Polygamy Discussion: Not That There's Anything Wrong With That

[kicotan]

Polygamy has been practiced by various peoples around the globe, both historically and currently.  For various reasons, individuals, communities, religions and even government entities have had/do have strong reactions, restrictions and/or regulations regarding polygamy.

Enter the Polygamous Brown Family into the public sphere of reality TV, social media presence and even interactions with the legal/judicial system.  Why do they believe so strongly in plural marriage?  How did their version of Mormonism come about and why does Utah, their "homeland", not support their version of Mormonism?  Do the "pros" of plural marriage outweigh the "cons"?

Since the discussion of polygamy in general and how it compares to mainstream society is generally frowned upon within the specific episode threads, I'm hoping we can be civil and discuss the Brown's polygamy here, not that there is anything wrong with that...

[VioletNevermind]

I don’t really have a dog in this fight.  I don’t care if the Browns are polygamists or anything else, for that matter.  However, I do have an issue with the incontrovertible fact (in my opinion, anyway) that polygamy benefits men and only men.  Women are forced to make sacrifices at every turn while the men hop from woman to woman, having sex, being fed, and having their kids raised for them while generally not being required to do very much to support those efforts.  How many polygamy arrangements have we seen depicted on TV over the last few years?  Five or six, give or take?  The men on those shows walk a tightrope between reveling in their lack of real responsibility/an abundance of sex on demand and smoothing down their wives’ jealousy and anger.  The wives are consumed by a constant cycle of infighting and jockeying for position in both the family unit(s) and with their communal husband.  That sounds like hell on earth to me.

As for the Browns, I may be biased because I have loathed Kody since the moment my eyes “met” his beady shark eyes when the first episode aired.  Meri was so young when the arrangement began and I really don’t think she fully realized what she was getting into.  Janelle joined the family and she and Meri have had issues since day one (jealousy).  Christine joined the family and made it clear from the beginning that she “wanted a family; she didn’t just want the man.”  I think her presence and easygoing attitude helped to ease the tension between Meri and Janelle.  As for Robyn, if we’re being honest, I think that heifer just wanted some financial security and someone to pay off her Victoria’s Secret bill after a few rocky years as a broke single mom (no judgment; I’m one, too).  And Kody?  He’s having a blast hopping from woman to woman, having sex, being fed, and having someone raise his kids for him while generally not being required to do very much to support those efforts.  Add to all of that a handsome reality TV income and he has himself a pretty sweet deal, all things considered.  How does any of that truly benefit the Brown wives, except for ensuring their financial safety (for now, anyway)?  Robyn is the sole exception here.  She managed to claw her way to the top of this shitheap by virtue of her relative youth and appearance (as compared to the other wives) and become the legal wife, with all of the legal benefits and safeguards therein.  If the unthinkable were to happen and Kody died, no one but Robyn and her children (including the ones she had with David Jessop) would be legally entitled to one cent of the family money.  If I were Meri, Christine, or Janelle, I would be very nervous.  I can’t stand Meri, but I must admit that I would probably open a bed and breakfast (or a bakery, copy center, convenience store, whatever) to ensure that I had some money of my own in the event that things went sideways.  Robyn is as shifty as they come and I suspect the other women know it.

Just my two cents.  Great discussion question!

Edited March 2, 2018 by SuzyLee

[Gothish520]

I don't have a dog in this fight either, except my own beliefs about personal freedom.

The Utah cohabitation law is specifically aimed at polygamists, all of them, not just the bad ones who engage in abuse and fraud. Consenting adults should be able to live with whomever they choose and call themselves whatever they choose, without laws specifically targeting that. I don't understand how that cohabitation law helps to fight the abuse and fraud that runs rampant in some plyg families. Physical abuse, sexual abuse, welfare fraud - there are already strong laws against all of it and they should be enforced. How does the cohabitation law prevent those abuses from occurring? How does that law stop bad people from living as polygamists? It doesn't, it just makes the good people feel persecuted. If anyone can explain to me how that law helps, I'm all ears.

Edited March 2, 2018 by Gothish520

[DakotaJustice]

If they want to live this way, fine. 

What drives me nuts is the way Kody preens himself as a special snowflake because of his lifestyle. 

He goes on and on about how oppressed they are, but really they're profiting off of being polygamists - first through food stamps and now because of the show. 

They're really just a pack of ordinary people who choose to live in a fashion in which a good percentage of them are miserable.  

[mythoughtis]

I really don’t think ALL of them want to live this way. Meri doesn’t, but obviously her religion requires her to. Martyrdom.  Robin doesn’t-if she did, she’s still just be spiritually married.  Christine does sometimes. Janelle does.  The offspring hold the household all together. Once a household has none in it, then it falls apart. Meri has an empty nest and no husband. Kody admits he no longer sees her without the rest of the family. Janelle will have no children at home in a few years. She will feel differently then. Christine has Truly so she will have an empty nest later. This is Robyn’s end goal- she’s the last one with small children.  The other 2 will find themselves shuttled off to the side as Kody begins to reserve his weeknights etc for the children left at home. That’s when they willrealize that empty nest monogamous couples  travel as twosomes, etc.  they will be 3rd wheels and will be lonely just like widows. 

[kicotan]

1 hour ago, SuzyLee said:

Just my two cents.  Great discussion question!

Thank you!

I was hoping that maybe we could discuss polygamy here without it devolving into an off topic mess like it tends to do within the individual episode threads.

I'm a sociologist, so I tend to be fascinated by cultural stuff and I'll admit the history of the LDS and how it functions today is what drew me into watching Sister Wives to begin with.

I think without the context of the compelling religious component, it is hard for me to imagine folks throwing themselves into such an arrangement as plural marriage.  I also believe that if monogamous marriages weren't given so many government issued benefits and perks, the political side of their choices wouldn't be so volatile.

Cheers!

[mythoughtis]

It’s not something I could do.   I feel that I deserve the monogamy part of it as part of the package, and I give it in return.  Extra people would just divide the attention and negate any feelings of love. Plus the money I earn goes to my spouse and our children, natural. Step, and adopted. I don’t want it going to the house next door. 

[Gothish520]

37 minutes ago, kicotan said:

Thank you!

I was hoping that maybe we could discuss polygamy here without it devolving into an off topic mess like it tends to do within the individual episode threads.

I'm a sociologist, so I tend to be fascinated by cultural stuff and I'll admit the history of the LDS and how it functions today is what drew me into watching Sister Wives to begin with.

I think without the context of the compelling religious component, it is hard for me to imagine folks throwing themselves into such an arrangement as plural marriage.  I also believe that if monogamous marriages weren't given so many government issued benefits and perks, the political side of their choices wouldn't be so volatile.

Cheers!

I adore my husband, but we both have no trouble admitting that one of the main reasons we decided to get married was because of all the legal rights and benefits. We were together for seven years when we got engaged and nine when we married. We had always speculated that we might get married some day, if we felt like it, but there was never any rush or pressure. 

We started having conversations about power of attorney and all that legal stuff, and at one point I joked that it would just be easier to get married. Well, that got me thinking, and I decided one day shortly after to just "propose" the idea for real.  And he took that ball and ran with it! We both knew we weren't going anywhere, so getting married just made sense.

I think allowing for legal plural marriages would be a nightmare from a legal rights perspective. But decriminalizing it, and getting rid of that cohabitation law, I don't see the problem with that. What are the reasons that lawmakers are so opposed? Religious reasons? Are they afraid that decriminalizing will cause more abuse and fraud? 

Edited March 2, 2018 by Gothish520

[kicotan]

1 hour ago, Gothish520 said:

I adore my husband, but we both have no trouble admitting that one of the main reasons we decided to get married was because of all the legal rights and benefits.

True story-2005 Mr. kicotan and I were cohabiting and I was already on his health/auto insurance when we travelled to Seattle on a business trip.  After de-planing we stopped in at the rental car counter to pick up a car and the agent asked if I would be driving.  According to policy, if we were legally married, there would be no extra charge, however, if we were merely "cohabitating", we would incur a $25 fee.

He looked at me and said "That's it, we're getting married."

We got legally hitched the next year.

1 hour ago, Gothish520 said:

I don't see the problem with that. What are the reasons that lawmakers are so opposed? Religious reasons? Are they afraid that decriminalizing will cause more abuse and fraud? 

My belief is:

1)our government not only sanctions monogamous marriages but affords them with over 1,000 legal benefits and protections, which they have no business doing.  Single folks shouldn't have a larger tax burden than unmarried folks, as well as those who decide to procreate shouldn't be given government benefits just because they procreated.  It is, on it's face, institutionalized discrimination.

2)it is unconstitutional to discriminate on the basis of marital status and outside of the scope of government to dictate who will and will not be included in that protected class of "spouses(s)", should one decide to legally marry.

3)currently monogamous married couples appreciate those exclusive protections/benefits from marriage and don't want to lose those priveledges, so therefore any change to the status quo is seen as negative and they will fight tooth and nail to make sure the status quo is upheld.

4)rocking the boat to include polygamists upsets the delicate balance of our existence and throws those unconstitutional "protections & benefits" into the limelight of public scrutiny, blatant disregard of constitutionality and the hard remedy of revamping old, tired, outdated regulations/programs.

But that's just me.

Edited March 2, 2018 by kicotan

[Kohola3]

I think it's disgusting for health reasons since they are obviously not using condoms. One horny dude spreadingk diseases among the concubines.  I bet they spend a fortune on treating yeast infections.  And cold sore medication.  Blech

[Sandy W]

21 minutes ago, Kohola3 said:

I think it's disgusting for health reasons since they are obviously not using condoms. One horny dude spreadingk diseases among the concubines.  I bet they spend a fortune on treating yeast infections.  And cold sore medication.  Blech

Eight years of watching this show, trying to figure out how/why polygamy works.  There must be some he finds more desirable than others, does he just "close his eyes and think of England", or man up and tell himself, "this is for the greater good".

[TurtlePower]

I haven't seen a plyg family yet where anyone seems happy. It's hard enough in a monogamous relationship let alone the variables of a plyg one. Part of me is like "to each their own", many women chose it. But for what? To cry and feel jealous all the time? To argue with the other wives? Not much in it for the women, especially when they wind up hating one another. For a stupid man. 

[kicotan]

On several of the episode threads folks comment that they don't believe Meri is "cut out" for polygamy and they think she is desirous of monogamy.

I firmly believe that her participation in a polygamous relationship is a direct result of her being raised in a polygamous family with a religious mandate for it.  She believes in it, wether she is cut out for it or not.

Sort of like one might not be cut out to be a Catholic, but that's what you grew up in and believed in as wee one.  So maybe you miss confession or mass every week, but you sincerely believe what you were taught~that every other church on the planet has it wrong~so you hang in there and do the penance that your priest tells you to do so that you end up right in the eyes of God and get to enjoy heaven with your Saints.

Thats what I think goes on in Meri's head, when she contemplates her family dynamic.  Maybe she isn't cut out for it, maybe she'd get more love and affection and dick if she was in a monogamous relationship~or maybe not.  Sometimes monogamy is a sad, lonely, affectionless endeavor as well.  I just don't think she'd give up her spiritual salvation for it, as much as folks comment that if Sam was real she'd have taken off to be with him.

I could totally see Meri leaving Kody, asking him or whoever is in charge at her church to unseal them, but not for monogamy.  I see her finding a polygamous situation more suited to her liking, because they aren't all carbon copies of each other, just like monogamous relationships aren't either.

[Kohola3]

29 minutes ago, kicotan said:

Sort of like one might not be cut out to be a Catholic, but that's what you grew up in and believed in as wee one.  So maybe you miss confession or mass every week, but you sincerely believe what you were taught~that every other church on the planet has it wrong~so you hang in there and do the penance that your priest tells you to do so that you end up right in the eyes of God and get to enjoy heaven with your Saints.

Went the whole Catholic route and walked away as an adult.  Anyone is free to look at cockamamie teachings and decide for themselves what they want to do. 

If brainwashed, then that's another story.  And we know these women are not the sharpest tools in the shed.

[kicotan]

1 hour ago, Kohola3 said:

Went the whole Catholic route and walked away as an adult.  Anyone is free to look at cockamamie teachings and decide for themselves what they want to do. 

If brainwashed, then that's another story.  And we know these women are not the sharpest tools in the shed.

Indeed, there's lots of folks who walk away from the religion they were brought up with.  I was at the church house, at the very least, once a week from birth to 11 years old.  Dad was an elder, all that good stuff.  It wasn't Catholicism, more of a loose Protestant sect known as "Disciples of Christ".  They emphasized a personal relationship over dogmatic hoops to jump through for salvation.  I left the church at 11 after a conversation with my father, the Elder.  He said he didn't care what church I went to, as long as I went.

I think the strict dogma of the church Meri & family belong to would hinder her ability to leave polygamy, but there is a remedy in place according to her faith  for her to leave The Kody Brown Family, if his stewardship & the rest of the wives really are the cause of her unhappiness.

Edited March 7, 2018 by kicotan

[SongbirdHollow]

On March 2, 2018 at 3:12 PM, Gothish520 said:

I don't have a dog in this fight either, except my own beliefs about personal freedom.

The Utah cohabitation law is specifically aimed at polygamists, all of them, not just the bad ones who engage in abuse and fraud. Consenting adults should be able to live with whomever they choose and call themselves whatever they choose, without laws specifically targeting that. I don't understand how that cohabitation law helps to fight the abuse and fraud that runs rampant in some plyg families. Physical abuse, sexual abuse, welfare fraud - there are already strong laws against all of it and they should be enforced. How does the cohabitation law prevent those abuses from occurring? How does that law stop bad people from living as polygamists? It doesn't, it just makes the good people feel persecuted. If anyone can explain to me how that law helps, I'm all ears.

 

While I agree that people should be able to live with anyone they choose, I don't agree that they should call themselves married if they are not legally married. I think that's where the word "purport" in the law comes in. Purport is defined as appear or claim to be or do something, especially falsely; profess. And yes, the law is written specifically for polygamists because they are the ones wanting to do the purporting. It would apply to non polygamists as well if they said they were married when they weren't. I have a coworker that had a hand fasting ceremony rather than a legal marriage and she never calls him her husband (and corrects others if they do). 

 

Edited to add: Assuming the last name of someone you are not legally married to is, to me, purporting.

 

On March 2, 2018 at 6:34 PM, kicotan said:

 

1)our government not only sanctions monogamous marriages but affords them with over 1,000 legal benefits and protections, which they have no business doing.  Single folks shouldn't have a larger tax burden than unmarried folks, as well as those who decide to procreate shouldn't be given government benefits just because they procreated.  It is, on it's face, institutionalized discrimination.

2)it is unconstitutional to discriminate on the basis of marital status and outside of the scope of government to dictate who will and will not be included in that protected class of "spouses(s)", should one decide to legally marry.

3)currently monogamous married couples appreciate those exclusive protections/benefits from marriage and don't want to lose those priveledges, so therefore any change to the status quo is seen as negative and they will fight tooth and nail to make sure the status quo is upheld.

4)rocking the boat to include polygamists upsets the delicate balance of our existence and throws those unconstitutional "protections & benefits" into the limelight of public scrutiny, blatant disregard of constitutionality and the hard remedy of revamping old, tired, outdated regulations/programs.

But that's just me.

 

There are many who share your view that government should stay out of marriage entirely. I don't think I agree. I can see the benefit to the couple as well as society in general to have their status legally recognized. This includes gay marriage. When you leave your family of origin and create a new family with your spouse, it seems fitting to have that acknowledged. I don't know about 1,000 legal benefits and protections, but there are some (like being next of kin) that are essential. Whether they should include financial or other perks, is definitely up for debate. (My aforementioned coworker did not have a legal ceremony only because in her situation it financially benefits her NOT to be married.) I don't really think I'm afraid of losing benefits by legalizing or decriminalizing polygamy/bigamy. I don't really see how telling someone that they can only have one legal spouse is "institutionalized discrimination" or unconstitutional.

The polygamists can't even explain the planet situation in the afterlife, how are they going to restructure our social system here on earth?

Thanks for the topic, I look forward to everyone's thoughts!

Edited March 9, 2018 by SongbirdHollow

[xwordfanatik]

@SongbirdHollow, what is a hand fasting ceremony?  I've never heard the term.

[kicotan]

7 minutes ago, SongbirdHollow said:

don't really see how telling someone that they can only have one legal spouse is "institutionalized discrimination" or unconstitutional.

I read an interesting discussion piece recently on institutionalized discrimination.  

Discrimination can be legal if the law specifically says it’s legal. One type of discrimination that the law specifically allows is the bona fide occupational qualification.   One major exception to the prohibition on discriminating against individuals of a protected class is when the discrimination is based on a job requirement that is “reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise.” When this occurs, this job requirement is called a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ).  Discrimination can also be legal if the law is silent on that particular type of discrimination.

For example, if an employee were fired because he or she liked to play soccer, that would be legal since no law addresses that type of discrimination. More precisely, an employee who likes to play soccer is not part of a protected class.

A compelling government interest is a legal concept where the government is able to infringe on a constitutionally protected right or discriminate based on certain characteristics, such as race, when a crucial or important government interest is at stake. Freedom of speech restrictions based on national security considerations is an example of a compelling government interest infringing on a constitutional right.

Another form of legal discrimination is where an organization may exclude certain people from becoming members. The legal basis for this discrimination is the freedom of association and expressive association protections provided by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This allows a private organization to choose who can and cannot join. This freedom to discriminate is not absolute, though.

For example, the discrimination must be related to the organization’s message or existence. If it’s not, the discrimination may be illegal. This was the case in Roberts v. United States Jaycees, where the Jaycees prohibited women from joining their organization as regular or full members.

So when I said that I believe that to deny a polygamist more than one legal wife is institutionalized discrimination, I was going by the definition of the term as “bias built into the operation of society’s institutions", legally or illegally.

As for constitutionality, The 1st amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Also, the 14th amendment's "equal protection under the law" clause states "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

On a side note, I heard that Canadians are expecting a ruling today on a polygamist's challenge to their constitution.

Thanks for joining the discussion! :)

[SongbirdHollow]

1 hour ago, xwordfanatik said:

@SongbirdHollow, what is a hand fasting ceremony?  I've never heard the term.

A commitment ceremony in which the hands of you and your beloved are wrapped in ribbon as you 'tie the knot'. It's a neopagan/wiccan thing, I think.

[SongbirdHollow]

1 hour ago, kicotan said:

So when I said that I believe that to deny a polygamist more than one legal wife is institutionalized discrimination, I was going by the definition of the term as “bias built into the operation of society’s institutions", legally or illegally.

As for constitutionality, The 1st amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Also, the 14th amendment's "equal protection under the law" clause states "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

On a side note, I heard that Canadians are expecting a ruling today on a polygamist's challenge to their constitution.

Thanks for joining the discussion! :)

This is true, but the larger question is, is it fair/justified? Bias is a fact of life. It's certainly an interesting discussion!

While the first amendment establishes freedom of religion, speech, and assembly, there are still limits on these in society because they can affect the rights of others. I was at work in Charlottesville when the neoNazis invaded last summer. The aftermath of that is something that the city is still working through, and will be for a looooong time.

I would love to see some legal challenges from polygamists in the US so that I can hear what more learned Constitutional scholars think. Thanks for the heads up on the Canadian case.

[kicotan]

1 hour ago, SongbirdHollow said:

 

I would love to see some legal challenges from polygamists in the US so that I can hear what more learned Constitutional scholars think. Thanks for the heads up on the Canadian case.

I ran across some interesting articles at the Emory University Law School's site:

http://law.emory.edu/elj/content/volume-64/issue-6/index.html

It's from 2015, but still relevant to the discussion of constitutionality, I believe.

From the intro on the page:

"Emory Law Journal | 64 Emory L.J. 1669 (2015) 

In just a few weeks, when the Court hands down what will no doubt be a long anticipated and highly contentious decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, the Court will answer whether the Fourteenth Amendment requires states to license marriages for same-sex couples. While many believe the Court is poised to answer that question affirmatively, assuming it will, it is far less clear how expansive or limited the decision’s holding will be or what implications will flow from its rationale. At oral argument, Justice Alito pressed the petitioners as to the logical implications of a holding in favor of same-sex marriage, asking, “Suppose we rule in your favor in this case and then, after that, a group consisting of two men and two women apply for a marriage license. Would there be any ground for denying them?” Whether a right to polygamous marriage should be recognized as a matter of constitutional or statutory law is a question that we editors of the Emory Law Journal are disinclined to answer ourselves. But we do believe this important question is one worth asking, and Obergefell certainly gives new energy to that conversation. And while questions surrounding polygamy are not new to the academic legal literature, there remains plenty of room for further inquiry and dialogue. Accordingly, in this paper symposium, we have collected a number of articles and essays by leading and emerging scholars to tackle the question of polygamy and its many attendant issues..."

[kicotan]

The Canadian polygamists lost their court case and were convicted.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/25/two-canadian-men-found-guilty-polygamy-first-test-127-year-old/

[Kohola3]

1 minute ago, kicotan said:

The Canadian polygamists lost their court case and were convicted.

Oh, lawdy, this should send the Browns into a frenzied tailspin.  I can't even imagine the hysterical twattering to come.

[Gothish520]

4 hours ago, SongbirdHollow said:

While I agree that people should be able to live with anyone they choose, I don't agree that they should call themselves married if they are not legally married. I think that's where the word "purport" in the law comes in. Purport is defined as appear or claim to be or do something, especially falsely; profess. And yes, the law is written specifically for polygamists because they are the ones wanting to do the purporting. It would apply to non polygamists as well if they said they were married when they weren't. I have a coworker that had a hand fasting ceremony rather than a legal marriage and she never calls him her husband (and corrects others if they do). 

 

Edited to add: Assuming the last name of someone you are not legally married to is, to me, purporting.

 

There are many who share your view that government should stay out of marriage entirely. I don't think I agree. I can see the benefit to the couple as well as society in general to have their status legally recognized. This includes gay marriage. When you leave your family of origin and create a new family with your spouse, it seems fitting to have that acknowledged. I don't know about 1,000 legal benefits and protections, but there are some (like being next of kin) that are essential. Whether they should include financial or other perks, is definitely up for debate. (My aforementioned coworker did not have a legal ceremony only because in her situation it financially benefits her NOT to be married.) I don't really think I'm afraid of losing benefits by legalizing or decriminalizing polygamy/bigamy. I don't really see how telling someone that they can only have one legal spouse is "institutionalized discrimination" or unconstitutional.

The polygamists can't even explain the planet situation in the afterlife, how are they going to restructure our social system here on earth?

Thanks for the topic, I look forward to everyone's thoughts!

!00% agree with you on legal marriage. I have no issue with all the rights and privileges that come with a legal marriage, and I also don't have any problem with single people availing themselves of the rights and privileges they get from not being married.

I also don't believe that plural marriages should be made legal, I just think there doesn't seem to be any harm in decriminalizing them. Maybe say spiritual wife/husband instead of just wife/husband.

[kicotan]

3 hours ago, Kohola3 said:

Oh, lawdy, this should send the Browns into a frenzied tailspin.  I can't even imagine the hysterical twattering to come.

Indeed!

Especially since this is the first challenge to the 127 year old law and they could hand them the maximum sentence of 5 years.

[kicotan]

3 hours ago, Gothish520 said:

!00% agree with you on legal marriage. I have no issue with all the rights and privileges that come with a legal marriage, and I also don't have any problem with single people availing themselves of the rights and privileges they get from not being married.

I also don't believe that plural marriages should be made legal, I just think there doesn't seem to be any harm in decriminalizing them. Maybe say spiritual wife/husband instead of just wife/husband.

I've no dog in this fight, I'm as monogamous as they come.  I'm also as heterosexual as they come, yet it doesn't bother me for same-sex marriages to be legal.

My curiosity is why do you think married folks deserve and should be given special rights and privileges from the government that single folks aren't allowed to enjoy?

Also, since you agree with the current legal restrictions on what constitutes a marriage, why do you think polygamists  should be denied legal marriage(s)? I'll go ahead and stipulate that I am in agreement that parties to any legal marriage should be consenting ADULTS, but I'm just curious as to why you believe it should be decriminalized yet not made legal.

I'll also stipulate to being severely menopausal and if you've already explained this, I am profoundly apologetic. 

[Kohola3]

28 minutes ago, kicotan said:

Also, since you agree with the current legal restrictions on what constitutes a marriage, why do you think polygamists  should be denied legal marriage(s)?

I will jump in here because I have posted on this before.  Logistically, legalizing a polygamist marriage would be nightmare.  The husband retires and then dies - how is social security split between the spouses?  How is decision making in medical matters handled if not everyone agrees?  Husband is in a position to be taken off life support but not all wives want that.  In the same situation, do the sister wives have any say in what happens to the sick wife?  Do all wives go on the deeds to homes or businesses?  If so, just imagine untangling that web if there is a divorce.  If the husband dies without a will, does length of marriage come into the equation when dividing property?  Those are just a few that come to mind for me.  I'm sure that there are more.

And as a single person, I resent subsiding married people - and their kids as well.  My insurance co-pays have always been our of proportion to my married colleagues.

[kicotan]

1 hour ago, Kohola3 said:

I will jump in here because I have posted on this before.  Logistically, legalizing a polygamist marriage would be nightmare.  The husband retires and then dies - how is social security split between the spouses?  How is decision making in medical matters handled if not everyone agrees?  Husband is in a position to be taken off life support but not all wives want that.  In the same situation, do the sister wives have any say in what happens to the sick wife?  Do all wives go on the deeds to homes or businesses?  If so, just imagine untangling that web if there is a divorce.  If the husband dies without a will, does length of marriage come into the equation when dividing property?  Those are just a few that come to mind for me.  I'm sure that there are more.

Thank you for adding these concerns to the discussion!

I can't imagine trying to suss all that crap out.  However, other than the social security thing, folks have lawyers draw up legal paperwork to address issues of medical power of attorney, inheritance and divorce settlements, just like widows, monogamous couples or single folks do at present.  Perhaps a form could be filled out with checkboxes or fill in the blanks to address those concerns without having to rack up billable hours with a lawyer.

As far as social security is concerned, I'm of a radical mind when it comes to that in I think it should be revamped anyway, but again, there could be a trust-type fund that it could be deposited into or a checkbox whereby one individual could be the named beneficiary.

[Kohola3]

42 minutes ago, kicotan said:

...folks have lawyers draw up legal paperwork to address issues of medical power of attorney, inheritance and divorce settlements, just like widows, monogamous couples or single folks do at present.  Perhaps a form could be filled out with checkboxes or fill in the blanks to address those concerns without having to rack up billable hours with a lawyer.

That's all well and good if you can get them all to agree.  In a monogamous marriege or divorce it's a one-on-one situation. 

Using them as an example, can you imagine the Browns agreeing on how an inheritance would be split up, who would make medical decisions, who would be the insurance beneficiary if they are all legal wives?  Especially in matter where there are radical differences in opinion?  Good grief, the way that the money is split up is already cattywampus with one snowflake getting equal grocery money with the brood mares and their litters. 

There would have to be some sort of algorithm of years of servitude marriage divided by number of children multiplied by money spent on therapy sessions divided by number of sessions attended by each wife, multiplied by the number of boxes of tissues used by the weepers, divided by the number of bills "left on the table" and on and on and on....

Man, their lawyers would be racking up tons of hours trying to sort that mess out.

[Gothish520]

12 hours ago, Kohola3 said:

That's all well and good if you can get them all to agree.  In a monogamous marriege or divorce it's a one-on-one situation. 

Using them as an example, can you imagine the Browns agreeing on how an inheritance would be split up, who would make medical decisions, who would be the insurance beneficiary if they are all legal wives?  Especially in matter where there are radical differences in opinion?  Good grief, the way that the money is split up is already cattywampus with one snowflake getting equal grocery money with the brood mares and their litters. 

There would have to be some sort of algorithm of years of servitude marriage divided by number of children multiplied by money spent on therapy sessions divided by number of sessions attended by each wife, multiplied by the number of boxes of tissues used by the weepers, divided by the number of bills "left on the table" and on and on and on....

Man, their lawyers would be racking up tons of hours trying to sort that mess out.

I agree with all of this - it would be a nightmare for many plural families, and would just add to the list of things that already breed resentment between the husband and wives.

Also, I'm adding cattywampus to my lexicon!

[Gothish520]

17 hours ago, kicotan said:

I've no dog in this fight, I'm as monogamous as they come.  I'm also as heterosexual as they come, yet it doesn't bother me for same-sex marriages to be legal.

My curiosity is why do you think married folks deserve and should be given special rights and privileges from the government that single folks aren't allowed to enjoy?

Also, since you agree with the current legal restrictions on what constitutes a marriage, why do you think polygamists  should be denied legal marriage(s)? I'll go ahead and stipulate that I am in agreement that parties to any legal marriage should be consenting ADULTS, but I'm just curious as to why you believe it should be decriminalized yet not made legal.

I'll also stipulate to being severely menopausal and if you've already explained this, I am profoundly apologetic. 

I'm not sure there are tons of privileges for monogamous marriages, but as someone else pointed out, the biggest thing is next of kin and the legal right to make decisions with regard to your spouse's health, well-being, and possessions. Once married, those types of rights are automatically bestowed in the absence of other documentation. 

As for tax breaks, I did not see a huge increase in our tax refund after getting married. Plus, helping out families is certainly a good thing. Raising a family is expensive and they deserve it. And that's coming from someone who is married with no children. My parents had four kids and my mother stayed at home with us until the last one was in school full-time. My father worked hard to support us, and he deserved any breaks he could get.

I'm fine with the benefits that single parents get as well. It can't be easy raising children by yourself, and I have no problem with government assistance. As with anything else, fraud should be monitored and dealt with. If the government doesn't have the resources or the will to deal with fraud and abuse, well, that's the chance one takes. But that doesn't mean that honest people who are in real need should suffer because there are jerks gaming the system. 

Someone mentioned health insurance and how some premiums are high for all to make up for covering families. I'm sure that depends on one's provider - my husband's employer-provided insurance became free for him when he hit a certain amount of service hours; I'm on his policy and my coverage became free after a certain time as well. He only pays a nominal amount to keep us both covered for dental and vision. He also has a Flexible Spending card which gets loaded with a certain amount at the beginning of the year - that amount does not change, regardless of how many are in the family. So a single person would benefit more from that than a family. But our deductibles are ludicrous, of course.

Besides which, our health care system is a giant clusterf***k from top to bottom and honestly, at this point the whole thing should be thrown out and we should just start from scratch. Hospitals are a disgusting money grab and so are pharmaceutical companies and health insurance companies. If I stop to think about it for more than a minute my blood starts to boil.

Edited March 10, 2018 by Gothish520

[AdorkableWitch]

I am about as liberal as they come but I am against any kind of legalization of polygamy because it's almost exclusively practiced by groups that subjugate women and engage in predatory marriages of teenagers.  

[kicotan]

On 3/9/2018 at 7:35 PM, Kohola3 said:

Man, their lawyers would be racking up tons of hours trying to sort that mess out.

Indeed.  Between the sleazebag lawyers and the Therapist Nancy types, I'm actually surprised there hasn't been more support coming from both camps to promote the Brown Family's fight for legalized polygamy.  It's an untapped cash cow.  Entire firms and counseling centers could be dedicated to their legitimacy.

[kicotan]

17 hours ago, Gothish520 said:

I'm not sure there are tons of privileges for monogamous marriages,

There are over 1,000, but definitely less than the 2,000 lb. equivalent to be considered a "ton", lol.

"Prior to the enactment of DOMA, the GAO identified 1,049 federal statutory provisions in which benefits, rights, and privileges are contingent on marital status or in which marital status is a factor. An update was published in 2004 by the GAO covering the period between September 21, 1996 (when DOMA was signed into law), and December 31, 2003. The update identified 120 new statutory provisions involving marital status, and 31 statutory provisions involving marital status repealed or amended in such a way as to eliminate marital status as a factor."

Wiki article on the rights and responsibilities of marriages in the US

[kicotan]

5 hours ago, AdorkableWitch said:

I am about as liberal as they come but I am against any kind of legalization of polygamy because it's almost exclusively practiced by groups that subjugate women and engage in predatory marriages of teenagers.  

Thanks for sharing your viewpoint!

I'm all for voluntary and consensual participation of adults when it comes to either religion and/or legal marriage.  I've no idea what the statistics are as far as how many polygamist families are like the Brown's (participants are adults when they marry as well as it is their personal choice) vs. situations like Warren Jeff's flock (under aged and "assigned" a spouse).  I wouldn't want polygamy to be considered legal either if there was no distinction made between the two situations, just like currently legal monogamous marriages have to be entered into by consenting adults (even though the exact age of adulthood for the sake of marriage varies from state-to-state and with parental consent, 14 year old females can legally marry in states like South Carolina, for example).

Edited March 11, 2018 by kicotan

[Kohola3]

1 hour ago, kicotan said:

...14 year old females can legally marry in states like South Carolina, for example).

14 year old girls should be playing with dolls, not with dicks.  That's disgusting and another reason why the South is considered backward and ignorant by many - including me.  

[AZChristian]

3 hours ago, kicotan said:

There are over 1,000, but definitely less than the 2,000 lb. equivalent to be considered a "ton", lol.

"Prior to the enactment of DOMA, the GAO identified 1,049 federal statutory provisions in which benefits, rights, and privileges are contingent on marital status or in which marital status is a factor. An update was published in 2004 by the GAO covering the period between September 21, 1996 (when DOMA was signed into law), and December 31, 2003. The update identified 120 new statutory provisions involving marital status, and 31 statutory provisions involving marital status repealed or amended in such a way as to eliminate marital status as a factor."

Wiki article on the rights and responsibilities of marriages in the US

But that doesn't mean that all the provisions are pro-marriage.  I used to work at H&R Block during tax season.  There were quite a few tax benefits that benefitted "Head of Household" that married people weren't eligible for.  They were "contingent on marital status,' but beneficial because the taxpayer was NOT married.

[Kohola3]

4 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

There were quite a few tax benefits that benefitted "Head of Household" that married people weren't eligible for. 

But that does not include all single people.  You need to have dependents.

[kicotan]

1 hour ago, Kohola3 said:

14 year old girls should be playing with dolls, not with dicks.  That's disgusting and another reason why the South is considered backward and ignorant by many - including me.  

To be fair, New Jersey does it's share of child marriages as well as many other states, not in the south.

"...Fraidy Reiss, the founder of Unchained at Last, said she was "literally shaking" when she first obtained data for New Jersey, where her group is based.

Nearly 3,500 children married in the state between 1995 and 2012. 

“That number was so much higher than I had thought it would be,” she told Frontline. “Then, the fact that the children were as young as 13 and the fact that it was mostly girls married to adult men.”..."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/200000-children-married-us-15-years-child-marriage-child-brides-new-jersey-chris-christie-a7830266.html

[AZChristian]

2 minutes ago, Kohola3 said:

But that does not include all single people.  You need to have dependents.

I did not make that clear, but you are correct.  

[Roslyn]

On 3/9/2018 at 11:49 AM, xwordfanatik said:

@SongbirdHollow, what is a hand fasting ceremony?  I've never heard the term.

 

On 3/9/2018 at 1:15 PM, SongbirdHollow said:

A commitment ceremony in which the hands of you and your beloved are wrapped in ribbon as you 'tie the knot'. It's a neopagan/wiccan thing, I think.

Yes, Handfasting is a Pagan commitment or wedding ceremony.  It's origins goes back to the Celts and it was originally what we might call an engagement period.  Traditionally performed during the Beltane festivals (also known as May Day) which is one of the Goddess fertility celebrations (...young women dancing around the May Pole).  It was a Year and a Day commitment where a couple would dedicate themselves to each other for that time period, deciding to split up or move forward with their relationship after the passing of one year and one day. One of the parts of the ceremony is wrapping joined hands in a cord or sash of some kind.

I believe Anglicans also use joined hands wrapped in a sash in their marriage ceremonies as well, most likely from this much older tradition.

Today many Pagan weddings include the handfasting, but are also legal ceremonies, but anyone can perform the ceremony as they see fit.  At the end of the day a marriage is only the true commitment that the people involved make it.  In our society we have legal paperwork and hoops to jump through, but that doesn't make a legal marriage any more powerful to the people involved than the actual commitment they make to each other. 

As for the topic of the legalization of multiple wives.  I agree with the legal nightmares that could ensue.  Sure, there is always the contracts that could be made, but who is going to enforce that?  You can't marry three wives/husbands etc because you haven't sat down with a lawyer to eek out your marital stuff.  Plenty of monogamous marriages don't do wills and trusts and things, but the law is there for the spouse.  Goodness, if a man just had three wives and each wife decided to have two husbands each...well...that contract would look a whole lot more like setting up a corporation with a board of directors than a marriage.  I agree with the legal nightmare of it.

I have no problem with adults making adult decisions.  If you want to support a huge family with three women then that is your right.  My issues come into the fact that women don't always have the full ability to really make that decision for themselves.  If they have been raised from birth to believe their only worth is being a part time concubine and a full time broodmare, that they deserve to only produce children and don't even deserve attention from their husbands.  That they agree or "are to be destroyed"...well...THAT is the part that I have a problem with.  Being indoctrinated by a religion designed to suppress womens rights by training them to not believe they have any...that's the bigger issue.  But...how on earth do you do that when we have a freedom of religion and they push hard that this is their religion...and so is their right.

[Gothish520]

1 hour ago, kicotan said:

To be fair, New Jersey does it's share of child marriages as well as many other states, not in the south.

"...Fraidy Reiss, the founder of Unchained at Last, said she was "literally shaking" when she first obtained data for New Jersey, where her group is based.

Nearly 3,500 children married in the state between 1995 and 2012. 

“That number was so much higher than I had thought it would be,” she told Frontline. “Then, the fact that the children were as young as 13 and the fact that it was mostly girls married to adult men.”..."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/200000-children-married-us-15-years-child-marriage-child-brides-new-jersey-chris-christie-a7830266.html

I would certainly have no issue with raising the legal age of marriage to 18 in all states. No one should be getting married younger than that, with or without parental consent. I think the age of consent for sexual relations should also be 18 across the board.

[Gothish520]

5 hours ago, kicotan said:

There are over 1,000, but definitely less than the 2,000 lb. equivalent to be considered a "ton", lol.

"Prior to the enactment of DOMA, the GAO identified 1,049 federal statutory provisions in which benefits, rights, and privileges are contingent on marital status or in which marital status is a factor. An update was published in 2004 by the GAO covering the period between September 21, 1996 (when DOMA was signed into law), and December 31, 2003. The update identified 120 new statutory provisions involving marital status, and 31 statutory provisions involving marital status repealed or amended in such a way as to eliminate marital status as a factor."

Wiki article on the rights and responsibilities of marriages in the US

I've no problem with any of those rights. One's legal status as a spouse deserves consideration. How do you give rights to someone's Flavor of the Month? Sure, paperwork, power of attorney, blah blah blah. If you aren't willing to marry someone why would you give them Power of Attorney? Marriage is a legal contract and deserves to be honored as such. Which is exactly why it should be taken very seriously and not entered into lightly.

Edited March 11, 2018 by Gothish520

[xwordfanatik]

10 hours ago, AdorkableWitch said:

I am about as liberal as they come but I am against any kind of legalization of polygamy because it's almost exclusively practiced by groups that subjugate women and engage in predatory marriages of teenagers.  

I'm with you.  It's patriarchal bullshit so a horndog man can control more women and get sexual variety under the guise of "religion." 

[SunnyBeBe]

I've watched my fair share of tv shows on polygamists over the years.  Mostly due to TLC and it's penchant for this lifestyle, but, I have always wondered WHY Kody made the decision to really keep religion out of their show.  They throw in some words, but, they never really go into detail.  I've had a lot of questions too, over the years.  HOWEVER, I was pleasantly surprised to see a couple of husbands on Three Wives One Husband (TLC on last night) FINALLY answer some questions.  They and their wives explained WHY they must practice polygamy, WHY does God require it, what does he prepare you for in the afterlife, how does it make you better and why being happy in the marriage isn't the real goal?  ALL OF THESE QUESTIONS ANSWERED LAST NIGHT.  I highly recommend that show.  There is no thread for it yet, but, I might start one.  

Oh, these two families who are featured DO LIVE IN UTAH.  I think one of them spoke at the March in SLC featured on Sister Wives recently. 

[EtheltoTillie]

5 hours ago, SunnyBeBe said:

I've watched my fair share of tv shows on polygamists over the years.  Mostly due to TLC and it's penchant for this lifestyle, but, I have always wondered WHY Kody made the decision to really keep religion out of their show.  They throw in some words, but, they never really go into detail.  I've had a lot of questions too, over the years.  HOWEVER, I was pleasantly surprised to see a couple of husbands on Three Wives One Husband (TLC on last night) FINALLY answer some questions.  They and their wives explained WHY they must practice polygamy, WHY does God require it, what does he prepare you for in the afterlife, how does it make you better and why being happy in the marriage isn't the real goal?  ALL OF THESE QUESTIONS ANSWERED LAST NIGHT.  I highly recommend that show.  There is no thread for it yet, but, I might start one.  

Oh, these two families who are featured DO LIVE IN UTAH.  I think one of them spoke at the March in SLC featured on Sister Wives recently. 

I am trying to start one.  If you want, please add to my topics, as I am not very good at that.

[sharkerbaby]

It's already been requested.  Don't know if more voices would make it quicker.  I think I liked the post.

[kicotan]

If polygamy was acceptable in our society and not seen as something immoral/taboo then The Brown's probably wouldn't have such a following/ratings... or even a SHOW for that matter.  I'm pretty sure most of their trending revenue is propped up that way.

Scandal, taboos and sex SELLS.

 I'm actually surprised that there are so many people who believe this farce of a show actually depicts the reality of the majority of folks who practice plural marriage as Fundamentalist Mormons.

For me, it would be like believing the cast of "Jersey Shore" represents everyone that lives in New Jersey.

Edited March 20, 2018 by kicotan

[DakotaJustice]

10 hours ago, kicotan said:

If polygamy was acceptable in our society and not seen as something immoral/taboo then The Brown's probably wouldn't have such a following/ratings... or even a SHOW for that matter.  I'm pretty sure most of their trending revenue is propped up that way.

Scandal, taboos and sex SELLS.

 I'm actually surprised that there are so many people who believe this farce of a show actually depicts the reality of the majority of folks who practice plural marriage as Fundamentalist Mormons.

For me, it would be like believing the cast of "Jersey Shore" represents everyone that lives in New Jersey.

Which is exactly why I find the browns so odious. 

As others have said, they're the least religious people on TV. Aspyn's fiancee was able to give a better description of the AUB than Kody ever has in 8 years.

[kicotan]

25 minutes ago, DakotaJustice said:

Which is exactly why I find the browns so odious. 

As others have said, they're the least religious people on TV. Aspyn's fiancee was able to give a better description of the AUB than Kody ever has in 8 years.

Check out these doozies:

“It's not a hard-and-fast rule, but I believe that one of the key factors in being a good sister wife is having the ability to see the needs of another sister wife and considering her needs more important than your own.” 

“I would never trade my experience with sister wives and the wonderfully large and dynamic family we share for the simplicity of monogamy. I wouldn't trade it for anything in the world.” 

― Meri Brown, Becoming Sister Wives: The Story of an Unconventional Marriage (2012)

I'd LOVE to see an honest answer from Meri as to if she ever believed those two statements to be true and if so, does she still?

I remember back in the early seasons they showed them gathering together in one of their living rooms for "church", but it seems with the more recent seasons they've backed off from proselytizing anything other than the plural marriage part.  I'm not even sure if the AUB even counts them as members.