Convicted Utah Polygamist Tom Green is scheduled to be released from prison on August 7, 2007. Green has served a six year prison sentence for a variety of convictions.
According to the Salt Lake Tribune article, Green was convicted in 2001 of four counts of bigamy and one count of criminal nonsupport; he was also convicted in 2002 of one count of rape of a child, who later became his legal wife. The parole board, as a condition of his release has prohibited Green from seeing one of his former “spiritual” wives and their children, at the request of the former wife:
The Utah Board of Pardons and Parole has placed polygamist Tom Green under one new condition as he prepares to leave prison. The board said Green may have no contact with one of his former spiritual wives or any of her family – including their five children – except as required by a court order.
That means Green, 59, will have to go to court if he wants to resume a relationship with those children. Green was convicted in 2001 of four counts of bigamy and one count of criminal nonsupport; he was convicted in 2002 of one count of rape of a child related to his spiritual marriage to Linda Green, a stepdaughter, when she was 13. Linda Green is now his legal wife. He will be released from the Utah State Prison on Aug. 7 after completing a six-year sentence.
It was one of Green’s former wives (who has requested anonymity) who requested that Green be restrained from contacting her or their children. (To read what she said at the parole hearing, see Brooke Adams’ blog entry here—it is a fascinating read). She is concerned that Green may try to influence them with his religious views about polygamy (for a discussion on the legal issues of whether a father has a right to teach minor children about polygamy see my post here); however, Green claims that he has never tried to force his religious beliefs on this children. And, one of his sons plans to soon serve a mission for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (The Mormons):
One of Green’s former wives, who has since remarried, appeared at a July 17 special hearing and asked that four conditions be placed on him. The woman, who asked that the media not identify her, requested that Green be required to provide child support; have only supervised contact with them; be prohibited from sharing his religious views with them; and be prohibited from harassing her.
“We believe that when the state of Utah turns its back on him that he can influence my young children into a life of polygamy, which from my experience is a life filled with pain and agony and long-lasting social consequences,” she said. In response, Green said he had never tried to get any of his children to follow his beliefs; one son, in fact, plans on serving a mission for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. “I just want to be a father to my children to whatever extent I’m allowed to be,” he said.
I have no trouble with Green’s convictions for criminal non support, or even for child rape; but, I am troubled by the way the State of Utah went after Green because of his religious views on marriage. I do not believe in polygamy; but, I recognize that there are thousands of people who “live the principle” as a result of religious devotion and conviction.
In 2004, Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, wrote a thought provoking piece for USA Today, with which I agree. Theologically I support the Church’s current position on polygamy; but, I also believe the United States Supreme Court got it wrong when they first decided Reynolds v United States, and the progeny of polygamy cases following thereafter. If ever there was truly a free exercise of religious freedom polygamy, not child abuse, or welfare fraud, but polygamy as taught to the early Saints, has to be at the top of that list.
Turley’s article from the USA Today:
Polygamy laws expose our own hypocrisy
By Jonathan Turley
Tom Green is an American polygamist. This month, he will appeal his conviction in Utah for that offense to the United States Supreme Court, in a case that could redefine the limits of marriage, privacy and religious freedom.
If the court agrees to take the case, it would be forced to confront a 126-year-old decision allowing states to criminalize polygamy that few would find credible today, even as they reject the practice. And it could be forced to address glaring contradictions created in recent decisions of constitutional law.
For polygamists, it is simply a matter of unequal treatment under the law.
Individuals have a recognized constitutional right to engage in any form of consensual sexual relationship with any number of partners. Thus, a person can live with multiple partners and even sire children from different partners so long as they do not marry. However, when that same person accepts a legal commitment for those partners “as a spouse,” we jail them.
Likewise, someone such as singer Britney Spears can have multiple husbands so long as they are consecutive, not concurrent. Thus, Spears can marry and divorce men in quick succession and become the maven of tabloid covers. Yet if she marries two of the men for life, she will become the matron of a state prison.
Religion defines the issueThe difference between a polygamist and the follower of an “alternative lifestyle” is often religion. In addition to protecting privacy, the Constitution is supposed to protect the free exercise of religion unless the religious practice injures a third party or causes some public danger.
However, in its 1878 opinion in Reynolds vs. United States, the court refused to recognize polygamy as a legitimate religious practice, dismissing it in racist and anti-Mormon terms as “almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and African people.” In later decisions, the court declared polygamy to be “a blot on our civilization” and compared it to human sacrifice and “a return to barbarism.” Most tellingly, the court found that the practice is “contrary to the spirit of Christianity and of the civilization which Christianity has produced in the Western World.”
Contrary to the court’s statements, the practice of polygamy is actually one of the common threads between Christians, Jews and Muslims.
Deuteronomy contains a rule for the division of property in polygamist marriages. Old Testament figures such as Abraham, David, Jacob and Solomon were all favored by God and were all polygamists. Solomon truly put the “poly” to polygamy with 700 wives and 300 concubines. Mohammed had 10 wives, though the Koran limits multiple wives to four. Martin Luther at one time accepted polygamy as a practical necessity. Polygamy is still present among Jews in Israel, Yemen and the Mediterranean.
Indeed, studies have found polygamy present in 78% of the world’s cultures, including some Native American tribes. (While most are polygynists — with one man and multiple women — there are polyandrists in Nepal and Tibet in which one woman has multiple male spouses.) As many as 50,000 polygamists live in the United States.
Given this history and the long religious traditions, it cannot be seriously denied that polygamy is a legitimate religious belief. Since polygamy is a criminal offense, polygamists do not seek marriage licenses. However, even living as married can send you to prison. Prosecutors have asked courts to declare a person as married under common law and then convicted them of polygamy.
The Green caseThis is what happened in the case of Green, who was sentenced to five years to life in prison. In his case, the state first used the common law to classify Green and four women as constructively married — even though they never sought a license. Green was then convicted of polygamy.
While the justifications have changed over the years, the most common argument today in favor of a criminal ban is that underage girls have been coerced into polygamist marriages. There are indeed such cases. However, banning polygamy is no more a solution to child abuse than banning marriage would be a solution to spousal abuse. The country has laws to punish pedophiles and there is no religious exception to those laws.
In Green’s case, he was shown to have “married” a 13-year-old girl. If Green had relations with her, he is a pedophile and was properly prosecuted for a child sex crime — just as a person in a monogamous marriage would be prosecuted.
The First Amendment was designed to protect the least popular and least powerful among us. When the high court struck down anti-sodomy laws in Lawrence vs. Texas, we ended decades of the use of criminal laws to persecute gays. However, this recent change was brought about in part by the greater acceptance of gay men and lesbians into society, including openly gay politicians and popular TV characters.
Such a day of social acceptance will never come for polygamists. It is unlikely that any network is going to air The Polygamist Eye for the Monogamist Guy or add a polygamist twist to Everyone Loves Raymond. No matter. The rights of polygamists should not be based on popularity, but principle.
I personally detest polygamy. Yet if we yield to our impulse and single out one hated minority, the First Amendment becomes little more than hype and we become little more than hypocrites. For my part, I would rather have a neighbor with different spouses than a country with different standards for its citizens.
I know I can educate my three sons about the importance of monogamy, but hypocrisy can leave a more lasting impression.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington Law School.
Posted 10/3/2004 9:38 PM USA Today
August 2, 2007 at 3:13 am
Very interesting review of this issue. I remember clearly when Tom Green was in court for charges of bigamy and non-support — it is hard to believe that he is getting out already.
January 4, 2016 at 9:10 pm
He should have never been in jail! Just vindictive JEWS!
August 2, 2007 at 6:18 am
John, I didn’t follow his case as closely as I probably should have. I was aware of the bigamy, non support and rape charges; but, did not know that Utah essentially utilized the theory of common law marriage to boost their bigamy conviction. Interesting case, indeed.
August 2, 2007 at 7:42 am
Great article from USA Today – I agree as well. So long as the consensual relationship does not injure another party (whether physically, emotionally, or whatever), the government should butt out. And I loved the Britney Spears example.. oh, the hypocrisy!
August 2, 2007 at 12:14 pm
“It is unlikely that any network is going to air The Polygamist Eye for the Monogamist Guy…”
hahahahahahaha Just the thought of that makes me laugh.
August 2, 2007 at 12:16 pm
A friend of mine recently won a Pennsylvania appeal which touches on this topic. He became a fundamentalist, and his wife divorced him. They had one daughter between them. He has not remarried—in other words, he believes in plural marriage, but has not, in fact, married plurally at all. He’s currently single. The Pennsylvania lower court granted the wife’s request that my friend be barred from discussing his religious beliefs regarding plural marriage with the daughter.
The Pennsylvania appelate court found in the husband’s favor.
August 2, 2007 at 1:16 pm
David, Clever.
Nick, If you’re referring to Stan Shepp, I did link to his case in the main body of the post. I’ll link it again here.
August 2, 2007 at 2:01 pm
Ahhh…so you did. My apologies, Guy.
August 3, 2007 at 8:12 am
A response to the SLTrib blog “The Plural Life”.
LOL. Simply amazing. And now, the “rest of the story”.
But first, a correction. One felony. The others were misdemeanors, and I believe there were two others, not five.
Second, the estranged wife who asked to not be identified said what she said under oath. Interesting that what she said under oath this time contradicts what she said under oath another time.
Now for more of the “rest of the story”:
This unnamed wife grew up among the FLDS, and polygamy/plural marriage is all she has ever known. Her mother left her father, a polygynist, and married Tom Green, another polygynist. That is, after another of her daughters married Tom Green. So, first her sister married Tom Green, then her mother later married him, then later this unnamed wife/witness married him.
According to family members/witnesses, this unnamed wife at the time (age of 12) didn’t want to continue living with her mother, but wanted to live with her father, and she told him so. He told her that as a polygynist, the only chance that he would have of gaining custody of her would be for her to claim child abuse. Shortly thereafter she went to the state claiming such. And then went to court to testify. And, swore under oath that such had occurred.
Funny thing is, years later, she went BACK to court, to swear under oath, that what she said earlier was false, were lies, and that she wasn’t abused. Conclusion: she lied under oath. Bearing false witness. Punishable by law, and also by God.
When she first made the accusations, the courts didn’t believe her story, and turned her back over to her mother (and Tom Green). According to her family members, back when she was a child, she had a problem with lying and stealing.
Interesting, isn’t it, that after her supposed abuser did those things to her, that she pursued him for marriage, and proposed marriage to him? Then married him. Then had a child with him. Then another, and another, and another, and another. She could come and go as she pleased. And did. She drew closer to him over the years, even pledging her undying love to him and saying she would wait for him until he got out of prison (written letter written three weeks after he entered prison). Is the above a “life (she) was dealt”, or one which appears to have chosen over and over and over again?
Interesting, isn’t it – that after she decided to seek comfort elsewhere after Tom Green went to prison, it was with another man and his wife who were seeking to live the principle. So, in other words, contrary to what this unnamed wife said, she didn’t “flee” polygyny, but was looking to join in another polygynous marriage. Then, when it looked like that wasn’t going to work, she began dating and later slept with the son of another Mormon Fundamentalist man, whom she later married. Did she really “flee” polygyny?
Given all this, could it be that she is using/manipulating the prison system and the state to aid her in her fight to exclude Tom Green from her children’s lives? No visits, or, visits under supervision? No speaking of his religious views (though she knows that a court fight would be lost since she had a relationship with the man who won in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court the right to teach his children about polygamy). That her speaking against polygyny is influenced by her receiving aid from the Anti-Polygamists? Is she using them as well?
Funny, isn’t it? Or is it? “The rest of the story…”
James
August 5, 2007 at 8:44 pm
I’m a little confused about the restrictions. Can ANY adult be present for him to be with his kids?
September 13, 2007 at 7:23 am
I wrote a paper about the Federal and State polygamy laws. Many of the state law and the Federal law if I remember right on the books (except for the Utah state law) on polygamy would probably be struck down as unconstitutional. Personally, I could care less what two consenting adults too. However, that being said, the welfare, legal age to marriage, even school truancy and other laws that polygamists are notorious for breaking) need to be tightened and enforced to make sure these men do not continue to rape young girls, and so the depravity in many of these communities is eradicated to the best of our abilities.
September 13, 2007 at 11:19 am
Sherpa,
I agree about what two (or more) consenting adults in the privacy of their home. And, I agree about the welfare, abuse or other laws that might be involved. If people break those laws, whether they are polygamists or not, they should be vigorously prosecuted. Do you still have your paper? I’d be interested in reading it. Email it to me if its in electronic format.
September 15, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Puhlease… only an evolved monkey would come up with sympathy for these theocratic polygamists. These guys are using fear and assumed/inherited control to coerce concience and conformity. Ever wonder why there are so many “extra” women? Well do a search on “Lost Boys of Colorado City”. Being a boy in one of these communities must really suck. Expecially when there are so many powerful people who want all girls to themselves.
Hell why not?! What man truly would regret having multiple sex parters mandated by their local community.
Do the math.. this is about evolved primates who have found the secret to systematic subjugating of woman in large numbers against a bunch of us guys who just want to be them.. frickin creekers!
November 21, 2009 at 4:41 pm
I find it beyond belief that polygamy can be defended as a religious practise. If you are to take the Bible as an example of what is good and fair, I will remind you that there are several acounts of incest and murder committed by fairly well respected characters there. Thousands of years have passed. We have evolved.
This is about men abusing girls. If I say that my religion allows me, a woman of 47, to have sex with boys that are 13, 14, 15 years old, and that I should have not one, but six young boys that took care of all my needs, I doubt very much that I would be given any respect at all. This is shocking and shameful, and there is no excuse for it.
January 4, 2016 at 9:15 pm
FOOL! Polygamy is allowed by GOD, and the 14th amendment! You sound like a sexually frustrated BROAD?
November 21, 2009 at 5:54 pm
Cristina, I submit that your ignorance is overwhelming and that you have not the slightest understanding of celestial marriage. I do not support modern plural marriage because the one man with the divine authority to authorize it — a prophet of God — does not so authorize it at present. But I understand something about it that you do not. Several somethings, in fact. It is not inherently wrong, nor shocking, nor shameful, nor about abuse.
I can agree whole-heartedly with you, though, in your last few sentences. Were you to make such a declaration, your insanity or evil intent would be obvious.
You are not so evolved as you claim to be. You are ignorant, and bigoted, and filthy minded.
December 27, 2011 at 7:01 pm
Clealy your layer of BS is in the etherical plane. The second you attempt to evoke “God” as a reason for any social influence on others, I shut down. The only way religion makes sense is if it doesn’t hurt people. Remember that evolution is not a religious precept. The creation of the universe could have been a result of something completely natural and not the result of some deliberate 7 day process. Christ did exist, but what exactly did the Nicene Counsel influence that bigamists have capituated upon today? Jeffs is a self dilluted predator and a sociopath. I hope the remainder of his life is a living hell. After that his death will release his energy back to the cosmos where hopefully something more worthy will use it.
March 31, 2014 at 7:02 pm
This from a “church” based on worshipping the devil. People who take the snake’s side against God’s in the garden of Eden. People who think that their husbands will one day have their own planet, and that the only way for women to make it into heaven is if her husband calls her by her secret name. Add the polygamy and you have one wicked little coven.
December 8, 2009 at 6:14 am
I come from a Muslim background (no longer believing or practicing),and multiple wives are allowed as was in the days of the prophets!
Personally i will not choose that way of life, and if my husband were to suggest it, i would opt to leave.
I am astound however that people that openly and willingly choose this way of life (both men/boys and young woman/girls)are so vehemently persecuted!
In this “evolved/modern” times, people are not frowned upon for having multiple sex partners or even worse being unfaithful or having children with several different people. How is that logical?
April 24, 2010 at 3:57 pm
Ardis Parshall, or whatever — you seem like a misogynist. Why would it be OK for a man to marry various teenage wives and disgusting for a woman to do the same?
This is about power, pure and simple. If given equal respect a woman would never choose to the foolish parade of walking among several other woman to please one man. If you can envision yourself as one man walking among other men in a strange sausage party to serve your wife, then I respect your comment. But if you can’t imagine such a thing, stick your woman-hating comments up your you-know-what.
January 4, 2016 at 9:20 pm
Yuta, UGLY JEW? wo=MEN, who have multiple partners are WHORES! MEN, who do the same thing, not so! wo=MEN, are rescepticles that’s the difference!
July 27, 2010 at 10:26 am
I agree with Cheri, it is very contradictory, apparently, how we prosecute the laws. What is the moral reason for prosecuting polygamy, just by itself? If it is about promiscuous sex, that would be hypocritical because we don’t care. If it is about legal benefits, that explains why we fail to punish most of these polygamists more severly, simply because their is no plural marriage licenses to catch the perpetrator, the majority of the time. However, improper use of welfare funds to have sex and raise children in isolation from the rest of society should be prosecuted. Statuatory rape (i.e. sex with those under the age of consent, is a serious crime for which adult men or women can be sentenced to years of prison time, locally a high school teacher was sent to prison for five years and given the permanent label of a sex offender for sex with one of his high school students, why this guy is not prosecuted specifically for that. Pursuing polygamy by itself is a cause as unwinnable as the war on drugs. The underground movements such as this one thrives on us seeking to prosecute in this manner. They would be brought out of business if we had a legitimate, “civil union” form of polygamy available, with counseling for the abused as well. Convicting a man of fathering children underage is a crime we can prosecute with DNA confirmation, convicting these fundamentalists for throwing out the undereducated teenage boys is something long overdue, at least making Jeffs serve twice as long in prison. Decriminalize polygamy by itself, because we tolerate who knows how many de facto forms of it already, and focus on the underage marriage, not just the polygamy part of it.
September 29, 2010 at 1:31 am
Dear all,
The Bible in the New Testament is very clear that upstanding Christians should have only one wife :
NIV 1 Timothy 3:2 Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
NIV 1 Timothy 3:12 A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well.
NIV Titus 1:6 An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient.
Also, Adam was given one wife , not many. Yes, some of the patriarchs had many wives but that doesn’t mean that God was happy with that. God was gracious not to obliterate them because of their sin.
I hope you will print this comment and not censor it.
Sincerely,
Jeff
Rev. Jeff Fry
January 4, 2016 at 9:24 pm
Jeff, FOOL! GOD allows polygamy, get over it!
October 3, 2010 at 6:03 pm
[…] reality, Green was sentenced from five years to life, Green released on parole in August 2007 after serving six years in prison convicted of four counts […]
July 30, 2012 at 12:09 pm
holy crap!! i was a polygamist with out knowing it. i married 15 husbands and had 17 children
March 3, 2013 at 12:56 pm
I am a friend of Tom Green and Chris Hanson, but lost their email. Does any one have their email address? I really need it! My email is: jackcoey46@yahoo.com contact me. Jack
January 4, 2016 at 9:25 pm
GOD bless Tom Green, may GOD punish the JEWS!
August 26, 2014 at 1:37 pm
see here for top quality info on Related Web Page around
June 11, 2017 at 10:16 pm
Regards,
July 26, 2017 at 7:34 pm
I enjoy your blog and I believe it actually enhances the techno community. I would like show you this tech house and techno playlist that I found on Spotify. http://spoti.fi/2v7a0MA I think the community would really like it.
September 1, 2017 at 8:57 am
هيئة المهندسين التجمعيين – corps des ingenieurs du parti du RNI
This is my expert
October 29, 2017 at 4:29 pm
I’m not understanding why it is not seen or thought of that these type of people “resign” to this specific religion just so they CAN do what they do and get away with it. The wives were younger N younger; this is disgraceful in my opinion. This just display the mindset of too may males in this society when it comes to females N sex. It has been that way since the beginning of time and even now; the proof is in the pudding. There are not less child molesters/ rapist and or sexual assaults today but “more”! Our children from age 5-6 are being sexually molested, assaulted, raped and murdered; there’s cases where toddlers and yes babies have been sexually assaulted. We undoubtedly reside in a society of Sexually Sick Perverted Males and yes some females as well! Breaks my heart! Look at “trump’s MINDSET”; Jesus!
;
April 28, 2020 at 2:01 am
talks with the Spanish clubs head of youth, Pep Segura, and that it is only FIFAs rules against under-18s making international transfers preventing the deal being formally completed.
April 28, 2020 at 2:01 am
Getty Images3Shaun Wright-Phillips played just 24 matches in two years for New York Red BullsHe won .
September 28, 2023 at 8:54 am
[…] The answer is yes. You’ve been crusading for legalizing polygamy for years. In fact, in an op-ed in the USA Today, you said that a Utah polygamist named Tom Green, who was also convicted of pedophilia for raping […]
September 28, 2023 at 9:01 am
[…] The answer is yes. You’ve been on a crusade to legalize polygamy for years. In fact, in an op-ed in USA Todayyou said named after a polygamist in Utah Tom Green, who was also convicted of pedophilia for raping […]