The Human Side of Polygamy
The Washington Post covers the mainstreaming of polygamy.
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,”
Utah’s attorney general has a policy of not prosecuting felony bigamy. Instead, if people are committing real crimes with real victims (rape, spousal abuse, forced underage marriages, etc.), he’ll go after people on those bases. Good for him.
November 21st, 2006 at 1:38 pm
Ah, living in freedom. that’s what this country is all about!
Now where did I put that sheep….
November 21st, 2006 at 1:55 pm
I don’t know you Rust, so I’ll assume you were joking…but you do bring up a good point about the tactics of “Christianists” who bring up beastiliaty when talking about anything but “normal” Heterosexual intercourse. Personally, I say Beastiality should be legal so long as the animal is 18 years of age (a year being a full rotation around the Sun), they can be deemed by a court to have the mental capacity to decide whether or not to have sex, and lastly, they need to have the ability to communicate that decision to their human mate. The only animals I can think of that fit this category, are Koko the gorilla and Mr. Ed. Seeing as Mr. Ed was a ficticious character, he’s out of the mix. That leaves Koko, and if she wants to get it on with her trainer, I say best of luck to her.
November 21st, 2006 at 3:39 pm
Utah’s AG is going after people for polygamy — he’s just not calling it that. He’d have a hard time finding a jury in Utah where at least one person didn’t have a polygamous ancestor who was thrown in jail by the FedGov during the 1880’s.
November 21st, 2006 at 3:53 pm
Polygamy has a widely documented history in this country, and not just in Utah. “Gay marriage” does not. If gay marriage is allowed then polygamy (or polyandry) must also be allowed. Otherwise you’re just arbitrarily pulling numbers to set a limit.
November 21st, 2006 at 4:26 pm
If you don’t tell the government that you are married then there is not an issue to begin with.
November 21st, 2006 at 4:36 pm
Gay marriage, polygamy, lowering the age of consent to 7, enforcing NAMBLA’s civil rights, won’t be long till me and my sheep live happily ever after….
Yes, the sheep reference is a bit sarcastic, it’s the “slippery slope” carried out to the ridiculous extreme.
However, before anyone busts on the age of consent and NAMBLA thing, understand those practices are accepted in other parts in the world.
Where does it end?
Baaaaaaaaaa
November 21st, 2006 at 4:44 pm
I’m with Sean Braisted on this one. It’s pretty easy to draw principled lines. On the one hand, you have polygamy and marriages that don’t discriminate on sexuality and gender. On the other, you have marriages where adult consent is a real issue.
So, Rusty, keep making animal noises. It just makes you sound like an ass.
November 21st, 2006 at 5:23 pm
Ass? I expected better from you, BH.
The whole argument is about where the line gets drawn, and that line is moving.
The new precedent is being set, and while I agree with adult consent being a good line to draw, others will use the previous line (one man and one woman) to try to move the new one further and further.
It wasn’t very long ago that the idea of gay marriage was considered laughable, but it’s happening.
Want to have more that one wife? Go for it, it’s your mental health on the line. I’m actually suprised this didn’t happen before the gay marriage issue.
November 21st, 2006 at 5:33 pm
I am reminded of the Jackie Mason line: The penalty for bigamy is two mother-in-laws…
November 21st, 2006 at 5:38 pm
I’d think beastiality would occur first. I mean, it’s not even illegal in every state, yet. Lawrence V Texas’s privacy concerns could easily apply, after all, and you don’t even need to change the typical wording of the gay right’s movement : “Why stop two consenting adults from doing something in the privacy of their own home.” After all, most animals are considered to be adult by the time they’re physically mature, and can initiate intercourse just like anyone else. Of course, that just makes it more disturbing, but what can you do?
November 21st, 2006 at 5:42 pm
Rusty, while I normally avoid such things, I couldn’t resist the pun. Cheers.
November 21st, 2006 at 6:15 pm
Gattsuru, It’s an animal right’s issue. Can you prove that the animal is consenting to the activity? I’d be curious to see how an animal would go about in engaging a person in sexual activity. My dog humped my leg once, didn’t mean he was looking to go all the way.
November 21st, 2006 at 11:13 pm
Utah’s AG doesn’t prosecute Felony Bigamy because he wants to keep his job…
Look how long Warren Steed Jeffs was able to run around loose after warrants were issued. The community tolerated him and applied their own code.
November 21st, 2006 at 11:41 pm
Utah’s AG doesn’t prosecute Felony Bigamy because he wants to keep his job…
Actually, several Utah polygamists have been put in prison for bigamy in recent years, Tom Green being the most notable. The AG is using other statutes because it’s less controversial; most polygamous marriages are not “marriages” in the official sense, as the state has not issued a marriage license for the second/third/fourth marriages. Bigamy technically doesn’t apply in these cases, especially since the first wife almost always consents to the subsequent marriages.
For those polygamous marriages that are all between consenting adults, it’s doubtful they will ever get prosecuted. For one, what’s the difference between a religious farmer with three “spiritual” wives, and an inner-city gangsta with three live-in hos?
For seconds, as I mentioned earlier, Utah’s AG has to be sensitive as to how he prosecutes polygamists, because he doesn’t want to be seen in the same light as federal officials were in the 1880s: Hounding people just because they have a different religious belief.
Look how long Warren Steed Jeffs was able to run around loose after warrants were issued. The community tolerated him and applied their own code.
Not unusual. The FLDS communities are basically small but self-sufficient islands in the rural areas of several western states. Jeffs was arrested in Vegas, not Utah, for example. He was staying at “safe” houses all over the west.
November 22nd, 2006 at 3:59 am
Animals dont need to consent. Theyre property. Using an animal for sex is no different from using a vibrator or a dildo.
And I saw all of this coming years ago during Lawrence v Texas. I think the dissent even pointed out this obvious next step in the evolution of the law.
Still, gay marriage and group marriages arent covered by Lawrence because Lawrence was about private sexual acts, while the marriage issue is all about legal recognition of public acts. Hetereosexual sex has never been illegal but we dont allow married couples to fornicate in public, do we?
The way to attach the marriage issue is by showing that the marriage laws have a religious basis and violate the establishment clause. Otherwise youre going to get nowhere.
November 22nd, 2006 at 10:52 am
Slurpy, it’s a little weird that you equate equal marriage with public fornication as opposed to comparing it to, say, all the other legal marriages out there. I’ve never heard the illegality of public fucking used to justify discriminatory marriage laws before. So congrats on coming up with a new argument.
Holly, interesting note about the multiple wives not being married under the law. I hadn’t considered that, but it made obvious sense once I read it. If these women aren’t married to their husband, then I can’t see much basis for a bigamy prosecution.
What’s interesting is that the article mentions welfare fraud as a frequent crime committed by polygamists. Anybody know what that’s all about?
November 22nd, 2006 at 11:30 am
Well, even if animal ‘consent’ matters, you’ll quickly see the Disney brainwashed brats start comparing the issue to human-human relationship laws.
For example, if human A starts humping human B, a criminal prosecution would have quite the difficulty proving B to have raped A without A contesting the consent somehow or showing notable physical trauma. This is, sadly, how a good many dates go by – you’d think people in this era would be gentlemanly enough to ask if the receptive partner is ready – and it’s not considered to lack consent. There have even been situations where individual A was merely extremely suggestive and consent was highly contested, and that case didn’t even involve waving anything around.
The other ‘rational argument’, if animals by definition can not consent, we can question why consent is necessary only for relations but not for murder or mutilation (tail docking is sooooo creepy), and take it from an animal abuse perspective, where there must be proof that the act is unnecessarily traumatic to the animal. Even if you or I think that’s the case, it often isn’t enough for normal animal abuse laws to cover the act.
There are still good arguments : it simply squicks your ick, religiously bad, immoral (for the same reason that a cult leader screwing his brainwashed minions should be illegal), or is a violation of human decency. I’m a fan of those arguments.
But they’re considered weak now, and the only other ones will fly right over the next generation’s Disney-fied heads.
November 22nd, 2006 at 12:33 pm
What’s interesting is that the article mentions welfare fraud as a frequent crime committed by polygamists. Anybody know what that’s all about?
It’s because polygamy is very expensive (I have just one wife, and I can barely keep up financially). Even in 19th-century Utah, most of the polygamists tended to be well-off, as there was a strong religious/societal obligation for the husband to provide them with adequate support.
When the government started giving away money like candy to unwed mothers during the 60’s, most polygamists recognized the opportunity and jumped on the bandwagon. And who can blame them? After all, what’s the difference between a polygamous wife with three kids, and an unwed mother with three kids? Neither is married in the eyes of the law, so technically polygamous wives are unwed mothers, too.
I’m not sure what the exact logic behind the welfare fraud charges is, but it probably has something to do with the fact that many polygamous wives hide the name of the father from the officals to protect him. So they might be getting them on providing false information. But I can’t see how they could prosecute them for merely taking advantage of a program that is available to every other woman with kids.
The bottom line is if welfare is helping to subsidize polygamy that’s a good reason to get rid of welfare, not selectively prosecute polygamists for taking advantage of what is offered to everyone else.
November 22nd, 2006 at 4:20 pm
Holly,
It is my understanding that welfare usually requires the mother not to be living with the father. A polygamous wife with three kids cohabitating with the father of those kids would have to (falsely) claim she’s not living with the father. Hence the fraud.
If women who are not eligible for welfare are indeed collecting welfare illegally, I don’t see how going after them is some sort of attack on polygamy.
November 23rd, 2006 at 9:55 am
It is my understanding that welfare usually requires the mother not to be living with the father. A polygamous wife with three kids cohabitating with the father of those kids would have to (falsely) claim she’s not living with the father. Hence the fraud.
That makes sense, although there are some polygamous families that live in rural “compounds” of houses or trailers, each wife having her own and the husband just shuttles between them. That might be done partially in response to welfare requirements, although Brigham Young himself had a similar arrangement with some of his wives.
If women who are not eligible for welfare are indeed collecting welfare illegally, I don’t see how going after them is some sort of attack on polygamy.
I would generally agree, except I don’t see many cases of non-polygamous welfare fraud in the news. It might be because the Media don’t consider such cases to be as “sexy” as polygamy-related fraud and thus don’t report them, but I also don’t see much enthusiasm for such a crackdown at the AG’s office. Unwed mothers who commit welfare fraud have a horde of femnist sympathizers and apologists ready, willing and eager to lobby for them; polygamist wives (at least those who wish to remain polygamous wives) have no such support network.