 |
| TLC's Sister Wives (Kody + wives) |
The family is a polygamist family (with the show starting out in Utah). There is one man (Kody Brown) and his four sister wives: Meri, Janelle, Christine and Robyn. There are also 16 children ranging from a baby to one about 17 or so.
The first season culminated in the marriage of Kody to the most recent "wife" Robyn and the birth of a child by another wife. The second season sees the Browns heading out of Utah because, surprise, surprise, the airing of their TV show alerted the Utah authorities to their status and they began an investigation (see my thoughts on this from a while back here). The Brown's skipped town and moved to Vegas - yanking the kids out of school and sneeking around like common criminals.
Now the Brown's will be suing in Federal court claiming that Utah's laws against polygamy violate the due process clause and equal protection clauses of the US Constitution. The suit will build on Lawrence v. Texas (summary here - link to full opinion at the top) in which the Supreme Court struck down a Texas sodomy law for the same reasona. From the summary: "Justice Stevens concluded that (1) the fact a State’s governing majority has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice, and (2) individual decisions concerning the intimacies of physical relationships, even when not intended to produce offspring, are a form of “liberty” protected by due process."
Stevens gets it wrong in a big way here on both counts.
The notion that a states "governing majority" viewing something as immoral "is not a sufficient reason" for upholding a law is one thing if you are talking about, say taxes or state parks, i.e., I might feel taxes are immoral but the government still has the right to impose them on me.
What's flawed is that following Steven's reasoning to its logical conclusion means the state could make any law (regarding a "practice"), and, regardless of its morality, and there would be no recourse so long as some one individual makes a 14th Amendment due process or protection claim.
The second flaw is for point #2. The traditional view of the Constitution is that marriage, intimacy and so on were intended to "produce offspring". In the second point Stevens argues that the "morality" part of his comment protects individuals who engage in a practice even if it does not "produce offspring".
Again, Steven's misses the point - shouldn't the Court be applying its broad concern for due process to the offspring that are produced, i.e., all citizens - not just the complainants?
As I wrote yesterday about Google the statutes must be looked at when drawn to their logical conclusion to see if they make sense. (See my post yesterday regarding Google.) Clearly here they do not for two reasons:
1) Any "practice", under this opinion, becomes open to the 14th Amendment argument - including for example, beastiality. Clearly many of us may object to bestiality on Steven's point of "traditional view" yet he sees no issue with declaring it perfectly legal if someone brings a claim under the 14th Amendment.
2) So if a person married to, say a, dog, were to have a child by some means apparently Stevens feels that "due process" and "equal protection" apply to the parents (man/woman plus dog) but not to the child of said man/dog couple, i.e., the child has no right to grow up without a dog parent.
(Though I have to give Steven's credit for questioning the inclusion of minor's as participants in said various "practices" - this he feels is wrong - but somehow if the child were to experience the said practice (by watching) as an observer that's okay with him.)
Unfortunately I am not making this up.
As I have often predicted, the Brown family is following along with all the other recent 14th Amendment "claimants" for their spot under the "equal protection" clause. Personally I do not think ill of the Brown's - the seem very nice on their TLC show - pleasant people all around, well behaved children, and so on.
NAMBLA, the local Goat Lover's association, the Man/Blowup Doll group and so on are eagerly awaiting the Brown's case to reach the Supreme Court to get their 14th Amendment pass so they too can pile on (after all goats and plastic dolls are not minors - so Steven's should be pleased to assist them).
As I wrote the other day in D. I. V. O. R. C. E. this type of lawsuit is all about ME and Steven's clearly casts doubt on there being anything but a large collection of selfish, self-centered ME's governing our country (so long as I can do what I want I don't care).
And this decision is for the most sacred and intimate portions of our lives - think of the fun you could have with the 14th Amendment and, say, advertising. If you're allowed to have such relationships then why not promote them on TV, children's video and the internet as well.
Sadly, this is nothing but debauchery - plain and simple - an interesting and antiquated term for what you see before you.
Steven's has opened the Pandora's Box of "there is no evil" with this decision. And, as far as protection of children goes, they will be targeted next because isn't the legal definition of a what is a minor simply a decision by Steven's "governing majority"?
Of course it is.
Do the Brown's realize what they are doing?
No.
Are they weighing their personal "rights" against the good of society?
I doubt it.
They truly seem like nice, well meaning people. But then, so was Pandora.
(Clearly "serial monogamy" is common in today's culture - with starter wives and children and multiple marriages - isn't this just polygamy practiced over an expanse of time? Just having a go with all the women at once? What's that, no feminists chiming in in support of all this, or against it?
I can see why Kody is a salesman - it takes balls, wit and cunning to convince a woman to be "wife #2".)
To the rest of us: our house in on fire, our children alone...
No comments:
Post a Comment