Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Marriage Without Benefits
Some polygamists are glad the U.S. Supreme Court this week declined to hear fundamentalist Mormon Rodney Holm's challenge of his bigamy conviction as a violation of his religious freedom. Holm, who married Ruth Stubbs, his legal wife's 16-year-old sister, in a religious ceremony, is something of an embarassment to polygamists who believe in plural marriage only among consenting adults. An essay at Pro-Polygamy.com notes an interesting wrinkle in the case: In Utah a girl may marry at 16 with parental consent, which Ruth had, and marriage makes sex with her husband perfectly legal, even if he is considerably older. Yet Holm was convicted of "unlawful sexual conduct with a minor" in addition to bigamy. Why? Because he never really married Ruth. If so, how could he be convicted of bigamy? State law makes you guilty of bigamy if you "purport to marry" a second wife. Holm argued that he did not "purport to marry" in a legal sense because everyone involved understood that the marriage would not be recognized by the state. But in upholding Holm's convictions, the Utah Supreme Court ruled that marry in this context includes a religious union with no legal standing.
|3.1.07 @ 1:21PM|#
Utah Supreme Court ruled that marry in this context includes
a religious union with no legal standing.
Might this lead to interesting rulings with respect to gay
marriage?
Larry A|3.1.07 @ 1:21PM|#
In Utah a girl may marry at 16 with parental consent, which
Ruth had, and marriage makes sex with her husband perfectly legal,
even if he is considerably older. Yet Holm was convicted of
"unlawful sexual conduct with a minor" in addition to bigamy. Why?
Because he never really married Ruth. If so, how could he be
convicted of bigamy? State law makes you guilty of bigamy if you
"purport to marry" a second wife. Holm argued that he did not
"purport to marry" in a legal sense because everyone involved
understood that the marriage would not be recognized by the state.
But in upholding Holm's convictions, the Utah Supreme Court ruled
that marry in this context includes a religious union with
no legal standing.
My head hurts.
Unfortunately this seems to be part of a "convict them all, let God
sort them out" trend in U.S. courts.
Guy Montag|3.1.07 @ 1:22PM|#
See? I keep telling you goofballs that telling the government
that you are married is nothing but bad news!
Now, if the government would stop issuing these "who you can do"
licenses we would all be much better off.
How about enforcing the written wills of people rather than tossing
their belongings ro whomever has some other piece of paper? How
about stop telling people who they are married to if they don't
want to be married, aka, "common law marriage".
Biggie: stop tossing benefits at any person listed on the
who-you-can-do sheet?
Once you take out these government handout scams (to include
ignoring one's will) then it is a big fat non issue.
|3.1.07 @ 1:30PM|#
Hold it. Being married twice is illegal. The act of going
through the second ceremony and claiming someone as your wife for
the second time is the crime. It is not a continuing crime. It is a
one time crime. It doesn't matter if you divorce the second wife 20
seconds or 20 years after the ceremony, you are just as guilty
either way.
Of course, the second marriage has no legal effect. But, that
doesn't keep you from being guilty of polygamy. When this dirt bag
napped his second child bride, he was committing polygamy. Since
the wedding has no legal effect beyond making him guilty of
polygamy, he is guilty of sexually abusing the girl.
It is not logically inconsistent at all and this dirtbag got what
he deserved. I hope Reason does not become a shill for polygamists
and their child brides.
|3.1.07 @ 1:33PM|#
A Tidal Wave of Polygamists at the Gates of Fortress REASON!
Everybody Panic!!!
That, or else people here are attatched to the whole "rule of law"
thing.
|3.1.07 @ 1:36PM|#
Easy there, John. I think Sullum's just noting the inconsistency of the court ruling that the man was "married enough" to the young girl to be guilty of bigamy, but not "married enough" to use the marriage exemption to the law against sexual conduct with a minor.
|3.1.07 @ 1:43PM|#
Joe I don't think it is an inconsistancy. Polygamous marriages have no legal effect other than to make you guilty of polygamy. There is nothing logically inconsistant in that.
|3.1.07 @ 1:43PM|#
joe's right. It's a silly hair-splitting done in order to support the state's crusade against polygamy. If Mr. Holm were named Ali and he and his brides were Somalis I doubt it would have gone this far.
Antarctic Penguin|3.1.07 @ 1:45PM|#
The law in Antarctica says you are no longer married after one year. So we usually do not have that problem.
|3.1.07 @ 1:48PM|#
If "polygamous marriages" do not produce a marriage, then no
crime is committed. That DOES sound somewhat inconsistent,
John.
Cracker's Boy
|3.1.07 @ 1:48PM|#
If Mr. Holm were named Ali and he and his brides were
Somalis I doubt it would have gone this far.
Somali Ali?
Dan T.|3.1.07 @ 1:49PM|#
Laws can sometimes be hard to sort out, that's why courts are
needed.
Beyond that, I don't see how this case is relevant to society as a
whole either way.
|3.1.07 @ 1:50PM|#
"If "polygamous marriages" do not produce a marriage, then no
crime is committed. That DOES sound somewhat inconsistent,
John."
"Marriage" can have a lot of meanings. It doesn't produce a
marriage in terms of creating a defense against child molestation.
It does create a "marriage" in terms of making you guilty of
"polygamy". It is not hair spliting at all. The law makes these
kinds of distinctions all the time.
|3.1.07 @ 1:52PM|#
Yet another example of why the state should get out of the marriage business. One wife is all I can handle and I can't possibly imagine wanting an additional one, but it's not the state's business.
|3.1.07 @ 1:54PM|#
I don't feel the court was inconsistent. The Utah statute
states, "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."
He is obviously guilty of that. If there is a problem, it is a
problem with the statute, not the ruling.
|3.1.07 @ 1:57PM|#
Wait, wouldn't that make it bigamy to move in with a boyfriend/girlfriend after separating from your spouse but before finalizing a legal divorce?
|3.1.07 @ 1:58PM|#
I don't feel the court was inconsistent. The Utah statute
states, "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."
Which, incidentally, makes anyone who has moved in with a new lover
before the divorce was final a criminal, too.
It's just that the Utah AG doesn't dare enforce it that way. He'd
rather selectively enforce it against members of unpopular
religious groups.
Guy Montag|3.1.07 @ 1:59PM|#
This is making my head hurt and I have not even gone out drinking after the good news at work, much less earning a hangover.
|3.1.07 @ 2:00PM|#
I find that a lot of seemingly inconsistent court rulings can be
cleared up if you start from the legal theory of "We are almighty
and hold dominion over all".
About the only thing you can say about this case is, at least he
isn't gay.
|3.1.07 @ 2:01PM|#
I'd buy that, John, if it was two different "marriages" that we
were talking about. But we're not. It was one ceremony. That one
ceremony produced two totally opposite legal decisions; that he was
married, and that he wasn't.
Still sounds inconsistent.
On the other hand, I've got no dogs in this fight, so... it's hard
to get emotional about it either way. As stated above, one wife at
a time is more than enough. And sex with a 16 year old? Who
wouldn't want that?
CB
|3.1.07 @ 2:06PM|#
Q. What do Mormon polygamists say about the women they recruit
to be their brides?
A. I don't care how you bring 'em, just bring 'em young.
VM|3.1.07 @ 2:08PM|#
"joe | March 1, 2007, 1:59pm | #
Hey, John,
See the news about North Korea?"
you mean that they saw the goings on in Iraq, started throwing
flowers and kisses, and declared they don't want to be ronery any
more?
Sucksess!
|3.1.07 @ 2:15PM|#
I take it back. There's no inconsistency.
It wasn't a real marriage, but a fake one. First, it is illegal to
stage a fake marriage when you are actually married (bigamy).
Second, only a real marriage, not a fake one, is a defense against
a charge of nookie with a teenager.
The court didn't say that he was "married enough" to commit bigamy,
because you don't have to be married at all (to the second wife) to
commit bigamy.
Never mind.
|3.1.07 @ 2:16PM|#
By your logic, being a polygamist would be impossible because it is impossible to be legally married to two people at the same time.
|3.1.07 @ 2:24PM|#
Life sucks when you are a child molesting bigimist. You marriage is good enough to get you thrown in jail for bigamy but not legally sufficient to work a defense to child molestation. My heart bleeds.
|3.1.07 @ 2:27PM|#
"By your logic, being a polygamist would be impossible because
it is impossible to be legally married to two people at the same
time."
In a sense it is. You have to divide the act of being married and
the legel effect of being married. When you take the second wife,
you are committing the act of being married and comitting the
crime. Since however, the state doesn't recognize polygamy, that
second marriage is against state policy and legally void except to
make you guilty of polygamy.
If it were any other way, you couldn't ever prosecute polygamy
because if the second marriage is void, then how are you married
twice and if the second marriage is valid, how is it a crime? The
answer is that the second marriage is invaled and legally will not
be recognized but you will be prosecuted for the act of being
married to two different people and no you don't get to claim
spousal privileges when explaining why you were having sex with a
15 year old.
|3.1.07 @ 2:31PM|#
Look at it this way. If I go off and get a second wife and die,
does that mean she should get a forced share of my estate at the
expense of my first wife? You could make the same argument in that
case. I was married enough to be prosecuted for polygamy had I been
caught, but not married enough for my poor second wife to get a
piece of my estate.
The answer is that in cases of polygamy, the state does not
recognize the marriage legally other than to declare it illegal and
prosecute you for it.
|3.1.07 @ 2:32PM|#
For those that still can't see the consistency, I'll take it in
stages for you.
Stage 1: He is a bigamist because he TRIED to knowingly marry
someone while he was married. That is not my definition, that it
Utah's definition.
Therefore, at this stage he is a bigamist in Utah.
Now, stage 2: This bigamist sleeps with a 16 year old that legally
isn't his wife.
Therefore, at this stage he is an asshole bigamist in Utah.
Clear it up at all?
At this stage he is an asshole bygamist.
|3.1.07 @ 2:35PM|#
So John,
Is your concern that he was 'married' to two women at once or that
his second 'bride' was 16? In other words, do you feel this man
should be convicted because he had two women or that he appears to
be a child molester?
|3.1.07 @ 2:38PM|#
John,
Strike "act of being married," replace with "act of getting
married." You don't actually become married when you perform that
act while already legally married. That's why the marriage defense
isn't available.
Timothy|3.1.07 @ 2:42PM|#
And sex with a 16 year old? Who wouldn't want
that?
Any number of other 16-year-olds.
|3.1.07 @ 2:43PM|#
"Is your concern that he was 'married' to two women at once or
that his second 'bride' was 16? In other words, do you feel this
man should be convicted because he had two women or that he appears
to be a child molester?"
Had both women been over 18, then obviously he is not guilty of
sexual abuse of a minor and couldn't be prosecuted for it. Once he
got the second marriage, he is a bigamist and the state has a right
to prosecute him.
This case is really an issue of the ability to raise a criminal
defense. If for example, he had committed some other crime and were
on trial, would he be able to claim spousal immunity and prevent
his second wife from testifying against him? No way because the
state doesn't recognize second marriages. Same way here, he can't
use the defense of "being married" to the charge of having sex with
a minor. That doesn't mean you were not "married" it just means
that the state will not recognize your marriage for the purpose of
criminal defenses.
grylliade|3.1.07 @ 2:51PM|#
It doesn't produce a marriage in terms of creating a defense against child molestation.
Sorry, but this guy isn't a child molester. Just because the law
lumps in people who have sex with 16-year-olds with those who have
sex with three-yearsolds doesn't mean that both acts are child
molestation. The fact that this guy is a creepy asshole who broke
the law doesn't mean that he's a child molester.
A 16-year-old isn't a child by any reasonable definition. They may
not be old enough (legally or morally) to give meaningful consent,
but there's a big difference between an adult man who is sexually
attracted to a sexually mature person and one who is attracted to
sexually immature children. Men are designed to be
attracted to sexually mature women, and throughout most of human
history a 16-year-old would have been fair game for marriage, often
to a man decades her elder. That doesn't excuse taking advantage of
an emotionally immature girl in this case, but using the loaded
words "child molester" is wrong and, in my view, immoral. Whatever
crimes this man committed (of which only the statutory rape should
be an issue), calling him a child molester only confuses the
issue.
Gray Ghost|3.1.07 @ 2:56PM|#
It's moot because SCOTUS didn't take the case, but isn't the
fact that the A.G. isn't the lack of enforcement in the situation
Captain Holly noted at 1:58, a violation of Equal Protection?
Since Utah has since amended their law (Utah Code section
76-7-101.5, making the conduct as issue a 2nd degee felony, 1-15
years of imprisonment) to cover just this situation, why not just
give the guy the max at sentencing (5 years) and then hammer his
ass when he tries to do it again? And we know he will.
That would seem to be preferable to allowing the State to torture
the plain meaning of and the policy behind, the unlawful sex with a
minor and the bigamy statutes.
Gray Ghost|3.1.07 @ 2:58PM|#
Please strike "the fact that the A.G. isn't" in the first sentence of my previous post. I'm really not that incoherent normally.
|3.1.07 @ 3:00PM|#
The Utah statute states, "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."
Wow, so in Utah you can be a bigamist without ever being married!
If you move in with your boyfriend who is separated but not
divorced--and you know he's separated but not divorced--you are a
bigamist, even if you've never been married yourself. Am I reading
the statute correctly?
And doesn't this mean the 16 year old Rodney Holm married is a
bigamist as well?
|3.1.07 @ 3:00PM|#
It may in fact be that 16 years old is too high and age of
consent. I am not unsympathetic to that argument. The fact is
however, it is below the age of consent in Utah. Granted, child
molester was a bad term to use, but it still is perfectly
legitimate to prosecute this under the law as written.
Gray Ghost,
Good point on equal protection issue.
|3.1.07 @ 3:05PM|#
John,
Way to dodge a question. I don't give a shit what the Utah law
says, there are lots of bullshit laws. I will ask again, is your
concern that he was 'married' to two women, or that one of his
'brides' was under 18?
|3.1.07 @ 3:07PM|#
If the guy had married the 16 year old first, he wouldn't have
as many legal problems. Having sex with a 16 year old wife is
legal. Then if he was to discreetly take the older woman as a
second wife, the authorities would have been less likely to notice,
but at worst he would only have to defend against the bigamy
charge.
I never understood the allure of bigamy. I always thought having
one mother-in-law was enough. But then, I hadn't considered
marrying sisters.
|3.1.07 @ 3:09PM|#
"I will ask again, is your concern that he was 'married' to two
women, or that one of his 'brides' was under 18?"
Both. Polygamy is inherently misogynistic and there is not one
society that allows it that isn't grossly misogynistic. Further,
unless you are going to start mandating that far more girls be born
than boys, by allowing polygamy you are depriving men of the
ability to marry. If the number of men and women are roughly equal,
only a few men have to have multiple wives in order to totally
screw a large number of men out of the chance to marry.
|3.1.07 @ 3:11PM|#
"I never understood the allure of bigamy."
Neither do most adult women. I keep trying to talk my wife into
letting me order some gorgous 20 year old Russian off of the
internet as a second wife, but somehow she never goes for it. I
wonder why? Women's aversion to it is why polygamy is almost always
associated with child brides. Got to get them when they are young
and don't know any better.
|3.1.07 @ 3:27PM|#
Both. Polygamy is inherently misogynistic and there is not one society that allows it that isn't grossly misogynistic.
So, your take is that polygamy is wrong because it is mysogynistic.
What about polyandry then? How is polygamy different than
concurrent girlfriends?
As for the under 18 bit, I have been unable to find any statute
regarding age of sexual consent, but is 16 really that close to
"child"? If so, then I must have been a real early starter for a
"child".
|3.1.07 @ 3:30PM|#
Further, unless you are going to start mandating that far more girls be born than boys, by allowing polygamy you are depriving men of the ability to marry.
...
"I never understood the allure of bigamy."
Neither do most adult women.
So which is it: if polygamy is legal then everybody will be doing
it and we will have a society of restless single men
or women just don't get it and won't participate,
ergo, no problem?
|3.1.07 @ 3:40PM|#
"So which is it: if polygamy is legal then everybody will be
doing it and we will have a society of restless single men or women
just don't get it and won't participate, ergo, no problem?"
Most women won't, but it only takes a few to screw up the numbers.
Further, these freaks inevitably go for child brides. How do you
stop that? Lastly, while it may not take off much in our current
society, who is to say that will always be the case? One large
influx of immigrants who buy into the idea and that changes. In
addition, if you legalize it over time there is nothing to say that
it won't become more accepted and more common and we end up with a
backward mysogonistic society full of unmarried young men.
As far as polyandry, I don't know of one place it is practiced.
Humans just dont' seem to be wired that way. It doesn't seem to be
much of a threat. But of course equal protection concerns means it
has to be banned as well.
|3.1.07 @ 3:41PM|#
"How is polygamy different than concurrent girlfriends?"
Having multiple g/fs isn't a perminant arrangment that requires
said g/fs to get a divorce to date someone else.
|3.1.07 @ 4:08PM|#
Having multiple g/fs isn't a perminant arrangment that
requires said g/fs to get a divorce to date someone
else.
John, there are plenty of men who live with and create children
with several different women -- NBA player Shawn Kemp being the
most notable -- at the same time. Yet no one considers that to be a
problem anymore; I don't see the Utah AG going after any of them
(unless they don't pay their child support).
So how is a polygamist who marries two different women different
than a deadbeat who impregnates two different women? Why isn't the
state going after men who fly from blossom to blossum without any
sense of commitment, instead of throwing men who have committed
in a religious ceremony to support two different women in
jail?
I'm not a cheerleader for polygamy, and I'm glad the LDS Church
washed its hands of it years ago. I'm just disgusted by the way the
law turns a blind eye to irresponsible cohabitation without any
commitment, yet turns its full fury on religious men who
want to stay with their wives.
|3.1.07 @ 4:08PM|#
John,
Polygamy adjusts the reproductive rate to match what the parents
can support. Polyandry is rare, but you find it in Tibet, where the
lack of resources calls for a lower child parent ratio. Allowing
polygyny is common in cultures, but few men manage to attract
mutiple wive. Like your wife, most women aren't apt to share their
husbands. The exception is when a husband has to much wealth that
1/2 of his income is greater than the average man's income. Then
the second wife would get more child support during the marriage
than if she married a less wealthy monogamist.
Today, birth control, modern jobs, bisexuality, and gender equality
make the old rules of thumb obsolete. Is it misogynistic if a
husband has to share his first wife with a second wife because his
first wife falls in love with a woman?
If everyone is an adult, they should be legally allowed to make
whatever contracts they want. It's time to get the government out
of marriage.
|3.1.07 @ 4:12PM|#
Having multiple g/fs isn't a perminant arrangment that requires said g/fs to get a divorce to date someone else.
Marriage isn't permanent either, $250 and a judge's stamp later and
boom, free to go about your merry ways. Worried about the "legal"
aspects of marriage/divorce, get a prenup. Better yet, get the
prenup, get a religious marriage (if that's your thing) and keep
the state out of it altogether.
Anyway, if I read your post correctly, cohabitating with two women
is perfectly fine and dandy so long as the state hasn't stamped a
piece of paper for either one. Now according to Utah law, even if
the state has only stamped one piece of paper, cohabitation with
the other is illegal.
So, if you are already breaking the law by having a wife and a
mistress, why not two wives? Better yet, if you are worried about
the "permanence" of said marriages, why get married in the first
place. Just keep two girlfriends. Oh, yeah, I forgot, Utah has a
"common law" marriage statute to make sure that if you care enough
about a single somebody to live with them for seven years, they
have the right to claim your property.
Further, these freaks inevitably go for child brides.
Freaks...child brides. Interesting choice of divisive words. What
of those "freaks" that don't choose "child brides", who choose
adult, consenting women. You know, those rare specimens you
referred to earlier. Are they still freaks? What about the
consenting women? Are they "freaks" for wanting to get married to a
man who already has a wife? You make a bunch of assumptions about
people and espouse a prohibition based on the generalized acts of a
few. But then, that is what moralists do.
|3.1.07 @ 4:15PM|#
If the court didn't find that it was polygamy as well as
"unlawful sexual contact with a minor" couldn't dirtbag old men
"marry" impressionable young girls for the express purposes of
having sex with them....
Oh, wait a second... something just occured to me...!
|3.1.07 @ 5:36PM|#
But in upholding Holm's convictions, the Utah Supreme Court
ruled that marry in this context includes a
religious union with no legal standing.
So, basically, he is a bigamist because he married the girl, but he
raped her because he did not marry her... It is not the first time,
nor will this be the last time, that government faux
judges make such aberrant "legal" decisions.
|3.1.07 @ 5:57PM|#
"You make a bunch of assumptions about people and espouse a
prohibition based on the generalized acts of a few. But then, that
is what moralists do."
Please find one society that has practiced polygomy in large areas
that isn't both mysogonistic and backward? Go to the middle east
where it is done and look at those societies. I doubt you would
want to live there. You are the one making generalizations. Just
because you can imagine cases where polygamy wouldn't harm anyone,
you think that you can therefore deny the obvious horrible effects
widespread polygamy has on society.
As far as being a moralist, it is not being a moralist to take a
practicle look at what certain rules or lack thereof would do to a
society and decided that those rules are a bad idea. You could make
the lame ass "your just a moralist" argument about anything. They
used to practice human sacrice in some places, who are we to
moralize about it being wrong. You live in a free forward looking
society and benifit from people following some basic moral rules
and then deny the validity of those very rules. Like I said, if you
think it is such a great idea, go live the societies on earth where
polygamy is practiced and then come back and talk to us.
|3.1.07 @ 6:00PM|#
"So how is a polygamist who marries two different women
different than a deadbeat who impregnates two different women? Why
isn't the state going after men who fly from blossom to blossum
without any sense of commitment, instead of throwing men who have
committed in a religious ceremony to support two different women in
jail?"
The state will throw you in jail for not supporting your children.
Further, the state draws lines. It has to. Of course we don't want
people out there knocking up multiple women, but it is probably not
practical or just to throw them in jail for that. That fact does
not mean we should walk all the way down the road and endorse
polygamy.
|3.1.07 @ 6:03PM|#
People need to look at the Morman sects out in Arizona where they dump their young male children literally in the streets so the they will not be competition for the old men to marry the young women. It is the most disgusting thing in the world. Yes, I know but once we allow Polygamy we will only have nice polygamists. Bull shit. If so, they will be the first ones in the history of the world.
|3.1.07 @ 6:28PM|#
People need to look at the Morman sects out in Arizona where
they dump their young male children literally in the streets so the
they will not be competition for the old men to marry the young
women. It is the most disgusting thing in the world. Yes, I know
but once we allow Polygamy we will only have nice polygamists. Bull
shit. If so, they will be the first ones in the history of the
world.
Uh, John, you need to check you assumptions at the door. Historical
Mormon polygamy, as practiced during the 1800's, was a far
cry from what is practiced today.
Polygamy back then had a strong practical element to it, ensuring
that there were no widows or spinsters in the community who did not
have some source of protection or support. Quite an important
aspect when you're stuck out in a untamed frontier several hundred
miles from the nearest civilization.
There was an unwritted obligation that men who practiced polygamy
should marry older women for this very reason. Brigham Young had as
many as 12 of these "non-connubial" wives, while my own
great-great-grandfather had two.
Plus, there was a constant stream of new converts arriving in Utah
during the 1850's and 1860's, and many of them were single women.
Polygamy allowed them to integrate quickly and efficiently into the
colony. And contrary to popular stereotypes, it was not very hard
to get out of a polygamous marriage; Brigham Young himself gave one
of his own wives who was unhappy with the arragement a divorce
without much fuss.
The fundamentalist communities today are none of that. They are
isolated agricultural islands that are slowly disappearing; hence
the increasing "inbreeding" and marriages to ever-younger women.
They have very little if any "recruitment" into their ranks, and
would probably vanish on their own in 20-30 years.
The reason I defend them is not because I support their lifestyle,
it's because they're being prosecuted for largely political
reasons.
A Matter of Research|3.1.07 @ 6:45PM|#
I think people should read the posted links before they speak.
Click and read the entire linked "glad"
page and linked "notes"
page from the original post. When you do, it is obvious that many
people are saying foolish things. They do not know what they are
talking about. The links show it.
The articles state that there is a national movement of
polygamists. They oppose the underage crimes coming out of one
single mormon polygamous sect. Get it? They even say it is fiction
to associate them to that one sect.
In case anyone still doesn't get it, here is a clip:
"Because all of those reports and the Holm case all originate from that one small local group called the FLDS, on the border of Utah and Arizona," Henkel explained, "the overall media has mis-applied those stories to present a false illusion that all polygamists around the country supposedly are Mormon Polygamists and/or come from the FLDS.
"That illusion is utter fiction," Henkel said. "Around the country, there are many different forms of consenting-adult polygamists with fully different reasons for how they conduct themselves. There are evangelical Christian Polygamists, secular polygamists, and other forms as well, including Muslim polygamists. The world is so much larger than the little 'Mormonland bubble' of Utah/Arizona," said Henkel. "And the polygamy rights movement is so much larger too.
"At the national level, polygamy rights pertain only to consenting adults, as a laissez faire method to overcome the ills of a modern society of marriage-phobic males and abandoned single moms," Henkel explained.
You cannot get any more libertarian than that last
statement there.
A Matter of Research|3.1.07 @ 6:49PM|#
>When you do, it is obvious that many people are saying
foolish things.
I meant to say:
When you do, it is obvious that many people posting
comments here are saying foolish things.
|3.1.07 @ 7:04PM|#
Please find one society that has practiced polygomy in large areas that isn't both mysogonistic and backward?
Certainly. Pre-Roman Celtic society was both polygynous and
matriarchal. They were not a backwards culture but rather valued
the rights of the individual and tribe over that of an impersonal
"government". There were few "crimes" as almost everything was
solved in a civil manner, repayment for wrong doing instead of
jail. Women were not marginalized but revered.
Just because polygamy is practiced by mysogonistic peoples does not
make the practice itself mysogonistic. If you want to point to the
the middle east, you can argue that polygamy is actually against
certain tenets of Islam (and is practiced to varying degrees across
the Moslem world) and is fully endorsed by Judaism and
Christianity. In fact, it wasn't really frowned upon until Aurelius
Augustinus (St. Augustine) doubted it's place in the "modern Roman
custom". Of course, we see just how non-mysogonistic Romans
were.
|3.1.07 @ 9:17PM|#
I have no problem with polygamy.
I just don't like Mormons.
I joke. Really, I just hate Utahns.
Kwix,
Any examples of polyandrous societies?
In the Judeo/Christian/Muslim world?
|3.1.07 @ 9:29PM|#
Polygamy is inherently misogynistic and there is not one
society that allows it that isn't grossly misogynistic.
All things aside, it was probably an advantage to be a
multiple-wife in the ancient world. It meant that you were attached
to a man who had the financial means to take care of several wives
- not just some poor schmuck. That meant things like servants, or
at least divided domestic labors, and better nutrition. Because
sexual "duties" were distributed among several women, you were also
pregnant less often. Having more material resources and fewer
pregnancies meant that as a woman in the ancient world, you were
likely to live a longer and healthier life. The system worked for
multiple wives. It just screwed the men too poor to afford a
wife.
Guy Montag|3.2.07 @ 8:05AM|#
highnumber,
Any examples of polyandrous societies?
In the Judeo/Christian/Muslim world?
Does "The Collective" count?
nmg|3.2.07 @ 12:19PM|#
I just want to point out the brilliant title . "Marriage without
benefits" which is a play on "friends with benefits".
And furthermore, isn't that a bit redundant? "Marriage without
benefits" is just "marriage" in my experience.
Like christ rock said, if you like fu**in, marriage ain't for
you.
nmg
|3.2.07 @ 6:23PM|#
Like christ rock said...
I thought he said stone unto others as you would have them stone
unto to you, or something like that.
VM|3.3.07 @ 10:25AM|#
"Please find one society that has practiced polygomy in large
areas that isn't both mysogonistic and backward?"
Hey Kwix - are there examples of cultures that have practiced
torture - but where those cultures aren't backwards?
(herewith, the thread is now officially dead)
|3.3.07 @ 5:18PM|#
Being married is like being trapped in a small cabin with an
angry bee. Why would you want more bees?
Those of you outside of Utah might want to know that this is the
only state in the Union which has anti-polygamy written into the
state Constitution. This has led to some pretty oddball legal
decisions, such as the guy who was convicted of polygamy for
marrying his third (IIRC) wife, even though he had married AND
DIVORCED twice before. That's right, he had complied with the law
to the letter, and still was convicted, because he maintained a
close relationship with his earlier wives.
So, here in Utah, it is lawful to shack up with as many women as
you like, as long as you were never married to any of them!
Fortunately, there IS a God, and He won't permit any judge to tell
me that I am still married to my ex-shrew . . .
I predict that, within 10 years, California will pass laws
permitting marriage between consenting adults, including what
Heinlein called "Synthetic" marriages of any number of people.
Within 25 years, 49 states will have such laws . . .and Utah will
still be chasing after polygs, because there will be no way to get
the state Constitution changed in the face of all the flak from
out-of-state fools.
Personally, I do believe that plural marriage is a crime -- and the
penalty is having multiple wives! Women living in close proximity
adjust their periods to match the dominant woman . . .I would NOT
want to be in a family with 10 women (wives and teen daughters) all
with PMS at the same time.
|3.3.07 @ 5:29PM|#
John wrote:
"Further, unless you are going to start mandating that far more
girls be born than boys, by allowing polygamy you are depriving men
of the ability to marry. If the number of men and women are roughly
equal, only a few men have to have multiple wives in order to
totally screw a large number of men out of the chance to
marry."
This is a STRAW MAN. It assumes five things which are not true.
First, that there are an equal number of men and women in each age
group (women outnumber men). Second, that a polygamous society is
closed, with no option for marriage except within that society.
Third, that everyone who wants to marry will find a suitable mate
from within the options available to them (ASK me why I don't date
American women!). Fourth, that all marriages are permanent. Fifth,
that women who marry polygamists would rather either be married to
someone else or wait for the perfect man.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245