Today, we filed the complaint below in the challenge to Utah’s criminal polygamy law. I am still in Salt Lake City for the filing. With me today is our local counsel Adam Alba, an outstanding young attorney and one of my former students. As noted earlier, the lawsuit is on behalf of my clients, the Brown family. The Browns are featured in the TLC program Sister Wives as an openly polygamous family.
The Plaintiffs are Kody Brown, Christine Brown, Janelle Brown, Meri Brown, and Robyn Sullivan.
The Defendants are Governor Gary Herbert, Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, and County Attorney Jeffrey R. Buhman.
There are seven claims for relief:
Claim One: Due Process
Claim Two: Equal Protection
Claim Three: Free Exercise
Claim Four: Free Speech
Claim Five: Freedom of Association
Claim Six: Establishment of Religion
Claim Seven: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
As in past cases, I will have to be circumspect in what I say after the filing of this action. However, we are honored to represent the Brown family in this historic challenge,” said Professor Turley. “We believe that this case represents the strongest factual and legal basis for a challenge to the criminalization of polygamy ever filed in the federal courts. We are not demanding the recognition of polygamous marriage. We are only challenging the right of the state to prosecute people for their private relations and demanding equal treatment with other citizens in living their lives according to their own beliefs. This action seeks to protect one of the defining principles of this country, what Justice Louis Brandeis called ‘the right to be left alone.’ In that sense, it is a challenge designed to benefit not just polygamists but all citizens who wish to live their lives according to their own values – even if those values run counter to those of the majority in the state.
The following is the statement from Kody Brown, which will be the only statement at this time on the filing:
Statement of Kody Brown:
“There are tens of thousands of plural families in Utah and other states. We are one of those families. We only wish to live our private lives according to our beliefs. While we understand that this may be a long struggle in court, it has already been a long struggle for my family and other plural families to end the stereotypes and unfair treatment given consensual polygamy. We are indebted to Professor Turley and his team for their work and dedication. Together we hope to secure equal treatment with other families in the United States.”
Here is the complaint filed today: Brown Complaint
Jonathan Turley
OK
“Maybe we just let it go, but I think if we do the US will be quickly on its way toward a kind of science fictiony amalgam of ancient near eastern polygamous societies in which wealth men gather large harems, upper middle class men gather smaller groups of women, and vast armies of angry dispossessed men hover outside the gates, ready to be used as cannon fodder in war, or to rob and steal, because they have been assigned the role of “walking dead”, never able to reproduce. The Mormons are just the nose under the tent of Western civilization.”
Miles,
I think we’re pretty much there already and the acceptance of polygamy has
nothing to do with it.
And, I should correct that to say, that “the polygamous Mormons are the camels nose under the tent of Western civillization.” Obviously, most LDS people (“Mormons”) are not polygamous, and I don’t mean to include them in that claim. The “Mormons” I’m referring to are a schismatic group, who are rejected by the mainstream church, apparently. I would include other advocates of polygamy with them too, but they are the ones involved in this case.
Chris,
You say
” “Wealth inequality is nothing compared to inequality of access to women.”
Wow. Who is objectifying women now? You treat them as chattel to be evenly distributed and you totally ignore the possibility that the women may prefer to be married to that wealthy merchant, than to your impoverished model man. ”
I don’t ignore the possibility. I consider it very likely that some women would prefer a wealthy merchant and that the wealthy merchant would prefer multiple wives. That’s the problem, not a justification.
As for objectifying women, I simply note that marriage, reproduction, sex and love with a woman are more valuable to most heterosexual men than money. Money, in fact, is arguably gathered by heterosexual men primarily so that they may have marriage, reproduction, sex and love with a woman. If this is a revelation to you, I’m glad to be of service. This doesn’t mean that “women are prostitutes” or that we are “objectifying” women. It is simply a statement about what most men’s real priorities are in life, and of course is well founded in evolutionary logic – the only game that matters in evolutionary terms is reproduction, so naturally reproduction and the things that surround it and facilitate it are foremost on men’s minds. If you have a problem with that, take it up with Darwin, or God.
Mike,
I think we’ve said it all.
I think the polygamy movement has a great future in a nation that is throwing off all of its inhibitions about wealth inequality. Today, Mormons, tomorrow Wall Street.
Some people like yourself focus on your personal determination to win the game of musical chairs (which exists in even our society, and which would be much more competitive in a polygamous society.) Others take a moment to consider the position of the inevitable losers in that game, and ask whether this is the game that we should be playing at all. That’s what I’m doing. I’m a winner too – happily married with children. And because I live in a society in which the normative pattern has been that less successful male members of society have also had a shot at marriage and family life, I’m safer and more secure. In many neighborhoods of course marriage is collapsing because men can’t earn a decent living (you can read the opinions of African American women for example, to learn more about that.) These are not happy or healthy neighborhoods.
The safety and security of society is tied up with the bringing as many men as possible into stable marriage relationships. This isn’t just my opinion – it appears to be born out in cross cultural studies. Single men are dangerous. Single hopeless men are even more dangerous. And, their happiness matters. Your personal narrative of bootstrapping is admirable, but it doesn’t address the question of how society itself solves the problem of other men who are frozen out of marriage by the men and women who choose plural marriage.
You put my objection in a similar category to those who oppose gay marriage. I think you do that because Western society has been built on monogamous assumptions so long that we’ve lost an intuitive sense of how and why monogamy represents a moral advance over the natural state of polygamy. Also advocacy for monogamy has been something that comes from the same quarters as anti gay bigotry. But I’m asking you to think about monogamy in different terms. I’m not supporting it for churchy moralistic reasons, as you understand. I’m supporting monogamy for reasons of egalitarian philosophy. Of course, any social reform may require enforcement, but enforcement is justified if it prevents a greater harm.
To some extent our monogamous cultural inertia has prevented the need for enforcement, but I think the cultural consensus for monogamy has pretty much collapsed, as we see in Turley’s case far above. Maybe monogamy norms are not worth the price. Maybe we just let it go, but I think if we do the US will be quickly on its way toward a kind of science fictiony amalgam of ancient near eastern polygamous societies in which wealth men gather large harems, upper middle class men gather smaller groups of women, and vast armies of angry dispossessed men hover outside the gates, ready to be used as cannon fodder in war, or to rob and steal, because they have been assigned the role of “walking dead”, never able to reproduce. The Mormons are just the nose under the tent of Western civilization.
“Powerful people will attempt to circumvent laws. Our choice is whether we remake laws to legalize what they do, or whether we redouble our efforts to equally enforce the law.”
Miles,
The polygamy movement is not the domain of the powerful, nor would I guess that those with true power in this country, like LDS, favor it.
“We leftists and progressives would prefer that the law mean something and that it be enforced without regard to power or wealth, or even against the inherent power that accrues to the wealthy.”
No argument here.
“Your view of law as being the will of the 2% enforced upon the 98% has it all wrong.”
Misstatement of my point. The condition of society’s being run by and for the benefit of roughly 2% of their population is one that is pretty much the historical norm. In America today and in its history this has roughly been the case. Hence the ongoing uphill battle engaged in by people on our side. The law we have, derived from our Constitution and (past) SCOTUS rulings, is amply able to produce an egalitarian society. Its’ enforcement is where the will of the 2% comes in and they are for the most part immune from its’ reach.
“As the article notes http://www.vancouversun.com/pdf/affidavit.pdf part of creating a society of equals has been supporting the institution of monogamy. It’s one of the things that has made Western democratic civilization possible. Please, read the article, because it expresses this argument better than I have done.”
I have read the article. This case deals with both Warren Jeffs, other enclaves of his type and the “Lost Boys”. I’ve already said that these are monstrous situations, but that there are laws already on the books to deal with them. Whether or not cases are won or lost is immaterial to the larger question. Mr. Henreich does indeed have impressive credentials, but the nature of Anthropology is that it is a science where much opinion and debate is ongoing. Google their Cro-Magnon versus Neanderthal debates and your head will spin from the well argued, diverse and op-positional opinions on the subject. I think that comparing the Brown’s and others situations to Jeffs et. al. doesn’t fly, nor is directly correlated.
“My problem is what a society of plural relationships looks like. My concern is what it feels like to be a young man wandering in the wilderness with little help of every finding a wife. You seem to dismiss these young men.”
Again you have stated where we differ. Your idea is that polygamy is a more attractive solution for men and thus if legalized would reshape society and cause many men to go spouse-less. I don’t believe it is a more attractive solution to even most rich men. Therefore I don’t believe and have seen no evidence of, except if you call opinion evidence, the belief that it will prevent hordes of single men from reproducing or having a stable relationship. The examples given of past and current societies where it has been misogynistic are noted, but in each case one can cite religious and or meglomaniacal reasons that trump the proposition that polygamy/polyandry is destructive per se.
“Position yourself at the edge of society, as one of those men, from a poor family, on the edge of society.”
I am one of those men. Orphaned at 18 from with no resources from my parents and relatives unable to care for me. I worked my way through
college, totally self supported, mostly at a Liquor delivery job 30 hours weekly paid mainly in tips. I lived in a furnished room, with a community bathroom. Somehow, my life was full of women from a higher social strata
who were desirable to me and thought me desirable. After college I worked as a caseworker for the Welfare Department and I assure you I never lacked for the attention of desirable women. One needn’t be handsome, wealthy and/or have good potential to find a woman. A male, looking for companionship in most cases, has to be someone who is attentive to a women and who they find listens to them. Ones physique, social status or good looks needn’t be a handicap. Besides do you think most women, beyond gold digging status seekers, or terribly insecure people, would want to be wife number 2, 3 or 4?
I believe there are some though that would find such a situation comforting on some level, perhaps being in the warmth of an extended family. At the same time there are no doubt some decent men who really desire a large family. You would deny them this right to get together simply based on your notion of what is best for society and you make it clear that their feelings are not relevant to your beliefs.
I would venture to say that perhaps 25% of this country believe homosexuality to be destructive to society and to its institution of marriage. They would have laws against it and punishment for those who have partaken. They strongly believe they are defending marriage and society. Your argument in the end mirrors theirs, even though I know you very much disagree with homophobia. To me your argument if successful overreaches government’s role in personal relationships.
By the way, my characterization of you and your opinions in my prior comment were far too harsh regarding you personally. I apologize for that. In truth besides this issue there is probably much we agree upon and I shouldn’t make our discussion personal. That was wrong of me.
“Wealth inequality is nothing compared to inequality of access to women.”
Wow. Who is objectifying women now? You treat them as chattel to be evenly distributed and you totally ignore the possibility that the women may prefer to be married to that wealthy merchant, than to your impoverished model man.
Further, you seem to totally discount the possibility and benefit to society that that impoverished young man will not improve himself so that he can afford a wife.
Further, your description of a polygamous society is no different that our own “monogamous” society. The wealthy men still get the women and the poor men are left out (Arnold Schwarzenegger). The only difference is that in our society the men do not have to take responsibility for the women because the women are just “girlfriends” not “wives”.
However the point is mute. Until you jail Arnold and separate him from his kids you have unequal access to the law which is unjust. So you have to either make Arnold’s behavior criminal and put him in jail or you have to leave Kody Brown alone. I submit that is going to be a lot easier to leave Kody Brown alone than it will be for you to pass a law to put Arnold in jail.
“Shorter Mike Spindell: My social engineer: good; Your social engineering: bad”
A fair comment.
“They can freely associate all they want, they just can’t call it marriage.” – And so by controlling the language you are going to achieve equality? And the 1st Amendment right to free speech is not important?
However, you are 100% correct. That is what this case is about: what you call it. And Miles and his two girlfriends are not guilty because he used the socially acceptable term “girlfriend” instead of the socially unacceptable term “wife”.
This is a slam-dunk case and Jonathan Turley is going to win it.
Better to be poor in a rich country than to be more equally poor in a poor country, wouldn’t you say? Even our “poor” are getter richer at a good clip.
There’s a right kind of income inequality, Mr. Straw Man for Fake Liberty?
http://www.slate.com/id/2266025/entry/2266026
@lottakatz, it seems that the countries that practice polygamy have plenty of income equality, just the wrong kind. Correlation isn’t causation (I’m looking at you, GeneH), but I’d be a little skittish about taking that chance. Also, is this really a free association issue? They can freely associate all they want, they just can’t call it marriage.
K., I read it. Restrictions on marriage or free association is not the way to address income inequality IMO.
A majority of countries still practice polygamy in one form or another so we have plenty of data to base our judgments on. None of it appears to be very good. See the expert report cited above.
I think we all are operating under the burden of a dearth of observable facts on which to bas an educated assessment. As long as any social behaviour is illegal the circumspect nature of the illegally participating group will work to limit observation. We don’t and can’t know what the normative behaviour of a society that extends freedom of association to other than monogamous unions will entail until those other unions are no longer illegal. In many ways the debate is similar to the debate on legalizing some kinds of drug use.
We can’t say what will happen because we don’t have untainted data. Given some time to implement the change in the law and observe what happens to the family and wider social dynamic will provide untainted data and future lawmakers will have a knowledge base grounded in reality and not fear or speculation. There isn’t a good argument against the petition because there isn’t good data to base that argument on.
In case my punctuation left any ambiguity ( I don’t think it did…), I consider men and women equally complicit with each other. I did not “equate” polygamy with murder – I illustrated by way of exaggeration the fact that “natural” behaviors are not ipso facto moral or desirable ones. I think this is obvious to any fair reader.
Powerful people will attempt to circumvent laws. Our choice is whether we remake laws to legalize what they do, or whether we redouble our efforts to equally enforce the law.
Libertarians and right wingers prefer the first approach. We leftists and progressives would prefer that the law mean something and that it be enforced without regard to power or wealth, or even against the inherent power that accrues to the wealthy. This is just basic to who we are. We believe in the rule of law.
Your view of law as being the will of the 2% enforced upon the 98% has it all wrong. That’s what law is in danger of becoming, but what it should be, and what we work to have it be, is an expression of the will of the majority, within the constraints of the constitution or other first principles.
As the article notes http://www.vancouversun.com/pdf/affidavit.pdf part of creating a society of equals has been supporting the institution of monogamy. It’s one of the things that has made Western democratic civilization possible. Please, read the article, because it expresses this argument better than I have done.
I’m less negative about plural marriage relationships than you. Although I’ve never really experienced one (multiple girlfriends doesn’t count!) I see no reason that they couldn’t be very rewarding for all of the parties involved. I just don’t care because the quality of the relationship is a trivial matter. The fact that the men report that such relationships are stressful for them is however a suggestion that it is no easy thing, but if that’s freely chosen, so be it. Not my problem.
My problem is what a society of plural relationships looks like. My concern is what it feels like to be a young man wandering in the wilderness with little help of every finding a wife. You seem to dismiss these young men.
When wealthy man gather lots of resources that doesn’t necessarily stop others from doing so too. But the supply of women is much more fixed, and the need to marry, to reproduce, to have a sexual partner, is in some ways much stronger than even the desire for wealth.
Position yourself at the edge of society, as one of those men, from a poor family, on the edge of society. Your sister found a secure home with the wealthy merchant and his other 3 wives. Your friend’s sister, the one you might have married, she also found a marriage with an older wealthy merchant and his two other wives. You and your friend are locked out of wealth, and locked out of marriage, reproduction and sex. THAT is what a polygynous society ultimately looks like….. lonely, horny, unfulfilled, angry, young men. They can go to war, they can get into all kinds of trouble. It’s an ugly and brutal world. That’s were polygamy goes. Wealth inequality is nothing compared to inequality of access to women.
Shorter Mike Spindell: My social engineer: good; Your social engineering: bad.
Also, there goes that famous lefty intolerance again you’re all famous for and like projecting onto your opponents. Also, I find it amusing that your avatar pic has that glazed over look in the eyes and frozen smile. Are you trying to control your urge to scream and go on full attack?
By the way the fact that “it” agrees with you only reinforces the points I’ve made.
“People are also by nature murderous, but that doesn’t mean that we don’t have laws against murder.
I would consider men who marry multiple women, and women who enter plural marriages to be equally complicit in doing what comes natural, even when it is disruptive of a stable and just social order.”
Miles,
First of all do you realize that you equated polygamy with murder? Really, I mean really Miles? This is the equivalency in your head? I must tell you, with all due respect, that I am beginning to think that you’re anything but the Leftist you proclaim yourself to be. I really think that you are satirizing the left by adopting a silly social position of social engineering as an argument against polygamy, This is to evidence the old meme that Leftists want to run people’s lives. However, I could well be and have been wrong about people, so maybe I’m wrong about you. What you might not understand is that makes your arguments worse in my opinion. Because trust me as a lifelong radical I would pray that someone with your mindset never, never gains any political power.
“I have a different vision, a vision of a society which doesn’t shut men out of marriage, which supports the economic and personal attributes of so called “lower status” men, so that they are in fact attractive marriage partners for women.
You see, an egalitarian society goes hand in hand with monogamy… supports it, and is in turn supported by it.”
That Miles is total bullshit and I’ll tell you why. I’m also for an egalitarian society. Status offends me as does our current class system. Do men of power gather presumably desirable women, to a greater degree than the rest of the male population, you bet they do. However, the elite also own the best, most scenic property. Money and power brings with it any number of privileges that lets those with it rise above the law, despite what it is. When Nelson Rockefeller was Governor of New York, which had a terribly strict divorce law at the time which he supported, his wife had to go to Reno to get a divorce in Nevada. Social engineers, such as yourself, would argue that the law was nevertheless correct since it encouraged families to stay together even if that was because they couldn’t afford going to Nevada.
The same was and is again becoming true with abortion and also the need for organs. The rich get what they want and the social engineering types try to enforce their version of morality on the masses. Your views are close in spectrum to those of past/present religious leaders who wanted/want to impose their vision of a perfect society on the masses.
If you truly want a more egalitarian and free society then don’t start the road there with imposing your social views on everyone. Fight instead for control of Corporate power, limit corporations ability to influence our government through campaign contributions, that are really bribes. Make sure the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes and assume a fair burden of responsibility for sustaining this society. I could go on and on, but if you haven’t gotten the point yet, why bother. your solution is frankly ass-backwards if it is an egalitarian society that you want.
The world has seen many “egalitarian society’s” where 98% of the people are equal in poverty and the 2% that rule them are oh so concerned with the “moral” behavior of the 98%. The only egalitarian society I want is one where there is equality under the law, a generous social safety net, the ability of the individual to maximize their potential and corporations that must bear their fair share of the burden and receive only their fair share in return. Where it really is one person, one vote.
My disparagement of your argument is by no means to imply that I don’t believe a good case can be made against polygamy, but you haven’t been the one to make it. I’m certainly not personally in favor of plural relationships and as I stated on one of these two threads many years ago I actually experienced one, whose results were shattering to me.
My negative experience only proved to me that I couldn’t handle it. I believe and I have seen others who could. I am, however, strongly in favor of allowing people to make their own choices, providing others rights are protected and that the less a state socially engineers what is really a personal preference, the better. I take it you believe something else.
So much for the fallacy of small numbers. According to Miles’ expert report, half the polygamist societies have greater than 20% of the males practicing polygamy. That, at best, leaves 80% of the remaining males scrambling for 60% of the remaining females. That sounds like a healthy society.