Here we go: The Next Issue - Gay Marriage = Polygamy

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11786790/site/newsweek/

By Elise Soukup
Newsweek
March 20, 2006 issue - Marlyne Hammon knows what it's like to feel hated and hunted. In 1953, when she was an infant, her father—along with dozens of other men in her tiny community of Short Creek, Ariz.—was arrested and sent to jail on charges of polygamy. She, her mother and siblings were forcibly exiled from the community and sent to live with a family in a nearby city. Her father was released after a week, but because the family feared further prosecution, they lived apart and corresponded in secret for the next six years. "Our community had this idea that we should live our lives quietly to avoid trouble," she says. "We were taught not to make a big ruckus."

Not anymore. Hammon, who's involved in a polygamous relationship, is a founding member of the Centennial Park Action Committee, a group that lobbies for decriminalization of the practice. She's among a new wave of polygamy activists emerging in the wake of the gay-marriage movement—just as a federal lawsuit challenging anti-polygamy laws makes its way through the courts and a new show about polygamy debuts on HBO. "Polygamy rights is the next civil-rights battle," says Mark Henkel, who, as founder of the Christian evangelical polygamy organization TruthBearer.org, is at the forefront of the movement. His argument: if Heather can have two mommies, she should also be able to have two mommies and a daddy. Henkel and Hammon have been joined by other activist groups like Principle Voices, a Utah-based group run by wives from polygamous marriages. Activists point to Canada, where, in January, a report commissioned by the Justice Department recommended decriminalizing polygamy.

There's a sound legal argument for making the controversial practice legal, says Brian Barnard, the lawyer for a Utah couple, identified in court documents only as G. Lee Cooke and D. Cooke, who filed suit after being denied a marriage license for an additional wife. Though the case was struck down by a federal court last year, it's now being considered by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, and Barnard plans to use the same argument—that Lawrence v. Texas, the 2003 sodomy case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that individuals have "the full right to engage in private conduct without government intervention," should also apply to polygamous relationships.

Almost always, when the legalization of polygamy is brought up, it's used to make a case against gay marriage. Most notably, Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania told the Associated Press in 2003 that legalizing gay sex would pave the way for legalized bigamy, polygamy and incest. This "slippery slope" argument angers some gay-rights activists who see the issues as being completely separate. "I frankly would not love to see an article in NEWSWEEK because this is the connection that our opponents make, and we feel it's a specious one," says Carisa Cunningham, director of public affairs for Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders. Polygamy activists aren't thrilled with the association, either. Though they closely watch the gay-marriage battle, they are generally religious and conservative—and, like Henkel and Hammon, believe that homosexual behavior is a sin

but will use gay marriage to get what they want.

Up yours!

although many equate it with mormonism. There are many non-religious households which practice polygamy.

I would like to note that having religous groups speak out against proposed changes to the constitution regarding marriage is a good thing ala first amendment. "Congress shall make no law..."(you know the rest)

That's the REAL difference, and why there's not a slippery slope. There's never been a society that saw the multiple spouse gender (almost always women) as something other than in obediance to the single. Even something like islam, which technically allows as many as four wives, made it practically impossible (or maybe just undesirable) by giving wives rights to make demands on their husbands. If polygamy can be reconciled with equal rights between the sexes, I'm sure not familiar with it. Maybe the only polygamy acceptable is SAME SEX polygamy.

and in non-religous polygamy there is seldom domestic abuse since the women rule the roost in a sense.

Of course it is not meant for everyone but is successful economically for many.

Sure, you could find exceptions to the rule, but it's impossible to have a social and legal insitution based on the unusual, where we only know after the fact whether it craters into something that is a form of oppression as has usually occurred.

I am sure you disagree with that argument.

Polygamy has been used to oppress in the past just as homeschooling has been used by some to abuse children but homeschooling is legal and homeschoolers have their own set of social and legal institutions. I use homeschooling as an example because many see it as being for religious reasons yet in reality many liberals homeschool.

Not everything is a slippery slope. You want it to be one, the conservatives too, but it just plain isn't.

Strangely, you use the homeschooling to prove that not everything is a slippery slope. It's true. Not everything is. Sometimes you can allow kids to not go to school and they still get educated, and all you have to do is have intrusive government regulation. What's that got to do with gay marriage, which requires only a word change in marriage statutes?

I'm not sure what the last line meant, but I am primarily in agreement with you. In every culture I can think of off-hand, polygamy has only existed in the man + wives = marriage variety.

This is overtly inequitable and sexist. A system like this says that women are property, chattel, and that men are their rightful owners.

F* that.

that I have heard of, but the woman was royal status and the men weren't equals.

I am sure it does happen/has happened, but it is certainly not as common as male-female-female variety.

Polyandry is multiple husbands, polygyny is multiple wives.

In many polygamist families the women are not oppressed. Think in terms of housework alone...a group of 3 women sharing the duties of housekeeping, childrearing while still persuing schooling or career.

Economically, pooling the funds of 4 working adults or even 3 allows a certain freedom.

Marriage is not about getting the housework done--it's about making a lifetime commitment to another human being out of mutual love and respect. Being one wife among many is not the kind of respect most women would like from their spouses.

Whether between 2 or between 5 it is a commitment.

As far as respect, there is a lack of such in many monogamous marriages. I am not arguing we should all be in polygamous relationships but that it should be a choice.

It is all about CHOICE, is it not?

you should be able to live with, contract with, make love with, whomever you want, in whatever multiples you desire. Just leave me alone with my husband and 2.2 kids.

I draw the line at inanimate objects like pianos, but am not sure about animals. I don't think you can have a contract with an animal. And I do think bestiality is animal abuse.

CONSENTING adults.

Isn't that why all those Mormons in Utah still practice it and aren't they all rabid Republicans?

Religious polygamists rarely involve themselves outside their closed communities.

Ever heard of a friendly little place called Colorado City? Or how about the great state of Utah?

I wouldn't be so quick to throw out the words "polygamous" "most" and "liberal" in the same sentence.

but monogamous marriages within cults are oppressive as well.

The oppressive nature of polygamous marriages over traditional marriages was not my main problem here--the very nature of a polygamous marriage, imo, is oppressive and unnatural.

Polygamy was the norm in ancient times and is the norm in the animal kingdom.

Do you feel monogamy is natural in a scientific sense?

I realize it was the norm in particular cultures amongst the wealthy and powerful; however I'm not aware of any historic culture in which it was the norm across the board. Which civilizations/cultures/societies are you referring to?

Of course I refer to the pre-christian era. Polyamorous societies were widespread.

http://www.aaanet.org/press/an/infocus/marriage/peletz.htm

and never met a polygamist or even heard of one.

Now, wait a minute. I take that back. It turns out that the Sunday School Superintendent in our church was discovered naked in the rector's house, masturbating, in the middle of the night.

He moved away quickly after that and we came to understand he had a whole other family in Hoboken.

But I think maybe he was a Democrat.

:sarcasm:

the laws only have to be changed very slightly to allow same-sex marriage, but laws regarding property, divorce, child support, next of kin, etc., would all have to be re-written if polygamy were to become legal. Which doesn't mean it shouldn't, just that it's completely different.

The best reason to allow same-sex marriage is that people who are gay should have the right to marry the person they love. The best reason to allow polygamy is freedom of religion, since it's usually done as part of religious practice. But they are completely different.

they keep trying to muddle polygamy, bestiality and homosexuality together. Those are good talking points to inform people of the difference.

All you need is a few word changes in current statutes regarding the participants, so they can have the same ball and chain the hets have.

Nobody really knows what polygamy would look like legally.

Bigamy yes--but that is meant to protect women when their husbands have two families unknown to the women.

Most polygamists that have been prosecuted, have been charged with defrauding the gov, usually because the wives and children are receiving public assistance.

The laws work for most polygamists since fathers are always obligated to support the children. Most set up family trusts in order to protect the wives in the event something should happen. Life insurance is paid to the trust as beneficiary and the multiple wives are trustees.

Any more recommendations for polygamy as we know it?

(1) UTAH CONSTITUTION

Article 3 Section

The following ordinance shall be irrevocable without the consent of the United States and the people of this State: First: -- Perfect toleration of religious sentiment is guaranteed. No inhabitant of this State shall ever be molested in person or property on account of his or her mode of religious worship; but polygamous or plural marriages are forever prohibited.

Article XXIV, Section 2


All laws of the Territory of Utah now in force, not repugnant to this Constitution, shall remain in force until they expire by their own limitations, or are altered or repealed by the Legislature. The act of the Governor and Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Utah, entitled, "An Act to punish polygamy and other kindred offenses," approved February 4th, A.D. 1892, in so far as the same defines and imposes penalties for polygamy, is hereby declared to be in force in the State of Utah.

Utah State Code

76-7-101. Bigamy -- Defense.
(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.

-----------------------------------------

FindLaw Article

<snip>

The Rational Basis For Anti-Polygamy Laws

History shows that polygamous marriage --at least as it has been practiced in the United States by multiple religious sects--raises a significant danger that underage girls will be married to much older men. In other words, it has fostered and condoned statutory rape. There is also disturbing evidence that underage girls are being trafficked across state and international lines for purposes of polygamy, a practice that violates the federal Mann Act. (Shamefully, however, the federal government has failed to enforce the Mann Act in this context. As with the thousands of clergy abuse victims, the federal government has ignored polygamy's victims, which leads one to wonder what a religious group would have to do to a child to prod the federal government into action.)

History shows that polygamy raises a danger of incest as well. Polygamous husbands have married their own daughters or nieces.

Moreover, these dangers are not confined to any one religious organization's practice of polygamy. In the illuminating new book, God's Brothel, author Andrea Moore-Emmett describes the fate of 18 women who escaped from polygamous marriages in 18 different sects. Each portrait painted shows that the costs of such marriages are severe.

Evidence like this more than provides the rational basis that is needed to rebuff a Free Exercise challenge to the anti-polygamy laws. Indeed, such laws pass strict scrutiny as well, because the interest in protecting children from statutory rape and underage marriage is of the highest order. But what about other constitutional arguments?

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20040729.html

<snip>

------------------------------------------------

A relevant law: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm02027.htm

This law does not directly prohibit polygamy, but does prohibit an activity that involves polygamy.

as they should be. I in no way endorse enforced polygamy. The problem is all the attention is on the whackos. There are laws against domestic abuse, child rape, etc already on the books and apply to individuals. The abuses by religious polygamists are individually crimes as they are if a monogomist broke them.

One of the main problems with group marriages would be changing the law so that it could work in regards to who has legal obligations and rights to whom and what happens if one or all memebers of the marriage would divorce.
Same sex marriage only needs gender neutral language.

"Same-sex marriage" is just marriage.

Polygamy is not.

Short Creek is now Colorado City which is right next door to Hildale UT, ground zero for the Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints led by "Prophet" Warren Jeffs,

Jeffs is on the FBI's Most Wanted Listed for sanctioning the marriage of an underage girl to an older man who was already married.

Jeffs, whose racist preachings has earned the FLDS a spot on the Southern Poverty Law Center's Hate Group List, is the absolute authority for a highly secretive, 10,000 member cult that practices child sexual abuse and incest.

He assigns women and girls to "worthy" men in the cult, who are taught they must have at least three wives in order to get into heaven. If a man becomes unworthy, his wives and children are forced to leave him and marry into other families.

Even though marriages with underage girls and blood relations are allowed, there is still a shortage of females, so young males - as young as 13 - are often thrown out of the cult for minor transgressions (smoking, listening to rock music) to make more females available for older men. Doctors in nearby towns report increasing cases of a rare birth defect that causes severe mental retardation and epilepsy, a result of inbreeding.

The FLDS splintered from the LDS over 100 years ago. The raid that Marlyne Hammon refers to in the article created such disapproval among Utah Mormons that the FLDS has been allowed to flourish without any interference ever since, despite allegations of tax and welfare fraud.

I know people who are polygamists of their own free will. That's not what goes on in the FLDS. For more about them, see this story:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=2154802

If not, then I say these a-holes go screw. It seems to me that polygamy is about a man controlling as many women as possible.

I have no problem with consenting adults living as they wish. I do have a problem with people having families with 20 or 30 kids and collecting welfare because they can't afford to support the children on the husband's salary. If they want to have a bunch of fundie baby factories, I don't want to be footing the bill.

Geez. . .back when the Mormons approved polygamy, was that because they also approved gay marriage? These people need a serious reality check.

Polygamy is one man, more than one woman.

One woman, more than one man would be polyandry.

More than one man and more than one woman would be a group marriage (I don't know if there is a legal term for that one. :)).

IMO, the government should get out of the business of defining what marriage is altogether. Make everybody pay taxes as a single, divide up the dependents by mutual agreement, or ignore them altogether. Why should the government encourage childbearing?

I'm very Libertarian on this.

Now, it is true that many polygamist societies have been cults and tend to be oppressive of women. The key for me is that the government should enforce the laws about abuse, and not religious tenets about what should be individual choices.

And the reason that goverment defines marriages is because it recognizes what people are actually doing and provides legal protections for children and spouses in divorce. Tax incentives don't have much to do with that.

Polygamy is defined as having more than one spouse(generic for male or female) and Polygyny is more than one wife.