Legalize Polygamy! No. I am not kidding.
~snip~
For decades, the prevailing logic has been that polygamy hurts women and children. That makes sense, since in contemporary American practice that is often the case. In many Fundamentalist Latter-day Saints polygamous communities, for example, women and underage girls are forced into polygamous unions against their will. Some boys, who represent the surplus of males, are brutally thrown out of their homes and driven into homelessness and poverty at very young ages. All of these stories are tragic, and the criminals involved should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. (That goes without saying, I hope.)
But legalizing consensual adult polygamy wouldn’t legalize rape or child abuse. In fact, it would make those crimes easier to combat.
Right now, all polygamous families, including the healthy, responsible ones, are driven into hiding (notwithstanding the openly polygamous Brown family on TLC’s Sister Wives, that is). In the resulting isolation, crime and abuse can flourish unimpeded. Children in polygamous communities are taught to fear the police and are not likely to report an abusive neighbor if they suspect their own parents might be caught up in a subsequent criminal investigation. In a United States with legalized polygamy, responsible plural families could emerge from the shadows—making it easier for authorities to zero in on the criminals who remain there.
Many people argue that there is no such thing as a “healthy, responsible” polygamous family, particularly for the children born into one. “Children are harmed because they are often set in perennial rivalry with other children and mothers for the affection and attention of the family patriarch,” argued John Witte Jr. in the Washington Post. “Men with lots of children and wives are spread too thin,” agreed Libby Copeland in Slate. The earnestness of these arguments is touching but idealistic. Men in monogamous marriages can’t be spread too thin? Children in monogamous families don’t rival each other for the attentions of their parents? Two-parent families are not the reality for millions of American children. Divorce, remarriage, surrogate parents, extended relatives, and other diverse family arrangements mean families already come in all sizes—why not recognize that legally?
~snip~
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/04/legalize_polygamy_marriage_equality_for_all.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
I've seen it up close and personal.
The spouse and children are the ones who suffer. Its hard enough when its only two people...
Clearly everyone (but us obviously) on DU has only had easy divorces and near perfect contract terminations without any acrimony, hurt or damage.
Not gay men in "relationships".
while backing others because prohibiting one makes you feel better.
This is quite literally the underlying psychology of scapegoating. When someone cannot address the true pathology, they divert to something which isn't so terrifying.
I'm not going to argue that legalizing polygamy will liberate women because legal regulation is not the way to liberate subjugated groups. Which is also exactly why I don't believe prohibiting polygamy will liberate women.
In the analysis of what oppresses a group, the question that should be asked first is "what socially and legally endorsed institutions are complicit?" Those institutions which "get a pass" because they are deemed socially acceptable are precisely the institutions which do the most harm.
If you want to talk about what kind of marriage is singularly most oppressive against women in the country, it is the kind which is socially acceptable; monogamous, heterosexual ("traditional"
marriage. That isn't to say that there is something essential about monogamous, heterosexual marriage which is wrong. Just the opposite, we have to evaluate how we justify, implicitly or explicitly, oppression through legally sanctioning socially accepted institutions.
By arguing that these unjust acts will continue. These acts exist now even as polygamy is illegal. They will continue to exist if/when polygamy is made legal.
The explicit declaration of legal regulation ("This act is illegal" makes us falsely believe such an institution is what influences social attitudes. It is precisely the implicit, unsaid regulation which is responsible for social attitude.
This is why the legal "slippery slope" argument is inherently flawed. It believes that legal sanction is the most fundamental influence on social attitudes and action. Nothing could be further from the truth.
... to many in-laws!
