The marriage of many (Polygamy rights)

Washington Times ^ | 12.11.05 | Cheryl Wetzstein

[Blue_Ridge_Mtn_Geek]

'My friend Leo Miller wrote a book called "John Milton Among the Polygamophiles," which touches on this issue.

Miller examines a number of dissertations written for Doctor of Theology degrees in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries by Protestant candidates for the clergy. He shows that the issue was argued over for more than a century before it was settled. '

---

Thanks, I will have to check that reference. Do you know of any other good repositories of articles on this topic? I've not really thought about it that much, but a first mental review of the relevant Scripture does suggest that a case could be made for plural marriage (though based on the Bible examples of plural marriages, I would call it highly risky type of relationship, with far greater risk of ending up in the ditch than a single pair husband-wife relathionship).

Probably the best defense of the monogamous position would be built on the notion of marriage as a picture of the relationship between the Lord and Israel, carried over into the NT in Paul's representation of Christian marriage as symbolic of the relationship between Christ and the Church.

Just as Moses got banned from entering the Promised Land for striking the rock a second time, and thus marring the spiritual picture that was being set up by that event, one might argue that Christian polygamous relationships blur the symbolic meaning of Christian marriage. Thus the requirement in the listing of characteristics of pastors and other church officers that they be "the husband of one wife".

None of this, of course, addresses the burning issue of civil control over what counts as "marriage". This is an encroachment of the state that increasingly haunts the modern institution of marriage. But that's a discussion for another time.

[Blue_Ridge_Mtn_Geek]

So Jacob was an adulterer in fathering children with his wives Leah and Rachel? On what Scriptural basis do you make that claim?

"Yes. Since Paul forbids marrying again while your original spouse is still alive (and calls anyone doing so an adulterer), it is clear that having more than one spouse is adultery. Also, it is clear in reading the NT (1cor 7, Matt 19) that the union of one man and one woman is God's design for marriage, and anything else is adultery."

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
I see, so you apply NT Scripture "ex-post-facto" to the lives of Old Testament characters? And, as I recall, Paul's sanction against remarriage was given in the context of one who had been divorced. It's application to the question at hand is problematic.

On the other hand, the 1Cor7 passage does look like a good candidate for building a defense for universal Christian monogamy, and perhaps the Matt 19 passage which references the Genesis account. No doubt this is an issue which has faced missionaries serving in locations where the local culture is at ease with plural marriages. Likely the missionary literature is a good place to dig out some extended exegesis on these points.

Do you have and good references in mind?

Thanks.

[fluffy]

I'm not at all judging Old Testament patriarchs by our revelation. Jacob lived before the Pentateuch was written, so he was under Abraham's covenant and didn't have the Law to look to. "Without the law I would not have known what sin was", to paraphrase Paul. But I think sin is sin whether you know about it or not... God just overlooked it due to Jacob's faith (credited as righteousness).

And, as I recall, Paul's sanction against remarriage was given in the context of one who had been divorced.

Certainly, but going back to Matt 19 it's clear that God doesn't consider divorce to be an actual sundering of the marriage. He considers the couple still married, so it would seem to me that the basis of the prohibition on re-marriage is because the first marriage is still in force. If it weren't, further sexual relations wouldn't be referred to as adultery. In any case, it would seem to rule out multiple marriages be default.

Unfortunately as a confirmed bachelor I haven't studied this as much as I could, so I don't have any real meaty references on hand.

[Cicero]

To tell the truth, Miller's book is the only one I know on the subject, but he has a pretty large bibliography. There is one excellent book on the theology of marriage in the period, also ironically focusing on Milton's divorce tracts but extending it to Adam and Eve in Paradise Lost. John R. Halkett, "Milton and the Ideal of Matrimony." This too cites plenty of early sources and has a good bibliography.

I just tried to find a copy of a book on medieval marriage that traces the early history of Christian marriage, which I once found very helpful, but I can't seem to put my hands on it at the moment, and I don't recall the author's name. It's in my library somewhere or other.

[Mamzelle]

Consider the circus that will result in Divorce Court.

Can hubby bring home a new wife, if the first objects?

If the first wife objects, and decides to file for divorce, will the property be divided two ways, or three ways?

[drhogan]

also, what happens if a fourth person wants to marry into a three-some polygamous marriage, and two of the original three want the new person in, while the third doesn't? if, as the person in the article says, women should have freedom of choice in such matters, how would this be settled? by vote? (that would deny somebody's choice.)
by a second marriage of the new 3-some alongside the original 3-some?
and what if some of the people in an 8-way polygamous marriage want to get divorced from some of the other people, but not from all of them? and suppose they don't even agree which of the people to divorce.
who will get the cat?
i think these issues should all be studied before we legalize these polygamous marriages.
i see a great future for law professors who want to write academic articles about this.

[drhogan]

i see that we are thinking along similar lines!

my other thought, for those who want to get polygamy legalized is this: first they should focus on cloning a woman (or man), and marrying both the woman and her clone. they could argue that they are only marrying ONE person, because the clone is a genetically-equivalent replica.
then the clone could take a case to the Supreme Court, demanding to be declared a separate person.
if she won the suit, polygamy would have been legalized. at this point, all the others who want polygamous marriages could have a huge marriage ceremony in some place like NYC or SF, and the issue would be settled.

[WileyC]

South Dakota lawmakers this year proposed the first constitutional marriage amendment that specifically outlaws unions of "two or more" persons.

Ummm, wouldn't this mean that ALL marriage (including between 1 man and 1 woman) would then be illegal? =)

[drhogan]

i think you may have found a fatal flaw in this proposed amendment!

[Lorianne]

I want to marry my bunny slippers. Is that weird?

[ichabod1]

then your dog, sheep and goat, and perhaps your blow-up doll.

I think taking the hyperbole to this extreme in describing the camel's nose has made the argument more difficult, because then people laugh. But if you say, if two men may marry, why may a man not have more than one wife or vice versa? After all it's in the bible, and it's a Holy Thing to the Muslims. Then they stop smiling.

[ichabod1]

that manages to seduce or scare a young boy could go ahead and marry them.

I think they are coming at this from a different angle, by trying to get the age of consent laws reduced or abolished.

However, you may be correct. Because in many states the age at which a child may marry is lower than the age of consent, which creates a large gray area in the law.

[Hardastarboard]

People will marry their pets. I mean, senile old women leave their fortunes to their kitties already, why not?

Dude, stay out of this. Marrying one of those rich, orphaned cats may be the only chance I have to get rich in my lifetime.

[Coleus]

It is a "slippery slope." >>

It sure is.