Wednesday, September 29, 2010

Peacock Promotes Polygamy

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
I rarely watch NBC or its Today Show, but it was on the other day as they introduced Kody Brown and his 4 "wives."

They have a new reality show on TLC called "Sister Wives."

During the 9-minute interview on NBC, the Brown family was given complete latitude to explain their "family" and the dynamics of 4 women sharing one "husband". Their own family values.

He explained his lifestyle was "faith based." "Part of a faith belief." "I followed through with it and this is kind of where it landed," he said.

The interview with Meredith Vieira seemed more like a promotional press conference than a regular interest story. She focused on issues like jealousy and how the wives share one man.

The Brown "family" portrayed themselves as victims in a harsh world that doesn't understand. "Living in a closed society such as ours," they said, "makes you feel kind of oppressed."

The group said, "they hope to create more transparency for those in our faith." To help others who are misunderstood.

Rather than raising questions regarding the fact that Brown is actually married to only one of the women legally or raising questions about the potential psychological impact of these relationships on the 13 children they have dragged into this environment, she said, "These days families include single parents, step parents, single moms, even two moms and two dads."

While some are normalizing polygamy on NBC and others are attempting to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act in Congress, you have to wonder if equality will reach to those who practice polyamory---which is "group marriage."

Not to worry. The media has that well in hand.

Media Research, from which I drew for this article, wondered the same thing and found through their research that the media is treating polyamory in much the same "normal" conversational way. Here's an example from 2 years ago in the Washington Post.

While the media carries the torch for those who wish to redefine marriage and family, angry homosexual activists met President Obama in New Mexico with the chant, "Hey Obama, can't you see, we demand equality."

The demands being made today for homosexual "marriage" will be the same demands that will and are being made for polygamy. If "marriage" is granted to homosexuals, how then can a legitimate argument be made against granting "marriage" to polygamists?


And how can we not grant "equality" to those who practice polyamory? They say their relationships are meaningful and they love each other. And will we discriminate against first cousins and even brothers and sisters who love each other and want to marry?

Our children are being educated in public school to not only accept these kinds of alternative relationships as "family" and "deserving of marriage" status, but social combinations that should be celebrated.

And those who do not do so are labeled as "bigots".

God help us.

Be Prayerful. Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Blessed.

Gary Randall
Faith and Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.


  1. You are right on with your comments. NBC was on this morning trying to cover themselves on the very issues you raised. Keep up the good work.

  2. There is no reasonable case to be made where same-sex marriage is legalized, but polygamy is not. Once marriage is redefined it is compromised and any kind of relationship can qualify as marriage. Thank you for standing strong on these values.

  3. The media tries to undermine every family or traditional value. Their agenda is for the most part very anti- traditional family.

  4. Ah, yes... the old "slippery slope" argument, which states that if we change marriage, then we necessarily must allow a variety of "family" forms that are truly scary! Polygamy! Incest! Beastiality!

    If this were true, then didn't we alreay "commit" to allowing these other family forms when we allowed interracial marriage in the 1960s?

    Of course not. But why not? Because there are good reasons to reject polygamy and other family forms that have nothing to do with allowing interracial marriage. Because each change is judged on its own merits, with its own pros and cons, so one does not logically lead to the other.

    Similarly, there are good reasons to reject these other family forms that have nothing to do with gay marriage. One does not necessarily lead to the other.

    Ironically, supporters of this “slippery slope” argument put themselves in an awkward position: They must argue that the foundations of marriage are so weak that any change will bring it crumbling down (even though this has repeatedly been shown to be untrue).

    But even worse, they must argue that once we legalize same-sex marriage, no good reasons remain for upholding bans on polygamy, incest, and bestiality. Really?

    Evidently, the rest of us have a dimmer view of these other family forms than Gary does.

  5. Elizabeth Emens is a professor at the University of Chicago Law School. She has published a major legal and cultural defense of polyamory titled "Monagamy's Law: Compulsory Monogamy and Polyamorous Existence." This was required reading for me and it is an eye opener. She and others with similar credentials are advocating for polygamy and polyamory. They believe this is the next big cause in family law. Those who laugh at Gary and others who are raising concerns are very uninformed or so biased they refuse to hear what their own people are advocating. You are right Gary.

  6. Gary there are societies and clubs promoting polyamory on college campuses. There are also several international societies that provide local support groups, educational materials, community news and spiritual counseling for those in these love groups. Thanks for this information. People should know about this.

  7. OK, I certainly see the very real dangers in incestuous marriage, underage marriage, etc. But what is the danger in polygamy?

    I know you don't like it and it's probably against your religious beliefs. However, I am asking what real and verifiable harm it causes society.

  8. --"I know you don't like it and it's probably against your religious beliefs. However, I am asking what real and verifiable harm it causes society."

    Ah yes - the "WHAT HARM COULD IT DO?" question.

    Very thoughtful question - you remembered to specifically ask that any future threat to society be "real and verifiable" - which of course is impossible because nobody can verify what will happen in the future.

    Ha ha. I guess we'll never know until we try it, right? Like no-fault divorce, teenage contraception, abortion, euthanasia (in Europe at least and maybe in coming decades in Washington too) - liberals got these changes made in society's laws, screaming bloody murder and crying big crocodile tears about how rights were being denied. Then once the evil deeds are legalized there is almost no turning back - even when great harm "correlates" with these nonsensical legalities the argument is then always heard that correlation is not causation and some other ridiculous excuse is made, or else they say something like "oh people will do it anyway so why not make it legal" - ignoring the fact that creating false legal rights almost always leads to these evils then being PROMOTED under the guise of giving people their "rights".

    There is no "real and verifiable" sensible logical reason to pervert marriage in this way. If the people don't like it and the people don't want it or it's against their religious beliefs, that's reason enough! And anyway on what basis would somebody vote FOR such a change? Surely whatever such reasoning is based upon can't be any more reliable than simple adherence to time-tested morality. Christian morality has had a stubborn way of proving itself right by trial and error - but hey if you don't believe it you can exercise your constitutional right to be foolhardy. But I say if a man wants to have sexual intercourse with multiple women and they have such low self-esteem to agree to it then they should use the existing legal methods of establishing economic dependency if need be. If they need help doing that, that's what the state pays social workers for - to pick up the pieces for lots of people who make bad choices and who didn't follow traditional morality in the first place. Or - even more tragic - maybe these poor people were never told that traditional morality is actually a short-cut to success in life in many ways.

    Otherwise, by giving polygamy equal legal status, sooner or later it will be taught to kids in school in lieu of teaching them what's really good for them - whatever's left of traditional morality - which really is in their best interests and would give them the best chance for a happy successful life. There are no guarantees in life, but we know certain things do work and we shouldn't be forced by wrongheaded laws to deny those truths in a misguided attempt to make every person with a hairbrained idea feel good about themselves.


Faith and Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.