"Sisters Wives" Prompts Pro Polygamy Ruling - (1st in 130 years)


In December, a federal judge sided with them, declaring a key part of Utah’s polygamy law “unconstitutional.” The judge ruled that the part of Utah’s bigamy law forbidding cohabitation violated the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of religion.

Co-habitation was essentially legalized, so Kody Brown can openly live with his four wives, Meri, Janelle, Robyn and Christine. They can openly call him their husband, just as long as there is only one marriage license…

As Utah’s attorney general plans to appeal the** first pro-polygamy ruling in 130 years**, the Browns plan to stay in Nevada, where they have been living since Utah opened an investigation into their family.

“I don’t think anything other than Utah is going to feel like home,” Christine Brown said.

But for now, these reality stars say they’re prepared to take their battle all the way to the Supreme Court.


Another activist judge interprets the constitution.


May they win their case. If Americans want to make marriage an arbitrary legal construct, we ought to take it to its logical conclusion. Polygamy is but one step in that direction. And may the American people, upon being delivered fully unto the clutches of Satan, beg earnestly for forgiveness and mercy for Our Lord.


I get so tired of people using their sincerely held religious beliefs as an excuse not to comply with duly enacted laws. :smiley:



PAGING…the “two consenting adults” crowd!!!


Where y’all at???


“Religious freedom is good when it’s my religion that’s gettin’ that freedom.”

Otherwise, it’s the worst thing ever.


Exactly where we’ve always been. This case really has nothing to do with marriage. The judge did not strike down the polygamy ban.


I have to agree with you.:thumbsup:



Absolutely true. At this point, a reductio is perhaps the best solution.


I wouldn’t particularly call this a particularly “activist” ruling. The judge is simply applying precedent to a particular situation. The activists were the jurists who established the precedents: Griswold, Lawrence, Roe, and Windsor.

When you remove the traditional Christian construct from the concept of marriage in a society (and supercede it with a made-up “privacy” right), then de facto acceptance of all manner of arrangements will be the outcome, even if formal sanction is not available de jure.

Frankly, I am far less offended by this than I am by homosexual “marriage.” The reason why is that there are examples of polygyny in the Old Testament.


Since when do Christians live solely by the old testament? When Christ says “what God had put together, let no man put asunder” or how about the “two becoming one flesh” or yesterday Gospel, which dealt in part with “whoever lusts after another woman has already committed adultery with her in one’s heart”. What happened to the word “covet”.

If you profess to be Christian, should you not abide by Christ teachings as law.

This is just as much an abomination.:slapfight::hug1:

I wouldn’t particularly call this a particularly “activist” ruling. The judge is simply applying precedent to a particular situation. The activists were the jurists who established the precedents: Griswold, Lawrence, Roe, and Windsor.

When you remove the traditional Christian construct from the concept of marriage in a society (and supercede it with a made-up “privacy” right), then de facto acceptance of all manner of arrangements will be the outcome, even if formal sanction is not available de jure.

You are right that the original jurists did not help but it was the the Judges in Griswold who decided the case. The Supreme Court was and is the highest authority that we have for justice.

You may be right that the judge had no where to go because of prior rulings. This case may go the Supreme Court but probably not because the smarter way to break down the law is a little at a time so people don’t notice.


Who said that they were Christians?

I am not arguing with you as far as polygamy being against the teaching of Christ.

Having said that, it is not identified by the Church as an intrinsically disordered act. In fact, the Church uses utterly different language than that used for those acts that are identified as intrinsically disordered.

First, take a look at the type of language used about intrinsically evil / disordered acts:

*]2352 …masturbation is an **intrinsically and gravely disordered **action
*]2356 Rape is…always an intrinsically evil act.
*]2357 …tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.
*]2370 …to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil [nb: referring to contraception/sterilization]

Now compare that to the type of language used regarding polygamy.

2387 The predicament of a man who, desiring to convert to the Gospel, is obliged to repudiate one or more wives with whom he has shared years of conjugal life, is understandable. However polygamy is not in accord with the moral law." [Conjugal] communion is radically contradicted by polygamy; this, in fact, directly negates the plan of God which was revealed from the beginning, because it is contrary to the equal personal dignity of men and women who in matrimony give themselves with a love that is total and therefore unique and exclusive."180 The Christian who has previously lived in polygamy has a grave duty in justice to honor the obligations contracted in regard to his former wives and his children.
Why the difference in language?

Because in the case of those items that are identified as intrinsically disordered / intrinsically evil, there are no circumstances that can make the basic act correct (masturbation, rape, homosexual conduct, artificial birth control/sterlization)

Polygamy, on the other hand, is a grave act because of the fact that, while marriage is a good thing (marriage being the fundamental act here), having multiple wives or multiple husbands is the circumstance that changes it from being good to being evil.

In other words, it is extrinsically evil vice intrinsically evil.

And that’s the reason I say I’m less offended by it than by the celebration and State sanction of an intrinsic evil.


It does not matter that they are Christian, you are a Christian. You are the one who has less of a problem with it. You made the statement.

A grave act only -you may be less offended by by it, but I am totally offended by it. Why does it seem that in history it is predominately the female that gets to be the second to fifteenth wife.

Christ was pretty clear to me and he spoke of marriage many times. His first miracle was at a wedding. Christs puts the" lusting after a woman" in the same sermon as murder saying who ever get angry at his brother.

Why is masturbation and polygamy both intrinsically disordered but not evil and yet the rest - rape, homosexual acts and contraception- see both as as disordered and evil?

Why the Church sees it only as a grave act - I have no idea.


As Catholics we believe that there are degrees of evil. While all sin displeases God, some sins are more disordered, that is, even more removed from God’s plan than others. Fornication, sex between one single man and one single woman, who love each other, is gravely sinful, but it is not nearly as disordered as homosexuality - in the case of fornication, the act itself is not intrinsically disordered (sex between a man and a woman), just the context and intent. In the case of homosexuality, the very act is intrinsically disordered regardless of context or intent. While polygamy is forbidden by the Church, and while a polygamous sacramental union is absolutely impossible, in the Old Testament God did tolerate natural (though not sacramental, as there were no sacraments before Christ) polygamous unions. God has never tolerated homosexuality.


That’s a great question. I haven’t analyzed it at length, but Wikipedia states “Polyandry is believed to be more likely in societies with scarce environmental resources, as it is believed to limit human population growth and enhance child survival.”

If this is true, it would make sense that such societies would be less common than those that practice polygyny, as the former don’t have the resources to grow , expand into new areas, trade frequently with other societies, and break off new colonies which would then perpetuate the practice while developing their own distinct cultures.

In contrast, Wiki notes about societies practicing polygyny

A report by the secretariat of the UN Economic Commission for Africa (ECA) quotes: “one of the strongest appeals of polygyny to men in Africa is precisely its economic aspect, for a man with several wives commands more land, can produce more food for his household and can achieve a high status due to the wealth which he can command.”

Sorry, there was no link to the original source online. But a society with greater wealth, which also has lots of extra men unable to marry, is likely to have the resources to spread, and the motivation of individual men to leave and establish their own separate but similarly ordered society.


Maybe that is the point you are trying to make that God did tolerate polygamy. He also takes Cain and does not kill him after he murders his brother but allows him to live marked. As I mentioned in the last post that Christ mentions “adultery” in the same sermon that he mentions murder. I am talking only about a union where a man purposely takes on many wives at the same time - each sharing a bit of him.

I am not sure. We have homosexual marriages in society today but that does not mean that God is tolerating them.


May God strike us down. And may He lift us up.


It’s not that I see it as being acceptable in any way, shape, or form. I see it as being less serious than homosexual “marriage.” Sorry if you don’t see it that way.


If I am to understand your post, rape, masturbation, homosexual acts and contraception are disordered and intrinsically evil.

Polygamy is a grave act - extrinsically evil

Extrinsically evil things become evil because of their circumstances and/or intent, not because of the nature of the act itself. As a result, such acts can be done in some circumstances (those in which they are not immoral), while they cannot be done in others (when circumstances make them immoral to do)

Read more: ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/no-you-cant-deliberately-kill-innocent-people-sorry#ixzz2tdgCL600

This is very difficult for me to understand. So if a 13 year old is sold(betroyal) by her father to be the 14th wife of a rich man, this would be grave sin. Even it was culturally accepted by certain cultures, why does the church not acknowledge that this girl has any rights.

If that is your culture and you are raised to accept it, how would you know any different? What circumstances makes it moral?


I’m hoping we can repent like Nineveh did and not go through a painful punishment period…

But at least the inhabitants of Nineveh acknowledged a higher divine authority, the Cause of all things.

Many people proudly do not acknowledge even this.


The act of marriage between a man and a woman is a good act…we agree on that, I believe. (It is a symptom of our sick society that we now have to specify marriage between a man and a woman so as not to be confused)

What makes polygyny a grave act is that a good act (marriage) is done with multiple women simultaneously. Any one of the individual acts (marriage between the man and one of his wives) would be just fine. The fact that we’re dealing with multiple wives is what makes it bad.

The circumstances that makes it evil: multiple marriages at the same time.

The intent that makes it evil: (on the man’s part) the desire not to be satisfied with his valid/licit wife but to want more wives. (on the woman’s part) the willingness to actively consent to and participate in such a circumstance.

The culture is sort of irrelevant on an *objective *basis (i.e., it would be grave matter no matter what the culture states); however, it may mitigate culpability on a subjective basis (invincible ignorance on the part of the participants). For example, an FLDS member could be taught from youth that polygyny is normal and expected and, in fact, a condition of having some exalted position in heaven. While that doesn’t change the objective gravity of the situation, the person’s culpability before God could potentially be reduced because of how he/she was taught from a youth.

(Note: homosexual acts are a violation of the natural law that is written on each of our heart…therefore, any mitigation of culpability due to cultural upbringing and invincible ignorance would be considerably restricted as compared to the polygamists described in the preceding paragraph).

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.