‘Sister Wives’ star loses her job

Salt Lake Tribune ^ | Oct. 15, 2010 | Scott D. Pierce

[Colofornian]

Of course the woman is only married to one man. SO they are firing her because she won’t divorce her husband who is cheating on her?

Nice reductionism, Chuck. Biz as usual, eh?

Of course, your comment only makes sense if marriage was a state-business only thing. But you know, Chuck, marriage goes back a longggg ways. Well before any state decided to license it.

You see there's this "little" issue that "Marriage" is also done before and in the eyes of the Lord. Just trying telling us that...
...with the commitment these adults give to each other,
...and what they even have done to sanction it "in the eyes of the Lord" (whatever that might have been...in terms of who has "solemnized" these "unions")...
...that either them or God doesn't look upon their arrangement as a "marriage."

Therefore, they are...
...committed to one another in a sort of group marriage or polygamy...
...they see themselves that way person to person and household to God...
...and now they are flaunting that to the nation -- holding it out as a way for other households to emulate.

And you want to reduce all that to just the legal piece of paper that somehow discounts...
...how they see each other in that household?
...how God sees them in trying to sanction this behavior both within their household and now nation wide?
...how TV viewers see them, some of whom may now attempt to follow their contemporary trailblazing?

Nice job leaving out all those contexts, Chuck. Their household. God. The nation and world itself.

And all you seemingly want to do is only honor that legal piece of paper.
What? You don't want to honor God?
What? You don't want members of a household to honor each other?
What? You don't want people to honor their neighbors (TV viewers) by trying to influence them to engage in immoral behavior that's detrimental to the institution of marriage?

Is it always whatever is legal is moral with you, Chuck?

Or do you actually consider that even something that somebody tries to do, even if some court decides was technically legal, is still immoral?

Why do we see you always seemingly taking the side of the fundamentalist Mormons, Chuck?

Open up your context. Otherwise, your comments are not only reductionistic, but shameful as you disregard, morality, God's view of marriage, and how we treat our neighbors!!!

[nodumbblonde]

Were they commanded to?

David had Bathsheba’s husband killed. Is that also considered precedent?

[Dr. Scarpetta]

Aimg src=”http://static.tvguide.com/MediaBin/Galleries/Shows/S_Z/Si_Sp/Sister_Wives/season1/sister-wives-5.jpg";>

[Dr. Scarpetta]

[beefree]

Evidently, there is a law against co-habitation, according to O’Reilly’s ‘culture warriors’

[Daisyjane69]

Correct.

In Utah, if you are merely co-habitating, but referring to yourself as married and portraying yourself as married, you are breaking the law.

[Utah Binger]

Wow a twofer!

[CharlesWayneCT]

Then what about my second question — do you really think they would fire a woman who was sleeping with a married man?

Or a woman who was living with a man without being married?

Do you think it is the job of businesses to ensure that their employees are sinless?

I would note that when they go after polygamists, they arrest and put in jail the men, because they have multiple wives. They don’t arrest the women who are married to one man.

Well, they do in egypt. But in America? At least a google search for “woman arrested for polygamy” didn’t reveal any cases where the wife of a polygamist is arrested.

I don’t expect business to enforce moral codes, beyond those businesses and those immoralities where the morality of the employee is a critical part of the job description.

They certainly can fire employees who are convicted of criminal behavior. But in this case, no criminality has been charged, and the woman, immoral as she may be, is not doing anything that a million other women are doing and NOT being fired for.

BTW, if a wife finds out her husband is cheating on her, is she immoral if she doesn’t divorce him?

[CynicalBear]

>>Was there or was there not religious precedent for polygamy prior to J Woww Smith?<<

By religion do you mean the original intent and purpose of the one true God or are you including cults, Pagan religions, and those that strayed from God’s original intent? Your reference was to the Bible so I assumed you were trying to insinuate that polygamy was instituted or condoned by Yahweh the one true God.

Just because the Bible mentions a trait or act of an individual, even a godly person, does not necessarily mean that the Bible endorsed such. The mentioning of Noah becoming drunk and disgracing himself is mentioned, but certainly not condoned (Gen. 9: 20). I submit that God was not pleased with polygamy, an aberrant from the monogamous marriage God put in place, but that he did two things: (1). God tolerated polygamy during the maturation of his people and (2) he sought to regulate the evil practice.

We know that God intended for one man, one woman and that this relationship was to be for the duration (Matt. 19: 4, the only allowable cause for divorce is fornication). Yet, we also read of a divorce provision for a cause other than fornication (Deut. 24: 1-4). This divorce concession was not given for the pleasure of flippant husbands, but was actually for the protection of the women. Thus it was relative to polygamy. God put in place monogamous marriage, but man within a short time became dissatisfied with one woman (Gen. 4: 19). Hence, God then sought to regulate the polygamous practice (Ex. 21: 10). Notwithstanding, God was never pleased with polygamy or divorce for a cause other than fornication (Mal. 3: 16).

God’s teaching remains one man, one woman (Matt. 19: 4ff., I Cor. 7, Rom. 7: 3, 4, Eph. 5: 22ff.). “God no longer “winks at ignorance, but now commands all men every where to repent” (Acts 17: 30).

I guess if you want to allow anything from any so called religion ever practiced your statement of argument finished would hold but then we wouldn’t have a base for much of anything concrete or unchanging would we. But then again, that is what the progressives want. (and no I’m not saying you are a progressive but just comparing it to progressive thought)

[Ransomed]

“The law, therefore, applies not just to individuals who have obtained multiple marriage licenses, but also to those who are legally married to only one person, while also engaging in other marriage-like relationships that are not recognized by the state”

Huh. I had no idea. Thanks.

Freegards

[Daisyjane69]

Here is the problem:

This isn’t about infidelity. Or sinlessness. This is “structural.”

These folks are presenting themselves as married, in the eyes of not only the spirit, but the law.

The sad part about this is that the only woman in this group who has a legitimate claim to anything, is Meri. She is the first, and only lawful “wife.” The rest are essentially girlfriends.

[Utah Binger]

I gave a lecture to an arts group Thursday night in Hurricane at the library. While waiting in the reading room a slew of these beauties came marching in. Thank God they didn’t attend the lecture. None could be described as model material. Rather, sad, used and dejected. No happiness detected.

Poor souls.

[Daisyjane69]

And one more thing....

Do me a favor and conquer to urge to defend this behavior.

It’s abhorrant.

You make a flight into Vegas and I’ll pick you up. Then we can stroll through Colorado City et al and then through St. George.

Liberals LOVE the intellectual arguments. But they can’t answer real life. That is what’s on the ground.

I’d pay a million dollars to watch you pedal your crap to a 12 year old boy who has been kicked out of the only home he’s ever known, from the only family he’s ever known.

Maybe you’re the genius who can tell him why it’s just dandy.

[j.argese]

The original poster used the Book of Mormon as if polygamy never existed prior to the Golden Plates of Maroni. I’m neither Mormon nor progressive. Just prefer the whole story is presented.

[Colofornian]

How could there be any risk if there are not multiple marriage licences or fraud? To my understanding a bunch of folks living together and calling themselves married carries no legal risk unless there is fraud or getting multiple marriage licenses by lying to the state. Seems like the risk would be minimal if these loons just kept their noses clean. [Ransomed]

Evidently, there is a law against co-habitation, according to O’Reilly’s ‘culture warriors’ [BeeFree]

Yes, authorities tend to only prosecute bigamy when deceit/fraud involved. And even if unlawful co-habitation laws are still on the books [what the feds used to get Mormons on re: prison time in the 1880s], it's not usually enforced.

So why would the authorities get involved?

Let me give you two analogies:

Say somebody was in a state where "medical marijuana" is allowed...and their possession of a certain amount was legal. But say this same person then started having a weekly TV series and appearing on Oprah telling people how they could grow their own marijuana, too. Then you might have authorities looking for any legality...maybe if he had possession of marijuana while he was on the road.

Or say somebody had some borderline legal tax shelter. And then they were advocating how others could establish something similar on Oprah and on a weekly TV series. This gentleman might, for starters, find himself suddenly audited.

Then what about my second question — do you really think they would fire a woman who was sleeping with a married man? Or a woman who was living with a man without being married? Do you think it is the job of businesses to ensure that their employees are sinless? [CharlesWayneCT]

Charles, I cited the above to show you that even when some things might be technically legal ("medical marijuana" allowed in one jurisdiction, but not another) could provide enough of a warrant for a company to say enough is enough.

The other thing is we don't know all the details. I mean, what if this ex-employee put her children as dependents on the company's medical policy -- along with her husband. But if she's not the legal wife of him, and they found any of this out, then they could fire her for those reasons. (Companies don't explain why they fire for personnel reasons)

[trisham]

I can’t believe that this garbage is on TV. It’s depraved.

[CynicalBear]

>> I’m neither Mormon nor progressive. Just prefer the whole story is presented.<<

Yeah, I understand. I hope you realized that I was trying to ad clarity to your intent that polygamy was not a part of any credible Biblical religion.

[j.argese]

No problem at all!

[patriot08]

.

“I saw part of this show, the “husband” is a slick fellow. He has these women eating out of his hand. The stuff he says to them with a straight face is hilarious. There is one scene where he is out with one of the gals for their 20th anniversary and he gets bent out of shape when she says “what if I was with another man”. He says something like how repulsive even the thought of that is to him. LOL!”

I saw that.
Why is it repulsive for a woman to have more than one man/husband and not for the man to have more than one woman?

Seems to me the guy who set up this ‘religion’ was setting up a good deal for himself and men in general:
Fix it so men get all the sex they can handle while keeping women subservient.
Sounds like the muzzies, doesn’t it?

.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Yes. That is really the point, isn’t it? This woman married a man, presumably because she loved him. SO far as we can tell she has been faithful to him.

But then the sleezeball went off and started having affairs with other girls. And rather than hide it from his wife, he told her, and convinced her that it was his “religion” and she should accept it.

And like too many women, she bowed to his will, and has adopted his “lifestyle”, allowing him to treat these other women as if they were her equals.

So, how is this any different from any other wife who might decide to let her husband have an “open” relationship because she doesn’t really want to divorce him?

I’d understand a company firing the guy. And I guess without knowing all the details of her employment, I just don’t understand why the average employer would fire a woman because she won’t leave a cheating husband, and instead defends him.

Remember the golfer guy, Tiger Woods? He was married, and was cheating on his wife. And she found out — he had multiple women, some of whom he treated like wives and slept with over a period of a long time.

And his wife didn’t leave him — and she was NOT fired from her job. Of course, she seemed to be upset with what he did — but suppose she had come out and said “well, he’s famous, and I understand it, and I can live with it, and I don’t care if he sleeps around”?

Would she then have been fired?