As has been the practice on this blog, I wanted to disclose my representation of the Brown family, who are the subjects of the new series “Sister Wives” on TLC. As in the past, any comments on the case by me will be limited. However, various people have suggested the reported criminal investigation as a subject for this blog and I wanted to explain why I have not posted anything on the controversy.
Bigamy is a third-degree felony under Utah law punishable with up to five years in jail. Prior prosecutions for polygamy have involved allegations of child abuse or child brides, which are clearly not present in this case. The use of this statute to prosecute the Browns would be in my view unconstitutional. It would also end a long-standing policy to confine prosecutions to those who abuse children or commit such crimes as fraud. We are confident that the authorities will find no such criminal conduct in this case and we intend to cooperate to the fullest in resolving any such questions from the State. I hope that the prosecutors will recognize that this would be bad criminal case making bad criminal law. It is, after all, a television show and there is no need to move the matter from the television guide to the criminal docket.
My representation as lead counsel for Kody, Meri, Janelle, Christine, and Robyn Brown will obviously curtail my discussion of the case on this blog but, as in earlier cases, I will not interfere with the discussion of others on this blog.
Jonathan Turley
I’ve read some very strong words on this blog, very strong. In comparison, Elaine’s were so mild and pale in their complexion as to be almost invisible.
Oh yes, I am going to be very interested in the answer and examples.
Elaine,
Mike S. has taken issue with male regulars when the sniping has gotten out of hand. He is quite even handed, but his motive (IMO) usually seems to be to keep the conversation moving and not just idle chastising. Consequently he’s more likely to say something when he’s actively involved in the topic.
Elaine Jill called a couple of these guys “sexist”, and they had a big bruhaha.
Elaine,
That is an interesting query … we should ask Buddha …
Curious,
“You” are typing out long enough posts that two extra letters is not that big a deal, but would make you come across so much more credibly.
Mike S.,
I’m going back to the discussion of sniping on this blog and about some of the “regulars”–who are females–being involved with it on this thread. I’ve been commenting on this blog for over a year. I have read many threads where male “regulars” have insulted other posters–and in some cases with much more intensity. You are a voice of reason at the Turley Blawg. Have you ever called out male regulars for that type of behavior?
@Isabella. Do u want multiple spouses legalized and if so why and how would it benifit u and your family? What exactly would change?
“Very true…many individuals I interact with are Messianic Jews…”
Scarecrow,
I suspected as much. Please let me emphasize that despite what rationales are given “Messianic Judaism” is not Judaism in any way. It is Christianity borrowing Jewish trappings. Those you meet might be Jewish from the perspective that their mother was Jewish, but religiously they are Christians and so really unable to let you know how Jews feel, or think.
@ Byron
Oh yes the infamous Lysistrata technique… ;o))
@ Scarecrow, you are right, secular poly relationships are terrifically problematic.
@ Curious, I hope Scarecrow can help you answer your financial queries, we have a different way of doing things and we don’t have any ‘home makers’.
Byron
1, October 11, 2010 at 12:56 pm
Women have a good deal of power. Why did men vote for the passage of the 19th Amendment? I heard it was put up or shut up, i.e. “I have a headache dear”.
Men are simple creatures.
===========================================================
Really? That’s what you heard? According to my grandfather who voted for passage, it was simply the right thing to do.
Byron,
In re Roman history, you are by in large correct in your assessment of woman’s role in Roman society, however, their story is replete with examples of women who wielded vast power from the shadows. The one that immediately comes to mind is Antonia Minor, the mother of Emperor Claudius. She was a hard woman and although she held little sway over Caligula (even going so far as to commit suicide rather than put up with his abuses), she laid the political groundwork for the ascension of Claudius (who was one last gasp of sanity between the reigns of Caligula and Nero, although she berated poor Claudius every chance she got).
Byron,
I guess I don’t watch enough old movies to really comment on the broader point you’re making about the 1930s, but I do have an interest in ancient Rome. I understand the point you’re trying to make about some women being influential, but Rome was very much a patriarchy. There’s lots of examples of how, but this one is illustrative: a man sleeping with (and having children by) his own slaves was not considered adultery.
Women have a good deal of power. Why did men vote for the passage of the 19th Amendment? I heard it was put up or shut up, i.e. “I have a headache dear”.
Men are simple creatures.
SwM,
It works!
“FYI, Messianics tend to be pretty common in polygamy, not certain why that is but it is just something I have noticed.”
Very true…many individuals I interact with are Messianic Jews…there are also many other religious belief systems represented.
I imagine it is possible to have a polygamous family without any type of religious structure to it, however I think it is likely that the success rate would be far below the 50% rate currently seen in monogamous heterosexual non-religious marriages…you know, the “Adam & Eve” type of marriage (interesting that I need to use so many terms to define the marriage scenario I want to address). I think this would be the case due to the additional variables in the relationships which would create additional challenges to the relationships.
“Polygamy is still present among Jews in Israel, Yemen and the Mediterranean.”
Jonathan Turley 10/3/2004
@ Mike…I guess I should have said I understand the perspective that has been expressed to me, not necessarily yours…I didn’t take anything negatively from you so don’t worry…everyone in general that does not want to believe what I (and many many others) have experienced have to find another explanation for it and I have heard some rather inventive things that are if nothing else entertaining…
Elaine, SwM, Anon N,
Elaine’s story struck a chord within … just last week I drove a 70 year old neighbor to her doctor for a follow-up appointment after her first physical in 10 years. Her husband died three months ago.
He would not drive her to the doctor as she seemed perfectly healthy to him.
As soon as he was buried we got her to the doctor. She now has heart meds, glasses, and blood pressure medicine. She feels like a new woman. Next week she’s getting her driver’s license. Her son came home for the funeral and left the next day.
We organized her finances, took care of Medicare for her and called in a handiman to fix things in her home. Her funds are adequate to her needs.
The “we” I’m referring to are her neighbors, men and women.
Her husband’s death saved her life.
Blouise I like that “ol girl network”. I sent my daughter to an all girl non denominational high school. The goal was the empowerment of young women.
@ Byron
The Roman women of the Patrician class may have been strong minded but Roman society was totally patriarcal, the women had no rights, men had absolute control of their families and if they decided to kill you or sell you to slave traders they could do so.
It was said that early Christianity was popular amongst women and slaves precisely because of the idea of things being better in heaven even if things totally sucked on earth.
Roman women were shocked by the notion that Celtic women being able to choose their lovers openly whereas Roman women risked death if they were caught with any lover. Look at Messalina? Ok, an exteme example but still….
Women in the United States have made incredible progress in achieving equality and have done so while still maintaining marriages, homes and families. Except for a brief period in the early 1900’s, we have done so without riots or killing.
We are now moving ahead with great speed as more of us are enrolled in advanced degrees at university and we are entering those profession requiring these degrees in greater and greater numbers. We are also entering the “blue collar” trades in large numbers.
As we were able to advance thanks to the efforts of our mothers and grandmothers, our daughters and granddaughters are able to go further than we with greater ease. We have also been raising sons and grandsons who understand our assertions and erect no barriers to our advancements.
It is still a battle on many fronts but we are steadfast in our determination and … the “ol’ girl network” is huge.
@Isabella and scarecrow
thanks for your answers. Since you were so forthcoming I have some more. I have no problem with who people love or how many as long as they are consenting adults. I also am keeping religion out of it and believe in equal rights for men and woman so I wouldn’t care if a woman had multiple “spouses”. Correct me if I’m wrong but I am assuming Isabella doesn’t reside in the US since the tax question was NA, so some of these might be better answered by scarecrow. As a liberal live and let live person socially but a financial conservative here are my “issues” with multiple legal marriages.
1. Under current law an example “one spouse dies the other spouse gets $1,000 a month survivor benifits from social security at retirement age. If multiple marriages were legalized and you have 4 spouses do you believe that each spouse should get $1,000 or that each spouse should get $250?”. If u believe $250 then I’m fine with it. I wouldn’t want to support a change in law that finacially awards poly life styles. Not accusing you of this but in this society some people would go for the financial gain in the situation and marry multiple time for government money.
2. This question isn’t meant to offend you and is abused by people not living the poly life style so let me say upfront that I believe that if anyone is on public assistance of any kind that if they get pregnant that no additional resouces should be allowed for that family, so the question. “if a clause in the legalization of multiple spouses was that if the family was receiving Any public assistance any further marriages wouldn’t be legally recognized”. Would you be okay with that?
3. Next healthcare. Currently in traditional healthcare plans it is priced by employee, spouse, and “family” meaning Any number of children. I personally think that someone paying the same amount for 1 child and 12 children is rediculous and unfair. I believe that It should be a per person cost, so that someone with fewer children doesn’t pay inflated prices because someone else choose to have 12 children. Is you opinion that if multiple marriages were legalized that someone with 1 wife would pay the same amount monthly than someone with 4 wifes on the employee and spouse plan?
4. On a more personal note, you said u have one single account and one with each spouse that u transfer as needed. It seems that u have highly educated “spouses” that are more than capible of finacially supporting them selves. Let’s assume you have 4 wives. 1 that has 2 children and works outside the home. 1 that has 6 children and works outside the home. 1 that has 1 child but does the home schooling for everyones children but makes no outside income, and one with 5 children and is the “homemaker”. Does the income that the 2 wifes that work outside the home get deposited into the joint account with that wife or your single account? If your single account do u transfer the same amount to each wife each month for there personal needs (there clothes, makeup, manicure hair etc) and u pay for everything else? All bills and expenses for the children and household? If the other way how is there not jealousy between the 2 woman who don’t make money from the outside but work to educate everyones children and run the house?
5. In later years when everyone is retired (using the above example). How would you handle the issue if one of the homemakers decided to get a divorce and leave the family. Would they be legally entitled to 20% of household income? And please don’t answer this with we won’t get a divorce life happens.
I know that all my questions are financial but I just wanted to know how far u have thought legalized marriage through from that side. Im not voicing an opinion of what I think either way, but right or wrong can u see the complexaties and cost associated with changing the number of legal spouses a person has to the tax payers and do you think it is justified when you can live the same life you are living now without the legalization? Also do u believe the number of multiple spouses would increase if legalized just for the financial reasons to “scam” the system.
Just thought of this but what about getting married multiple times to illegal immagrants for financial profits. I’m afraid this would open too many things that we as a society don’t want that has nothing to do with a real poly family that does it for thr “right” reason.