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
“You are a voice of reason at the Turley Blawg. Have you ever called out male regulars for that type of behavior?”
Elaine, yes I have and on too many occasions for this old guy to remember or enumerate. I have also made myself clear on many occasions as to where I’m coming from regarding women and feel no need to further defend myself in that area.
The truth is that I didn’t try to name who threw the first punch, because I was hoping, vainly it seems, that we could all get beyond it. Whether you write, SWM, Blouise or a host of others writes I will always call out those who would denigrate you because of your sex. However, that in and of it self is paternalistic because all three of you and other female writers here are more than capable of fighting your own battles, without my defense. I was very careful in how I phrased myself and I would ask you to re-read what I’ve written to really see if my actions were patronizing, or if I was truly interested in the opportunity to talk with people in the lifestyle.
ELaine, SwM
Grandchild has arrived … time for some real fun … later ladies
Sorry to interrupt but I thought I might post something actually relevant to the topic at hand and answer “Curious”.
I think I have figured out why there are only a handful of regulars at this blog…who wants to read through all this crap, much less participate in it on a regular basis?
Is there a way to delete the mountain of unrelated posts so that people who find this blog and are interested in reading legitimate comments can do so quickly?
@ Curious…
1. 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?”.
There will most certainly be different family structures. In the case where there are multiple spouses not working and only one income I can understand that you would not feel that it is fair for them to receive the $1000 each, but what about the scenario where the husband and two wives are working and two stay at home? Would you expect each of the 5 to potentially receive $1250 then? While there will be a number of families with more stay at home than working, I think the majority will be the other way around and it would actually end up favoring the monogamous families since the polygamous families will be contributing more and receiving less should the system stay as it is. If the program was modified and benefits paid based on the household and its contributions rather than the individuals that would likely be more equitable.
2. “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”.
I don’t agree with that, however I would agree to a stipulation that their public assistance would not be increased because of the additional marriage. If a family chooses to grow they should then take the responsibility of supporting that larger family. In other words, to add a member to the home simply to obtain government assistance should not be allowed, but if a working member becomes disabled or looses a job and is unable to find employment then there shouls be the same ability for assistance as an individual or to person marriage.
3. 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?
Nope…I tend to feel the same way as you do…if you want the wives and kids…provide for them…Insurance companies could easily tailor a policy for a poly family, which of course would cost more because there are more adults involved…not sure if they would address the children situation that you mentioned as it might be seen as discriminatory against the children.
4. you said u have one single account and one with each spouse that u transfer as needed…
It all goes into the single account and then is transferred into other accounts as needed, essentials come first, luxuries last depending on what is available. Each individual is valuable to the family, just in different ways and serving different purposes.
5. 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?
I personally believe that if an individual (monogamous or otherwise) should not have the right to anyone’s income. If they were single and unemployed when they came into the relationship then they will be single and unemployed should they chose to leave. Just as if a high income professional chooses to leave they should have the right to take their income with them. The only exception would be if the family supported them while they were receiving their education which enabled them to acquire that position, then there should be adequate compensation to the family, but not forever. If there are kids involved they should stay with the family they are growing up with unless there is abuse, this would stem any thoughts of divorce considerably. But if a woman chooses to leave she should be granted equal time with her children, I just do not feel the children should ber removed from their father and extended family without just cause.
“do you think it is justified when you can live the same life you are living now without the legalization?”
It needs to be legalized for the same reasons other types of marriage are legal. I actually wish the government would get out of the “Marriage Business” altogether and simply record civil contracts between individuals or groups similiar to the way it records partnerships, corporation, etc… Contracts can be drawn up to fit each situation and modified as needed. All this fighting over marriage simply is not needed whatsoever. The ironic thing is that the “Christian” or “religious” segment of the population are the ones that brought the government into the marriage business…now they are up in arms because the government isn’t always doing things their way any longer…think of the wasted millions or maybe even billions of dollars because of this…
“Also do u believe the number of multiple spouses would increase if legalized just for the financial reasons to “scam” the system.”
I know that the number of legal spouses would increase, many are waiting for the day…the only way to “scam” the system is to remain unmarried and therefore qualify for public assistance.
“Just thought of this but what about getting married multiple times to illegal immagrants for financial profits.”
Again with poly legalized it can be regulated and therefore the abuses minimized. There isn’t a government program in existence that someone hasn’t figured out a way to abuse. The key is to structure it carefully to minimize the potential for abuse.
By the way, I don’t mind answering your questions, I appreciate the opportunity to present this information for all to read. (hoping that they manage to get past all the tripe and actually drill down far enough to get to this)
Rereading my last post: I don’t mean that you don’t have cause to feel insulted at all on this thread (I do think Scarecrow definitely crossed the line) — but Mike’s post isn’t something that you should be concerned about. And yes, even after seeing many more of Scarecrow’s posts, I still don’t think that first post was intended to be personally insulting.
I’m laughing at myself a little as I type that, because I so shouldn’t have opened up that can of worms again, but since I already did it last post, I’ll try to explain briefly.
This is more or less an anonymous argument — some of the regulars know each other, but from Scarecrow’s point of view, everyone is just a random screen name. When you’re arguing with a random screen name, saying something like “You’re opinion is wrong, you’re stupid, stop watching TV and get your facts straight” is insulting, but it isn’t personal.
It seemed like you took it personally — as if someone “real” had said you weren’t smart and watched too much TV, rather than some stranger on the internet.
I tried to express it earlier with the comment that it can’t be personal because he doesn’t know you personally.
Oh well, I know my last post didn’t make thing any better, but hopefully this one will at least give you a glimpse at where I’m coming from.
—
The Internet: Birthplace of Godwin’s Law.
Isabella You sound familiar. Are you sure you have not been on this blog before?
@curious
Personally, oh yes, in the same way as I believe that gay partnerships should be legal, it is the right to have each other acknowledged as equal partners legally. It is the right to be considered family more than anything else, a breakaway from the presumed monogamous, heteronormative standard. It doesn’t make a blind difference in every day life because I don’t have a fear of being arrested myself. However, I feel the pain of other poly people who don’t have my freedom to be open, like the Brown’s.
By the way, my spelling and grammar are terrible also, I am just too lazy for my own good really….another reason to be poly because three pairs of hands are better than one or two gosh darnit…..if I could afford a butler/cook/maid/driver….. ;o))
@ Buddha
>The problem with poly marriages is simply complexity
Darn tootin! Relationshiops and hard in general and the more people the more hard they get. Not everyone has the time, skill or the desire to do the huge amount of communication and processing involved in a poly relationship. Really you have to be completely bonkers to do it and yet…..
>Bad Elaine! Quit tormenting those trolls/people!”
I don’t consider what I have been doing as trolling btw, just because I am new to this blog and have an uppopular opinion doesn’t make me a troll.
Elaine,
I knew I might be opening up a can of worms with that, but doesn’t this whole discussion about Mike’s post have even less basis for it than Scarecrow’s original post? At least Scarecrow directly insulted you.
I guess I grade behavior on the Internet on a continuum from “ur a fag” and talking about what you did to someone’s mother at the low end, to polite discussion on the high end. When one is used to dealing with the low-end, the stuff you’re choosing to take offense at seems a little bristly.
Elaine,
I will stand as your second … please choose bow and arrow … I’m a very good archer … not so good with pistols
I have to go out for a while. I will return later.
James,
Of course, Scarecrow was only being “unintentionally” rude–but Elaine “took too much offense.” It’s a good thing I don’t own a pistol. I’d challenge YOU to a duel!
😉
Elaine M.
1, October 11, 2010 at 3:52 pm
Buddha,
Back to the theory of diffusion…
Mike wrote the following:
“However, having re-read every post on this thread I’ve got to admit that I’m not at all certain whether it was them, or some of our regulars who started firing first. Much more I don’t care. Let’s tone down the sniping and tune up the discussion.”
If Mike’s only intention was to get the discussion back on track, why not just write something like this: “This discussion is getting off track. Let’s not insult each other. Let’s get back to the subject of this thread.” I think he was trying to do more than tune up the discussion.
========================================================
Now … we’re gettin’ it on …..
Buddha,
Back to the theory of diffusion…
Mike wrote the following:
“However, having re-read every post on this thread I’ve got to admit that I’m not at all certain whether it was them, or some of our regulars who started firing first. Much more I don’t care. Let’s tone down the sniping and tune up the discussion.”
If Mike’s only intention was to get the discussion back on track, why not just write something like this: “This discussion is getting off track. Let’s not insult each other. Let’s get back to the subject of this thread.” I think he was trying to do more than tune up the discussion.
Elaine M.
1, October 11, 2010 at 3:41 pm
And HOW did I respond to the question about whether I ever had had suspicions that my husband might be cheating on me?????
WITH A SINCERE AND HONEST ANSWER!!!!!!!!!!
==========================================================
Yes, you did. I went to the mud, happily, willingly, and would do it again and again and again.
Shoot, my kitten just ran away. Here kitty, kitty.
James M.,
That thing about duels didn’t work out so well for the better man in Alexander Hamilton’s case. Trial by combat has its drawbacks. 😀
Buddha Is Laughing
1, October 11, 2010 at 3:30 pm
Blouise,
If you are asking who I thought threw the first punch? I’d be glad to answer that as well, but since you already identified it, I’ll just say that I do think that was that comment that crossed the personal line (drew first blood so to speak). If that had it been directed at me it would have immediately resulted in an incendiary response. Not the nuclear option, but I’d have certainly gotten out the flamethrower.
=============================================================
Exactly and, to be fair to Mike S., I suspect he might not have read it well or not recognized the implications (and there are many) to the “successful, happily married, and intelligent” women who refer to themselves as the three little ol’ ladies.
But I suppose everyone has to guard their own honor. It was a lot easier back when you could challenge people to duels.
I agree that that comment was beyond the pale, but I think things got off track quite a while before that.
I think it was a combination of Scarecrow being unintentionally rude (or perhaps thinking he was being mildly “internet rude”, which is a completely different scale than real life), Elaine taking offense (too much offense in my mind, especially if we are grading on the internet scale), and Scarecrow 1) not apologizing and changing his behavior while things were still salvageable and 2) becoming insulted himself, which lead to further unpleasantness.
And HOW did I respond to the question about whether I ever had had suspicions that my husband might be cheating on me?????
WITH A SINCERE AND HONEST ANSWER!!!!!!!!!!
Swarthmore mom
1, October 11, 2010 at 3:27 pm
Blouise I was shocked when the “christian” man said that to her. He seriously took the low road and wanted to inflict damage.
========================================================
Yes, and, in my opinion, it was based more on the point you made a couple posts ago than the polygamy issue. So then I really got into the game and no one is going to tell me to get out of it … no one.
Byron,
You lurker, you … no, the reference is to the video Elaine posted earlier on this thread. I’ll repost it so you don’t have to go hunting: