Polygamists Sue Utah

What will the Browns do to U(tah)? I have previously noted that one should never equate same-sex "marriage" to polygamy or incestuous marriage; the latter two have a global history as having been recognized as valid marriages and perpetuating society. They were organicly emerging constructs of marriage. The former is a recent notion invoked mostly to signify public approval of homosexual behavior and used as a political tool by the likes of people whose ideological predecessors were insisting marriage was dead and pointless. Now, "reality" television, the gift that keeps giving, has brought us Kody Brown and his plurality of wives, featured in "Sister Wives". More importantly, the Browns have just filed a lawsuit to overturn a law in the name of regaining their Constitutional rights to freedom of association

Both marriage defenders and marriage neuterists have linked this to the ongoing battle over neutering marriage or replacing marriage in law with pseudomarriage. Marriage defenders are saying "I told ya so." Some marriage neuterists are disavowing the legal or social connection to their push, even denouncing the Browns as strange (oh, the irony). Others are at least consistent enough to side with the Browns.

No, polygamy and incest are not the same thing as same-sex relationships. The first deals with number, the second with consanguity, the last with something that is, at the core, different than marriage. (When marriage defenders who believe sex is for marriage and marriage unites the sexes make the SSM-polygamy-incest-beastiality-Eiffel Tower argument, it sounds to some like a vegan who says that wearing wool will lead to eating cows will lead to torturing and killing endangered species for the mere fun of it.) What the real point is, is that SCOTUS allowed the banning of polygamous marriage and some states don't grant marriage licenses to first cousins; both are situations that have been historically and are currently (in many places in the world) recognized and sanctioned and widely practiced as marriage. And if there is such a fundamental right to a state marriage license that even a brideless or groomless couple can't be denied such a license, even though such relationships have only been considered marriage in a few places relatively recently, then how can the monogamy and nonconsanguinity requirements continue to be considered Constitutional?

Marriage is about integration. It integrates the lives of two individuals. It integrates their families. It integrates the sexes. That some states banned "interracial" marriage violated the principle of integration by trying to force segregation. When those laws were in place, cohabitation could banned. Thus, it was an actual ban on marriage, unlike say, Proposition 8 – the duly adopted California Marriage Amendment – which hasn't prevented anyone from having a ceremony and living together, calling each other "husband" or calling each other "wife", or enjoying the same treatment by the state as married couples via the state's domestic partnerships. A relationship without a bride or without a groom is segregationist, not integrationist. Thus, it violates the core and spirit of marriage if one tries to stuff it into that category and demand a state license. The principle of integration is one of the main reasons the state has an interest in distinguishing, sanctioning, and promoting marriage. It is also a reason why the state has an interest in denying marital status to one man and multiple women at the same time, or to incestuous couples. Society benefits when men and women from different clans pair off, form social-legal-financial bonds, and especially when they are sexually exclusive with each other and raise children together (as most marriages do), usually with the children as a biological combination of both families. The parents and grandparents grew up with the same genes, the same traits. Society benefits much less, if at all, if two men are engaging in sex-like behavior with each other rather than simply being buddies, roommates, or business partners.

The Associated Press has an article by Jennifer Dobner on the lawsuit by the Browns.

Attorney Jonathan Turley filed the lawsuit in Salt Lake City's U.S. District Court on Wednesday on behalf of Kody Brown and his four wives — Meri, Janelle, Christine and Robyn. Kody Brown is only legally married to Meri Brown.

The lawsuit asks a federal judge to declare Utah's bigamy statute, unconstitutional. Under the law, it is illegal for unmarried persons to cohabitate, or "purport" to be married. A person is also guilty of bigamy if they hold multiple legal marriage licenses.

The third-degree felony is punishable by up to five years in state prison. Both men and women can be prosecuted under the law, which also applies to unmarried, monogamous couples that live together.

This is not about marriage licenses. They are basically suing for the mere freedom of association and freedom of speech and freedom of religion. I think they have a legitimate case and I expect them to win. While I think homosexual behavior is harmful and believe in monogamy within marriage, I am also very much in favor of limiting government and I would never want to use the law to prevent two men or a man and four women from living together. (Of course, I also believe limited government means a property owner should be able to refuse to rent to anyone for any reason and most employers should be able to deny employment or end employment for any reason.)

So I do think the Browns should be left alone by the government, but anyone who has an existing marriage license should not be able to demand another one, just as I think two men should be left alone by the government, but should not be able to demand a marriage license since there is no bride.

Turley said the focus of the lawsuit is really privacy - not polygamy - and follows the principles of lawsuits like Lawrence v. Texas, the landmark 2003 U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down Texas' sodomy law and held that private intimate relationships between consenting adults was constitutionally protected.

Make no mistake, though. Like Lawrence, if the Brown's win this, it will be used in subsequent lawsuits demanding state and federal recognition of polygamous marriages.

"There's a host of constitutional problems when a state goes into a family and says your family has to look like ours. You have to live your life according to our values and our morals," Turley said.

Sounds familiar. I wonder where I've heard talk like that before?