Reality TV Cast Sues To Legalize Polygamy



The latest episode in Sister Wives is playing out in the courtroom, not on cable. On Wednesday, the Brown family — the husband, four wives, and 16 children who star in the reality TV show— plans to file a lawsuit in federal court in Utah. The family members say the state's anti-bigamy law is unconstitutional and that Supreme Court precedent backs them up.

Kody Brown and his family made their television debut on Sept. 26, 2010. "I'm a polygamist," said Brown. "But we're not the polygamists you think you know."

Brown and his four wives knew they were taking a risk when they signed the deal with the network TLC. But Robyn Brown, wife No. 4, told viewers they wanted to make a point.

"It's OK for us to live this way, honestly," she said. "I'm sorry — but this is a nation of freedom of choice. We should have this choice, and I want my kids to know that."

... This isn't about personal rights, says Marci Hamilton. It's about a state's ability to regulate marital relationships. Hamilton, an expert on polygamy law and a professor at Cardozo School of Law, says there is a mountain of evidence that polygamy is bad for women and children.


  1. Sarah
    Posted July 13, 2011 at 10:25 am | Permalink

    Actually no, NOM, as usual you have it completely wrong. Their suit WOULD NOT legalize polygamy--it would stop them from being investigated into their personal lives. They even admit in the interview they're not trying to legalize polygamy.

    You look more and more desperate every day. By the way, Canada celebrates 6 years gay marriage soon--where's the crumbling of society? Where's th destruction of straight marriages? (divorce rates have gone way down), where are the people marrying cats and chairs?

  2. Posted July 13, 2011 at 11:12 am | Permalink

    SSM's Slippery Slope.

  3. Comey Arifidly
    Posted July 13, 2011 at 11:52 am | Permalink

    They said it would not happen.. The fall of Rome

  4. Barb
    Posted July 13, 2011 at 12:06 pm | Permalink

    There's little doubt that this suit is a result of the perceived momentum of SS"M" in NY. Timing is everything. Now every nut in the country will crawl out of the woodwork to claim their "right" to marry anyone or anything they choose.

  5. Lisa
    Posted July 13, 2011 at 12:25 pm | Permalink

    There's a mountain of evidence showing how non-heterosexual practices carry high health risks, and how children deprived of having a father and mother lack in certain areas of their lives in the long run. But none of that has matter to impose gay marriage in certain states.

    Besides, like gay activists say, these people ( the polygamist ) are having and raising children already. So the cat's out of the bag. So why shouldn't they be allowed to marry ? Are they less human than gays ?

    Using the same arguments SSMers have used, there is no reason to deny it to them. After all, all of the participants in the ''marriage'' are adults, consenting to such a relationship.

    Using the same language of SSMers, Marci Hamilton arguments could be summed up as nothing more than bigotry against plural relatonships between consenting adults.

  6. Barb
    Posted July 13, 2011 at 1:03 pm | Permalink

    No doubt we'll be seeing all kinds of nuts coming out of the woodwork to claim their "right" to marry anyone or anything they choose.

  7. Randy E King
    Posted July 13, 2011 at 1:14 pm | Permalink

    Anyone else notice how the miscreants have disappeared from the blog just as soon as this report hit the newsstands? My bet is that the perverts have to huddle together and decide on how to best spin their response.

    After all; their entire movement is based on them controlling the language used in this debate.

  8. John
    Posted July 13, 2011 at 1:34 pm | Permalink

    i guess the homosexual commuity supports this, since they are for "marriage equality".

  9. Posted July 13, 2011 at 2:51 pm | Permalink

    You're lying. The lawsuit filed is not to legalize polygamous relationships through marriage, but to challenge a law in Utah that makes it illegal for a married man to cohabit with another woman.

    I am a gay man. I personally do not hold an opinion on polygamous households. As for polygamous civil marriage - that topic must stand on its own and has absolutely little to do with marriage equality for LGBT men and women.

  10. Lisa
    Posted July 13, 2011 at 3:53 pm | Permalink

    @ John: You'd be surprised at how hypocritical the homosexual ''community'' can be.

    "that topic must stand on its own and has absolutely little to do with marriage equality for LGBT men and women."

    I beg to differ:

  11. Posted July 13, 2011 at 5:18 pm | Permalink


    There is no hypocrisy. I cited my opinion. You can't take my opinion and someone else's opinion and then claim that because they differ, I'm a hypocrite.

    The fact remains: Sexual orientation and the quantity of people in a romantic relationship are unrelated. It truly has nothing to do with marriage equality for monogamous, gay couples.

  12. Louis E.
    Posted July 13, 2011 at 5:36 pm | Permalink

    There is no "equality" between the socially useful practice of opposite-sex relationships and the socially harmful practice of same-sex relationships.I am far more favorably inclined toward polygamous arrangements between consenting adults than I am toward ANYTHING same-sex.

  13. Lisa
    Posted July 13, 2011 at 7:04 pm | Permalink

    The fact remains: that opposite sex people of different races coming together as husband and wife to create and raise a new life and the practice of engaging in a relationship with someone of the same sex is completely unrelated. Yet SSMers have not shied away from drawing such false comparisons.

    The argument for legalizing Polyamo's into civil marriage however could be easily made on the same grounds as the ones in which gay ''marriage'' dictates are being currently done.

    Any SSMer trying to distance him or herself from that reality is threading on more than hypocrisy. By their own definition of people opposed to SSM on civic, nature's, scientific or religious grounds, SSMers are nothing more than Bigots when it comes to ''families'' like the Brown's.

  14. Lisa
    Posted July 13, 2011 at 7:18 pm | Permalink

    @Louis E. : I believe any redefinition of marriage between 1 man and 1 woman is destructive for our society. But if people like RJ are going to be dictating and harassing the rest of the population for one type of destructive imposition then they should be confronted and asked to explain themselves regarding the other lot of rotten apples that follows behind theirs.

  15. Marty
    Posted July 13, 2011 at 10:10 pm | Permalink

    "It truly has nothing to do with marriage equality for monogamous, gay couples."

    Just like Lawrence v Texas had nothing to do with marriage...

    Except as a stepping stone (well worn already).

    This will be theirs, using the exact same logic of Lawrence.

  16. Posted July 22, 2011 at 10:08 pm | Permalink

    They will have to convince the Supreme Court to overrule Reynolds v. United States </i, 98 U.S. 145 (1878) and Davis v. Beason , 133 U.S. 333 (1890), just as pro-SSM activists must convince the Supreme Court to overrule Baker v. Nelson , 409 U.S. 810 (1972)

    All inferior courts are bound by Reybnolds, Davis, and Baker .

Comments are temporarily disabled. Please try back later.