Sister Wives Brown family suing the state of Utah to overturn bigamy law


As we saw on TLC’s Sister Wives last season, the Brown family was under investigation in their native Utah for felony bigamy after they went public as a family with four wives, one doofus of a husband, and 17 kids. They moved to Las Vegas as a hectic and ill-thought-out temporary solution to the investigation, which of course ended up going nowhere with the Browns cleared of charges. Well now the Browns are suing the state of Utah, and the county from which they fled, in an attempt to overturn the bigamy laws there which make their particular living arrangement a felony:

Kody Brown and his four wives just want to live like any other family — free from the threat of being tossed in prison.

But in Utah, just claiming to have more than one wife is a third-degree felony punishable by a sentence of up to five years.

The polygamous family, stars of the TLC show “Sister Wives,” has sued Utah and the county they fled from, hoping to persuade a federal judge to overturn the state’s bigamy law as unconstitutional.

The case could potentially decriminalize a way of life for tens of thousands of Mormon fundamentalists practicing polygamy, most of whom live in Utah.

The state, meanwhile, has publicly said it won’t prosecute consenting adult polygamists unless there are other crimes involved, but insists the law doesn’t overreach.

“It is not protected under religious freedom because states have the right to regulate marriage,” said Paul Murphy, spokesman for Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff.

Utah County Attorney Jeff Buhman in May announced he closed his criminal investigation into the Browns and simultaneously adopted the same state policy. The county then moved to have the lawsuit dismissed, claiming the Browns no longer have standing since they aren’t subject to prosecution.

During a hearing Wednesday in federal court in Salt Lake City, a judge repeatedly asked state prosecutors why he shouldn’t allow the case to move forward.

U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups said it appeared as if the state policy and the ensuing declaration by Utah County was “simply a ruse to avoid having the issue reviewed.”

“What’s the policy reason behind this … that would give assurances that similar prosecutions will not be pursued in the future?” Waddoups asked. “What about the next couple?”

Assistant Attorney General Jerrold Jensen, arguing on behalf of Utah County, said there is none, but noted there are at least 30,000 practicing polygamists in Utah.

“They are not being prosecuted,” Jensen said. “Utah County does not want to prosecute people for the practice of polygamy, period.”

Jensen could not say the threat of prosecution of other polygamous families had been entirely removed, but reiterated state policy.

“The plaintiffs here are not going to be prosecuted therefore the case is moot,” he said.

Earlier this year, Waddoups released Shurtleff and Gov. Gary Herbert from the case, citing the state policy that polygamists won’t be prosecuted for violating the bigamy law alone. He allowed the case to continue against the county because, at the time, prosecutors there had not made the same declaration.

The Browns’ attorney, Washington, D.C., constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley, argued Brown and his wives — Meri, Janelle, Christine and Robyn — remain victims and continue to live under the stigma of being considered felons.

They fled Utah last year and are now living in Nevada.

Turley also questioned both the state and county policies, noting neither is legally binding.

“It does not guarantee that the Browns or anyone else won’t be prosecuted,” Turley said Wednesday, adding that the policies are “clearly an effort to evade a ruling in this case.”

The judge said he would decide later whether to allow the case to continue.

Turley argues that under previous U.S. Supreme Court rulings, such as one that struck down Texas’ sodomy law, private intimate relationships between consenting adults are constitutionally protected.

While all states outlaw bigamy, some like Utah have laws that not only prohibit citizens from having more than one marriage license, but also make it illegal to even purport to be married to multiple partners. Utah’s bigamy statute even bans unmarried adult couples from living together and having a sexual relationship.

The Brown’s lawsuit doesn’t aim to challenge Utah’s right to refuse recognition of multiple licenses, nor are the Browns seeking them, Turley said.

[From TV.Yahoo.com]

I have mixed feelings about this. I think consenting adults should have the right to live together in these type of arrangements without fear of prosecution. I totally agree that it should be decriminalized. The Brown family has said that they support gay marriage, and that they see parallels in their situation with the fight for gay marriage rights. I think that’s a big leap. There’s a difference between two adults entering into a committed relationship and obtaining legal rights as a couple, and any number of adults trying to achieve those same rights as some kind of extended family. I don’t think they should have to worry about going to jail for it by any means, and that’s their goal with this lawsuit. They’re not asking for full marriage rights at all. The issue with the polygamous compounds in which young girls and boys are abused is an entirely different one.

Getting back to the Browns, I find Kody to be a total hypocrite. It’s fine for him to have four wives and counting, but when anyone dares question him about his wives taking other husbands he gets all indignant and worked up about it. In his feeble mind that’s entirely different and offensive to consider.

Also, I believe that the Browns should have stayed in Utah during the bigamy investigation and dealt with the situation there. Instead they picked up their 17 kids at the time, told them they couldn’t tell anyone they were leaving or say goodbye to their friends, and moved to Las Vegas. They needed the move as a plot point for their show of course, but at what cost to their kids? It all ended up turning out fine in Utah, but they’d had a taste of reality show fame and cash and Kody wanted to live in Vegas. Are they going to move back to Utah if they successfully overturn the bigamy laws there? I doubt it.

These photos are from 4-14-12 and 10-9-10. Credit: FameFlynet

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

23 Responses to “Sister Wives Brown family suing the state of Utah to overturn bigamy law”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Joanna says:

    omg what do they see in him?

  2. cmc says:

    I agree with you, CB. It’s a stretch to compare it to gay marriage, but they are all consenting adults and they shouldn’t be thrown in jail for having an unconventional lifestyle. I like that they are self-aware enough to not push for full marriage rights.

    Sometimes it kind of feels like there is a line for rights in the US, and you won’t get yours/get your turn until the group in front of you does :-/

    • Jenni says:

      I know “Big Love” is just fiction, but I liked the way that the family in that show pressed for their rights and at the same time worked on trying to make things better for people at the awful compounds–getting legislation passed to fund shelters and get an underground railroad of sorts to rescue people who wanted to leave the compounds. I agree that consenting adults should be able to live free from the threat of prosecution.

    • Marcella says:

      Legalizing gay marriage opens the door to others filing marriage discrimination suits. One can’t spout “Marriage is for Everyone”, and then say “Oh but we didn’t mean you.” By saying everyone has an equal right to marriage, you MEAN EVERYONE. Get ready for a lot of lawsuits from multiple spouses, people that want to marry their siblings, plastic sex dolls, their animals, and who knows what else. It’s inevitable. The most disgusting part is yet to come when pedophiles use the opened door to say that what they do is “natural”.

      • Stan lee says:

        There is a HUGE difference between a marriage between consenting partners and a marriage between an adult and child or an adult and an inanimate object. Your slippery slope argument takes you right off a cliff. Of crazy.

      • KaitX says:

        Marcella- you’re a twit.

      • Marcella says:

        *shrug* Ahhh…the same words people use to bash Christians…Never said it was my pov that all those things need to happen. Just saying that there will be those that use the homosexual argument to bring their marriage cases to court. Slam me all you want.

      • Axis2ClusterB says:

        The thing about this arguement that is so absolutely ridiculous… Y’know what? Never mind, because people like you don’t care about well thought out, reasoned discussion. I’m just going to agree with the person who said you’re a twit, and go on about my day.

      • Chordy says:

        Marcella – You’re employing a very simple slippery slope argument, which is considered an informal logical fallacy, and it holds no water in a reasonable argument. Comparing a relationship between two sound of mind, consenting adults to predatory and abusive behavior is logically incorrect, and you’re allowing prejudice a louder voice than basic reason. An adult human being is capable of deciding who he or she is going to partner with, but a child or an animal are not. So do you think of homosexual adults to be more like dogs or more like adult humans? Do you think that homosexual adults should forfeit their basic rights as American adults because some predators MAY use the fallacious logic of gay marriage to justify their own predatory behavior? Do think “the courts” could be wise enough to see this fallacious argument? Or are we just tossing garbage at a wall to see what sticks?

      • Jenna68 says:

        Just to back Stan up here, a child, dog, etc… cannot legally enter into a binding contract in this country, which marriage, while also being a religious sacrament for some, is, so that argument is invalid.

      • Julianna says:

        Marcella, you may just be ahead of your time. These “progressives” chide and name-call you now, but I bet you in 25 years the progressive will be championing some of the others you’ve mentioned. Let’s just hope the children’s rights remain sacred, nothing else is these days. The idea of devotion and loyalty is very skewed these days, and I doubt “true love” ever comes in to play with this group, more like a business.

    • Canda says:

      I don’t think it’s a stretch at all. Gay and polygamous people are all consenting adults choosing to enter into a relationship that works for them. What’s the difference? I don’t understand or agree with the whole multi-wife, half-sibling commune type lifestyle, but to be in favour of homosexuals having full rights and being “no different” than straight couples, and then turning around and sticking your nose up at the polygamy thing is HYPOCRITICAL. The subject of gay marriage is a question of gender, the polygamy thing is a question of numbers. Since the doors have been opened from defining marriage as a man & woman combination, nobody has the right to pick and choose who else can be considered acceptable. These people apparently like this lifestyle and are happy, so what’s the problem?

  3. Kaboom says:

    There mere threat of selective prosecution is enough to move this case forward. As long as the law is on the books, nobody is safe. I also don’t see how the DA’s office gets to choose which laws to enforce and which to ignore. They can prioritize due to limited resources but a declaration of non-prosecution clearly oversteps their mandate.

    • Andi says:

      The DA can choose to not enforce a law as a way to avoid having to fight these kind of legal battles. Plenty of states have insane laws on the books (like making any kind of non-missionary sex illegal). If no one has anything on the line so to speak then the State can’t be sued for a potential (but unlikely) future event. It usually works but in this case the timing is very suspicious. That islikely why the judge let the case move forward anyway.

      Just the opinion of someone with enough law school to make her dangerous. 😉

    • Emily says:

      I’ve never understood this either, when it comes to polygamy. How can you define what it is and then decide who is really doing it and who you can ignore? Most of these polygamists aren’t legally marrying anyone but their first wife, so how can the state intervene on a partnership that doesn’t legally exist? You could argue that lots of married men simultaneously have partners and wives. Would that be polygamy? If not, what is the state taking issue with, with the Browns? That they all lived together? If they have to prioritize cases, how is this one top priority?

      I get that they might have asked for it by exposing themselves on TV, but I don’t understand how the state can decide what’s polygamous and (to put it bluntly) what’s just a bunch of adults living together and having sex sometimes.

      • cleak says:

        The issue is exactly that they were flashing their lifestyle to the media. I spoke to the head of the Dept within the Utah AG’ s office over the polygamy issue. He said that if everyone was a consenting adult when marriage occurred, there was not any abuse and no one was defrauding welfare, then there was no threat of prosecution. The execption was if someone started flaunting to the media, and then the state has no choice.
        You have to keep in mind that the Browns are really the best case scenario. There are groups that are just scary and abusive in every which way. Also because the marriages beyond the first are only spiritual there is a law that it is illlegal to cohabitate with a romantic opposite sex partner who is not a legal spouse. This law is never enforced unless in polygamy cases, for which it was created in the first place.

  4. Cathy says:

    I don’t like them, and I don’t care for what he stands for. If he can have more than one wife, they should be free to have more than one husband. But it’s their life and if that’s the way they want to live, it’s no skin off my back. Different strokes for different folks I guess.

  5. SmokeyBlues says:

    The wives are obviously not fulfilled as indicated by their weight. No happy wife looks like that. And the new wife Robin is just a putz. I agree that concenting adults should be allowed to do as they wish, so long as children are properly and safely raised within the situation. But to my eyes, these particular women are not happy. They are overweight and miserable.

  6. bettyrose says:

    In any state besides Utah, anyone can call whomever they want their “wife.” That is freedom of speech, not bigamy. Utah’s more complex laws come as a minor step toward addressing 100 years of horrific abuses towards young girls (and even adult women who’ve been brain washed since birth to not expect love or respect in a marriage). If the Browns truly care about legitimizing their, er, lifestyle, they’ll stay out of Utah. They’ll model their unique dynamics in a state with less institutionalized pedophilia – rather than creating more problems by trying to overturn laws created to protect children.

  7. JoeBanana says:

    Isn’t that like waving at a cop while you smoke a joint?

  8. mia says:

    All I know is Robin or is it Robyn better watch out cuz Kody seems to make women gain weight. And not just in the baby way either.

  9. Crystalline says:

    Robin has certainly put on weight. Looks like he will probably add a 5th wife shortly then.

    Also: look at his gut. Damn, is he carrying his babies now? Because he should to learn a lesson about popping out too many kids without the money to support them.

  10. the original bellaluna says:

    The sketchy way they handled the Utah investigation made the situation worse, imo. They were also grossly unfair to all the children. (Frankly, I don’t think a single one of those kids’ reactions was inappropriate.)

    But is that really a surprise, considering how selfish Kody is? HE wanted to move to Vegas. Of course.

    I hope some of his wives (at least HALF of them) decide to welcome a new husband or two into their lives. 😀 Then I might watch!