Ohiogal
Queen Bee
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Utah -- see up there in the title of the thread?
A decision has been handed down in the case of the cast of the TLC series Sister Wives vs. the State of Utah:
https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?211cv0652-78
The Sister Wives have won at this level.
The relevant portion of the holding which says that Summary Judgment has been granted to the Browns:
While I may not agree with the Browns' lifestyle choices, cohabitating should not be illegal for them.
A decision has been handed down in the case of the cast of the TLC series Sister Wives vs. the State of Utah:
https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?211cv0652-78
The Sister Wives have won at this level.
The relevant portion of the holding which says that Summary Judgment has been granted to the Browns:
In other words, the Browns have done nothing wrong by entering into one legal marriage (between Cody and Meri) and other emotional/religious marriages (Cody and each of the other women). That is NOT bigamy and the law saying it was violates the constitution and thus should be stricken.Accordingly, in Part II below the court finds the Statute facially unconstitutional and therefore strikes the phrase “or cohabits with another person” as a violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and as without a rational basis under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, both in light of established Supreme Court precedent. As further analyzed in Part III below, after striking the cohabitation provision the Statute is readily susceptible to a narrowing construction of the terms “marry” and “purports to marry” to remedy the constitutional infirmity of the remainder of the Statute. The court also terminates as moot Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. No. 60.)
While I may not agree with the Browns' lifestyle choices, cohabitating should not be illegal for them.