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 ([email protected]) is a junior majoring in political science and legal studies.
Categories:
The case for accepting polygamy
September 26, 2007
Advertisements
0
Donate to The Badger Herald
Your donation will support the student journalists of University of Wisconsin-Madison. Your contribution will allow us to purchase equipment and cover our annual website hosting costs.
More to Discover