Polygamy

[dr.strangelove]

I had an interesting "water cooler" discussion this morning. A co-worker and I were talking about the new HBO series Big Love, which revolves around a family of one husband and three wives and their collective children. I thought the show was great and enjoyed Bill Paxton and Jeanne Tripplehorn's acting. My friend was completely opposed to the show primarily due ot her objection to polygamy.

I must admit I have never thought a great deal about polygamy, but I can easily see that it can lead to physical abuse of women and young men when there are simply not enough women to "go around." The emotional and mental abuse on the women must be extreme as well. SO without much thought, my initial views on the practice are negative and I am glad it is illegal.

Wow, once I said that a bushie whom I always fight with jumped down my throat. He started yelling at me for being a hypocrite. I tried to calm him down and he kept saying he finally "got me." What I was able to get out of him before a partner walked by and told us to go back to work was that the Lawrence v. Texas case that overturned sodomy laws also protects polygamy as they were consenting adults. Now it has been awhile since I read the Lawrence case, but I find it hard to believe that Lawrence would protect polygamy. He suggested that a "couple" that was married tried to obtain a license to marry a third women and was rejected. They filed suit based on Lawrence. I will be hitting Findlaw to read lawrence in a few minutes over lunch today. In the meantime I hoped some here could comment on this.

Has anyone heard of this? If so, does anyone know if there has been any legal commentary on the subject or anything I can read on it? Anyone have anything to add.

[RaleighNCDUer]

1. My take is that it is not polygamy that is the problem,

but abusive men using religion as an excuse for their abuse.

If people want polygamous marriages, that's fine with me as long as all the individuals are free to choose or reject the marriage without coercion. When it is 50 year old men telling 14 year old girls that they will be damned to eternal hell if they do not submit, that isn't marriage, it is abuse.

[mattclearing]

13. Word. n/t

[Radio_Lady]

27. My Motto: DO NOT DISCUSS religion, sex, or politics around the

water cooler, or elsewhere in the office. Keep everything "light and ... um ... gay," in the old-fashioned sense.
Too many people bear their souls to their co-workers. (And screwing each other is a no-no, too, but I won't get into that.)

These discussions are NOT a very good idea. If you want to get around someone's query about how you think on a certain sensitive subject, you can say, "You know, you could be right." And then just leave the scene.

In peace,

Radio_Lady

[bowens43]

2. If everyone involved is a consenting adult

why should it be illegal?

[Squatch]

10. Yup!

[Squatch]

11. If one couple can have 17 children together

why can't a man and three women have 4.33 children for each couple?

[Beaverhausen]

15. But most of the "wives" are 13 year old girls

Not, in my opinion, old enough to make that decision.

http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=1672757&page=1

[dr.strangelove]

16. Yeah, its tough to talk about something in theory

when the reality of the practice is so far from the theory. In theory several responders have said that as long as everyone are adults. That is adding a significant fact to my original thought. I asked about polygamy and referred to Big Love. I am referring to Polygamy as it is practiced. I understand that polygamy in reality involves the abuse of young women and young men. I agree a 13 year old is not mature enough to decide if she should be married, especially when she has no choice.

[Warren DeMontague]

25. By my definition, that wouldn't fall into the "consenting adult" category.

nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

33. Sleeping and/or living with multiple partners generally isn't illegal

(I can't speak for all laws in all states, given some things that have remained illegal due to 200 year old ideas of morality). But wanting the legal privileges and responsibilities of a marriage, which involves two people, extended to groups of three or more may be problematic. It means people end up with multiple 'next of kin', for example. How are pension rights worked out, in such a way that other people aren't disadvantaged by someone having several 'survivors'?

Personally, I think the legal privileges of marriage should be restricted to couples bringing up children. Apart from that, why is it any concern of the state exactly how much a pair of people like or love each other, or whether they are having sex or not? But, realistically, monogamous marriage is such a basic part of western culture (and the typical situation even in other cultures that allow polygamous marriages) that you can't get rid of it, or restrict it to the time when children are being brought up.

[Fridays Child]

3. If polygamy were accepted by the mainstream, men who use it...

...for predatory purposes would no longer be able to operate in the shadows. The women involved would, then, be far more able to gain access to the information and education necessary to keep themselves psychologically and physically safe. Granted, as a general rule, most organized religions oppress women but legalizing polygamy would still be a step in the right direction.

Besides, the state has no business, whatsoever, regulating religious contracts or inserting its own moral views into civil contracts. Provided that children and other individuals who are incapable of entering into consentual relationships are protected, it's just none of the government's damn business.

Just my opinion. Flame away, if you must.

[BushOut06]

4. I can't think of a good, rational reason why it should be illegal

As far as the emotional & mental abuse goes, you can get plenty of that in a monogamous marriage. I'm sure there are plenty of loving, healthy polygamous families out there. There are many cultures around the world where polygamy is an accepted way of life.

If you're going to look for legal cases, though, I would look up cases involving the Mormons. Polygamy has been a huge source of contention between the Mormons and the US government. I believe the SCOTUS upheld the ban on polygamy, which is why modern Mormonism doesn't preach polygamy - although more conservative sects certainly do.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

5. On Lawrence v. Texas

It was the protection of private conduct in the Lawrence case that opens the door to protect polygamy and gay marriage, too.

If it takes place between consenting adults I have no problem with it, personally.

What some of the FLDS (the implied group represented in the HBO series) are engaging in is neither consensual nor between adults.

[Dhalgren]

6. The only "polygamy" that makes any sense, physically, is

one woman and multiple men. Especially if it is a farm setting, but any setting is also applicable. A woman generally makes a better "head of household" than does a man and, let's face it, sexually one man can barely maintain one woman, certainly not three or four. A woman, however, could easily manage several men (if she wanted to) and keep everyone happy. Also, with just the one woman there wouldn't be the "over-crowding" concern. No, one man/numerous women makes no sense; one woman/numerous men, however, is quite feasable...

[Fridays Child]

9. Good points. Polyandry is the most adaptive form of multiple marriage.

[Radical Activist]

28. If you're goal is to

limit population growth then your argument is correct. The rest of your arguments appear to be based on sexist generalizations.

[Karenina]

29. I recall reading some time ago

of a South American Indian tribe that believed it took THREE men to impregnate a woman. When successful they all high-fived, celebrated and considered themselves jointly responsible for the offspring.

I cannot imagine a better scenario. 4 adults claiming a child as their "own" PLUS extended family...

[skids]

34. Well...

...to play devil's advocate -- or I guess in this case, stereotypical male fantasy advocate,
that entirely depends on the sexuality of the women. :-)

[mongo]

7. Your co-worker's argument is totally bogus

Marriage is a civil institution, not a private practice behind closed doors.

The gist of Lawerence is that the government can't regulate practices of consenting adults behind closed doors. It says's that there is no compelling state interest to patrol the sexual lives of adults. It makes only overturns laws against sodomy, adultery, etc.

The only other laws that may come into question under Lawerence are prostitution laws. But I'm sure that our SC will find a way to wrangle the commerce clause to keep prostitution illegal.

[dr.strangelove]

8. Mongo - you would probably know this

Hope my comment on you probably knowing the answer to my questions did not offend you. I have always considered you the "guru" here on DU on regualtion of the "adult entertainment" industry.

Has the federal government ever regulated or banned prostitution. I recall it being legal in Nevada for any county with a population of less than 500,000 to license brothels, but prostitution is only allowed in registered brothels. Have the feds ever tried to usurp Nevada's law and tout the commerce clause?

The other thing I am sure you know is whether the adult film industry in CA has been hit by the feds via the commerce clause. I understand CA law protects the adult film industry from prosecution for prostitution (thank goodness) but have the feds had any success using the commerce clause to overrule this?

[mongo]

24. As far as I know

there is no Federal Law against prostitution.

As far as the Feds go -- since there is no Federal law against prostitution or "pandering" they have never gone after the adult film companies on that basis.

The Feds go after a company based on obscenity laws, in the past mostly by ordering a video from a conservative area of the country, or even multiple areas at once, and then prosecuting the company in that jurisdiction. So, a California company will get hauled into court in Cincinatti, and Mobile, and Charleston at the same time. This tactic managed to bankrupt a few companies back in the 80's.

The feds changed the USC 18 -- 2257 rules on the fly last year, which is the law that requires producers to keep records of all performers that prove they are over 18 years of age. The rules had been worked out in 1996(?), shortly after the law was enacted, but the feds never once performed an inspection of a producers 2257 compliance. The changes they made last year are too numerous for me to remember, but were designed to create havok in the industry. One part made everyone from a distributor to even a retail store a "secondary producer", which would mean I would need to recieve a copy of the records for every video I sell. Can you imagine the damage to the privacy of performers if every adult store in the country had to legally have their real name and address?

Another change was that the notice on the box and at the beginning of the movie -- which they changed to require the notice at the end of the movie, was that the "custodian of records" had to be described as a full name. So if the box says "S. Smith, custodian of records", instead of "Steve Smith, custodian of records", that video would now be illegal.

There is an injunction against the government from enforcing the new rules until the court case is settled, but I expect a flurry of activity and hassle from the governement in this areana when all is said and done.

No offense taken. I don't consider myself a guru -- that's why I have a lawyer, but I do try to keep myself well informed of the various legal issues of my business.

[Gormy Cuss]

18. Civil marriage involving more than two would have wider ramifications

in the way community property, parenthood, tax bases, etc are handled because current laws were written with a unit of two people in mind. It would represent a major challenge to our social order- unlike gay marriage, which changes only one tiny little aspect of the definition.

[mongo]

26. Agreed on all points

and I think that gay marriage is unconstitutional, but not based on Lawerence.

[Yupster]

12. Why would you argue against what consenting adults do in

the privacy of their bedroom?

Polygymy is fine with me as long as it's consenting adults.

What business of anyone else's would it be?

[katty]

14. Big Love? Big Tired, 3 wives/kids/houses...EXHAUSTED

[dr.strangelove]

17. but

viagra helps

[Radio_Lady]

20. Right on, katty! I had one husband, five kids (from two previous

marriages -- ages 2,3,9,12,and 14) and one house to take care of from 1973 until the kids began growing up and moving on. I swear I don't remember all that went on because my mind won't allow me to think about it. However, the household duties were monstrous and I had to lean on ALL SEVEN MEMBERS to help me get through the day.

Oh, we also had two full-time jobs! I did a radio show 10 AM to 2 PM and he traveled about 50% of the time on business.

We watched the show and had a couple of comments and a few laughs. The show was, like, a speeded up soap opera.

Oh, my monogamous son and his monogamous wife and their two young kids, 5 and 8 years old, are Mormons and live in Utah.

What kind of ratings do you think this thing will get? I don't know if I'll watch it again; however, my husband does watch "The Sopranos" which is the lead in. But at 10 PM, I'm usually either asleep or getting ready for bed.

In peace,

Radio_Lady

[medeak]

19. Have you heard of the "lost boys"?

from Colorado City in AZ?

Closed polygamist sect that makes the young boys leave town on their own to never see parents or siblings again... as not enough young girls to go around for the old men.

They live on the streets of St. George Utah... fortunately Utah general attorney has taken a few in and started a drive for adoption. Unfortunately these boys have been raised to fear police etc. and don't seek help.

[Radio_Lady]

21. Donny Deutsch (did I spell that right?) had some of them on his

talk show the other night. Also, I had read about them in some publication last year.

Sad story. My ultimate reaction is that religions as a whole have done a great deal of harm to us as a people. Obviously, that isn't what these religions intended, I'm sure.

In peace,

Radio_Lady

[medeak]

22. was in SLC for tour of homes last summer

It seemed all on the bus were either gay or polygamists. The strange part for me was seeing the wives walk in line behind the first wife..it was obviously a pecking order of first, 2nd, 3rd, etc. gave me chills.

I hung with the gays...as they knew all the best restaurants to go to ;-)

edited to say...the show is not true in my opinion. Most polygamists don't have separate households but enormous ark homes that are three stories with kitchens on each floor.

[Radio_Lady]

23. We were in SLC at New Years -- our son's mother-in-law took us to

a fabulous Chinese restaurant (she's a lapsed LDS married to an ex-Catholic -- and neither of them are polygamous OR gay).

I couldn't live in that city. Mostly, the weather would get me (snows in winter, heat in summer). Secondly, it's OVER the TOP religious for me -- and I'd feel VERY out of place. I also feel that way about other places where ONE RELIGION RULES and others are relegated to MINORITY status (maybe like the Vatican or the very religious places in Jerusalem, or even Brooklyn, NY. Much of Thailand was also devoted to gorgeous Buddhist temples and decrepit human housing. Good Lord, if you are good, how can that happen?

[medeak]

30. pm me name of restuarant!

I live 3 hours from SLC and go there often.

[Radio_Lady]

32. Here it is -- (had to retrieve it from our credit card receipts! )

It's Mandarin Restaurant (sorry, I don't have the exact address, but will try to get it for you!) in
Bountiful, Utah

We were there on 12/30/05. That was a Friday evening, as I recall, the restaurant opens at 5 PM, but there are always people waiting in line in the parking lot!

Their hot and sour soup was fabulous! We had about six dishes for the four of us and all were delightful.

Good luck!

Radio_Lady in Oregon

[CatholicEdHead]

31. Polygamy is being used as the anti-gay marriage argument

in the assult to push through the ammendment to MN's constitution.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=160x17671