One of the first inquiries I'd want to make were I to want to research the question of parallel plural marriage, instead of the customary serial version, in the U.S., would be to ask the State Department how it handles visa requests from places that do recognize parallel plural marriage, such as when members of the Saudi ruling family arrive on diplomatic or shopping missions.

Have you ever heard of the party being turned back for an excess of wives?

Me neither...

rs


On Jul 12, 2011, at 3:30 PM, Nareissa L. Smith wrote:

> Dear all:
>  
> As you may or may not know, the TLC reality show "Sister Wives" chronicles the life of Utah polygamist Kody Brown his four wives Meri, Robin, Janelle, and Christine, and their 17 children.   At the end of last season, the Brown family moved from Utah to Las Vegas to escape the possibility that criminal bigamy charges would be filed against the adults in the family.  (I know this because I read it in the article below, not because I watch bad reality television. I never do that. Honestly.)
>  
> The article below states that Jonathan Turley is set to file a lawsuit tomorrow challenging the Utah law.
> http://xfinitytv.comcast.net/blogs/2011/tv-news/sister-wives-family-to-challenge-utah-bigamy-law/?cmpid=FCST_hero_hot
>  
> I have a few questions for the group.
>  
> 1.  If: (a) the law has been seldom enforced; (b) was not enforced against the Browns, though the threat was there; and (c) the Browns now live in Nevada, do they have standing to challenge the law?  At first I thought that despite the foregoing, the answer was an open-and-shut "of course."  But the more I think I about it, the more I wonder whether standing could be an issue.   What do others think?
>  
> 2.  What do others think of the merits of the case?  Professor Turley seems to be framing the right as "the right of . . .  people [to] their private relations . . . "   After Lawrence, is this a winning argument under substantive due process?   Also, continuing with Lawrence, couldn't Turley argue that there is no rational basis for the law?  Moreover, couldn't he argue that the law survives based only on animus against an unpopular group, and is therefore irrational, as in Romer?  Finally, even if strict scrutiny were applied, is there any compelling interest to prevent adults from entering into consensual, polyamorous relationships?
>  
> Thanks for any thoughts you wish to share.
>  
> Sincerely,
>  
> Nareissa Smith
>  
>  
>  
>  
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Conlawprof@list...
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.