• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Lehi police investigate 'Sister Wives' stars for bigamy

macike said:
Actually this seems like a bad case to go after. You are dealing with media celebs. The people involved are not committing fraud against the government (welfare, et el). The kids are not in danger. There seems to be no neglect. There does not appear to be any child in any way. The actions of the kids seem to show there does not seem to be problems. The sister wives are likable people. The husband seems a little over the top since he is in sales, he just might rub a few people the wrong way.

Overall this would seem like a loser of a case for the DA/state attny.

For the most time, they do not go after cases they cannot win on a slam dunk.
Click to expand...

And on the flip side of the argument, this is a case that they almost have to prosecute because it is being publicly done. Understand that I am not justifying the insane laws of Utah, but rather pointing out how that it is technically a crime, and one flaunted in front of the authorities faces. Just as if someone did a reality based show on how they pick pocketed people. The authorities would have to prosecute then.

And the legal authorities have been known to snoop around enough until they find something, or in the case of Texas, fabricate something.

And this also puts Utah in a precarious position in another regard as well: if they do not prosecute the Browns, then that will only encourage more people to come "out of the closet" to use a horrible metaphor, which would only diminish the law even more. However, if they do prosecute, then they run the very serious risk of losing the law(s) entirely, meaning that there would be possibly an influx of polygamists into the state, which is a possibility even if they do not prosecute.

Imagine if every family or individual on this group decided to move to Utah and set up residence by the end of next year. 2 things would happen that would be catastrophic to the status quo there:

1) They would have so many polygamists there including the Mormon polygamists that they could not really enforce the laws if they are still on the books, bringing even more attention to Utah for polygamy.

And

2) It would further dilute the base of both the LDS church as well as the political power-base that the church has. Imagine all the polygamous couples and the pro-polygamy individuals who are not LDS (remember, if you practice polygamy or even publicly support it, they do not consider you a member of the LDS church), and how we would vote not necessarily for the their approved candidates, as well as networking together to change laws and even posing the risk of having LDS people join our ranks in the pro-polygamy arena.

Money, Power, Control - three things the LDS church does not want to lose, but in this situation, it is a lose-lose situation for them. The fuse is lit, so the question is how long until it goes off?

Scott
 
The day I became aware of the investigation I sent an email to Utah County Prosecutor Tim Taylor:

Dear Mr. Taylor,

I read your name in an on line article about the show on TLC and the investigation it has spurred and therefore concluded that you might be the correct individual to contact.

I personally hope that Utah County files bigamy charges against Kody Brown. Not that I want Kody or his family to undergo the rigors of a legal battle with Utah County, but rather that the bigamy laws can be challenged in their constitutionality again. I would be one among many that would help support the defense of Kody and his family should you bring such charges against him, so don't feel like a bully; eventually to many you will be seen as an unsung hero. In the event that you find a way to avoid this situation it will provide more testimony for the legality of bigamy. You see, people will wonder why it was not prosecuted if it is indeed such a terrible crime, and therefore also wonder why it is still illegal at all. It is in your hands, either way...we win.

There is no question in my mind that the bigamy laws are unconstitutional, and eventually polygamists will get their day in court in front of a judge that sees these laws for what they really are, religious persecution and a violation of our rights which the constitution is supposed to be protecting. Eventually these bigoted and hateful unconstitutional laws will be struck down. If you doubt the bigotry involved read the testimony given when the bigamy laws were originally being debated.

I think as an attorney you might be very interested in this article from Jonathan Turley - the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington Law School. I took the liberty of underlining a number of things that I think deserve your attention:

Polygamy laws expose our own hypocrisy


By Jonathan Turley 10/3/2004


Tom Green is an American polygamist. This month, he will appeal his conviction in Utah for that offense to the United States Supreme Court, in a case that could redefine the limits of marriage, privacy and religious freedom.

If the court agrees to take the case, it would be forced to confront a 126-year-old decision allowing states to criminalize polygamy that few would find credible today, even as they reject the practice. And it could be forced to address glaring contradictions created in recent decisions of constitutional law.

For polygamists, it is simply a matter of unequal treatment under the law.

Individuals have a recognized constitutional right to engage in any form of consensual sexual relationship with any number of partners. Thus, a person can live with multiple partners and even sire children from different partners so long as they do not marry. However, when that same person accepts a legal commitment for those partners "as a spouse," we jail them.

Likewise, someone such as singer Britney Spears can have multiple husbands so long as they are consecutive, not concurrent. Thus, Spears can marry and divorce men in quick succession and become the maven of tabloid covers. Yet if she marries two of the men for life, she will become the matron of a state prison.

Religion defines the issue

The difference between a polygamist and the follower of an "alternative lifestyle" is often religion. In addition to protecting privacy, the Constitution is supposed to protect the free exercise of religion unless the religious practice injures a third party or causes some public danger.

However, in its 1878 opinion in Reynolds vs. United States, the court refused to recognize polygamy as a legitimate religious practice, dismissing it in racist and anti-Mormon terms as "almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and African people." In later decisions, the court declared polygamy to be "a blot on our civilization" and compared it to human sacrifice and "a return to barbarism." Most tellingly, the court found that the practice is "contrary to the spirit of Christianity and of the civilization which Christianity has produced in the Western World."

Contrary to the court's statements, the practice of polygamy is actually one of the common threads between Christians, Jews and Muslims.

Deuteronomy contains a rule for the division of property in polygamist marriages. Old Testament figures such as Abraham, David, Jacob and Solomon were all favored by God and were all polygamists. Solomon truly put the "poly" to polygamy with 700 wives and 300 concubines. Mohammed had 10 wives, though the Koran limits multiple wives to four. Martin Luther at one time accepted polygamy as a practical necessity. Polygamy is still present among Jews in Israel, Yemen and the Mediterranean.

Indeed, studies have found polygamy present in 78% of the world's cultures, including some Native American tribes. (While most are polygynists — with one man and multiple women — there are polyandrists in Nepal and Tibet in which one woman has multiple male spouses.) As many as 50,000 polygamists live in the United States.

Given this history and the long religious traditions, it cannot be seriously denied that polygamy is a legitimate religious belief. Since polygamy is a criminal offense, polygamists do not seek marriage licenses. However, even living as married can send you to prison. Prosecutors have asked courts to declare a person as married under common law and then convicted them of polygamy.

The Green case

This is what happened in the case of Green, who was sentenced to five years to life in prison. In his case, the state first used the common law to classify Green and four women as constructively married — even though they never sought a license. Green was then convicted of polygamy.

While the justifications have changed over the years, the most common argument today in favor of a criminal ban is that underage girls have been coerced into polygamist marriages. There are indeed such cases. However, banning polygamy is no more a solution to child abuse than banning marriage would be a solution to spousal abuse. The country has laws to punish pedophiles and there is no religious exception to those laws.

In Green's case, he was shown to have "married" a 13-year-old girl. If Green had relations with her, he is a pedophile and was properly prosecuted for a child sex crime — just as a person in a monogamous marriage would be prosecuted.

The First Amendment was designed to protect the least popular and least powerful among us. When the high court struck down anti-sodomy laws in Lawrence vs. Texas, we ended decades of the use of criminal laws to persecute gays. However, this recent change was brought about in part by the greater acceptance of gay men and lesbians into society, including openly gay politicians and popular TV characters.

Such a day of social acceptance will never come for polygamists. It is unlikely that any network is going to air The Polygamist Eye for the Monogamist Guy or add a polygamist twist to Everyone Loves Raymond. No matter. The rights of polygamists should not be based on popularity, but principle.

I personally detest polygamy. Yet if we yield to our impulse and single out one hated minority, the First Amendment becomes little more than hype and we become little more than hypocrites. For my part, I would rather have a neighbor with different spouses than a country with different standards for its citizens.

I know I can educate my three sons about the importance of monogamy, but hypocrisy can leave a more lasting impression.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington Law School.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/co ... rley_x.htm

If there is a web site or blog where updates are posted as to the status of the investigation and the intent to prosecute I would greatly appreciate a reply with that information.

Please give us the opportunity to address the unconstitutional bigamy laws in Utah County.

I have been researching biblical polygamy from the perspective of the Christian Bible as a Christian for about two years now. I have come to the conclusion that from a truly biblical perspective there is no prohibition against what is called polygyny today, a man with more than one wife. What I have become aware of is that the early church, as it grew up in Rome, had Roman culture and law forced upon it. Eventually these cultural and legal influences became codified into the doctrine of the church by the 6th century. Monogamy has never been a biblical mandate, yet it has been instituted throughout most Catholic and Christian organizations out of ignorance.

Josephus, late in the first century, states "for it is the ancient practice among us to have many wives at the same time." in "The Antiquities of the Jews" volume 17 chapter 1.

"it is" is present tense meaning that it was being currently practiced when Josephus wrote this in the first century, the very century in which Jesus walked the Earth. In fact Josephus was Jewish and clearly the practice of men having more than one wife was commonly practiced in the regions that Jesus inhabited. "the ancient practice" indicates that it was nothing new and had been practiced throughout known history.

Along with other extra biblical evidence that polygyny was commonly practiced how is it that polygyny is thought of as sinful or anything but biblical? Should you desire material to research this very thing I can provide you with numerous links to information available on the Internet. I think that you are an intelligent man or you wouldn't be in the position you currently have with the County of Utah. I am convinced that you would reach the same conclusions that I have if you invest some time into the resources I could provide. You see, I believed as you probably do, and as the church teaches people to believe. It was not until a Muslim gentleman asked the question "Why is it that the Christians condemn a man for having more than one wife when their scriptures do not?" that I even investigated the topic. I went straight to my Bible to find verses showing it to be sinful. What I found was that there is not one instance where a man repents for having more than one wife as if it were sinful, where a prophet confronts a man for having more than one wife as if it were sinful, or where God himself makes any statement that it is sinful. I was also surprised to find a number of verses that actually instructed men in the practice.

Why is it that polygyny is not recognized as marriage based on the fact that it was the custom and part of the culture? Clearly without the interference of other cultures (Roman culture in particular) this would still be a common practice today and be considered a cultural norm. Polygamy in the United States was made illegal by men based on their understanding of an errant Christian doctrine. The bigamy laws were a successful attack on the LDS church in the mid 1800s and were motivated by religious doctrine, not the concern for public safety. The first amendment was hardly 60 years old when men in power completely ignored it to pursue a religious witch hunt against the LDS church. Eventually this will be seen as a blemish on the history of our country. Mind you that I am a devout Christian.

I am not that familiar with the FLDS or the LDS religion but have a basic understanding of both. One thing that puzzles me – why is it that those who claim that they don’t want to practice this form of marriage think it is their responsibility to ensure that nobody else does?

I eagerly await your reply, thank you very much for taking the time to address my concerns.

(my full legal name)

I have yet to receive any reply, and doubt that I will.
 
Regardless...Green was/is a documented pedophile, I don't think they can bring that charge against Kody. Prosecutors have relied on a combination attack in the cases they have prosecuted. By far their favorite charge is under age marriage which plays well to the public. If they try hard enough and look close enough I am sure they will be able to find something to charge him with - maybe a burned out tail light on his car...in any case I think we will see this whole thing boil over in the very near future; if not with Kody it will be someone else. Nevertheless the exposure of polygamy to the public and numerous individuals such as those here on this site will bring it to the forefront of issues at hand that need to be dealt with. This is our time in history, it is happening now.
 
A rant

scarecrow']The day I became aware of the investigation I sent an email to Utah County Prosecutor Tim Taylor: [/quote] Great letter. [quote="mrscottyl said:
And on the flip side of the argument, this is a case that they almost have to prosecute because it is being publicly done. Understand that I am not justifying the insane laws of Utah, but rather pointing out how that it is technically a crime, and one flaunted in front of the authorities faces. Just as if someone did a reality based show on how they pick pocketed people. The authorities would have to prosecute then.

And the legal authorities have been known to snoop around enough until they find something, or in the case of Texas, fabricate something.
Click to expand...

IANAL - and this is not legal advice

Second point first: I agree. we all break a heard of laws every single day. There are to many laws on the books for you not to break a law or 10 every day. I hope he knows the number one rule of talking with police. Do not ever ever ever ever for any reason talk with police unless you have full transactional immunity. And that Texas case pissed me off.

However, his (state attny) justification is simple. They want bigger crimes. I agree I want the law challenged and over turned, not because I am a huge poly follower or anything. However, anything that infringes upon freedom is wrong. Two basic law: do not harm another person and their property AND do all you have said that you are going to do (credit: Richard Maybury).

There is no crime being committed as none of the kids are being unsafe. And look at all the footage they have. There are 100s if not 1000s of hours of tape of interactions with kids. Trying to prove abuse would be very hard when every minute of your life is being taped by at least two cameras. Kody and the women have entered into a private contract as willing and consenting adults. the government should have no say. I do not care how these people live, who they have sex with and the govt. has no place in my bedroom.

Would they care if Kody had one wife and every other night he brought home a non-virtuous from the local bar and shagged her? No. Instead what go after (is illegal) people with honor and virtue who are in an honorable and committed relationship.

Since I am in SD, a non-common marriage law state, I look at this as what law is broken. Are they legally married with govt. permission. No. When I was married many moons ago, we got the permission. Today we both agree ^$&@#$ (since it is family site and I seldom if ever swear) the state's permission and we would 'live in sin' without a piece of paper. We still would have done everything else the same. Would we be any less hitched without our trip to the courthouse. OF course not.

Yes there is statute crime committed, however do they want to risk losing that and actually going to SCOTUS. I think not.

Lastly the pickpocket or burglar is actually harming people. There would be actual victims who would be hurt and harmed. Not to mention, some shmoe decides to pickpocket me and gets caught, he says he learned everything from the show. Now I am a second set of victims and they SHOULD have liability. However, who is harmed here? Statute law? The State of Utah? The US Govt.? President Obama? Hence the problem with statute laws when there is no real victim.

Again IANAL - I am philosopher, historian, teacher, and theologian.
 
Not sure if someone posted this elsewhere but the Brown's have hired a nationally renowned contitutional law professor/attorney, Jonathan Turley. Hmm, are the Browns planning on starting a constitutional challenge to bigamy laws? Well the Lehi police department and Utah County Attorney's office chicken out (ahem .. drop their charges) for some reason, we'll see!

Here's the article...
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/entertainm ... r.html.csp
---------------------------

To add to the above here's another excerpt from KSL channel 5 News in Salt Lake City, Utah:

"Bigamy is a third-degree felony under Utah law punishable with up to five years in jail," Turley wrote. "The use of this statute to prosecute the Browns would be in my view unconstitutional. It would also end a long-standing policy to confine prosecutions to those who abuse children or commit such crimes as fraud."

Source: http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=12737514
 
"Kody and the women have entered into a private contract as willing and consenting adults. the government should have no say."

macike...were you Martin Luther in a previous life? ; D

“I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in the matter.”

Martin Luther 10 November 1483 - 18 February 1546
 
Gosh, those ghastly mono women are so tiresome....however, they don't know how mouthy I am....but they'll learn. :twisted:


Anyway, I am glad they (the Browns) are represented by someone who doesn't have a personal investment in polygamy but does have a personal investment with human rights. They can't accuse him of being partisan.
 
Well said , Isabella!
 
I'm not sure if they (Utah officials) will be able to squirm their way out of prosecuting something that has become so public. Even if they do they create the argument that the bigamy laws should be overturned because they are not willing to enforce them.
 
Now After Four . . .

I re-watched the episodes looking for abuse or neglect danger areas. Keep in mind most of the episode does not focus on the house and interactions and we are watching just a small fragment of their lives. I do wish we got a better and careful look at the house.

However, there was positive doll play. always a good thing. Kids seem to interact well. I still do not see anything that could be considered abuse or neglect.

I think the good news, for those here on BF, is if the state of Utah goes after them . . . the only charge looks like is the PM issue. I just hope the Browns have overpaid all their taxes.

Again we have only seen 2.5 hours and we can only go off of edited videos.
 
Scarecrow said:
I'm not sure if they (Utah officials) will be able to squirm their way out of prosecuting something that has become so public. Even if they do they create the argument that the bigamy laws should be overturned because they are not willing to enforce them.
Click to expand...

I wondered about this as well. Then the thought hit me. If they are NOT charging everyone else in that area with the same crimes who are committing it, then the Browns can take them to court over it. They have to do the same to everyone, if not, its prejudice.
 
With Kody's situation (and Jonathan Turley hired to represent him and his family...WOW!!!), and the case in Texas (Kent A. Schaffer representing them...another WOW!!!) ...I think this whole thing is about to boil over...I don't see any way for the government to continue to impose the bigamy laws...we just have to wait and watch the show... : ) If they (the government) are smart they will learn from other recent developments and not waste too much time and effort fighting this, but allow it to follow its natural course in allowing us the right to marry, a right the bigamy laws took from us.

The positive aspect is that soon, with the bigamy laws overturned as unconstitutional, we will be able to petition our local governments for licenses, and when refused begin "phase 2". Upon completion of that then those abusing the system can be weeded out and biblical marriage will eventually set the standard for and become the Cadillac of marriage... : D
 
Lol, See, I mentioned this months ago. Hit them from many states at the same time. They wont have too many options. Now if we could only get more from other states to do it as well then it would over turn the laws. If I had the money, I would start it here in NC and see what I can do here.
 
Information About Avoiding Prosecution

I have a simple question.

If it's an illegal practice, why as Christians do we share little pointers in order to keep from being prosecuted?

Isn't that the same thing that illegal groups do, pressing the edges of 'legality' all the while continuing their illegal activities?

Aren't we to abide by the laws of the land, except in those cases that the Lord's Commands are otherwise?

But really, should we as Christians be discussing and sharing information that condones illegal activities?
 
Hey Chris,

Good question. I can't respond to all of it here but here are just a few pointers to think about.

First, what do you think of the Evangelicals (William Tyndale, John Wycliffe, and numerous Anabaptists) in history who were burned and beaten and thrown in jail for translating the Bible into the common man's English when the King and Pope (the government of the land at that time) forbid them from doing so? Do you agree that they were doing what God desired of them or not?

Second, do you agree that Daniel in the OT was justified and right before the Lord to pray to God and not to the King even when the law of his land mandated that he only pray to the King?

Third, what if the three branches of government do not agree on what is or is not illegal in this area? For example, what if there are still some laws on the legislative books that neither the executive branch of government enforces nor that the courts will apply? If two branches of government refuses to enforce the written law is that law still a valid law for the time? Or is it an archaic law like many others that are on many state law books that are no longer enforced or used?

Fourth, what if the issue is one of terms and not one of practice? In other words, what if the government does not prosecute people for consensual sexual relations by consenting adults so long as they do not use a specific set of terms (like husband and wife)? Does that make a difference? As it appears the government rarely, maybe nowhere now, prosecutes consenting adults from sexual relations so long as they are responsible and free from coercion or criminal violations such as drugs or other circumstances causing the act to take place. But the conflict arises when certain terms are used. What if a man and women come together in consensual unions before God and each other and use only terms that do not violate the statutes of the land (an article is forthcoming on this soon by myself and Dr. Raegean on this very subject)? If you read the story of Isaac and Rebekah of Genesis 24 you can see that they came together in an honorable union without any ceremony. And if you remove the idea that one MUST have a marriage license then what law is there that keeps a man and woman or a man and women from uniting in a biblical union?

Just some preliminary questions for some thought there. I'd love to get your ideas on these questions as these play into this subject. I agree with you 100% that we are to be subject to the ruling authorities and that we must honor them. Granted, you'll probably run into some who are disrespectful to the government and who will rant and rave about how corrupt they are etc etc. but no matter how corrupt they are they are still in place because God has placed them there (see Rom. 13). Thus honor and respect is due to them no matter what.

But the real question is: can this lifestyle be practiced while at the same time showing honor and respect to the government and if not is there room for a higher law in the Bible to take precedence over a lower law of government (like in Daniel's case or in the case of Acts 4 where Peter and the apostles disobeyed gov. in order to obey God)? That is the real question at hand.

Your thoughts?
 
"Granted, you'll probably run into some who are disrespectful to the government and who will rant and rave about how corrupt they are etc etc."

Hey! I resemble that remark!!! well, at least at times... : )

"if you remove the idea that one MUST have a marriage license"

See my avatar... : D ...just so there is no confusion, I took an image of a Colorado license plate, superimposed the word "MARRIAGE" and gently attached it to her "bumper". If anyone out there actually feels the need to have a "Marriage License" and I get enough requests I'll print some up and make them available... ; )

Sorry, couldn't resist...I'm in a really good and kind of silly mood this morning...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top