Here's something you don't see every day --an editorial defending polygamy

[Khephra]

Polygamy is a protected right

Religious polygamy is protected by the U.S. Constitution and should not be a crime. Polygamy in Utah is a felony punishable by a $5,000 fine and five years imprisonment. The U.S. Supreme Court should overrule its 1879 decision which allowed government to ban polygamy.

The crimes of welfare fraud, statutory rape, incest, child abuse and underage marriages should be prosecuted. People who commit those crimes -- monogamists, polygamists, marrieds or unmarrieds -- should be criminally punished.

Polygamy as a protected religious right must be examined independently of polygamy as practiced by some Utahns -- such as incestuously, with young minors and supported by welfare fraud. Crimes against children occur in monogamous marriages, yet the State of Utah does not outlaw monogamous marriages. Such crimes in polygamist communities do not mean that polygamy should be outlawed -- only that those criminal laws should be enforced.

Roman Catholic priests practice celibacy. A shocking number of those clerics are accused of child sexual abuse. Should clerical celibacy be outlawed? No. The logical response is to prosecute wrongdoers for the specific crimes committed.

more.......................

http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Aug/08172003/commenta/84432.asp

[Jacobin]

1. Without clicking the link

I'm assuming the "sl" in the url is "Salt Lake"...

Am I far off?

:-)

Whether polygamy is serial or concurrent, surely it has existed in the past and always will.

[Khephra]

9. How'd you guess???

:evilgrin:

I'm with those who feel it's ok, as long as it's between consenting adults.

But boy, was I surprised to have this little editorial pop up on a google search.

[cprise]

23. 'consenting adults' is not the same as

... a LEGAL contract entitling people to:

1. Love

2. Attention

3. Property

4. Custody & Guardianship


Prediction: The legal profession will come out against this, and stay that way.... especially as people advocating for this keep reaching for Middle-eastern and early-Mormon civilization as examples.

[tsipple]

2. Libertarian Streak in Me Sort of Agrees With This...

As long as both women and men can have multiple spouses, I don't see the problem, as long as all involved are adults and consent. Whether there should be civil benefits (or responsibilities) attached to such arrangements is another question.

Heck, polygamy is already legal most places, so long as you don't try to register the fact officially.

[Johnyawl]

3. I have to agree...

...although not from religious reasons.

I've been thinking this for some time, if we can force the government to sanction same sex marriages, how can we not allow multi-pardner marriages?

[Mari333]

6. I agree

as long as its consenting ADULTS. and that means 18 years old and up...legal adults.

[roughsatori]

7. When did we "force the government to sanction same sex marriage"

As a matter of fact some of "us" are sponsoring the and planning to support the defense of marriage act.

I do agree with the article as long as women are permitted the same right to multiple spouses (no polygamy tax credits though. :))

[Johnyawl]

13. Badly worded

What I meant was when we force the government to sanction same sex marriage...

And this is one of the arguments the fundies are using to resist gay marriage. Once we change something as fundamental as the genders involved, how can we legislate against the numbers of consenting adults involved in the marriage? Chaos and anarchy will follow! We'll have every kind of marriage under the sun! Multiple pardners of both sexs!

Sounds like fun to me! }(

[cprise]

19. The exclusivity is what's fundamental

"Sounds like fun to me!"

Perhaps. I don't think the courts have to protect every intimate relationship every person has beyond their primary spouse. The simplest, most workable way to undertake polygamy would be within an all-out, legally recognized commune.

Have fun all you want, but don't ask the courts to untangle all the litigious messes with my tax dollars. That is more support from society than anyone deserves.

[Clete]

4. I'm not against polygamy between consenting adults.

I do object to forcing fourteen year old girls into such marriages or other abuses that can arise.

We practice serial polygamy in this country anyway, with marriages and divorces.

Once gay marriage goes off the hot plate, I think this will be the next hot potato item on the legislative menu.

[Muddleoftheroad]

5. Both issues

Are tied together. As both the left and the right try to define marriage, this is part of it. The right knows it and it is one of the reasons they oppose letting ANY non-traditional marriage go through.

[cprise]

26. No grassroots movement

This issue is being injected into the dialogue from above (Sen. Santorum et al) with scant examples or support at the grassroots level. In that sense, it resembles the ex-gay "movement" more than anything: Another way to wean society off liberalism and individual rights, or at least a way to frame the debate against genuine liberal causes.

Gays have a fundamental difference from heterosexuals, and as a result are driven to open their options and see themselves at least nominally reflected in society (the alternative is profound isolation and victimization-- there is no in-between). What drives polygamists? The need to have more of the same? Men who want to amplify x10 the legal obligations they normally avoid? Ha... :+ Let the show begin: This will be as short as John Polk's heterosexuality.

[catpower2000]

8. I tend to agree...

I don't have any problem with consenting adults practicing polygamy. It's certainly not for me, but who am I to judge what makes people happy? As far as legally sanctioning it, I don't see a problem. The practitioners will have to work out their own business in terms of who inherits what in the case of a death, of course. A legally-endorsed document should cover those bases.

Of course, the cult-like mentality of some polygamists has given the practice a (well-deserved, in that instance) bad reputation. As previous posters have said, people who try to use polygamy to cover other behavior, like molestation and incest, should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Cat

[jmm]

10. As long as everyone involved is a consenting adult

I don't see anything wrong with it. For financial reasons I think a marriages between two and more than two people would have to be treated differently.

[Hamlette]

11. polgamy is not economically viable

Polygamists are the largest consumers of welfare dollars in Utah and Arizona with over one half of all polygamists receiving food stamps compared to 4-6% of the population at large.

Tom Green had 30 children and five wives living at "home". (He had a total of 10 wives, one set of 5 got too old for him and he married some more kids, one as young as 13. She had her parents consent.) The poverty level for a family that size is $96,000 (by extrapolation, the government doesn't calculate the poverty level for a family that size.) He received an average of $65,000 PER YEAR in welfare (food stamps, housing allowances, medical coverage and cash assistance.)

So, under the guise of freedom of religion are you willing to support a lifestyle where the people can't support themselves?

Read Krakour's book Under the Banner of Heaven if you think polygamy is okay.

Brian Barnard, who I admire, is off the deep end on this one. Just pulling chains is my guess. His argument that divorce being legal and resulting in more people being put on welfare is silly. Divorce is permitted because of the social ills of not allowing people to disolve a marriage. There is a social good in permitting people to divorce. What is the social good in polygamy?

The one truth about polygamy is we are not going to stop it, unless we make it illegal to get welfare if you are in a polygamous relationship.

[Clete]

15. A Christian Lebanese friend explained how polygamy

works in the Middle East. Most arabs have monogamous marriages because they have to be able to afford the extra wives and children. Although there are times and extra wife is taken on for various reasons even by a poor man. However, if they are rich enough, then each wife must have her own home or at least living quarters. The husband must share his attention and wealth equally among all the wives. Of course this is ideally how it is done. I am sure reality has many variants.

One time he was talking about Kuwait and told me that among the wives of the Kuwaiti princes, each has her own home, servants and Cadillac or Mercedes. Since I am repeating what one person told me, correct anything I said that isn't entirely true.

[cprise]

18. Looking at the individual rights

...allowed to people in those societies, I am not surprised by any of this.

As soon as both sexes attain rights as full individuals, polygamy becomes unsupportable.

This idea is a throwback, and not a tradition that Arab or other countries should cling to if they want to improve their human rights records.

[cprise]

17. Nor is it legally viable

...in a liberal democracy. The complexity of legal entanglements (divorce, custody, inheritence battles) alone would bring the courts to a screeching halt.

Open-ended 'marriage' is not a right, and we don't owe them an infinately-large legal system (or a primitive, patriarchal society with few individual rights) to make it work. These people are born with the same basic needs as the rest of us, as we all have our monogamous and polyamorous sides. (Just think of all those teenage boys who become suicidal because they want a harem when they grow up, and think they are the only one in the world with those feelings-- Yeah, RIGHT). They can get married to one person under a prenuptual agreement and then build their extended family as they see fit.

This is nothing like changing the gender of one spouse (in the case of same-sex couples) and then considering that to be basically a marriage. Polygamy (legal spouses times-N) is an entirely different structure with demands that a liberal and litigious society cannot hope to meet.

Finally, religion is not an excuse for <insert behavior here>. Either the religion makes compromises with secular society or it doesn't, and if it doesn't then you can expect the religionists to work themselves up into a frenzy of entitlement and violence.

So let's not go there.

[veganwitch]

12. who and how you love is no ones business

if all parties are consentual and mature (age emotionally etc) enough to handle it and its ramifications. there are legal ways to get around gay and other alternative families.

besides the relationship issue--knowing a few poly folk and other bisexual women, some who have multiple relationships--poly families just make more sense.

think about... 75 years ago extended families were the norm. grandparents, aunts uncles lived together, helped raise the family bring in income and support the way of life for the family. nuclear families do not have that support--children, enemployment, serious illness, can throw off a couple much easier than an extended family.

group, communal, poly etc. families are just as "normal" and well-balanced as mom and dad having missionary sex while their 2.5 children sleep in the next room.

[Hamlette]

16. are you willing to support it economically?

Your tax dollars...paying for their life style? Yes or no. If no, then how do we write the laws to exclude polygamous families?

You see, they don't believe in women working. Tom Green earned between $16K and 20k per year to support a family of 36. Can't be done.

[Yupster]

14. The Right to privacy would seem to cover this

I don't know how you could say no as long as consenting adults.

[cprise]

21. Yes, and No

They can do what they want in private, but as far as making multiple, interlocking legal claims on each other (serviced by the courts) then forget it.

This whole thing is a right-wing ploy and I can't believe how some of you are lapping it up.

[DemLikr]

20. Polygamy should absolutely be sanctioned, as long as

it allows for multiple-husband marriages, and for multiple partner same sex marriage too.

I'm completely serious.

[cprise]

22. Than marriages could be married to each other

...through one or more individuals.

Imagine whole towns comprised of close relatives.

[Fridays Child]

24. ...I am in conplete agreement with you.

[HawkerHurricane]

25. No one talks about Polyandry

Which is a woman having more than one husband.

It's always polygamy, the husband with multiple wives.

How about a group or clan marraige, with multiple men and women, with responsibilities and privlages as the group/clan wishes?

How is it the government's business?

Leaving out the welfare thing, of course.

[Mari333]

27. agreed..Polyandry should also be legal

imo, among consenting adults...(makes mores sense, too, to me...)

[greekspeak]

28. Polygamy means

"multiple marriages," not "multiple wives." That would be "polygyny," as multiple husbands is "polyandry."

[HawkerHurricane]

29. I bow to your supiorior knowledge

I took Latin in High School, but it didn't take.
You can tell how badly it didn't take when you realize that I can't even tell if polygamy is Greek or Latin.

[Hamlette]

30. So....you won't answer?

Is "not economically viable" enough of a reason to keep it illegal?

Most polygamous marriages are arranged. There is NO consent, no matter how old. There is a higher rate of sexual molestation, and over half of them are on welfare (you even pay for their child care, to the tune of millions of dollars per year. One sister wife tends her sister wife's kids and vice versa you YOU, the tax payer, pay a few hundred dollars per child.)

We should distinguish it from gay marriage, not agree that it is the same thing. It is not.

[Yupster]

31. I don't think we ought to go down the economically viable road

Unmarried pregnant high school student is not economically viable either. I don't think the government should go there.