Kody Brown has 4 wives—well, technically, his legal wife is the one in the black top, the rest are “sister wives”. They, and their sixteen children, appear on “Sister Wives” on TLC. Why is this interesting? Because they are attacking Utah’s anti-polygamy laws based on the fact that they should be able to define “family” any way they want.
Oh, and this is the same line of argument that same sex marriage proponents use to defend same-sex marriage:
The legal arguments their attorneys Jonathan Turley and Adam Alba are using are similar to those used in many gay-marriage lawsuits: The Browns are being illegally denied the rights to freedom of association, due process and equal protection, as well as the rights of adults to engage in “intimate conduct” without government intrusion.
Utah’s anti-polygamy laws have caused “personal injuries” to the Brown family and trample on “the right of consenting adults to create a family environment of their choosing,” Mr. Turley and Mr. Alba argued in their July 13 complaint at U.S. District Court in Utah. [Gay-marriage foes cite polygamy suit]
You see, this is interesting because this argument, that what any adults do in their own bedrooms is no one else’s business, and that families are however one defines them, was stated by those opposed to same sex marriage as a slippery slope that could end up validating polygamy, bestiality, etc.
To counter this, the Human Rights Campaign and other gay-rights organizations stated that they were making just a slight modification to the marriage law. They wanted to keep it being two people, just allow any combination of sexes for those two people.
To do this, they made the rules of marriage arbitrary and therefore modifiable. Those that promote polygamy can do the same, arguing that they’re not modifying the male/female component, just changing the quantity from two to two or more. How is this not the same argument?
How can a homosexual couple state that they are not changing the definition of marriage by changing the sexes but keeping it two people, and say that another group can’t change the number and still be a family?
It’s the same set of arguments, and should these arguments hold up like the homosexuals want them to, don’t be surprised when a state that has same-sex marriage starts approving of polygamy under the same logic. Or else they will be logically inconsistent.