Good article, and I agree with much of it. But over at my blog, I've articulated some important distinctions between gay marriage and polygamy that I think justify the government treating them differently. I do think polygamy should be decriminalized, but I don't think we should extend to polygamous relationships the same benefits and social status we do monogamous relationships.

http://usu-shaft.com/2011/gay-marriage-a-slippery-slope-to-polygamy/

Constitutional protection extending to "freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct", has no boundaries. The terms are elastic enough to include virtually any human conduct which, it can be plausibly argued, does no harm because it involves consenting adults.

All this is obvious enough. But piecemeal objections, as 'progressive' attitudes and new forms of 'intimate conduct' seek or acquire social and legal acceptance, will not answer. Things can only get worse because we are well past the tipping point.

Maybe not until the entire foundations of Western society have been destroyed, will it be possible to build a new civilization based once again on Christian truths.

In Europe, the courts are already dealing with actual or potentially polygamous unions, entered into by citizens of counties where they are legal and who have subsequently settled in Europe or own assts here.

By and large, legislators have studiously avoided the question and only a handful of jurists, specialising in Private International Law [Conflit de droit] have written on it, leaving the courts to deal with such cases on a more or less piecemeal basis. As you would expect from any civilised system of jurisprudence, the courts have shown a strong inclination to protect acquired rights, whilst respecting the public policy {l’ordre publique] embodied in their own codes.

The analogy with SSM is even closer than Mr Carter suggests; to take an obvious example, even a state that resolutely refuses to recognise SSM (or polygamy) may find it difficult to reject the claims of the heir, under the succession law of the deceased’s domicile, to assets located within its jurisdiction, even where that claim is ultimately founded on an SSM or polygamous union. After all, “this is the heir, according to the laws of Nusquamia” does not logically entail “this is the surviving spouse of the deceased,” but the distinction is likely to be lost on the general public.

The European experience in the 20th century of “limping marriages,” valid in one jurisdiction, but not in another (usually the result of divergent laws on divorce), suggests that such questions cannot simply be wished away.

"All of the major world religions—Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Christianity—have at one time in their history condoned the practice of taking multiple spouses."

A Question: When and how did Christianity ever condone polygamy?

Christianity never officially condoned plural marriage but the Church said not a peep when Merovingian kings had multiple wives (legal under Frankish law). Polygamy is also an issue in contemporary Africa where some bishops would like to tolerate it.

It seems to me there are two different issues.

1. Should, and will, any state government in the United States change its laws such that people can enter into legal, polygamous marriages? Should or will there be a state where a justice of the peace performs ceremonies that create polygamous marriages?

2. Should states have laws that, on the one hand, do not punish a man who has five live-in "girlfriends," all of whom are his sex partners and who bear his children, but on the other hand, punish another man who lives under exactly the same arrangement but calls the women his wives?

As I understand it, the lawsuit in Utah is about 2, not about 1.

I think Jon A. gets it right in his blog post.

In this age of the progressive, independent feminist, how much of an issue will this be? I mean, I can conceive of why it is that a woman might want to enter into a relationship with someone of her own gender before I could see that same women consenting to enter a relationship where she is essentially part of a harem. Isn't it instructive that the cultures that supported polygamy were also the cultures that afforded no autonomy to women? How would that fly here in the modern West? Would a woman be able to have more than one husband? If so, would she be able to be a member of yet another man's plural marriage family?

Besides the gender equality question of which Progressives are so fond, how would the legal structure work? How do inheritance, divorce, custody and domestic violence apply to a polygamous marriage? How would the legal system have to be restructured in order to accommodate polygamy?

In all, doesn't plural marriage have to jump cultural and legal hurdles that gay marriage does not? Given the number of inane lawsuits that are filed every day, is Kody Brown's really a threat? Is it really time to panic yet?

Why is polygamy immoral? Or is it?

Was it moral in Old Testament times. If so, why is it immoral today (if it is)?

@Steve, Winnipeg, Canada ***A Question: When and how did Christianity ever condone polygamy?***

Sandra Miesel already answered but I'll add one more example. In a letter to the Saxon Chancellor Gregor Brück, Luther stated that he could not "forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict Scripture."

As usual, we can blame the Lutherans. ; )

@David Nickol ***Why is polygamy immoral? Or is it? Was it moral in Old Testament times. If so, why is it immoral today (if it is)?***

Yes, it goes against God's design for marriage as being a one-flesh union of one man and one woman. Like slavery and divorce, it was condoned in the OT but was never what God wanted for us.

Michael PS,

You always bring an interesting perspective. The issues you discuss seem to be about *recognizing* in Europe polygamous marriages from non-European countries where such marriages are legal. I think we can all imagine a European country declining to *recognize* polygamous marriages performed in non-European countries, but can we imagine a European country *prosecuting as criminals* those who legally, polygamously marry in a country where it is legal and travel or move to a European country? It seems unthinkable to me. Now, I *can* imagine a European country taking some kind of legal action against a man who legally marries, say, a 9-year-old girl outside of Europe and tries to live with her as his wife in Europe. But I really can't imagine a European country (or the United States, or Canada) bringing criminal charges against legally, polygamously married people from other countries.

Joe Carter,

You say, "Yes, it goes against God's design for marriage as being a one-flesh union of one man and one woman."

But a federal judge, or the Supreme Court, can't base a ruling on that. In the Catholic tradition, it is expected that one can always give *reasons* why something is immoral—reasons other than "it goes against what God wants." We know morality through reason, not through divine revelation. So what is the *reasoned* argument against polygamy?

@David Nickol ***But a federal judge, or the Supreme Court, can't base a ruling on that.***

Maybe not directly. But much of American jurisprudence is based on English common law, which often does relies on "Because God said so" as the basis of its reasoning.


***In the Catholic tradition, it is expected that one can always give *reasons* why something is immoral—reasons other than "it goes against what God wants." ***

I'm not Catholic.

***We know morality through reason, not through divine revelation. So what is the *reasoned* argument against polygamy?***

We know it through both. Ergo, Christians should appeal to both. The only reason we don't use "Because God said so" more often is not because it is an inferior reason (it certainly is not) but merely because it is unlikely to persuade our secular peers.

As for the reasons from nature, I plan to write about that in a future column so I'll save that for a later day.

@David Nickol: Your right that the issue before the federal court in Utah is about whether or not to uphold anti-polygamy laws and not about recognizing such arrangements as marriages (and that's clear from Joe's article).

However, it is difficult to believe that polygamists won't demand recognition of their relationships as "marriages" once such laws are overturned. Academics have already stated that the government should recognize polyamorous relationships.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/591cxhia.asp

Also, as to issue number 2 in your above comment (7:08 am), the Utah law is worded so that "it is illegal for unmarried persons to cohabitate, or "purport" to be married," at least according to the AP.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700151597/Sister-Wives-stars-challenge-Utah-bigamy-law.html

So the law would apply to both situations which you mention.

@David Nickol (7:57 am): It's funny that you bring up morality and what a court can base it's holdings on.

In Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court, for whatever reason, held that morality alone is not sufficient for rational basis review under the Constitution (at least that is what it appears to be saying by adopting Justice Stevens dissent in Bowers v. Hardwick... Lawrence v. Texas is an enigma).

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/02-102P.ZO (page 17).

So even if there were a secular reason for traditional marriage, basing it on morality alone won't suffice (whether "God says so" or "reason says so").

BTW, sorry if it seems like I'm picking on you since I keep responding to your comments. I don't mean to.

Interesting essay. Growing up in the mid 1900's, I would have not thought we would ever live in a pagan society as we do now. Our cultural norms seem to slip toward the easiest paths. While working to change our culture to Christian values, I am struck by how important (and sometimes difficult) it is to live those values in my own life. Aside from teaching my own family Christ centered living, a serious difficulty will be to learn how to live peacefully with those who practice polygamy (or advocate for it), "gay" marriage, moral relativism, etc. The earliest Christians did it. Now we are faced with living with pagans of all types.

Tim,

I am happy when someone responds to me with posts as informative as yours.

From what I have read, Utah's law that prohibits cohabitation would seem to be vulnerable due to Lawrence v. Texas. From what I have found through Google searches, ten states have anti-fornication laws. Those would seem to be vulnerable, too. It would seem to me that anti-fornication, anti-cohabitation, "anti-purport-to-be-married," and perhaps even anti-polygamy laws could very well be vulnerable. And if it is legal to cohabit, I can't see how it would be illegal to cohabit and purport to be "spiritually" (but not legally) married. Obviously, it would be illegal to purport to be married to gain some benefit open only to married people.

So based on my Google School of Law degree, I would say the fears of those who worry that polygamy may be decriminalized are reasonable. But I still do not foresee any state opting (or being forced by courts) to have legal, civil polygamous marriage.

I must confess I never understood before that polygamy could be prosecuted as a crime. That makes it different from same-sex marriage, I would think. Before same-sex marriage was legalized in New York, I believe I could have founded my own religion and performed same-sex marriages that would not have been illegal, but also would not have been recognized by New York as marriages.

I am no legal scholar, nor even a lawyer. Or even a philosopher.

But, to my mind, the 'reasonable' case against polygyny would at least contain a 'social justice' component - there being, by the nature of things, roughly equal numbers of men and women, then if singnificant numbers of men have multiple wives, that would mean that other men have none. With all the social problems that adhere to having large numbers of young unmarried men, and large numbers of men with no prospects of marriage, and the 'civilizing' effects that marriage has on young men.

In small polygynous enclaves, like the one Warren Jeffs presided over, it was necessary to 'run off' most of the young men, who were becoming troublesome and 'rebellious', with all the young women they 'would have' married getting scooped up as third, fourth, or fifth wives of older men. That might be workable for a small enclave existing within a larger society that can absorb the 'rebellious' young men that the enclave runs off.

Poygyny becomes more problematic, though, when it occurs across an entire culture, and there is no available 'safety valve' for the 'uncivilized' young men to be released through. I don't have any hard information, but I cannot help wondering how much of the political instability in the Middle East is traceable to the fact that wealthy Muslim men can take more than one wife to themselves, leaving large numbers of young men to go without. . .

"All is permissible for me.........but all is not beneficial.".....Paul

The political concept of a "right" is morphing into a license for anything.

People have free will according to Paul. Are the choices always beneficial?

This thread is making political arguments on ethical questions.....which is fine.

When the creeping, barbarian/pagan impulses occupy the vacuum left by the disappearance of Christian values from the West............this debate will have reached it's final destination.

In the meantime.........let's continue to dress it up in "constitutional clothing".

Polygamy - an idea whose time has come, again. Try telling my wife.

i think lawrence v. texas got it right regarding "intimate conduct." a state that has the power to outlaw sodomy also has the implicit power to outlaw vaginal intercourse between husbands and wives. and imagine, for example, how many masturbators and fornicators would have to be arrested if such a state were to be consistent in its application of "immoral intimate conduct = illegal intimate contact."

but "intimate conduct" is not the same as "marriage." by its very nature, marriage is a pre-political reality that involves, by definition and inter alia, exclusivity. as i'm sure joe carter will cover, there are good reasons for outlawing polygamy, reasons that are accessible by reason.

finally, (1) terms are either clear or unclear, (2) arguments are either valid or invalid, and (3) propositions are either true or false. is the term "marriage" clear? what is "marriage?" these are the starting points.

@David

You wrote: "Google School of Law degree"

I must give a tip of my hat to you for that phrase. Outstanding!

I intend to steal that from you soon and use it as if it were my own. Plagiarism? Perhaps, but justice Kennedy assures me, in so many words, that I can decide what plagiarism is for myself. ;-)

CKG,

You say: "I am no legal scholar, nor even a lawyer. Or even a philosopher."

Maybe so, but you do have good sense. There are compelling arguments against polygamy. Strangely, supporters of same-sex marriage often make the arguments against polygamy, and supporters of traditional marriage argue that now that same-sex marriage has gained some support, none of the arguments against polygamy hold water. Resistance is futile!

I would not think of the mid-20th century as less pagan than today. The mid-20th century saw the triumph of utilitarian warfare (by not only the bad guys but the good guys) on a scale never before imagined. At the mid-century, many forms of racial and ethnic and colonial and sexual oppression were still so rationalized so that the Gospel was effectively not applied to them, and it took a lot of hard work in the face of violence to make progress on those fronts. Perhaps the civic culture of the US was more nominally Christian, but that was a Potemkin village in many respects. I would say today that there are probably more people trying to engage in Christian way of life more deliberately than was the case then.

Meanwhile, perhaps we can just have polyandry, no polygyny.....

Shouldn't the term serial polygamy be serial *monogamy* ?

What is the biblical position on marriage? What we hear from God himself, is much different than "conservatives," and the "one man, one woman" schools imply.

In the Bible, Solomon had 700 wives, and 3-400 concubines. Though the Bible noted problems in Solomon, God did call Solomon "wise."

Likewise, many other figures approved of by God, had more than one wife. And/or had children by servant girls and so forth. As did say, Abraham.

Polygamy is not only the rule rather than the exception in most cultures; it is also evidently, often, approved by the Bible itself.

Why have conservatives turned against God on this issue?

Irksome1 asks " how would the legal structure work? How do inheritance, divorce, custody and domestic violence apply to a polygamous marriage?"

That is precisely the sort of question courts in Europe are having to address at the moment, in the case of marriages that took place under foreign law that are actually or potentially polygamous.

After all, as colonial powers, both Britain and France dealt with this situation by applying a system of personal law [Statut personnel] for such matters as marriage, divorce, succession and so on.

If I recall correctly, St. Thomas Aquinas argued that polygamy is not opposed to the natural law, because such marriages could be directed to the natural goods of marriage (procreation and complementary union of male and female). In this regard, homosexual marriage is the real breaking of a connection with natural law, and polygamy is not.

Instead, he argued that limiting marriage to a single man and woman was derived from Christian revelation about the nature of marriage in God's plan, including the idea that marriage is supposed to mirror the relationship between Jesus and the Church.

Otherwise, we would have to argue that Biblical patriarchs with multiple wives were guilty of violating the natural law that is knowable to all people.

I think people who believe there is a significant chance that we could "decriminalize" polygamy without also requiring society to grant legal recognition to polygamous marriage have not been paying attention the last 20 years.

There is even less chance of this being true than in the case of homosexual marriage, because of the reality that polygamous marriages are very likely to involve children being born into the relationship. Once you start getting into inheritance issues, child support, visitation, the placement of children after "divorce", and the dozens of legal issues that accompany procreation, the legal system will require legal recognition, regardless of public support.

The idea that "no women will want" this arrangment is hopelessly naive as well. Look at all the 30 somethings out there who are told they will NEVER marry. Why not choose a proven male partner if there's no other choice. It will happen in our lifetimes.

@andrew: "a state that has the power to outlaw sodomy also has the implicit power to outlaw vaginal intercourse between husbands and wives."

While I'm not aware of any Constitutional right to sex (heterosexual or homosexual), if the issue were to come up, I'm sure coitus would be considered a "fundamental right" under Washington v. Glucksberg, which held that a fundamental right is one "deeply rooted in the Nation's history and tradition".

If a law were made prohibiting vaginal sex between husband's and wives, I seriously doubt it would survive strict scrutiny. Since there are people still around today, it's fair to say that coitus is deeply rooted in our Nation's history and tradition and would be a fundamental right.

It would probably run counter to other fundamental rights.

Legal and cultural acceptance of polygamous marriage as a consequence of the legal and cultural acceptance of homosexual marriage rates on the scandal scale as a mere anti-climax and perhaps even a sign of resurgent nature. Homosexuality and homosexual marriage signal the perverse decadence of a culture which has lost its will to live. Polygamy on the other hand is a precivilized state of nature, in which the strongest acquire as many mates as they can support and the weakest lead solitary lives outside of the pride.

To add to Joe's response about why polygamy is immoral, I noticed recently that the 5th Commandment says that we should honor our "father and mother" not father and mothers, which is consistent with Genesis 2 where it says that a man shall leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. From a Jewish and Christian perspective there is no doubt what God ordained as marriage, and it is not poly anything or same gender.

People who are anti anything Christian or bible often point out that God doesn't directly condemn polygamy in the OT. I wonder if polygamy was really all that prevalent among the average Hebrew population. I'm inclined to think that it was more prevalent among the rich and powerful. Did the Jews of New Testament times practice polygamy? I don't think there is any indication in the NT that they did. Whatever the case may be, there is something called progressive revelation, and God didn't reveal everything in one big revelatory dump, as we might say today. Looking at all of redemptive history it is clear that monogamy (Christ only has one bride) is good, true and beautiful, even if it can be really hard at times.

David Nichols says:

"Strangely, supporters of same-sex marriage often make the arguments against polygamy, "

I reply - there's nothing odd about this. It's a tactic to gain support from people who don't realize that ideas have consequences.

Once we grant that marriage is simply a decision that consenting adults make about how to organize their sexual lives (and nothing more), and that government has a duty to offer equal respect to all such choices, there is no principled reason to oppose polygamy.

Supporters of same sex marriage know that this reality will make it less likely that people will support same sex marriage, so they keep quiet about it. Once gay marriage is established in law, there will be time enough to liberate all the other groups / practices outside of traditional marriage.

But if you read the recent profile in the New York Times of David Savage (gay marriage advocate) you will see that there's some changes a-coming in the wake of gay marriage.

Savage argues that fidelity in marriage is oppressive and shouldn't have anything to do with marriage. So long as both parties are honest and accepting, they should be able to have sex with whomever they like, and this will strengthen marriage (because people all know in their hearts they really can't limit themselves to a single sexual partner for life). Savage is a "relationship advice columnist" in hundreds of newspapers.

These and similar odd consequences (not necessarily "unintended") will be coming in the wake of gay marriage.

>Isn't it instructive that the cultures that supported polygamy >were also the >cultures that afforded no autonomy to women? How would that >fly here in >the modern West? Would a woman be able to have more than one >husband?
OK, a few definitions:
Polygamy: having more than one spouse at the same time
Polygyny: a husband with more than one wife - the most common form of polygamy
Polyandry: a wife with more than one husband - rare, but not unheard of.
Polyamory- polygamy in which the same-sex partners are also considered married to each other
Take a relationship with one woman and two men. In a polyandrous 'marriage', each of the men considers himself married to the woman. In a polyamorous 'marriage' , the men would consider themselves married to each other as well as the woman.
Since polygyny is the most common form of polygamy, people tend to use the words as synonyms -but they are not.

@Dr. Vendermann: Solomon was indeed called wise, but his wisdom did not extend to his sex life. In fact, his wives resulted in the loss of his faith and his ultimate guilt because he led the nation of Israel into the sin of idolatry.

Abraham did indeed take two wives - and look at the trouble it caused him and his heirs. Jacob's children were constantly at war with one another, and so were his wives, because he preferred one wife over the others.

Because God allows a thing to be does not mean He approves of it. Divorce is a perfect example of that. Moses permitted divorce because of the hardness of the Israelite's hearts, but Christ tells us that was NOT what God desired or expected of His people. God allows sin to exist but that does not mean He approves of it.

"Homosexual activists needed over thirty years to go from Stonewall to Goodridge. But they have paved a clearer path for polygamists. And, unlike gay marriage, polygamy already has a long-standing cultural precedent. All of the major world religions—Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Christianity—have at one time in their history condoned the practice of taking multiple spouses."

Forgive me for not reading all the above comments and I apologize if someone already raised this point: Doesn't this above passage refute or contradict the idea that it's SAME SEX marriage that leads us down the slippery slope to polygamy. Polygamists don't need SSM to make their argument: They already have the Bible and other "cultural" precedents. Likewise many polygamists are, in their own way, moral traditionalists/conservatives and want nothing to do with same sexers.

@Mike D'Virgilio: I'm not an expert on the Decalogue, but I don't think you can conclude from the 5th Commandment that God intended only monogamy. While a man may have more than one wife, his offspring will always have only one mother and one father (I don't know if modern reproductive technology can make it otherwise, but that was the case in the times of the Old Testament). So even the offspring of a polygamist will have only one mother and one father.

Though I think your quote from Genesis 2 points toward monogamy.

It seems rather foolish to me to claim we are supposed to infer that God "disapproved" of polygamy because you can find negative consequences in some polygamous situations in the Bible. (By the way, Abraham's wife Sarah was his half sister. Polygamy plus incest.) The Old Testament gives us a picture of God speaking to Old Testament figures directly, and dictating behavior down to the most minute details (e.g., "Do not put on a garment woven with two different kinds of thread"). If the God of the Old Testament "disapproved" of polygamy, a prohibition against polygamy could have been stated in the Ten Commandments or elsewhere in the Law.

And polygamous marriage was and is marriage. I think it is disingenuous for defenders of "traditional" marriage to attempt to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman or as permanent. That is the Christian definition, certainly, but it is not defensible as a definition of marriage as was, is, and ever shall be.

Re "honor thy father and mother":

The Catholic Church has never interpreted this in a restrictive way. Rather, it has interpreted as prescribing honor and obedience to all those who are in authority over you, whether it's a biological parent, a stepparent, a guardian, a teacher, a pastor, a bishop, a king or elected official, et cet. Basically, anyone who it might be said acts as a father or mother in some way vis-a-vis you.

May we take a step back? I cannot name any society in the past or in contemporary times that (1) considered same-sex sexual unions as "marriages;" (2) used the same procedures to legalize same-sex sexual unions as were used to legalize heterosexual unions; and (3) referred to both kinds of sexual arrangements by the same term. I would appreciate help from the First Things' staff and readership for help in identifying such societies if they exist or existed.

Evelyn Majidi,

The first same-sex marriages took place in the Netherlands (2001). The countries that followed were Belgium (2003), Spain (2005), Canada (2005), South Africa (2006), Norway (2009), Sweden (2009), Portugal (2010), Iceland (2010), and Argentina (2010). Same-sex marriage is also permitted in Mexico City and parts of the United States.

tim,

thanks for the reply, especially for the reference to the case you mentioned. i'm a little confused about your exact position: should "intimate conduct" such as masturbation and fornication be outlawed? are these acts part of the nation's history and tradition?

andrew

"If the God of the Old Testament "disapproved" of polygamy, a prohibition against polygamy could have been stated in the Ten Commandments or elsewhere in the Law."

Don't you think it is fairer to God to say that such a prohibition would have been stated if God had the advantage of being as logical and clear-thinking as David Nickol?

"That is the Christian definition, certainly, but it is not defensible as a definition of marriage as was, is, and ever shall be."

The Christian definition happens to have been the definition in Western Civilization for the past 2,000 years, and the one man-one woman definition was even in place in the pagan Greek and Roman cultures that preceded ours. Saying that we can't define marriage that way because nomadic desert tribesmen had a different definition 3,000 years ago is absurd.

Christianity never allowed polygamy. Judaism did. This article has a factual error.

The fact that some clergy may have ignored polygamous marriages does not mean Christianity ever allowed it, any more than the fact that some clergy today ignore grave sins that are blatantly being committed by their parishioners. I'd like to see a solid historical reference to the claim the Church was mum while Merovingians had multiple wives. Don't recall that in my studies of medieval history, but perhaps I missed it. But again, that doesn't mean the Church approved it.

And that would obviously be because Jesus' teaching is quite clear, that "a man cleaves to his wife and the two become one flesh" (as it said in Genesis, whose original lifelong, indissoluable marriage of which He was restoring). Wife, not wives.

Tim,

RE: Lawrence v. Texas & Sodomy -- It's a common misconception that a Right must be enumerated in the Constitution for it to exist. James Madison was afraid that people like yourself would interpret the Bill of Rights as a list of only those things that can be legally or morally considered to be Rights.

"'It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution."

To prevent the wrong misreading, the Ninth Amendment was added to the Bill of Rights:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

And just what are those Rights? For that we turn to Madison's essay on "Property":

"This term in its particular application means 'that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.'"

"In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage."

"In the former sense, a man's land, or merchandize, or money is called his property."

"In the latter sense, a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them. He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them. He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person. He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them."

"In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights."

It seems the religious aspect of polygamy have been thoroughly discussed in the comments above. But what about certain legal aspects? If a man has three wives, when he dies, who is the surviving spouse? Do multiple spouses have the right to visit their husband/wife in the hospital? Which surviving spouse inherits her husband's estate if there's no will? Is everything divided equally although one wife might have been married a lot longer than the others? While all of these questions can be worked out, it seems like complications are multiplied tremendously. But if people can work it out and no one's getting hurt, more power to them.

I used to think this, but in talking with gays and those who favor same-sex marriage I think there is a difference. The polygamist can still marry a person they love. They may not be able to marry all the people they love, but it doesn't end their ability to marry who they choose. The gay does not get to marry anyone they love. So for the polygamist they may only get half or a third of what they want in this system, but for the gay they get none of it.

Also I think you're misinterpreting William Gibson. I think what he meant is more what the statement literally seems to say. That wealth/technology is not evenly distributed. I think he said it in the 1980s. At that point you had places where people could fly the Concorde, owned personal computers, and watched cable TV while others lived in a world where people still got polio and were lucky to have a rotary phone. Now it might be more extreme. Also he's kind of a Leftie as I recall.

I mean I do think polygamy has far more validity in history or culture than same-gender marriage, but I just felt I should point out these concerns.

R. Hampton - I'm afraid you've got a problem with regard to the 9th amendment as a limit on STATE governments power to define marriage. As the history and innumerable supreme court cases have demonstrated, the 9th Amendment was only a limit on the federal government. Marriage law is governed by the states - as such, the 9th amendment offers no limitations on the State's (as in "State of Texas") power to limit marriage to the union of a single man and woman.

David Nichol,

You write, "We know morality through reason, not through divine revelation. So what is the *reasoned* argument against polygamy?"

Just as more and more reasoned arguments opposing same-sex unions keep appearing, so will the reasons that clearly show the misguidedness of polygamous marriage after we legalize it.

Here are some reasoned points of view that will be tested through time:

What amazes most everyone is how a man and woman who have lived together in love for a very long time start to physically resemble each other. Why is that? There are reasons that I am certain can be ascertained by science, but I already have a theological perspective on how the relationship between a man and woman committed to each other in their complimentarity has them journey deeper and deeper without end into each other over time, and they become aware of how complex each one of them is, and how very complex their union has become - it is a mystery that can only be lived and never ultimately explained. And they know that this radical becoming-one cannot happen in a polygamous arrangement.

Children will develop differently if they are raised by a man and a woman in a committed relationship. The complexity of that commitment will prepare the children for depth-oriented relationships that will help them discover the complexity, value and infinite dignity of each individual and the depth that can only occur when a man and a woman agree to grow into the depth of their love over the course of a lifetime. That is a gift to each other and to their children, something not available in a polygamous arrangement. The latter’s message to the children will always be how each woman fulfills a particular need of the man, or vice versa where a woman marries more than one man. I just don’t see how those children could learn about the infinite depth and complexity of every human being when their mothers or fathers have very limited dignity as need-fulfilling objects for a single person.

What we know with reason now is that a man who has more than one wife is simply not fully committed to any one of the women; he is committed to each woman in how he has defined her role among the other women with assigned roles, and she must remain in this type of bondage. Not one of the women can ever insist on a deeper relationship that necessarily involves slighting one of the other wives. The women can be happy in being limited this way, but it is simply masochistic at its depth. There is suffocation involved.

A viewing of the film “Stepford Wives” can be instructive in all this, even though it is not a film about polygamy. It involves how a man sets about clearly defining the role of a woman in marriage. It is about fulfilling his needs by assigning the role, and ultimately achieving a perfect relationship by replicating the wife as a robot. In a polygamous marriage it is near-impossible for the woman to protest her assigned role because it is not only the husband who is keeping her in line, but the other wives as well.

After the fall a curse fell on Adam and Eve. Adam’s curse is that he would toil in the fields of a fallen world, and one of the two curses for Eve is that she would be dominated by the man. Christianity has been inspiring many reasoned/secular ways of freeing both man and woman from these curses, and I believe reason will eventually reveal to us that polygamy is an institution of slavery. Sure, a person can be a happy in their own way by freely choosing to be a slave, but the question is should we as a culture encourage and even sponsor it.

That liberal fruitloop, Kennedy, probably couldn't see his nose if it was stuck to his face. It should have been obvious to anyone that Lawrence v. Texas would lead to every depravity we are currently seeing, and more. Conservatives gave up the high ground when "we" gave in to the ludicrous notion that certain bizarre types of depraved behavior signified separate classes of people.

†

Brian English,

You say: "Don't you think it is fairer to God to say that such a prohibition would have been stated if God had the advantage of being as logical and clear-thinking as David Nickol?"

I am quite sure God is smarter than me, and less sarcastic than you. This is really a matter of reading the Old Testament honestly. I've quoted this many times already in discussions on marriage, but it is worth quoting again. It's from John L. McKenzie’s Dictionary of the Bible:

**********
Marriage in Israel was neither a religious nor a public concern; it was a private contract, and it is this conception which leaves so little room for it in Hb law, which deals only with the exceptional cases. The contracting parties were not the bride and groom but the families, i.e., the fathers of the spouses; the brothers of the bride had the disposal of the girl if the father were dead.
**********

That explains why there are no detailed discussions of marriage in the Old Testament. It was "neither a religious nor a public concern."

There is no condemnation of polygamy in the Old Testament. McKenzie says:

**********
There appears to have been little or no polygamy practiced after the exile. How deeply rooted it was before the exile may be seen from the parable of Ezk 23, which represents Yahweh as the husband of two wives. The law of Dt 21:15-17, which is parallel to several Mesopotamian laws, protects the "hated" wife and her children, especially if she has borne the firstborn son ("hated" here means less loved). Almost every polygamous household of which any extended account is given exhibits the bickering and envy, sometimes breaking out into hatred and murder, which are the natural consequences of polygamy.
**********

Read Ezekiel 23 for yourself—Yahweh as the husband of two wives! The fact is that before the exile (597-538 B.C), Hebrew marriage was polygamous. Also, in addition to having more than one wife, men could have concubines. Interestingly, "Thou shalt not commit adultery" prohibited a man having sex with a married woman, but it did not prohibit a married man from having sex with an unmarried woman (including a prostitute). All the great figures in the Old Testament lived in a culture in which polygamy, concubinage, and prostitution were accepted. You may take McKenzie's comment about bickering and envy in the depiction of polygamous marriage to indicate that the Biblical authors, inspired by God, were writing between the lines to send the message that God "disapproves" of polygamy, but I think that is reading back into the Old Testament a contemporary judgment about marriage.

You say: "Saying that we can't define marriage that way because nomadic desert tribesmen had a different definition 3,000 years ago is absurd."

We're not talking just about nomadic desert tribesmen. We're talking about Moses, Abraham, David, Solomon, Esau, and Jacob. Matthew and Luke take great pains to show that Jesus was descended from David. If anything is absurd, it is claiming to have a timeless definition of marriage that overlooks the fact that David had 7 wives and Solomon (son of David and Bathsheba) had 700!

Dr. Vendermann, Solomon's association with pagans (much of them in the form of wives/chattel) appears to my reading to have led him seriously—perhaps fatally—astray. And just look at the kind of lives led by those "serial polygamists" we see so often in the grocery store checkout line: not good.

Joe, I look fwd to your discussion of the materialistic/rational reasons for monogamy. Truth cannot contradict truth. I need look little further than my own empirical experience.

And for all of you hedonists, semi-hedonists, and sincere searchers: you might want to try experimenting with *true* faithfulness, i.e., spend a few weeks resisting all adulterous thoughts. You will see your legitimate marital relationship (if any) blossom. God's Commandments are not capricious; they are for our good.

†

David Nickol,

Many thanks for the information about those countries that recently have sanctioned same-sex marriage as it is currently understood in the United States. I very much appreciate your help.

My question was poorly worded. I was wondering if same-sex marriage was ever legally sanctioned in non-Western civilizations that have long written histories - such as China, Egypt, Greece, India, or Persia - or in Judeo-Christian countries before the recent successful efforts in some key countries. If not, altering the definition of marriage represents a sea change, the magnitude of which has not been acknowledged in most of the articles that I have read about the subject.

Evelyn Madiji

No examples of such marriages have been discovered and not for the want of trying.

Amongst the Romans, the formation of marriage did not require the intervention of state officials; it could be a purely consensual, informal transaction. However, when two men went through a form of marriage, the satirist Juvenal , who wrote at the end of the 1st and beginning of the 2nd century wrote in the Second Satire

o proceres, censore opus est an haruspice nobis?
scilicet horreres maioraque monstra putares,
si mulier uitulum uel si bos ederet agnum?

“O Roman nobles, is it a censor of morals or a soothsayer that we need?
Would our ancestors have considered it a more horrid portent
If a woman had given birth to a calf, or an ox had brought forth a lamb?

This suggests the practice was not common.

It goes without saying that he jurists gave no legal recognition to such arrangements.

@Mark: you asked about the legal ramifications of polygamy---wasn't that one of the issues with the fundamentalist Mormon case(s) in recent years? At least one of the polygamists was accused of welfare fraud---getting welfare payments for several wives and their children.

I know this is purely anecdotal, but I'll mention it for what it's worth: I lived in the Middle East for a few years and was not much impressed with the lot of women in polygamous marriages. The women that I knew were married to wealthy men who could afford to maintain 2 plus wives in separate homes. It is laughable to think that the wife/wives were included in the decision to introduce another wife into the family. They "found out" about it, sometimes months after the fact. Their reaction, invariably, was what my own would be---anger, humiliation, jealousy, fear for their own children's financial security, etc. The later wives were always younger, too, and I think most came from less well-to-do families.

"supporters of traditional marriage argue that now that same-sex marriage has gained some support, none of the arguments against polygamy hold water."

That is because of how the case has been argued, and frequently how it has been decided by the courts. The primary case being made in favor of SSM is that it is a violation of human and/or civil rights to prevent any two people capable of consent, who wish to be united in marriage, from doing so.

If this argument holds true, then it holds equally true if one of the parties is already married.

The argument is not "if SSM then polygamous marriage," it is "if human right to marry anyone capable of consent then polygamous marriage."

"Thomas R says:
I used to think this, but in talking with gays and those who favor same-sex marriage I think there is a difference. The polygamist can still marry a person they love. They may not be able to marry all the people they love, but it doesn't end their ability to marry who they choose. "

That's true of one partner, maybe, but what about the person who wants to marry the person who is already married? By this reasoning, he or she can't marry any loved person. So that person is still stuck in the "can't marry anyone I love" conundrum, which we're told is unacceptable as a societal imposition if both parties are of the age of consent.

That's why defining marriage solely as "the formalization of a union with someone you love" and ignoring the biological and social ramifications gets you into a hopeless tangle.

pentamom,

You say, "The primary case being made in favor of SSM is that it is a violation of human and/or civil rights to prevent any two people capable of consent, who wish to be united in marriage, from doing so."

Sure, like a mother and son, or an uncle and nephew. That is your invented version of an argument for same-sex marriage. No one is actually making that argument. There is no one argument in favor of gay marriage, but here's one possible one. A same-sex couple that makes a lifetime commitment, wants to live as a family, possibly wants to raise children, is so similar to an opposite-sex couple that wants to do the same thing that not to permit them to marry is gender discrimination.

I am sure that, if the political will is there, there would be no difficulty in developing a body of law to deal with polygamous marriages. There is, after all, a great deal of expertise to draw on, including a whole body of Islamic jurisprudence, dealing with every aspect of family law and succession. Nowadays, in the West, there is no shortage of Madrassas, where that law is taught, or of Cadis, who administer it daily in the Shari'a courts. Some of them already appear as expert witnesses in cases involving foreign marriages that come before the courts in Europe.

The question really is one of principle and public policy.

"We're not talking just about nomadic desert tribesmen. We're talking about Moses, Abraham, David, Solomon, Esau, and Jacob."

Moses, Abraham, Esau and Jacob=nomadic desert tribesmen.

David=nomadic desert tribesman prior to becoming king.

Solomon=son of the former nomadic desert tribesman.

" If anything is absurd, it is claiming to have a timeless definition of marriage that overlooks the fact that David had 7 wives and Solomon (son of David and Bathsheba) had 700! "

I know in the past you have claimed to be a Christian, but if so, you appear woefully ignorant of the concept that Divine Revelation was ongoing from the Old to the New Testament, which is why the Old Testament always has to be read in light of the New. Jesus said marriage was one man and one woman. For a Christian that should settle the issue. That issue was settled in Western Culture for at least 3,000 years (adding on the predecessor Greek and Roman cultures that had the same definition). As a Christian, on what basis do you dispute that definition?

"If anything is absurd, it is claiming to have a timeless definition of marriage that overlooks the fact that David had 7 wives and Solomon (son of David and Bathsheba) had 700!"

Some books of the Old Testament are just meant to convey historical information, or in some instances a warning. And once again, regardless of what David and Solomon did, Jesus gets the last word on the issue.

Speaking of Bathsheba, do you really believe that the story of David and Bathsheba is meant to teach us that God approves of sending a man to certain death so that you can take his wife as your own?

Sally R,

As a result of the on-going Civil War and the issue of slavery, the Ninth Amendment was buttressed by the Thirteen, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments. The Federal government was given the power to force States to recognize and protect the Rights of its citizens. In my opinion, this is the most important paragraph in the Constitution:

"Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Despite being given the responsibility, it took another century for the Federal government to summon the will to end the overt discrimination still practiced by the former Confederate States, and the less pronounced discrimination throughout the country.

I think those who look at this case as fully embracing legal polygamy are putting the cart before the horse. The only challenge the Browns have standing on (and they may not have standing at all now that they've moved to Nevada) is that the Utah law criminalizes co-habitation and "purporting to marriage" as tantamount to entering into multiple legal marriages.
The argument that, since Kody is only legally married to one of these women, he commits bigamy because he considers these others women to be his wives and him their husband is questionable and likely an over-reach. If they win their case it won't mean the immediate end of bigamy/polygamy laws, rather just that a consensual polyamorous group is not in danger of prosecution under polygamy laws unless they try to get more than one marriage license.
Since most of those who practice polyamory in Utah don't seek state recognition of their "spiritual marriages" this may free them up to be more "out" in the community, but it still means that the wives who are only in spiritual marriages won't get the legal protections of the wife who has the legal marriage.

David, I didn't "invent" that. Maybe what I expressed isn't the Official Version™, or something, but I have seen many pro-SSM people say JUST THAT. f you ever happen to run across it yourself, you'd better send them the memo that their argument proves too much and is messing up the special pleading that wants to separate SSM from incestuous marriage or polygamy -- it's not my fault they're pushing a line that undermines their own point.

@R Hampton (3:52 pm) Thanks for all the quotes, but they aren't relevant and I don't know what you are getting at. I never stated that rights are limited to those enumerated in the Constitution and its amendments. I merely stated what a "fundamental right" is according to Supreme Court precedent. If anything, my comments recognize that there are rights not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.

@andrew (3:21 pm): "Intimate conduct" is a very vague/broad term, and Lawrence v. Texas isn't very helpful in defining it. Is "intimate conduct" limited to sex? Why not use of drugs such as meth or heroine? Under Lawrence v. Texas, can the government regulate anything that one does in private? If not, then many laws would be called into question.

I don't believe that laws against masturbation or fornication would be prudent as they would be difficult to enforce (people usually keep that information to themselves, regardless of the law). The anti-sodomy laws at issue in Lawrence v. Texas were not enforced that often. In fact, according to the AP article I quoted at 8:06 am (7.20.11), Utah typically doesn't enforce its anti-bigamy law.

But I don't think the Constitution should prohibit your hypothetical laws or the laws at issue in Lawrence v. Texas and in Utah.

>most of those who practice polyamory in Utah

Isn't polyamory the word used for relationships where all of the spouses, male and female, are considered married to each other ? For the Kody case to be 'polyamory', each of the 'wives' would have to consider herself to be married to the other two wives as well as to Kody.
Somehow, I can't see that happening much in Utah.....but then, I've never been there...

Donna -- I don't believe that's the precise definition of polyamory. The definition of polyamory includes such arrangements, but it doesn't require that every party to the arrangement be "married to" every other party -- rather, it requires that every party to the arrangement be entirely open to any relationships that might arise within or outside the arrangement, provided they are all open and aboveboard. Not only does it not require relationships between same-sex parties to the arrangement, it isn't even a form of marriage at such (though it could include marriage.)

What you describe is a subset of polyamory known as "group marriage."

Brian English,

Are you saying David did not have 7 wives? That he wasn't really married to Bathsheba? That Solomon was illegitimate?

"Are you saying David did not have 7 wives? That he wasn't really married to Bathsheba? That Solomon was illegitimate? "

No. I am saying the reporting of those facts in the Bible does not mean that God approved of them. Do you think God approved of what David did to Uriah?

If David had seven women to whom he was married, and therefore had seven wives, then the definition of marriage has to include polygamy. If marriage is defined as being between one and only one man and one and only one woman, then no one can marry two women. The marriage ceremony with the first woman will be VALID and make the first woman the man's wife, and the marriage ceremony with the second woman will be INVALID and do nothing.

If the DEFINITION of marriage is a union between one and only one man, and one and only one woman, then by definition, no person can have more than one spouse.

Now, if you are saying that David really did have seven wives, but God disapproved, then you are saying that polygamous marriages are VALID—that is, they are really marriages—but they are ILLICIT (prohibited).

There is a big difference between invalid and illicit. If someone is invalidly married, they are not married at all. Say a person disguises himself as a priest and performs a wedding ceremony for people who believe he is a priest. The marriage is invalid. They are not married. Now, if a priest is for some reason forbidden to marry two people and he does it anyway, the marriage is illicit. It shouldn't have been done. However, it is valid. The two people are married.

So are you saying the definition of marriage INCLUDES polygamy, and polygamous marriages are illicit but valid? Or are you saying the definition of marriage EXCLUDES polygamy, and people who take a second or third or fourth spouse are invalidly married, which is to say, they aren't married at all.

This is important, because what people are trying to do is come up with a TIMELESS DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE—one that applied to Adam and Eve, applies now to married people, and will apply a thousand years from now. If God invented marriage, the definition of marriage cannot be changed by men.

So did David have seven wives, all of whom were married to him, and to whom he was all married? Or did David have at most only one wife and mistakenly believe he was really married to the others? Or, alternatively, did God change the definition of marriage at some point in history. I am not asking if God changed the rules. I am asking if he changed marriage itself.

"...Justice Scalia is right in one respect, though not intentionally. Homosexuals and polygamists do have a common interest: the right to be left alone as consenting adults. Otherwise he’s dead wrong. There is no spectrum of private consensual relations — there is just a right of privacy that protects all people so long as they do not harm others.

Others have opposed polygamy on the grounds that, while the Browns believe in the right of women to divorce or leave such unions, some polygamous families involve the abuse or domination of women. Of course, the government should prosecute abuse wherever it is found. But there is nothing uniquely abusive about consenting polygamous relationships. It is no more fair to prosecute the Browns because of abuse in other polygamous families than it would be to hold a conventional family liable for the hundreds of thousands of domestic violence cases each year in monogamous families.

Ultimately, the question is whether polygamy is allowed under the privacy principles articulated in Lawrence. The court did not state exclusions for unpopular relationships. Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said the case “does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter” but rather “two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle.”

The Browns are quite similar. They want to be allowed to create a loving family according to the values of their faith.

Civil libertarians should not be scared away by the arguments of people like Justice Scalia. We should fight for privacy as an inclusive concept, benefiting everyone in the same way. Regardless of whether it is a gay or plural relationship, the struggle and the issue remains the same: the right to live your life according to your own values and faith. "

from "One Big Happy Family," NYT at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/21/opinion/21turley.html?_r=3&emc=tnt&tntemail0=y

Make of it what you will.

Luke 17:26,27 - Just as it was in the days of Noah, so will it be in the days of the Son of Man. They were eating and drinking and marrying and being given in marriage...

The "illegal cohabitation" law in Utah is a direct descendant of Federal statutes enacted in the 19th Century to attack polygamy as practiced in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormons), primarily in Utah but also in Colorado, Idaho, Nevada and Arizona. Some of them were sent to western Canada and northern Mexico to avoid prosecution; polygamy was illegal in those nations as well, but their governments were not on campaigns to prosecute.

After the LDS Church renounced new polygamous marriages in 1890, and as a condition for admission of the Territory of Utah into the Union as a state, it was required to enact its own law prohibiting polygamy, the one that is now under attack.

The Federal law against "unalwful cohabitation" was intended specifically to reach "plural marriages" which were sanctioned in the Church, but had not obtained a marriage license from the Territorial government, just like the case withe the current plaintiffs. US Marshals resorted to gathering evidence that a man was financially supporting a woman and her children to prove that he was "illegally cohabiting" with them, even without a marriage license. This essentially gave the husbands and fathers a Hobson's choice, to either violate the statute, or make his family members suffer. It raised clear questions as to who the statute was supposed to benefit, since the theory at the time was that the extra wives were all virtual slaves who had no choice about entering polygamous marriages, and the whole Federal campaign of putting their husbands in Federal prison was allegedly to "liberate" the wives. When the Utah Territorial Legislature granted women the right to vote (second in the US after Wyoming), the Federal government found that the women of Utah were voting against enforcement of the polygamy laws, so Congress revoked women's voting rights (until the new State of Utah rerstored them in 1896).

Contrary to the assumption of some of the commenters, the polygamy practiced by 19th Century Mormons pointedly gave women autonomy and choice about entering into such marriages and leaving them. In fact, Utah divorce law in the 19th Century was quite liberal by the standards of the time, allowing women to sue for divorce without having to prove adultery by their husbands.

A good example of how polygamous wives lived in 19th Century Utah was the 1896 election of Martha Hughes Cannon to the Utah State Senate, the first woman so elected in the United States. Martha was a physician, an OB-GYN who received her medical degree from the University of Michigan. She was femnist and suffragette who corresponded with, and later met with, many of the leading women's suffrage leaders of the day. Among the men whom Martha defeated in her election, one was her husband, Angus M. Cannon, president over all local Mormon congregations in Salt Lake County.

Federal laws attacking polygamy became increasingly totalitarian. They revoked for Mormons the right to vote, to serve on juries, and to be elected to Territorial and Federal office. Such laws were mirrored in the laws of Idaho. The Federal government was preparing to confiscate all Church land and buildings and assets and dissolve the Church as a legal entity when the 1890 announcement of capitulation was made. It should be noted that Congress refused to admit Utah as a state because it would then lose the power to prescribe laws regulating marriage, which were recognized as a State prerogative.

Before that, the Church had sought to assert the First Amendment Free Exercise clause as a defense against the polygamy statutes. It was unsuccessful, with the Supreme Court announcing in US v Reynolds that Congress could regulate conduct, as distinct from belief. That rationale actually makes the Free Exercise clause a nullity; how can "exercise" be anything less than behavior? Nevertheless, Reynolds has remained the foundation of the Court's Free Exercise cases.

Even at the time, the hypocrisy of Congress in punishing Mormon men for merely "cohabiting" with more than one woman was obvious to many. In1907, when Congress was debating whether to allow Reed Smoot, a monogamous Mormon elected to the Senate from the utah legislature, to take his seat in Congress, Senator Borah of Idaho appealed to a colleague to vote against Smoot, since he had supported the polygamous principles of his church. The other senator responded, referring to Borah's norotious mistress, "I would rather vote for a polygamist who doesn't polyg, than a monogamist who doesn't monog!" (This was told by John F. Kennedy to his Utah campaign chairman, Oscar McConkie, the Democrat Speaker of the Utah House of Representatives, and legal counsel for the Church. Kennedy said he had considered the Smoot story for inclusion in his book, Profiles in Courage.)

The Mormon Church felt obligated by the deal it cut to obtain statehood for Utah, to ensure polygamy stayed illegal even after Congress lost the power to prohibit it. Since then, attempts have been made to enforce the unlawful cohabitation law. Around 1960, a joint raid by Arizona and Utah lawmen arrested a group of polygamists who had been dodging across the border to avoid the two police bodies. But the public sympathy that was engendered for the families made the polic look unnecessarily cruel, and since then, prosecutors have concentrated on instances when there have been violations by polygamists of other laws, such as the age of consent, or welfare fraud.

Meanwhile the rest of America's double standard about men's cheating on their wives has evolved into a full blown case of legally ignoring cases of de facto polygamy by men like wealthy drug dealers in major urban centers, who have several women giving them sexual favors and children at the same time. Since Texas, California, Chicago and New York don't prosecute such people for the mere fact of their relationships, there was clear hypocrisy when Texas conducted a raid on the "Fundamentalist LDS Church" compound and held hundreds of children, including babes in arms, away from their mothers for months. It even imprisoned some younger mothers, refusing to believe their statements that they were adults. The farce was premised on alleged phone calls from an underage girl who claimed to have been forced into marriage with an older man, but it became clear that the phone calls were made fraudlulently by a single black woman in Colorado who has no affiliation with the FLDS group, but is obsessed with them, and has made such phoney calls repeatedly. The Texas appellate courts finally put an end to the farce. The role taken by governor Rick Perry in this travesty does not say much for his religious objectivity if he runs for president.

Members of the 14 million strong Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS, the real Mormons) are taught that polygamy is only sanctioned by god when explicit authorization is given to the prophet who heads the Church. since the prophets have revoked the authorization for polygamy since 1890, any Mormn who practices polygamy is subject to excommunication.

Most of the people who belong to the various splinter polygamous churches in Utah and elsewhere were NEVER members of the Mormons. Their ancestors specifically rebelled against the leadership of the LDS Church, and are its enemies. They are accurately characterized as "anti-Mormons". Some of the fringe groups have even made threats against the LDS Church leaders. The most abusive practices of those groups--arranged marriages, centralized ownership of property as a means of coercion, underage marriages, denial of the opportunity to divorce, denial of marriage opportunities to young men--were not features of polygamy among the real Mormons of the 19th Century. Again, when they could practice plural marriage openly without Federal prosecution, Mormon women in such marriages demonstrated independence, including pursuing professional and business careers, involvement in politics, and formation of various voluntary and educational societies. It was not unusual in that era for adult men to be called to serve as missionaries in Europe for several years, the wife or wives having to independently support their families themselves with what assets and skills they had. Some of the last LDS Church sanctioned plural wives survived into the mid 20th century, and their children were prominent Mormons into the 1970s, such as internationally renowned scientist Henry Eyring (whose son, a former professor of organizational management at Stanford and president of LDS Ricks College, is First Counselor in the First Presidency of the Church).

The abuses we see among many of the current polygamist groups are not inevitable consequences of "mere polygamy".

It is ironic that the explcit words in the Bill of Rights that guarantee "free exercise of religion" were not powerful enough to outweigh legislation outlawing polygamy, but we now have the prospect that a Supreme Court recognition that personal choices of sexual behavior create a zone in which neither Congress nor the states may exercise jurisdiction, without any explciit basis in the Constitution, leads me to conclude that the Court has rejected the endorsement of religious behavior by government, in favor of government endorsement of sexual licentiousness, which explicitly offends the religious beliefs of many Americans.

The fact that this is the natural consequence of the "personal autonomy" theories the court has been adopting since Roe v. Wade, to destroy Federal and State legislation, demonstrates that there is no force now recognized by the Court, such as traditional Christian morality, that can counterbalance the gravity of natural human depravity and rebellion that seeks to exceed every boundary of behavior imposed by society. The fact that the Court has repeatedly endorsed one of the most anarchic aspects of human behavior as preempting the exercise of the democratic process of lawmaking, and the explicit right of self-government by voting majorities, makes it easy to see this leading to precisely the kind of society foreseen by Aldous Huxley in Brave New World, one of sexual anarchy combined with despotism in every other aspect of life.

I should like to thank Raymond Takashi Swenson for his most instructive contribution and, particularly, for elucidating the concept of “unlawful cohabitation.”

In Europe, the state’s concern with marriage has never been with sexual morality, but, rather, with civil status and with the rights and responsibilities of parents, particularly fathers, towards their children. Central to this, was the introduction of mandatory civil marriage. In other words, it is an offence for any minister of religion habitually to conduct marriage ceremonies for couples not already legally (i.e. civilly) married.

Unregulated cohabitation presented no threat to this policy – As Napoléon himself put it: “They want nothing to do with the law and the law wants nothing to do with them.” The presumption of paternity within marriage and the refusal of the courts to investigate the paternity of natural children (which were, really, two sides of the same coin) ensured the position of the family at the centre of the legal order.

"If David had seven women to whom he was married, and therefore had seven wives, then the definition of marriage has to include polygamy."

No it doesn't. Polygamy has never been a part of the definition of marriage in Western Culture -- neither in the pagan Greek/Roman period nor in the subsequent Christian period. It has not even been part of the post-Christian definition in the West.

Furthermore, the report in the Bible that David had seven wives no more makes that acceptable than the report that David had Uriah murdered makes it acceptable to arrange for a man's death so that you can marry his wife.

And I will ask you for the third time -- as a self-proclaimed Christian, what is your basis for disputing the definition of marriage established by Jesus?

Brian English

Polygamy was practised by the Jewish community throughout Europe until Rabbi Gershom's decree, a decree that was never received in the Jewish communities of Spain and Portugal, who continued to practise it until the 14th century.

This has left traces in Jewish law to this day - The marriage of a married man is legally valid and needs the formality of a bill of divorce for its dissolution, while the marriage of a married woman is void and has no binding force (Eben ha-'Ezer, 1, 10; comp. "Pite Teshubah," § 20) It also makes him subject to the laws of relationship; so that he can not afterward marry the wife's sister while the wife is living, nor can he or his near relatives, according to the laws of consanguinity, enter into matrimonial relations with any of her near relatives.

Next will be incest and if you do not think so please be aware that there is already a case for legalization of incest before the Supreme court of Germany. A blood brother and sister with three children are demanding that their incest relationship be recognized and there are lawyers and groups supporting their claim. Not following the model of one man with one woman of Genesis before the Fall will lead to other types of relationships previously forbidden by Christianity!!

@Dr. Vendermann
You certainly have a good point there. I think it's matter of how the culture accept, regardless whether it's Christianity or Hinduism, etc . In islam for example, they allow and fully accepted polygamy as legal for both the eyes of man a god.

Does it make any sense that it's okay that "Heather Has Two Mommies" (the award-winning children's book introducing homosexual family units), yet if this same "Heather" should also have a Daddy, it's a felony?

Wonderful article and I couldn't be more in agreement with it.

Many people miss the point of Turley's lawsuit AND the battle polygamists have been waging for a century or more. Virtually NONE of them wants to be legally polygamously married. They just want to be LEFT THE HECK ALONE and not be treated like those prawns on "DISTRICT 9". This article is dead on. Lawrence v. Texas absolutely decriminalizes plural relationships as clearly as it does homosexual ones. Utah is resisting that because the corporate Mormon Church is embarrassed by its history and its founders. Read my blog at "fall of reynolds" for a spirited discussion of this topic. Renn.

Gil Costello,
In response to David you've given your opinion on the reasoned argument against polygamy.

Your time-tested points (in your opinion):
1. A man and a woman can't build a deep relationship or dive into the complexities of their relationship and each other if they're in a plural situation.
2. Children won't have the ability to learn how to function in complex, depth-oriented relationships because their parents (plural spouses) won't have the opportunity or ability to show them the "complexity, value, and infinite dignity of each individual" or the "depth that can only occur when a man and a woman agree to grow into the depth of their love over the course of a lifetime." In your opinion, that learning is not possible in a polygamous relationship. In your understanding of the relationship both the women and men have a limited view on each other, portraying a lack of dignity and seeing each other as simply "need-fulfilling objects". More particularly, the men seeing the women as such.
3. You state that the man can not fully commit to any of the women in a plural state. Rather, he is committed to aspects of the woman but not the woman as a whole. This, you believe, keeps her in bondage. Also, she cannot build a deeper relationship with him because it will upset the other wives.
4. By your assessment, plural wives are slaves.

I am here to shed a different light to your story.
First, I do believe in some cases the way you perceive plural marriage is probably true. However, terrible problems occur in a one man, one woman marriage. Does that make marriage wrong? No.
Plural marriage opens up opportunity for growth in the relationship between a man and a woman that aren't opened up in a traditional marriage. You talk about the complexities of a relationship that can't be found in plural marriage, but in this issue you're very, very off. Plural marriage creates a new dynamic to the relationship, but it doesn't hinder the formation of a relationship between a man and his wife in any way. Rather, by living this way, the man and woman learn to have a greater respect for each other, which leads to a greater love and a greater relationship overall. The depth of committment and love between a man and each individual wife can be a very deep, very amazing relationship that is shared between the two individuals and no others.
To refute your second point: Children born into plural marriages (and when I say plural marriages, I mean healthy marriages where all adults have consented willingly and are functioning adults) are raised in a different dynamic than those born into traditional marriage, but they're not losing anything from it. Your claim that the parents can't form those relationships that children can follow is not the case. The relationship between a wife and the husband is very important. As such, it is continually being built on and improved. The children in a plural situation absolutely see the complexities and the respect that comes from a plural marriage. They see their father building lasting relationships with his wives, relationships which are special and different with each wife. They see a profound love between their father and mother that is only found through this principle (I'm sure you'll disagree with that one, but there are certain opportunities for growth that come up through this way of life that aren't found anywhere else). More than that, because the wives are aware of and working with each other, the children get a greater understanding of unconditional love, of charity, of learning to think of others, and of caring for others needs as well as your own. And last, in a traditional marriage there isn't a huge need for men and women to create their own identities. We see this all the time, especially when divorce occurs and the divorcee radically changes who they were. In a healthy plural marriage the wives are not only given ample opportunity to find and define who they are, they are supported and encouraged in this by the husband. They are not controlled any more than a woman is in a traditional marriage. In many cases, the control is even less. The husband doesn't see the women as need-fulfilling objects. He sees them as individuals and loves them as individuals. The children see this.
Your third point: A man cannot build a deep, lasting relationship with his wives. I've talked about this already, but I reiterate. In order for a plural marriage to work, the man absolutely MUST build deep, lasting relationships with each of the wives, and each relationship will be different because each woman is different. The wives are not hindered by each other. I also state this point again: In a healthy relationship the women are not in bondage. They are free to become who they believe they need to be. Plural marriage can give them a greater opportunity to do this.
Plural wives are not slaves. Most polygamous families are living this way because they believe it is a God-given principle necessary for their spiritual growth. As a result of this, the families tend to be very God-oriented. The result is children who are raised with a moral conscience and men and women who have learned to rely on God and who have built their understanding of God to a greater degree.
Most people view polygamy in a negative light, choosing to see all the possible shortcomings of the way of life. Plural marriage, like any marriage, has the ability to bring out the absolute best in people and to give them greater joy than they would have otherwise experienced.
Your points, while well-said, are your opinion, not fact or reason.

People who are anti anything Christian or bible often point out that God doesn't directly condemn polygamy in the OT. I wonder if polygamy was really all that prevalent among the average Hebrew population. I'm inclined to think that it was more prevalent among the rich and powerful. Did the Jews of New Testament times practice polygamy? I don't think there is any indication in the NT that they did. Whatever the case may be, there is something called progressive revelation, and God didn't reveal everything in one big revelatory dump, as we might say today. Looking at all of redemptive history it is clear that monogamy (Christ only has one bride) is good, true and beautiful, even if it can be really hard at times. 1. A man and a woman can't build a deep relationship or dive into the complexities of their relationship and each other if they're in a plural situation.

But a federal judge, or the Supreme Court, can't base a ruling on that. In the Catholic tradition, it is expected that one can always give *reasons* why something is immoralreasons other than "it goes against what God wants." We know morality through reason, not through divine revelation. So what is the *reasoned* argument against polygamy? Just as more and more reasoned arguments opposing same-sex unions keep appearing, so will the reasons that clearly show the misguidedness of polygamous marriage after we legalize it.

Joe Carter writes, "All of the major world religions—Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Christianity—have at one time in their history condoned the practice of taking multiple spouses."

While I've read a substantial amount of related material, I have yet to find documentation of where/when either Judaism or Christianity "condoned" "taking multiple spouses." Would someone please educate me?

Yes, polygamy and other sexual/social sins are recorded in the OT, but never "condoned." Likewise, no NT writer condones it. Yes, polygamy was a tenet of early Mormonism and is now returning, but Mormonism is NOT Christianity.

Joe Carter does Orthodox Jews and biblical Christians a huge disservice with this false statement, in my opinion. What think you?

Dan,

The Law commanded levirate marriage as a way to prevent the means of production being alienated from the workers, and the New Covenant permits polygamy, but no polygamist (parallel or serial) is allowed to hold a church office.

It's evident from the unbiblical and some down-right-silly comments above that there exists a large knowledge vacuum among Christians (as well as non-Christians and pseudo-Christians) on the subjects of marriage and sexuality. I encourage readers desiring truth and integrity to obtain:

DIVORCE and REMARRIAGE in the BIBLE: The Social and Literary Context, David Instone-Brewer - http://goo.gl/WGJ3V

FLAME OF YAHWEH: Sexuality in the Old Testament, Richard M Davidson - http://goo.gl/VXLEo

THE GOD OF SEX: How Spirituality Defines Your Sexuality, Peter Jones - http://goo.gl/JxlkA