Polygamy...who cares?

[Fenris]

I don't.

I hear about this case (http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/05/14/prosecutingpolygamy.ap/index.html) and I'm puzzled. This guy had a religious ceremony and is married (via his religion) to 5 women. So?

How in the world can the state/federal government say "You can't have this religous ceremony with consenting adults"? Keep in mind that if the guy was just living with the 5 women, I don't belive the state would/could have done anything. How can this be legal until a religous ceremony is done?

Note also, that I hope they nail this guy for his... "relationship" with a 13 year old girl. If they were only going after him for molesting the girl, I'd be applauding. But set the child-rape part aside from the polygamy. They're two seperate issues.

I'm honestly stumped: Live with 5 women...no prob. Marry (in a religous, not a state ceremony) 5 women...25 years in the pokey.

Fenris

[Mekhazzio]

Because marriage is a special honor that only nice upstanding monogamous heterosexual folk should have, and it has to be kept from everyone else, or Society Will Come Crashing Down.

[lee]

Why, please someone explain why, do all storied I read involving polygamy involve child molestation? I can guarantee not all who practice polygamy or polyamory molest children.

I don't understand why the state cares about this. The United Stated added a bunch of anti poly laws when it was battling the Mormons, and Utahs impending Statehood. These laws are still on the books and still used to harm people. I think that it is against the interests of the state to quibble over who is married and who is not. Let the state record it and be done with it. DO you realize that a man with more than on wife if he tries to emmigrate to the US must discard the extras? How inhumane is that?

[Duck Duck Goose]

Eh, it was my understanding that the Mormon church itself no longer supports polygamy, so he isn't exactly "married via his religion".

This article from the May 6, 2001 issue of TIME says:

http://www.time.com/time/personal/article/0,9171,1101010514-108793,00.html

Green's case has divided Utah, where polygamy, although banned a century ago by both the state and its dominant religious group, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is nonetheless still widely practiced. The last bigamy trial was held in the 1950s, and today an estimated 30,000 to 50,000 people live in polygamous households in Utah.

And as to why this case is being prosecuted:
But Green's wives were particularly young when he married them--14 to 16. And unlike most polygamists, who live discreetly, Green has been vocal in his support of plural marriage. An interview he gave in 1999 to NBC's Dateline spurred Leavitt to begin the investigation that led to the filing of charges.
And then there's this factor, in the headline:
As the Winter Olympics approach, Utah begins a crackdown on its polygamous subculture.
Granted, that's just the writer's opinion, but still...

[BiblioCat]

I'm honestly stumped: Live with 5 women...no prob. Marry (in a religous, not a state ceremony) 5 women...25 years in the pokey.
Yeah, that part stumped me, too. I think they are more interested in the fact that he "married" one or more of these women while they were minors, so there's the whole statutory rape question. And the fact that he is not able to financially provide for all of them; I think some (or all) of them are receiving welfare or WIC or some such assistance.

In today's paper, it said all five wives showed up at the hearing and that three of them are pregnant. Quite an interesting situation. IIRC, two of them are sisters, and he was at one time married to their mother (or the mother of one of his current wives, maybe).

[Xerxes]

'Bout the only downside I see with this is if it catches on big-time there'll be a relative dearth of the fairer sex. That said, I'm married so this shouldn't matter to me.

I've often been strangely fascinated with setups like this. Is it jealousy? I don't think so. I can say the wrong thing at the best of times with one wife so heaven alone knows how he manages with five. The Studmuffin.

Certainly can't see what the hell business it is of government.

[Xerxes]

Interestingly, our paper reports that

He contends that he married then legally divorced each woman to stay technically within the law

I think the age/underissue is separate (but important; more important probably). So if he really did divorce the other four, how are they going to charge him with bigamy? Presumably it's not an offence to co-habit with just about as many women as you want?

[KellyM]

Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose
Eh, it was my understanding that the Mormon church itself no longer supports polygamy, so he isn't exactly "married via his religion".
All that means is that "his religion" isn't entirely in agreement with the official position of the Mormon Church.

[KellyM]

Originally posted by Xerxes
'Bout the only downside I see with this is if it catches on big-time there'll be a relative dearth of the fairer sex.

Why? What's good for the gander is good for goose, after all. :)

[Xerxes]

Why? What's good for the gander is good for goose, after all.

Hmmm. From my side of the fence we men need all the help we can get, and anything which reduces the odds is A Bad ThingTM

That said, I think I can see where you're coming from :D

[Captain Amazing]

So if he really did divorce the other four, how are they going to charge him with bigamy? Presumably it's not an offence to co-habit with just about as many women as you want?

Well, if Utah has them, and I'm not familiar with the state code, they could charge him with adultery and fornication.

[sailor]

Married to five wives? Obviously his only defense has to be insanity :)

[Needs2know]

These people care....www.polygamy.org

And from what I've read the main reason this guy is being tried is his big mouth. He went on talk shows and flaunted his plural marriages. Utah (and many of the surrounding states) have typically ignored polygamous practices until recently when they bid for the Olympics. They are naturally concerned about charges that the state turns a blind eye to the practice. This is the first time a polygamist has been tried for the practice in over 30 years. (I may have the time frame wrong.) However they did try to members of the Kingston family last year for incest and child abuse. (I believe those were the charges.) The leader of the clan had given his 14 or 15 year old daughter to his brother in marriage. She ran away and her father caught her took her to a barn on one of his properties and beat her severly. She left and walked several miles to a quick stop where they called the police and she told her story.

Who cares? I personally could care less as long as the parties involved are consenting adults. But defenders of this practice always love to ignore the fringe groups that use this practice as a means to subvert the rights of women and abuse their female children.

Needs2know

[KellyM]

Originally posted by Needs2know
And from what I've read the main reason this guy is being tried is his big mouth.
Having a big mouth isn't a prosecutable offense; otherwise, Rush Limbaugh would have been thrown in jail a long time ago.
But defenders of this practice always love to ignore the fringe groups that use this practice as a means to subvert the rights of women and abuse their female children.
You mean that there are some individuals who simultaneously practice both polygamy and other things such as spousal abuse and child abuse. These people are not using polygamy as a means to commit spousal and child abuse, but are merely doing both simultaneously. Claiming that there is a necessary connection is about as illogical as claiming that Hitler ate broccoli and using this as grounds to ban the sale of broccoli.

I have no idea whether Hitler liked broccoli or not.

[casdave]

I wonder why it is that it's always the men who are polygamous, or at least there seem to be either none or very very few women who are.I'm sure the men say it's all about love for more than one woman and it is all for real and that kind of stuff.

Hmmmm.

This leads me on to the thought that polygamy might be more about possessions and less about relationships, about the man validating himself.
Children brought up in such an environment have to be wondering about the status of men and wether they are superior.

Then you have to think about resources, this chap seems to have been on welfare for some time, probably because there is no way he could work and earn enough to support his extended family.
In this case the man is not unfortunate, just cynical, soaking up tax dollars and whatever your approval rating of the relationships this does not seem right.

If he could support such a family, or the family support itself then I'd guess it is their business, but on welfare?

[lee]

Maybe the women with more than one spouse manage it better and don't go on Springer?

[minty green]

Originally posted by Fenris
How in the world can the state/federal government say "You can't have this religous ceremony with consenting adults"?Ask a legal question, get a legal answer, Fenris. First off, you can toss that "consenting adults" thing straight into the garbage bin. It may work at the Ayn Rand Fanfest, but the courts pretty much giggle at it.

Next, allow me to direct your attention to the cases. Reynolds v. U.S. (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=98&invol=145#165), 98 U.S. 145 (1878) is the usual starting point:
[P]olygamy leads to the patriarchal principle . . . which, when applied to large communities, fetters the people in stationary despotism, while that principle cannot long exist in connection with monogamy. . . . An exceptional colony of polygamists under an exceptional leadership may sometimes exist for a time without appearing to disturb the social condition of the people who surround it; but there cannot be a doubt that, unless restricted by some form of constitution, it is within the legitimate scope of the power of every civil government to determine whether polygamy or monogamy shall be the law of social life under its dominion.
Then there's Davis v. Beason (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/133/333.html), 133 U.S. 333 (1890):
Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries. They are crimes by the laws of the United States, and they are crimes by the laws of Idaho. They tend to destroy the purity of the marriage relation, to disturb the peace of families, to degrade woman, and to debase man. Few crimes are more pernicious to the best interests of society, and receive more general or more deserved punishment. To extend exemption from punishment for such crimes would be to shock the moral judgment of the community. To call their advocacy a tenet of religion is to offend the common sense of mankind.It was never intended or supposed that the [First] amendment could be invoked as a protection against legislation for the punishment of acts inimical to the peace, good order, and morals of society. With man's relations to his Maker and the obligations he may think they impose, and the manner in which an expression shall be made by him of his belief on those subjects, no interference can be permitted, provided always the laws of society, designed to secure its peace and prosperity, and the morals of its people, are not interfered with. However free the exercise of religion may be, it must be subordinate to the criminal laws of the country, passed with reference to actions regarded by general consent as properly the subjects of punitive legislantion. There have been sects which denied as a part of their religious tenets that there should be any marriage tie, and advocated promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, as prompted by the passions of its members. And history discloses the fact that the necessity of human sacrifices, on special occasions, has been a tenet of many sects. Should a sect of either of these kinds ever find its way into this country, swift punishment would follow the carrying into effect of its doctrines, and no heed would be given to the pretense that, as religious beliefs, their supporters could be protected in their exercise by the constitution of the United States. Probably never before in the history of this country has it been seriously contended that the whole punitive power of the government for acts, recognized by the general consent of the Christian world in modern times as proper matters for prohibitory legislation, must be suspended in order that the tenets of a religious sect encouraging crime may be carried out without hindrance.
Finally, here's a bit of Murphy v. Ramsey (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=114&invol=15#45), 114 U.S. 15 (1885):For, certainly, no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank as one of the co-ordinate states of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement.

[JayAndrewAllen]

Great pulls, minty green.

One thing to mention, which someone alluded to briefly: The more general "multiple-partner" movement in the US is polyamory, which usually does not carry the Mormon's sexist differentiation - in the modern polyamory culture, both men and women have multiple partners (so far as I've ever seen). Green has a point: he's been targeted for being a loudmouth.

People have brought up the fact that many of Tom Green's wives were underage when he married them. The statutory rape charge is valid, and will probably stick, but the bigamy charges? You're right - who cares?

Originally posted by minty green

First off, you can toss that "consenting adults" thing straight into the garbage bin. It may work at the Ayn Rand Fanfest, but the courts pretty much giggle at it.


"A random dig at Ayn Rand - ten bonus points for minty green!"

Your dig may be funny, but we have to ask: Why does the court giggle? Is it justified? Will society truly devolve into a slobbering mess of amoralistic filth (as the pulls below insinuate) because we don't prosecute over long-term group sex? A man with 11 children - the sole provider of those children from what I can tell - may be sent to federal prison for five years. This benefits society - how?



Next, allow me to direct your attention to the cases. Reynolds v. U.S. (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=98&invol=145#165), 98 U.S. 145 (1878) is the usual starting point:
[P]olygamy leads to the patriarchal principle . . . which, when applied to large communities, fetters the people in stationary despotism, while that principle cannot long exist in connection with monogamy. . . .

For the reasons stated above, this argument sounds childish and outdated. (Unlike most things childish and outdated, of course, it happens to be law...)


Then there's Davis v. Beason (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/133/333.html), 133 U.S. 333 (1890):
[quote]Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries. They are crimes by the laws of the United States, and they are crimes by the laws of Idaho. They tend to destroy the purity of the marriage relation, to disturb the peace of families, to degrade woman, and to debase man. Few crimes are more pernicious to the best interests of society, and receive more general or more deserved punishment. To extend exemption from punishment for such crimes would be to shock the moral judgment of the community. To call their advocacy a tenet of religion is to offend the common sense of mankind.

<laugh> Time to enact the death penalty for polygamy?


Finally, here's a bit of Murphy v. Ramsey (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=114&invol=15#45), 114 U.S. 15 (1885):For, certainly, no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank as one of the co-ordinate states of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement.


Now I most definitely am going to hurl. The religious bias in this one is quite clear.

-J-

[KellyM]

Minty Green's parade of legal precedent is interesting. All of the cited cases (a) refer to religious bases to justify the ban and (b) were decided more than a century ago. It is my considered opinion that these decisions are bad law and that the Court refuses to revisit them for reasons having nothing to do with the law, but rather with their own personal prejudices. See also Hardwick v. Bowers, where the Court held that there is no fundamental protection for "homosexual sodomy" based on nothing other than "tradition".

That aside, nothing in those judgments mandates the prohibition on polygamy, and nobody has ever put forth an argument against it except for (a) it's traditionally opposed (b) it fosters patriarchy (c) it fosters child abuse. The latter two, however, only apply to certain forms of polygamy which we could prohibit without blanketly prohibiting all polygamous relationships.

It is my belief that, were the Court to revisit the issue de novo without prejudice and under modern Constitutional standards, there is no way that it could find that a blanket prohibition on multiple marriage meets the "least restrictive means" test of strict scrutiny. But the existence of Reynolds in the Court's history of jurisprudence obviates the necessity for the Court to evaluate the claim properly; it can merely fall back onto this venerable and bigoted opinion and by doing so shirk its obligation to uphold the Constitution.

Reynolds and its progeny are wrongly decided and should be overturned. But don't hold your breath on it happening.

[minty green]

Hey, I didn't say I agreed with the law, folks. But that is the state of the law regarding the constitutionality of bans on polygamy and bigamy, and the precedents are too firmly established to be overturned anytime soon. Besides, the Court does have a valid point--just because you claim it's a religious belief does not entitle you to behave in accordance with that belief.

A man with 11 children - the sole provider of those children from what I can tell - may be sent to federal prison for five years. This benefits society - how?That's just too easy a target to pass up, Jay. Just off the top of my head: (1) He ain't supporting them now--remember all those comments about welfare fraud? Assuming he doesn't get any conjugal visits, there will be no more Green babies on welfare. (2) He won't be marrying any more 14-year-old girls. (3) He won't be giving away any more of his 14-year-old daughters to be married by his pedophile buddies. (4) Jerry Springer has one less guest.

[andros]

As for how he's being charged, and with what, the state is trying to establish a "tacit" marriage--that is, common law marriage.

[Podkayne]

Originally posted by Needs2know
But defenders of this practice always love to ignore the fringe groups that use this practice as a means to subvert the rights of women and abuse their female children.

Would it be easier or harder for them to subvert the rights of their women and abuse their female children if they could legally engage in multiple marriage in the open, instead of being forced to practice their lifestyle of choice underground and away from the scrutiny of the communty?

[Fenris]

Originally posted by minty green
Ask a legal question, get a legal answer, Fenris
I appreciate the cites (although the Renyolds vs U.S. sounds like the opinion writer was insane...Polygamy leads to "despotism"??!)

What I'm not sure I understand though, is how can it be legal without a ceremony that has no legal power (does it?), but not legal with a ceremony? That Davis vs Beacon thing kind of touches on it, but still...If I make up Fenrisim, a religion that worships streaky bits of quartz AND allows polygamy, and I in my capacity as High Poohbah of the Church of Fenris go to a fivesome that's been living together for 20 years and perform my streaky-bits-of-quartz ceremony, how in the world can their relationship suddenly become illegal? (OK, I'll grant it is illegal, but how can such a law be upheld?)

And isn't it a violation of the seperation of church and state?

Fenris

[KellyM]

Originally posted by Podkayne
Originally posted by Needs2know
But defenders of this practice always love to ignore the fringe groups that use this practice as a means to subvert the rights of women and abuse their female children.

Would it be easier or harder for them to subvert the rights of their women and abuse their female children if they could legally engage in multiple marriage in the open, instead of being forced to practice their lifestyle of choice underground and away from the scrutiny of the communty?
IMO, the unquestioned ban on polygamy has had a number of detrimental effects all related to the enforced secrecy of such relationships. It has forced those who practice polygamy in conjunction with other social ills such as child abuse, spousal abuse, and welfare fraud, and to institutionalize these combinations under a veil of secrecy in isolated regions. This magnifies the injury of these latter offenses against decency by increasing the likelihood that they will not be discovered or dealt with effectively by society. It also unnecessarily associates polygamy with child abuse, spousal abuse, and welfare fraud in the minds of the (non-polygamous) public.

It has also forced those who are polygamous but who do not practice child abuse, spousal abuse, or welfare fraud to unnecessarily conceal their loving and healthy relationships because of fear of unjustified criminal retribution from an unthinking society. Most of these relationships, however, remain well-concealed and few people outside of the participants and their close circle of friends are aware of them.

This combination leads to the situation where the "public face of polygamy" consists only of the seamiest polygamists of the first type mentioned above. The general public never hears about or knowingly sees the latter kind and has no idea that there are thousands, if not millions, of polygamous relationships going on all around them all the time harming no one, and thus no way to know that the ban merely forces people who have the misfortune of loving more than one other person at the same time from publicly acknowledging that love, and at the same time does little or nothing to avoid the ills that are wrongly believed to go hand in hand with polygamy. Wow, that was a long sentence.

Far too many states make it a crime for individuals to both love each other outside of a state-sanctioned marriage and to publicly acknowledge that love. This is wrong, period. Government has no business interfering in the intimate relations of consenting adults.

[minty green]

Originally posted by andros
As for how he's being charged, and with what, the state is trying to establish a "tacit" marriage--that is, common law marriage.. . . and . . . Originally posted by andros
What I'm not sure I understand though, is how can it be legal without a ceremony that has no legal power (does it?), but not legal with a ceremony?
My guess is that andros has it right, Fenris. Utah does recognize common law marriage. See Utah Code section 30-1-4.5, which you should be able to link to from http://www.le.state.ut.us/Documents/code_const.htm If the parties have promised each other to be husband and wife, have cohabitated, and continue to hold forth that they're married, then they've effected a common law marriage. If they do all that while one or the other partner is already married, the marriage is a legal nullity--but they can be charged with bigamy:(1) A person is guilty of bigamy when, knowing he has a husband or wife or knowing the other person has a husband or wife, the person purports to marry another person or cohabits with another person.

(2) Bigamy is a felony of the third degree.

(3) It shall be a defense to bigamy that the accused reasonably believed he and the other person were legally eligible to remarry.Utah Code section 76-7-101. It appears that there's also an old Utah Territorial Law against polygamy that was incorporated into Article XXIV, section 2 of the state constitution. I can't seem to find that particular law, but I assume it works the same way as the bigamy statute, where the law does not recognize the marriage, but still criminalizes the purported marriage.

KellyM:It has also forced those who are polygamous but who do not practice child abuse, spousal abuse, or welfare fraud to unnecessarily conceal their loving and healthy relationships because of fear of unjustified criminal retribution from an unthinking society.I disagree vehemently with that judgment that the condemnation of polygamy is merely reflexive and unthinking. Have you ever been to one of those polygamous communities in ID/UT/AZ? That is some weird, messed-up shit, like Jonestown just before the kool-aid. It is that way as a direct result of the community-wide practice of polygamy, which really does (in those situations) foster an incredibly harmful system of patricarchy. Those poor kids--especially the girls--never have a chance.

I think it's safe to say that isolated instances of multiple-partner marriages aren't going to do any real harm to the social fabric. But when it's tolerated to such an extent that it becomes the basis of a modern-day community, serious social problems often result.
Government has no business interfering in the intimate relations of consenting adults.So don't go trying to claim the state-sanctioned benefits of marriage that are reserved for only two partners. The government is totally uninterested in how many people you're shacking up with--until you try to force them to give your relationships legal status or try to collect benefits reserved for marriage.

[minty green]

Originally posted by Fenris
And isn't it a violation of the seperation of church and state?
Nope. Check out the second quote above from Davis v. Beason.

[KellyM]

Originally posted by minty green
The government is totally uninterested in how many people you're shacking up with--until you try to force them to give your relationships legal status or try to collect benefits reserved for marriage.
Not in Illinois. It is unlawful in Illinois to "openly and notoriously" cohabitate with someone to whom you are not married. The State of Illinois has taken a direct and obvious interest in who you shack up with.

The same is true of several other states.

For the record, I believe in the abolition of marriage as a civil institution.

On your other point, I question whether those "fucked up communes" you refer to represent even close to a majority of polygamists. I also believe that the unhealthy aspects of those communities are exacerbated by their "outlaw" status, and that we could criminalize the unhealthy aspects of those communities without simultaneously criminalizing nonharmful polygamy. This was the entire point of my previous message.

[KellyM]

Originally posted by minty green
Originally posted by Fenris
And isn't it a violation of the seperation of church and state?
Nope. Check out the second quote above from Davis v. Beason.
IMO, the Court was wrong in that decision.

[minty green]

KellyM:

My point was not that it's legal to shack up with as many people as you want. It was that the state and federal governments these days never enforce bigamy/polygamy/adultery laws unless you force them to do so. Go about your life without bothering the government or the neighbors and you'll be just fine.

Additionally, I would argue that many of the worst abuses associated with polygamous communities in AZ/UT/ID are a direct result of the social structure, not their "outlaw" status. Though they're pretty well isolated for the most part, these communities are hardly secrets to anyone. If the state wanted to, it could move in and toss everyone in jail next Thursday morning. Polygamous communities have been tacitly approved for half a century now.

On the other hand, there are obvious social problems when men take multiple wives. Sure, that might make anthropological sense when the men are so busy killing each other that there's a surplus of women. But here in the real world, sex ratios are basically 1:1. So when you're a male and you're expected to take multiple wives, it's a real bitch to turn the general 1:1 ratio into a personal 1:2, 1:3, or 1:5 (in the case of Tom Green). If you're going to keep that system even remotely viable, you've got to keep every potential wife in the pool. That means it's to the polygamist's advantage to marry women as young as possible, keep them in the system once they're married, and eliminate the competition for brides. Starting to see the pressures that promote pedophilia, spousal abuse, and the extreme forms of patriarchy in polygamous communities?

[Fenris]

Originally posted by KellyM
Originally posted by minty green
Originally posted by Fenris
And isn't it a violation of the seperation of church and state?
Nope. Check out the second quote above from Davis v. Beason.
IMO, the Court was wrong in that decision.


First, thanks, Minty for the help. At least I now have an idea of how they're justifying this in a legal context. I really appreciate the input.

Kelly, I'm not so sure that all of Davis vs Beason was wrong. Well, actually, let's forget the word "wrong" and use "rational" (I don't know enough about law to argue right or wrong) This bit

However free the exercise of religion may be, it must be subordinate to the criminal laws of the country, passed with reference to actions regarded by general consent as properly the subjects of punitive legislantion.
makes a lot of sense. The stuff around seems largely...um...provincial(?) but the quoted part I'm OK with.

Fenris

[minty green]

Ah, Fenris, its undeniable majesty will soon make you a believer in the law. ;)

I think the quote you picked out from Davis is the crucial one. The modern Court would never go for the whole "Christianity" analysis. Well, maybe Scalia and Thomas would. But there's no doubt that a lot of the rationale for the 1800's polygamy cases has no force today.

Still, the basic principle that there's a distinction between religious beliefs and acting on those beliefs is fundamental to the law. In a nutshell, as long as there is no legislative intent to burden religious practices, that law is going to be found constitutional. And it's generally a real bitch to prove that the legislative body passed a law with the intent to mess with somebody's religious practices.

Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993) is one of the rare examples in which a law was struck down because the record so clearly showed that the city council was pissed off at the practice of Santeria. Compare that to Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), in which the Court decided that because drug laws were of general applicability and were not targeted at religion, Oregon was justified in denying the Indian plaintiffs unemployment benefits after they got fired for the religious use of peyote.

[Spavined Gelding]

As in most situations in which actions, which may be argued to be benign or beneficial, are rendered criminal by statute, Mr. Green’s case involves the question of whether a legislature has the power to prohibit the behavior. The legal question is not whether the legislature should prohibit, but rather whether it can. For good reasons or bad that decision has been made, again and again.

If Greens’ case goes to a jury, he might well get off. Remember in Utah a fair percent of the population has ancestors who were polygamists. The legal question notwithstanding, a Utah jury might have real trouble convicting Mr. Green of something their great-great grandparents openly did in the 19th Century. This is why juries are simultaneously the gatekeepers of personal liberty and the most ignorant, wrong-headed and perverse institution in the law.

[JayAndrewAllen]

Originally posted by minty green
Hey, I didn't say I agreed with the law, folks. But that is the state of the law regarding the constitutionality of bans on polygamy and bigamy, and the precedents are too firmly established to be overturned anytime soon. Besides, the Court does have a valid point--just because you claim it's a religious belief does not entitle you to behave in accordance with that belief.

I never said the religious angle was valid, MG. If it were, Christian Scientists could kill their kids with impunity (not to mention what anti-abortionists could get away with).

That's just too easy a target to pass up, Jay....

Thanks for the trouncing, MG. I'll come back for more one the cars heal.

Since his laundry list of crimes is so obsence, charge him on *those* counts (welfare fraud, statutory rape, sexual prostitution of a minor, contributing to the delinquency of a minor). The "bigamy" charge is just the Utah AG screaming to the world, "We're normal, America!" It's propoganda, not law.

-J-

[Needs2know]

The problem with Mormon fringe polygamy has absolutely nothing to do with their "outlaw" status. Their patriarical social structure does. "Giving away" child brides in "sacred marriages" go as far back as to the founder of the religion Joseph Smith himself. Not only are very young girls given away in marriage but often the additional wives are left alone, living in separate houses, to raise their children with no benefit of a father. As it is practiced today many of these additional "sacred wives" are on the Utah welfare rolls. This too is not a new practice.

Read "In Sacred Loneliness", the authors name escapes me at this time but it is a well researched book, by a practicing Mormon, on the history of Mormon polygamy. It is not a "propaganda" publication produced by a Mormon critic. The author makes no judgement concerning Smith and his plural marriages but despite his best intentions the actions of the Prophet speak for themselves. This is his legacy to the fringe groups that believe they are simply following in the Prophet's footsteps.

Needs2know

[KellyM]

Originally posted by minty green
And it's generally a real bitch to prove that the legislative body passed a law with the intent to mess with somebody's religious practices.

The legislative history on the federal ban on polygamy is very clear; the law was clearly and obviously intended to obstruct the Mormon practice of polygamy. The enacting legislation states as much in its preface. This has been discussed here previously.

Under the standard set forth in Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, the federal ban should properly fall.

[KellyM]

Originally posted by Spavined Gelding
If Greens’ case goes to a jury, he might well get off.

Unlikely. The Mormon Church would likely take punitive action against any juror who voted to acquit him.

[minty green]

Originally posted by KellyM
The legislative history on the federal ban on polygamy is very clear; the law was clearly and obviously intended to obstruct the Mormon practice of polygamy. The enacting legislation states as much in its preface. This has been discussed here previously.

Under the standard set forth in Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, the federal ban should properly fall.
A quick look at the index of the U.S. Code reveals that there is no general federal ban on polygamy. There's something about polygamy and immigration in 8 U.S.C. 1182, and there is also a ban on polygamy/plural marriages in the declaration of rights for the Virgin Islands. Neither provision makes the slightest reference to religion. I am unfamiliar with the 19th century federal legislation you reference, but it isn't around today, and whatever anti-Mormon sentiment it expressed surely would not be read into the Utah bigamy statute Green is charged with violating. That statute makes no reference whatsoever to religion, and its contents are essentially the same as every other bigamy statute in the country. Utah's generally-applicable bigamy statute would certainly be held constitutional, just like the general ban on peyote in Employment Division v. Smith.

[minty green]

And by the way, what basis do you have for the assertion that the Mormon church would punish any Mormon juror who voted to acquit this guy? The LDS church is certainly anti-polygamy, but claiming they would take punitive action against jurors for acquitting a criminal defendant borders on libel, IMHO.

[KellyM]

First of all, this is a repeat thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=59696) (I'm sorry I didn't think to point this out earlier). Please go read that thread, as I am repeating here much of what was said there, three months ago. (Be warned, though; this is one of the threads that led to Danielinthewolvesden getting banned.)

The reason Utah has a law prohibiting bigamy is that they are required to have one as a condition of their admission into statehood. Congress refused to entertain Utah's application for statehood until Utah consented to a perpetual ban on polygamy within the state of Utah. If Utah repeals that statute, the state of Utah would cease to exist. Given that that condition was clearly motivated by religious prejudice, a good argument can be made that the resulting statute is "fruit of the poisoned tree".

I know I researched the history of federal law relating to bigamy in Utah once and posted about it to Straight Dope, but I can't find the thread just now. If I come across it, I'll be certain to drop a link into this thread.

On the issue of Mormon retribution: the Church has a history of taking ecclesiastical revenge against people who "inconvenience" it or who publically espouse positions which are contrary to either the Church's doctrine or the Church's political stances. Excommunication of people who espouse tolerance for homosexuality is not unheard of. I would not be at all surprised to see them sanction a juror who voted to acquit a polygamist.

[minty green]

Surely you would recognize that there a difference between publicly taking a stand contrary to Mormon doctrine and voting to acquit a person alleged to have committed a crime opposed by the church? Yeah, if John Juror walks out of the courthouse and announces that he voted to acquit because polygamy was hunky dorey by him, you could reasonably expect the church to discipline him in some way. But there are any number of reasons Tom Green could be acquitted--most notably, by convincing the jury he did not purport to "marry" multiple wives because he "divorced" them before marrying the next one. I cannot imagine that the church would seek retribution against a Mormon juror who simply voted to acquit.

[KellyM]

Originally posted by minty green
Surely you would recognize that there a difference between publicly taking a stand contrary to Mormon doctrine and voting to acquit a person alleged to have committed a crime opposed by the church?
Yes, I recognize that there is a difference. I am not convince that the Mormon Church would do so.


I cannot imagine that the church would seek retribution against a Mormon juror who simply voted to acquit.
There are times I wish I had your (lack of) imagination.

[minty green]

Utah Constitution, Article I, Section 4: "There shall be no union of Church and State, nor shall any church dominate the State or interfere with its functions."

[KellyM]

Originally posted by minty green
Utah Constitution, Article I, Section 4: "There shall be no union of Church and State, nor shall any church dominate the State or interfere with its functions."
I say, did you have a point to make by posting this?

Take a look at the docket of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit some time. Look at how many of the cases are appeals from the District Courts for the District of Utah on religious freedom or religious establishment claims. Then think about how well that clause is being observed in the State of Utah.

[The Mick]

the only problem I see with the actual polygamy is that he's not properly supporting his women and children. If you can keep 5 wives and 29 children and still provide for all of them, I have no problem with it, though one would think that would drive a man insane.

5 wives nagging him and 29 kids begging to play catch? Yeesh... I'd rather commit suicide.

Now, the molestation thing I have a problem with...

[Podkayne]

How would the Church know who voted aquit and who didn't? My voluminous knowledge of justice-based television shows tells me that they only announce the vote juror-by-juror in special cases. Is that right?

If the jury doesn't unanimously vote guilty, then, what, they excommunicate the lot of them?

Needs2know, I don't need to read any more books on Mormonism to know that polygamy as it is currently practiced by Mormon splinter groups is no great shakes for women. However, you have yet to say anything that convinces me that the practice of polygamy amongst consenting adults should be outlawed.

We already have laws against child molestation, statutory rape, and spousal abuse. Why can't offenders be prosecuted under these laws, and left alone otherwise? (You have presented no convincing evidence, by the way, that polygamists commit these crimes more frequently than monogamists.)

If women are brought up in the patriarchy and make the choice as adults to perpetuate that lifestyle, it's not the place of the government to wade in and free these women for their own good. They are adults and can make their own choices, regardless of how ignorant and/or brainwashed you think they are.

[Needs2know]

Minty...I just happened to have a copy of this article that I printed out for my increasingly fundie sister. The article is not necessarily written for the purpose of this thread but since I had it in hand it will give you a good idea of just how powerful and pervasive the LDS church is in Utah.

Minty...there is a wealth of information out there from excomunicated Mormons and non-Mormons who know the ins and of the "church run" state of Utah. (Mind you I'm not making a value judgement here. I don't live in Utah and do not even plan on ever visiting.)Just from the little I've read on the history of this church it appears that it will go to great lengths to control it's members and hide it's contridictions from the rest of the world.

http://www.tompaine.com/history/2001/04/27/index.html

Needs2know

[minty green]

Believe me, I'm no fan of the Mormon church. But jury trials are held every day in Utah. Some of those cases will be of interest to the Mormon church, and at least a handful of those jury verdicts will inevitably be contrary to the way the church believed they should have been resolved.

I have never heard of the Mormon church punishing a juror for having voted against what the church believed to be its interests, and will not believe it until somebody shows me hard evidence. In fact, I find it very telling that in the anti-Mormon page Needs2know linked to, there is the woeful tale of a purveyor of soft-core porn who was apparently charged with obscenity at the behest of the church. He was also acquitted--twice--by juries that almost certainly included Mormons. There's also a tale of a lesbian psychology teacher who sued her crusading Mormon opponents and won. Yet there is no indication whatsoever that any action was taken against those jurors who went against the obvious position of the church.

Church pressure on politcians? Nothing new there. Church pressure on prosecutors? Wouldn't surprise me at all. Church sanctions on jurors who vote the wrong way? Show me the evidence. There are enough anti-Mormon organizations out there that it ought to be there if it exists, so feel free to prove me wrong.

Podkayne: Jury verdicts in criminal cases are (in almost all states) required to be unanimous, whether to convict or acquit. If the jurors cannot agree on a verdict, the judge will declare a mistrial. If Tom Green is acquitted, it will be because all of the jurors agreed he was innocent of the crime.

[11811]

Originally posted by Xerxes
Interestingly, our paper reports that

[quote]So if he really did divorce the other four, how are they going to charge him with bigamy? Presumably it's not an offence to co-habit with just about as many women as you want?

I think they are using Utah's common-law definition of marriage, IIRC. In other words, just because you say she's not your wife anymore doesn't mean she's not your wife anymore.

[DSYoungEsq]

I'd like to go back to the constitutional issues previously addressed by minty green and others. Specifically, the question of whether the decisions reached in the 1870's regarding the practice of polygamy by Mormons in what was then the Utah Territory are 'good law' today.

In one sense, those decisions are 'good' law because the Supreme Court hasn't revisited the direct issues contained and stated that the conclusions therein are incorrect. You will note that the practice of polygamy was attacked by the Court again in its opinion in Cleveland v. United States, 329 U.S. 14 (1946), which upheld application of the Mann Act (prohibition of transportation of women across state lines for immoral purposes) to defendants who transported women across state lines to enter plural marriages. By the way, if you want to read a REALLY scathing tract from the Court regarding polygamy and the Mormon Church in the mid-1800's, read Mormon Church v. United States, 136 U.S. 1 (1890), especially the part beginning on page 48.

The legal justification for the decisions starting with Reynolds is not so silly as it may sound, whatever the intolerance of the results. As noted in many cases involving the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment, there is a distinction between a belief, and conduct based on that belief. The belief is absolutely protected, but conduct, by its very nature, cannot be (see Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 304 (1940), for example). The original rule ennunciated in Reynolds provided essentially no protection for conduct, a rule followed in cases involving compulsory vaccination ([/i]Jacobson v. Massachusetts[/i], 197 U.S. 11 (1905)), and child labor (Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944)). But, starting in the early 1960's, the Court began to protect conduct as well, beginning with Braunfeld v. Brown, 366 U.S. 599 (1961) ("f the State regulates conduct by enacting a general law within its power, the purpose and effect of which is to advance the State's secular goals, the statute is valid despite its indirect burden on religious observance unless the State may accomplish its purpose by means which do not impose such a burden."; see also Justice Brennan's opinion in [i]Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963)). Eventually, the Court adopted a "compelling interest" and "least restrictive means" test, finding, for example, that Amish children couldn't be compelled to attend school past the eighth grade in violation of the beliefs of the sect (Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972)).

Recently, the Court has backed away from the "compelling interest - least restrictive means" test in belief/conduct cases. In the perhaps seminal case of Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), the Court allowed the State of Oregon to deny unemployment benefits to persons dismissed from their jobs for using peyote during religious ceremonies. The suppression of the religious conduct was an incidental result of otherwise valid conduct prohibitions. Because the state's laws weren't intended to affect a religious practice, they survived scrutiny. Smith was attacked immediately in Congress, which passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, in which Congress specifically stated that it was restating the test for such cases to be the tests ennunciated in Sherbert and Yoder. The Supreme Court, predictably, struck down the RFRA as it attempted to dictate application of the Free Exercise Clause to states through the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment (City of Boerne v. Flores, ___ U.S. ___, 117 S. Ct. 2157 (1997)).

Where does this leave us? Under the old polygamy cases and the belief/conduct distinction of Reynolds, Utah can ban polygamy without violating the Free Exercise Clause. Under the rubric ennunciated in Yoder, it would be difficult to support the prohibition of polygamy, especially since the "compelling governmental interest" is much less obvious (likely there would be those who would attempt to show that polygamy = antisocial mysoginistic behaviour, but the true answer to that is to attack spousal abuse and child sex, not attack plural marriage itself). But under Smith, it isn't clear what would result. This isn't surprising: the main criticism of the current Court's attempts to follow a middle-of-the-road path (usually authored by either Justice O'Connor or Justice Kennedy) is that such a path gives little guidance as to future results, depending as it does so heavily upon specific facts in a given case and the particular opinions of the individual justices as to the importance of the governmental interest served. One could argue that polygamy laws are a direct attack by the state on a religiously related practice, either as an attempt to support a mainstream Christian theology (Establishment), or as an attempt to eliminate a cultist "barbaric" practice preached by obscure sects (Free Expression). One could also argue that the state is not banning a religious practice at all, but merely establishing the boundaries of valid non-religious conduct (state recognized and sponsored cohabitation between adults), with the incidental result that religious sects that want to practice polygamy are frustrated from so doing.

Perhaps Mr. Green will be the catalyst for a re-examination; at the least, the federal Circuit Court of Appeals covering Utah is going to be asked to review the issue (10th Circuit, by the way, a somewhat conservative circuit). It's too bad that the state prosecuting polygamy isn't Arizona, which has its share of polygamists living north of the Grand Canyon in an area of the state that the state government rarely visits; Arizona is in the notorious Ninth Circuit, the decisions of which are quite regularly subjected to Supreme Court review.

[Duck Duck Goose]

Guilty, on four counts.

http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/05/19/utah.polygamy/index.html
Utah polygamist found guilty
May 19, 2001 Posted: 6:29 AM EDT (1029 GMT)

PROVO, Utah (CNN) -- A jury in the U.S. state of Utah has found an avowed polygamist guilty on four counts of bigamy.

Tom Green, 52, a self-professed "fundamentalist" Mormon who lives with his five wives and 29 children near Trout Creek, 125 miles southwest of Salt Lake City, had testified that he married the women in a spiritual sense.

Along with the bigamy charges, the jury also found Green guilty of failure to pay child support.

He faces a possible prison sentence of 25 years.

[beckwall]

I didn't quite make it through all the posts, so this may be
a repeat but here goes anyway.

There seems to be three issues to deal with here:

1)Utah's quest to clean up their "reputation" before the Olympics next year. When I moved to Utah in 1996 (only stayed a year, that was TOO much for me), people made reference to polygamy as if it were common and acceptable practice. When I would go to Target, I would see the "sisters" and their children. They held hands and wore the same dress. Is this a crime? No. Did it make my skin crawl? Yes.

2)The "polygs" are breaking the laws that involve welfare fraud. They also take out large life insurance policies on their children, because invariable (as in Mr. Green's case)
one or two of them will die in childhood. I would pass huge
homes on the east side of town going up toward the canyons, and my friend would tell me they were owned by polygamists.
This was common knowledge. Bought with cash.

3)The legal age for marriage in Utah is 14, right? He married at least one of the wives when she was 13. This sounds like breaking the law to me.

The Mormon Church would like to distance itself from this disaster, just like any business would distance itself from a business partner who "got caught" doing something unsavory.

Interestingly enough, as late as 1997 Utah still followed
the "alienation of affection" law. Is there anywhere else in the US that still has that one on the books?

[Monty]

Originally posted by beckwall
The Mormon Church would like to distance itself from this disaster, just like any business would distance itself from a business partner who "got caught" doing something unsavory.

How the devil do you see the LDS church as a partner in this guy's antics? The LDS leadersip is quite adamant about the church not condoning plural marriage. Said leadership is also quite adamant about not condoning extramarital relations.

Hell, I bet following your logic there, the freaking prosecutor was the guy's partner in the crime too!

[Spavined Gelding]

The radio report says that the jury was out three hours. Given that the jury had at least six counts to deal with, should have read through the instructions after retiring, elected a foreperson and probably took advantage of the chance to have lunch on the county’s tab, this jury worked pretty quickly and probably didn’t have much argument about what to do. Takes care of my speculation about a Utah jury with all those polygamist ancestors being unwilling to convict.

Now comes the real fun. The guy has fought it so far on technical grounds and as a public relations matter. The appeal should be a real show.

[minty green]

Originally posted by beckwall
The legal age for marriage in Utah is 14, right? He married at least one of the wives when she was 13. This sounds like breaking the law to me.As others have already pointed out, there's not much need to punish Green for bigamy iff all you're upset about is diddling the little girls. It's perfectly possible to charge the guy with sexual assault, which I think they did in this case. Obviously, he wasn't convicted on that charge.

Also, 14 is no longer the legal age for marriage in Utah:30-1-2. Marriages prohibited and void.
The following marriages are prohibited and declared void: . . .

(2) when the male or female is under 18 years of age unless [parental] consent is obtained . . .

(3) when the male or female is under 14 years of age or, beginning May 3, 1999, when the male or female is under 16 years of age at the time the parties attempt to enter into the marriage; however, exceptions may be made for a person 15 years of age [by getting parental consent and a court order]

[Monty]

This has been nagging at me for a couple of days now.

Originally posted by KellyM
Originally posted by minty green
Surely you would recognize that there a difference between publicly taking a stand contrary to Mormon doctrine and voting to acquit a person alleged to have committed a crime opposed by the church?
Yes, I recognize that there is a difference. I am not convince that the Mormon Church would do so.

Care to explain, with cites, statistics, and actual evidence, why you state that? Or is it merely because you believe deep down in your heart that the LDS church leaders are scum and it's okay for you to throw out an unsupported insinuation?

Last I checked, the LDS church has, as its 12th Article of Faith (I've bolded a couple of words in the following quote for emphasis),
We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

Now that alone tells me that a good LDS juror would heed the instruction from the judge to return a guilty verdict only if the prosecution had proven their case, regardless of the juror's personal feelings about the alleged crime. What about cases where both the prosecuting and defending attorneys are LDS?


I cannot imagine that the church would seek retribution against a Mormon juror who simply voted to acquit.
There are times I wish I had your (lack of) imagination.


From where I sit, Kelly, it is you and not minty green who is devoid of imagination.

[KellyM]

Monty:

I have a friend who is an apostate Mormon. She has told me many stories of dissident Mormons who have been subjected to harassment of all sorts by the Mormon hierarchy. I have no reason to believe that she has misrepresented those anecdotes to me; several of them have been documented by independent sources. I have also read press reports describing incidents of the Mormon Church throwing its weight around to influence politics and of the Mormon Church applying ecclesiastical penalties against people who advocate for positions its disfavors.

I have no interest in trying to convince you that the Mormon Church has a history of harassing its membership. The record is out there; research it for yourself if you don't believe me. I am not sufficiently interested at this time in the topic to research it further at this time, or to recover the documentary evidence upon which I originally based my opinion.

[Monty]

Kelly,

"Put up or shut up" is good advice. Take it.

[KellyM]

Monty, I expressed an opinion based on what I have learned over the past several years. I don't take notes on every conversations I have, scribble down the ISBN of every book I read, or write down the URL of every web page I look at. You're free not to believe my opinion. You are NOT free to be rude about it.

[Monty]

Kelly,

Interesting world you live in there where you call what I posted rude, when it wasn't. I merely pointed out a couple of factual things and also expressed an opinion.

Yet, you certainly felt free to be rude to minty green. Or don't you recall your remark about her "(lack of) imagination?" If you don't, feel free to scroll up and read it and check the nifty little thing to the left of the posting to show that, yes, it actually was you who made that rude, insulting, and yes, asinine, comment.

I didn't ask you to post every book's ISBN, or every website's url; yet I did ask you to provide cites, statistics, and evidence.

What you responded with was:

ONE PERSON'S STORIES without saying what those stories were. The fact remains that it's still ONE PERSON'S STORIES.
Elevating the rudeness you displayed towards minty green, but this time with me as a target because, IN MY OPINION, I dared to ask you if you had anyting that even closely resembled a FACT for your assertion above.

IN MY OPINION, you really need to get a grip and quit taking logic cues from Blueii and SJ/BB.

P.S. Yes, my comment above about the nifty little thing to the left was condescending. Thank you for noticing.

[DSYoungEsq]

There was never any doubt about conviction, unless the jury was willing to try jury nullification, and that wasn't likely because this guy isn't exactly someone the community is going to be sympathetic to (sleeping with 13 year old girls, etc.).

The real issue will be explored upon either appeal or by way of habeas corpus petition to federal court. Then an appellate court can address the First Amendment issues.

[minty green]

I have to agree with DSYoung on this one, although I personally doubt that this question will be taken by the Supreme Court. Unless the U.S. Court of Appeals (10th?) is crazy enough to ignore the 19th century cases, there's no way the Big Court will want to touch the issue today.

And Monty, thanks for the defense. I didn't think KellyM was being rude to me personally, but I could obviously see how Mormons could be rightfully offended by some of her remarks.

BTW, the appropriate pronoun is "he."

[Irishman]

I saw a story on this guy on MSNBC over the holiday weekend. I looked up this thread, but still have some thoughts needing answers.

First, the issue comes up about the nature of the polygamy in the cases like Tom Green's (Greene?) One argument for why it is wrong is based on the notion that the lifestyle itself promotes misogyny and male dominance, and is a form of child abuse in itself by the attitudes that it instills in young girls about their worth vs. boys and their worth. It is worth noting that this parallels attitudes about other religions and cultures that have similar attitudes toward women, notably fundamentalist Islam like the Taliban. Hmm, making that comparison, it sort of begs the question. Is it, in fact, unhealthy? Is that something that should be an issue for the government?

Second, assuming the mindset above is wrong, does that necessarily mean that all forms of polygamy and polyandry are subject to the same inherent flaw? Note that monogamous relationships that treat women as less than equal are equally guilty of oppression. The basis for the oppression in this case seems to be a cultural/religious attitude about the roles and responsibilities of men vs. women in their society. Is that necessarily an outgrowth of polygamy itself or is the polygamy just a reflection of that attitude, and is it impossible to have consenting polygamy or polyandry that does not rely on and foster a sense of unequal status and worth?

Third, the specifics of this case reflect a general trend within this community. In Tom Green's case, he currently has 5 wives all under the age of 30 (or at least at the time the news story was filmed). There are, in fact, two pairs of sisters. Also, he has previously been married to a couple other women who have since divorced him. They both happen to be mothers of his current wives, and consented to his marriages of their daughters. No, those daughters weren't his daughters, but were from previous marriages, so there's no incest. Both of the mothers have since left that lifestyle. Is there something inherently wrong with this tight interleaving, or is this merely a cultural hangover?

[SuaSponte]

Originally posted by KellyM
The legislative history on the federal ban on polygamy is very clear; the law was clearly and obviously intended to obstruct the Mormon practice of polygamy. The enacting legislation states as much in its preface. This has been discussed here previously.

Under the standard set forth in Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, the federal ban should properly fall.

Putting aside the issue of whether a federal ban on polygamy exists, conceptually it is impossible to argue that bans on polygamy in the United States were imposed to strike a blow against Mormon practice. Very simply, polygamy wasn't legal anywhere in the United States prior to the founding of the Mormon church.

Sua

[KellyM]

Originally posted by SuaSponte
Putting aside the issue of whether a federal ban on polygamy exists, conceptually it is impossible to argue that bans on polygamy in the United States were imposed to strike a blow against Mormon practice. Very simply, polygamy wasn't legal anywhere in the United States prior to the founding of the Mormon church.

The federal ban on polygamy was clearly and unarguably enacted to balk the practices of Utahn Mormons. Prior to the Congressional act which made polygamy a statutory offense, polygamy was an offense only under the common law of England (which at that time governed in the states where not abrogated by the Constitution or by other statutory law). The act which enacted this statutory ban so clearly sets forth the intent of Congress to punish them upstart Utahns and their immoral ways that only a fool would argue otherwise. See this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=59696), specifically my post on the first page, which cites to federal court documents and quotes the act of Congress in question. (By the way, the "certain acts" which Congress annulled in that act was the act of the Utahn territorial legislature abrogating the common law prohibition on polygamy.)

One must also question the motives of Congress in forcing Utah to accept a limitation on its right to make its own laws (Utah may never adopt legislation making polygamy legal, on pain of losing Statehood).

This has been argued to death already, in several threads. Why are you resurrecting this thread now?

[Irishman]

KellyM, I resurrected the thread. I saw a story on the topic and it got me thinking. I did a search and it pulled up this thread, and it didn't resolve all my questions. Thus I posted. However, thank you for linking the other thread. It answered most of my questions, I guess.

[SuaSponte]

Originally posted by KellyM
Originally posted by SuaSponte
[B]Putting aside the issue of whether a federal ban on polygamy exists, conceptually it is impossible to argue that bans on polygamy in the United States were imposed to strike a blow against Mormon practice. Very simply, polygamy wasn't legal anywhere in the United States prior to the founding of the Mormon church.

The federal ban on polygamy was clearly and unarguably enacted to balk the practices of Utahn Mormons. Prior to the Congressional act which made polygamy a statutory offense, polygamy was an offense only under the common law of England (which at that time governed in the states where not abrogated by the Constitution or by other statutory law). The act which enacted this statutory ban so clearly sets forth the intent of Congress to punish them upstart Utahns and their immoral ways that only a fool would argue otherwise.

You missed my point, KellyM. Polygamy was banned in the United States under the common law (of the United States, btw, but that's hair-splitting), prior to and without regard for the practicism of Mormonism. And, of course, the common law is the law.
What that means is that bans of polygamy of general applicability and accordingly would pass the Employment Division v. Smith test. Granted, a good legal team would have a field day with the legislative history you describe and may very well get the law overturned as unconstitutional (there's a question - DSYoung, minty do laws passed for an improper purpose, but otherwise valid, pass consitutional muster?). But, and this is the crucial point, Congress could then turn around and enact the exact same law the next day. Provided they don't mention the word "Mormon" in the legislative history, that new law would be constitutional.

Personally, Kelly I agree that the ban on polygamy is ludicrous. My only point is that a law banning polygamy would survive First Amendment review.

Sua

[redtail23]

Originally posted by Irishman
First, the issue comes up about the nature of the polygamy in the cases like Tom Green's (Greene?) One argument for why it is wrong is based on the notion that the lifestyle itself promotes misogyny and male dominance, and is a form of child abuse in itself by the attitudes that it instills in young girls about their worth vs. boys and their worth. It is worth noting that this parallels attitudes about other religions and cultures that have similar attitudes toward women, notably fundamentalist Islam like the Taliban. Hmm, making that comparison, it sort of begs the question. Is it, in fact, unhealthy? Is that something that should be an issue for the government?

Second, assuming the mindset above is wrong, does that necessarily mean that all forms of polygamy and polyandry are subject to the same inherent flaw? Note that monogamous relationships that treat women as less than equal are equally guilty of oppression. The basis for the oppression in this case seems to be a cultural/religious attitude about the roles and responsibilities of men vs. women in their society. Is that necessarily an outgrowth of polygamy itself or is the polygamy just a reflection of that attitude, and is it impossible to have consenting polygamy or polyandry that does not rely on and foster a sense of unequal status and worth?
I'm going to start with your second question first. No, there is no "inherent flaw" in polygamy (which includes both polyandry [multiple husbands] and polygyny [multiple wives], as well as marriages with multiples of both sexes [no specific name for that as far as I know]) that necessitates or fosters oppression, unequal status, abuse, misogyny/misandry (yeah, I know, it's not really a word), etc., etc., etc.

This is a fact. There are many, many polyamorous relationships which do not involve any of that sort of thing. Ergo, there is no "inherent flaw" in polygamy that is responsible.

I would agree with you that these problems are a result of cultural influences (often, but not always, religiously based). Those sorts of problems exist in many monogamous marriages, but monogamy is not generally considered to have an "inherent flaw" which *causes* such situations. The concept that polygamy causes abuse and oppression is nothing more nor less than a myth.

Personally, I think that attitudes and cultures that devalue anyone based on gender and other such factors are unhealthy and wrong. I think such attitudes harm not only the individuals who are oppressed, but also harm the indivuals who "benefit", and the society itself.

I agree with KellyM that making polygamy illegal is not only harmful to our society (as well as to many individuals who are criminalized for perfectly moral, ethical, non-harmful behavior), but also actually increases abuse and oppression in those cases where the prevailing culture/religion is prone to such. And criminalizing a non-harmful practice also allows the rest of society to use that practice as a scapegoat, rather than addressing the underlying, real problems.


P.S. For those who can't be bothered to follow the link - KellyM is correct. The requirement for Utah to ban polygamy prior to allowing statehood, as well as a more general prohibition nationwide at the same time, is well documented. In fact, it's explained right here (http://www.archives.state.ut.us/exhibits/Statehood/intronew.htm) in the official state archives. Or do you think that it's sheer coincidence that all of the cases cited by minty green happened between the date that Utah first asked to be a state (1849) and the date of statehood (1894)? The prevailing attitudes and uproar about polygamy and the Mormons is also well and widely documented. No religious bias involved. *snort* Geez, people, I learned about alla this in my high school history class. What rocks have y'all been under?

[minty green]

Originally posted by SuaSponte
(there's a question - DSYoung, minty do laws passed for an improper purpose, but otherwise valid, pass consitutional muster?)A resounding "maybe." The case to look to, of course, is Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993). There, the Court looked at the record and found all kinds of indications that the city council had an anti-Santeria motive for passing new restrictions on the slaughter of animals. That invoked "strict scrutiny," which as any Con Law student knows means the law is doomed. The city asserted that health and animal welfare concerns were its legitimate interest, but that failed because the Court decided the statute was not reasonably tailored to achieve those ends. But the opinion seems to leave open the possibility that a more broadly-applicable statute would be valid--one that does achieve the asserted state interests without singling out the religious group that inspired the law.

If polygamy were a new issue, KellyM is correct that the anti-Mormon intent that seems to be in the legislative history would cause serious problems for any 19th century federal ban on polygamy. (But as I noted above, I can find no evidence whatsoever that a federal polygamy statute exists today, so it's a moot question.) However, this is emphatically not a new issue. The Court has already held in the 1879 Reynolds case that the polygamy ban promoted legitimate state interests (e.g., fighting patricarchy and promoting democracy) and was valid against a free exercise challenge. Yeah, it seems like flimsy reasoning if you read the case today, but it couldn't be much clearer in establishing that the state may ban polygamy without violating the First Amendment. I doubt the current Supreme Court would have even a single vote for overturning Reynolds and the other 19th century polygamy cases.

[minty green]

Just curious, redtail23 . . . do you have any opinion on my argument from the previous page that while individual polygamous relationships do no harm, having entire communities founded on Tom Green-style polygamy might indeed be a very bad thing?

[KellyM]

Originally posted by minty green
If polygamy were a new issue, KellyM is correct that the anti-Mormon intent that seems to be in the legislative history would cause serious problems for any 19th century federal ban on polygamy. (But as I noted above, I can find no evidence whatsoever that a federal polygamy statute exists today, so it's a moot question.) However, this is emphatically not a new issue. The Court has already held in the 1879 Reynolds case that the polygamy ban promoted legitimate state interests (e.g., fighting patricarchy and promoting democracy) and was valid against a free exercise challenge. Yeah, it seems like flimsy reasoning if you read the case today, but it couldn't be much clearer in establishing that the state may ban polygamy without violating the First Amendment. I doubt the current Supreme Court would have even a single vote for overturning Reynolds and the other 19th century polygamy cases.
Indeed, this is a pretty accurate summation of the situation. Most commentators believe that Reynolds is bad law (read the case sometime, it's just loaded with content that most people today would consider embarrassing and wholly inappropriate for a Supreme Court opinion) and that if the question was faced anew with current Free Exercise and due process jurisprudence, the law would fall. But Reynolds, for good or ill, is law, and the Supreme Court is not going to revisit it (despite being asked to do so on a few occasions). So, yes, not a single vote to overturn, but if you brought the question anew without the legacy of Reynolds, I'd bet it would be a close vote.

[minty green]

It's an interesting thought experiment to speculate how an anti-polygamy statute would fare today if those 19th century cases didn't exist, KellyM. I tend to think that a ban on polygamy would still be constitutional if the law was generally applicable--not narrowly tailored so as to affect only a particular religious group--and the legislative history did not reveal an explicit anti-Mormon intent. Without those two key facts, the Santeria case would almost certainly have been resolved in the same way as Employment Division v. Smith.

[redtail23]

minty green saidI disagree vehemently with that judgment that the condemnation of polygamy is merely reflexive and unthinking. Have you ever been to one of those polygamous communities in ID/UT/AZ? That is some weird, messed-up shit, like Jonestown just before the kool-aid. It is that way as a direct result of the community-wide practice of polygamy, which really does (in those situations) foster an incredibly harmful system of patricarchy. Those poor kids--especially the girls--never have a chance.

I think it's safe to say that isolated instances of multiple-partner marriages aren't going to do any real harm to the social fabric. But when it's tolerated to such an extent that it becomes the basis of a modern-day community, serious social problems often result.
then later he askedJust curious, redtail23 . . . do you have any opinion on my argument from the previous page that while individual polygamous relationships do no harm, having entire communities founded on Tom Green-style polygamy might indeed be a very bad thing?
Hey, wait a minute. You lawyer-types are always asking trick questions, don't think I don't catch on. :p Sweetie, I almost always have an opinion, just sometimes I'm smart enough to keep my mouth closed. ;)


Um, you're conflating issues again.

Yes, I think that having large, oppressive, charismatically-based (e.g., Jim Jones, David Koresh, Sun Myung Moon) communities ain't so hot, no matter what type of marriage they practice. But absent actual, demonstrable harm (that is, more harm than "I don't like the way you raise your kids") to children or unconsenting adults, I don't think they should be banned. Do you?

I also think that having large, gender-oppressive, religiously-based communities (e.g., Amish, Mennonite, Identity Christian, and many others) is harmful to many of their members, especially the children - and the fact that those communities generally require monogamy is totally irrelevant. The children, especially girls, reared in those communities have no more chance of escaping than do the kids in whatever situations you've seen. But given that pesky first Amendment, I don't think I'd call for their banning either. Would you?

I'm not off-hand familiar with the communities you've mentioned, so I can't speak to them. But last I knew there were still a few large communes around (left over from the 60s/70s) - marriage practices in those communities vary widely, to say the least, and polyamory is quite acceptable. I've talked to people who were reared in those communes, including some who didn't like the life and left when they reached adulthood. Never heard of any drastic problems due to 'socially acceptable polygamy'.

There are also a few large group marriages around (15-20 adults - not entire villages ;)) that have been accepted into their local communities. They do not create particularly oppressive, patriarchal families; their children are not deprived nor molested nor harmed.


So yes, I agree with your statement on this page that (paraphrase) having communities based on pseudo-Mormon polygamy could certainly be (and often is) a Very Bad Thing. Polygamy in those situations can, along with MANY, MANY OTHER cultural factors, perpetuate a harmful system. However, I object to your statement on the previous page that the practice of polygamy, in and of itself without those other cultural factors, causes or fosters such harm. And I unconditionally oppose your idea (previous page) that legalizing polygamy will cause serious social problems. Is the condemnation of polygamy merely reflexive and unthinking? Nope, it's merely the result of biased thinking based upon unsupported premises.


Questions for you:

What "serious social problems often result" directly and solely from polygamy? Do you have any evidence whatsoever to support this? Can you show me any 'harmful' polygamous communities that are NOT religiously based?

Polygamy is currently illegal. Has that fact stopped any of the harmful practices in the communities of which you speak? Can you show any reason why decriminalizing polygamy would increase harm in those communities? Do you have any evidence to support the idea that making polygamy legal would create more of these oppressive communities?

Should all polygamous individuals, including those who enter and maintain such relationships freely, knowingly and without coercion (physical, mental or fiscal) be criminalized because a few whackos also happen to be polygamous? If yes, then don't you agree that all religious individuals, even those who have harmed no one, should be prevented from practicing their religion because, after all, some religions cause harm and suffering to their adherents?



Let me repeat: Oppressive, patriarchal religions and cultures create oppressive, patriarchal marriages, whether polygamous or monogamous. The fault lies NOT in the marriage pattern, but in the culture/religion.


[and further let me say BLESS YOU PREVIEW!! Gads, you should never see such a mess as I had here to start with. :))

[Hamlet]

Sorry I'm late for the party

I don't mean to hijack a very interesting thread, and when I get time, I'll try to do more thorough research, but, in Illinois (not Utah) Green would have a defense to the sexual assault charges precisely because the victims were his wives. In Illinois:, Prosecution of a spouse of a victim under this section for any violation by the victim's spouse of Section 12-13 (Criminal Sexual Assault), 12-14 (Aggravated Criminal Sexual Assault), 12-15 (Criminal Sexual Abuse), or 12-16 (Aggravated Criminal Sexual Abuse) of this Code is barred, unless the victim reported such offense to a law enforcement agency or the State's Attorney's office within 30 days after the offense was committed, except when the court finds good cause for the delay.

Basically, this section allows for sexual relationships with minors, IF they are married. I'll try to find out the law in Utah, but, were this in Illinois, Green wouldn't have been charged for the sexual assaults. That's one of the main reasons the stinking pedophile married these girls in the first place, not cause he loved them, but to protect himself legally while he was assaulting them. I think the argument that: Well, get him on the sexual assault charges, doesn't hold much weight in this type of case.

[minty green]

Hamlet: Looks to me like that defense only works if the victim is a "spouse." That wouldn't help Tom Green or other polygamists who took a minor for an extra wife, since the purported marriage would be a nullity. There is no legal recognition for a purported marriage that takes place while one of the parties is still married to another person.

redtail23: First off, you're attributing statements to me that I never made. Specifically:I object to your statement on the previous page that the practice of polygamy, in and of itself without those other cultural factors, causes or fosters such harm. And I unconditionally oppose your idea (previous page) that legalizing polygamy will cause serious social problems.Seeing as how polygamy has been a crime in concept only for the last half century, I doubt very much that legalizing it now would "cause serious social problems" any greater than already exist in those AZ/UT/ID polygamist communities. And I certainly did not say that polygamy alone causes much harm. But as you seem to agree, there are problems peculiar to polygamy when it is manifests itself as a mandate from god and becomes standard practice within a community. Say what you want about the Amish, but I don't think they have many problems with child brides and fathers supporting dozens of children via welfare.
What "serious social problems often result" directly and solely from polygamy? Do you have any evidence whatsoever to support this? Can you show me any 'harmful' polygamous communities that are NOT religiously based?Hey, I don't care who you marry. Knock yourself out. But as I just said, social pressures associated with polygamous communities lead to undesirable social pressures. If you have to have multiple wives, and the sex ratio is more or less 1:1, the pressure is on to take wives as soon as possible and to force them into dependent and subservient roles.

Polygamy is currently illegal.In name only. Outside of Tom Green, nobody has been prosecuted for it in many decades. Has that fact stopped any of the harmful practices in the communities of which you speak?Gee, maybe if they enforced the law . . . Can you show any reason why decriminalizing polygamy would increase harm in those communities?Screw that. I want to decrease the harm in those communities by enforcing the law.

Should all polygamous individuals, including those who enter and maintain such relationships freely, knowingly and without coercion (physical, mental or fiscal) be criminalized because a few whackos also happen to be polygamous?Not unless the widespread practice of polygamy is causing the kind of social problems I described on the last page. If that is happening, then it makes sense to attack the practice that's causing the problem. You can't dictate religious belief, but you can criminalize behavior without running afoul of the 1st Amendment. If yes, then don't you agree that all religious individuals, even those who have harmed no one, should be prevented from practicing their religion because, after all, some religions cause harm and suffering to their adherents?Woo hoo! Kick the crap outta that strawman! :)

[redtail23]

Originally posted by Hamlet
Sorry I'm late for the party

<snip>

Basically, this section allows for sexual relationships with minors, IF they are married. I'll try to find out the law in Utah, but, were this in Illinois, Green wouldn't have been charged for the sexual assaults. That's one of the main reasons the stinking pedophile married these girls in the first place, not cause he loved them, but to protect himself legally while he was assaulting them. I think the argument that: Well, get him on the sexual assault charges, doesn't hold much weight in this type of case.

Hey, just got here myself. Welcome!

OK, so your premise is that marrying minors in order to have sex with them is OK (when legal), as long as you dump them completely when you want a new one? Or is your premise that, if law is badly conceived or badly written or otherwise surmountable, then we should just go after the offenders willy-nilly, because after all, they should go to jail for something? (Or were you just making a comment and I'm getting a tad over-involved? :)) Actually, Utah law is apparently different, or at least I've heard rumor that they are going to prosecute him on some sort of charge for marrying a 13 year old.

I think that any statutes preventing prosecution of spouse for sexual abuse are totally horrific. We (finally!) got ours thrown out here a few years back. Sorry you live somewhere that's so Neanderthal. ;) Perhaps, however, energy would be better directed toward the real problem (i.e., statutes that protect abusive spouses from sexual assault charges) rather than towards side issues such as polygamy.


Under normal circumstances, to the best of my knowledge, common-law marriages CAN NOT exist in the presence of a certified(?*) marriage. In other words, if PersonA is married to PersonB and also lives with PersonC under whatever conditions your local statues require for common-law marriage, the common-law marriage is NONEXISTENT for all legal purposes. PersonA and PersonC have no legal marital rights because the common-law marriage does not exist.

Conveniently enough, however, common-law marriage evidently does co-exist with a certified(?*) marriage, if AND ONLY IF the state wants to prosecute PersonA for bigamy.

Sorry, but this is total, unadulterated B*S*.

(*I can't remember what you actually call the dern thing.)

[SisterCoyote]

Originally posted by minty green
Hey, I don't care who you marry. Knock yourself out. But as I just said, social pressures associated with polygamous communities lead to undesirable social pressures. If you have to have multiple wives, and the sex ratio is more or less 1:1, the pressure is on to take wives as soon as possible and to force them into dependent and subservient roles.

Minty, I think you're overlooking that redtail isn't talking about polygynous communities exclusively.

He's talking about polygamous communities, which could include me and one of each, me and two other women, me and two men, or any variation thereof.

And he's also not talking about a situation where one must have multiple partners. He appears (from where I sit) to be talking about having the option to take multiple spousi if that is what one wants and one has others who are amenable to this situation.

He seems to be asking where the harm is in that situation.

Or, I could be talking through my hat. If I had a hat.

[minty green]

I recognize that, dogsbody. But he also appears to be arguing that because polygamy/-gyny/-whatever doesn't necessarily cause the problems associated with it in communities where it is religiously mandated, it is unreasonable to criminalize it. I disagree. I believe that because polygamy does have undesirable social effects in those AZ/UT/ID communities where it is most often practiced, it is quite reasonable for the state to make it illegal and to enforce the law when appropriate.

[SisterCoyote]

But - unless I've misread something in this thread - in those communities you're talking about there is a religious basis for the polygyny, correct? And it is exclusively polygynous, not polygamous?

And why is this any different from a monogamous marriage (as someone else brought up) where abuses happen because one spouse or the other believes "God(dess) meant marriage to be this way"? Should we then also outlaw monogamous marriage to prevent this from happening?

[minty green]

Originally posted by redtail23
Conveniently enough, however, common-law marriage evidently does co-exist with a certified(?*) marriage, if AND ONLY IF the state wants to prosecute PersonA for bigamy.That's close, but not quite right. Rather, it's that you commit bigamy by marrying a person while still married to another. In Utah and the dozen or so other states that recognize common law marriage, it's just that you have an option of how you marry somebody: either get a marriage license and a preacher or take the three steps necessary for a common law marriage (exchange of promises to wed, cohabitation, and holding forth as being married). So if a bigamist divorces a wife to dissolve a civil marriage, but subsequently fulfills the three criteria for a common law marriage, they're married and he can be charged for marrying another woman.

In either event, there is no legal marriage after the first one. But by taking the legal steps otherwise necessary to marry the other person, you've committed the actus reus for bigamy.

[sub]*It's called a "civil" marriage.

[minty green]

Originally posted by dogsbody
[B]But - unless I've misread something in this thread - in those communities you're talking about there is a religious basis for the polygyny, correct? And it is exclusively polygynous, not polygamous?Yep. But you can still tag a religious practice as long as the law is of general applicability.
And why is this any different from a monogamous marriage (as someone else brought up) where abuses happen because one spouse or the other believes "God(dess) meant marriage to be this way"?Because monagomous marriage does not produce the social/demograpic pressures to marry children, etc., that I keep brining up. Polygamous marriage, at least as it is practiced in those religious communities that I'm complaining about, does exactly that.

[Hamlet]

minty

Hamlet: Looks to me like that defense only works if the victim is a "spouse." That wouldn't help Tom Green or other polygamists who took a minor for an extra wife, since the purported marriage would be a nullity. There is no legal recognition for a purported marriage that takes place while one of the parties is still married to another person.

I have to disagree. The basis of the charge of bigamy is precisely that Green WAS MARRIED to more than one person. I don't think you could argue that the State proved bigamy, and in the same vein argue that the sexual assault victim was not his "spouse." However he was "married", whether through common law or with the State's OK, the person would still be considered his spouse. Of course, I don't happen to have Utah's definition of the word spouse or any caselaw regarding who is a "spouse" for the purposes of sexual assault law on hand, but I'd be surprised if it didn't include the 13 year old he married. Unless, of course, his "marriage" to the 13 year old was not in fact a valid marriage, as redtail heard the rumor of.

redtail
OK, so your premise is that marrying minors in order to have sex with them is OK (when legal), as long as you dump them completely when you want a new one?

I personally have a problem with marrying minors to have sex with them. It is not "O.K." I was merely observing that the State may not have been able to prosecute Green for sexual assault of a minor if the minor was his spouse. The debate over sexual abuse law in Illinois that requires reporting within 30 days is a whole separate argument that I won't get into.

[minty green]

Originally posted by Hamlet
The basis of the charge of bigamy is precisely that Green WAS MARRIED to more than one person. I don't think you could argue that the State proved bigamy, and in the same vein argue that the sexual assault victim was not his "spouse."The actus reus ("bad act") of bigamy is taking the steps necessary to marry a person while still married to another. Tom Green did so, violating a criminal law.

At the same time, it's a core principle of family law in every jurisdiction of the United States that if you take the steps necessary to marry a person while still married to another, the purported marriage is a nullity. In other words, it does not exist (although it may later come into existence if the prior marriage is terminated--state law varies on this count).

Bigamy does not require two or more marriages, because, by law, there can only be one valid marriage at a time. By law, Tom Green only has one wife (I have no idea which one). Nevertheless, he still committed bigamy by taking the steps otherwise necessary to marry other women at the same time.

I hope that clarifies.

[Buck Nekked]

If Tom Green were a Utah Jazz basketball player that had simply fathered children with these women, rather than having married them, this topic thread would have died within a couple of days.

Why is Tom Green a criminal while Karl Malone is a celebrity in the state of Utah?

[minty green]

Hamlet: From the state of Utah itself:A person is guilty of bigamy when, knowing he has a husband or wife or knowing the other person has a husband or wife, the person purports to marry another person or cohabits with another person. (emphasis added). If there had to be more than one concurrent, marriage there could be no crime of bigamy.

Buck: It's a little thing called "marriage." Try to keep up. ;)

[minty green]

. . . concurrent marriage, . . .

sheesh!

[redtail23]

<shhhhh. be vewy qwiet. I'm supposed to be in bed & I don't wanna get caught Doping or I'll be in trouble. ;)>

minty green sez:redtail23: First off, you're attributing statements to me that I never made. Specifically:I object to your statement on the previous page that the practice of polygamy, in and of itself without those other cultural factors, causes or fosters such harm. And I unconditionally oppose your idea (previous page) that legalizing polygamy will cause serious social problems.OK, I've doublechecked.

You said "That is some weird, messed-up shit, like Jonestown just before the kool-aid. It is that way as a direct result of the community-wide practice of polygamy which really does (in those situations) foster an incredibly harmful system of patricarchy. " (emphasis mine); I paraphrased that to "polygamy, in and of itself without those other cultural factors, causes or fosters such harm".

You said "But when it's tolerated to such an extent that it becomes the basis of a modern-day community, serious social problems often result."; I paraphrased that to "legalizing polygamy will cause serious social problems".

I truly don't understand where I've misattributed your statements, nor your intent. My understanding of your position is that societal intolerance (i.e., criminalization) of polygamy is justified because polygamy causes problems severe and widespread enough to warrant the illegal status - polygamy, not the culture in which it is practiced, not the religious beliefs under which it is practiced, but polygamy alone. Can you clarify for me?

But as you seem to agree, there are problems peculiar to polygamy when it is manifests itself as a mandate from god and becomes standard practice within a community. Say what you want about the Amish, but I don't think they have many problems with child brides and fathers supporting dozens of children via welfare.
Ah, not exactly. There are problems peculiar to communities which operate under "a mandate from god" (although certainly not limited to them). Those problems often include oppression of women and girls, sometimes to the extent of spousal abuse, child marriage, and so on. Those problems often become standard practice in those communities. Some of those communities also practice polygamy, and BECAUSE THEY HAVE ABUSIVE, OPPRESSIVE TRADITIONS, continue those abusive, oppressive traditions within polygamous marriages. You are reversing the cause and effect. (No, the Amish tend to wait till adulthood to marry - but you tell me that an average Amish child with an 8th grade education, which is usually all they're allowed, and with no experience with modern technology can easily pick up and leave whenever they want.)

And I certainly did not say that polygamy alone causes much harm. OK, now you're saying that polygamy alone doesn't cause *much* harm. Please explain: what harm EXACTLY does polygamy alone cause?

Seeing as how polygamy has been a crime in concept only for the last half century, I doubt very much that legalizing it now would "cause serious social problems" any greater than already exist in those AZ/UT/ID polygamist communities.
<much skippage>
But as I just said, social pressures associated with polygamous communities lead to undesirable social pressures. If you have to have multiple wives, and the sex ratio is more or less 1:1, the pressure is on to take wives as soon as possible and to force them into dependent and subservient roles.
OK, so are you saying that legalizing polygamy in our current culture will cause an outbreak of bizarre religious communities? Or that the average American Joe & Jane will suddenly join polygamous cults? Or that the average American Joe will suddenly start marrying a dozen wives, and that he'll find a dozen average American Janes that will go along with that? Or what?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Has that fact stopped any of the harmful practices in the communities of which you speak?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gee, maybe if they enforced the law . . .
Yeah, I absolutely agree. If they would enforce the laws against the actual harmful and illegal practices of CHILD ABUSE, SPOUSAL ABUSE, UNDERAGE MARRIAGES, ET CETERA AND SO ON, perhaps they could actually solve those problems. In the meantime, they can ignore those problems and run around bitching about the evils of polygamy.

I want to decrease the harm in those communities by enforcing the law. See above.


Not unless the widespread practice of polygamy is causing the kind of social problems I described on the last page. If that is happening, then it makes sense to attack the practice that's causing the problem. You can't dictate religious belief, but you can criminalize behavior without running afoul of the 1st Amendment.
But you have yet to show me, anywhere, that the practice of polygamy is CAUSING these problems - problems that are, in and of themselves, prosecutable. You have yet to show me anywhere that abusive polygamy would become widespread if it were not illegal. You are arguing in circles. "These communities have problems caused by polygamy." "How so?" "Well, they are polygamous and they have these problems, so obviously polygamy is the cause."

Look, poly sure as hell isn't accepted around here. I see girls getting married when they're barely legal and I see many girls with multiple kids before they reach majority - generally due to societal pressure from religions that state that wife & mother is their only destiny. I see lots of girls supporting kids via welfare because their husbands dumped them for a new chick; I see many guys with multiple kids from multiple women - all supported via welfare. I see women being abused by their husbands - and returned to those husbands by their natal families when they try to escape because their religion says that such abuse is OK. This is in mainstream, standard (local) Christianity and mainstream, standard MONOGAMOUS relationships, marriages and divorces. These are widespread, mainstream situations. How can you say that these problems are caused by polygamy, when they exist in monogamous situations?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If yes, then don't you agree that all religious individuals, even those who have harmed no one, should be prevented from practicing their religion because, after all, some religions cause harm and suffering to their adherents?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Woo hoo! Kick the crap outta that strawman!
Sorry, an analogy, not a strawman, albeit evidently poorly phrased. Stick with me and I'll try it again. (Forget the 1stA for a moment - I'm talking concepts here, not actual law.)

Your position: In some small communities, polygamy causes abuse and oppression of certain members of said communities. Therefore, polygamy everywhere should be illegal in order to reduce harm in those specific communities.

My parallel position: In some small communities, religion causes abuse and oppression of certain members of said communities. Therefore, by *your* logic, similar religions everywhere should be illegal in order to reduce harm in those specific communities.


Hey, I don't care who you marry. Evidently you do, as your entire position here has been that I should NOT be able to marry whom I choose because some wacko nutjobs a thousand miles away are abusive jerks. See, I can't marry whom I choose. Nor can I legally cohabitate with them, have sex with them, or (in my state, ain't it quaint) give the appearance of having a marital-type relationship.

Your position, as best I can understand it, is that because 10% of polygamists in this country are abusive, despite the fact that such abuse is not inherent in nor a result of polygamy and despite the fact that those abusive individuals are prosecutable on other charges, that the other 90% of us should be criminalized. And you call that reasonable? Sorry, but I don't.


Hamlet - yah, got you. Like I said - those statutes suck. Period.

dogsbody - I don't see no hat. You get it.

[minty green]

Originally posted by redtail23
You said "That is some weird, messed-up shit, like Jonestown just before the kool-aid. It is that way as a direct result of the community-wide practice of polygamy which really does (in those situations) foster an incredibly harmful system of patricarchy. " (emphasis mine); I paraphrased that to "polygamy, in and of itself without those other cultural factors, causes or fosters such harm".Nice emphasis. Love the way you ignored the "in those situations" language. Don't you think that's a rather important qualifier?
You said "But when it's tolerated to such an extent that it becomes the basis of a modern-day community, serious social problems often result."; I paraphrased that to "legalizing polygamy will cause serious social problems".And there's no difference between "often result" and "will result"? Sheesh.

redtail, you seem bound and determined to back me into an absolutist position to which I do not subscribe. If you want to argue with me, please argue with my actual position, not the caricature of it you keep setting up.

My understanding of your position is that societal intolerance (i.e., criminalization) of polygamy is justified because polygamy causes problems severe and widespread enough to warrant the illegal status - polygamy, not the culture in which it is practiced, not the religious beliefs under which it is practiced, but polygamy alone. Can you clarify for me?My position is that if polygamy is widely practiced or even required within a particular community, the simple demographic pressure of fighting a 1:1 sex ratio will cause serious and undesirable social problems. Religious beliefs contribute to this situation because it is religion that most frequently creates such communities and generally excudes outsiders from the pool of potential wives. Isolated instances of multiple-spouse relationships do not present these problems because they do not significantly skew the 1:1 gender ratio within a community.

I'll get to the rest of your post after I've had some coffee.

[vanilla]

What IS the male to female ratio in the world?
The U.S.?
What if polygamy was legal and lots of men chose it.
Wouldn't there be quite a dearth of women?

[lee]

I'm a happily married woman. Why shouldn't I be able to have a second spouse if my hubby and the new spouse agree?

There are men who pay child support to support children they have had with multiple women, none of whom they have married. Can it be that much worse for them to actually marry all of the mother's of their children?


I can't believe that some of you seem to be arguing that it is bad because it means those women would not be sexually available!

[lee]

mothers of their children.

[RoboDude]

What if polygamy was legal and lots of men chose it.
Wouldn't there be quite a dearth of women?
If a woman would rather marry someone who already has a wife than you, that's her right. If that means you suddenly have trouble finding a mate, tough titties. Women are human beings, not resources.

[minty green]

Originally posted by redtail23
There are problems peculiar to communities which operate under "a mandate from god" (although certainly not limited to them). Those problems often include oppression of women and girls, sometimes to the extent of spousal abuse, child marriage, and so on. Those problems often become standard practice in those communities. Some of those communities also practice polygamy, and BECAUSE THEY HAVE ABUSIVE, OPPRESSIVE TRADITIONS, continue those abusive, oppressive traditions within polygamous marriages. You are reversing the cause and effect.No, I don't think so. Take away the polygamy from the Mormons (as happened with Utah statehood) and you have a pretty straightforward group of people, with no more (or even less) of the usual incidences of child marriage, spousal abuse, etc. Put the polygamy back into Mormonism and you have Tom Green and his buddies marrying 13-year-old girls.

Why? Because if you are expected to take multiple wives, and so is every other male in your community, you have to outcompete every other male for those brides. God does not suddenly provide your community with a 3:1 female-to-male gender ratio. And the most effective way of outcompeting everyone else for a bride is to beat everyone else to her. "Boy, that sure is a pretty Barbie doll. Wanna get married?"

Take away the option of polygamy from a religious group with a dim view of women and what do you have? Well it ain't paradise, but at least the girls are allowed to grow up without becoming mired in the system with a husband and three children by the age of sixteen. (No, the Amish tend to wait till adulthood to marry - but you tell me that an average Amish child with an 8th grade education, which is usually all they're allowed, and with no experience with modern technology can easily pick up and leave whenever they want.)A hell of a lot more easily than one of Tom Green's child brides. My argument isn't about creating the perfect situation. It's about improving the current prospects of the thousands of children who grow up in the fundamentalist polygamist communities of the American West.

OK, so are you saying that legalizing polygamy in our current culture will cause an outbreak of bizarre religious communities? Or that the average American Joe & Jane will suddenly join polygamous cults? Or that the average American Joe will suddenly start marrying a dozen wives, and that he'll find a dozen average American Janes that will go along with that? Or what?Please show me where I have stated any such thing. It's ridiculous, as you well know. Additionally, that's the second time you've tried to deflect the discussion by stating that things won't get any worse if we were to legalize polygamy. So what? I want to make things better in those communities, not just maintain the destructive status quo.


Yeah, I absolutely agree. If they would enforce the laws against the actual harmful and illegal practices of CHILD ABUSE, SPOUSAL ABUSE, UNDERAGE MARRIAGES, ET CETERA AND SO ON, perhaps they could actually solve those problems. In the meantime, they can ignore those problems and run around bitching about the evils of polygamy.Hard to enforce those laws when the victims aren't complaining about it. But by selectively and appropriately enforcing the laws against polygamy, you prevent those crimes from happening in the first place. Neat, huh?

But you have yet to show me, anywhere, that the practice of polygamy is CAUSING these problems - problems that are, in and of themselves, prosecutable.I'm not an anthropologist, and I have no demographic or statistical evidence to offer. Of course, neither do you. But I can point to those AZ/UT/ID polygamist communities as evidence that something is seriously messed up. Do you disagree?

You have yet to show me anywhere that abusive polygamy would become widespread if it were not illegal.Third time here. Can you really not see that "no worse" is not as good as "better"?

You are arguing in circles. "These communities have problems caused by polygamy." "How so?" "Well, they are polygamous and they have these problems, so obviously polygamy is the cause."I think I've explained the demographic pressures of community-wide polygamy quite adequately. If you don't want to take issue with that analysis . . . <shrug>

How can you say that these problems are caused by polygamy, when they exist in monogamous situations?"How can you say that smoking causes lung cancer, when lung cancer also develops in people who don't smoke?" I'm sure you can see the fallacy you're falling into here.

Your position: In some small communities, polygamy causes abuse and oppression of certain members of said communities. Therefore, polygamy everywhere should be illegal in order to reduce harm in those specific communities.Actually, the clear majority of polygamy in America exists in precisely those communities. This page (http://www.polygamy.org/tap.pl?bid=faq) says it's upwards of 100,000 people in Utah. I seriously doubt you will find elsewhere in America even half that number of people who people who have "purported to marry" (the actus reus for bigamy) more than one person at a time.

[Analogous] position: In some small communities, religion causes abuse and oppression of certain members of said communities. Therefore, by *your* logic, similar religions everywhere should be illegal in order to reduce harm in those specific communities.Nope. I don't believe in thought crimes. Even apart from the First Amendment, I think anybody is free to believe any damn fool thing they want. You are not necessarily free, however, to act in accordance with those damn fool beliefs. I therefore think you are wrong to extend an argument that certain actions should be illegal to one that certain beliefs should be illegal.

Evidently you do [care who I marry], as your entire position here has been that I should NOT be able to marry whom I choose because some wacko nutjobs a thousand miles away are abusive jerks. See, I can't marry whom I choose.Correct. Note that I'm not arguing you shouldn't be able to shack up with whoever the heck you want, in whatever numbers. But you only get one actual spouse. Choose well, young Jedi.Nor can I legally cohabitate with them, have sex with them, or (in my state, ain't it quaint) give the appearance of having a marital-type relationship.Bummer. But I'm arguing about the crime of bigamy, not those laws, which in fact I do not support.

[KellyM]

Originally posted by vanilla
What IS the male to female ratio in the world?
The U.S.?
What if polygamy was legal and lots of men chose it.
Wouldn't there be quite a dearth of women?
Women outnumber men in virtually every society throughout history. At times, the ratio has been extreme (e.g. post-WWI France). In most societies today, the difference is about 1% (50.5 women to 49.5 men). Forced monogamy generally assures that there is a surplus pool of unpaired women out there. (Perhaps the advocates of forced monogamy don't want to have to worry about losing this social feature.)

In any case, why does this matter? Are you suggesting that men have an inherent "right to mate"? And if a man can have multiple wives, why can't a woman have multiple husbands?

[minty green]

Originally posted by lee
I can't believe that some of you seem to be arguing that it is bad because it means those women would not be sexually available!Since I'm the only one in here arguing that bigamy should be a crime, I assume "some of you" refers to me. Pray tell, where have I stated any such thing?

[Irishman]

minty green, you keep referring to the 1:1 gender ratio and how polygamy will drive the cycle of younger and younger wife taking. You seem to be taking the assumption that the practice will be exclusively men taking multiple wives. Or perhaps you're taking a less extremist position that it will be predominantly more that way than polyandries and mixed groups?

minty green said:
I disagree vehemently with that judgment that the condemnation of polygamy is merely reflexive and unthinking. Have you ever been to one of those polygamous communities in ID/UT/AZ? That is some weird, messed-up shit, like Jonestown just before the kool-aid. It is that way as a direct result of the community-wide practice of polygamy, which really does (in those situations) foster an incredibly harmful system of patricarchy. Those poor kids--especially the girls--never have a chance.

I think it's safe to say that isolated instances of multiple-partner marriages aren't going to do any real harm to the social fabric. But when it's tolerated to such an extent that it becomes the basis of a modern-day community, serious social problems often result.

You seem to be saying that it is polygamy that is making the communities full of messed up shit, not that they are a strict religious community with a strong patriarchal hierarchy. In other words, the polygamy itself is the cause of the problems, not the community mindset about status and roles of the genders. I'm not trying to back you into an extremist position you don't advocate, but that is the way that statement reads to me. And apparently to redtail23.

If you have to have multiple wives, and the sex ratio is more or less 1:1, the pressure is on to take wives as soon as possible and to force them into dependent and subservient roles.

Here I think is where some of the breakdown in communication is occurring. You are referring to a society driven to form male dominated multiple wife families, specifically for the purpose of having children. I think that redtail23 agrees with you this is not a good thing. However, you seem to be saying that making polygamy illegal would solve all the problems, whereas redtail23 is pointing out that the polygamy in these communities is the effect of the mindset - they advocate strong patriarchy and dominating women and large families for making babies, ergo polygyny is the best method to achieve that goal. An alternative solution is instead of keeping polygamy illegal, which prevents such things as consenting adult multiple partner families, why not raise the legal age of marriage by parental consent? That directly addresses the problems you are so concerned about, i.e. teenage girls getting forced into marriagesl, and it avoids the religious entanglement argument.

...there are problems peculiar to polygamy when it is manifests itself as a mandate from god and becomes standard practice within a community.

And is that a problem with polygamy being a standard practice within a community or a problem of mandates from god? I think redtail23 and I see it as the latter, not the former.

Notice that keeping polygamy illegal does nothing to prevent oppressing the girls in those communities by raising them to expect to become a baby factory. It does nothing to alleviate the lack of education, nor does it prevent the "man is everything woman is subservient" mindset. It doesn't even directly attack the problem of foisting your daughters off on your close relatives. I guess it does keep them from marrying their wives' sisters, inasmuch as it keeps them from marrying anyone else, but if they're consenting adults, then what's the objection there? Hell, if consenting adults are involved, I see no objection to marrying a current or previous wife's daughter (so long as she isn't your own - and there are complications if you served as a step-parent). Of course Woody Allen got the publicity of that encounter.

redtail23 said:
Can you show any reason why decriminalizing polygamy would increase harm in those communities?

minty green replied:
Screw that. I want to decrease the harm in those communities by enforcing the law.

Again, here I see you talking past each other. Redtail23 is talking about the ramifications of decriminalizing polygamy, and the effects of that one change. He's recognizing that bad things happen, and trying to compare if allowing polygamy but enforcing laws against violence and oppression is better than outlawing polygamy and enforcing that, but ignoring monogamous situations that are every bit as violent and belittling to women. You seem to be emphasizing a focus on these particular groups and trying to use existing laws to do what can be done to make things better rather than fix the laws to make enforcing them on the situation easier and more rational.

But he also appears to be arguing that because polygamy/-gyny/-whatever doesn't necessarily cause the problems associated with it in communities where it is religiously mandated, it is unreasonable to criminalize it. I disagree. I believe that because polygamy does have undesirable social effects in those AZ/UT/ID communities where it is most often practiced, it is quite reasonable for the state to make it illegal and to enforce the law when appropriate.

First, does the government have the right to make and enforce laws because of undesirable social effects from behaviors? I don't think anyone is arguing it does not.

Second, does polygamy cause undesirable social effects in those communities? This is where the disagreement lies. You are arguing that the polygamy is the cause of the social problems, whereas redtail23 is arguing that polygamy and how it is structured in these communities is an effect of the larger social problem in these communities. The real problem is the domineering attitude. But then that brings another question, how do we make that illegal?

retail23 said:
Yeah, I absolutely agree. If they would enforce the laws against the actual harmful and illegal practices of CHILD ABUSE, SPOUSAL ABUSE, UNDERAGE MARRIAGES, ET CETERA AND SO ON, perhaps they could actually solve those problems. In the meantime, they can ignore those problems and run around bitching about the evils of polygamy.

minty green said:
Hard to enforce those laws when the victims aren't complaining about it. But by selectively and appropriately enforcing the laws against polygamy, you prevent those crimes from happening in the first place. Neat, huh?

How much harder is it to enforce laws (that we could institute) against underage marriage than against polygamy? If the law was no marriage under 18 period, then they couldn't marry them legally, and any case of "common law marriage" involving girls under 18 would be statutory rape. Wouldn't that stand out just as easily as polygamy, and be just as enforceable?

Which brings up another point - the whole marriage with parental consent issue. We make the girl's age of consent to marry what, 18? But then allow them to marry younger with parental consent down to what, 14? Why? To protect them in the case they got knocked up, the boy could make "an honest woman" of them so to speak? Isn't that concept completely outdated? Which makes more sense in our current society, trying to get 18 year old boys to marry their 16 year old girlfriends they've been dating for 2 months and knocked up, or realizing they made a mistake lets not complicate it with another one? Nowadays being an illegitimate child is no stigma at all, and having a child out of wedlock is barely one. Trying to get teenagers to marry and form a real family is practically hopeless, when they're going to require parental assistance anyway. Why expect a monogomous marriage to last on that basis? Sorry, long hijack best suited to another thread. My point is that the real issue needing reevaluation is the age of consent to marriage and the parental consent clause, in conjunction with the polygamy laws.

redtail23 said:
You have yet to show me anywhere that abusive polygamy would become widespread if it were not illegal.

minty green said:
Third time here. Can you really not see that "no worse" is not as good as "better"?

Okay, let's talk about making it better. Notice that these people are already circumventing the law. Look at the loophole juggling that Tom Green is trying to use to protect himself. He legally divorces his other wives and only remains legally married to the youngest. Thus he tries to protect himself from legal bigamy/polygamy charges because "Hey, we're not legally married." That's why the courts have to resort to the common law marriage circumvention to get him on that. This is a common practice, so many are trying to hide it de facto. What's to keep them from continuing to hide behind loopholes and facades and still marry 14 year old daughters of their first wives or brothers? Enforcing polygamy laws makes it harder to hide, but still doesn't get to the heart of your concern - the girls getting forced into marriages at a young age and brought up in an oppressive lifestyle. Whereas if we attack the legal marriage age laws and enforce them, then they can't use that loophole, and the social problem you are most adamant about is lessened, improving the situation for those girls.


Buck Nekked said:
If Tom Green were a Utah Jazz basketball player that had simply fathered children with these women, rather than having married them, this topic thread would have died within a couple of days.

Why is Tom Green a criminal while Karl Malone is a celebrity in the state of Utah?

minty green replied:
Buck: It's a little thing called "marriage." Try to keep up. ;)

I think Buck did follow. He's using sarcasm and irony to point out the injustice of the situation. Karl Malone is monopolizing the affections of multiple women and keeping them from other men who then are left without, but nobody is penalizing him for it. Whereas Tom Green is attempting to fulfill his obligations and marrying the women he knocks up, and he goes to jail. (Yes, I certainly twisted perception there.) The difference is Karl Malone is black. (There, how's that for a hijack that will start a riot? ;) And no, I'm not serious, so no need to argue.)


retail23 said:
[Analogous] position: In some small communities, religion causes abuse and oppression of certain members of said communities. Therefore, by *your* logic, similar religions everywhere should be illegal in order to reduce harm in those specific communities.

minty green:
Nope. I don't believe in thought crimes. Even apart from the First Amendment, I think anybody is free to believe any damn fool thing they want. You are not necessarily free, however, to act in accordance with those damn fool beliefs. I therefore think you are wrong to extend an argument that certain actions should be illegal to one that certain beliefs should be illegal.

You are correct, it is a faulty analogy if you look at it that way. I don't think redtail23 was trying to extend the argument against beliefs, but looking for a parallel.

minty green quoting retail23 and responding:
Evidently you do [care who I marry], as your entire position here has been that I should NOT be able to marry whom I choose because some wacko nutjobs a thousand miles away are abusive jerks. See, I can't marry whom I choose.

Correct. Note that I'm not arguing you shouldn't be able to shack up with whoever the heck you want, in whatever numbers. But you only get one actual spouse. Choose well, young Jedi.

Nor can I legally cohabitate with them, have sex with them, or (in my state, ain't it quaint) give the appearance of having a marital-type relationship.

Bummer. But I'm arguing about the crime of bigamy, not those laws, which in fact I do not support.

I see a strong parallel with gay marriages here. Let me explain in hopes the analogy won't be misconstrued. Gay marriages is a case where two people decide they want to commit to each other, live together and build a relationship, and get all the social benefits of being recognized as being in a committed relationship. But the government says "No you can't", because they happen to be the same sex instead of 1 male, 1 female. And they are subject to arrest if they are caught (sodomy). Similarly, redtail23 is talking about a case where a group of people decide they want to commit to each other, live together and build a relationship, and get all the social benefits of being recognized as being in a committed relationship, but the government says "No you can't", because they happen to be more than 2 people, instead of 1 male, 1 female. And they can be arrested if they are caught (bigamy statutes).

minty green posted:
Originally posted by lee
I can't believe that some of you seem to be arguing that it is bad because it means those women would not be sexually available!

Since I'm the only one in here arguing that bigamy should be a crime, I assume "some of you" refers to me. Pray tell, where have I stated any such thing?

I think maybe these statements gave that impression:
But as I just said, social pressures associated with polygamous communities lead to undesirable social pressures. If you have to have multiple wives, and the sex ratio is more or less 1:1, the pressure is on to take wives as soon as possible and to force them into dependent and subservient roles.

My position is that if polygamy is widely practiced or even required within a particular community, the simple demographic pressure of fighting a 1:1 sex ratio will cause serious and undesirable social problems. Religious beliefs contribute to this situation because it is religion that most frequently creates such communities and generally excudes outsiders from the pool of potential wives. Isolated instances of multiple-spouse relationships do not present these problems because they do not significantly skew the 1:1 gender ratio within a community.

I can see how the argument about the 1:1 ratio of genders could lead to that interpretation.

And then vanilla said this:
What IS the male to female ratio in the world?
The U.S.? What if polygamy was legal and lots of men chose it.
Wouldn't there be quite a dearth of women?

That statement definitely makest that assertion, though it wasn't made by you.

There was also a comment made in one of the other threads by someone (and I'm not going to look it up right now) about the young males having to compete because all the older men were marrying all the young girls, and that murder was not uncommon. I don't recall who made the comment, and it probably wasn't you.

Gad, way too much time on this response.

[minty green]

I don't have much time to respond to your post, Irishman, since I need to get packed for Honduras. Hell, I don't even have time to read your whole post. ;)

Just let me say that I certainly acknowledge that the religious mindset is a cause of the problems in those communities on which I'm focusing. But you can't make mindsets illegal. You can, however, make actions illegal, and the government does it all the time, quite justifiably. In this case, I believe that the actual harm caused by polygamy as it is most often practiced in the American West is more than sufficient to justify criminal sanctions for its practice.

[KellyM]

I find it eerily curious that minty green sounds a hell of a lot like Brian Bunnyhurt and Danielinthewolvesden in the arguments they have collectively made against polygamy. I read minty's next-to-last post and had to check to make sure that Brian hadn't popped up in this thread without warning, they read so much alike.

I must go on record with disagreeing vehemently with minty with the idea that we should illegalize something simply because it has some correlation with something else that we don't like and can't seem to punish directly. If this was a legitimate basis for making law, we ought to illegalize all sorts of things: guns, cars, television, hot dogs, beer, and even men. This argument is bankrupt at the door and cannot be used to sustain a moral justification for making polygamy illegal.

[minty green]

Slander! Slander, I say!

[minty green]

Of course, I am a lawyer. So for the sake of accuracy, that should be "Libel!"

:P

[SisterCoyote]

Originally posted by minty green
In this case, I believe that the actual harm caused by polygamy as it is most often practiced in the American West is more than sufficient to justify criminal sanctions for its practice.

Honduras? How dare you go to Honduras in the middle of a debate. Sheesh.

However, I think it is eminently debatable about how polygamy is most often practiced in the American West, since we don't (usually) hear about cases like redtail's, because they're busy living below the radar of those who might wish to persecute them, and also busy being productive members of society and not committing welfare fraud/child abuse to live their beliefs.

It's not all that different from those of us who cringe at the word "Christian" because of run-ins with fanatics calling themselves by that name, rather than automatically thinking of rational Christians like Poly or Jodi or Tris...see?

But, I imagine I'm too late with this. Honduras, sheesh. Vacation...sigh. ;)

[SuaSponte]

Originally posted by minty green
Yeah, I absolutely agree. If they would enforce the laws against the actual harmful and illegal practices of CHILD ABUSE, SPOUSAL ABUSE, UNDERAGE MARRIAGES, ET CETERA AND SO ON, perhaps they could actually solve those problems. In the meantime, they can ignore those problems and run around bitching about the evils of polygamy.Hard to enforce those laws when the victims aren't complaining about it. But by selectively and appropriately enforcing the laws against polygamy, you prevent those crimes from happening in the first place. Neat, huh?

minty, I love ya like a brother (not hyperbole - I'm not that close to my brothers :D ), but this is ridiculous. Are you honestly arguing "but-for" causation? There are scores of activities that in themselves are harmless, but carry a significant risk of social harm. The solution is not to ban the socially harmless conduct, but instead act against the harms that thereafter arise.

KellyM - minty is off-base, but the comparison to Brian Bunnyhurt is WAAAAAAY off-base. minty may have drawn the wrong conclusions, but the bases for his conclusion do not exist in a Bunnyhurtian never-never land.

Sua

[KellyM]

Originally posted by minty green
Of course, I am a lawyer.
Oh, dear. I suppose I really should apologize, then. Brian, I'm sorry I compared you to a lawyer. I understand how that could be construed as defamatory. Please accept my apologies.

d&r :D

[KellyM]

KellyM[/b] - minty is off-base, but the comparison to Brian Bunnyhurt is WAAAAAAY off-base. minty may have drawn the wrong conclusions, but the bases for his conclusion do not exist in a Bunnyhurtian never-never land.

I dunno about that. Read some of Brian's and especially Daniel's comments in the previous thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=59696). There is a striking similarity in the arguments offered by Brian and Daniel for criminalizing polygamy and those offered by minty, including the hyperbolic suggestion that the only way to prevent child and spousal abuse in Utah is to criminalize polygamy. It's not my fault that minty seems to be arguing the same points the same way as two of the board's most decorated lunatics....

[Buck Nekked]

Originally posted by Irishman
Buck Nekked said:
[quote]If Tom Green were a Utah Jazz basketball player that had simply fathered children with these women, rather than having married them, this topic thread would have died within a couple of days.

Why is Tom Green a criminal while Karl Malone is a celebrity in the state of Utah?

minty green replied:
Buck: It's a little thing called "marriage." Try to keep up. ;)

Irishman responded:
I think Buck did follow. He's using sarcasm and irony to point out the injustice of the situation. Karl Malone is monopolizing the affections of multiple women and keeping them from other men who then are left without, but nobody is penalizing him for it. Whereas Tom Green is attempting to fulfill his obligations and marrying the women he knocks up, and he goes to jail. (Yes, I certainly twisted perception there.) The difference is Karl Malone is black. (There, how's that for a hijack that will start a riot? ;) And no, I'm not serious, so no need to argue.)

Irishman, you are correct in your assumption that I am up to speed. However, I think Minty knew that already. I took his response as a good-natured jab. I thought that my response was very much on topic with the OP, even if it was four months ago.

Karl Malone's race is indeed different from that of Tom Green, but more importantly, so are his religion and state of residency, as well as the respective states of residency of his concubines. And, as Minty so subtly pointed out, most importantly, so is his marital status. However, the familial lifestyles of these two men are virtually identical. Shouldn't the law punish criminal activity with an even hand? I was somehow under the impression that justice was blind. Why does Tom Green's compliance with the law (marriage) make him a criminal, while Karl Malone is not? It's a fair question, and I stand by it. And, if this is off topic, my apologies to the OP.

[Buck Nekked]

I should clarify that "familial lifestyles" does not imply that Karl Malone is banging a thirteen year old girl. Obviously, that's a different topic altogether.

[vanilla]

Of course men have a right to mate.
Everyone should have a man or woman to choose from.
I was just wondering if the ratio were skewed one way or the other, what would happen?
If there were more men, maybe women would take multiple husbands.
No offense was meant or reading into it. Just a curious question.
Robodude: I do not want a wife.;)

[Irishman]

minty green said:
Just let me say that I certainly acknowledge that the religious mindset is a cause of the problems in those communities on which I'm focusing. But you can't make mindsets illegal. You can, however, make actions illegal, and the government does it all the time, quite justifiably. In this case, I believe that the actual harm caused by polygamy as it is most often practiced in the American West is more than sufficient to justify criminal sanctions for its practice.

Sure, take your time, go to Honduras, come back and blast my post. ;)

True, can't make mindsets illegal. Certainly you can make actions illegal even if they are religiously motivated actions, as long as the reason is not to single out that religion and the enforcement is evenly spread. The question becomes which actions should you make illegal and why. But I'm not convinced that polygamy is the action that is hurtful, even as practiced by this sect. The acts that are hurtful should be illegal - underage marriage, cheating welfare, physical and psychological abuse, sexual assault, incest, etc should be enforced and even strengthened in some cases, but I still don't see how enforcing polygamy eliminates those. It seems like saying we should outlaw pets because some people abuse their pets or let them run rampant and create an overabundance of strays. Or we should make cars illegal and force everyone to use public transportation because of reckless driving.

Buck Nekked, actually I think that was arguing against someone else's comments in another thread, rather than minty's. I followed your comment as an on topic response and totally valid.

[emarkp]

Originally posted by KellyM
I find it eerily curious that minty green sounds a hell of a lot like Brian Bunnyhurt...
Nah, minty is far to coherent and hasn't thrown non-sequitur attacks at the LDS church yet, so they must be different.

Although, come to think of it, has anyone seen both of them in the same room at the same time? :)

[Shirley Ujest]

I've breezed through most of this thread and if these questions have come up already, I apologize.

1.How in the heck does a polygamist fill out his tax forms?
With 5 fives and 29 kids, it just boggles my mind.

2. Has anyone else noticed in the picture of this Tom Green ( I keep thinking of Drew Barrymore's Tom Green) that these guys are usually put-a-bag-over-his-face-holy-moley
-what-what-did-your-mama-sleep-wit'-to-beegat-somethin'-like-you- kind of fugly?

3.What if a polgyamist from some other country where it is legal, moves to the US. Is his marriages legal or illegal? If so, naturally, how are the taxes handled and (this is even a worse nightmare) health insurance.

[Determinist]

OK i haven’t read the whole thread but ill still give my two cents...

It was the Reynolds v U.S. (1879) Supreme Court case that upheld the original Utah territorial law prohibiting polygamy (even for religious reasons). Look up the case sometime and read the opinion of the court. The reasoning is actually pretty absurd--it wouldn't hold up today. It's pretty safe to say that if that same case were before the Supreme Court today, they would rule in favor of the polygamists on religious freedom grounds.

Before 1879 Polygamy was one of the most fundamental and essential beliefs of Mormonism. After the decision, Mormons thought that the end of the world was near and that there was literally going to be an apocalyptic war between God and U.S. Government (I'm still trying to picture that but having trouble). Eventually, after the government sent non-mormon federal judges to preside over polygamy cases, the LDS church saw that it could not continue to resist and instead took a rigid stand against polygamy and has even helped law enforcement to turn polygamists in. But there are all sorts of small Mormon fundamentalist sects that still practice it. However, in the last few decades there have been relatively few polygamy cases compared to the number of people who are actually practicing it. This might be because if it is enforced to strongly it will eventually be appealed to the Supreme court and possibly overturned. It would be interesting though to see if the Mormon Church changed their position on polygamy if the laws against it were someday struck down as unconstitutional.

I say 'who cares?' If the marriages are consensual let them do whatever they want. Hell, who would want more than one wife anyway? I love my wife, but I don't think I could handle two or three.

[KellyM]

Originally posted by Shirley Ujest
3.What if a polgyamist from some other country where it is legal, moves to the US. Is his marriages legal or illegal? If so, naturally, how are the taxes handled and (this is even a worse nightmare) health insurance.
He must disavow all but one of his wives before he can be granted an entry visa. Federal law prohibits any person from entering the country with the intent of practicing polygamy. This even applies to visitor's visas, IIRC.

[Shirley Ujest]

I am not usually one for details or deep thought, so here is my contribution.

Ummmm, wouldn't this be infringing on his personal rights and the right worship as he choses. Honestly, wouldn't this be something right up the ACLU's ally?

[KellyM]

Originally posted by Shirley Ujest
Ummmm, wouldn't this be infringing on his personal rights and the right worship as he choses. Honestly, wouldn't this be something right up the ACLU's ally?
You'd think so, but it doesn't. The Supreme Court concluded, a little over a century ago, that polygamy inevitably leads to despotism and is contrary to democracy, so the government can ban it if it wants to. See previous discussion in this thread.