Category Archives: Polygamy

Today, the practice of polygamy is strictly prohibited in the Church, as it has been for over a century. Polygamy or more correctly polygyny, the marriage of more than one woman to the same man was a part of the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for a half-century. The practice began during the lifetime of Joseph Smith but became publicly and widely known during the time of Brigham Young.

In addition to the information on this page, see comprehensiveessays on LDS.org:

Plural Marriage in Kirtland and NauvooPlural Marriage and Families in Early UtahThe Manifesto and the End of Plural Marriage

In 1831, Church founder Joseph Smith made a prayerful inquiry about the ancient Old Testament practice of plural marriage. This resulted in the divine instruction to reinstitute the practice as a religious principle.

Latter-day Saint converts in the 19th century had been raised in traditional, monogamous homes and struggled with the idea of a man having more than one wife. It was as foreign to them as it would be to most families today in the western world, and even Brigham Young, who was later to have many wives and children, confessed to his initial dread of the principle of plural marriage.

Subsequently, in 1890, President Wilford Woodruff, fourth president of the Church, received what Latter-day Saints believe to be a revelation in which God withdrew the command to practice plural marriage. He issued what has come to be known as the "Manifesto," a written declaration to Church members and the public at large that stopped the practice of plural marriage.

Today Church members honor and respect the sacrifices made by those who practiced polygamy in the early days of the Church. However, the practice is banned in the Church, and no person can practice plural marriage and remain a member.

The standard doctrine of the Church is monogamy, as it always has been, as indicated in the Book of Mormon (Jacob, chapter 2): Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none. For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

In other words, the standard of the Lords people is monogamy unless the Lord reveals otherwise. Latter-day Saints believe the season the Church practiced polygamy was one of these exceptions.

Polygamous groups and individuals in and around Utah often cause confusion for casual observers and for visiting news media. The polygamists and polygamist organizations in parts of the western United States and Canada have no affiliation whatsoever with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, despite the fact that the term "Mormon" widely understood to be a nickname for Latter-day Saints is sometimes incorrectly applied to them.

View post:

Polygamy - Mormon Newsroom

For much of the 19th century, a significant number of members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints practiced plural marriagethe marriage of one man to more than one woman. The beginning and end of the practice were directed by revelation through Gods prophets. The initial command to practice plural marriage came through Joseph Smith, the founding prophet and President of the Church. In 1890, President Wilford Woodruff issued the Manifesto, which led to the end of plural marriage in the Church.

The end of plural marriage required great faith and sometimes complicated, painfuland intensely personaldecisions on the part of individual members and Church leaders. Like the beginning of plural marriage in the Church, the end of the practice was a process rather than a single event. Revelation came line upon line, precept upon precept.1

For half a century, beginning in the early 1840s, Church members viewed plural marriage as a commandment from God, an imperative that helped raise up a righteous posterity unto the Lord.2 Though not all Church members were expected to enter into plural marriage, those who did so believed they would be blessed for their participation. Between the 1850s and the 1880s, many Latter-day Saints lived in plural families as husbands, wives, or children.3

In many parts of the world, polygamy was socially acceptable and legally permissible. But in the United States, most people thought that the practice was morally wrong. These objections led to legislative efforts to end polygamy. Beginning in 1862, the U.S. government passed a series of laws designed to force Latter-day Saints to relinquish plural marriage.4

In the face of these measures, Latter-day Saints maintained that plural marriage was a religious principle protected under the U.S. Constitution. The Church mounted a vigorous legal defense all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. In Reynolds v. United States (1879), the Supreme Court ruled against the Latter-day Saints: religious belief was protected by law, religious practice was not. According to the courts opinion, marriage was a civil contract regulated by the state. Monogamy was the only form of marriage sanctioned by the state. Polygamy, the court explained, has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe.5

Latter-day Saints sincerely desired to be loyal citizens of the United States, which they considered a divinely founded nation. But they also accepted plural marriage as a commandment from God and believed the court was unjustly depriving them of their right to follow Gods commands.

Confronted with these contradictory allegiances, Church leaders encouraged members to obey God rather than man. Many Latter-day Saints embarked on a course of civil disobedience during the 1880s by continuing to live in plural marriage and to enter into new plural marriages.6 The federal government responded by enacting ever more punishing legislation.

Between 1850 and 1896, Utah was a territory of the U.S. government, which meant that federal officials in Washington, D.C., exercised great control over local matters. In 1882, the U.S. Congress passed the Edmunds Act, which made unlawful cohabitation (interpreted as a man living with more than one wife) punishable by six months of imprisonment and a $300 fine. In 1887 Congress passed the Edmunds-Tucker Act to punish the Church itself, not just its members. The act dissolved the corporation of the Church and directed that all Church property over $50,000 be forfeited to the government.

This government opposition strengthened the Saints resolve to resist what they deemed to be unjust laws. Polygamous men went into hiding, sometimes for years at a time, moving from house to house and staying with friends and relatives. Others assumed aliases and moved to out-of-the-way places in southern Utah, Arizona, Canada, and Mexico.7 Many escaped prosecution; many others, when arrested, pled guilty and submitted to fines and imprisonment.

This antipolygamy campaign created great disruption in Mormon communities. The departure of husbands left wives and children to tend farms and businesses, causing incomes to drop and economic recession to set in. The campaign also strained families. New plural wives had to live apart from their husbands, their confidential marriages known only to a few. Pregnant women often chose to go into hiding, at times in remote locales, rather than risk being subpoenaed to testify in court against their husbands. Children lived in fear that their families would be broken up or that they would be forced to testify against their parents. Some children went into hiding and lived under assumed names.8

Despite countless difficulties, many Latter-day Saints were convinced that theantipolygamy campaignwas useful in accomplishing Gods purposes. They testified that God was humbling and purifying His covenant people as He had done in ages past. Myron Tanner, a bishop in Provo, Utah, felt that the hand of oppression laid on the parents, is doing more to convince our Children of the truth of Mormonism than anything else could have done.9 Incarceration for conscience sake proved edifying for many. George Q. Cannon, a counselor in the First Presidency, emerged from his five months in the Utah penitentiary rejuvenated. My cell has seemed a heavenly place, and I feel that angels have been there, he wrote.10

The Church completed and dedicated two temples during the antipolygamy campaign, a remarkable achievement.11 But as federal pressure intensified, many essential aspects of Church government were severely curtailed, and civil disobedience looked increasingly untenable as a long-term solution. Between 1885 and 1889, most Apostles and stake presidents were in hiding or in prison. After federal agents began seizing Church property in accordance with the Edmunds-Tucker legislation, management of the Church became more difficult.12

After two decades of seeking either to negotiate a change in the law or avoid its disastrous consequences, Church leaders began to investigate alternative responses. In 1885 and 1886 they established settlements in Mexico and Canada, outside the jurisdiction of U.S. law, where polygamous families could live peaceably. Hoping that a moderation in their position would lead to a reduction in hostilities, Church leaders advised plural husbands to live openly with only one of their wives, and advocated that plural marriage not be taught publicly. In 1889, Church authorities prohibited the performance of new plural marriages in Utah.13

Church leaders prayerfully sought guidance from the Lord and struggled to understand what they should do. Both President John Taylor and President Wilford Woodruff felt the Lord directing them to stay the course and not renounce plural marriage.14

This inspiration came when paths for legal redress were still open. The last of the paths closed in May 1890, when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Edmunds-Tucker Act, allowing the confiscation of Church property to proceed. President Woodruff saw that the Churchs temples and its ordinances were now at risk. Burdened by this threat, he prayed intensely over the matter. The Lord showed me by vision and revelation, he later said, exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice, referring to plural marriage. All the temples [would] go out of our hands. God has told me exactly what to do, and what the result would be if we did not do it.15

On September 25, 1890, President Woodruff wrote in his journal that he was under the necessity of acting for the Temporal Salvation of the Church. He stated, After Praying to the Lord & feeling inspired by his spirit I have issued [a] Proclamation.16 This proclamation, now published in the Doctrine and Covenants as Official Declaration 1, was released to the public on September 25 and became known as the Manifesto.17

The Manifesto was carefully worded to address the immediate conflict with the U.S. government. We are not teaching polygamy, or plural marriage, nor permitting any person to enter into its practice, President Woodruff said. Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise.18

The members of the Quorum of the Twelve varied in their reactions to the Manifesto. Franklin D. Richards was sure it was the work of the Lord. Francis M. Lyman said that he had endorsed the Manifesto fully when he first heard it.19 Not all the Twelve accepted the document immediately. John W. Taylor said he did not yet feel quite right about it at first.20 John Henry Smith candidly admitted that the Manifesto had disturbed his feelings very much and that he was still somewhat at sea regarding it.21 Within a week, however, all members of the Twelve voted to sustain the Manifesto.

The Manifesto was formally presented to the Church at the semiannual general conference held in the Salt Lake Tabernacle in October 1890. On Monday, October 6, Orson F. Whitney, a Salt Lake City bishop, stood at the pulpit and read the Articles of Faith, which included the line that Latter-day Saints believe in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law. These articles were sustained by uplifted hand. Whitney then read the Manifesto, and Lorenzo Snow, President of the Quorum of the Twelve, moved that the document be accepted as authoritative and binding. The assembly was then asked to vote on this motion. The Deseret News reported that the vote was unanimous; most voted in favor, though some abstained from voting.22

Rank-and-file Latter-day Saints accepted the Manifesto with various degrees of reservation. Many were not ready for plural marriage to come to an end. General Relief Society president Zina D. H. Young, writing in her journal on the day the Manifesto was presented to the Church, captured the anguish of the moment: Today the hearts of all were tried but looked to God and submitted.23 The Manifesto prompted uncertainty about the future of some relationships. Eugenia Washburn Larsen, fearing the worst, reported feeling dense darkness when she imagined herself and other wives and children being turned adrift by husbands.24 Other plural wives, however, reacted to the Manifesto with great relief.25

Latter-day Saints believe that the Lord reveals His will line upon line; here a little, there a little.26 Church members living in 1890 generally believed that the Manifesto was the work of the Lord, in Franklin D. Richardss words. But the full implications of the Manifesto were not apparent at first; its scope had to be worked out, and authorities differed on how best to proceed. We have been led to our present position by degrees, Apostle Heber J. Grant explained.27 Over time and through effort to receive continuing revelation, Church members saw by degrees how to interpret the Manifesto going forward.

At first, many Church leaders believed the Manifesto merely suspended plural marriage for an indefinite time.28 Having lived, taught, and suffered for plural marriage for so long, it was difficult to imagine a world without it. George Q. Cannon, a counselor in the First Presidency, likened the Manifesto to the Lords reprieve from the command to build temples in Missouri in the 1830s after the Saints were expelled from the state. In a sermon given immediately after the Manifesto was sustained at general conference, Cannon quoted a passage of scripture in which the Lord excuses those who diligently seek to carry out a commandment from Him, only to be prevented by their enemies: Behold, it behooveth me to require that work no more at the hands of those sons of men, but to accept of their offerings.29

Nevertheless, many practical matters had to be settled. The Manifesto was silent on what existing plural families should do. On their own initiative, some couples separated or divorced as a result of the Manifesto; other husbands stopped cohabiting with all but one of their wives but continued to provide financial and emotional support to all dependents.30 In closed-door meetings with local leaders, the First Presidency condemned men who left their wives by using the Manifesto as an excuse. I did not, could not and would not promise that you would desert your wives and children, President Woodruff told the men. This you cannot do in honor. 31

Believing that the covenants they made with God and their spouses had to be honored above all else, many husbands, including Church leaders, continued to cohabit with their plural wives and fathered children with them well into the 20th century.32 Continued cohabitation exposed those couples to the threat of prosecution, just as it did before the Manifesto. But these threats were markedly diminished after 1890. The Manifesto marked a new relationship with the federal government and the nation: prosecution of polygamists declined, plural wives came out of hiding and assumed their married names, and husbands interacted more freely with their families, especially after U.S. president Benjamin Harrison granted general amnesty to Mormon polygamists in 1893.33 Three years later, Utah became a state with a constitution that banned polygamy.

The Manifesto declared President Woodruffs intention to submit to the laws of the United States. It said nothing about the laws of other nations. Ever since the opening of colonies in Mexico and Canada, Church leaders had performed plural marriages in those countries, and after October 1890, plural marriages continued to be quietly performed there.34 As a rule, these marriages were not promoted by Church leaders and were difficult to get approved. Either one or both of the spouses who entered into these unions typically had to agree to remain in Canada or Mexico. Under exceptional circumstances, a smaller number of new plural marriages were performed in the United States between 1890 and 1904, though whether the marriages were authorized to have been performed within the states is unclear.35

The precise number of new plural marriages performed during these years, inside and outside the United States, is unknown. Sealing records kept during this period typically did not indicate whether a sealing was monogamous or plural, making an exhaustive calculation difficult. A rough sense of scale, however, can be seen in a chronological ledger of marriages and sealings kept by Church scribes. Between the late 1880s and the early 1900s, during a time when temples were few and travel to them was long and arduous, Latter-day Saint couples who lived far away from temples were permitted to be sealed in marriage outside them.

The ledger of marriages and sealings performed outside the temple, which is not comprehensive, lists 315 marriages performed between October 17, 1890, and September 8, 1903.36 Of the 315 marriages recorded in the ledger, research indicates that 25 (7.9%) were plural marriages and 290 were monogamous marriages (92.1%). Almost all the monogamous marriages recorded were performed in Arizona or Mexico. Of the 25 plural marriages, 18 took place in Mexico, 3 in Arizona, 2 in Utah, and 1 each in Colorado and on a boat on the Pacific Ocean. Overall, the record shows that plural marriage was a declining practice and that Church leaders were acting in good conscience to abide by the terms of the Manifesto as they understood them.37

The exact process by which these marriages were approved remains unclear. For a time, post-Manifesto plural marriages required the approval of a member of the First Presidency. There is no definitive evidence, however, that the decisions were made by the First Presidency as a whole; President Woodruff, for example, typically referred requests to allow new plural marriages to President Cannon for his personal consideration.38 By the late 1890s, at least some of the men who had authority to perform sealings apparently considered themselves free to either accept or reject requests at their own discretion, independent of the First Presidency. Apostle Heber J. Grant, for example, reported that while visiting Mormon settlements in Mexico in 1900, he received 10 applications in a single day requesting plural marriages. He declined them all. I confess, he told a friend, that it has always gone against my grain to have any violations of documents [i.e. the Manifesto] of this kind.39

At first, the performance of new plural marriages after the Manifesto was largely unknown to people outside the Church. When discovered, these marriages troubled many Americans, especially after President George Q. Cannon stated in an 1899 interview with the New York Herald that new plural marriages might be performed in Canada and Mexico.40 After the election of B. H. Roberts, a member of the First Council of the Seventy, to the U.S. Congress, it became known that Roberts had three wives, one of whom he married after the Manifesto. A petition of 7 million signatures demanded that Roberts not be seated. Congress complied, and Roberts was barred from his office.41

The exclusion of B. H. Roberts opened Mormon marital practices to renewed scrutiny. Church President Lorenzo Snow issued a statement clarifying that new plural marriages had ceased in the Church and that the Manifesto extended to all parts of the world, counsel he repeated in private. Even so, a small number of new plural marriages continued to be performed, probably without President Snows knowledge or approval. After Joseph F. Smith became Church President in 1901, a small number of new plural marriages were also performed during the early years of his administration.42

The Churchs role in these marriages became a subject of intense debate after Reed Smoot, an Apostle, was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1903. Although Smoot was a monogamist, his apostleship put his loyalty to the country under scrutiny. How could Smoot both uphold the laws of the Church, some of whose officers had performed, consented to, or participated in new plural marriages, and uphold the laws of the land, which made plural marriage illegal? For four years legislators debated this question in lengthy public hearings.

The Senate called on many witnesses to testify. Church President Joseph F. Smith took the stand in the Senate chamber in March 1904. When asked, he defended his family relationships, telling the committee that he had cohabited with his wives and fathered children with them since 1890. He said it would be dishonorable of him to break the sacred covenants he had made with his wives and with God. When questioned about new plural marriages performed since 1890, President Smith carefully distinguished between actions sanctioned by the Church and ratified in Church councils and conferences, and the actions undertaken by individual members of the Church. There never has been a plural marriage by the consent or sanction or knowledge or approval of the church since the manifesto, he testified.43

In this legal setting, President Smith sought to protect the Church while stating the truth. His testimony conveyed a distinction Church leaders had long understood: the Manifesto removed the divine command for the Church collectively to sustain and defend plural marriage; it had not, up to this time, prohibited individuals from continuing to practice or perform plural marriage as a matter of religious conscience.

The time was right for a change in this understanding. A majority of Mormon marriages had always been monogamous, and a shift toward monogamy as the only approved form had long been underway. In 1889, a lifelong monogamist was called to the Quorum of the Twelve; after 1897, every new Apostle called into the Twelve, with one exception, was a monogamist at the time of his appointment.44 Beginning in the 1890s, as Church leaders urged members to remain in their native lands and build Zion in those places rather than immigrate to Utah as in previous years, it became important for them to abide the laws mandating monogamy.

During his Senate testimony, President Smith promised publicly to clarify the Churchs position about plural marriage. At the April 1904 general conference, President Smith issued a forceful statement, known as the Second Manifesto, attaching penalties to entering into plural marriage: If any officer or member of the Church shall assume to solemnize or enter into any such marriage he will be deemed in transgression against the Church and will be liable to be dealt with according to the rules and regulations thereof and excommunicated therefrom.45 This statement had been approved by the leading councils of the Church and was unanimously sustained at the conference as authoritative and binding on the Church.46

The Second Manifesto was a watershed event. For the first time, Church members were put on notice that new plural marriages stood unapproved by God and the Church. The Second Manifesto expanded the reach and scope of the first. When [the Manifesto] was given, Elder Francis M. Lyman, President of the Quorum of the Twelve, explained, it simply gave notice to the Saints that they need not enter plural marriage any longer, but the action taken at the conference held in Salt Lake City on the 6th day of April 1904 [the Second Manifesto] made that manifesto prohibitory.47

Church leaders acted to communicate the seriousness of this declaration to leaders and members at all levels. President Lyman sent letters to each member of the Quorum of the Twelve, by direction of the First Presidency, advising them that the Second Manifesto would be strictly enforced.48 Contrary to direction, two Apostles, John W. Taylor and Matthias F. Cowley, continued to perform and encourage new plural marriages after the Second Manifesto. They were eventually dropped from the quorum.49 Taylor was later excommunicated from the Church after he insisted on his right to continue to perform plural marriages. Cowley was restricted from using his priesthood and later admitted that he had been wholly in error.50

Some couples who entered into plural marriage between 1890 and 1904 separated after the Second Manifesto, but many others quietly cohabited into the 1930s and beyond.51 Church members who rejected the Second Manifesto and continued to publicly advocate plural marriage or undertake new plural marriages were summoned to Church disciplinary councils. Some who were excommunicated coalesced into independent movements and are sometimes called fundamentalists. These groups are not affiliated with or supported by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Since the administration of Joseph F. Smith, Church Presidents have repeatedly emphasized that the Church and its members are no longer authorized to enter into plural marriage and have underscored the sincerity of their words by urging local leaders to bring noncompliant members before Church disciplinary councils.

Marriage between one man and one woman is Gods standard for marriage, unless He declares otherwise, which He did through His prophet, Joseph Smith. The Manifesto marked the beginning of the return to monogamy, which is the standard of the Church today.52 Speaking at general conference soon after the Manifesto was given, President George Q. Cannon reflected on the revelatory process that brought the Manifesto about: The Presidency of the Church have to walk just as you walk, he said. They have to take steps just as you take steps. They have to depend upon the revelations of God as they come to them. They cannot see the end from the beginning, as the Lord does. All that we can do, Cannon said, speaking of the First Presidency, is to seek the mind and will of God, and when that comes to us, though it may come in contact with every feeling that we have previously entertained, we have no option but to take the step that God points out, and to trust to Him.53

Resources

The Church acknowledges the contribution of scholars to the historical content presented in this article; their work is used with permission.

Read more here:

The Manifesto and the End of Plural Marriage

Joe Exotic is no stranger when it comes to marriage, having been wed five times over the decades but as we've seen in Netflix's Tiger King they haven't all ended in wedded bliss.

The main protagonist of the docuseries, who was born Joe Schreibvogel and is now Joseph Maldonado-Passage, always had a man by his side during his time as ruler at the GW Zoo in Oklahoma before he was sentenced to 22 years in prison.

He is currently serving time for trying to hire a hitman to kill animal-rights activist Carole Baskin, who was persistent in trying to get Joes zoo shut down for his treatment of animals and for killing five tiger cubs.

The petting zoo owner, 57, is still reportedly married to his most recent husband Dillon Passage, who he met when Dillon was 19,

It's not the first time he married someone considerably younger than him, as he met John Finlay and Travis Maldonado when they were both 19 and eventually had a 'throuple' marriage.

Here we take a look at his past relationships, from tragedy, polygamy and deceit what really happened to his ex-husbands?

Joe was in his early twenties when he met his first husband Brian Rhyne, who was 19 at the time, in a gay cowboy bar called Round Up in Texas.

He was working there as a security guard and it wasn't long before Brian moved into Joe's trailer, according to a profile by New York Mag about the exotic cat lover.

They eventually got married at the same bar they met and Brian helped Joe open his zoo named after his brother Garold Wayne who died in a car crash.

But tragically by 2001 Brian passed away from complications related to HIV, leaving Joe heartbroken.

Joe's second husband who is not spoken about in the documentary is Jeffrey Charles 'JC' Hartpence.

Joe reportedly met the events producer a year after Brian's death, and they went on to team up together to launch Joe's travelling zoo show performing across shopping centres and state fairs across Oklahoma, Wisconsin and Texas.

The relationship between JC, who has been named as Joe's life partner as well as husband, was volatile and it is believed to have come to an end when JC held a gun to Joe's face.

Several years after their split JC was convicted for "aggravated indecent liberties with a child under the age of 14" and was put on the sex offenders register.

He is in a Kansas prison where he is serving a life sentence for first degree felony murder and won't be eligible for parole until 2034.

After Joe split from JC, he met a 19 year old John Finlay who had just recently graduated from school in 2003. The zoo owner hired John to help run the zoo and is his first husband to actually feature in the Tiger King docuseries.

By 2014 John took part in a wedding alongside Joe and their throuple partner Travis Maldonado in an polygamist ceremony, but a year later John wasn't happy and wanted out of the relationship.

John, who is now Joes ex husband and has a brand new set of teeth, later admitted that he was "never gay" and identified as straight, confessing to having an affair with the GW Zoo receptionist at the time.

He is filmed for the majority of the programme shirtless revealing plenty of tattoos, one of which read 'Privately Owned By Joe Exotic' he later got it covered up in the last episode of the series.

He now also lives with his wife and former GW Zoo receptionist Stormey Sanders and has started a Facebook page titled The Truth About John Finlay, where he shares updates on his life, including various photos and videos.

"Yes I have my teeth fixed," Finlay said in one post. "The producers of the Netflix series had video and pictures of this but chose not to show it."

In 2013 Travis Maldonado, then 19, started working at the GW Zoo, he told everyone apart from Joe that he was straight.

A year later he was married to Joe and John in a threeway ceremony, footage of which is shown in the Netflix series.

Tragically an increasingly erratic Travis, who had a drug problem, accidentally shot himself in the head after trying to prove a point that a gun wouldn't fire without a chamber.

The moment is documented in Tiger King, showing that another GW Zoo employee witnessed the awful moment which devastated Joe who had been running for governor of Oklahoma at the time of his husband's death in 2017.

Despite his grief over the accidental death of Travis, Joe moved on just two months later marrying his fifth husband Dillon Passage, 19.

Joe met Dillon online and one of their first dates is shown in the Netflix show, with Joe saying that they met up and Dillon never went back home, instead moving in with Joe.

By this point Joe was no longer the official owner of GW Zoo and when Dillon was 22, they moved to Florida together before Joe was later arrested and sentenced to 22 years in prison.

Its reported that Dillon is still in fact married to Joe, after he posted: Im still married to Joe but my social media platform isnt used for any Joe things."

You can now get OK! Magazine delivered through your letterbox for the unbeatable price of 13 editions for just 13 - or free for 14 days on tablet.

Be the first to hear about celebrity engagements, babies, splits and more with this incredible limited time subscriptiondeal to the UK's leading celebrity weekly magazine.

These amazing offers mean you won't have to miss out on your favourite read during the ongoing crisis.

They're perfect if you're self-isolating - or have an elderly family member or friend who can't get out of the house. To sign up simply visitok.co.uk/subscribeOffer valid until Tues April 28, 2020. Or get the magazine on your digital device with the tablet edition free for 14 days on iOS or Android.

See the rest here:

Tiger King Joe Exotic's five husbands: All you need to know from tragedy to polygamy - OK! magazine

One of the most shocking, heartbreaking pieces in Tiger King: Murder, Mayhem, and Madness is the accidental death of Joseph Maldonado-Passages (aka Joe Exotic) husband, Travis Maldonado. The death happens just outside of the cameras frame, catching Maldonado-Passages campaign manager, Joshua Dial, by complete surprise. The scene tragically unfurls in the seven-part Netflix docuseries. How is Dial doing now? Heres what we know.

Tiger King has many different, wild threads to follow. The series itself focuses on eccentric G.W. Zoo owner, Joseph Maldonado-Passage (aka Joe Exotic), his polygamy, big cat ownership, and ultimately, his alleged involvement in a murder-for-hire plot that landed him behind bars.

The second part of the hit series focuses on Maldonado-Passages 2017 bid in the political world. At the time, Joshua Dial was Maldonado-Passages gubernatorialcampaign manager. Dial moved to Wynnewood to live at the zoo and deemed that time the worst two years of his life.

Maldonado-Passage ran for governor as a libertarian. However, Dial eventually left the campaign in June 2018 months before Maldonado-Passages arrest on the murder-for-hire plot (among other charges).

While Maldonado-Passage is serving a 22-year sentence, Dial is struggling to come to terms with Travis Maldonados accidental death, which Dial witnessed.

As told by Dial in Tiger King, Maldonado was a gun enthusiast who got a kick out of pointing his guns at people, particularly by waking Dial this way.

What Travis would do in the mornings is he would kick down the door, point a gun at you, he said. That very day he did that to me. He broke in my room, pointed that new gun that he said would not fire without a clip at me, and asked me to wake up. Im lucky to even be alive.

On the day of Maldonados death, the two were in Dials office at the Greater Wynnewood Exotic Animal Park.

He said, Hey, did you know a Ruger wont fire without a clip? Dial explained. I said, Really? He put the gun to his temple at that point and pulled the trigger. The second he pulled the trigger, I knew he was dead. You dont come back from something like that.

Dial watched 23-year-old Maldonado shoot himself in the head and now, hes struggling with the trauma of it all.

I definitely have PTSD, he told People. There was no preparation for what I saw in that office. It was so shocking. I have nightmares about it.

Afterward, Dial said Maldonado-Passage allegedly blamed employees for not doing more to save Maldonado. He then, as Dial said, forced them to watch a video of a fellow staffer getting attacked by a tiger, which led to amputation.

Something as tragic as an accidental death isnt something most can just get over. Dial posted on his Facebook page a year after he left Maldonado-Passages campaign.

This month will make one year since I resigned as campaign manager for Joe, he wrote. After watching his husband kill himself in my office, its understating the matter by saying it was a rough campaign to work. In the past year, Ive been doing some political soul-searching.

Dial revealed Maldonado-Passage attempted to make contact from Grady County Jail. Dial is trying to move on with his fianc, Jackie Long. The two became engaged in 2019 and Dial said he has not watched Tiger King.

I have tried to move on, and I have been successful so far. I was given a new life and a second chance when I met my fianc; I have no desire to bring any of that pain into my life, he told Oxygen.

Hes currently raising money on a GoFundMe page to help him pay for counseling to work through his PTSD. An update revealed hes nearly achieved his goal and has found a provider and is currently being seen.

Ive just been grateful for the support of people that are trying to get me help for counseling, he told People.

I dont want to have to ask for help, but I know that everything I went through, especially working over a-year-and-a-half looking at that bullet hole thousands of times, I need help. Its been a hard realization for me to come to. To watch someone take their own life is a violation against nature. Its not something that the human brain is meant to deal with.

Tiger King: Murder, Mayhem, and Madness is available on Netflix now.

Continued here:

'Tiger King' Star Joshua Dial Says He Has PTSD From Witnessing Travis Maldonado's Tragic Death: 'I Have Nightmares About It' - Showbiz Cheat Sheet

Robynand Kody Brown have been at odds through TLCs Sister Wives Season 14over the Brown familys tumultuous move from Las Vegas to Flagstaff, Arizona.

While Kody allegedly promised Robyn, his fourth wife, andher five children that they would quickly move to the familys communalproperty in Arizona, CoyotePass, that didnt end up being the case. Instead, all four of Kodys wiveshad to move from rental to rental at various points in order to navigate thecomplicated Flagstaff housing market.

When the owner of Robynsrental home decided to sell the house, Robyn hoped to rent again in orderto save money to build on Coyote Pass. But Kody insisted that they buy instead.The couples conflict eroded their trust and led to more bickering and fightingthan their decade-long marriage had endured thus far.

In a sneak peek of the Apr. 5 episode of Sister Wives, Baby Steps, Robyn and Kody have finally decided on a home to buy. But, according to Robyn, the sellers perceptions of polygamy (otherwise known as plural marriage) are making the sale more complicated than they hoped it would be.

In TLCs sneakpeek of the upcoming episode, Kody reveals that the closing date for his potentialhome with Robyn has been delayed yet again, leading to even more financial strain.

We still havent closed on the house that Robyn and I aretrying to buy, he laments.

All of a sudden, we got an email going, We need moreinformation from you, Robyn says in the preview. The SisterWives star hints that, although it hasnt been directly stated, theBrown familys status as polygamists is making the closing take longer thanthey originally anticipated.

We thought we were going to close before we actually had to be out of the house, Kody explains. We found out right as we were loading up our trucks that we needed more time.

As the preview continues, Robynand Kody head out to Coyote Pass, where their belongings are temporarilystored in four enormous moving trucks. The couple reflects on how the immensestress of constant moves has taken a toll on them.

Kody complains about the mounting pressure of movingexpenses as the Browns move from rental to rental. So this is a real bummer, waitingevery single day that we wait, were paying on four rental trucks, he reveals,and were paying a daily rate on a home that we cant move into yet.

Looking at the looming moving trucks, Robyn admits, This ismaking me depressed. The Sister Wives star adds, Its just reminding methat we have all of our belongings in trucks.

The 41-year-old mom of five explains that shes stopped telling the kids much of anything about their potential move in order to protect them from heartache and stress. Robyn explains that every time they have to delay the closing date further, the children get frustrated all over again.

Robyns theory is that the complicated financial situationsthat often accompany polygamy are delaying the closing date.

My guess is that its because were a plural family, thatssort of holding us up, she tells TLC producers.

The SisterWives star explains that thelogistics of polygamy dont usually fit into typical real estate sales, oftenleaving them floundering when they try to buy.

What is also happening, and this has happened every singletime we try to buy a house, is that our plural family situations get broughtinto the financials, Robyn claims. Because were all interconnectedfinancially, and now they want Janelles financials, they want Merisfinancials, they want Christines financials. They want it all.

Robyn says that lenders and sellers often dont know what tomake of the Browns finances or their family situation. Because theyre tryingto dissect it and go, wait, huh? How does this work financially? she explains.And its because plural families dont fit in the financial world of mortgages.

View post:

'Sister Wives': Robyn Brown Thinks Polygamy Is Preventing Her From Buying a Home - Showbiz Cheat Sheet

Netflixs new docuseries Tiger King takes viewers into the strange world of big cat collectors. Featuring eccentric characters with names like Joe Exotic and Bhagavan Doc Antle, the series touches on polygamy, addiction and personality cults, while exploring a mysterious disappearance and a murder-for-hire.

To Allison Skidmore, a Ph.D. candidate at the University of California, Santa Cruz who studies wildlife trafficking, the documentary didnt bring enough attention to the scourge of captive big cats.

A former park ranger, Skidmore first started studying the issue in the U.S. after the infamous death ofCecil the Lionin Zimbabwe in 2015. She was shocked to learn about how little oversight there was stateside. We asked her about the legality, incentives and ease of buying and selling tigers.

1. How many captive tigers are in the US?

Unfortunately, theres no straightforward answer. The vast majority of captive tigers are crossbred hybrids, so they arent identified as members of one of thesix tiger subspecies the Bengal tiger, Amur tiger, South China tiger, Sumatran tiger, Indochinese tiger and Malayan tiger. Instead, theyre classified as generic.

Less than 5 percent orfewer than 350 of tigers in captivity are managed through the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, a nonprofit organization that serves as an accrediting body in the U.S. They ensure accredited facilities meet higher standards of animal care than required by law.

All the rest are privately owned tigers, meaning they dont belong to one of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums 236 sponsored institutions. These are considered generic and fall outside of federal oversight.

Theres no legal requirement to register these generic tigers, nor a comprehensive national database to track and monitor them. The best educated guess puts the number of tigersat around 10,000in the U.S. Estimates put the global captive tiger populationas high as 25,000.

In comparison, there are fewer than4,000 tigers in the wild down from 100,000 a century ago.

2. How do tigers change hands?

TheEndangered Species Actand theConvention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Faunaprevent the importation of tigers from the wild. So all tigers in the U.S. are born in captivity, with the rare exception of an orphaned wild cub that may end up in a zoo.

Only purebred tigers that are one of the six definitive subspecies are accounted for; these are the tigers you see in places like theSmithsonian National Zooand generally belong to theSpecies Survival Plan, a captive breeding program designed to regulate the exchange of specific endangered species between member zoos in order to maintain genetic diversity.

All other tigers are found in zoos, sanctuaries, carnivals, wildlife parks, exhibits and private homes that arent sanctioned by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums. They can change hands in any number of ways, fromonline marketplacesto exotic animal auctions. They can be bought for as little asUS$800 to $2,000 for a cub and $200 to $500 for an adult, which is less expensive than many purebred dog puppies.

3. Can I legally buy a tiger?

The U.S. is plagued with complicated and vague laws concerning tiger ownership.

However, there are no federal statutes or regulations that expressly forbid private ownership of tigers. State and local jurisdictions have been given this authority,and some do pass bans or require permits. Thirty-two states have bans or partial bans, and 14 states allow ownership with a simple license or permit. Four states Alabama, Wisconsin, North Carolina and Nevada have no form of oversight or regulation at all.

An overarching, cohesive framework of regulations is missing, and even in states that ban private ownership, there are loopholes. For example, in all but three states, owners can apply for whats called a federal exhibitor license, which is remarkably cheap and easy to obtain andcircumvents any stricter state or local laws in place.

You nowneed a permitto transport tigers across state lines, but theres still no permit required for intra-state travel.

4. Whats in it for the owners?

Some see it as a business venture, while others claim they care about conservation. I consider the latter reason insincere.

Many facilitiespromote themselvesaswildlife refuges or sanctuaries. These places frame their breeding and exhibition practices as stewardship, as if theyre contributing to an endangered animals survival. The reality is thatno captive tiger has ever been released into the wild, so its not like these facilities can augment wild populations. A true sanctuary or refuge should have a strict no breeding or handling policy, and should have education programs dedicated to promoting conservation.

Ultimately, tigers are big money makers, especially tiger cubs. TheAnimal Welfare Actallows cub petting from eight to 12 weeks of age.People pay$100 to $700 to pet, bottle-feed, swim with or take a photo with a cub.

None of these profits go toward the conservation of wild tigers, and this small window of opportunity for direct public contact means that exhibitors must continually breed tigers to maintain a constant supply of cubs.

The value of cubs declines significantly after 12 weeks. Where do all these surplus tigers go? Unfortunately, due to a lack of regulatory oversight, its hard to know.

Since many states dont account for their live tigers, theres alsono oversight regarding the reporting and disposal of dead tigers. Wildlife criminologists fear that these tigers can easily end up in the black market where their parts can cumulativelybe worth up to $70,000. Theres evidence of U.S. captive tigers tied to the domestic black market trade: In 2003, an owner of a tiger rescue facilitywas found to have 90 dead tigers in freezers on his property. And in 2001,an undercover investigationled by theU.S. Fish and Wildlife Serviceended up leading to the prosecutions of 16 people for buying, selling and slaughtering 19 tigers.

5. What role does social media play?

Posing with tigerson social media platforms like Instagram and on dating apps has become a huge problem. Not only can it create a health and safety risk forboth the human and tiger, but it also fosters a false narrative.

If you see thousands of photos ofpeople with captive tigers, it masks the true problem of endangered tigers in the wild. Some might wonder whether tigers are really so endangered if theyre so easy to pose with.

The reality of the wild tigers plight has become masked behind the pomp and pageantry of social media. This marginalizes meaningful ideas about conservation and the true status of tigers as one of the most endangered big cats.

***

Allison Skidmore is aPhD Candidate in Environmental Studies, University of California, Santa Cruz

This article was first published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Your premium period will expire in 0 day(s)

Subscribe to get unlimited access Get 50% off now

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the official stance of The Jakarta Post.

The rest is here:

Tiger King and Americas captive tiger problem - The Jakarta Post - Jakarta Post

Their reasons for fleeing the state so many years ago are officially no longer valid since Utah has officially decriminalized polygamy. However, fans of Sister Wives shouldnt expect to see another whole season of moving woes for the Brown family, as they intend to stay put in Flagstaff, Arizona.

Following news that the Utah Governor signed Senate Bill 102 into law, which reduced bigamy between consenting adults to an infraction with the same kind of penalties as a traffic ticket, famous polygamous families sounded off on the decision, including the Sister Wives stars friends, TheDargerFamily, praising the news on social media. However, while Brown family patriarch Kody also seemed excited by the prospect that the bill had been passed, he admitted his family wasnt going to head back to Utah, the state they left years ago under fears of persecution.

Too late. Utah lost us...Now we have a new home in the free state of Arizona, he wrote on Twitter.

Second wife Janelle also expressed joy over the news that the bill had passed, letting theDargersknow that she couldnt wait to celebrate with them.

Fans previously wondered if the bill being passed would bring the family back to their home state, after Koy had previously admitted on the show that he wanted to go back there eventually, and had even wanted to go there after leaving Las Vegas, but that the laws prevented them from doing so. However, the issues the family has encountered since going to Flagstaff have seeminglymadethem weary when it comes to the idea of another move.

So far during the current season of their TLC reality show, fans have watched as the family not only struggled to sell off their homes in Las Vegas but several moves within Flagstaff itself. Meri was forced out of her first rental by neighbors who didnt want her living near them and was sent back to Nevada for a short period as a result. She was then forced to leave her second rental when the owners opted to sell the property, and most recently, fans saw her contend with the fact that she could be forced from her third home due to a wildfire that had her on pre-evacuation notice.

Inaddition, Janelle also had to move to a new rental, while Robyn also had to leave her home when the owners wound up selling it. To date, the family has not begun to build homes on their Coyote Pass land.

Sister Wives airs Sundays at 10 p.m. EDT on TLC.

Pictured L-R: Robyn, Meri, Kody, Christine and Janelle Brown of Sister Wives in a promo photo for the new season. Photo: Sister Wives Facebook

See the article here:

Kody Brown Reveals If Sister Wives Will Move Back To Utah - International Business Times

SALT LAKE CITY Gov. Gary Herbert concluded signing bills passed during the Utah Legislatures recently completed session, including legislation pertaining to the disposal of fetal remains, a penalty reduction for polygamy, and an elective abortion ban with a trigger clause that will only take effect if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade.

Utah lawmakers passed 510 bills throughout the 45-day general session that ended at midnight on March 12. Herbert vetoed five bills and didnt act one one, which went in effect without his signature.

Herbert explained in a letter to Senate President Stuart Adams, R-Layton, and House Speaker Brad Wilson, R-Kaysville, that he vetoed four of the five bills because they amend tax policy in a time of economic uncertainty.

He had until the end of Wednesday to sign or veto the bills.

Herbert signed one of the more controversial bills a sweeping abortion ban with a few exceptions on Saturday.

SB174, sponsored by Sen. Dan McCay, R-Riverton, will only go into effect if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade. It will only allow abortions in cases of rape, incest, substantial impairment of the mothers health, or if the fetus has a lethal birth defect or severe brain abnormality that would render it in a vegetative state.

Anyone who performs an abortion that doesnt fall under these exceptions could face a second-degree felony charge.

Herbert signed another controversial bill Saturday that has to do with the disposal of fetal remains.

SB67, sponsored by Sen. Curtis Bramble, R-Provo, requires health care providers to either bury or cremate aborted and miscarried fetal remains.

Like SB174, the bill passed along party lines and was opposed by abortion-rights groups in this case arguing that the legislation will increase a womans trauma by forcing a decision on how she wanted the remains to be disposed.

Bramble said the woman would receive a form asking how she wants the remains to be taken care of, but emphasized that she could choose not to select a method at all if she preferred.

Other bills Herbert has signed include SB102, which drastically lowers the penalty for bigamy between consenting adults while enhancing penalties for crimes committed in concert with bigamy like sexual abuse, domestic violence or fraud.

Sponsored by Sen. Deidre Henderson, R-Spanish Fork, the new law drops the penalty for bigamy from a felony punishable to up to five years in prison to an infraction, which is less severe than some traffic tickets.

Henderson said the laws purpose is to drive victims of abuse in polygamist communities out of the shadows so they can get aid, explaining they would have been less inclined to do so before out of fear of the felony penalty.

The bill earned a great deal of support from lawmakers in both the Senate and the House, but it encountered resistance from some victim advocate groups that were concerned reducing the criminal penalty would actually embolden perpetrators of crimes in polygamous families.

Herbert also signed SB97, which tightens the rules for what can be requested for a personalized license plate legislation that came about after controversy regarding vanity plates erupted when a picture of the license plate DEPORTM was posted to Twitter.

The new law, sponsored by Senate Minority Whip Luz Escamilla, D-Salt Lake City, expands restrictions to include a provision saying requests should be denied when they disparage a group based on race, color, national origin, religion, age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, citizenship status, or physical or mental disability.

Plate requests can currently be denied when they carry connotations offensive to good taste and decency or that would be misleading. The Utah Division of Motor Vehicles details this as meaning requests that reference drugs; are sexual, vulgar or derogatory; suggest ideas dangerous to public welfare; or disrespect race, religion, deity, ethnic heritage, gender or political affiliation.

The law also allows for vanity plates that reference a state symbol such as the Utah firearm.

Other notable bills signed

Bills vetoed

Go here to see the original:

Elective abortion ban, other bills signed by Gov. Gary Herbert - Deseret News

Growing up in a polygamist community, Shirlee Draper heard stories about her fathers childhood how he was pulled out from under his bed in a government raid and taken from his parents.

I grew up with intense fear of outsiders, Draper said. We called people who drove into town that were not part of our community kidnappers. We knew that was a fate we could suffer as our parents had suffered.

Draper was a member of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (FLDS) a polygamist sect led by Warren Jeffs, who is now in prison for two felony counts of child sexual assault. But it wasnt until Draper decided to leave that she realized how she had been trapped.

I saw firsthand how the leaders were able to gain control because of the fear of law enforcement, she said. In Utah, polygamy is a felony, and it took Draper six years to move out. I had no way to get help. Everywhere I went, I was visually identifiable as a felon, and I was greeted with hostility.

Later, when her mother tried to leave the community and apply for a drivers license, Draper said she was still wearing her FLDS clothing a collared, ankle-length dress with puffed sleeves. A clerk an employee of the state of Utah denied her a drivers license and told her to her face, we dont want you here, Draper said. As a result, my mom went back to Colorado City, and she died because she could not access the medical care that she needed.

Draper is now the director of operations for Cherish Families, an organization serving people affected by polygamy. What weve done is weve legislated prejudicial treatment to a second-class citizenry, she said. Lets not create populations and communities that are vulnerable to that kind of exploitation and abuse. Weve done it to people of color, weve done it to sex workers, we do it to undocumented immigrants. We decide theyre not worthy of living in society, and so we ostracize them, which practically guarantees that they will be exploited, that they will be harmed.

Draper supports a law that would effectively decriminalize polygamy for consenting adults in Utah. State lawmakers have approved a bill that would reduce the penalties for plural marriage from a felony to an infraction. It still needs the governors signature to become law. The bills sponsor, senator Deidre Henderson, said the fear of government prosecution has created an environment that enables abuse.

Todays prohibition on polygamy has created a shadow society in which the vulnerable make easy prey, Henderson said. Because of the very real fear of imprisonment, losing employment, not being treated fairly, and having their children taken into state custody, we now have an environment where crime often goes unreported, victims are silenced, and perpetrators are empowered, she said.

Under the bill, polygamy is still considered a felony if the person also commits other felony offenses including criminal homicide, kidnapping, trafficking, smuggling, sexual offenses or child abuse. This bill strikes a balance between giving certainty to otherwise law-abiding polygamists that they dont have to fear prosecution, imprisonment, or having their children removed simply because they live a polygamous lifestyle, while also holding those who commit serious crimes accountable for their actions, Henderson said.

Utah has had some of the most severe laws on polygamy in the nation. It also has the greatest number of people living in plural marriages estimated to be in the thousands, though its impossible to get precise numbers because many live in hiding.

Utahs laws governing polygamy can be traced back to its unique history. Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (commonly known as Mormons) once practiced polygamy as part of their religion, and fled to the Utah territory when they encountered persecution. But in order to become a state, the federal government required Utah to write into its constitution that polygamous or plural marriages are forever prohibited.

Since the state made polygamy a felony in 1935, polygamous families have scattered and formed communities in hiding, some as part of religious groups, and some independent.

Brenda Nicholson is a former member of the same FLDS sect as Shirlee Draper, but she opposes the move to decriminalize polygamy. She believes its not fear of prosecution that isolates people, its the control tactics of polygamous leaders themselves.

They tell you dont trust anything that doesnt come from the church, Nicholson said. Men had authority from God. They supposedly talked with and for God, and so whatever the men said, that was it. She said people who reported crimes to outside authorities could be expelled, punished, or separated from family members.

Nicholson was afraid of losing her children, not because of the government, but because of these male leaders. They had gone through a process of deciding who was worthy and who was not worthy. Three of my children had been judged worthy, and I and my husband and our other children were not worthy. So they were going to take half my children and give them to a more worthy family, Nicholson said. There was no way I was going to let anybody take my children, and so we left.

Nicholson believes more government intervention is needed, not less. I dont believe that Utah really has the intention of truly prosecuting the crimes that are going on. Theyve had evidence, they dont seem to care. Nicholson said. To be told what happened to you wasnt a crime is really hurtful. I know there are all these laws around it that apply human trafficking is illegal, statutory rape, forced marriage, child labor, physical abuse, sexual abuse, fraud, all of those things are illegal they are very much integrated into religious polygamy. People will say we just need to prosecute these other crimes, and I agree, but the problem is they wont, and they arent.

Utah hasnt prosecuted anyone for polygamy in almost two decades, instead focusing on crimes such as child sexual assault, domestic abuse, tax and welfare fraud. The state attorney generals office has a written policy of not prosecuting polygamists unless another crime has occurred. County attorneys have adopted similar policies. Some have said the law is unenforceable and possibly unconstitutional.

Joe Darger, an independent polygamist, says court rulings on gay marriage and private homosexual activity have bolstered the case for decriminalization.

So long as youre not hurting somebody, how do you outlaw behavior between consenting adults? The difference is, polygamists arent trying to get legal recognition, Darger said. Its really just freedom to do what you want as a consenting adult. He hopes the bill, which applies to all genders, will help change societal attitudes, and separate legitimate criminals from law-abiding polygamists.

If you want to end the narrative that there are abuses in polygamous communities, you've got to take them out of the shadows

If you want to end the narrative that there are abuses in polygamous communities, youve got to take them out of the shadows, Darger said. The majority of them are innocent, faithful and civic-minded families. Marginalizing them as committing felonious behavior allows the stereotypes to exist; that polygamy equals abuse. Those kinds of stereotypes exist because no one dares speak up and say anything different, he said. The law gives people license for bigotry.

Opponents of the bill have questioned whether women raised in isolated, religious, groups can really be informed, consenting adults, but Shirlee Draper finds this insulting.

Nobody would dare infantilize women the way they do women who opt into polygamy, Draper said. From my perspective, the most feminist thing we can do is give women the opportunity to choose who they love and with whom they live and thats literally all this bill is doing. For my money, the more options women have, the better access they have to education, to healthcare, the better choices theyre going to make for themselves, she said. But as long as we infantilize them, and tell them what they can do and what they cant do, we remove choices from them as much as they say the polygamists are doing.

Anne Wilde is the author of Voices in Harmony, a compilation of womens experiences in plural marriage. At 84 years old, shes worked for years to educate people about why she and others choose to live in polygamy.

I have met so many wonderful polygamist families that have no business being labeled as felons, Wilde said. Its a shadow over the family because they know and theyve had to teach their children that theyre living that felonious lifestyle, she said. This kind of removes that shadow, but it isnt going to change the opinion of the communities overnight.

I still believe that polygamy is oppressive to women, said Mormon feminist Lindsay Hansen Park, but she supports the bill. We have 100 years of apathy from our state government and law enforcement to prosecute this. I found that its nearly impossible to be able to police how relationships work and what a family looks like. We need to figure out a better way to get justice for victims who have grown up in isolated, fundamentalist groups than attacking family structures, she said.

Park is host of the podcast Year of Polygamy, and after talking with victims and advocates, she believes this bill removes barriers for people seeking help. But its not an easy fix-all, she said. It doesnt bring justice to a lot of victims who leave these groups, and dont have any retribution for the things that they went through.

Im convinced that polygamy is a symptom of the problem, but its not the problem itself, Park said. The problem is patriarchal hierarchy with religious penalties. That takes a lot more to dismantle than a piece of legislation.

Read more:

Polygamy is about to be decriminalised in Utah. Is it good news for women? - The Guardian

For many who knew him during his lifetime, the name Acentus Akuku Danger is synonymous to polygamy.

Call him the grandmaster of seduction if you must because he was Kenyas most prominent polygamist and is reported to have married more than 100 women in his lifetime and fathered over 200 children.

The rise of Danger

Born Acentus Ogwella Akuku, he married his first wife in 1939. At the age of 22, he had married five wives and by the time he was 35, he was on his 45th wife.

His love for polygamy and women earned him the nickname Danger from his peers who believed that his every move was made to attract women.

Im called Danger because I overshadowed many men when it came to women. I was very handsome. I dressed well and I knew how to charm women with sweet talk. No woman could decline my advances. I was a magnet, Akuku once toldThe Standard.

Arguably one of the worlds best-known polygamists, he married his last wife in 1992 when he was 79.The woman was then only 18.

His love for polygamy was no longer a family thing but became an industry as he had so many children in his family that he established two elementary schools solely to educate his children, as well as a church for his growing family to attend.

Akuku The Disciplinarian

Despite his large family, he was reputed to be adisciplinarian who ruled his large family with an iron fist. He knew all the children by name and made a roster on when to spend on which house.

In past interviews, Akuku told local journalists he was responsible for naming all of his children, as way to bond with them.

I lived a lavish lifestyle. I was always ready to spend money on women.

I divorced women who misbehaved, he once said.

Akuku grouped his families in clustersspreading across Ndhiwa, Homa Bay and Migori. His main homestead or State House is however in Rachuodho.

As a rule, one family cannot claim the property in another cluster.

In a chat with Daily Nation, one of Akukus wives,Damaris Awiti recalled her time with him.

She had gone to visit her sisterPriscah Obumba who had just delivered a child. Priscah was the ninth wife but Damaris began to envy her sister for her catch and didnt waste time in accepting Akukus proposal when he asked to marry her as well.

He was a tall and very handsome man. The tone of his voice was very soothing. I found him irresistible. Furthermore, he had enough wealth, which was every womans dream at the time, Damaris told Daily Nation.

On how the household was run, Damaris said:

He was a very caring man who would make you feel like the luckiest woman on earth. I loved him very much, and he, too, loved us, recalls Damaris.

When I joined the family, I was taught how to live and what roles I would play in the home,

One wife, for example, would be assigned the duty of cooking for our husband for a given period. Another would iron his clothes and so on, explains Damaris. That way, we avoided chaos.

Wives without special duties, Damaris said, would accompany the other family members to the farm, where they worked until evening. After farming, Damaris said every woman would go back to her house with her children and cook for them. Akuku would spend the evening with the wife whose responsibility was to cook for him during that period.

Mzee did not like lazy, proud and arrogant women. He would warn a woman over a misdemeanour and, if she repeated the same mistake, chase her away. All her children sired by Akuku would remain in the family.

When a woman had been divorced, says Damaris, Akuku would decide which one of his many wives would take care of the children of the expelled wife.

Rise of an Empire?

Many attributed his large family to the fact he was very rich; he owned a fleet of taxis, and most of these cars were driven by his sons.

In one street trading centre you will see a general store run by one of his sons and a tailors run by a daughter, aBBCreport in 2000 said.

Aoro Chuodho market is literally Akukus empire. Half of the shops and residential buildings are his and his family members. Most of the buildings have names like Akuku Danger Plaza, Akuku Tailoring shop, Akuku Shop, P Akuku Complex Akuku This and Akuku That.

Special Diet

For those wondering where he got the energy to run his household, Akuku himself admitted he never forgot to cater to his own health as he followed a strict diet.

I avoid too much fat and salt and it helped me to escape diseases, he said. I eat at the right time and I just dont eat anything. I am served traditional food that is well prepared. I always eat a fruit after meals.

Towards the end of his life,Akuku started charging fees for media interviews. Journalists and tourists who trooped to his main home in Ndhiwa District had to pay fees.

Akuku Goes Home

He died in October 2010 at the age of 92 and reportssaid he outlived 12 of his wives.

Akuku collapsed at one of his homes in Ndhiwa and died on arrival at the Nyanza Provincial Hospital at 2 am. He was suffering from diabetes.

The family spokesman, Mr Tom Akuku, however, said only 40 of his fathers many marriages were recognised by the Luo customary laws. He said that out of the 40 wives, only 22 were still alive.

Mzee sired 210 children104 daughters and 106 sons, some of whom have since died, Tom Akukusaidat the time of Akukus death.

But His Legacy Lives On

It is reported that Akuku held regular night meetings with his family. This tradition did not end with his death. His family still gets together at State Houseto address any problems and discuss matters affecting them.

They have a common kitty, where all income is collected and distributed. Most of the funds are for school-going children and Akukus orphans, a family spokesman said.

Grandson Nickson Mwanzo says the Akuku clan is using Facebook to bond with each other.The grandchildren are setting up the Akuku Danger Family Facebook page in honour of their grandfather.

We are so many that it is hard for us to meet in one gathering, so we set up a Facebook page to track Akukus lineage, says Mwanzo.

To his surprise, they got responses from all over the world.

His sons and grandchildren are well educated and work in the civil service and the private sector.

He has been our advisor and guardian, said Dorcas Matunga, the Homa Bay County Council Chairperson and one of the late Akukus daughters-in-law.

Following his death, there have been comparisons between Akuku andother successful polygamists from the African continent. Names like eSwatinis King Mswati III, who has about 14 wives and 23 children, have come up. South Africas former President Jacob Zuma is also noted to have five wives and 20 children.

But perhaps the one who comes close to Akuku isAbumbi II, the 11th king of the Bafut kingdom in north-west Cameroon.

The king has 100 wives and 500 children. The only exception is that he inherited 72 wives from his father, King Achirimbi II, who died in 1968. With 28 wives already, King Abumbi ended up with 100 queens and 500 children.

However, those who knew Akuku agree that if ever there would be an award for a successful polygamist, Akuku would get the gold.

As Kenyans often say of a departed fellow, Danger has left a gap that will be difficult to fill because many men have failed the test of seduction, leave alone polygamy.

Read the original:

Asentus Akuku 'Danger': The Polygamist With 130 Wives And Over 200 Children - Guardian