PDA

View Full Version : Polygamy legalization movement in Utah - speaking of definitions of marriage ;)


Nydia Ywalmoriel
03-22-2009, 02:50 PM
The BBC today had an interesting, if fluff-heavy, little article today about polygamy in southern Utah and a growing polygamy legalization movement being organized there.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/7953270.stm

While most people hearing the words 'Mormon' and 'polygamy' in the same sentence currently tend to think of the Warren Jeffs/FLDS cult controversy, there are an estimated 80-100,000 people in the US living in plural marriages, mostly in Utah, Arizona, and Colorado, including a few towns (such as Colorado City in northern Arizona) where they predominate in the population (including in local law enforcement) and that aspect of their lives, although technically illegal, is turned a blind eye to.

I brought the post up because I think it's interesting given the country's current convulsions over gay marriage, and because fifteen years ago, when I was heavily involved in LGBT activism and on the steering committee for the 1993 March on Washington, one of the things we were hashing out in all that 'processing' that goes on in those consensus meetings was whether or not we should include a statement in our platform about multiple partner marriage (it was eventually rejected over concerns that it would turn off people who might otherwise support gay marriage).

As for myself, while I strongly favor decriminalization of plural marriage (given statistics released this week that 40% of children born in the US are now born out of wedlock, one can hardly raise much of a 'moral outrage' based objection), and for that matter, I wouldn't object to seeing multiple partner marriages legalized, I'm ambivalent about the issue for what I can only call sociological issues. In an idealized world, all of the participants
in such marriages would be consenting adults, the girls in those communities wouldn't be being conditioned to accept being married off as 13 year olds, and the boys wouldn't be ostracised and cast out of the communities at adolescence - but then again, in an ideal world, child and partner abuse wouldn't happen in traditional two person penis/vagina marriages, either...

Also, while I'm sure it works well for specific individuals, I'm a bit concerned about the model itself - due to the fact that societies that practice sanctioned polygamy tend to be less stable due to lack of access of a significant percentage of young men to mates. Islamic society copes with this in part by keeping men and women in different spheres and in those countries one finds a rich social life that is for men only, under ideal circumstances both providing social compensation to the mateless and networking opportunities as far as finding a wife goes - with varying degrees of success.

The usual naive outrage that we express in the US with regard to polygamy centers around the idea that it is somehow 'unfair' to the women involved - while the available evidence suggests that this isn't necessarily the case. In societies where polygamy is practiced, the stipulation universally exists that one can only take additional wives if one can care and provide for them - and there are often strict legal consequences for failing to do so. While I view polygamy as, at worst, exacerbating inequalities in a society and promoting the commodification of women, for the people involved in these marriages they're often a source of great stability and satisfaction - as one of the respondants to the BBC interview noted: "My relationship with my husband is only going to be great if his relationship with his other wives is great" - and on a personal note, I've occasionally thought that I'd find this sort of arrangement potentially ideal in that I wouldn't be saddled with the entire physical and emotional upkeep of my mate (as I'm the sort of person who needs a lot of private, or 'down' time, which is one reason I've opted out of childrearing as well).

So, this intro has run on too long as usual, but how do folks feel about the issue of legalizing, or at least decriminalizing, polygamy?

Regards,
Nydia

Kanyli
03-22-2009, 03:40 PM
From a legal standpoint, I don't see a problem with any group pairings as long as all individuals are of legal age and consenting. I don't know enough about studies regarding child raising in such an environment, but I doubt it's any different from other families. The caveat of not being able to take another spouse unless you can properly care for the one you have wouldn't be as important in our country, so long as divorce remains wildly popular.

Call it a civil union, leave actual marriage to the jurisdiction of the churches, and I'm happy.

Fandros
03-22-2009, 07:48 PM
Living in Utah as I have for 21 years now and I'll tell you that the movement is old.

They are gaining zero traction and in fact local govt is coming down on them heavier and heavier all the time.

Elemak the Enchanter
03-22-2009, 08:15 PM
I was thinking about it the other day, and Polygamy is probably one of the number one reasons the LDS church has been pushing to keep gay marriage off the books as being legal.

It sounds a little odd I know, however follow me down a little rabbit hole here.

Polygamy was practiced quite a bit in the days of yore (i.e. Old Testament) and is embraced theologically at least by the modern day LDS church, however no longer practiced and hasn't been since 1890.

But getting back to the concept of Polygamy, it's considered to be something sacred if you will just the same as monogamous relationships are, except instead of being a union of one man and one woman it's one man and multiple women. The idea being the man is a worthy and God-fearing man who is the head of his family and runs it as it should be, (i.e. doesn't beat his wife, kick his dog, and punch his kids)

However, if said idea is mainstreamed and made legal it now opens it to "perversion' of a sacred practice, and men who will use women in an improper manner and not live "righteous lives" (i.e. forcing an un-willing wife into a plural marriage etc etc just so they can bang more than one woman)

So from a legal standpoint, if it's un-ethical and un-constitutional to prevent homosexuals from marrying, how on Earth is it then legal to prevent someone from having multiple spouses if it's their religeous belief?

Hence why the LDS church doesn't want (one reason anyways) gay marriage, it opens up the proverbial pandora's box.

Nydia Ywalmoriel
03-23-2009, 01:59 PM
Dear Elemak:

That's an interesting point, and one my 'secular' mind wouldn't have picked up on as obvious - although it does leave the LDS walking a rather bizarre line (I was really surprised to see such a normally 'live-and-let-live' group so involved in the suppression of the rights of others even as they tacitly support polygamy). Then again, I don't see why *any* of the religious groups are so hung up on the secular 'marriage' thing. A civil marriage (certificate) and a religious marriage (sanctified by a particular church) are already different things - you can't just walk into a Catholic church or LDS temple and get hitched without jumping through their specific educational and certification hoops - and I don't think any but the most extreme zealots would have the chutzpah to suggest restricting marriage and its associated legal rights those of a specific religion or religions. Perhaps with regard the to the (F)LDS case, allowing such households, to have a purely religious codified relationship status, along with decriminalization of multiple partner unions, would be the least intrusive approach, although I've often wondered how inheritance, insurance, etc currently works in such families, if they have an incorporation playbook or such that they go by...

I sometimes think we'd be best served by adopting the term 'civil union' for *all* civil household partnerships and the legal rights attached to it, leaving 'marriage' as a purely ceremonial term/state, as is done in much of Europe; but 'marriage' is a deeply evocative term even to the nonreligious (myself included, and this has had both positive and negative consequences with regard to the realpolitik of some of my relationships) and thus I understand the preference for retaining it as a legal designation.

Regards,
Nydia

Fandros
03-23-2009, 02:04 PM
Much misunderstanding about the LDS Church and such shown here.

If you want to get married in a LDS temple there are insane hoops to jump through.

LDS church is seperate from the FLDS ( the ones supporting multiple wives ).

Locally the LDS church has time and again come out against the splinter faction , FLDS.

Infact there's been so much pressure that one large group up and moved to Texas recently. Was in the national news and I "think" the leader was charged and booked.

Rover
03-23-2009, 02:09 PM
OMG...just watch "Big Love" ...

Ibudin
03-23-2009, 02:12 PM
BIG Love makes me want to have many wives though, looks like fun. I am a great multi tasker.

Nydia Ywalmoriel
03-23-2009, 02:15 PM
Hey Fandros:

I'm aware that the mainstream LDS church no longer supports polygamy (in fact, I have an LDS officemate in his 60s who recently explained to me that the current church mythology on polygamy is that it was necessary on the trek West in order to ensure that all of the women and children were taken care of (excuse me if I raise a slightly skeptical eyebrow as to the purity of said motives ;) ) and was an exceptional solution for exceptional times, no longer condoned or practiced.

That having been said, there are numerous 'FLDS' communities in those states (I'd see their families coming into stores in Flagstaff, AZ, or St. George, UT, whenever I was there, for example) that aren't affiliated with the Warren Jeffs nutbag cult case who lead fairly normal lives except for the fact that they're in plural marriages, and that is primarily who I was referring to. I'd also submit that the mainstream LDS church has an uneasy relationship with polygamy because on the one hand, it *is* codified in their writings, and on the other hand they were ruthlessly persecuted for it by the US government in the late 19th century (the US Army fort at Salt Lake was the only one in the West where the cannon pointed *towards* the town) and forced to renounce it in order to be accepted into the United States.

I don't think the fact that they have come out *publicly* against polygamy and yet on some level might still consider it to be sacred within the tradition are mutually exclusive positions - to fail to come out strongly against polygamy would (literally, until recently) be political suicide.

Regards,
Nydia

Chanur
03-23-2009, 06:52 PM
I don't give a damn who marry's who as long as the are consenting adults.

Binuven
03-23-2009, 07:04 PM
It's funny actually. Three or more people these days have wild, crazy sex and it's Cool and Hot!

We suddenly throw a commitment mechanism in there (hopefully) based on love and mutual respect, and it suddenly becomes illegal and disgusting.

Yes, I see how it can be abused, heck it already has been, which in my opinion makes any argument against gay marriage as well as plural marriage null and void. Let those who follow that path do so, as long as it hurts no one.

Kanyli
03-23-2009, 10:09 PM
Then again, I don't see why *any* of the religious groups are so hung up on the secular 'marriage' thing. A civil marriage (certificate) and a religious marriage (sanctified by a particular church) are already different things - you can't just walk into a Catholic church or LDS temple and get hitched without jumping through their specific educational and certification hoops - and I don't think any but the most extreme zealots would have the chutzpah to suggest restricting marriage and its associated legal rights those of a specific religion or religions. That's exactly it - it's about control. The extreme religious groups in the US are very much in favor of a single, national religion, and anything that goes against their religious views flies in the face of this.That having been said, there are numerous 'FLDS' communities in those states (I'd see their families coming into stores in Flagstaff, AZ, or St. George, UT, whenever I was there, for example)I used to serve those folks in Flagstaff when I lived htere. Never realized until much later, mainly when the Jeffs business became news, what was actually going on. People in Utah are funny about Jeffs as well. I took a car trip through there, and wanted to see Colorado City. The city was empty and wierd, so in the next little town we asked about it, and no one would talk to us. Everything else was small town friendly, until you even mentioned coming through Colorado City.

Rover
03-23-2009, 10:15 PM
Three or more people these days have wild, crazy sex and it's Cool and Hot!




OMG, you have a camera in my bedroom?

Fandros
03-24-2009, 08:56 AM
That was to be our secret Rover!!!

fildien
03-24-2009, 09:32 AM
threesomes never end well inevitably someone feels left out.

RE: Polygamy

I don't care who marries who or how or when as long as the parties are consenting adults, who have not been coerced or forced.

Rover
03-24-2009, 09:35 AM
threesomes never end well inevitably someone feels left out.



No...I don't think so...prove it...I'll not feel left out I promise.

fildien
03-24-2009, 09:40 AM
ask my ex-husband how it worked out for him ;)

Sixee
03-24-2009, 09:52 AM
Heh, they work out fine if everyone involved is stable, and free of issues. Sadly, there aren't too many people like that....

Regardless, I think it should be allowed along the lines of Civil Unions that was mentioned in the other thread regarding Obama signing a UN mandate against the criminalization of homosexuality.

Next up, someone will want to have a Civil Union with a goat.....

Fandros
03-24-2009, 09:55 AM
Quite frankly I've never aspired to having a threesome of any type. It's enough to keep one woman happy and in the moment ;P

Haloface
03-24-2009, 10:35 AM
'Living in Utah as I have for 21 years now and I'll tell you that the movement is old.'

- Yeah, yeah. WHAT'S IN YOUR CLOSET FANNY!?!?!?

Fandros
03-24-2009, 10:47 AM
'Living in Utah as I have for 21 years now and I'll tell you that the movement is old.'

- Yeah, yeah. WHAT'S IN YOUR CLOSET FANNY!?!?!?

heh, well up until recently I had been dating the same gal for 10 years. She's LDS and I was bombarded with information about her faith ( irregular as it was ) constantly.

Rover
03-24-2009, 10:53 AM
http://www.vanreedimages.com/ayonae/dipinroad.jpg

fildien
03-24-2009, 11:13 AM
Fanny I'm amused that when you think 3some you instantly assume 2 women 1 man. :D

Fandros
03-24-2009, 11:23 AM
Well, what guy wants the uncool type ;P

Rover
03-24-2009, 11:58 AM
I'm with Fandros on this!

Sixee
03-24-2009, 12:08 PM
Having been in both types, I can honestly say the "cool" type is way more fun....but the other one has its merits as well...LOL.

3-somes of any type > 2-somes.

Elemak the Enchanter
03-24-2009, 01:25 PM
Chinese Finger trap ftw! And balls can't touch