Is lawful polygamy next?

townhall.com ^ | 1/16/04 | Jeff Jacoby

[tortoise]

When it comes to Europe, particularly France, I think you are mixing up mistresses with multiple wives.

I wasn't talking about mistresses. Nor was I talking about modern Europe, which shares that peculiar cultural trait.

[ppaul]

Click:

[Torie]

Where and when in Christian Europe was polygamy the norm? I don't recall it being the norm in Greece or Rome for that matter either.

[ppaul]

...but fewer and fewer in the developed Western democracies accept religious tradition uncritically.

And, they've pretty much all slidden into a cultural cesspool as a result.
Our own free republic is no exception - we are increasingly slipping into third-worldism, a nation totally unrecognizable in every way by its founders.

[Johnny_Cipher]

Probably on the basis of potential deleterious effects on children conceived and born within a polygamous family structure.

The same argument could be (and probably was) made in the case of children conceived and born within the "Heather Has Two Mommies" construct. Didn't seem to help. Further, a case could be made that children born into a polygamous family could even do better at least financially than a single mother/father family. For example, the father and one mother works while the other mother stays home and takes care of the children.

[little jeremiah]

Yet another Homosexual Agenda Ping - more on the polygamy suit. There is no rational reason to ban polygamy if "they" want same sex marriage. In fact, polygamy makes more sense than same sex marriage.

They've opened a pandora's box. I wonder what else will slither out.

Anyone wanting on or off this ping list, let me know!

[little jeremiah]

Second, polygamy is about by and large the exploitation of men of women, who bring in a younger model when they get bored with the aging one, and by per force, imperiling the status and economic security and rights of the aging obsolescent model.

I don't think this argument holds much water. First of all, in some poyygamous cultures, men marry several sisters all at the same time, so there's no "old" ones and "new" ones. Second, many times (theoretically) women could say - and think - that they like the arrangement. In fact, in the article posted above, the man went in to procure a marriage license with his current wife and the prospective bride at the same time. No protest from wifey #1 apparently.

[little jeremiah]

Great debating points. If only those embracing the dark side could see where their "logic" takes them.

[tortoise]

Second, many times (theoretically) women could say - and think - that they like the arrangement.

Yes, exactly. I've been exposed to polygamy in many parts of the world, and in families that were well-educated and modern. The women are quite happy with the arrangement most times; it has its advantages. Having seen polygamy as practiced by many different cultures around the world first-hand, I have a hard time condemning it generally. It functions quite well, and some of the arguments I've heard, even from the women, are actually fairly compelling and rational. Or to put it another way, polygamous marriages seem to function as well as monogamous marriages, generally speaking, and have the same number of problems. Women that get involved in polygamous marriages are something of a self-selecting population and are usually acclimatized to the way those things work in practice.

I think part of the problem with the discussion on this forum is that people here are projecting all sorts of odd perceptions of polygamy onto the basic issue. It isn't like most people here seem to think it is. The people that do this in various cultures aren't clueless or evil, and there are many fine men and women in healthy and functional polygamous marriages. It may be different and "weird", but there isn't anything intrinsically broken or immoral about it conceptually and as is typically practiced.

[little jeremiah]

From what I've read about polygamy (admittedly mostly in distant history) divorce was not part of the system. If polygamy becomes legalized with the current easy divorce, nothing but disaster.

[I_dmc]

Pretty much so. Only the elders really had the financial means to support many wives. Yes, Young was a problem in this regard. I forget offhand which prophet after Young had the revelation that it was time to end the practice, though it didn't immediately end. I had an acquaintance that would be in his 60's now, I think, that had more than one "mother". He thought it a undesirable practice, for the children involved in such a family.

[capt. norm]

The biggest penalty for polygamy, no matter where it is practiced, is having two or more mothers-in-law!

[tortoise]

From what I've read about polygamy (admittedly mostly in distant history) divorce was not part of the system. If polygamy becomes legalized with the current easy divorce, nothing but disaster.

Heck, if it is that fluid one might as well not even bother with marriage.

[claudiustg]

---Because the law is about the moral precepts of those that fashion it first and foremost, in the wide swath of discretion over constitutional interpretation the courts have seized for themselves. Second, polygamy is about by and large the exploitation of men of women, who bring in a younger model when they get bored with the aging one, and by per force, imperiling the status and economic security and rights of the aging obsolescent model. And that isn't going to stand, ever, not in the USA, and certainly not in the elite legal community courts, who are not going to stand for the exploitation of women.---

I think you're right about the moral inclinations of the court. The liberal judges will be inclined to look favorably on homosexual unions and will not even consider polygamous marriages. My question was by what mechanism they would deny polygamous marriage. To answer my own question I think that the lower courts will rule against polygamous marriage even though they have no basis except long standing custom, which also prohibited same sex marriage. The higher courts will simply not hear the cases.

That polygamy is about the exploitation of women I disagree. It certainly can be, but in the societies that practiced it there were mechanisms to prevent abuses. Betrothal was one. Not to mention that if one's brother died, one was expected in many cases to take his wife and children as one's own. Religious custom and tradition tended to reduce abuse of the marriage vow and the resultant social strains. We cannot any longer say the same!