Understanding Polygamy

[DrStrangelove]

My wife and I have been watching "Big Love" on HBO since it started maybe 5 or 6 weeks ago. No, I don't TYPICALLY get my education from television soap operas (fiction) but I'm assuming that they're trying to keep things somewhat "real." Which got me to thinking yesterday.

Polygamy is against the law. Easy enough to understand. Yet they say that there are polygamists in Utah (and I suppose in other states-- anyone marrying more than one person regardless of religion would be considered a polygamist but that's a different path)-- while these men have multiple wives the show depicted them as only having one "first wife." This is the wife that they are legally married to according to the state. This is the one that they have the marriage certificate for.

The other wives, presumably, are married to the husband in the eyes of the church and no where else. There is no legal process or document that links the husband and wife. Yet, in the show, other Mormons and government want to crack down on the practice of polygamy. So much so that it's important, again according to the show, for them to keep their mulitple wives a secret.

So I got to thinking. I could have babies with five different women on my block. I could be actively engaged with each of them (relationshipwise) in an ongoing fashion. I would have to support my children with them. I'm ALLOWED to do this. It would not be illegal for me to call them all "wife." If the practiced polygamy in this faction of the mormon church (I realize that these folks are by large the minority at this point) isn't even a state sanctioned process how can it be illegal?

[scem0]

I think it's absurd that what consenting adults do among themselves, which causes no harm to anyone, is illegal. Polygamy is very harmless as long as no one is being forced into marriage, and if they are then that is wrong, but it also has nothing to do with polygamy. Why in the world should it be illegal?

e

[nbs2]

Couple of points to consider here -

1) This isn't really part of your question, btu the reason they hide it from the church is that it is contrary to church policy and they will be excommunicated for it. I suppose it seems silly to stay a member of a church when you are committed to commiting an excommunicable offense, but I suppose there is an underlying faith. Plus when you are in a community where you go to the same church (or any social gathering) as all your neighbors, they will notice pretty quick that you aren't going any more. Can make for uncomfortable and awkward. It does seem strange that in SLC, where less than half the people are Mormon it would be as noticed, but I guess it would still be pretty noticible.

2) The history of the outlawing of polygamy has to do with the First Amendment. Remember that Congress shall make no law aabridging the freedom of religion. Now, Mormons weren't all that popular back in the mid 1800s (not that we are all that popular now), with extermination orders being given by governors and people being tarred/feathered and looted and mobbed on a regular basis. At the time, the church was practicing polygamy. By going after the practice (which was not an underlying tenant of the faith - it was generally only practiced after the husbands of women were killed by mobs) rather than the relgion, the law could justify the arrest of church members.

Remember, the law was passed in a time when people didn't just live with each other without getting married and bastard children brought shame on all involved - so your scenario would be even more outlandish (and I think even more illegal at the time)

[leekohler]

I've never understood the objection to polygamy either. Can someone clarify?

[grapes911]

I've never understood the objection to polygamy either. Can someone clarify?IMO, this is one of those issues that the government should stay out of. I do not think the government should have any authority to ban polygamy. That being said, I try not to judge other people morals, but I cannot ethically support it. It just seems wrong to me. I know that may sounds like a poor reason, but it's just how I feel. I see marriage as something special between two people.

Polygamy was legal in Utah before it was a state. The US government did not like it and they gave Utah a choice when applying for statehood -- ban polygamy or not become a state. As you can probably guess, the people of Utah wanted to be a state more than they cared about polygamy.

[Blue Velvet]

I've never understood the objection to polygamy either. Can someone clarify?

Try asking your mother, sisters or other female relatives. The dynamics and power structure inherent in such arrangements serve only to benefit only one person...

[grapes911]

Try asking your mother, sisters or other female relatives.
I totally understand your point, but I thought I'd throw this out there:
While not as common, polygamy has been known to go the other way. One woman and many men. There are even instances when there are multiple men and multiple women.

[srobert]

Try asking your mother, sisters or other female relatives. The dynamics and power structure inherent in such arrangements serve only to benefit only one person...

Can't female be polygamists? i.e.: 5 multiple husbands? Just curious. I don't know much about the subject.

I totally understand your point, but I thought I'd throw this out there:
While not as common, polygamy has been known to go the other way. One woman and many men. There are even instances when there are multiple men and multiple women.

Ah. thanks. Your post made it to the thread while I was writing mine.

[Blue Velvet]

Does this sound like a mutually rewarding and beneficial relationship to you with equitable arrangements under law?

http://www.polygamy.org/dangersigns.shtml

[skunk]

Can't female be polygamists? i.e.: 5 multiple husbands? Just curious. I don't know much about the subject.Yes, it's called polyandry, as opposed to polygyny.
From Wiki:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyandry
Polyandry has occurred in Tibet (see Polyandry in Tibet), Zanskar, Nepal, India (Zanskar, Ladakh, Toda of South India, Nairs of Kerala, the Nymba and Pahari of North India), and Sri Lanka. It is also encountered in some regions of China (especially Yunnan- the Mosuo people), and in some Subsaharan African and American indigenous communities (notably the Surui of northwestern Brazil). In other societies, there are people who live in de facto polyandrous arrangements that are not recognized by the law.

[leftbanke7]

I really don't think anybody would give a crap about polygamy now if it weren't for the fact that these girls under age 18 are being forcably married to their uncles by Warren Jeffs and his happy-go-lucky clan.

Any religion with the term "fundamentalist" in the title should make one step back and wonder a bit.

[leekohler]

Does this sound like a mutually rewarding and beneficial relationship to you with equitable arrangements under law?

http://www.polygamy.org/dangersigns.shtml

This sounds more like religious abuse rather than a discussion of polygamy per se. Or am i reading it wrong?

[grapes911]

This sounds more like religious abuse rather than a discussion of polygamy per se. Or am i reading it wrong?
I think it's more than just "religious abuse". I'm sure there are some loving families consisting of polygamy, but generally the family structure resembles more of a dictatorship.

[leekohler]

I think it's more than just "religious abuse". I'm sure there are some loving families consisting of polygamy, but generally the family structure resembles more of a dictatorship.

But outside of religious framework, is it necessarily always that way? Just trying to get a handle on this.

[skunk]

But outside of religious framework, is necessarily always that way? It's bound to be, isn't it? Just think of the dynamics.

[mpw]

I've thought about this recently too.

The government here are dragging their heels to bring about changes to the 'Sexual Offences' laws that were last amended to de-criminalize homosexuality as recently as the 1990's.

The present situation is that: (I'll be crude here for the sake of brevity)

Sexual Intercourse & Marriage:
Man-Woman 16years+ = OK but NOT anal & can get married.
Man-Man 18years+ = OK but can’t marry.
Man-Woman-Woman 16years+ = OK still no anal but oddly can marry ‘cause polygamy is technically legal.
Man-Woman-Man = Go to jail pervert.
Man-Women & Man sitting reading in the corner of the room = Go to jail perverts.
Man-Man & woman sitting reading in the corner of the room = Go to jail perverts.

Various options have been suggested to reform these laws and the likely outcome next month will be to legalize anal intercourse between men and women and to lower the age of consent for homosexuals to 16years. Those two changes have been hard fought and are only happening because of legal pressure from the EU/UK governments.

The next stage is to bring further equality by legalizing same sex marriage and this is likely to be some years away given that one quote from a leading politician during the debates on the changes above called for a raise of the age of consent to 21years all round and stated that the act of anal sex between even a consenting married male/female couple was depraved and disgusting.

However part of the consultation process for this next stage has begun and I’ve been asked to provide some feedback to the legislators and it struck me that true equality would allow legal recognition of marriage in pretty much any variation you care to name.

I’m not talking about changes to the existing laws that cover fathers marrying daughters (or sons) and sisters marrying brothers etc. but I can’t see a problem with legal recognition of consenting adults entering into a polygamous marriage.

I see a system that just has one state of ‘Civil Partnership’ which grants all the legal protection to the partners within the marriage that is presently granted under a ‘traditional’ marriage regards of the number or gender of the partners.

I’d appreciate your views.

[Ugg]

I’m not talking about changes to the existing laws that cover fathers marrying daughters (or sons) and sisters marrying brothers etc. but I can’t see a problem with legal recognition of consenting adults entering into a polygamous marriage.

I see a system that just has one state of ‘Civil Partnership’ which grants all the legal protection to the partners within the marriage that is presently granted under a ‘traditional’ marriage regards of the number or gender of the partners.

I’d appreciate your views.

The point of civil marriage, as opposed to religious marriage, in most countries is to provide a framework for legal issues. Inheritance, child support, citizenship, etc, etc. I'd say that the most important aspect of civil marriage is the children. Since children figure less and less in civil marriages, a case could be made to legalize polygamous marriages. What would need to be done however, is totally overhaul the legal system.

In a divorce, if one person wants out, does that person get a share of the income and assets of the other two? What about child support? There are a lot of questions that would need to be answered before things could go forward. It would truly be opening a Pandora's box of legal issues.

Since most countries confer citizenship or at least legal immigrant status on those who are married to a citizen, wouldn't this start a flood of immigration? What if the third partner was significantly younger, would this create some kind of imbalance in the relationship? What kind of safeguards would be in place to protect the youngest partner?

Why should the government provide legal protection for them? I think that is the most compelling question to be brought up.

[mpw]

...It would truly be opening a Pandora's box of legal issues...

...Why should the government provide legal protection for them? I think that is the most compelling question to be brought up.
I agree with a lot of what you're saying, especially it being Pandora's box, but that in its self is one of the worst reasons for not taking action.

Why should the government provide legal protection? Its another good question which is as relevant today with 'traditional' marriages as it will be in the future with any changes to marriage laws.

My point is that yes each partner would be an equal partner and that should one be divorced from the other partners the assets would be split as they are now. As I understand it a court would decide an equitable split of assets perhaps each partners would get a third rather than a 50/50 split which is perhaps more normal now.

[dops7107]

Man-Women & Man sitting reading in the corner of the room = Go to jail perverts.
Man-Man & woman sitting reading in the corner of the room = Go to jail perverts.


'Scuse my ignorance. What are these arrangements that you refer to? :confused: (honestly - is this polgamy or what?)

[skunk]

'Scuse my ignorance. What are these arrangements that you refer to? :confused: (honestly - is this polgamy or what?)I was wondering that myself, actually. They're not in my handbook either.:confused:

[mpw]

'Scuse my ignorance. What are these arrangements that you refer to? :confused: (honestly - is this polgamy or what?)
Just that it's legal for any number of women and up to ONE man to have consensual sex together or for TWO men to have sex (they can even have anal sex whereas the woman can't, even with their husbands) But you can't have sex between TWO men and have anyone else male or female even in the room.

[dops7107]

Just that it's legal for any number of women and up to ONE man to have consensual sex together or for TWO men to have sex (they can even have anal sex whereas the woman can't, even with their husbands) But you can't have sex between TWO men and have anyone else male or female even in the room.

:o Thanks for clearing that up. I'll have to ask my mother to leave next time ;) :D

[Ugg]

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, especially it being Pandora's box, but that in its self is one of the worst reasons for not taking action.

Why should the government provide legal protection? Its another good question which is as relevant today with 'traditional' marriages as it will be in the future with any changes to marriage laws.


No, not one of the worst, one of the best, IMO. Traditional marriage has clear goals whereas polygamy seems to underscore inequality no matter how you slice it. There's a compelling reason for the government to ensure that there isn't an excess of young men or young women who are unable to find a partner. China and India are on the verge of experiencing this now with China's one child policy pushing many couples to abort female fetuses and the Indian desire to have male children.

Polygamy would also appeal to the rich who could afford multiple partners more easily than the poor. Isn't that just promoting class boundaries instead of reining them in?

[zimv20]

like ugg, i find the legal implications more interesting. for example, an employed man with health insurance could marry all his female friends who are otherwise uninsured, and grant them health insurance.

meanwhile, a gay employed man with health insurance cannot grant his partner the same benefit.

that seems pretty messed up to me.

[Ugg]

If it's one man and two women and the man dies, are the women still legally married? Would they have to get a divorce before they could remarry?

[MarkCollette]

Can't female be polygamists? i.e.: 5 multiple husbands? Just curious. I don't know much about the subject.

I've been researching this topic on the Internet in my spare time. Apparently there are many videos available depicting loving and caring relationships with one man and two women, but usually not more than two women. On the other hand, there appear to be an unlimited supply of videos with one woman and whole groups of men. They did not appear to be mormon though, as they tended to dress like motorcycle enthusiasts, instead of in suits.

From this, I can only conclude that 1-to-5 polyandry is actually quite normal, at least amongst people with video-taping equipment. I would type more of my research conclusions, but my wrists are a little sore.

[devilot]

Apparently there are many videos available depicting loving and caring relationships with one man and two women, but usually not more than two women.I take polygamy to mean a partnership such as marriage-- something more permanent.

When I read your descriptions, I think of polyamory, or more open-relationships that do not necessarily imply 'spouses.'

[floriflee]

They did not appear to be mormon though, as they tended to dress like motorcycle enthusiasts, instead of in suits.

I've known a few Mormons who don't dress in the "norm", including a couple that could be taken for motorcycle enthusiasts.

However, with that said, Mormons don't practice polygamy anymore. If a Mormon is caught engaging in such a practice they are kicked out (excommunicated) from the Mormon church. Any polygamist attempting to affiliate himself with the Mormon church (be it through the use of "Fundamentalist Mormon" or whatever--the Church is NOT affiliated with Fundamentalists, Reorganizeds, or any organization outside of the standard "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints") is doing so against Church policy. Please do not confuse those still practicing polygamy today as those practicing the Mormon faith. If they are still members of the Mormon church it is only because they have not been caught (which can be difficult) and subsequently excommunicated.

[MarkCollette]

devilot and floriflee, I was joking about threesome and gangbang porn videos. ;)

[devilot]

^^ Well, there still is a difference between polygamy and polyamory.

[floriflee]

devilot and floriflee, I was joking about threesome and gangbang porn videos. ;)

Sorry... after having to deal with so many Mormons and polygamist accusations/questions for so many years I tend to automatically go into defense mode. The question/accusation gets tiring after so long. I was in that mode when reading your post, and so I apologize for missing the humor when reading it.

[vniow]

When I read your descriptions, I think of polyamory, or more open-relationships that do not necessarily imply 'spouses.'

Those are the kinds I've came into contact with in my circle of friends. While the couple stayed together as a couple, they were allowed to sleep with other people, providing they were honest about it. I always thought it was just an excuse to be slutty but have the emotional commitment as well. :D :rolleyes:

Seriously though, the people I knew who had this kind either broke them or made them stronger and I admired them for trying something that is against the mainstream culture's idea of what formed a stable relationship. It really takes a strong, commited and loving couple to try something like that and pull it off. There are so many issues that regular couples deal with that are greatly increased in this kind and it really takes the right kind of people to deal with it.

I've been interested in trying something like that for awhile now but not until I get myself past some issues that prevent me from being even in a regular relationship at the moment. If I don't get to that point though, I guess I'll settle for plain slutty. :D

[solvs]

I also look at it as a legal contract. You can have a commune and/or sex with however many people you want (caveat: provided they are aware of the other partners, or else it's breaking the original contract), but to have a legal marriage, it has to be between 2 people of consensual age. The other person becomes a partner with all the inherent risks and rewards. If more than 2 people are involved, questions arise as to who has the rights regarding money, power of attorney, medical, etc. Which is why gay marriage should be ok, since there are 2 adults entering into a legally binding contract of commitment. The religious, and even romantic, parts are superfluous to the rights and responsibilities of that contract.

I know, I'm so romantic aren't I. :p

[atszyman]

I also look at it as a legal contract. You can have a commune and/or sex with however many people you want (caveat: provided they are aware of the other partners, or else it's breaking the original contract), but to have a legal marriage, it has to be between 2 people of consensual age. The other person becomes a partner with all the inherent risks and rewards. If more than 2 people are involved, questions arise as to who has the rights regarding money, power of attorney, medical, etc. Which is why gay marriage should be ok, since there are 2 adults entering into a legally binding contract of commitment. The religious, and even romantic, parts are superfluous to the rights and responsibilities of that contract.

I know, I'm so romantic aren't I. :p

And that is why the government should not be calling the legal contract they are concerned with "marriage." If "marriage" were left to the churches and the government called the contract something else like say "Adult Mutual Adoption" I don't think there would be nearly as many issues surrounding marriage. All you are really doing legally is re-defining your next of kin/guardian/dependent in case the worst happens. Before I got married if I would have become incapacitated my parents would have taken control of everything, now, my legal guardian would be my wife, as I would be should something happen to her. Likewise she has been established as my next of kin and I hers.

Of course then this would not completely outlaw polygamy since people are allowed to adopt more than one child it would seem that it should be possible for multiple mutual adoptions. However a hierarchy would have to be place so there wouldn't be a question of who was the legal guardian should something happen. It also solves the question of what happens when any of the involved dies. Since the contract was mutual between all parties the survivors are still legally bound and thus would require a "divorce" should they wish to part ways.

[mpw]

And that is why the government should not be calling the legal contract they are concerned with "marriage." If "marriage" were left to the churches and the government called the contract something else like say "Adult Mutual Adoption" I don't think there would be nearly as many issues surrounding marriage...This is kinda my thinking too, a complete divorce between the legal and religious unions.

'Civil Unions' could take care of the legal side, tax, inheritance, etc. while the religious ceremony, for those who want it, could be whatever people want it to be.

For clarity I'd like to see the combined ceremony done away with and have a system where the 'Civil Union' can't be performed in any place of religion or by a religious figure like a priest. Also there would be no legal right assumed just because people have had a religious ceremony of any kind.

As far as a hierarchy goes I don't see the need if say two guys and one woman enter into a Civil Union and the woman dies the two guys are still part of the Civil Union as equals. The estate of the dead partner would then be split as per her will with the exception that, unless all parties agree to it, the estate can't be split other than equally between the remaining partners.

[atszyman]

For clarity I'd like to see the combined ceremony done away with and have a system where the 'Civil Union' can't be performed in any place of religion or by a religious figure like a priest. Also there would be no legal right assumed just because people have had a religious ceremony of any kind.

This part does not bother me. It makes things a bit simpler if both the legal/religious can be taken care of in one place. A priest can currently sign the marriage license to grant the legal status, I don't know why if the religious and legal were more clearly divided he couldn't do the same.

It also would save the hassle on very absent minded people when they get the religious ceremony done and forget to do the legal portion or vice-versa. Although that could probably be eased if the religious ceremony required the legal stuff to be taken care of first since most of the party/hooplah is over the religious ceremony for those who choose it and it would not preclude having a legal "ceremony" for those who wanted that.

[mpw]

This part does not bother me. It makes things a bit simpler if both the legal/religious can be taken care of in one place. A priest can currently sign the marriage license to grant the legal status, I don't know why if the religious and legal were more clearly divided he couldn't do the same.

It also would save the hassle on very absent minded people when they get the religious ceremony done and forget to do the legal portion or vice-versa. Although that could probably be eased if the religious ceremony required the legal stuff to be taken care of first since most of the party/hooplah is over the religious ceremony for those who choose it and it would not preclude having a legal "ceremony" for those who wanted that.
I think this part in particular would be a great benefit as it provides a very clear seperation of 'church & state'.

I think the church wouldn't like it becuase a marriage is one of the few times a lot people still use their services just out of habit because they want to be married legally and have some pretty pictures. If you were to make the ceremony just about the pictures a lot of people would forego the expense and blow it all at the reception/party.

[atszyman]

I think the church wouldn't like it becuase a marriage is one of the few times a lot people still use their services just out of habit because they want to be married legally and have some pretty pictures. If you were to make the ceremony just about the pictures a lot of people would forego the expense and blow it all at the reception/party.

I think you underestimate the importance of the pictures.

You can do a cheap civil ceremony now and get the pictures and blow the money on the reception, yet people don't do it.

I don't think breaking the ability of the religious figures to fulfill the legal requirements is a horrible idea and maybe what needs to be done is an extra certification requirement for the religious figures performing the ceremony if they wish to do the legal portion as well. This would establish some division and actually require the couple to seek out properly certified ceremony heads to perform the ceremony, or do them separately. At least this would put some emphasis on the separation but not necessarily add too much complexity to the process.

[takao]

This part does not bother me. It makes things a bit simpler if both the legal/religious can be taken care of in one place. A priest can currently sign the marriage license to grant the legal status, I don't know why if the religious and legal were more clearly divided he couldn't do the same.

It also would save the hassle on very absent minded people when they get the religious ceremony done and forget to do the legal portion or vice-versa. Although that could probably be eased if the religious ceremony required the legal stuff to be taken care of first since most of the party/hooplah is over the religious ceremony for those who choose it and it would not preclude having a legal "ceremony" for those who wanted that.

that's exactly how it works around here:
first you get legally married in the "standesamt" which is a bureau of the state etc. (mostly that is done in the morning etc. with only a few people/guests)
and after that in the afternoon etc. with lots of guest there is the marriage in the church where the priest can grant the christian sacrament of marriage ... but it's a more voluntary thing.. no priest is allowed to grant the legal status

my grandparents married legally 50 something years ago but they didn't have their marriage in church untill a few years ago...

sure you can marry only in front of church too but that has no consequences legally (at least here in austria.. in germany you can't to that)

it doesn't really lead to any problems (on the other side it's not possible to marry fast like in las vegas ;) )

[mpw]

that's exactly how it works around here:
first you get legally married in the "standesamt" which is a bureau of the state etc. (mostly that is done in the morning etc. with only a few people/guests)
and after that in the afternoon etc. with lots of guest there is the marriage in the church where the priest can grant the christian sacrament of marriage ... but it's a more voluntary thing.. no priest is allowed to grant the legal status...
Sounds good to me.

I think its important that a religious leader can't grant the legal recognition so as to truely seperate church & state.

If people want legal recognition they need to understand that the church/religon has NO place in granting defining that and the church/religion needs to accept they have no place in legislation and that their practices are not recognised under law, whatever they may be.

[leftbanke7]

Sorry... after having to deal with so many Mormons and polygamist accusations/questions for so many years I tend to automatically go into defense mode. The question/accusation gets tiring after so long. I was in that mode when reading your post, and so I apologize for missing the humor when reading it.

As a non-Mormon living in Utah my whole life, I get a little annoyed by it all as well. My every trip out of town usually ends up with me in a 30 minute conversation with people trying to convince them that "the rumor that Uncle Bubba heard that one time" is not only erroneous but absolutely ********** stupid (my alltime favorite being that Mormons have tails and their garments are what keep them conceiled :rolleyes: ). But people will think what people want to think.

[jefhatfield]

when i took a class in anthropology in the early 1990s, the professor who specialized in indigenous cultures, pointed out that in the thousands of cultures and subcultures around the world, 80+ percent of them allow polygamy though not all members of a polygamous society will practice it

for me, i like the idea of being married to one wife, but when i was a teen just getting into dating, my friends and i loved the idea of having, or fantasizing about having many girlfriends...a lady at every port, so to speak

as i got older and realized the complexity of a relationship between one person and another being a couple, i just can't fathom anybody having more than one wife (like some in utah), or more than one husband (like some in nepal)...it just seems like too much work...and then throw children into the equation and then it seems like something out of the movie "yours, mine, and ours" where a small city lives under one roof ;)