Polygamists fight to decriminalize bigamy

The Washington Post ^ | Nov 21, 2006 | John Pomfret

[presidio9]

In her battle to legalize polygamy, the only thing Valerie hasn't revealed is her last name. The mother of eight has been on national TV; her photo along with that of her two "sister-wives" has graced the front cover of a glossy magazine dedicated to "today's plural marriages."

She has been prodded about her sex life: "He rotates. It's easy -- just one, two, three." Quizzed about her decision to share a husband with two other women: "You really have a good frame of reference when you marry a man who already has two wives." Interrogated about what it's like to live in a house with 21 children: "Remodeling a kitchen, that's no small feat with three wives and a husband involved."

All the while, the petite brunette with a smile as bright as Utah's sky has insisted that she's just like you and me: "I'm a soccer mom. My kids are in music lessons. They go to public school. I'm not under anyone's control."

Valerie and others among the estimated 40,000 men, women and children in polygamous communities are part of a new movement to decriminalize bigamy. Consciously taking tactics from the gay-rights movement, polygamists have reframed their struggle, choosing in interviews to de-emphasize their religious beliefs and focus on their desire to live "in freedom," according to Anne Wilde, director of community relations for Principle Voices, a pro-polygamy group based in Salt Lake.

In recent months, polygamy activists have held rallies, appeared on nationally televised news shows and lobbied legislators. Before the Nov. 7 elections, one pro-polygamy group issued a six-page analysis of all Utah's state and local candidates and their views on polygamy. "We can make a difference," the

[Gondring]

I would far prefer that individuals, institutions, and communities choose cultural and moral traditionalism of their own free initiative. In fact, I'm certain that such traditionalism would not be sustainable otherwise, regardless of any government legislation/regulation.

And I agree with you here. I'm not complaining about that, but about those who would outlaw practices that they find objectionable.

[Gondring]

But what does happen to the 'excess' males? That is the real question.

In the case of Mormons, many of the wives Joseph Smith took were already married to other men.

[truemiester]

Yuck!

I have met many Mormons. All monogamous. Many are embarrassed by the polygamist.

[Gondring]

I'm saying NAMBLA and the rest of the "boylovers", believe that children, psychologically, can give informed consent as much as any adult to sexual activity with adults.

Then that's an entirely different question. I am assuming that in our discussion of polygamy, we are speaking of consenting adults. The NAMBLA argument is as outside this discussion's realm as would be the argument of someone who claimed a severely mentally handicapped person could give proper consent, or a discussion of the appropriate age of suffrage, or whatever.

[Gondring]

Have you not seen the very real pain of a friend who's spouse is having an affair? Just because it happens frequently, does't mean it doesn't hurt. It's supposed to hurt less because a piece of paper then puts that woman on the same plane as me?

Are you discussing polygamy that does not have the approval of one of the parties? That's totally different...as I've said elsewhere on the thread, compulsion and lack of informed adult consent is wrong! But it's also a strawman you are using--so go back to the case of voluntary, consentual union. That is not an "affair"...

BTW, here's a story about three citizens (one man and two women) filing a lawsuit together against the polygamy ban.

[AdamSelene235]

That is frighteningly little sex.....

Uh, if its the sex you are after you shouldn't get married.

[Eric Blair 2084]

Can we have a big list of "I told you so's?" We all knew it was coming.
______________________________________________________

A friend of mine would like to marry his dog. Sadly, the pooch has hip dysplasia and needs medical insurance.

Those Vet visits are expensive when you have to pay out of pocket. He needs to get her under his company insurance plan.

Where does the government get off trying to tell people who they can and can't marry? What's wrong with marrying a dog? They're two of God's creatures who love each other.

[Eric Blair 2084]

If a guy wants 4 wives I have no problem with that. But I would have to ask: W H Y ? ? ?..........

_______________________________________________________

4 times as much nagging. Brave man.

[tsomer]

Whoops. I didn't.

One of the two replies prior to yours charged me as a book burner. I included a reference to that in my reply to you.

My reply was a sort of 'three-fer'. You could say I got seduced by my computer and imagined I was the center of this universe for a while.

Yes, I need to get with the protocol, and I apologize.

[AdamSelene235]

A long time ago....no one would ever give this crap the time of day.

Ever heard of Moses, David, or Solomon? They lived a long time ago.

[AdamSelene235]

There are Libertarian Rockafeller Republicans, and there are Conservative Goldwater Republicans,

Rockefeller Republicans such as the Bushes favor New Deal programs, welfare, and civil rights—usually promising to run them more efficiently than the Democrats.

This has little to do with Libertarianism.

[goldstategop]

Americans love serial monogamy AKA polygamy.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus

[goldstategop]

Polygamy has biblical sanction. Something gay marriage has never had and never will.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus

[Mrs. Don-o]

"...tell me why government should stop consenting adults from entering into any relationship they want ..."

People who want to be polygamous are already legally free to enter into these "relationships," aren't they? Because they already do, don't they?

The question is, should your state, or all the states, be required to grant marriage-like recognition to all possible permutations and combinations of freely-associated people?

If we put that to a vote, I am confident that I know what the answer would be.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Thank you for this post. Very interesting. "Twin relics of barbarism: polygamy and slavery."

[Mrs. Don-o]

It was the policy of the Catholic Church from the 18th century up until Vatican II to oppose civil marriage, period! The Church taught that faithful lifelong monogamy was God's design for the spiritual and social flourishing of the human family, and that the existence of civil marriage would imply the state's right to make and dissolve unions which ought not to "made" without God's blessing, nor "dissolved" as if they were mere contracts and not true acts of interpersonal union.

I think the Church has given that up as a political fight which could not be won; and concluded that for the non-religious, civil marriage was better than "nothing."

(I am not well-versed in this historic aspect, so somebody correct me if I'm wrong here.)

In some European and South American countries, rather than having the priest, minister, or rabbi act as a licensed witness for the state, they instead have two different marriages in two different places, one civil and another religious. I wonder if this isn't better, disentangling civil from religious marriage, inasmuch as the definitions of each are becoming more and more divergent.

[dforest]

I probably should have added a satire here. I meant a long time ago no one would have ever dreamed bigamy, gay marriage and things such would ever have been discussed as being legitimate and would have never even been considered as something to mainstream as though its just normal. Sorry if you took it wrong.

[nurse580]

When considering polygamy and the law, you must consider how illogical the supreme courts decision to make a man's religious duty illegal was then, and continues to be today. Let's examine this logically. When reading the dialect of the supreme court decisions you must note that emphasis is placed on order of the union over a man's religious duty. It is my intention to help you understand that the US government in it's infinite wisdom has attempted to create order for itself whilst endowing utter and absolute chaos upon it's blindly obedient constituents. To punctuate my case I point you to the fact that before this practice (aka: a man's religious duty) was made illegal, very tedious and accurate records consisting of lineage were maintained by these religious orders. For the past, nearly hundred years, as the government has forced it's unwelcome version of order upon it's citizens, written documentation has not been maintained. It simply could not be done, because documenting who your dad and moms were would pit the law against your parents. Therefore, our government; by creating what it considers order for itself is in fact creating substantial confusion and risk for it's citizens. Citizens practicing polygamy are limited to a family medical history of not more than two parents deep. To admit to more is to subject their parents (and possibly other loved ones) to risk.
U.S. Supreme Court, (1878), REYNOLDS v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145, taken from http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=98&invol=145, on Thursday, November 30, 2006

[Texas_shutterbug]

I believe there's such a thing as common law, and in the western tradition, one husband and one wife has been the standard.

How can it be a man's "religious" duty to marry more than one woman if there is roughly the same amount of women and men? The Christian/Judeo God isn't that stupid.