Helping the Media & Information-gatherers by providing
news, reports, and insights from the pro-polygamy view.

Click to order DVD
Order Your Pro-Polygamy Passport ™

'Polygamy Rights' Movement Not Re-Defined by Homosexuals

Date: Mar 31, 2006
Word Count: 2700 words
Cross-Reference: Big Love, HBO, Brian Barnard, polygamy rights movement

While HBO's "Big Love" writers and a Utah attorney, Brian Barnard, are welcome to promote polygamy, the appreciative but leery conservative polygamy rights movement at the national level will not be re-defined by them.

Conservative   polygamy   rights   activists   have   always   acknowledged   that   they   have   little   need   to   spend   much   time   seeking   to   persuade   liberals   -   even   many   homosexuals   -   that   liberalism's   "tolerance"   dogma   obligates   such   liberals   to   accept   un-coerced,   consenting-adult   polygamy.     Accordingly,   as   polygamy   rights   activists   thereby   focus   on   persuading   their   fellow   conservatives   with   true   conservative   arguments,   any   liberal   person   in   favor   of   polygamy   is   more   typically   left   with   unassisted   "free   reign"   to   persuade   other   liberals   without   commentary   from   the   polygamy   rights   movement. 
However,   the   arrival   of   pay   TV   channel   HBO’s   March   12,   2006,   premiere   of   “Big   Love”   -   a   show   about   a   secularized   Mormon   Polygamous   family   -   brought   new   concern   about   the   limitations   of   such   "free   reign,"   regarding   liberals   and   polygamy   rights.     The   media   buzz   about   this   new   TV   show   from   Hollywood   directed   great   media   attention   onto   the   growing   polygamy   movement.     Consequently,   an   attorney   in   Utah   named   Brian   Barnard,   individually   representing   a   Mormon   polygamous   couple’s   two-year   lawsuit   demanding   a   legal   marriage   license   for   a   second   wife,   also   began   appearing   in   the   media   as   a   “representative”   of   the   polygamy   rights   movement.     Both   the   show   and   that   attorney’s   publicity   have   caused   some   concern   for   actual   polygamy   rights   activists   -   leery   that   homosexuals   could   potentially   be   harming,   if   not   actually   re-defining,   their   movement. 
The   creators   of   “Big   Love”   are   Mark   Olsen   and   Will   Scheffer.     Not   only   do   the   two   script   writers   work   together,   but   they   are   homosexual   “partners”   too.       As   The   Washington   Blade   reported   (March   10,   2006),   when   Olsen   originally   suggested   creating   a   show   about   polygamists   to   Sheffer,   the   latter   said   he   thought   the   idea   was   “yucky.” 
The   homosexual   pair   are   reported   to   have   spent   three   years   “researching   polygamy.”     However,   such   time   was   only   conducted   exclusively   with   the   Mormon   Polygamy   paradigm   in   the   Utah   area.     As   the   resulting   series   demonstrates,   they   never   stepped   outside   of   the   false   “all   polygamy   is   Mormon   Polygamy”   stereotype.      
“Big   Love”   is   a   show   about   a   secularized   Mormon   Polygamist   husband   with   three   wives   -   and   their   vehemently   regretted   connection   to   an   extortionist   Fundamentalist   Mormon   Polygamous   "compound"   with   whom   they   would   prefer   to   never   see   again.     Now,   the   “mainstream   Mormon”   institution   can   protest   the   story's   Mormon   connections   all   it   wants,   but   when   the   form   of   polygamy   uses,   as   it   does   in   the   storyline,   beliefs   which   are   exclusively   Mormon-created   -   such   as   the   “Doctrines   &   Covenants,”   or   as   calling   plural   marriage   as   either   “the   principle”   or   "celestial   marriage"   -   then   it   is   Mormon   Polygamy.     Period.        
It   has   to   be   admitted   that   "Big   Love's"   first   few   episodes   do   positively   educate   its   audience   of   a   few   things.     Quickly   dispelling   the   ridiculous   myth   that   polygamy   is   a   “sexual   fantasy”   for   men,   the   episodes   do   demonstrate   how   much   of   a   challenging   difficulty   that   polygamy   can   be   for   a   husband   to   successfully   manage   -   from   personalities   to   multiple   in-laws   to   viagra.     It   also   shows   that   normal   consenting-adult   polygamists,   including   many   Mormon   Polygamists,   vehemently   do   not   support   the   criminal   activities   which   have   anecdotally   occurred   in   some   of   the   rural   Fundamentalist   Mormon   Polygamous   communities   -   such   as   underage   or   arranged   marriages. 
However,   in   pandering   to   HBO’s   quite-secular   audience   –   it   is   certainly   not   targeted   to   a   typically   Christian   or   Mormon   audience   who   do   not   typically   purchase   HBO,   anyway   –   “Big   Love”   does   unnecessarily   succumb   to   the   occasional   use   of   gratuitous   sex   scenes.     It   also   includes   a   ridiculous   sexual   sub-plot   of   unrealistic   flirting   between   the   adult   youngest   wife   and   the   first   wife’s   young   teenage   son.     Such   erroneous   focus   could   also   be   reflective   of   the   sexual-based   aspect   of   the   show’s   homosexual   creators’   own   minds. 
Further   alarming   to   pro-polygamists,   each   episode   also   begins   with   a   very   troubling   opening   scene.     Episodes   begin   with   the   husband   and   three   wives   actually   ice   skating   on   a   frozen   pond   together.     Then   the   ice   cracks,   separating   two   of   the   wives   off   into   their   own   separate   sections.     The   message?     They   are   “skating   on   thin   ice.”   And   one   wife   remains   in   the   same   cracked-apart   section   with   the   husband. 
That   scene   makes   national   polygamy   rights   activists   suspicious   and   leery   indeed.     Are   the   homosexual   writers   thereby   subtly   hinting   how   they   will   write   the   final   conclusion   into   the   series?     Is   it   their   creative   plan   to   deliberately   write   into   the   story   the   disintegration   of   the   Mormon   Polygamous   family   until   there   is   only   one   wife   left   at   the   end   of   the   last   episode?     If   that   conclusion   is   what   is   planned   and   ultimately   occurs,   it   would   expose   the   entire   series   as   being   an   intended   attempt   to   sabotage   the   understanding   of   polygamy   before   the   masses. 
But   that   is   not   all   that   makes   pro-polygamists   leery.     And   the   homosexual   connection   continues   too. 
As   all   the   media   buzz   about   “Big   Love”   directed   attention   onto   the   polygamy   rights   movement   at   the   national   level,   Utah   attorney   Brian   Barnard   posited   himself   into   the   media   spotlight   to   discuss   the   polygamy   rights   cause.     A   johnny-come-lately   to   polygamy   activism,   Mr.   Barnard’s   only   basis   for   involvement   was   in   filing   a   lawsuit   in   January   12,   2004,   for   a   local   Mormon-based   couple   seeking   a   marriage   license   in   Utah   to   marry   a   second   wife. 
It   has   to   be   admitted   that   pro-polygamists   are   "not   unhappy"   to   see   a   polygamy-case   going   to   trial,   of   course.     And   while   the   case   might   not   likely   succeed   in   its   attempt   to   force   state   government   to   grant   multiple   marriage   licenses,   it   is   possible   that   the   case   could   end   Utah's   unacceptable   law   enforcement   application   of   even   unlicensed   co-habitation   in   making   a   so-called   charge   of   bigamy. 
Still,   in   the   final   analysis,   the   case   is   not   about   de-criminalization   as   is   otherwise   promoted   by   the   polygamy   rights   movement   at   the   national   level.     Indeed,   as   Barnard’s   lawsuit   was   using   the   legalization   route   in   its   argumentation,   and   was   also   repeating   the   already-failed   Mormon   defense   of   “freedom   of   religion,”   the   evangelical   Christian   Polygamy   organization,,   issued   a   qualified   press   release   the   next   day,   on   January   13,   2004. 
Because   Barnard’s   localized   use   of   the   legalization   route   conflicted   with   the   de-criminalization   arguments   already   established   by   the   polygamy   rights   movement   at   the   national   level,   there   was   real   concern   as   to   how   Barnard’s   case   could   play   out.     In   that   press   release,   Mark   Henkel,   the   established   national   polygamy   advocate,   was   quoted,   saying,   “Unfortunately,   seeking   ‘legalization’   could   backfire.”     As   Henkel   had   explained   to   The   Washington   Blade,   the   month   before   on   December   26,   2003,   “The   government   does   not   have   any   authority   to   be   in   the   marriage   business   in   the   first   place.” 
So,   with   cautious   and   mild   trepidation,   the   national   polygamy   rights   movement   took   note   of   Barnard’s   sudden,   new   arrival   on   the   polygamy   rights   scene   at   the   local   level   in   Utah   in   2004.     That   lone   local   Utah   attorney   had   never   consulted   with   the   national   polygamy   rights   movement   to   understand   what   the   movement   really   wanted.     Howbeit,   attorneys   are,   of   course,   free   to   legally   pursue   whatever   arguments   they   choose   for   their   own   clients.     But   representing   clients   in   a   local   case   is   vastly   different   from   being   a   qualified   spokesman   for   a   larger,   national   movement. 
With   the   “Big   Love”   premiere   episode   on   March   12,   2006,   the   media   frenzy   began.     Numerous   media   outlets   sought   interviews   from   the   polygamy   rights   movement.     The   March   20th   issue   of   Newsweek,   available   online   March   13th,   even   quoted   Henkel   again   making   his   often-reported   sound-bite,   “Polygamy   rights   is   the   next   civil   rights   battle.” 
Indeed,   as   both   the   founder   of   the   cross-denominational,   evangelical   Christian   Polygamy   organization,,   and   being   the   established   national   polygamy   advocate,   Mark   Henkel   originated   that   sound-bite.     The   media   distribution   site,   ,   was   explicitly   authorized   to   use   it   on   its   front   webpage.     As   attributed   back   to   him,   Henkel’s   sound-bite   had   also   long   been   repeatedly   reported   in   many   different   news   sources   over   the   years   -   from   in   2003,   to   The   Wall   Street   Journal   in   2004,   to   The   Washington   Times   in   2005,   to   Newsweek   in   2006,   etc.     No   question,   Henkel's   sound-bite   and   conservative   arguments   had   been   laying   down   the   framework   for   the   polygamy   rights   movement   at   the   national   level   for   years. 
Even   so,   as   that   sound-bite   became   repeatedly   “heard   around   the   world”   in   March   2006,   suddenly   Utah   attorney   Brian   Barnard   showed   up   in   media   -   such   as   on   MSNBC's   "The   Situation   with   Tucker   Carlson"   on   March   20,   2006   -   discussing   “polygamy   rights   as   the   next   civil   rights   battle.”     While   it   is   to   his   credit   that   Barnard   has   been   careful   to   say   "what   he   does   not   know"   about   polygamists,   it   still   remains   that   he   is   just   a   local   Utah   attorney   representing   a   single   Mormon   Polygamy   case,   using   arguments   that   do   not   fully   reflect   the   positions   and   direction   of   the   national   polygamy   movement.    
And   other   legal   cases   which   Barnard   takes   are   in   stark   contrast   with   the   firm   family   values   of   many   polygamists   around   the   country.     A   March   4,   2006,   Associated   Press   article   in   a   central   Utah   newspaper,   The   Daily   Herald,   reported   that   Barnard   recently   filed   a   lawsuit   on   behalf   of   the   Utah   Animal   Rights   Coalition.     And   a   March   18,   2006,   article   in   another   Utah   newspaper,   The   Deseret   News,   reported   that   Barnard   recently   filed   a   new   anti-religious-freedom   lawsuit   representing   American   Atheists,   Inc.     As   the   national   polygamy   rights   movement   would   never   have   any   association   with   such   extremely   anti-conservative,   anti-God,   liberal   groups,   it   is   clear   that   Barnard   is   just   an   attorney.     By   itself,   that   is   fine   for   him;   but   it   reveals   that   he   is   certainly   not   a   qualified   or   committed   "spokesman   from   the   heart"   for   the   polygamy   rights   movement. 
Such   other   cases   also   help   further   explain   Barnard's   more   liberal   choice   to   push   a   legalization   direction   for   his   polygamy-seeking   Utah   clients,   instead   of   staying   with   the   national   polygamy   movement's   stated   positions   of   de-criminalization   and   of   removing   any   government   involvement   in   defining   marriage. 
But   seeking   legalization   plays   right   into   the   hands   of   deceptive   propagandists   who   then   wrongly   try   to   mis-apply   the   meaning   of   both   Henkel's   sound-bite   and   the   national   polygamy   rights   movement   itself.     Anti-polygamists   use   the   pursuit   of   legalization   to   falsely   accuse   polygamists   of   "following"   or   being   in   league   with   homosexuals. 
But   such   false   accusations   could   not   be   further   from   the   truth. 
"Polygamy   rights   is   the   next   civil   rights   battle,"   not   because   polygamists   are   supposedly   "learning   from"   or   "copying"   the   homosexuals'   liberal   arguments,   but   because   of   just   the   opposite.     Indeed,   conservative   U.S.   Supreme   Court   Justice   Antonin   Scalia's   official   Dissents   in   both   Romer   v.   Evans   (1996)   and   Lawrence   v.   Texas   (2003)   directly   instructed   polygamists   how   to   proceed   with   those   precedents.     Therefore,   conservative   polygamists   heeding   Scalia's   written   instruction   is   merely   their   act   of   using   such   a   conservative   Justice's   own   stated   directions   on   the   issue.     Those   Decisions   established   that   big   government   has   no   liberal   authority   to   oppress   or   hinder   the   freedom   of   consenting-adult   individuals   from   doing   that   which   is   actually   allowed   for   any   other   consenting-adults.     And   taking   that   thought   even   further   to   true   conservatism,   the   national   polygamy   rights   movement   has   ultimately   called   for   protecting   real   marriage   by   removing   government   from   being   liberally   authorized   to   define   marriage   in   any   form. 
So   actually,   "polygamy   rights   is   the   next   civil   rights   battle"   because   it   actually   provides   the   true   conservative,   yet   win-win,   solution   to   finally   ending   the   legalized   "government   marriage"   debate   once   and   for   all.     By   removing   big   government   from   unconstitutionally   defining   marriage   in   any   form   (after   all,   no   one   in   the   Bible   was   ever   married   "by   government"),   the   true   conservative   position   of   limited   government   frees   and   resolves   both   sides   of   the   debate.     The   biological   impossibility   of   "same   sex   marriage"   can   neither   be   used   to   re-define   marriage   nor   be   used   to   empower   government   to   tyrannically   force   churches   to   perform   homosexual   "weddings."       Likewise,   without   anyone's   marriage   (real   or   imagined)   being   defined   by   government,   then   if   homosexuals   subsequently   want   to   imagine   that   they   are   somehow   "married,"   they   are   free   to   have   their   imaginations.     And,   those   who   choose   homosexual   behavior   can   also   realize   their   claimed   intent   of   so-called   legal   "equality"   with   those   who   choose   "one   man,   one   woman"   and   with   any   anyone   else   who   does   not   accept   such   imaginings   of   supposed   "same   sex   marriage."     Everyone   becomes   truly   free   and   no   one   is   forced   to   accept   anyone   else's   big   government   agendas   or   re-definitions.     And   true   conservatives   can   rejoice   in   limited   government   principles   finally   prevailing   -   and   ending   the   frankenstein-monster   of   big   "government   marriage"   altogether. 
So,   as   Brian   Barnard's   single   Utah   case   instead   pursues   a   legalization   direction,   it   unfortunately   helps   the   anti-polygamists   to   accuse   the   polygamy   movement   of   somehow   "riding   on   the   coattails"   of   homosexuals.     It   is   made   even   worse   when   Barnard   then   presents   himself   as   any   form   of   spokesman   for   the   polygamy   rights   movement. 
And   one   more   item   further   makes   it   even   that   much   more   troublesome.     Polygamists   have   been   reportedly   informed   that   Brian   Barnard   is   a   homosexual   himself. 
That   final   item   makes   national   polygamy   rights   activists   suspicious   and   definitely   leery   indeed.     Why   should   a   homosexual   attorney   take   a   polygamy-related   case   and   then   use   the   very   legalization   arguments   that   the   actual   polygamy   movement   does   not   seek?     Why   should   a   homosexual   attorney   posit   himself   in   the   media   as   any   form   of   spokesman   for   a   national   polygamy   rights   movement   with   whom   he   does   not   consult?     Should   his   case   ultimately   fail,   as   the   legalization   argument   could   very   well   cause,   Barnard   will   simply   go   on   with   his   own   reported   homosexual   life.     Naturally,   he   will   move   on   in   his   legal   practice   and   just   keep   taking   cases   representing   actually   extreme   liberal   groups.       But   the   real   polygamy   rights   movement   will   be   left   to   pick   up   the   pieces   he   leaves   behind   with   yet   another   failed   court   precedent. 
Of   course,   pro-polygamists   are   glad   to   see   a   case   proceed.     They   do   not   want   Barnard's   clients'   case   to   fail.     And   it   would   certainly   be   good   to   see   an   overturning   of   the   legal   connection   which   currently   allows   mere   unlicensed   co-habitation   to   be   exploited   in   legally   securing   a   bigamy   charge   in   Utah   state.     But   a   homosexual   attorney   (using   the   known   homosexual   agenda   for)   using   legalization   is   not   only   probable   to   fail   for   polygamy   (as   that   same   old   argument   has   failed   in   the   past),   but   it   actually   empowers   lying   propagandists   to   deceitfully   malign   the   polygamy   rights   movement   of   supposedly   "copying   homosexuals"   when   they   do   not. 
In   the   same   way,   pro-polygamists   are   quite   glad   that   HBO's   "Big   Love"   allows   viewers   to   see   -   at   least   in   the   first   few   episodes   -   that   most   polygamists,   truly,   are   rather   normal   consenting-adults   indeed,   who   do   not   all   live   in   secretive   compounds,   and   are   just   like   most   anyone   else.     They   gratefully   welcome   the   subsequent   media   attention   which   the   show   has   caused,   to   then   educate   the   masses   about   what   the   different   forms   of   polygamous   families   are   really   “all   about”   -   such   as   the   very   different   form,   Christian   Polygamy.       And   it   would   certainly   be   good   to   see   "Big   Love's"   storyline   continue   only   in   the   direction   of   increasingly   strengthening   the   polygamous   family's   totally-committed   bond   together,   without   ever   writing   any   family   breakup   into   the   show.     But   homosexual   writers   creating   a   polygamist   "soap   opera"   storyline   -   about   which   one   of   the   homosexual   writers   perceives   is   "yucky"   and   with   which   both   writers   could   eventually   push   some   homosexual   agenda   of   so-called   "homosexual   monogamy"   for   "same   sex   marriage"   by   writing   the   family's   break   up   into   the   story   -   is   not   only   likely   to   deceptively   sabotage   the   public's   perceptions   of     polygamy   in   the   long   term,   but,   again,   empowers   lying   propagandists   in   the   short   term   to   deceitfully   malign   the   polygamy   rights   movement   of   supposedly   "working   with   homosexuals"   when   they   do   not. 
For   these   reasons,   pro-polygamists   are   leery   of   such   homosexuals   so   prominently   jumping   into   the   fray   of   the   polygamy   rights   movement.       Of   course,   any   polygamy-supportive   liberals   and   homosexuals   have   "free   reign"   to   freely   persuade   their   fellow   liberals   and   homosexuals   about   their   dogma-required   "tolerance"   for   consenting-adult   polygamy,   while   many   pro-polygamy   activists   will   continue   to   persuade   their   own   fellow   conservatives.   "Big   Love's"   homosexual   writers   and   the   reported   homosexual   attorney   Brian   Barnard   are,   of   course,   free   in   America   to   promote   their   views   to   other   liberals   and   homosexuals. 
But   using   any   liberal-oriented   media   presentations   (television)   or   legal   arguments   (legalization)   do   not   legitimately   re-define   polygamy   rights.       Indeed,   the   national   polygamy   rights   movement   will   not   be   re-defined   either   by   such   homosexuals   or   by   propagandists   maligning   polygamists   as   supposedly   "following   or   copying   homosexuals." 
Truly,   "polygamy   rights   is   the   next   civil   rights   battle."     But   it   does   not   come   from   the   Left.     It   comes   from   the   Right.     And   it   does   not   "copy"   or   "follow"   homosexuals   -   it   actually   seeks   to   end   the   "government   marriage"   debate   altogether.       Indeed,   with   its   true   conservative,   yet   win-win,   position   of   limited   government,   the   national   polygamy   rights   movement   could   actually   and   finally   resolve   the   tiresome   debate   of   big   "government   marriage"   once   and   for   all.


Bibliographic URLs:,1249,635192658,00.html 

Click to order DVD

Latest Headlines

From the Archives of
Pro-Polygamy Articles

2017 Aug 19
Pro-Polygamists Celebrate 17th Annual 'Polygamy Day'
On August 19, 2017, UCAPs (unrelated consenting adult polygamy supporters) are noting and celebrating "Polygamy Day 17" – the seventeenth year of annual Polygamy Day ® celebrations.  

2017 Aug 07
Finding Polygamists 'Guilty of Polygamy' Pushes Canada Backwards
After anti-polygamy law deemed "constitutional" to criminalize in Canada, one lone judge finds two leaders of Bountiful group "guilty of polygamy," even as case involved only adult women and no other real crimes.

2017 Jun 25
Pro-Polygamists Glad that Fugitive Lyle Jeffs was Caught
"It's like déjà vu all over again." Mark Henkel, National Polygamy Advocate and founder of the organization, responds to the news and is available to media for comment.

2017 Feb 01
Supreme Court Declined to Hear 'Sister Wives' Polygamy case
SCOTUS denied even hearing the Brown v. Buhman petition, letting the appeals court's reversal stand, not even hearing any of the pro-polygamy merits, and bringing the whole issue back to the status quo.

Read More
From the Archives of
Pro-Polygamy Articles


Media or Pro-Polygamists

© Copyright 2003 - 2018       ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
"" is an exclusive legal Trademark of ™.