OPINION & EDITORIAL
The case for accepting polygamy
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Andrew Granias:
- Council finally wakes up (September 6, 2007)
- Incoming editor discusses future of Opinion page (May 10, 2007)
- Falk, Cieslewicz should grow up (April 27, 2007)
- Study mislabels students as vain (March 1, 2007)
- State of the Union disappointing, misses point (January 25, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Americans unite via cultural evolution, pursuit of wealth (October 4, 2006)
- Legal prostitution: Logically sound, ultimately amoral (December 4, 2007)
- Slippery slope fallacy no reason to ban gay marriage (November 15, 2005)
- A deniable privilege? (February 9, 2004)
- Confederate holiday way off (March 23, 2007)
by Andrew Granias
Thursday, September 27, 2007
In theory, the United States of America guarantees every individual the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness — in theory.
But since the adoption of this noble credo more than two centuries ago, many groups — who feel themselves to be at a civil disadvantage — have rightfully disputed the legitimacy of this claim as it pertains to their particular situation, and have done so with overwhelming success.
Consequently, women, followers of various religions, racial and ethnic minorities, and those whose sexual preferences fall on the periphery, among others, have organized vast social movements to enact change in American society. And in most cases, the result has been genuine progress for our society as a whole.
Yet the issue of polygamy continues to frighten and scandalize Americans, and steers us toward the most manifestly backward and veritably un-American of practices: acceptance of social and legal discrimination.
On Tuesday, the most recent example of this continuing discrimination occurred when Warren Jeffs — the leader of a 10,000-member fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — was convicted of being an accomplice to rape, and now faces life in prison.
As reported in The New York Times, Mr. Jeffs arranged an underage marriage of a 14-year-old girl to an adult man, who allegedly forced his wife into nonconsensual sex, although charges against the alleged rapist himself have yet to be filed almost seven years after the fact.
Instead, the prosecution decided to target Mr. Jeffs and argued he had previous knowledge that nonconsensual sex would occur when he authorized the marriage and was, therefore, an accomplice to the eventual rape. To no avail, Mr. Jeffs vigorously denied the claims and declared he was a victim of religious and sexual persecution.
Furthermore, it should be noted that there has never been a case in American history when a priest, rabbi or other religious leader was convicted of being an accomplice to rape when rape occurred in a marriage he or she had sanctified. In this instance, it is clear that the legal burden lies on the rapist and not Mr. Jeffs.
Most importantly, however, is the undeniable fact that the county prosecutor's motive to charge Mr. Jeffs did not stem from his actions in this criminal case, but rather from Mr. Jeffs' outward assertion of the merits of polygamy. This is discrimination in the simplest of terms.
Moreover, the practice of polygamy is illegal in all fifty states and in federal law, and can be prosecuted as a felony. Likewise, polygamy has been outlawed since 1878, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a plurality of spouses violated criminal law and was not defensible as an exercise of religious liberty.
It has therefore followed — from codified discrimination of a sexual and religious practice, in addition to polygamy's direct contradiction to the overwhelmingly Judeo-Christian sentiment of the country — that an extraordinary stigma has arisen to fuel socially accepted discrimination.
Indeed, the reality that our society must grasp is that we govern not under the auspice of a "societal norm," but under the overriding principles of the First Amendment and the invariable right to freedom of expression outlined therein.
Such is the prominent argument in support of many socially accepted practices — including the right to marriage for consenting adults.
To be sure, the state of Wisconsin is no stranger to the issue of marriage regulation. In November 2006, a statewide referendum banned same-sex marriage, despite overwhelming opposition to the measure from UW students. The leading campaign to "Vote No" against the referendum was headed by the organization A Fair Wisconsin.
On its Web site, A Fair Wisconsin says this about treating gay couples equally when considering gay marriage. But in every instance "gay couples" was written, I have substituted the words "members of a polygamous relationship":
"There is no rational reason to discriminate against [members of a polygamous relationship] and their families. When Wisconsinites get to know the [members of a polygamous relationship] in their communities, they see the love, commitment, and responsibility that they see in their own families. They see that there is nothing to fear and much to gain by treating everyone equally."
Truly, gay couples and gay marriages are not the norm in society, but neither are polygamous relationships. And while you — like me — may morally disagree with the premise of polygamy, it must be treated as an equal expression of love and legal standing nonetheless. Polygamy, like gay marriages or interracial marriages, deserves to be free of government regulation in the vein of American liberty.
Further, as a resounding example of the sexual liberties that should be afforded to both polygamous and homosexual relationships, let us refer to the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court case Lawrence and Gardner v. Texas, regarding the sexual activity of two gay men. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in his opinion: "[America] has been shaped by religious beliefs, conceptions of right and acceptable behavior, and respect for the traditional family. For many persons these are not trivial concerns, but profound and deep convictions accepted as ethical and moral principles to which they aspire and which thus determine the course of their lives. These considerations, do not answer the question before us, however.
"The issue is whether the majority may use the power of the state to enforce those views on the whole society. Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code. In all events we think that our laws and traditions in the past half-century have the most relevance here. These show an emerging awareness that liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives and in matters pertaining to sex."
Polygamy is a morally divisive issue, which in most cases results in denouncement of the practice. But our country, at least in theory, was not founded on a utilitarian set of morals that encompasses our societal norms. Instead, it was founded on the premise that every citizen has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness — no matter the established norms.
Surely there can be no greater violation of our civil liberties than government regulation of love and marriage. As an intrinsic quality, the American idea of freedom of expression extends everywhere from our place of work to our place of worship, and especially, that right extends to our homes and our bedrooms.
It is high time that we, as a society, hold ourselves to the standards we have devised.
Andy Granias (agranias@badgerherald.com) is a junior majoring in political science and legal studies.
Anonymous (September 27, 2007 @ 2:07am):
Why can't we all just get along? I don't care who marries whom, and no one else should either.
--Damien C. Bordeaux
Anonymous (September 27, 2007 @ 2:28am):
Andy. Come on man. I'm all for the argument defending polygamy and homosexuality. It's eloquent and wonderfully written.
Except for one thing.
Warren Jeffs is not a martyr for the polygamist movement. He's a hideous manipulator who created a cult centered around him as a special messenger to god, while actually dictating the moral code and basically, the lives of his followers.
This man ruined lives. If you want someone who really was an example of an unjust punishment of polygamy, look at Tom Green (not that one, the other one from Utah) who was arrested for nothing more than polygamy. That was a practice of belief by one man and his large polygamist family.
Warren Jeffs, on the other hand, is as sick and twisted as they come. Next time, don't reach out to two groups who deserve to express their as they choose by linking them with degenerate scum.
Anonymous (September 27, 2007 @ 2:48am):
Well written Mr. Granias, but let me ask you: If polygamy is allowed - what's next? Why not legalize child molestation? Why not legalize bestiality?
Anonymous (September 27, 2007 @ 8:06am):
Granias has obviously not had experience with only one wife, which is the case against polygamy.
Anonymous (September 27, 2007 @ 8:20am):
The girl was underage, idiot.
There are plenty of healthy polygamous individuals in the US, but don't use an asshole such as Jeffs to exemplify one who approves of them.
Anonymous (September 27, 2007 @ 8:27am):
The same premise was used to defend incest on this opinion page three years ago (http://badgerherald.com/oped/2004/12/02/gay_marriage_advocat.php).
Rhetorically, it's a sound argument. When dripping of cynicism, it's an amusing argument. When scribed in the defense of a former member of the FBI 10 Most Wanted list, it gets a little creepy.
As for legalizing bestiality (as one commenter suggested), there is a consent issue. Woof.
-Maggie Beth Vernon
Anonymous (September 27, 2007 @ 8:32am):
While I agree that polygamy itself should not be outlawed, more often than not the way it is practiced in the US is abusive. In religious sects such as the one run by Jeffs, the girls are forced to marry much older men at a very young age (14 for example). In addition to this, the boys in these communities are ostracized and forced out of the community because they would compete for the attentions of the girls in the community (the babies born are after all roughly 50% male and 50% female and when a man has 10+ wives that leads to a large imbalance).
To me, polygamy should be legalized, that applies both to men with multiple wives, women with multiple husbands, or more complex varieties with multiple numbers of both sexes. Who are we to judge the way people want to live their lives. These people do have to realize, that should they ever want a divorce (which is much too common today), it will make the separation infinitely more difficult and expensive.
I think though, that even if polygamy were legal, people like Warren Jeffs and his followers would still be prosecuted for child abuse, and rape. The sad thing is in this day and age, while polygamy as a concept is fine, in practice it is all to often exactly what Jeffs is being tried for.
As for suggesting that polygamy is on a par with child molestation and bestiality, that is ridiculous. While marrying a 14 year old is child molestation, what happens between consenting adults is much different than taking advantage of children or animals.
Anonymous (September 27, 2007 @ 8:32am):
I, like many in this town, tupport a wide variety of manifestations of love between people, be they straight, gay, whatever, and like you I used to seem to think there isnt anything wrong with plural marriage. However... the problem is that, especially in some FLDS communities, polyagamy involves minors to a astonishing degree. I suppose if there was a way to sanction plural marriage while making sure that minors wouldnt be hurt it would be one thing, but exist a very slippery slope when unions arent between two people (of whatever gender) especially in a religious framework, such as fundamental morminism. Check out "Under the banner of heaven" for more on this matter - its a great read.
Anonymous (September 27, 2007 @ 9:39am):
I vote for no love. Back to your sadness, nothing to see here.
Anonymous (September 27, 2007 @ 10:07am):
Polygamy and sex with children will not be allowed until the Caliphate encompases the USA and Sharia Islamic religious law replaces the current system.
Then you'll be able to have multiple wives and marry girls in the single digits.
Fourteen? That's an old maid!
"Aisha was six or seven years old when betrothed to Muhammad. She stayed in her parents' home until the age of nine, when the marriage was consummated."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad
Anonymous (September 27, 2007 @ 11:01am):
oh the fear!
I am petrified by difference in the world. Oh the horror!
-John Q. American
Anonymous (September 27, 2007 @ 11:08am):
Wow, what a waste of space.
Anonymous (September 27, 2007 @ 11:09am):
Some of those who commented should re-read this article. Mr. Granias was not saying that Warren Jeffs should be treated like any other law-abiding citizen. What he was saying was that Warren Jeffs was not treated that way because he was an outspoken supporter of polygamy
I think you, me and Mr. Granias understand that Warren Jeffs was a creep and a nut-job who should be put away for things like consenting underage marriage. But being an accomplice to rape in this case was a totally bogus charge that was brought upon him as a means to qualm the societal fears of polygamy.
This was soundly argued and well-reasoned. Some of you right-wing pricks need to learn how to read... or at least learn how to extract the proper message when it is clearly presented for you.
Anonymous (September 27, 2007 @ 11:10am):
interesting article.
also, to the commenter above- your words indicate your ignorance. muhammad lived 1400 years ago.
and do you even know what "sharia islamic religious law" is? the average muslim scholars and the most respected will inform you that they and the majority of muslims do not want and have not wanted theocracies.
Anonymous (September 27, 2007 @ 12:39pm):
All surveys show that "the majority of muslims" do want apostates and blasphemers killed. Then there's that "honor killing" thing.
Back in the day, so did the Christians and Jews but they got away from that.
Anonymous (September 27, 2007 @ 12:59pm):
The problem with polygamy is that our legal system doesn't have any way to handle it. All of our marriage laws assume only two parties, usually with equally shared assets.
Introduce multiple wife polygamy an this falls apart.
Also, the 14 year old girl Jeff's persuaded into marriage has since left the cult and claimed she was forced to have non-consensual sex. Thats why he is and accomplice.
Angie Manderfeld (September 27, 2007 @ 1:49pm):
There are several things that render Mr. Granias's assertion that Jeffs was discriminated against false. a) Other clergy are not charged as accomplices to rape because they are marrying consenting adults that ASKED to be married and therefore assume they are not accomplices to rape. b) This case did NOT involve polygamy at all. It involved the disgusting rape of an underage girl. Had Jeffs been charged with the crime of polygamy, you could argue your case. With friends like you, Mr. Granias, rape victims don't need enemies.
Anonymous (September 27, 2007 @ 1:51pm):
It's bad for kids. The state should not promote an institution that is bad for children.
Anonymous (September 27, 2007 @ 2:09pm):
1:51 - where's your proof?
Anonymous (September 27, 2007 @ 7:07pm):
When did this article become about Warren Jeffs? He was used not in support of his practices but as an example of the stigma polygamy has engendered -- and it has engendered quite the stigma. If you want to legalize gay marriage, you have to legalize polygamy. No, that doesn't mean child molestation or bestiality or anything else that harms other individuals. If consenting adults agree, then marriage should be legal, between anyone. I disagree with anything but marriage between one man and one woman, but I understand the point Mr. Granias attests.
Anonymous (September 28, 2007 @ 2:14am):
209pm- because the numerous cases where polygomists abused their wives and children
Anonymous (October 25, 2007 @ 10:21am):
Polygomy should not ever be accepted. Reallyt what is next, the ok to child molest? America, including Wisconsin, was founded on Christianity and the further we get from that, the worse off we are. Polygamy hasn't been excepted since the begining of time. The people who do eccept it have been and are pursecuted. Don't you think there is a reason for that?
Anonymous (December 16, 2007 @ 11:34am):
Thanks for the analysis, but perhaps you miss one distinction: That of the incorrectness of legally persecuting another based on his or her religious/sexual belief and that of completely divorcing morals from any legal question. The former is a correct principle; the latter is not.
For example, it is wrong if the charges against Jeffs were fabricated as a response to his practice of/belief in polygamy, as they are denying Jeffs his liberty (imprisonment) because of his religious beliefs. One should not be imprisoned because of a belief, and any attempt to prosecute one for it is wrong.
However, on the question of defining legal marriage, granting a legal marriage bestows legal rights and tax advantages, the denial of which is not a violation of one's freedom to hold a religious belief or liberty to sexually act as one chooses. Here, the morals of society do matter, but only to that extent. It is not OK to disallow any citizen the freedom to practice it (so long as no one else's freedoms are infringed by so doing). For a silly but apt example, if one wanted to marry a dog, it's not going to be a legally recognized marriage because of the beliefs of society, but no one should be jailed for living with his dog as though they were married.
Consequently, it is OK to not legally recognize polygamous marriages or same-sex marriages because of the moral beliefs of the people, but it is not OK to bring criminal prosecution against someone for either practicing polygamy or having same-sex sexual relations.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
