Bozell Column: TLC's Lobbying Show for Polygamy
Some “reality shows” are designed to advertise wanton misbehavior and stupidity for its own sake. There’s no “life lesson,” just an exercise in how you can grade your own moral worth on a “Jersey Shore” curve.
That is not the case with TLC’s “Sister Wives.” For TLC (The Learning Channel, a misnomer demanding initials-only), it was the usual slam-dunk oddball premise: Won’t people be curious to see how four wives – married to the same man – get along in the same house? The show’s stars, Kody Brown and his wives, want much more than fame and fortune. They want to make polygamy respectable, even legalized.
The show was a surprise hit for TLC, drawing an average of 2.2 million viewers over “Season 1" last fall. The polygamists have recognized the power of pop culture – particularly television – and are pouncing to normalize this abhorrent behavior.
If this was in any doubt, it was removed when Brown & Co. recently hired hotshot Washington lawyer Jonathan Turley and sued in federal court in Salt Lake City to get Utah’s polygamy law voided. Brown and his four wives knew they were taking a risk of being prosecuted when they signed the deal with TLC, but it was all calculated, with an activist motive. Kody Brown proclaimed, “While we understand that this may be a long struggle in court, it has already been a long struggle for my family and other plural families to end the stereotypes and unfair treatment given consensual polygamy.”
Robyn Brown (wife number four) also said they wanted to make a political point. “It's okay for us to live this way, honestly. I'm sorry, but this is a nation of freedom of choice,” Brown declared on National Public Radio. “We should have this choice, and I want my kids to know that.”
Turley denounced Utah’s law as an injustice: “There is no allegation of child abuse, no allegation of child brides, no allegations of so-called collateral crimes, but prosecutors have stated publicly that they believe the family is committing a felony every night on television.”
Actually, “Sister Wives” isn’t on TV every night – thankfully, it’s only a Sunday night show. But is TLC concerned? Hardly It has felt that the Brown family’s legal peril and courtroom activism only add a layer of “edginess” to the show. It doesn’t matter one bit to TLC that it is the showroom for a campaign nuking the nuclear family. It felt no need to comment on the Brown lawsuit. All is fair in love and television.
Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, whose office would defend the statute, is skeptical. He called the lawsuit "somewhat of a PR ratings stunt for their show." That’s an understatement when you consider that he polygamy law hasn’t been used to prosecute anyone in eight years.
Local police in Lehi, Utah launched an investigation last September after "Sister Wives" made its debut on TLC. How could they not? They were dared to do so on national TV. Then they turned their findings over to the Utah County attorney to determine whether charges are warranted based on the state's bigamy law. Charges were never filed.
What’s sad about this whole exercise is that media chroniclers of the Browns, from network TV to Oprah to blogs and wire services, routinely treat them as sympathetic figures. Every exotic alternative lifestyle is assumed to be progressive and therefore admirable and is not only to be tolerated, but welcomed. It’s rare that anyone appears for five seconds on TV to protest the Browns and TLC. NBC’s Today show has lent them two sympathetic interviews without opposition, and even allowed their news anchor Natalie Morales to moonlight and interview the Browns for their own TLC special last fall.
It’s even sadder that the political world would take this TLC show as an opportunity to propose further shredding the institution of marriage. On the liberal website Slate, blogger Jessica Grose blithely proposed that “Perhaps the best way to keep polygamous practice consensual and the power equal [between husband and wives] is not to just decriminalize it, but to legislate it...polygamous couples could enter into contracts that are less like marriage contracts and more like commercial partnership contracts.” Or, if we could borrow the TLC metaphor, like television contracts.
It is somehow not enough that the entertainment media would try to undermine traditional marriage and the traditional nuclear family in their bed-hopping soap-operatic scripted dramas. Now it’s also the role of “reality” television to suggest that a man with four “spiritual wives” is exactly the same as you and me, and that perhaps our legal boundaries against polygamy are now unwarranted and archaic...as long as it scores 2 million in the Nielsens.
What about the 298 million Americans not watching?
- Brent Bozell's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
OK ladies bring it on. I can take it!
Submitted by ricklail on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 10:02am.
I have never seen two women get together for more than 15 minutes before they were jealous of each other. They are paying those women good money to put on a happy face. For enough money I could get along with Nazi Pelosi.
"Sister Wives"
Submitted by mdgiles on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 2:22pm.
Couple of points.
One. Is this that "slippery slope" that gay activists were always warning us was a figment of conservatives imagination?
Two. I hate to bring up Islam, but the reason Muslims are allowed four wives is, according to "Der Prophet" One wife isn't enough for a man. Two wives will make his life miserably by always requiring him to choose between the two. Three will always end up in a situation where two of them gang up on the one. Therefore four is perfect. They provide each other with an ally and a companion and leave their husband in comparative peace.
I've never seen this show
Submitted by Russian55 on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 10:08am.
I have never seen this show, beyond flipping past it in the DVR listings. I have heard of i, though.
What does it get, ratings of the people on it and their immediate friends and family, or a large number of people who want to watch a trainwreck?
---
Those who beat their swords into plowshares will end up plowing for those who kept their swords in the first place!
I watched about 3 minutes
Submitted by ricklail on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 10:37am.
I watched about 3 minutes with my wife. It appeared phony to me. She watches it all the time.
Why watch?
Submitted by mdgiles on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 2:27pm.
True dat.
Everyone wants to see a hard fought, clean safe race.
But then again. No one ever turns away from a truly spectacular wreck either.
How much of your money and mine support this family?
Submitted by Red Jeep on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 10:12am.
I'd like to know the story behind the story. I'd like to know how this family finances itself.
They seem to have the best of everything. That's quite an expensive car that Kody drives to go to work someplace.
I know one or two of the wives works, but unless Kody's job pays $250,000+ a year I don't see how they financially do it.
When the TV show is over, and the TV money is gone, are your dollars and mine helping finance Kody's harem?
First off with that many kids
Submitted by ricklail on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 10:41am.
First off with that many kids they probably don't pay any income tax. They probably get some back even though they don't pay any. Is that called earned income credit? I think it after 12 not more income taxes. I heard it was truly cheaper by the dozen.
Secondly TLC pays them per episode. Don't know how much. You probably don't remember the time ABC filmed Wife Swap in our little town. One of the guys at the store asked Cliffie (Holland) why he went through that. He said it was for $20,000. That must be the union''s going rate.
I know that Sarah Palin was negotiating for more per episode for her show. I heard 1 million a show. I think they paid her about $100,000.
They may follow the kids all the way until they are grown up. Who knows.
The shows are relatively cheap to produce but in many cases they reap big profits. I am thinking of Deadliest Catch. Look at all the business that Sons of Guns has brought to Red Jacket Firearms. There are big merchandising bucks from a show like Swamp People.
Many of the kids can say he is my brother from another mother. They can't say she is my sister from another mister.
Interesting.
Submitted by Red Jeep on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 10:59am.
I'd like to know who comes up with these show concepts, how the idea originates and developed. Did Kody contact the network or was he a friend of a friend who pitched the idea, etc.
(BTW, off topic, but don't you think PETA ought to be after the Swamp People show for cruelty to alligators?)
PETA:
Submitted by SickofLibs on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 11:43am.
I agree 100%, but I guess they're only mammal-focused.
Disclaimer: When in Florida, I DO enjoy fishing for gators on the canal behind my house. While gators have been around for several hundred million years, they are also mind-bendingly stupid. You can catch one, reel in it, it throws the hook, and then you can catch the same gator five minutes later with the exact same lure and presentation.
Alligators are too evil looking I guess as...
Submitted by Red Jeep on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 12:27pm.
...compared to cute and cuddly mammals and they are reptiles.
Guess alligators need their own PETA, People for the ethical treatment of alligators.
Rick
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sun, 07/17/2011 - 8:09am.
Gotta disagree with you on the kids and earned income tax credit. That credit doesn't cover close to what it costs to raise a child.
Help me with this one
Submitted by DontFeedTheTrolls on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 10:14am.
Correct me if I am wrong, but don't many Muslims in America have multiple wives? I remember reading about a Washington DC crime spree committed by the so-called Black Mafia in which an Imam's 2 wives (among others) were murdered.
When are they going to put
Submitted by Bhaal on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 10:17am.
When are they going to put out "Brother Husbands" and have a 40 something woman with 4 husbands ages 18-25? Isn't that the next progressive step?
Gay marriage
Submitted by Nortonalec on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 10:27am.
I had a conversation a couple of years ago with my wife's boss about gay marriage. She asked me what was wrong with gay marriage, and believed that it wasn't a big deal. We should mind our own business she told me. I told her that if gay marriage is allowed it would only be a matter of time before some crafty lawyer would propose legalizing plural marriage, or something far worse. Keep in mind that this woman is an accomplished professional (CPA) and very knowledgeable. After I had stated my case she said "I hadn't thought of that."
And that lack of critical thinking is, in my opinion, one of the major problems we face as a society.
Polite way out.
Submitted by mandrake on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 10:34am.
Has it not occured to you that "I hadn't thought of that" was a polite way to end the discussion?
I guess it would have if the
Submitted by Nortonalec on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 10:37am.
I guess it would have if the conversation had ended there.
Wait!
Submitted by mandrake on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 10:52am.
Are you saying you actually converted someone to your way of thinking with just logic? I've been around a long time..never happens.
Sometimes...
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 5:23pm.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Sometimes when someone says "I've never thought of that before", they mean it.
I'll never forget how dumbstruck my 100 or so students looked when I explained to them that "working class" was an unacceptable substitute for "middle class" or "lower class" on the test. For as I pointed out: "Even Warren Buffett and Bill Gates are part of the 'working class'. In fact something like 95% of us work. Rich, poor, in-between: ALL of us work."
A lot of those students left the class uttering "I've never looked at it that way before". I suspect I may have turned on a few light bulbs. Just a few.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
I've never thought of that before
Submitted by mandrake on Sun, 07/17/2011 - 9:06am.
bye :)
Norton
Submitted by Tugboat Phil on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 10:38am.
"...it would only be a matter of time before some crafty lawyer would propose legalizing plural marriage, or something far worse."
Since what is really happening is that the legal definition of the word "marriage" is being changed, that is where they will strike. Now the word will mean something akin to; "a union between consenting adults." Never being satisfied with the last victory, some anti-social miscreants (lawyers) will decide that the words "consenting" and "adult" are too restrictive to "personal freedom."
I used to be shocked when I read in the Bible or history books, of societies that sacrificed babies and children on altars to their "gods." I thought that the most primitive thing possible. Nowadays I don't think it would be that far of a stretch to not only see it happen again, but to have it televised. I truly believe that there is nothing so sick and twisted, that there aren't groups of people wanting to force it into public normality.
It won't be long before some
Submitted by ricklail on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 3:28pm.
It won't be long before some camel washer wants to marry his goat.
Coming soon: mandatory high
Submitted by celator on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 10:21am.
Coming soon: mandatory high school classes on "The History Of Polygamy".
I'll be interested to see the folks who jump to defend this...
Submitted by Mike Bratton on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 10:26am.
...on religious grounds.
After all, isn't that the core rationale for their aberrant behavior?
--Mike
You know, I was going to
Submitted by jdhawk on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 10:28am.
You know, I was going to watch that show the other evening, but the Cleanse Your Colon was on and so . . . .
You too? Interesting show.
Submitted by Red Jeep on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 10:32am.
Great visuals.
What's the problem?
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 10:37am.
We may dislike, fail to understand, or even envy the situation described here, but it's not at all unlike the arrangement under which President Obama (and many other Americans) grew up, except his dad didn't show up for dinner very often.
I'm betting only one of these "marriages" is legal, with the others being some sort of "arrangement".
With amorality running rampant in America, this is no different than an open marriage.
"With amorality running
Submitted by Nortonalec on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 10:43am.
"With amorality running rampant in America, this is no different than an open marriage." It is different if the state sanctions it!
How so?
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 11:18am.
The States already sanction, promote, and fund multiple partner relationships resulting in multiple illegitimate births. Check out the Welfare rolls.
Again I ask, how is this different? I'm against it, but too many traditionalists already have children by multiple wives, and rob one family to support the other.
why should we be surprised?
Submitted by ohio granny on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 10:52am.
Didn't most of us know that when the definition of marriage was changed to include same sex marriage, it was only a matter of time before someone wanted polygamy to be declared legal?
So I guess now there is no real definition of marriage. It can be whatever you want. 2 men and 1 woman, 3 women and 1 man, whatever. Where does this all end? All I can say, is God help us because we really do need help.
Our society is REALLY, REALLY sick and we can put the blame squarely on the backs of the democrats and progressives/liberals.
Take alook at tur(d)ley's background...
Submitted by owr084 on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 11:21am.
I think Debbie Schlussel has the full story here http://www.debbieschlussel.com/39848/exclusive-lawyer-in-sister-wives-la... According to her, tur(d)ley "Not only does he love to represent Islamic terrorists and extremists in ACLU-style lawsuits, but he’s been a frequent fixture on the high-paid Arab and Muslim propaganda lecture circuit. Turley spoke to the national gathering of the openly pro-HAMAS/Hezbollah ADC (the deceptively-named American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, which has as one of its top officials a “former” Islamic terrorist."
There you have it. Gain acceptance of polygamy by using these tools/useful idiots. If you came out and said you are trying to get polygamy legalized just for muslims, it would never fly. Sounds like creeping sharia to me...
"Happy face" of polygamy
Submitted by lrgon on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 11:53am.
is the theme or tactic used by the perverse homosexuals to use the medium of television to make their perverse views and practices seem "normal" when placed in a "fun settng' like a sitcome like Frazier, Friends or the "Reality show" genre. It is working for the queeds so why not attack the American culture some more by making fun of the whole western concept of marriage and undefine it for all time?
Yet how does one counter it when pastors and priests and Rabbis skake in their pulpits from fear of being politically incorrect! One way is for the faithful to tell them to get some nerve and walk the walk not just talk the talk!
Why get married?
Submitted by shawn. on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 12:01pm.
A man living with multiple woman and having sexual relations is perfectly legal. Sounds like a win win situation to me :-)
Oh Yeah, right.
Submitted by mdgiles on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 2:37pm.
Until divorce court ends and the alimony and child support start
Exactly
Submitted by shawn. on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 2:45pm.
Just enjoy the physical benefits without the marriage license.
Let's revert
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 5:25pm.
That's a very 13 year old way of looking at it...
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Yes i am so sure no grown men want sex
Submitted by shawn. on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 5:48pm.
.......with multiple women with no strings attached.
Ain't no such thing, shawn---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 6:12pm.
as "no strings attached." :o)
MD
Your probably right MD
Submitted by shawn. on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 6:19pm.
I guess I don't understand why gays and people into polygamy want to get married. No law is stopping them from cohabitation.
Homos don't want to get married.
Submitted by Red Jeep on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 8:06pm.
They want the issue.
MD
Submitted by MrShy on Tue, 07/19/2011 - 9:12pm.
Ain't no such thing, shawn, as "no strings attached."
I can attest to that.
- Shy Vinyl
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
for some reason
Submitted by Tjexcite on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 12:40pm.
Changing the topic to Sarah Palin's Alaska on TLC and only the peculiars need change. Was TLC lobbying to fix SP image and make her more legitimate as a intelligent person and not dumb b**** that the left has made here out to be.
An afternoon on TLC could be Hoarding, My strange addiction, Cake Boss, Say yes to the dress, Sarah Palin's Alaska then Sister Wives.
One could say they are lobbying to make hoarding and storage addictions legal recognized medical condition to soon get disability money from the government. Are they lobbing to get extravagant wacky cakes and dresses that no one can logically pay for a right that the government must pay for.
The "Learning" Channel
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 5:27pm.
They call this "The Learning Channel", but every time I have seen it since my Psychology prof sold this channel in a huge way to us students years ago, I don't see much on there I can learn from.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
I watch this show.
Submitted by Alana on Sun, 07/17/2011 - 1:06am.
He is only legally married to the oldest wife. The other three had weddings, complete with dresses, but they were not legal marriages.
This is the only television show I've ever watched that, although I want to watch it, it makes me almost literally nauseous. It sickens me how the women have to go along with many things they don't like 0 like the new wife. They keep telling themselves they are supposed to like it, of course.
The husband is jumped-up and the wives are oppressed. The first three wives all married him within a short time span, and then had children, and were all pretty satisfied with this arrangement for 18 years or however long it's been.
Then wife number four comes along - younger, cuter, slimmer, prettier, and brunette, whereas the others are all blonde. He and she reveled in keeping a secret from the others regarding her dress, pretending the women were all going to choose it (and in fact, she went with them to look at dresses), when in fact he and she then chose one themselves, and presented that fact to the others as a "surprise."
Wife number four, along with her two kids from a previous marriage, still lived in her separate apartment.
Now wife number four is pregnant. At the end of this season, they fled from Utah (much drama over that), with one wife clearly not wanting to go. They were unable to find a house big enough for all of them in Las Vegas (I believe that's where they moved to), so they now all have separate houses.
I find that very interesting and hopeful, because the older wives seem to be enjoying that a lot (particularly the second wife). I personally can't imagine why they would want to go back to one house, or even bother to stay with that husband. Perhaps with the money they get from the show, they will be able to purchase their freedom.
After 50 years, the radicals suddenly want marriage
Submitted by Jack Bauer on Sun, 07/17/2011 - 6:08am.
Anyone remember the sixties --- I know, it's a old joke that if you remember the 1960s you weren't there.
The big thing then from the radical lefties and the "feminists" was this...
SMASH THE PATRIARCHY -- starting with the oppressive institution of MARRIAGE.
Now these same people want to see TWO PATRIARCHS married --- and ONE MAN with a half dozen wives in tow.
Funny, you never see any movements behind ONE WOMAN and several "husbands" in tow. Never gonna happen.
It's gotta be hell being a liberal trying to reconcile their support of the "man" in power, with their delusion they are the iconoclasts.
All of the above Mr Obama? --- How about ALL OF THE BELOW, instead.
Good morning Jack
Submitted by cocodrie on Sun, 07/17/2011 - 7:31am.
I remember the 60s. I remember Bella Abzug and all the other beautiful members of the women's movement back then. She almost singlehandedly dealt a death blow to men's desire for marriage.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
coco -- I assume that's
Submitted by Jack Bauer on Tue, 07/19/2011 - 4:40am.
coco -- I assume that's Abzugly
All of the above Mr Obama? --- How about ALL OF THE BELOW, instead.
Actually, polygamy is the norm, not monogamy
Submitted by MPH on Tue, 07/19/2011 - 7:44pm.
It's anthropology 101 (well, maybe 215). The reason men are larger than women is because, for most of human history, large men have had multiple mates, and small men have had none. In any species that practices polygamy, the gender on the "one" side of the "one-to-many" relationship winds up with the characteristic(s) exaggerated that the gender on the "many" side of the relationship desire. In the case of humans, women went for men at the large end of the height spectrum in a big way, resulting in male children who tended, on average, to be taller than the previous generation. Monogamy is actually a relatively recent development.
So for those of you who want "traditional marriage", polygamy is it.
But here's one issue that I really don't get. Why do you want a third party, who is not going to be part of your marriage, to decide what your marriage means? Get married today, and the laws of your state dictate what your marriage means, under what conditions it may be terminated, what the post termination conditions will be, etc. Change states, and the definition of your marriage changes. Or the legislature of your state changes what it means in your state.
Why not draw up a private contract that all parties agree to, sign, and has as much detail as desired. Then the state should just enforce the contract. Then your marriage means exactly what you want it to, and the legislature's desires, or your neighbor's desires, don't matter. Then there's no need to feel threatened by fears of the laws changing, or not changing to meet your desires.
Actually, polygamy is a survival mechanism
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 07/19/2011 - 7:51pm.
I realize that the thought of one man and one woman in a relationship called "marriage" sickens you to no end, but polygamy is actually practiced in times of severe population declines. And it creates all sorts of problems, as the Sublime Porte could attest, among other places.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Good evening nsane
Submitted by cocodrie on Tue, 07/19/2011 - 7:56pm.
Polygamy is actually the cause of the Israeli arab problem today thanks to Abraham. If he hadn't fathered Ishmael with his maid We wouldn't have this mess.
.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Care to source this?
Submitted by UpNorth on Tue, 07/19/2011 - 8:02pm.
"Monogamy is actually a relatively recent development."
And, is the "private contract" paragraph just another way of including gay marriage, among a host of other "marriages" in the mainstream?
You've got it backwards
Submitted by CobraMan on Tue, 07/19/2011 - 8:57pm.
Monogamy is the true survival tactic, the true "norm," and it has been throughout all of Human history. That's why most societies, those that last more than a few generations, has "adopted" it. Just as with a lot of animal species, monogamist relationships, for humans, is far more beneficial for the survival of children, and of mankind itself, for the simple reason that it's far easier to provide for and maintain a single monogamist family than multiple polygamist ones. For this very reason, this reason of survival, monogamy has been "bred" into our very genes. That's why the vast majority of relationships are monogamist, no matter where in the world you travel. It's a part of our very nature. It's a part of what we are.
Anyone who has studied anthropology would know this with certainty. Do you think that it's just a coincidence that the vast majority of ancient human dwellings that anthropologists have been digging up all over the world, dwellings that are several thousands of years old, have been collections of single family dwellings, dwellings which, though the examination of the remains of food, clothing, utensils, graves, and even "trash" found within and around those dwellings, shows us definitively that a single family, comprised of a single father and a single mother (and few children, as most children didn't live long in ancient times, most died at a very early age) resided there? That's not a coincidence, that's human nature on display, for anyone who cares to see, that is.
Face it, monogamy, and not polygamy, is the normal human behavior, one that has existed for tens of thousands, and even hundreds of thousands, of years because it is a survival tactic, one that obviously works. WHY would anyone want to reverse tens of thousands of years of proven survival strategy and adopt polygamy? Is it selfishness? Or just plain foolishness?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.