Judge won't dismiss suit against Utah bigamy law
SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — A federal judge has refused to dismiss a lawsuit filed by a polygamous family made famous by the reality TV show "Sister Wives."
U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups made the ruling Friday in the case filed by Kody Brown and his four wives — Meri, Janelle, Christine and Robyn. They've argued that Utah's bigamy law should be overturned because it violates their right to privacy.
Utah officials sought to have the suit thrown out. They first argued that the Browns couldn't challenge the bigamy law because they hadn't been charged. State attorneys later argued for dismissal because a prosecutor had pledged not to prosecute them for bigamy.
But Waddoups wrote in his ruling that the promise from the Utah County Attorney's Office appeared to be a ploy to avoid the suit.
U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups made the ruling Friday in the case filed by Kody Brown and his four wives — Meri, Janelle, Christine and Robyn. They've argued that Utah's bigamy law should be overturned because it violates their right to privacy.
Utah officials sought to have the suit thrown out. They first argued that the Browns couldn't challenge the bigamy law because they hadn't been charged. State attorneys later argued for dismissal because a prosecutor had pledged not to prosecute them for bigamy.
But Waddoups wrote in his ruling that the promise from the Utah County Attorney's Office appeared to be a ploy to avoid the suit.
Ha ha I'd love to say I'd like to have multiple wives but one good one is more than enough for me. That said to each their own. As long as its not some creep trying to force marriage on a 14 year old girl (consenting adults) I say leave them alone.
No offense ladies, but one women is enough, this guy is nuts.
I'm guessing the big one does the cooking?
"Hey! Stop violating our rights to privacy. We're doing a reality TV show here!"
I am going to go out on a limb here and guess that in this filing their right to privacy means freedom from government intrusion. Does that clear things up for folks?Â
 @justsaying well maybe just maybe we can get freedom from religious intrusion to go along with that....
By the way, they believe in a women having multiple husbands not just the other way around. Rare but does happen. Where does that fit in? It seems to me that the law was in place to keep it simple. Now it is going to be really confusing. Good for the lawyers though. LOL
This guy is just doing what a lot of men do already - maybe not wives legally, but a girlfriend or mistress on the side with a legal wife. He just wants to legalize it, it seems like. Although I had to kind of laugh with that 'right to privacy' in there - I mean, he's on TLC spouting about his life and now he wants privacy? LOL...
 @Elaine2 "This guy is just doing what a lot of men do already"
Wouldn't that be as valid for women as well?
Â
@OrcasThunder - absolutely! For every husband that's cheating, there's a wife cheating as well. :)
@Elaine2 Good point... I avoid reality shows and had completely forgotten about that show.
Yeah, if he's pimping his so-called 'lifestyle' on television for a buck, how can he claim privacy in it now?
So how are their civil rights not violated by not being allowed to marry and gays civil rights are being violated? Any answers? Or just crickets?
 @LockesChild They all look like they are over 21 to me. It would be impossible to tell from a photo but I have to assume they are all consenting adults. Since it doesn't look like anyone is under duress, unable to escape and in need of rescue, I don't see any need for any level of government to concern itself with these folks. If they want to have a legal group marriage, I don't care. I can think of no compelling interest on the part of the state to get involved in this stuff or deny adults the rights to choose whatever legal arrangement fits within their faith, the morals or their basic wishes.Â
@kennewickman @T H I S It really no ones business but theirs. I wouldn't because one wife is almost too much as it is, but they just like everyone should have the right to have as many wives, husbands, girlfriends, boyfriends, partners ect. I will not support that nut job that want to marry properties.Â
 @LockesChild If they want to all get married, go for it. Doesn't effect me any.
@LockesChild Because he already has one wife. As with most states, in the State of Mormon, err...Utah adultery is illegal. Ergo, keeping a wife, a mistress, a girlfriend and [apparently] a mistress' girlfriend is also illegal and more egregiously so.
Beyond that, Elaine2 brings up a good point. If this hillbilly is pimping his life out to TLC for a buck, how can he claim 'privacy' now?
 @svensson  @LockesChild Adultery laws are only in a little under half of states these days, and most of them have to do with grounds for divorce rather than straight prosecution.
 @svensson  @LockesChild And how is bigamy (not adultery) logically any different than gay marriage? People want to be married and society is choosing to deny them a basic human right to marriage. Or at least that is how gay marriage advocates frame the debate. Asserting that people can marry, just not more than one person at a time as an example of how his civil rights are not being violated is exactly like asserting that gays can marry--just someone of the opposite sex.
Â
As for the privacy claim--that is a good joke.
@LockesChild "There is every bit as much "human rights" allowing polygamy as there is in allowing gay marriage."
Actually, I tend to agree - and if you will support same-sex marriage I will support polygamy.
Just wondering, should "human rights" be affected by gender?
 @OrcasThunder and homosexual marriage was/is not illegal for everyone...equally? Of course it is.
Â
I support legalizing polygamy as much as I support legalizing homosexual marriage. There is every bit as much "human rights" allowing polygamy as there is in allowing gay marriage.
 @LockesChild "And how is bigamy (not adultery) logically any different than gay marriage?"
Are you supporting legalizing bigamy?
 @LockesChild As pointed out, the difference is that bigamy is illegal, no matter what the person's orientation.
For EVERYONE.
EQUALLY.
I wonder if these knuckleheads realize that even if they succeed in their case versus The Mormon Church, er.. the State of Utah, that Federal law still makes their arrangement illegal.
 @svensson Utah's bigamy law is not like most other states. They are not seeking to become legally married at this time.
Â
Utah's law allows them to prosecute ANYONE living with a person other than their spouse in the same household in a "marriage like relationship" under bigamy laws. That's in contrast to most states where bigamy only kicks in if you attempt to get legally married to more than one person.
Â
Under Utah's law if three or more adults live together and share a household, and someone thinks they're all getting busy or a little too cozy, they can be prosecuted under the law. Husband, wife, and his brother; two couples living together; and so on are all potentially prosecutable if the right(wrong?) prosecutor gets an itch that there might be something "more" going on.
Â
That's the problem here.
 @svensson Well, since disavowing bigamy was part of the deal to allow Utah to join the Union, maybe this is the real reason for the suit - to win, and be "forced" to leave the union...
And consider what THAT would do to a Willard R. Presidency...would he still be a US citizen?
 @OrcasThunder  @svensson Every bit as much as Barack. And not a stuttering incompetent like Barak either (though at least Barack isn't as insane as the Vice President).
Interesting how two of the women are clinging to him, and the other two are standing at a distance from their younger looking "sisters"...