The next great step in civil rights?

[Drake Tungsten]

Valerie and others among the estimated 40,000 men, women and children in polygamous communities are part of a new movement to decriminalize bigamy. Consciously taking tactics from the gay-rights movement, polygamists have reframed their struggle, choosing in interviews to de-emphasize their religious beliefs and focus on their desire to live "in freedom," according to Anne Wilde, director of community relations for Principle Voices, a pro-polygamy group based in Salt Lake.

In recent months, polygamy activists have held rallies, appeared on nationally televised news shows and lobbied legislators. Before the Nov. 7 elections, one pro-polygamy group issued a six-page analysis of all Utah's state and local candidates and their views on polygamy. "We can make a difference," the group told supporters.

The efforts of Valerie and scores of others like her are paying off. Utah's attorney general, Mark L. Shurtleff, no longer prosecutes bigamy between consenting adults, though it is a felony. Shurtleff and his staff have established an organization, Safety Net, to bring together at monthly meetings representatives from at least five polygamous communities and law enforcement officers. He has arranged to have representatives of polygamous groups address Utah police. And three years ago, he wrote legislation to reduce bigamy between adults from a felony to a misdemeanor, although pressure from Utah's county attorneys derailed that.

In an interview, Shurtleff, a tall man who favors roomy suits and dark green shirts, said his office now treats bigamy between consenting adults much like fornication or adultery, laws about which are still on Utah's books.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/21/AR2006112100206.html

I'm happy to see these folks striking a blow for freedom and civil rights. The government has no business in deciding which kinds of love are valid and which are not...

[GePap]

Certainly this type of marriage should be legal, though the more partners involved the more complicated the legal issues, like responsibility for children or splitting assets of a divorce. A great boon for lawyers everywhere.

[Elok]

? They're free to screw whoever they want, of course, but I just can't take these people seriously. Maybe a little more seriously than the Furries.

A little. Assuming there's no dark side to this activity, which is a big if.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Elok
? They're free to screw whoever they want, of course, but I just can't take these people seriously. Maybe a little more seriously than the Furries.

A little. Assuming there's no dark side to this activity, which is a big if.

Multiple marriage has been around for as long as single marriage. Given the reality of marriage was a social contract, therte is no logical reason to have a problem with any form of polygamy, be it polyandry or polygyny.

[Sava]

Marriage is silly... as an institution.

Polygamy is also silly.

But I don't see anything wrong with it as long as everyone involved is consenting. The argument about women's rights is bogus. Women have been subjugated through single marriage just as much as through polygamy. The strides made in women's rights won't be eroded by recognizing polygamous unions.

The objection to polygamy is purely a cultural objection.

[Harry Tuttle]

Originally posted by Sava
The objection to polygamy is purely a cultural objection.

I would argue that it's a social objection. The dynamic of dual male to female interaction is something that has been deeply embedded in human society since civilization began. Every class below the elite have had strong reactions to polygamysts, mostly due to the relationship between the male and his group of women wives.

The relationship, in most cases, is relegated to a distant one with each wife taking on a specific role in a household. The reality of a polygamyst world is that women are usually relegated to being little more than secondary with men making the decisions entirely regarding the course of a community. I would say that it's a step backward for women as it relegates an individual female's opinion to one of many within a family structure, instead of one of two.

A polygamist community, especially one in Utah, is one where female rights, even human rights, are thoroughly suppressed.

Now outside of the real polygamist society polygamy can be seen as being within the bounds of adult consent. Unfortunately the real situation borders on cultist behavior with the group enforcing moral and societal bounds on their younger members, sometimes leading to criminal behavior.

On a civil level the act of polygamy can be argued as normal and within a person's right to choose, but on a realistic level it presents complications that threaten a modern civilization and a modern society based on human rights. It's roots are buried in ****.

To dumb down my point, rent the first season of Big Love from HBO. The core characters that make up the core family on the show exhibit modern social behavior, albeit stunted by the structure. The kids are free to make up their own minds and are free to grow up to be whatever they want. On the other hand the bad guys, the Commune, suppresses this behavior and even marries off children to its older members.

It ain't good.

[DinoDoc]

/me wonders if this is a troll for MrFun

[Jon Miller]

in polygamy, as it is generally practiced, it is multiple wives marrying the same husband.. they are not all marrying eachother

as such, the wives all have smaller peices of the legal pie

besides the fact that I am against it socially, by the way I don't buy in to this whole "gay's are owed marriage because of natural rights" nonsense, I am in favor of gay marriage because it promotes monogamy (long term 2 person relationships) not because of any 'right' for two people to enter into a contract or any such thing

so basically, I am strongly against it: besides it's being the institution for abuse of kids and women wherever it has existed.. always

this goes for crazy communes, to old school muslim 4 wives ****

JM

[Aeson]

I think the government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage. Get rid of state recognized marriage altogether, and replace it with legal contracts that any two or more consenting adults can enter into regarding visitation rights, child care, ect. Just get rid of the whole "moral" implications dealing with "marriage" altogether. Leave that up to the people involved to get married according to their faith/tradition if they so choose.

(Though we still have to police age of consent laws. Just because I think government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage, doesn't mean I think we should turn a blind eye on statuatory rape.)

The people who want to be involved in polygamy, or are coerced to be involved in it, are already there. They generally just aren't legally married to avoid prosecution and often that's a drawback for the state, which is supporting extra "single" mothers who are passing that money onto their patriarchial leader. I don't pretend it's a healthy practice, or that the children being brought up in such a way have a fair chance to choose for themselves, but it's happening already.

I would hate to have to support rights for polygamists given the way they generally treat their women, just as I hate to have to support the right to free speech for those making stupid and hateful comments. I'd much rather just short-circuit the whole issue. Government getting out of "marriage" entirely would solve so many problems... which is why it won't happen.

[Jon Miller]

monogamy is a good thing as far as society goes

the government should support it

JM

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Harry Tuttle


I would argue that it's a social objection. The dynamic of dual male to female interaction is something that has been deeply embedded in human society since civilization began.

The beginning of civilization was marked far more often by polygamous marriage than by a male-female dyad.

[Nubclear]

And even male-female marriages were more pwnership of the female than a loving union of two equal partners.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
monogamy is a good thing as far as society goes

the government should support it

So as not to assume too much, what is it about monogamy that you think society and the government has an interest in?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

That being said, I'm confortable with the government defining the number of people involved in a marriage contract -- but not the kinds of people involved (provided they're above the age of consent and mentally competant to enter into a contract). Limiting the number does not strike me as inherently discriminatory against any particular group; limiting marriage only to people of the same race or gender does.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Aeson


So as not to assume too much, what is it about monogamy that you think society and the government has an interest in?

Look at statistics. People who are in a monogamous relationships live longer, report being happier, are more productive, and have more successful children.


JM