Posted by: Kathy White | September 28, 2010

“Sister Wives” — Uh, What?

So, it’s illegal to practice polygamy in this country but if you want to do it on national television as a reality show, that’s just fine.

I swear, the more I look around, the more confused I am. DADT can’t get repealed but these yahoos can go on TV and get paid for breaking the law.

The GOP can write up some witty Pledge to America that holds more hypocrisy, racism and homophobia than ANY document should contain and that’s suppose to be good for our country. Swallow that bitter little pill, America.

And Sarah Palin can be a complete ass when she’s not in the spotlight, and that’s okay (re: Vanity Fair article). As long as she keeps telling the Tea Partiers what they want to hear — love God, hate gays, hate Democrats, hate taxes, love me.

I think I should stop reading media for awhile. The more I read, the angrier I get. What a joke this has become. Sadly.


  1. I couldn’t agree more. What gets to me is the barage of manipulative negative political ads out there. I hope the ones with the worse twisted negative ads don’t get elected (sorry Meg).

  2. I think what is going on with “Sister Wives” is actually not in direct opposition with the viewpoint that all people should have the right to marry, regardless of the gender of the participants. From what I understand, their view is essentially that consenting adults should be allowed to marry, regardless of how many there are in the marriage unit. For now, they do it by having a single legal marraige (the tedious “1 man – 1 woman” convention) and joining the other consenting adults in a non-government-sanctioned union. They all believe they have the right to have this type of relationship and are not waiting until the government gets around to giving it the OK. I think there are some parallels with gay unions, which are often forced to be only ceremonial or civil unions in those states where the government has not given gays the OK to marry. In other words, I think they fight the same fight — trying to keep the government out of personal relationships. I am rooting for a world where one woman can marry another woman; I prefer to expand this notion to include something such as a man/woman/man marriage, rather than retaining the current limited definition of marraige. That said, this doesn’t mean that I endorse their religious beliefs, including the fact that the polygamous marriages always seem to mean 1 man with multiple wives. But 3 or 4 consenting adults that want to set up a household as a committed, loving family of co-spouses? I can get behind that idea as much as I can get behind the “Adam and Steve” nuptials.

    • Agreed. I think I was more interested in the idea that you’d have the audacity to go on television while blatantly breaking the law. I make no judgment on the whether that law should be there or not. It’d be the same if you had a reality show about a guy and his bong. I think you should be allowed to do what you’d like in your own home, but when you bring in the TV cameras, it’s just a whole different game.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: