. You're only denying them fair treatment when it comes to issues that affect them in the context of marriage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Polygamy as it is normally practiced in the US(1 man, multiple women) is bad for women and bad for children. You aren't going to mitigate the social and economic consequences of polygamy on women and children by legalizing it. A man busy having children by different women has economic resources stretched to the brink. It doesn't matter if all 20 of his children are entitled to child support or death benefits, when you divide by 20 you get a lot less (which, as is discussed regularly here, is one of the biggest problems with monogamous fundies breeding till their uterus fall out). In polygamous households women COMPETE for the single man's resources. It's always about making sure your kids get as much or more than the other wives. An older wife is essentially shelved as new, more young and fertile wives are added. The show Sister Wives paints a very unrealistic picture of what being a woman or child in polygamy looks like, same as the Duggars paint an unrealistic picture of QF. Take a look at the status of women in any country where polygamy is legal or encouraged.

Just because something is done, doesn't mean it automatically should be encouraged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.