Polygamy should be legalized in the U.S. I don’t say this because I hope that the Church will return to it’s polygamy days. I’d rather it didn’t, but I don’t think I would be too bothered if they did (multiple sexual relationships, even if more often sequential rather than concurrent, are so common in popular culture, that I’ve been indoctrinated enough to just find it normal). No, I think it should be legalized because of what it seems to have become: instead of a lifestyle choice between adults, it has become a child abuse issue.
I do not know how many polygamist marriages occur between legal adults and how many occur between an adult and a minor, but it does seem to be a common issue. Though the marriage itself is illegal, governments and prosecutors are reticent to do anything about it. As long as the parties don’t make waves and just quietly go about their lives (i.e., unlike Tom Green), most people seem content to ignore it. As a result, children who are forced unwillingly into these marriages are stuck in that abusive situation without anyone doing anything to stop it.
If polygamy is legalized, then instead of turning a blind eye to the marriage itself, we can ignore the marriage as a norm, but be aware of and address the issue of keeping the relationship between consenting adults, as we currently do with monogamy. Adults who force children into those marriages can be prosecuted as child molesters, leaving the complex and difficult-to-address issue of polygamy out of it altogether.
Reminiscent of marijuana legalization rational.
Tanya, I do agree with your point that the government could probably do more to protect children if polygamy were legalized and then heavily regulated. I think Utah also needs to seriously consider raising its legal age limit for marriage. I believe currently a girl can get married at 16 with no parental permission whatsoever–and it was 14 just a couple years ago. Though I haven’t followed this issue for a while so i might have the ages wrong.
Could we legalize Polygamy and not legalize SSM?
As with many victimless “crimes”, making it illegal simply drives it underground and makes it harder to stop abuse. I agree with you, Tanya.
J. Stapley: Prohibition of alcohol caused more problems than it solved. Why is it so hard to grasp that prohibition of marijuana is doing the same thing? Just because something is morally wrong doesn’t mean it should be illegal. We haven’t, for example, criminalized adultery — does this mean the government is promoting adultery by not prosecuting those who engage in it? Of course not.
There is a difference between simple legalization and recognition of these marriages. Since you want to regulate it I assume that you mean recognition?
I am not sure how much of the secretiveness of the various polygamous groups is due to legal issues and how much is a part of their religion/culture. I really doubt that legalization would suddenly lead to all of them heading down to the county to get a license. I would suspect that they feel that the government doesn’t give the authority to marry, but that God does.
I suspect that leaders such as Jeffs want their communities to be isolated from the wider world as it gives them more power.
Also note that participation in legal marriage would make welfare fraud more difficult.
Basically, I don’t think the government is going to do it since the problem isn’t seen as widespread, and the polygamists probably don’t want it either at this point. With a few exceptions of course.
I do find it odd that our society views polygamist men as worse than mainstream men who are adulterers. I sustpect there are more adulterers in the USA by a factor of about 1,000. Yet it is acceptable.
This topic is, or should be, of current concern due to the resettlement of Somali Bantu refugees here in the United States.
Google this: Somali bantu polygamy
or: Indianapolis Somali
or: Indianapolis Somali Bantu
Indianapolis is one of the resettlement cities for the 14,000 Bantu Somali refugees that have been brought over. (I’ve read two numbers, one 12,000 and the other 14,000.) Some have been living in refugee camps for up to 13 years since major perscution (including massacres) of the Bantu people started in Somalia in about 1992.
Some of the people resettled by the US government have been polygamous families, and by US policy, in order to be resettled here, the men must choose one wife as the main wife, and divorce the rest. However, all wives and children are brought over. The policy has created hundreds (thousands?) of single mothers, and children with an absent father.
Sometimes the man will abandon the wife he chose, and go live with one of the other plural wives, further complicating things.
The US government pays the 3rd party resettlement organizations (usually Catholic or other church-based charities) a flat $400 per person (including women and children), which usually lasts for 3 months of food and rent.
There are about 3 dozen resettled in an apartment complex near where I do most of my shopping, plus several families (those with more than 3 kids) in houses on the other side of town. And there are about 2 dozen in Fort Wayne Indiana. (I wasn’t clear if that was 3 dozen families, or 3 dozen individuals.)
So the US government is doing to the Bantus what they did to the Mormons 120 years ago! 🙂
Since child abuse is illegal either way, it is senseless to legalize polygamy. That would have no bearing on this. I doubt the people doing it would say, “Oh, it’s legal so now I’ll get an adult woman for 2nd or 5th wife.”
As for the side topic of drug legalization, I’d take marijunana being legalized any day over alcohol. Far more people’s lives have been ruined or snuffed out due to the drink. Drunks are dangerous. Stoned people are amusing at best, lazy and snackish at worst.
I don’t want to see polygamy legalized.
“I doubt the people doing it would say, ‘Oh, it’s legal so now I’ll get an adult woman for 2nd or 5th wife.'”
This is a rather curious response. The point is not that people would realize something is illegal and thus stop their actions, rather it is that allowing further government regulation gives the government more tools by which to combat or control something. Thus, legalizing polygamy could have the effect of giving the governement tools to better keep track of young polygamous wives and far more easily prosecute those that don’t get the proper marriage liscence. As it stands now, polygamous groups usually fly under the radar because actual prosecution of the law banning it looks to many people like out and out persecution. However, if you legalize it and require marriage liscences, the prosecution would not look like persecution but regulation and it would be far easier to engage a DA on the matter.
I often wonder if the response: making it illegal won’t change so and so’s behavior, comes from our moral culture where making something illegal would actually probably change our behavior–and thus leads to us thinking that that is the main reason to make something illegal.
I wonder what the church’s position on polygamy is in countries where it is legal. I don’t know if there’s an official church presence in Somalia, but there is church material in Somali (Gospel Fundamentals and JS Testimony pamphlet). Would converts have to divorce out of plural marriages prior to baptism? Tricky situation.
In the church it has to be both legal in the law of the land, AND authorized by the Lord. If it was suddenly made legal, I’d bet the prophet would go to the Lord and ask “What would you have us do?”
Many non-members assume that because the church _renounced_ the practice, and threatens to excommunicate those who currently practice it, that it also _denounced_ the principle and practice, which it did not. I’ve never seen anything official that denounced the principle or the previous church-sponsored practice of polygamy. I’ve seen comments by members on the web that indicate even many members don’t understand the situation.
Tanya, do you want to see only polygyny legalized–one man, many women–or would polyandry and polyamory be included, too?
Adeline, my brother is a cop. He refers to marijuana users as the “Coalition of the Mellow.”
Sorry for going off-topic. I suppose I should say something on-topic. I oppose legalized polygamy, both the multiple wives scenario and the “Paint Your Wagon” variety.
GreenEggz (#10), my understanding is that if a polygamist family in a country where polygamy is recognized wishes to join the Church, they must obtain divorces for all but one wife and husband. I admit I am bothered by this, but don’t see how the Church could do it any other way and still maintain that polygamy is not currently a part of the Church.
Rosalynde (#11), though my Mormon upbringing makes me more comfortable with the thought of polygyny than the others, to approve only that and not polyandry and polyamory would seem illogical.
Andrea (#3), I see the legalization of SSM and polygamy as very similar things. The current political state of things (i.e., seeming to be moving towards the legalization of SSM) is why it would seem legalization of polygamy would be possible. If marriage is no longer to be defined as a union between one man and one woman, then extending the privileges to other combinations makes sense. If SSM is not to be allowed, though, then it would make sense to keep polygamy disallowed.
A random John (#5), yes, I suppose it is recognition I speak of. Also, I agree they would not just head on down to the county courthouse for a license, but over time, hopefully things would improve and it would cease being an underground thing. After all, we did not get to the current state of things overnight.
HL Rogers (#9), that is a perfect summary of my feelings on the issue.
For those who’ve stated they would rather polygamy stay illegal but haven’t said why (gst and danithew), why? I ask not to be argumentative, but because I brought this topic up to clarify my thoughts on the issue. I’ve thought this for quite a while, but I figure I’m likely overlooking many things on the issue (complications, oversimplification, consequences), so I’d like to know why people who think I’m wrong think I’m wrong.
I agree that child abuse and sexual abuse are probably rampant problems in “polygamist” relationships and communities, but that is a matter that the local D.A.’s need to crack down on, not a case for the legalization of multi-partner marriages.
Please no legalization of multi-partner marriages!
“Polygamy”. It is a word that instantly causes an increase in my heart rate and an itch to type in my fingertips. It is a sensational topic. I’m still waiting for: Global warming–or the myth that is? Russia–solutions, anyone? In 60 words or less describe why you have chosen your current political affiliation? If one outfit were a reflection of the true you, what would it be? Favorite food, why? Something new that you have learned about your spouse in the last six months? Creative ideas for the spiritually depressed. Bloggernacle for Dummies (like me).
I am against the legalization of multi-partner marriages because I believe that except by commandment of the Lord–for reasons of His own which we may or may not understand, marriage should only be between one man and one woman.
I’m fine with legalizing polygamy/polygyny. Then Section 132 and the Official Declarations will finally make sense. The only difficulty I have with polygamy is the belief that men MUST be married to more than one woman in order to acheive the highest degree of glory in the Celestial Kingdom (but women aren’t required to be in polygamous relationships?). Is this belief doctrine? There are statements of the prophets supporting this belief and also contradicting it (my favorite contradiction is Pres. Hinckley’s statement is that polygamy is not “doctrinal” – what does that mean?)
Anyway, the upshot is that any sort of civil marriage arrangements are fine with me, as long as there are two consenting adults (16 year olds are NOT adults) entering into the relationship. Given the many forms of marriage throughout human history, I don’t think we’re going to be worse off as a society if we recognize these alternative arrangments, and emphasize that adults are free to choose which form of marriage suits them best.
Child abuse is a separate issue. Abusers should be prosecuted under the full extent of the law – we don’t need to legalize polygamy first to do this. Utah needs to get its act together and start prosecuting those who have flagrantly abused children. It’s shameful to look the other way and allow this behavior to continue – polygamy or no polygamy.
Well, at first I said so because I felt obligated to say something on-topic after making a joke. So now I suppose that I must defend my position.
Because I am not a radical but rather a conservative, I believe there should be a presumption against radically changing long-established societal institutions unless necessary to ameliorate pervasive evils that cannot be otherwise adequately addressed. There are other ways to address the serious problem of sexual child abuse in off-the-books polygamous marriages. We should prosecute those who exploit and violate children.
Also, I agree with HL Rogers’ suggestion that the age of consent should be raised.
“Though the marriage itself is illegal, governments and prosecutors are reticent to do anything about it. As long as the parties don’t make waves and just quietly go about their lives”
The solution is not to legalize it or even decriminalize it. The solution is to stop turning a blind eye to it. Prosecute those, even the ones that are not making waves. Delcare those homes unfit for underage children and provide a better support system for those children.
There is a distinction between legality and morality, however, as something is decriminalized and legalized, more and more of the population views it as acceptable and the immorality tends to drop away. Then more people engage in it because they don’t see it as immoral.
While it should not be the government’s role to enforce these kinds of ethics the government must acknowledge the consequences, legal and social, of changing that law.
AS for the original post, in the first paragraph. It seems that the world has been slowly working its way into some of us. Just because the rest of the world sees something as fit doesn’t mean we should accept it.
Elisabeth, if SSM is fine, as you seem to imply, then why do you think the Church is working so hard to try and prevent/denounce it? I’m not a historian, but it seems to me that throughout history, societies that allowed the rampant decline of sexual morality lose the favor of the Lord and became ripe for downfall or destruction. I feel that our society is declining, but that doesn’t mean that I have to roll over and take it.
Hi, Audrey-
Thanks for asking my opinion on these issues. I agree that morality is important. But, I don’t look to the legislature to define my morality. Whether or not my gay friends want to settle down and get married should be their choice. Just as it is their choice to live together (and, presumably, to have sex with each other). I know I am in an extremely tiny minority of members who believes this (currently, I’m the only person I’ve met who thinks this way – and, living in Massachusetts, I’ve heard many other opinions voiced), and I wish I could say more, but I’m off to the Berkshires for the weekend. Hope you have a good weekend, too!
“The solution is not to legalize it or even decriminalize it. The solution is to stop turning a blind eye to it. Prosecute those, even the ones that are not making waves. Delcare those homes unfit for underage children and provide a better support system for those children.”
Charles in many ways we are making the same point. We are discussing ways to get the authorities not to turn a blind eye. My suggestion (and it is really only a possibility that I am not sure would work or not–and probably wouldn’t know if it was effective until it was actually tried) was to regulate it. Your suggesstion was a tautology: don’t turn a blind eye by not turning a blind eye. Which ignores all of the political and social factors that have led to the problem in the first place.
Tanya, I’m not willing to engage in a long debate on this because they tend to get pretty contentious, but my position is that today polygamy should not be legalized. I am completely opposed to the argument that “people are going to do it anyway to we might as well make it legal.” The purpose of laws is to set a moral standard. Laws are, at the end of the day, about moral judgements. Why is murder illegal? Because it is “wrong.” There are absolute standards on which we base the law. Having multiple sexual partners without the Lord sanctioning them is wrong. The Lord and modern-day prophets have made that very clear. The only time multiple sexual partners is not wrong is when the Lord sanctions it. Study the stories of David and Solomon for examples. One of the purposes of law is to tell society what is wrong and what is right. Therefore, polygamy must remain illegal because it is wrong.
There are a myriad of other societal issues involved, such as the fact that even with the growth of desire for SSM, there is still no popular movement to legalize polygamy. It is not an accepted societal practice, and arguing over this issue is something of a waste of time because I doubt it will happen anytime soon. (But I could be wrong — I made the same argument about SSM 10 years ago, and look how quickly our society has gone wrong on that issue).
Any attempt to legalize polygamy (without the Lord’s sanction) is yet another nail in the coffin for traditional marriage. You only need to talk to a northern European (“why should I get married — nobody gets married anymore — you can just live together”) to see what happens to families and society as a whole when traditional marriage is under attack. The Proclamation on the Family makes it clear that we will suffer as traditional gender roles and marriage come under attack.
The Brethren have made it clear repeatedly (even in this month’s issue of Ensign, for example) that traditional one-woman, one-man marriage is the only currently acceptable standard. I take these types of warnings extremely seriously and would say that deviating from the Church position is very dangerous for a society.
The solution for child abuse is to prosecute the people involved and put them behind bars if necessary. I don’t care if they are in an armed compound in the middle of the desert, if they are abusing children, they should be put in jail. Raising the age of consent to 18 years might not be a bad idea.
Look, I know these ideas are not cool and hip on the bloggernacle these days. The cool and hip thing to do is to pick apart the official Church position and look for ways that the Brethren just might not understand how behind the times they are. This is what people throughout history have always said when prophets have told them what to do — those old prophets are just not with it, they don’t understand modern realities. Again, this type of position is extremely dangerous. The Church has come out very clearly that in the year 2005 the only acceptable marriage in the United States is traditional one-man, one-woman marriage. That’s good enough for me.
(My comment on it not being hip is not aimed at Tanya or anybody else in particular — just a general sense of the way arguments go on these issues these days).
okay –
let’s line up all our ducks in a row:
Polygamy: any marriage with more than two partners. Multiple husbands, multiple wives, group marriages of three husbands and four wives, etc.
Polyandry: Multiple Husbands of one wife.
Polygyny: Mutiple wives of one husband.
The terminology is getting a little mixed up in this discussion. The early saints practiced Polygyny – which is a form of polygamy.
I think it’s easy to point to Utah and say that it needs to do more. What exactly should Utah do? Should we penalize them for living illegally in polygamous families, how? Arrest them all? What should we do with all the kids? All cases of domestic abuse are extremely difficult to verify, let alone prosecute. I’m not saying there isn’t more to be done, but it’s much easier said than done.
Geoff: under your rationale (“Laws are, at the end of the day, about moral judgements. Why is murder illegal? Because it is “wrong.” There are absolute standards on which we base the law. Having multiple sexual partners without the Lord sanctioning them is wrong. The Lord and modern-day prophets have made that very clear.”–or in short form, if it is morally wrong, it should be illegal)the list of those practices which are prevalent in society today which should be made illegal is pretty long: adultery, fornication, drinking any type of alcohol, drinking coffee, lying etc. etc. Do you really support making all those practices illegal or do you have a threshold. Wrong acts should only be made illegal if they are really wrong. If you do have a spectrum on what do you base it. Sexual sin is the second worst so should we advocate to make adultery illegal again and to add fornication to the list. If we should why haven’t the Brethern advocated that members of the Church push legislatures for this outcome.
I agree with your outcome on SSM, I just don’t think you’ve articulated a very good rationale for making it illegal. Lots of theings are morally wrong–if we made all of them illegal there wouldn’t be anyone left outside of jail–after all we ALL sin.
“The cool and hip thing [on the bloggernacle]to do is to pick apart the official Church position and look for ways that the Brethren just might not understand how behind the times they are.”
I don’t see where you get this from. While, regretably, I think this does happen on the bloggernacle at times. It seems to me the “cool and hip” thing on the bloggernacle is to support both the position of the Church and the Brethern in every way. That is what I see the vast majority of people doing. I think you may confuse what your personal belief is and what the stance of the Church is at times. Obviously not with SSM, besides the rationale, but with enough issues for you to feel that the bloggernacle is hostile to the Church, which I simply don’t think it is. I don’t think this thread is about questioning the Church’s current stance on polygamy, I thought it was about thinking about ways to reduce child abuse among groups that practice polygamy already.
I would vote to legalize polygamy, of every type. SSM and marijuana too, for that matter. But I think morality and legality are two seperate (but related) issues. As HL pointed out, sleeping around may be immoral, but I’d never support making it illegal.
Since I may have been unclear, I don’t believe entering into polygamy (or other types of relationships besides marriage between one man and one woman) is a moral choice a member of the Church should make. However, what leads me to my position is seeing the world as it is and wondering how to improve it. Is it ideal? Absolutely not. But it seems that trying to improve things within the rules our government and overarching American society has currently set up seems like a good thing. Polygamy is illegal, but currently nothing is done to protect the children who are unwilling participants. If we take the polygamy itself out of the picture (i.e., if it is legal and thus not an issue playing into the complexities), thus bringing the issue of child abuse back to the forefront where it should be, then the greater tragedy can actually be addressed. Currently, the child abuse seems to be almost entirely ignored. I find that a greater sin.
HL “It seems to me the “cool and hip” thing on the bloggernacle is to support both the position of the Church and the Brethern in every way. That is what I see the vast majority of people doing.”
Are you serious? There’s a lot of people in the bloggernacle who seem to believe those who support the official church positions are mere sheep without a brain. Not so much on this blog but definitely several others.
I proprose that the legalization of polygamy would increase the acceptance of sexual relations with children. This is being promoted already in various countries including our own. The reason? We started saying all relationships are okay because the law shouldn’t stand in the way of who or what people feel amorous toward. Combine that with the push to treat children like adults in marketing and entertainment among other things. Add legalization to the mix that basically says whatever people want is fine. The “consenting adults” caveat won’t cut it as we’re already turning kids into adults. It’s even happening physically. It will be justified eventually.
How sad that is that kids cannot be kids anymore. Hear about Grand Theft Auto’s dirty little secret this week? That “M” label on it doesn’t mean a thing and everyone knows it. Put the oness on parents sure, but can they lock their kids up to shield them? Society has responsibility to look out for all kids. Many parents just don’t care or have the time to care because they’re working 2 and 3 jobs just to get food on the table.
Adeline: I think there are a lot of small blogs in the bloggernacle that are as you describe. However, the larger blogs T&S, M*, and BCC are not and they drive most of the traffic, esp. T&S.
I think some people have this perception b/c of misreading people’s intent and message in their blogs. For example, Tanya speculates on ways to solve the child abuse problem in polygamous families that is not being addressed by current law enforcement. This is an interesting idea, one that should be considered if we are serious about curtailing such abuse. Is her stance against the Church, I don’t think so. It seems from how she drafted the post that she supports the Church, its leaders, and its policies. However, some people seem to want to misread and believe that raising issues to discuss is the same as questioning or opposing the Church. This simply is not the case. I stand by my position that the majority of the bloggernacle is affirmatively engaged in supporting the Church.
I believe that polygyny as commanded by God and practiced by the saints in the 19th century was not only moral but desirable and ultimately is still required in the resurrection for exaltation. With that said, I am opposed to the legalization or decriminalization of polygamy on any grounds. Polygamy without the authorization of God through his priesthood found only in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is just fornication and adultery. And in today’s political climate, I don’t think it would be possible to legalize God-santioned polygamy without opening the floodgates of “anything goes” marriages, group marriages, open marriages and other abominations.
About a year ago I read an extraordinarily good article about the true designs of the same sex marriage movement. And it persuaded me that legalizing same sex marriage would effectively legalize group marriages involving heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual and incestuous behavior all within the same “family.” It would create a sexual free-for-all culture.
I wish I could remember the author and title of the article. It addressed points of law, history, was quite well written and scholarly. Anyway, I vote against the legalization of polygamy. Heaven forbid!
Elisabeth —
We should meet as we have similar viewpoints!!
My country just legalized same-sex unions which I support as I feel that it is simply a charter issue. Particularly in Canada, where we have an extremely multi-cultural society and many minorities, I don’t think we can pick and choose who we give rights and protections too. Since I appreciate my freedom to worship as a miniority religion and expect those rights to be protected, how can I turn around and deny those to any one else? It will be interesting to see what happens in Canada regarding polygamy. The leader of the Conservative Party (who has a lot of support in southern Alberta, where there is a large LDS population) has decried SSM as it will open the doors to other marital relationships such as polygamy. Interesting.
That being said, I disagree Tanya, I don’t think that legalising polygamy will help children or young women who are held “captive” in abusive situations.
In light of GreenEggz’s comment #6 about Somali polygamy, you may be interested to know that the application for permanent residence in the United States includes a whole page of questions intended to weed out undesirables. There are questions about what the applicant was doing between 1933 and 1945, whether the applicant is a communist or intends to overthrow the government. There are questions about whether the applicant intends to engage in espionage in the US.
And, finally, at the end of all those questions, there is:
Do you plan to practice polygamy in the U.S.?
Makes me proud of my LDS heritage!
It is interesting to see Kris equating freedom to engage in whatever sexual unions one desires with the freedom to worship as one sees fit.
HL
I support Geoff and Adeline completely. Why do you think we are councilled to avoid the philosophies of men and intellectualism? You may be right that there are a lot of smaller blogs out there that act that way, but lets be serious. T&S and BCC, which are fun to read at times, are often some of the biggest offenders in this respect.
The fact is that that laws are about upholding moral standards of society. If you support the belief that cultural relativism is more valid that concrete morals then it follows that laws should be revised to allow society to act as it sees fit.
However, if you believe the opposite, that true forms of right and wrong exist and that morallity is not relative, then there is no reason to change the laws to reflect a change in what society wants.
The greatest challenge we face is developing a set of laws that are fair and do not themselves enforce a specific religion, per the first amendment. Removing morality from laws becomes difficult in this light. We must temper what is fundamentally right and wrong with what is best for society.
In what ways do SSM and Polygamy improve society MORE than traditional marriage? They don’t. I can only think of one valid reason to legalize polygamy, but as I don’t support it, I’ll allow those who do to figure it out on their own :).
Not only would I vote against legalizing polygamy, I would vote to keep marijuana illegal and if given the chance, I would vote to illegalize sleeping around (both adultery and fornication), alcohol, and pornography.
One thing that is often ignored in these debates is that there are different degrees of illegality. Some things are minor misdemeanors, some are felonies, some are capital offenses. Just because some of us would support making sleeping around illegal, does not mean we want to make it a capital offense.
The “Prohibition caused more problems than it fixed” claim is a well-worn canard. The illegalization of alcohol created additional business for, and greater turf wars between gangsters. There will always be money in trafficking illegal wares, and when alcohol was legalized again, the gangs did not go away, they simply switched to trafficking whatever else was illegal, just as they have always done.
The real problem is the destabilization of the family. Broken homes increase the number of criminals and criminal activity more than the illegalization of alcohol ever did. Destabilized families are correlated with increased criminal activity in the children of these families. Alcohol, drugs, pornography, are all catalysts for family destabilization, have an addictive component, and are often key contributors to Spouse and Child Abuse, divorce, unwed mothers, infidelity, and criminal activity that has nothing to do with their legality. The state has an interest in regulating and even illegalizing these things to counter the far-reaching, deleterious effect they have on society.
Prohibition should never have been repealed, and had the saints obeyed the council of the prophet at the time it wouldn’t have been repealed. But the saints ignored the prophet and will be accountable to God for it in the final Judgment.
Conservatives, whether they have a rational basis for it or not, believe that Polygamy and SSM will, in general, contribute to the destabilization of families. Therefore they support their continued illegalization.
For me, the last two sentences of the Proclamation on the Family are key: “…we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.
We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.“
Read that carefully. It says that the disintegration of the family will bring the calamities foretold. We have a responsibility to promote measures designed to keep the family from disintegrating.
In my opinion, supporting the legalization of drugs or prostitution, allowing the legal distribution of pornography, or supporting the legalization of polygamy or SSM is contrary to this injunction from the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles.
Charles: “T&S and BCC, which are fun to read at times, are often some of the biggest offenders in this respect.”
Bring on, C-man! First, I guess I don’t really know what “in this respect” means, maybe you’re talking about being intellectual or something. But if you’re talking about not supporting the Brethren, I’d LOVE it if you could show me an instance at BCC where the posters have not done so.
…er…. bring it on. Challenges are a lot less effective when not proofread.
I should add that there is nothing wrong with legislating morality. The primary reason why we do not illegalize everything that is morally wrong is because in order to enforce such laws we would have to give the government so much power that if corrupt individuals were to gain control of the government, they could use that power to even worse effect.
Thus, we tolerate a degree of immorality in our society, not because people have a right to do what ever they want (because they don’t–nobody ever has a right to do what is wrong), but because we cannot eradicate those evils without creating a governmental avenue for even greater evil.
If we could illegalize all forms of evil without creating a system with the ability to perpetuate even greater evil through the powers it is afforded, then it would be our moral obligation to do so.
When the Lord comes to reign, adultery, pornography, and every other evil will be illegal because, as King, He can wield such power without corruption.
Creating equitable laws does not take away free will.
At the risk of oversimplifying this discussion, one wife is enough for me!
To argue that polygamy should continue to be illegal because “the brethren” say it is wrong completely misses the point (as Geoff often does). Since when do the brethren have the final say on what SOCIETY (as opposed to the Church) finds acceptable?
Even in areas where the law is clearly defined in areas of child abuse, the law does a poor job of taking the children out of homes and placing them in safe homes. I see the secretness of the societies really as the barrier. In the past, women and children suffered when polygamy was ended. I the case with Green, it seems like the women were either helped to go on welfare or to seek employment such as being a daycare worker. As far as those who are forced into an act, there should be stricter laws on the book to protect anybody from being forced into any contract legal or not. As a society, I agree that we need to protect children from being victims.. I am just not sure that is the best way to approach it.
J.Max – I’m not sure I follow your argument. Adultery, pornography, and lots of other evils (spitting on sidewalks, selling alcohol on Sunday) are currently illegal in many states.
Geoff B-
I agree that we should not pick apart what the Church leaders say, and that we should follow their teachings. However, I have struggled with this issue, because our Church leaders have been hesitant in the past to extend civil rights to deserving members of our society. One prophet believed that the civil rights movement was a communist conspiracy, and that if segregation happened – all sorts of calamaties would occur. Thankfully, blacks are now allowed to enjoy the same civil rights and spiritual blessings as white people are.
It doesn’t matter what ideas are cool and hip, but it does matter how we treat our brothers and sisters.
Tess,
I’m not sure exactly how I am supposed to respond to a comment like “I’m not sure I follow your argument. Adultery, pornography, and lots of other evils (spitting on sidewalks, selling alcohol on Sunday) are currently illegal in many states.“
I have written as clearly as I am able, given my current time constraints. In all seriousness, why don’t you ask the Lord to help you understand what I am saying, and then ask Him if it is true?
“If we could illegalize all forms of evil without creating a system with the ability to perpetuate even greater evil through the powers it is afforded, then it would be our moral obligation to do so.”
J Max – sorry – I don’t mean to be rude. I’m sincerely not understanding what you mean by this sentence above. The government CAN legalize all forms of evil (or whatever it considers to be evil). We the American people have already given this power to the government.
I’m talking about illegalization with implied power of enforcement. I can see that my thoughts appear a little muddled. In any case, my position is that the repeal of prohibition was a mistake. When Utah became _the_ deciding state in the vote to repeal prohibition, and the prophet counseled the members not to repeal it, they ignored him and the Lord will hold them responsible. My position is that the government can and should regulate and even prohibit those things that destabilize families.
Steve – BCC? My household had a fantastic laugh over that one. I’m sure Charles and others have a bevy of examples but I need not go further than your current front page to see promotion of the sunstone symposium, musings of seemingly better(?) independent women as RS presidents, and that’s just the front page.
A visit to who posts lists people who have either posted on other blogs or their own in the past things that fly in the face of what the church teaches about femininity to name one thing. We could go back to your archives and:
-Follow your suggestion to watch several tv shows that are far from wholesome.
-Your rather flexible view of the WoW.
-Slobbering over Margaret Toscano.
One might also point out that you revel in your counter-culture ideology. “We exist to proclaim liberal truth loudly, as with the voice of a trump, poking our fingers in the eye of staunch conservativism.”
Why I do declare I’m sure I can hear Monson speaking those same words come October conference! 😉 Clearly, BCC is the veritable mouthpiece of the brethren.
Um, gay marriage is *not* illegal. Gay people have weddings all over our country. Granted, they don’t have marriage licenses, but that doesn’t stop them from getting all dressed up in uncomfortable clothes and blowing vast amounts of money on food and drink for guests. I think it’s more accurate to say that gay marriage is currently extralegal. Those who have been saying that gay marriage should stay illegal and that fornication should be made illegal are confusing two different concepts. In 19th century Utah, polygyny was both extralegal and illegal. I have an ancestor who did jail time for “cohabitation”. Today, most states have bigamy laws which criminalize those who have more than one “marriage license” spouse at a time, but I’m not aware of any state other than Utah which maintains a criminal statute against having extralegal spouses.
As was widely reported, the Supreme Court recently struck down a criminal statute punishing sodomy. I think they decided correctly. While it’s true that we could create a government under which sodomy and similar vices were illegal, the USA is not such a government, bound as we are by the Constitution. As the opening lines of Lawrence v. Texas state, “[l]iberty protects the person from unwarranted government intrusions into a dwelling or other private places. In our tradition the State is not omnipresent in the home.” I like it that way.
This is truly priceless:
“In all seriousness, why don’t you ask the Lord to help you understand what I am saying, and then ask Him if it is true?”
Adeline, perhaps it would help if you recalibrated your sarcasm meter before reading BCC, especially if the quotation you cite above seems like a serious mission statement to you.
>”… In our tradition the State is not omnipresent in the home.” I like it that way. – Dan Richards
There’s the rub. At what point does the State become omnipresent? Personally, I don’t care about people participating in sodomy. Yet no one can deny that actions in the home shape people’s actions outside the home where they will have an impact on the rest of society. Where do we draw the line?
There is much talk along the lines of If you don’t like it: don’t do it/turn the channel/teach your kids better. That doesn’t take into account that we are influenced by what goes on around us. If it weren’t so, there wouldn’t be the kind of money spent on advertising that there is.
I don’t want to legislate everything though finding the line of where to stop is tough. I do believe that advertising can be a good force in society as well – thetruth.com has done a great job with their ads bringing out the facts about the cigarette industry. They’re up against an industry spending billions on advertising.
Remember the whole Clinton “it takes a village” thing? I really do think it takes a village. The problem is picking which parts the whole village has a say in for the greater good.
I live among these people, we are surrounded by polygamists, not the Colorado City kind, but the other kind. None of them are law-abiding (forget polygamy for a minute), they live like pigs and they do not take care of their children. I know a lot of polygamists, but none of them live any type of normal lives. Except maybe the guys at Colorado City, which is a whole other kind of weird. Legalizing what they do wouldn’t make the world better for anybody. They already do pretty much what they want and we pay for it, most of them live on welfare.
Actually, I know a lot of gay people, too, and none of them are the low-lifes that the polygamists are. They’d probably make pretty good neighbors. Polygamists are basically lazy perverts.
I think marijuana should be available for medicinal use. I’ve seen first hand the benefit.
Mark B. —
This may come as a huge surprise to you but there are gay people who actually go to church — churches who have gay ministers like the United Church of Canada and other people whose congregations have voted to bless same sex unions — I would surmise that is part of their right to worship as they choose.
And for what it’s worth I do not support the freedom to engage in whatever sexual unions one desires, however I feel that homosexuality is not simply just a matter of “sinful desire”, those who know and love gay people from their circle of family or friends will certainly attest to this.
Several people have talked about plural marriage only being moral when God commands it. How could someone legally follow the Lord’s cammandments if the law says that it is illegal and immoral? I think that plural marriage is moral, so long as it is done by the Lord’s command and along with the gospel. It may be bad to let everyone have a right to plural marriage, but in light of the Gospel, which is worse: those that don’t know better living plural marriage, or those that are commanded to live it and can’t because of the law?
When I made this comment it was intended as an honest suggestion and not a crowing declaration that God would confirm what I am saying is true. When I am presented with a point of view that contradicts my own, or I struggle to understand another’s argument, I often pray and ask the Lord to help me understand what they are saying and to tell me if it is true. I was merely recommending this approach to Tess, since I really could not think of a good way to respond to her comment.
Well, for what it’s worth, I would like everyone on every blog to pray and ask God to help them understand that everything I say is true.
Ha!
Annegb, # 57 –
I did – stupor of thought is about all there is to report! 😉
Re 10:
The church requires that all but one wife be divorced. I was teaching a polygamist in Thailand (where it is very legal and fairly common) and the stake president helped me teach the 4th discussion, after which I left and they had a long talk. The stake president told me not to return, because the investigator would not live the law of chastity.
So, are you for legalizing gay marriage as well? I mean if a man can have more than one wife, then why not be able to marry your dog, cat or horse while you’re at it? I think you miss the point on what the institution of marriage is for. #54 I agree with your last statement. Re-read the proclamation to the family people.
From what I have seen in the comments, it seems as though somebody’s position on polygamy depends more on the angle at which they look at it than anything else. While I agree that it generally causes more problems than it resolves, there is one issue that, for many is huge: health insurance.
In today’s society, serial polygamy, rather than concurrent polygamy is quite common. When I say “serial polygamy”, I mean the situation where people get married, find another partner, divorce the first, then marry the next.
What happens to the now-single mom with kids? In too many cases, she hasn’t had to work, and now finds herself even more unemployable. One of the first things to go in the tight budget is health insurance, and therefore health care for the kids. In most of these cases, the father (who has moved on to his “upgraded” wife) has child support obligations, but that rarely comes close to the childrens’ real needs. Since the legal obligations to the first family have changed, coverage for insurance also changes. If, on the other hand, that first wife were to remain a first wife, she and the children would continue to be covered with little additional cost.
The same situation exists, even on a more significant scale, to the breakdown of long-term marriages. Say you have a woman who has spent her adult life caring for the home, raising the children, and once the children are raised, hubby gets his “mid-life crisis” and runs away with his secretary. What are the chances that a 50-something woman who hasn’t worked since she was a teenager (before marriage) will be able to get a decent job, not to mention one with benefits? Again, as a First Wife (rather than an ex-wife), she still has a better chance of help with ther physical and financial needs.
See? I told you your position on polygamy depended on the angle at which you look at it.
But why is it “wrong”?
Because it involves lack of consent on the part of the one being murdered.
A polygamous marriage where all parties know what is going on and give their consent to it, it seems to me, is not “wrong”. What is “wrong” is to establish laws that limit agency whereby some can decide that they have the right to override the decisions of other consenting adults.
Lucifer’s desire to override the agency of others cost him dearly. I would hate to find myself inadvertently having chosen his side of the agency question.
A legal point: Utah raised the age of legal marriage for minors not without parental consent, but with. Parents had to give consent through a judge, as I understand. Now, even if the parents and a judge (who is, presumably, an independent third-party) give consent, marriage cannot happen until 16. This is a pity- I have a cousin who had a baby at 14. With the support of their families, she and her boyfriend married, put their lives together, they were eventually sealed in the temple… a happy ending. If they had been forced to wait another two years to legitimize their sexual relationship (and most of us have probably observed the difficulty of returning a relationship to a non-sexual state after it has reached that level) – well, I think the stresses may have been rather more than a vulnerable young family might have borne. As it is, their children (they now have 4) are growing up in a wonderful home, whatever it’s beginnings.
My point: putting padlocks on the cow pasture gate while the horses are streaming from the barn. There are longstanding, legitimate reasons for minors to marry. Polygamy (which I do not have time to weigh in on right now) is very complex, but if polygamy is the concern, don’t legislate about minor marriages. If child abuse is the concern, don’t legislate about polygany. Put your efforts into stopping the actual problem. (And if housekeeping is a concern, don’t send the inspectors my way…:))
But, Nancy, that is really the exception. That is remarkable, also remarkably rare.
I think Utah and other western states need to do something to stop child abuse in polygamy.
I do not think legalizing polygamy would be a good choice. I have legal rights as a wife that I feel entitled to. Currently, the only way I lose those rights is by divorce. By letting someone marry multiple times (which sometimes people try to do and have double lives) you make it possible to undermine the legal status of a spouse.
#54 Kris,
As someone who has struggled with same-sex attraction for a large part of my life, I can tell you that leaving homosexuality has a lot to do with overcoming that “sinful desire”. I have given it up. I have been happily (for the most part) 🙂 married for almost seven years (in the temple), with two beautiful children. The blessings of overcoming those desires far outweigh the momentary pleasures of engaging in that type of lifestyle. Similarly, my brother is struggling with it right now. It is an addictive behavior and the gospel can help you to change your heart and your desires. It is truly like being born again, and getting a whole new outlook on life! I think that it is harmful for church members to assume that everyone who struggles with this problem wants to have a SSM. I am glad that the church defines it as a sin, because it helped to force me to move away from choosing that lifestyle. I love my spouse, and I am grateful for our eternal union. Like an alcoholic, I must stay 100 yards away from this temptation for the rest of my life, to be on the safe side…but the blessings are worth it!
Crimes should be punished according to their ‘criminality and tendency to evil’; but is not entirely easy to figure that out.
In the late nineteenth century. the United States government conducted a decades-long program of forcible social re-engineering against the church : stripping certain basic rights of citizenship, military occupation, imposed government, disincorporation, confiscation of assets, raids, imprisonment.
The result is that the church retreated from polygamy, closed down its own political vehicle, the People’s Party, and largely abandoned economic cooperation.
I have read the Reynolds decision, where the Supreme Court ruled that Congress had the power to forbid polygamy in the territories. It seems well-reasoned—but I think it was and is a bad judgment.
The saints of that day argued and felt that polygamy was a religious practise, and constitutionally protected as such, more or less irrespective of the traditions of others. I think they were right and the Supreme Court wrong.
The law of chastity forbids sexual relations except between spouses legally and lawfully wedded. It posits an strong connection between not just the church and the state, but between our covenants and the existence of an accepted civil government competent to register marriages.
The church is not always adamant about the letter of legality, however. Under some circumstances, manifest commitment seems to be enough, at least for a time.
When my brother served in Nova Scotia, there was a legal requirement for a waiting period of five years between when someone first applied for a divorce and when they could receive it. Sometimes, the missionaries would teach a family who were willing to be baptised, only to discover that the parents were not married to each other, and could not be for five years because one of them had not bothered to file for a divorce from a pre-existing spouse. The church gave general dispensation in such circumstances : the missionaries were instructed to baptise such families anyway, on the understanding that the parents would get started on the long road to a legal marriage, continuing to live as de facto spouses in the meantime.
When Nova Scotia changed its laws so that the waiting period went down to two years, the church removed the dispensation, and couples in those circumstances had to complete the two-year process and get legally married before they could be baptised.
One of the difficult things is that every social policy, however right, inevitably harms as well as helps. Thus, for instance, in the example just given, it is clear than some kind of balance was being struck, with five year waits favoring one rule, while two year waits favored a different rule.
Moreover, the people harmed are often different from the ones helped. It seems to me that the older rule benefitted the families it applied to, but was considered to be somewhat at general expense. It also seems that the newer rule harms the families it applies to somewhat, but is considered more consistent and generally beneficial.
For another example, most of us, given the following options for sexual behavior of single youngsters :
would prefer 1 to 2 to 3. Many disagreements about sex education and so forth occur not because parents disagree about this order, but about how much the difference between 1 and 2 is worth, compared to how much the difference between 2 and 3 is worth.
It is a simple fact that, while agency counts, background also counts. Some youngsters, unless they consciously decide otherwise, are headed for option 1, others for option 2, and still others for option 3.
Those parents who consider the difference between 1 and 2 much more important than that between 2 and 3 are going to consider a policy that takes youngsters now headed for 2 and redirect them to 1 or 3 with equal probability to be well worth doing. Those who consider the difference between 2 and 3 much more important will consider that same policy disastrous.
I’m not really finished, but this post is already too long…
annegb: I know how rare that is. The point is, if a minor is in a situation where they wish to marry, their parents agree, and they can get a judge to agree that it is in their best interest to do so- if all those people agree, why should we pass further legislation making it impossible for people even in those rare situations to give their relationship a chance at legitimacy? Those who already passed this stringent test of societal consent are the only ones affected by the recent change in legislation. And that, as I said, is a shame. Because it was a change in legislation designed to look like it would help those poor polygamous teenage brides… but they never came under this laws jurisdiction anyway. To help them, more money needs to be put into the enforcement arm of the law – like I said, bolts on the pasture gate while horses are streaming from the barn.
To Made a Change, (#67)
Thanks for coming here to offer your opinions. It’s good to hear from you. You are not alone — there are more people out there with your experience than you may believe. I have known a few with similar experiences. Keep on truckin’!