Posted on 04/20/2015 1:26:39 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Kat Steed, left, and Dixie Allen hold hands in the Mormon church’s Temple Square, Jan. 14, 2015, in Salt Lake City. Steed, who escaped the FLDS in Colorado City, Arizona, calls polygamy “poisonous.”
On a chilly winter morning at sunrise in Salt Lake City, the sun glints on the snowcapped mountains that surround Utah’s state capital and the dazzling white Mormon temple that dominates the downtown area.
All is quiet. But change is in the air in this deeply religious, blood-red Republican state — upheaval, even.
Same-sex marriage became legal in Utah last October, a dramatic cultural shift for many, and eyes are on the expected ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States this summer that could legalize gay marriage across the U.S.
Now some area residents are asking: If the gays can marry, why not the polygamists?
Polygamy is illegal in the United States, and in Utah its prohibition is actually written into the state constitution. But if it is deemed unconstitutional to bar consenting gay adults from getting married, isn’t it similarly unfair not to allow a man to marry his willing “sister wives,” all but one of whom are usually joined to him only in a spiritual marriage, as a way of skirting the law?
The suggestion causes alarm to Kathwren Steed, a first cousin of the infamous fundamentalist “prophet” Warren Jeffs, who is believed to have had up to 80 wives.
Steed fled the secretive sect Jeffs controls on the Utah-Arizona border, the Fundamentalist Latter-Day Saints, in order to avoid the prospect of becoming an older man’s third wife — and because she had come out as a lesbian.
“Polygamy is poisonous,” she said, emphatically, during an interview a stone’s throw from the Mormon temple in Salt Lake City.
“I don’t think anyone should be raised with that hostility. There is jealousy and hate and anger and the women are owned. They want you to think we are all united and we are all sisters, but it’s rarely true,” she added.
But as a liberal and a feminist, as Steed agreed she is, who benefited from the change in the law when she married her girlfriend in Utah, how easy is it to support a ban on adult women in her state choosing to enter plural marriage?
Steed’s wife, Dixie Allen, intervened in a calm voice to say: “If you can separate out the religion, can you have more than one spouse? In principle I would say yes.”
Steed thought about this. “Polyamory works for some people,” she agreed.
But to formalize the kind of family structures she grew up around and rejected early on, in multiple marriage certificates issued by city hall? Steed has her doubts about that and questions the concept of willingness, in the sense of whether a decision to enter plural marriage is a properly informed choice for adults born and bred in socially and sometimes also geographically isolated polygamous communities, where the tradition is to marry young and educate the kids at home.
“I think it all comes down to what makes a consenting adult,” said Steed.
According to one survey by a polygamy advocacy group, there are an estimated 38,000 people — mostly in Utah and other Western states — who practice or believe in polygamy, dotted in sects and clans that splintered off from Mormonism when that religion was required to ban the practice in return for Utah statehood in 1896. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints founder Joseph Smith had promoted plural marriage, calling it a divine commandment.
A judge struck down the part of Utah’s anti-polygamy law in December 2013 that relates to cohabitation, which had banned adults living together in plural groupings as if married. But polygamy is still not legal.
Roger Hoole, a Salt Lake City lawyer whose firm has represented people suing the FLDS, agrees with Steed. Legalizing polygamy would not be right, he said, arguing it is a very different concept from legalizing same-sex marriage.
“Someone who is gay and just wants to marry is not only consenting, they have had to fight for their right as an individual to choose it,” Hoole said. “But polygamy is practiced through a religion that is based on absolute obedience — is that consent or, more pointedly, is it informed consent?”
In the Fundamentalist Church of Latter-Day Saints, for example, marriages are arranged by the head of the sect, who claims to be speaking directly on God’s orders. It’s a deeply patriarchal, hierarchical religion, and women are expected to stay “sweet” and follow the orders of the head of the household, which is always a man. Members are almost always born into the religion, not converts to it.
The culture of polygamy “causes a lot of pain,” Hoole said.
And how does Hoole see the legal landscape for polygamy?
“It’s all messed up. It really is,” he said.
The same arguments used to push homosexual marriage, can and will be used to push polygamy and group marriage.
Bottom line is that we are not allowed, per liberal theology, to make any value judgements about whether certain types of relationships deserve support by government and society, or whether such should be encouraged by society. We are not allowed to discuss whether such relationships are good for society.
How often have you heard, during the homosexual marriage debate, that if you oppose homosexual marriage, then you are an anti-gay bigot? And that you are preventing consenting adults from living their lives as they wish??? And then it’s end of discussion once the bigotry card is played.
Same will happen with polygamy. As long as everyone is a consenting adult, how can the liberals who pushed homosexual marriage come back and say that polygamy should be banned? And still be intellectually honest about this???
And don’t forget, that liberal judges will eventually force polygamy through the courts. Just as homosexual marriage is being forced through the courts now. Just declare it a constitutional right, and again, the debate is stifled because now it is a matter of constitutional rights, not a policy decision.
As long as they are consenting adults (age of consent in human years, dog years, or whatever years), who are we to stand in the way of love? If they were “born that way”, they have the same right as everyone else to marry whomever they want. If Woody Allen can marry his step-daughter, and if Bert can marry Ernie, then why not Mohammed and the four nine-year-old brides he purchased in a marketplace, or a Mormon with his sister-wives? A polygamous “marriage” is just as valid as the gay version, isn’t it? And they are entitled to all the legal benefits of a marriage contract, and to demand social acceptance.
It is logically inconsistent to allow homosexuals to “marry” and continue to disallow other types of legally recognized unions.
All the arguments this silly lesbian (redundant, I know) makes can be employed against “gay” marriage.
Yep.
Their argument is "Any two people who love each other should be allowed to marry".
They never mention any limitations.
"Any two people...".
My response is "I love my mother, she loves me. You would then approve of our marriage, right?"
And then watch them sputter.
I don’t know that “Ironic” is the right word.
It reminds me of the Old Testament story where God calls the pagan military king that He is using to crush evil cultures as “His servant”. Didn’t really matter that the king was a pagan and wasn’t intentionally serving God. It only mattered that God was using the king as a useful idiot to accomplish God’s purposes.
I get a little worried with evil people start pointing out genuine decadence in our culture.
Only one way I can think of - tradition. Marriage is traditionally between two people.
Of course, in destroying traditional marriage they insist tradition has nothing to do with it.
Once the Supreme Court validates same-sex “marriage,” you will not be able to stop polygamy. The exact same arguments will be made, and the courts have already held that there is not a valid government interest to stop them. In fact,I suspect polygamy is already legal in Massachusetts, they just haven’t started demanding the wedding licenses yet.
Meaning that she's okay with polygamy but that she has a problem with religion.
Thanks for clarifying that for us, Dixie.
The evil of queer marriage results in more evil- polygamy.
And don’t forget, that liberal judges will eventually force polygamy through the courts.
Maybe...but I wouldn’t count on it...if they do as you suggest, they will be proving the Christians argument that same sex marriage leads to polygamy correct...liberal judges are many things, but they are not that obtuse...
The odd thing is that leftists and especially feminists are more adamantly opposed to polygamy than most Christians are. Yet they’ll pursue the gay marriage issue even if it becomes a pyrrhic victory for them on polygamy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.