Category: Articles

Polygamy Day 19
August 19th, 2019 by Mark Henkel

Happy Polygamy Day ® !

Today is August 19th in the numeric 19th year of the new millenium, the year 2019.

Ever since the first celebration in the year 2001, pro-polygamists have been celebrating on every August 19th of each year. That means that today is Polygamy Day ® 19!

The polygamy movement’s media-distribution web-site, Pro-Polygamy.com, announced the news earlier today:
“Pro-Polygamists Celebrate 19th Annual ‘Polygamy Day'”

Polygamy Day 19

This last year has given unrelated consenting adult polygamy supporters (UCAPs) a number of anniversaries and milestones to happily celebrate this annual event.

The PolygamyDay.com web-site details the important events that have happened over the previous year, as it reports how August 19, 2019, is Polygamy Day ® 19.

Polygamy Day is August 19

Rather than having me repeat them again here, please do be sure to read those links from both Pro-Polygamy.com and PolygamyDay.com.

No matter where you are or who you are, if you support freedom for UCAP (unrelated consenting adult polygamy), please do find some time today to assess, consider, contemplate, and strategize – all while also still being sure to celebrate.

Our freedom will one day come…

Happy Polygamy Day ® 19!

Polygamy Day 19

Posted in Articles Tagged with:

20 years of Love-not-Force
July 13th, 2019 by Mark Henkel

It was 20 years ago today…

No, this is not just the opening lyric from the famous Beatles song, “Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band.”

Twenty years ago today, the standard of “Love-not-Force” was first set on July 13, 1999. What first started as a standard for Christian Polygamy grew beyond that over these past 2 decades – becoming something larger now, that even non-Christians and non-polygamists can embrace it too.

Love-not-force established that a husband must never force polygamy on a wife, that he must only love her so deeply that she, herself, chooses to embrace polygamy for the family by her own consent and genuine assent.

For Christians who believe in God and the Bible, the standard exhorted, “If you believe that God has promised you anything, including polygamy, then let God be God. From the Genesis story, let God bring your Isaac, don’t force your Ishmael. It brought a Biblically proof-texted full-stop-sign end to an emerging false doctrine that had come to be known as “force polygamy.” With Love-not-Force, a man in Christian Polygamy must only love his wife, not force polygamy on her – ever. A website, LoveNotForce.com, was begun so as to provide a public detailing of these principles for even the most “die-hard fundamentalist” Christians who felt compelled to still insist on force polygamy.

Thereby, as a standard for living, Love-not-Force first originated for the new and young sub-movement Christian Polygamy. A few years later, it had grown to become the standard for the larger overall movement of Unrelated Consenting Adult Polygamy (UCAP) of all forms. And since that second phase, it has subsequently even become a standard that everyone and anyone can embrace as a personal living standard.

To wit, as a way of life for anyone even beyond the issue of polygamy, Love-not-Force centers around three important insights for understanding – and loving – any of our fellow human beings:

  1. “A person forced against their will is of the same opinion still.”
  2. “People don’t care what you know ’till they know that you care.”
  3. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

Many readers might recognize that third line as being called “the Golden Rule.” Although the line comes from Christianity, it is such a powerful line that most people understand that one does not even have to “be” a Christian in order to choose it as a way of life.

In the same way, whether one is a Christian or not, and whether one supports polygamy or not,…

Love-not-Force can be a way of life for anyone.

This short speech from 8 years ago explains the history and why anyone would want to embrace this standard as a way of life: Love-not-Force.

Love-not-force, originating on July 13, 1999,

…it was 20 years ago today!

20 years of Love-not-Force
20 years of Love-not-Force

Posted in Articles Tagged with: ,

Bibliography of Book Citations of Mark Henkel
January 16th, 2019 by Mark Henkel

This week, I found 5 – yes FIVE! – new books that have cited me by name in their books! This brings the total to 9 known books doing this.

To make these public, a new PDF file was created. All 9 known books have been organized using a formal Bibliograpy format in alphebetical order of the authors. These BOOK Citations are listed on the first page of the 2-page PDF file: CITATIONS.

Bibliography of Book Citations of Mark Henkel
Bibliography of BOOK Citations of Mark Henkel

Because it just made sense to do so, a second page of the 2-page PDF file was also added.

Using the same formal bibliogrpahy format, the currently known DISSERTATION & THESIS Citations are listed on the second page of
the 2-page PDF file: CITATIONS.

Bibliography of Dissertation and Thesis Citations of Mark Henkel
Bibliography of Dissertation and Thesis Citations of Mark Henkel

A new CITATIONS button was then added to the front page of this website, alongside the ONE SHEET and COVER LETTER buttons.


Posted in Articles Tagged with:

Polygamy Day 18
August 19th, 2018 by admin

Happy Polygamy Day ® !

Today is August 19th in the numeric 18th year of the new millenium, the year 2018.

Ever since the first celebration in the year 2001, pro-polygamists have been celebrating on every August 19th of each year. That means that today is Polygamy Day ® 18!

The polygamy movement’s media-distribution web-site, Pro-Polygamy.com, announced the news earlier today:
“Pro-Polygamists Celebrate 18th Annual ‘Polygamy Day'”

Despite the disappointments of the year before last, this last year has been positive, giving unrelated consenting adult polygamy supporters (UCAPs) reasons to happily celebrate this annual event.

The PolygamyDay.com web-site details the important events that have happened over the previous year, as it reports how August 19, 2018, is Polygamy Day ® 18
Polygamy Day is August 19
Rather than having me repeat them again here, please do be sure to read those links from both Pro-Polygamy.com and PolygamyDay.com.

No matter where you are or who you are, if you support freedom for UCAP (unrelated consenting adult polygamy), please do find some time today to assess, consider, contemplate, and strategize – all while also still being sure to celebrate.

Our freedom will one day come…

Happy Polygamy Day ® 18!

Polygamy Day 18

Posted in Articles Tagged with:

August 19th, 2017 by Mark Henkel

Happy Polygamy Day ® !
Or I should probably instead say, Not-So Happy Polygamy Day ® !

Today is August 19th in the numeric 17th year of the new millenium, the year 2017.

Ever since the first celebration in the year 2001, pro-polygamists have been celebrating on every August 19th of each year. That means that today is Polygamy Day ® 17!

The polygamy movement’s media-distribution web-site, Pro-Polygamy.com, announced the news earlier today:
“Pro-Polygamists Celebrate 17th Annual ‘Polygamy Day'”

Over the past year, two major disappointments and setbacks occurred, giving unrelated consenting adult polygamy supporters (UCAPs) many reasons to re-strategize while celebrating this annual event.

The PolygamyDay.com web-site details the important events that have happened over the previous year, as it reports how August 19, 2017, is Polygamy Day ® 17
Polygamy Day is August 19
Rather than having me repeat them again here, please do be sure to read those links from both Pro-Polygamy.com and PolygamyDay.com.

No matter where you are or who you are, if you support freedom for UCAP (unrelated consenting adult polygamy), please do find some time today to re-assess, re-consider, re-contemplate, and re-strategize – all while also still being sure to celebrate.

We will overcome, so let’s still make this a…

Happy Polygamy Day ® 17!

Posted in Articles Tagged with:

August 12th, 2017 by Mark Henkel

Exploiting pre-2010 environment of fear, prosecutors intimidated Browns to unwittingly moot their own “legal standing” to fight for their freedom when they moved to another State. Indeed, polygamy (as an issue) was on its way to being heard by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). Brown v. Buhman, the case of the “Sister Wives” reality-TV show, made it that far until January, 2017. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver Colorado had reversed the gains the case had won in District Court, by allowing a way for government to deny the right of Individual citizens to fight for freedom against any unconstitutional law. Whether or not one supports polygamy, when SCOTUS declined to hear this case because of the Tenth Circuit’s “decision,” the right of all US citizens to fight for freedom for any issue was effectively thwarted.


This is the second part of a series of posts pertaining to the tyranny of “Prosecutorial Discretion.” The same tyranny that protected Hillary Clinton from facing charges for proven crimes was also used to stop non-criminals’ fight for freedom in the “Sister Wives” polygamy case. If Part 1 of this series outraged you, this Part 2 (and beyond) will terrify you even more.


 

Preface: Before “Sister Wives”

Few fellow law-abiding people in America have ever experienced the level of fear of their own government as experienced by Unrelated Consenting Adult Polygamists – UCAPs. For that reason, I must first write this post in this series to explain the context of how the political environment – created by the one-sided propaganda from manufactured-news media and academics – caused the real, immense, and rational fear in all normal polygamists prior to 2010. This is necessary in order to fully comprehend why, as their new reality-TV show began in the Fall of 2010, the Brown family in the Brown v. Buhman (“Sister Wives”) polygamy case were so fearfully threatened that they genuinely felt they had to move their family to another State.

Here is some background, prior to 2010.

When the modern polygamy rights movement for unrelated consenting adults began in 1994, there were no TV shows positive about polygamy. The only time that the media reported about “polygamy” was when it involved cults or criminals doing other actual crimes. This one-sided bigotry amounted to what could be called “hate speech” because it always incited people to wrongly think, say, and accuse that polygamy supposedly “always” means horrific criminality. Just saying the word, “polygamy,” to most people back then would cause instant angry reactions, albeit baseless.

At the turn of this new century, I was the only one who dared to be putting my neck up consistently and pro-actively pursuing the national media to inform the public about normal non-criminal polygamy. The focus of my work was (and still is) to educate the media to differentiate real criminals (from Tom Green at the start of that decade to Warren Jeffs at the end of it) as completely different from – and not having anything do with – normal Unrelated Consenting Adult Polygamy (UCAP).

By 2006, because of that work, HBO began the very first fictional TV show that did not show all polygamists as criminals, “Big Love.” Consequently, my work to differentiate UCAP polygamy in the media expanded.

Alas, the April 3, 2008, raid of Warren Jeff’s FLDS cult re-energized a real relapse back to biased, negative media. Through and with the (non-Mormon, Christian) TruthBearer.org organization, (religiously neutral) Polygamy Day ®, and (media-distribution source) Pro-Polygamy.com, I worked feverishly to keep educating the media for more accurate differentiation, even as much of the media would often still choose to be manufactured-news outlets for anti-polygamy propaganda – inciting the masses against normal non-criminal polygamous families, and terrifying those families with fear of hostility & violence.

I long exposed the concept of what is now being called #FakeNews for over a decade, long before President Trump’s 2016 campaign called it out. I simply called it, “manufactured-news outlets.” Such media do not actually report the news, they just get bits of information with which to manufacture into a product they “sell.”

Many of such media even went out of their way to intentionally invent and incite hostility against polygamy – even using imaginary stories by supposed “news journalists.” For example, John Quiñones Lies in “Unreality” on ABC-TV with a horrifying made-up story using paid actors and actresses on a would-be “reality” TV show!

Even so, the national UCAP polygamy movement continued, and I persisted to educate in the media where possible.

By the end of the 2000s decade, I had also been getting “circus act” requests from certain media for either my family or families in our organization to be in television shows. What they wanted, though, were things that raised alarm signals for our families. For our safety, I turned them down. When they went looking elsewhere, networks like TLC had a horrid history of manufacturing shows “about polygamy” to purposely make polygamy look bad. In those media-requests for “polygamous families,” they wanted families to be as nothing more than money-making “circus acts” for the networks. My turning down their “requests” were proven to be wise decisions more than once.

In a Special Report on December 2, 2010, sent out through Pro-Polygamy.com to the media, examples of TLC’s anti-polygamy history were reported:

But prior to that new reality TV show in 2010, TLC’s programming in previous years had been bigotedly harmful against normal consenting adult polygamists.

On September 24, 2006, TLC aired a would-be “documentary” called, “My Husband’s 3 Wives.” While claiming to be “about polygamy,” the show centered on an egomaniacal man’s “polygamy by affair.” The national polygamy rights movement for consenting adults took note of TLC airing such a horrendously false “re-definition” of polygamy about which the movement so adamantly opposed. … Clearly, this 2006 show was never a legitimate example for learning “about polygamy.”

Two years later, on November 16, 2008, TLC aired another show, “Forbidden Love: Polygamy.” While claiming to be “about polygamy,” this would-be “documentary” was simply one attractive, young British lady’s anti-polygamous viewpoints about Mormon polygamists. The national polygamy rights movement for consenting adults again took note of TLC airing such a twisted anti-polygamy show. … Clearly, this 2008 show was never a legitimate example for learning “about polygamy,” either.

By the Fall of 2010, perpetrating a perpetuating pile-on, even university academics started climbing aboard the anti-polygamy propaganda “train.” So I also went to work refuting such falsehoods for the academic community as well (e.g., Scholar’s Anti-Polygamy Report for Court is Discredited) and began the videorecording of a new public speaking series on polygamy (of ten speeches per “Season”) presented live before non-polygamous audiences.

It is with and in that context of propaganda, manufactured-news media, and academics by the start of this decade (the 2010s) that many, many UCAP (unrelated consenting adult polygamous) families were rightly scared to be public or to trust networks to report about them. No matter how good such normal polygamous families were, the political environment was just too terrifyingly bias-incited by the false anti-polygamy propaganda.

 

The Brown Family on “Sister Wives”

One family, though, having been busy living their lives over the years (i.e, not active in the national UCAP movement), and thereby less aware of TLC’s past abuse toward polygamous families, was lured to trust TLC for a new “reality TV series.” To the surprise of the skeptical National Polygamy Rights Movement for Consenting Adults, that Fall 2010, the network premiered the very first polygamy-positive realty-TV show. It was called, “Sister Wives.” Admittedly, the national UCAP movement was very happily surprised to see that TLC’s ‘Sister Wives’ put the ‘L’ back in ‘The Learning Channel’.

This new show, “Sister Wives,” was, quite-simply, a reality show about Mormon polygamist Kody Brown, his one legally married wife, Meri, his two other non-licensed wives, Janelle and Christine, plus an incoming non-licensed wife joining the family named Robyn, and all of their dozen and a half children. This was the first time that such a non-fiction TV series aired – and it treated the family in a positive light! Kody and these wives were all unrelated consenting adults, no coercion, no underage issues, and no crime. Finally, polygamy was not being aired in line with the fearmongering, hate-inciting, and false propaganda!

What happened next is succinctly described on Page 5 of the April 11, 2016, reversal of Brown v. Buhman by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

Viewers of the [Sister Wives] show contacted the Lehi Police Department to “inquir[e] what the department intended to do” about the Browns. … The day after the first episode aired, the Department publicly announced it was investigating the Browns for violations of the Statute. In October 2010, the Lehi Police Department forwarded the results of its investigation to the UCAO. Following standard practice, the UCAO opened a case file on the Browns. Fearful they would be criminally prosecuted, the Browns moved to Nevada in January 2011. Mr. Buhman was quoted in a January 2011 media report as saying that despite the Browns’ move, his office would not rule out the possibility of prosecution.

The TV show later aired episodes showing the very real fear the family faced. Seeing police cars sitting outside their home “watching” them, the Browns rationally felt compelled to move out of Utah to Nevada “in the middle of the night” in the terrifying fear for their family of the intimidating government.

It is that very intimidation that would be later exploited as one part of the government’s two-part tool to moot the case. The fact that the understandably intimidated Brown family actually moved out of the State of Utah would be later exploited to assert that they had no more “legal standing” to bring Brown v. Buhman to court, so that the Utah prosecutors could thereby still use the anti-polygamy statute to threaten any other polygamous families.

By understanding the context of this fear and intimidation as it existed at the start of the 2010 decade, readers will be able to more comprehensively perceive the ramifications of the even larger tyranny of “prosecutorial discretion” used to moot the otherwise valid “legal standing” of the Brown family to fight for their freedom from tyranny.

I will elucidate the further details of these issues in the upcoming post in this series. Of course, if anyone is still wondering how this connects to Hillary Clinton and “emailgate” in 2016, then they will still need to read the Part 1 in this series, “Prosecutorial Discretion,” Emailgate, and Polygamy – Part 1

With Part 1 understood, and now with this Part 2 understood too, the outrage should likely begin boiling. Can you imagine the fear of government “watching” you to the point you feel compelled to move out of state? Can you see how tyrannical it is to then have that fear-caused “out-of-State move” later used against you in actually then denying you the “legal standing” to fight for your freedom to get such an anti-Constitutional tyranny overturned? If these matters outrage you (and they certainly should), then you will likely find yourself even more outraged by the profound threat to Individual Liberty that the overall tyranny of “prosecutorial discretion” was applied in the “Sister Wives” polygamy case known as Brown v. Buhman.

Posted in Articles Tagged with: , , , ,

January 18th, 2017 by Mark Henkel

On January 19, 2017, the very last full day of the Obama Presidency, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) will be “in CONFERENCE” regarding the “Sister Wives” polygamy case, Brown v. Buhman. Unfortunately, the issue of unrelated consenting adult polygamy (UCAP), itself, will not be the focus of the Supreme Court Justices. Rather, the SCOTUS Justices will only be conferring over whether or not to even hear the case due to the technicality of “legal standing” issues. As SCOTUSblog.com reports, only the following are at issue:

  1. Whether the government can seek to moot a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a statute by adopting a new non-enforcement policy during the pendency of litigation;
  2. whether the government can later moot by voluntary cessation a subsequently filed lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a statute under which the government publicly threatened a party with prosecution; and
  3. when a district court makes underlying findings of fact in the course of adjudicating a claim under the voluntary cessation doctrine, under what standard of review those findings should be examined on appeal.

Last year, on April 11, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed the polygamy-positive decision of the lower court. A month later, on May 13, 2016, the same 10th Circuit Court refused the “en banc” request to re-hear the matter.

As I (Mark Henkel) had explained to FOX 10,

“It was not reversed on the merits of any arguments whatsoever.
They refused to hear any arguments at all.”

On September 12, 2016, attorneys for the Brown family petitioned SCOTUS for a Writ of Certiorari.

On December 27, 2016, Utah Attorney General’s Office (UAGO) filed their reply in opposition, asking SCOTUS to deny the petition.

On January 3, 2017, Lead Attorney for the Browns, Jonathan Turley, filed their rebuttal to UAGO’s brief in opposition. Noting that the UAGO was simply wrong (namely, that there is a “split” among the different US Circuits on the technicality issue), the rebuttal reply – more than once – indicated that the case should be remanded (sent back down) to the Tenth Circuit Court, stating that these issues

require at the very least a remand with instructions to apply the appropriate standard (Page 10)

and

require (at the very least) a remand with instructions to apply the appropriate rules of law (Page 13).

That same day, January 3, 2017, the eventual date was determined on which the Justices of SCOTUS are scheduled to be “IN CONFERENCE” to determine whether or not to even hear the case: January 19, 2017.

It is ironic that this will be held on the very last full day that US President Barack Obama is President, the day before the incoming President Donald Trump is inaugurated. Years ago, back on November 7, 2008, only three days after Barack Obama was first elected, an article was sent to the media by Pro-Polygamy.com, the national polygamy movement’s media-distribution site, titled, “Obama’s Historic Election Gives Hope to Polygamous Americans.” With the caveat of specific political views aside, the article concluded with the following:

Now that African Americans have successfully traveled that amazing road from oppression to president, then consenting-adult polygamous Americans can do it too.

The dream continues. God bless America indeed!

Indeed, that article took note of the famous, important “content of character” line from Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech. It continued that line with the following, directly quoting me:

National Polygamy Advocate, Mark Henkel, has long shared Martin Luther King’s dream. Content of character is really what matters indeed. Henkel has said, “I have a dream that one day a man will be judged, not based on the number of consenting-adult wives who willingly marry him, but, indeed, based only on the content of his character.” For polygamous Americans, the dream continues.

That polygamy-version “I Have Dream” quote has been repeatedly cited over the past decade. It has even become a polygamy meme.

Yet now, on what will be the very last day of the presidency of the very first elected African American president, Barack Obama, January 19, 2017, unrelated consenting adult polygamous Americans are left with the disappointing reality that SCOTUS will only be conferring about whether or not to even hear the polygamy case of Brown v. Buhman.

On New Years Day this year, January 1, 2017, Pro-Polygamy.com, distributed another article to the media, titled, “Will Supreme Court Hear ‘Sister Wives’ Polygamy case in 2017?” The article ended with my direct quote, which succinctly sums up the frustrating “worry” that unrelated consenting adult polygamists (UCAP) now have regarding what SCOTUS could do (or rather, not do) with this important case.

“Will Brown v. Buhman be our Hollingsworth?”

What will the Supreme Court do after January 19, 2017? We can only wait.

PDFs of the formal filings & decision

  1. Turley Rebuttal Reply Brief for Brown v BuhmanPDF (Jan. 03, 2017)
  2. Utah AG Office brief in oppositionPDF (Dec. 27, 2016)
  3. Brown v. Buhman petition for a Writ of CertiorariPDF (Sept. 12, 2016)
  4. Tenth Circuit Court Reverses Brown v. BuhmanPDF (Apr. 11, 2016)

   
For background on the case, please see:

  –   Will Supreme Court Hear ‘Sister Wives’ Polygamy case in 2017?
  –   Utah AG Office opposes “Sister Wives” petition of Supreme Court
  –   “Sister Wives” Family Petitions the Supreme Court
  –   Last Steps for Polygamy Heading to Supreme Court in 2017
  –   10th Circuit Refuses to Re-hear “Sister Wives” case
  –   * BREAKING NEWS * 10th Circuit Reverses “Sister Wives” case
  –   “Sister Wives” Appeal at 10th Circuit set for Jan. 2016
  –   Judge Awards Damages to Polygamists for Utah Violating Rights
  –   ‘De Facto’ Polygamy De-Criminalized in Utah by Federal Court

Posted in Articles Tagged with: , , , , , ,

December 29th, 2016 by Mark Henkel

Will the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) even hear the arguments of the “Sister Wives” polygamy case, Brown v. Buhman, in 2017? If the Utah Attorney General’s Office gets its way, the answer would be a resounding, “NO!”

On April 11, 2016, the Tenth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Denver Colorado reversed the lower court’s “de facto” polygamy de-criminalization decisions of 2013 and 2014.

On May 13, 2016, the same Tenth Circuit court denied the “en banc” request to re-hear the case.

As I (Mark Henkel) had explained to FOX 10,

“It was not reversed on the merits of any arguments whatsoever.
They refused to hear any arguments at all.”

On August 10, 2016, Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor signed off on permitting the Brown family an additional month to file a petition for a Writ of Certiorari. On September 12, 2016, the Brown family’s attorneys filed their petition to be heard by the Supreme Court. Making the broader argument that the UAGO’s “voluntary cessation” as an after-the-fact “policy” to not go after the Brown family for polygamy (alone, with no other so-called “collateral crimes”) is a tyranny of “prosecutorial discretion,” the petition specifically posited that different Circuits have different standards for addressing the issue of such “voluntary cessation” doctrine.

In November, 2016, SCOTUS requested that the Utah Attorney General’s Office file their rationale for why they believe that SCOTUS should deny the petition. On December 27, 2016, the UAGO filed their formal brief in opposition. Therewith, the UAGO posited that there allegedly “is no split” between the differing U.S. Circuits around the country on the issue of voluntary cessation doctrine.

On Page 25 (i.e., PDF-pg35) of the brief, the Utah AG Office declared the following about the Petitioners (i.e., the Brown family) and “why” SCOTUS should “not” even hear the case.

For all their errors on the voluntary cessation question, Petitioners nail the most important score: They are, at best, “persons formerly threatened with prosecution under” the Statute. Id. at 21 (emphasis added). They face no current or continuing threat that Respondent will prosecute them in Utah, away from their new Nevada home. The case is moot for the reasons the Tenth Circuit correctly explained, based on legal rules that do not conflict with other circuits’ precedent. Certiorari should be denied.

The saddest irony of all this may also be found within the very words of the brief itself. On its Page 4 (i.e., PDF-pg14), the UAGO admitted the following about how evidently unnecessary the anti-polygamy law actually is.

Given that enforcement policy, just ten defendants were charged statewide under the Statute between 2001 and 2011. App. 10. Six of those ten “were also prosecuted for crimes other than bigamy, such as criminal non-support, unlawful sexual conduct with a minor, forcible sexual abuse, marriage license fraud, and insurance fraud.” Id. at 11. The Attorney General’s Office could not confirm whether charges besides bigamy were filed in the last four cases. But in three of those four, county prosecutors dismissed the bigamy charges, and in the fourth case the defendant was convicted of attempted bigamy in a county prosecution.

In the very next paragraph, the UAGO then made the wildly absurd assertion, citing the case of the always-despised Tom Green criminal and the long-discredited anti-polygamy propaganda given to the British Columbia Supreme Court’s Chief Justice Robert Bauman. Despite their previous admission disproving its next assertion, the UAGO’s brief unflinchingly still posited the following self-admittedly disproven propaganda.

“The practice of polygamy, in particular, often coincides with crimes targeting women and children.”

“Crimes not unusually attendant to the practice of polygamy include incest, sexual assault, statutory rape, and failure to pay child support.”

If anything, by the Utah AG Office’s own admission, the evidence disproves that wild absurdity. Indeed, it demonstrates why still criminalizing unrelated consenting adult polygamy (UCAP) is wholly irrational.

However, SCOTUS could very well choose to deny the Brown family’s petition for a Writ of Certiorari. If that happens, then, alas, such an irrational anti-polygamy law still will remain on the books. And worse, the actual merits of Brown v. Buhman will not have even been heard by the Supreme Court.

As the year 2016 comes to a close, both sides are waiting to see whether SCOTUS will deny or allow the Brown v. Buhman case to go forward in 2017.

PDFs of the two formal filings

  1. Utah AG Office brief in oppositionPDF (Dec. 27, 2016)
  2. Brown v. Buhman petition for a Writ of CertiorariPDF (Sept. 12, 2016)

   
For background on the case, please see:
  –   “Sister Wives” Family Petitions the Supreme Court
  –   Last Steps for Polygamy Heading to Supreme Court in 2017
  –   10th Circuit Refuses to Re-hear “Sister Wives” case
  –   * BREAKING NEWS * 10th Circuit Reverses “Sister Wives” case
  –   “Sister Wives” Appeal at 10th Circuit set for Jan. 2016
  –   Judge Awards Damages to Polygamists for Utah Violating Rights
  –   ‘De Facto’ Polygamy De-Criminalized in Utah by Federal Court

Posted in Articles Tagged with: , , , , , ,