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.
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.
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.
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?
<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:
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?
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.)
OK, now you’re saying that polygamy alone doesn’t cause much harm. Please explain: what harm EXACTLY does polygamy alone cause?
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?
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.
See above.
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?
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.
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.
Nice emphasis. Love the way you ignored the “in those situations” language. Don’t you think that’s a rather important qualifier?
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 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.
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?
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
Third time here. Can you really not see that “no worse” is not as good as “better”?
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 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.
Actually, the clear majority of polygamy in America exists in precisely those communities. This page 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.
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.
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.
Bummer. But I’m arguing about the crime of bigamy, not those laws, which in fact I do not support.
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?
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?
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:
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.
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.
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:
minty green replied:
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.
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:
minty green said:
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:
minty green said:
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:
minty green replied:
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:
minty green:
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:
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:
I think maybe these statements gave that impression:
I can see how the argument about the 1:1 ratio of genders could lead to that interpretation.
And then vanilla said this:
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.
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.
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.
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.
