Ah, here’s a tricky one.
According to a report by Daniella Silva of NBC News:
A federal judge has found key parts of Utah’s anti-polygamy law to be unconstitutional, ruling in favor of a polygamous family known for their reality television show.
While all 50 states across the nation have laws against bigamy, prohibiting people from having multiple marriage licenses, the law went further in Utah, finding a person guilty of bigamy when a married person “purports to marry another or cohabits with another person.”
But Judge Clark Waddoups of the U.S. District Court in Utah ruled late Friday that the “cohabitation” provision of the law was unconstitutional because it violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, which guarantee freedom of religion and the right to due process. His 91-page ruling now criminalizes plural marriages only in the literal sense, through acquisition of multiple marriage licenses.
The decision follows years of litigation in a case brought forth by Kody Brown, a star of the TLC reality television show “The Sister Wives,” which chronicles the lives of Brown, his four wives and their 17 children. The Browns are members of the Apostolic United Brethren Church, a fundamentalist church that shares historical roots with Mormonism and believes that polygamy is a core religious practice.
Kody Brown made a statement, saying, “While we know that many people do not approve of plural families, it is our family and based on our beliefs. Just as we respect the personal and religious choices of other families, we hope that in time all of our neighbors and fellow citizens will come to respect our own choices as part of this wonderful country of different faiths and beliefs.”
The Principle Rights Coalition, a group with members from many of Utah’s polygamous churches and families, issued a statement praising the ruling:
For over 130 years, various state and federal statutes have targeted our deeply-held religious beliefs and family arrangements. These statutes were enforced arbitrarily and, by their vague and overbroad definitions, they brought fear into the lives of many families, prompting thousands to seek isolation rather than face selective prosecution. As Judge Waddoups observed in this case, convictions for unlawful cohabitation appear to have focused solely on Fundamentalist Mormons who were legally married to just one spouse.
…The impact of this decision is both immediate and yet to be realized. As a coalition, we will continue to seek broader acceptance through education and service, building bridges between a maligned culture and the rest of society. We remain committed to the right of all families to exist.
As might be expected, social conservatives lamented that this ruling indicates another slide down the “slippery slope” toward redefining marriage to mean anything people want it to mean. For example, CNN ran this quote:
This is what happens when marriage becomes about the emotional and sexual wants of adults, divorced from the needs of children for a mother and a father committed to each other for life,” said Russell Moore, of the Southern Baptist Convention. “Polygamy was outlawed in this country because it was demonstrated, again and again, to hurt women and children. Sadly, when marriage is elastic enough to mean anything, in due time it comes to mean nothing.
However, one commentator is of the opinion that his fellow conservatives are missing the point and missing an opportunity in this case. Napp Nazworth thinks that this ruling actually supports conservative values because it is, in reality, more about religious freedom than it is about the redefinition of marriage.
He notes that the judge did not strike down the right of the state to define marriage as it pertains to the issuance of marriage licenses. The judge also said there is no inherent right to polygamy. What he ruled unconstitutional was the part of the law that forbids cohabitation and “marriages” such as those that might be blessed in private religious ceremonies. The plaintiffs did not ask the state to endorse polygamy by issuing multiple marriage licenses; they only asked that they be free to live together according to the dictates of their religious beliefs. As Nazworth summarizes:
In other words, the judge makes clear that the state is not obligated to legally recognize a polygamist marriage, but if the fundamentalist Mormon Church, to which the defendants belong, want to recognize a polygamist marriage, which their beliefs encourage, they are free to do so.
Mr. Nazworth asserts that, by considering this decision a ruling about marriage, conservatives are contradicting their own arguments in other cases, such as the fight against the “birth control mandate” in the Affordable Care Act, where they insist upon the right not only to hold certain beliefs but also to practice them according to their religious convictions and traditions. This is inconsistent logic.
It appears that the issue of marriage is so important to its defenders that they are incorrectly viewing the Utah decision through that lens when they should be looking at it from the perspective of religious freedom, according to Nazworth’s reasoning. This case is not, in reality, about defining or redefining marriage but about having the liberty to practice one’s faith.
So, which will it be — guarding the traditional view of marriage? Or siding with the polygamists for religious freedom?
Isn’t that a fine pickle?
They say politics makes strange bedfellows.
Wouldn’t it be something if standing for religious freedom should lead the defenders of traditional marriage to crawl into the sack with Kody Brown and his sister wives?









