Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
rockpond

Starting the path to legal polygamy in the U.S.

Recommended Posts

On 1/27/2016 at 8:42 AM, Gray said:

It may be legalized, but I don't think the legal argument for polygamy is as strong as the legal argument for gay marriage. A ban on polygamy does not discriminate on gender lines, after all. 

The Supreme Court decision did not use gender lines, to justify ssm, the reason ssm is now legal is because SCOTUS found that marriage is a fundamental right and received a strict scrutiny standard. So the legal argument for polygamy would be just as strong, because "polygamy" would not be argued, but because of the equal protection of those fundamental rights to marriage.

see the decision here, Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 1039

 

Edited by Anijen

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, rockpond said:

Plural marriage (LDS version) is one man, multiple women.  Attempts to wedge it into the new "one man, one woman" model are laughable.

 

This is how all of the polygamists that i've heard speak about polygamy define it-one man and multiple women.  Even when they are very very clear to talk about how each marriage is between the man and the woman alone and that the women do not consider themselves married to each other (the Browns have made that distinction many times), they still define their relationship as one husband with multiple wives.

I see no way to logically define polygamy as one man and one woman.  It's a different relationship than monogamy and it makes no sense to try to define it the same way that monogamy is defined.

Share this post


Link to post
On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 11:15 PM, rockpond said:

The Brown family (of the reality TV series "Sister Wives") has taken up the banner of religious freedom and is fighting for polygamy to be legal in Utah (not just decriminalized -- which they already accomplished).  Hopefully this will be the case that goes all the way to SCOTUS and removes the ban for the whole country.  Article here and a relevant quote from it...

""Sister Wives" stars Kody Brown and his four wives Meri, Christine, Janelle and Robyn are reportedly pushing for polygamy legalization in Utah. In fact, the lawyers for the family had recently asked a federal appeals court to uphold a ruling that "decriminalized" plural marriages in the state.

Based on the lawsuit filed by the Browns, the family made famous by the TLC reality show "Sister Wives" contended that Utah's polygamy ban violated the constitutional rights of Americans to liberally engage in their religion, noting the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS) practice of plural marriage."

Didn't the Brown's court actions ONLY get bigamy decriminalized?  Polygamy is not legal.

As for polygamy, it will not be upheld. The Court will not approve a general system that is based in gender discrimination.  The court may uphold the religious practice of multiple spouses.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, provoman said:

Didn't the Brown's court actions ONLY get bigamy decriminalized?  Polygamy is not legal.

As for polygamy, it will not be upheld. The Court will not approve a general system that is based in gender discrimination.  The court may uphold the religious practice of multiple spouses.

I think that's correct, the Brown's previous case decriminalized bigamy.  But that essentially decriminalized polygamy (since bigamy is defined as entering into another marriage when one is already married).  I don't see the distinction you are pointing out.

This new case that they are filing is aimed at getting bigamy/polygamy legally recognized nationwide (not just decriminalized in Utah).  And if I understand your second point, I agree that SCOTUS would not approve men having multiple wives without also approving women having multiple husbands.

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You misunderstand the basis for the SSM decision:  Equal protection of the laws.  Gender is not the basis.

I thought gender discrimination was brought up in the discussions. As in, gay marriage was gender discrimination because it was based on the genders of the people entering into the marriage. 

Share this post


Link to post

duplicate

Edited by Gray

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Anijen said:

The Supreme Court decision did not use gender lines, to justify ssm, the reason ssm is now legal is because SCOTUS found that marriage is a fundamental right and received a strict scrutiny standard. So the legal argument for polygamy would be just as strong, because "polygamy" would not be argued, but because of the equal protection of those fundamental rights to marriage.

see the decision here, Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 1039

 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, rockpond said:

I think that's correct, the Brown's previous case decriminalized bigamy.  But that essentially decriminalized polygamy (since bigamy is defined as entering into another marriage when one is already married).  I don't see the distinction you are pointing out.

This new case that they are filing is aimed at getting bigamy/polygamy legally recognized nationwide (not just decriminalized in Utah).  And if I understand your second point, I agree that SCOTUS would not approve men having multiple wives without also approving women having multiple husbands.

No, the Brown's case decriminalized the cohabitation clause in Utah.  Bigamy is still illegal.
But religious marriages are not considered bigamy.  So an illegal cohabitation law was passed in the 1800s which was never applied equally to all people, so that is what was shot down.

And by shooting down the illegal cohabitation law, that decriminalized polygamy as people like the Browns practice it as long as bigamy is not practiced too.

Still, I'm sure bigamy laws will change too soon enough.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Gray said:

I thought gender discrimination was brought up in the discussions. As in, gay marriage was gender discrimination because it was based on the genders of the people entering into the marriage. 

Of course it came up for discussion.  Everyone knows that.  The basis of the decision was the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.  The same basis under which plural marriage will be made legal.

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, bluebell said:

This is how all of the polygamists that i've heard speak about polygamy define it-one man and multiple women.  Even when they are very very clear to talk about how each marriage is between the man and the woman alone and that the women do not consider themselves married to each other (the Browns have made that distinction many times), they still define their relationship as one husband with multiple wives.

I see no way to logically define polygamy as one man and one woman.  It's a different relationship than monogamy and it makes no sense to try to define it the same way that monogamy is defined.

It's actually quite simple. You define it by what it is, not by how they talk about it.

Here's a very straightforward test: If one of the plural wives divorces the husband, does that dissolve the other marriages? If so, then it's a single mega-marriage; but if not, then it's multiple concurrent marriages that are distinct from one another.

Here's a thought experiment: suppose a couple get married, and it's the first marriage for both of them. Both parties believe in polygamy, so they have the idea in the back of their minds that at some time in the future, the husband may marry again. Is the marriage fundamentally different from other monogamous marriages at that point? If so, how?

But if not, does that marriage fundamentally change if the husband does remarry? I don't mean the relationship between the parties, I mean the marriage as a formal arrangement.

Every patriarchal polygamic society that I know anything about has always treated each wife as the partner in a distinct marriage. The husband ordinarily marries them one by one, and sometimes (as in Muslim countries) divorces them, one by one; and neither the marriages nor the divorces change the structure or the fundamental nature of the previous (or surviving) marriages.

 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

It's actually quite simple. You define it by what it is, not by how they talk about it.

Here's a very straightforward test: If one of the plural wives divorces the husband, does that dissolve the other marriages? If so, then it's a single mega-marriage; but if not, then it's multiple concurrent marriages that are distinct from one another.

Here's a thought experiment: suppose a couple get married, and it's the first marriage for both of them. Both parties believe in polygamy, so they have the idea in the back of their minds that at some time in the future, the husband may marry again. Is the marriage fundamentally different from other monogamous marriages at that point? If so, how?

But if not, does that marriage fundamentally change if the husband does remarry? I don't mean the relationship between the parties, I mean the marriage as a formal arrangement.

Every patriarchal polygamic society that I know anything about has always treated each wife as the partner in a distinct marriage. The husband ordinarily marries them one by one, and sometimes (as in Muslim countries) divorces them, one by one; and neither the marriages nor the divorces change the structure or the fundamental nature of the previous (or surviving) marriages.

 

He's a very straightforward test:  If a man has entered 33 polygamous marriages, how many women is he currently married to? 

And here's a thought experiment:  When Brigham Young married his 55th wife (a woman he would only be able to stay alone with for less than one week per year), was that marriage fundamentally different than today's LDS accepted version of one man, one woman marriage?

And finally, if you asked someone who is not LDS, if John Taylor and his 7 wives was an example of "one man, one woman" marriage what would they say?

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, rockpond said:

He's a very straightforward test:  If a man has entered 33 polygamous marriages, how many women is he currently married to? 

And here's a thought experiment:  When Brigham Young married his 55th wife (a woman he would only be able to stay alone with for less than one week per year), was that marriage fundamentally different than today's LDS accepted version of one man, one woman marriage?

And finally, if you asked someone who is not LDS, if John Taylor and his 7 wives was an example of "one man, one woman" marriage what would they say?

Whatever God commands.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

It's actually quite simple. You define it by what it is, not by how they talk about it.

Here's a very straightforward test: If one of the plural wives divorces the husband, does that dissolve the other marriages? If so, then it's a single mega-marriage; but if not, then it's multiple concurrent marriages that are distinct from one another.

Here's a thought experiment: suppose a couple get married, and it's the first marriage for both of them. Both parties believe in polygamy, so they have the idea in the back of their minds that at some time in the future, the husband may marry again. Is the marriage fundamentally different from other monogamous marriages at that point? If so, how?

But if not, does that marriage fundamentally change if the husband does remarry? I don't mean the relationship between the parties, I mean the marriage as a formal arrangement.

Every patriarchal polygamic society that I know anything about has always treated each wife as the partner in a distinct marriage. The husband ordinarily marries them one by one, and sometimes (as in Muslim countries) divorces them, one by one; and neither the marriages nor the divorces change the structure or the fundamental nature of the previous (or surviving) marriages.

 

How people talk about something IS what it is.  Definitions don't come to use from some galactic mind ray.  All a definition is is the generally accepted meaning of a word.  I was pointing out that how rockpond defines polygamy is pretty much how everyone else defines it as well.  

I've never come across someone who defines it as you do, though there are probably more out there.  It's not the generally accepted way to define it though.  

Whether or not each wife is treated as a distinct marriage has no bearing on polygamy being 'one man and one woman'.  I posted an example of people who very much believe each marriage is distinct and they still don't define polygamy as you define it. :pardon:

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, rockpond said:

He's a very straightforward test:  If a man has entered 33 polygamous marriages, how many women is he currently married to? 
33

And here's a thought experiment:  When Brigham Young married his 55th wife (a woman he would only be able to stay alone with for less than one week per year), was that marriage fundamentally different than today's LDS accepted version of one man, one woman marriage?
Yes.  So?

And finally, if you asked someone who is not LDS, if John Taylor and his 7 wives was an example of "one man, one woman" marriage what would they say?
Depends how you explain things.
John Taylor had 7 separate marriages.  Each wife had 1 marriage.

 

Share this post


Link to post
23 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Whatever God commands.

Many look at it as whatever the men who want to marry many women say god's command is.  This is a common pattern that has been used by many leaders of religious groups.  

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

Many look at it as whatever the men who want to marry many women say god's command is.  This is a common pattern that has been used by many leaders of religious groups.  

True, but not helpful. The Book of Mormon gives the reason. It is at Gods' command.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't see polygamy coming into play again until the afterlife or the millennium where we'll be on a different level spiritually and can live up to the demands better. Living it in this Telestial world seems too hard to make everything work. I feel we at least need a Terrestrial world to live it or Celestial if it takes that to live it. That's why I'm more of a believer that it will be practiced but in the next life.

Share this post


Link to post
On Thursday, January 28, 2016 at 5:19 PM, rockpond said:

I think that's correct, the Brown's previous case decriminalized bigamy.  But that essentially decriminalized polygamy (since bigamy is defined as entering into another marriage when one is already married).  I don't see the distinction you are pointing out.

This new case that they are filing is aimed at getting bigamy/polygamy legally recognized nationwide (not just decriminalized in Utah).  And if I understand your second point, I agree that SCOTUS would not approve men having multiple wives without also approving women having multiple husbands.

 

Read the prior Brown news article. Their suit a few years ago was about having the "cohabitation" aspect deemed unconstitutional. 

Share this post


Link to post
On Friday, January 29, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Russell C McGregor said:

It's actually quite simple. You define it by what it is, not by how they talk about it.

Here's a very straightforward test: If one of the plural wives divorces the husband, does that dissolve the other marriages? If so, then it's a single mega-marriage; but if not, then it's multiple concurrent marriages that are distinct from one another.

Here's a thought experiment: suppose a couple get married, and it's the first marriage for both of them. Both parties believe in polygamy, so they have the idea in the back of their minds that at some time in the future, the husband may marry again. Is the marriage fundamentally different from other monogamous marriages at that point? If so, how?

But if not, does that marriage fundamentally change if the husband does remarry? I don't mean the relationship between the parties, I mean the marriage as a formal arrangement.

Every patriarchal polygamic society that I know anything about has always treated each wife as the partner in a distinct marriage. The husband ordinarily marries them one by one, and sometimes (as in Muslim countries) divorces them, one by one; and neither the marriages nor the divorces change the structure or the fundamental nature of the previous (or surviving) marriages.

 

To claim that polygamy is traditional marriage - one man one woman - is in my opinion intellectual dishonesty. One man having multiple wives, even if each marriage was a separate ceremony, is not traditional marriage.

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/29/2016 at 3:36 AM, Russell C McGregor said:

It's actually quite simple. You define it by what it is, not by how they talk about it.

Here's a very straightforward test: If one of the plural wives divorces the husband, does that dissolve the other marriages? If so, then it's a single mega-marriage; but if not, then it's multiple concurrent marriages that are distinct from one another.

Here's a thought experiment: suppose a couple get married, and it's the first marriage for both of them. Both parties believe in polygamy, so they have the idea in the back of their minds that at some time in the future, the husband may marry again. Is the marriage fundamentally different from other monogamous marriages at that point? If so, how?

But if not, does that marriage fundamentally change if the husband does remarry? I don't mean the relationship between the parties, I mean the marriage as a formal arrangement.

Every patriarchal polygamic society that I know anything about has always treated each wife as the partner in a distinct marriage. The husband ordinarily marries them one by one, and sometimes (as in Muslim countries) divorces them, one by one; and neither the marriages nor the divorces change the structure or the fundamental nature of the previous (or surviving) marriages.

 

That's quite an exercise in compartmentalization.  Regardless, it doesn't change the fact that the man is simultaneously involved in more than marriage.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, provoman said:

To claim that polygamy is traditional marriage - one man one woman - is in my opinion intellectual dishonesty. One man having multiple wives, even if each marriage was a separate ceremony, is not traditional marriage.

1) Actually polygamy is highly traditional. It has been the dominant marriage model throughout most of human history.

2) I've explained why I think polygamy can be validly viewed as a form of one-man-one-woman marriage: the polygamous husband with seven wives is a party to seven discrete marriages, each of which consists of one man and one woman. If you wish to argue the logic of that, feel free to do so. Accusing me of "intellectual dishonesty" based upon nothing but your opinion is stupid, and adds nothing to any discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/29/2016 at 2:08 AM, rockpond said:

He's a very straightforward test:  If a man has entered 33 polygamous marriages, how many women is he currently married to? 

And here's a thought experiment:  When Brigham Young married his 55th wife (a woman he would only be able to stay alone with for less than one week per year), was that marriage fundamentally different than today's LDS accepted version of one man, one woman marriage?

And finally, if you asked someone who is not LDS, if John Taylor and his 7 wives was an example of "one man, one woman" marriage what would they say?

1. He's married to 33 women. Which is to say, he is a party to 33 discrete marriages.

2. That depends upon how you define "fundamentally."

3. If ever I want an example of how manipulative you can be, I will cite this one. Nobody -- least of all me -- is trying to argue that "John Taylor and his 7 wives was an example of 'one man, one woman' marriage."

I am arguing that John Taylor and his 7 wives represent seven examples of "one man, one woman" marriage.

But you already knew that, didn't you?

 

Share this post


Link to post
19 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Many look at it as whatever the men who want to marry many women say god's command is.  This is a common pattern that has been used by many leaders of religious groups.  

Yes, and assuming that because two men say similar things and one is a charlatan the other must be also, is a common pattern that has been used by many demagogues and rabble-rousers.

 

Edited by Russell C McGregor

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/29/2016 at 8:47 AM, thesometimesaint said:

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

Yes, and assuming that because two men say similar things and one is a charlatan the other must be also, is a common pattern that has been used by many demagogues and rabble-rousers.

 

Let's look at the time line.  Joseph Smith is caught having an affair with young Fanny Alger.  Church co-founder, Oliver Cowdery called it a "dirty, nasty, filthy affair".  This was in 1831 three years before the sealing power has supposedly been resorted.  There was no published revelation either.  Just secrecy and deception.  Just one man telling young girls that it was okay to sleep with him because god said so.  I agree with you, this is the work of a charlatan. 

You and McGregor will be thread banned if the overheated rhetoric continues.

Share this post


Link to post
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By nuclearfuels
      https://www.sltrib.com/news/2019/09/11/robert-gehrke-utah-should/comments/#twt-comments
      Surprised to see the Trib advocate this but here we are.
      My own take on the issue: the gov't of UT and State Supreme Court won't legalize polygamy at all.
      It won't really matter though, some US state (MN?) will legalize it after Canada does (following Kenya, other African countries, Denmark which already have), and based on freedom of religion (not the freedom of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints, no; but the freedom of religious practice of other groups.
      Wondering though when we might hear an announcement about this in General Conference, 5, 10 20 years? 
       
       
       
    • By nuclearfuels
      Kenya legalized polygamy in 2014.  Any readers here serve mission there and have to tell investigators they'd need to stop the practice before being able to be baptized? I understand in Latin America a lot of married people split up but forgo the legal part of making the divorce official and that has to be done before they can be baptized.
      Germany is trying to indirectly legalize polygamy for one of their migrant culture's beliefs. 
      My wife and I support our ancestors who practiced polygamy, to say nothing of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob practicing polygamy.
      Curious as to your thoughts:
      Will other African countries and European countries following suit? Will / Should people in Congress - Ilhan, Tlaib, Romney, Bishop, etc. allow migrants here to practice what their faith encourages?  Declining populations (Japan, Europe) really have two options: welcome in higher fertility populations from other countries or legalize polygamy. 
       
      Pushed by politicians, polygamy enjoys a heyday among Christians in ...
      Germany: Citizenship for Polygamous Migrants?  
    • By SouthernMo
      The timeline and reasons of how the idea of polygamy evolved into practice is perplexing.  It is causing me doubt how scriptures are to be obeyed, and how to trust the revelatory process.  Let's look at the pattern Joseph Smith followed:
      March 1830 - Joseph Smith publishes the Book of Mormon (supposedly scripture) which contains commandments from God.  The only discussion of polygamy is found in Jacob 2, which clearly condemns the practice.  However, there is a provision given for exceptions: only to 'raise up seed' if God commands it.
      The Gospel Topics Essay on Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo states that "After receiving a revelation commanding him to practice plural marriage, Joseph Smith married multiple wives and introduced the practice to close associates."  The only revelation I know of on polygamy came in July 1843 (D&C 132), yet Joseph Smith had married 22 (by some count) additional wives by July 1843.
      2 Big Questions:
      1. What revelation did Joseph Smith receive (per the mentioned Gospel Topic Essay) before the D&C 132 revelation that told him to practice polygamy, despite the Book of Mormon's 1830 prohibition (with exception)?
      2. In light of the Jacob 2:30 provision for the allowance of polygamy to "raise up seed unto me..." why are there no (known) children that emerged from Joseph Smith's plural wives?  Joseph apparently did not use polygamy to 'raise up seed.'
    • By HappyJackWagon
      I want to respond to a couple of statements made by Julianne from the now closed "Weed" thread, because she absolutely nails it. She is spot on and I think the discussion at this level needs to occur before any progress can be made on the SSM issue.
      She wrote...
      Speaking as a straight, white, man, I recognize that I come to the traditional church teachings of priesthood, sealing, polygamy/polyandry, and SSM from a certain privileged position. The church's teachings and practices benefit me and they always have. Even though there is little to no evidence for how celestial families will actually be organized and function in the CK I used to think I had it all figured out. Obviously, I thought, marriage is essential to have legal physical intimacy which is necessary for creating offspring with one or multiple wives. Yet there is no firm teaching about how spirits are created. Are they born like a baby is born into mortality? There is no evidence or teaching for that, but it is widely assumed. That assumption then justifies polygamy while discrediting polyandry and even SSM. After all, if the entire purpose is to create spirit offspring and it is thought that it happens in a way similar to creating biological offspring, then it makes sense. But that is ALL based on assumptions.
      Based on these assumptions many are willing to condemn others to lives (and possibly even an eternity) of loneliness.
      So (we) don't even know what the afterlife looks like. It is unknown. Yet we think (we) have enough information to condemn and judge others, and since most of us come at it from positions of privilege, we are in the position to enforce our dogma upon the less privileged. The church is not unique in behaving this way. It is how society has always worked. But recognizing the assumptions for what they are and being humble about how much we really don't know, can help society improve.
      Julianne also stated...
      How can one categorically dismiss SSM when there is little to nothing known about family organization in the next life, even regarding a variety of heterosexual family organizations. Which sealings will be valid? Polygamy/polyandry? Only those which benefit men? Who are the children sealed to? There is a lot of "The Lord will work it out" mentality, which is fine because it acknowledges a lack of understanding and knowledge. The problem comes when one then loses all humility and attempts to define how family relationships will or will not work for other people. I agree with Julianne that the polygamy/polyandry topic is closely tied to the SSM topic and must be ironed out.
      So maybe this can be a thread that can be commented on instead of derailing other threads when this subject comes up.
       
      *Julianne, I hope I didn't misunderstand or misrepresent you. I really appreciated where you were trying to take the discussion.
    • By DBMormon
      Knowing the background of the Lucy Walker story (if you don't, I can not emphasize enough the need to understand the story - resources below), I am curious how those who both know the story and who are faithful to the restoration and Church authority answer the following question.
      Do you take the position that Joseph deceived Lucy Walker about God commanding him to take her as a plural wife, or do you subscribe to a God whose morality has him commanding a man in a father/daughter dynamic to change his relationship with this 16 year old girl living in his home effectively as his foster daughter into a husband/wife dynamic? I am also open to other perspectives that hold some other ground but wood tool answers will not be acceptable in this post (have faith, God will work it out on the other side, go pray about it and get your own answer knowing people get competing answers)
      The question is not how does someone other than yourself come down or arrive at a perspective on this question but rather where do you personally come down on this question. I am deeply hoping that you wont avoid all-together or avoid using the mechanism that you know by the spirit that the Church is true hence you don't concern yourself with such conundrums. Instead what is your personal take on this historical issue.
      While this historical story has been largely ignored, I think it is the most important story in all of Mormonism. bigger than the Book of Abraham, bigger than Helen Mar Kimball and Fanny Alger, bigger than first vision accounts, and Race and Priesthood.
      http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2017/12/premium-lucy-walker-spiritual-experiences/
      http://www.yearofpolygamy.com/tag/lucy-walker-smith/
      http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/23-LucyWalker.htm
      http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/plural-wives-overview/lucy-walker/
×
×
  • Create New...