Polygamy, yay!
March 14th, 2004The insanely fawning tone of this section of today’s Salt Lake Tribune is enough to make me want to pick up both torch and pitchfork. It’s not so much the polygamy as it is the abuse of power. It seems so Old Testament/Old World and frankly, so Muslim extremist. Jon Krakauer makes this observation in the foreword and epilogue of Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith (highly recommended).
It’s as if the editors of the Trib read Krakauer’s book, and said, “Put a smiley face on this whole mess and we’ll run it as it’s own section in the Sunday edition! Get down to the compounds pronto, toots! I want photos of the women in those pioneer get-ups and make sure the leaders look good. I’m talking warm and fuzzy, here people.”
I’d love to see the Tribune take the same tone taken with gay marriage. Ah… Utah’s true colors. Good times…
Related story: there is certainly an air of strange bedfellows (sorry, couldn’t resist) vibe with this suit. If I support gay marriage, am I also supporting polygamy? My inner pride marcher is saying “Yes, you are.”
Maybe it’s time? o
I support polygamy as much as any other marriage (gay, straight, transgendered,…), as long as it’s between consenting adults. My problem with what I’ve seen of Mormon polygamy is that it doesn’t seem very equitable. I mean, what if I want to take two husbands?
My partner and I are polyamorous (with rules - realistically, all poly relationships require negotiation). It’s a lot of work, but it works out fantastically because we are communicative and honest.
Hell, I love my wife more than life itself but I cant imagine having two. Kinda defeats the whole purpose of marriage doesn’t it?
If I been out tomcattin’, does that mean I’m polyamorous? Or am I polygamous? Or am I just polycheatin’?
Thanks for an interesting post.
I am all for same-sex marriage — but, call me old-fashioned and hypocrtical, I really like marriage being between two people. There’s something beautifully simple about forming a partnership, choosing one other person to walk through life with, be committed to. I guess I see polygamy as diffusing this potential for solid long-lasting partnership. My bias, I know.
I’ve heard an interesting theory about polygamy in Islam lately, that the whole rule about having up to four wives “as long as they are all treated equally” is basically (and good-humoredly) saying “only have one” because how could you treat four wives equally? Mind you, historically, the polygamy-in-Islam thing works out really well when all the men are off to war and there are a disproportionate number of single women around…
And finally, that Jeffs guy is scary. How many fundamentalist Christian groups go through this? Power plays, promising the end-of-the-world, ruling with an iron hand, having sex with multiple “wives” — it’s ridiculous. (Outlawing laughing! Imagine that! I am more prone to think that laughter is proof that God exists!) Look into the history of some of these groups — Seventh Day Adventists have a lot of this in their past, leaders who step forward and claim to know the date of the apocalypse, they lead for a few years until that date comes and goes, then there’s a power play, the old leader gets toppled, then there’s a new charismatic leader, a new date… and the cycle goes on — sometimes extended through a generation when there’s a son to step in when the old man dies. (And let’s face it, the vast majority of these leaders who claim to be “inspired by God” are men.) I guess the new twist is that in the last few decades more and more of these leaders choose to bring about a small community apocalypse by making everyone drink poison when The Day arrives etc. So convinced that they are right that they’ll make themselves right, if only on a small scale.
Finally, isn’t marrying your father’s former wife INCEST? I wonder if Warren could tell me what kind of God gets behind incest and not laughter? Or boating?
Rulon Jeffs?
When I was at the University of Utah, I had a friend who had lived in Colorado City and was related to the Jeffs clan. One of the weirdest things I’ve seen was his elementary school yearbooks, in which the hundreds of kids only had about four last names between them and they all definitely looked related. He left the compound when his mother decided she’d had enough, but it was sad to see that he couldn’t ever go back to visit his half-brothers and -sisters and friends. They wouldn’t let him on the property because his hair was too long. Oh, and he was gay too. Now, who wouldn’t want to read this kid’s biography?
You know what….good question….really good question…..
I’ve been wondering for a while how polygimasts feel about gay marriage. Soon there may be hundreds of shanty looking vans headed toward the San Francisco Civic Center. Politics make strange bedfellows indeed.
There is also a thin line between the legalization of marijuana and the legalization of polygamy. Like the police in Humbolt County, the Colorado City cops make a token bust every year or two just to look like they are doing something. I say legalize it, regulate it and tax it.
hell. maybe i should be mormon. i have a helluva a time getting two dates, let alone two wives.
The flaw in the case in the article is that the supreme court ruled that sodomy could not be illegal because of privacy issues. If you grant a marriage license to a polygamist that becomes public record. No one is saying that three people can’t live together as a “family” just that they can’t be granted a marriage license.
That said, I do support granting marriage licenses to gay couples and I guess to other “alternative” relationships as well. But the argument that the sodomy ruling protects polygamists seeking PUBLIC acknowledgment of their union is just illogical.
gay marriage has nothing to do with polygomy. so, no, supporing gay marriage wouldn’t mean you were supporting polygomy anymore than it would mean you were supporting beastiality. or adults marrying children or people marrying inanimate objects.
I agree with devian — well put. The thin edge of the wedge argument doesn’t really hold up. Anything we deem important can be taken to an unpleasant (and logical) extreme. Like liberty — we have the right to live as we choose, but we restrict murder, stealing, etc. I know some 12 year olds who would make great drivers, but I’m still glad all 12 year olds have to wait a few years before they get licensed.
I support gay marriage because homosexuals don’t choose to be homosexual, and deserve the same right to be married to a partner as heterosexuals.
I don’t support inter-species, or pedophilic marriages because inter-species and pedophilic marriages are marriages between an adult and a person (or animal) who doesn’t have the full capacity to consent to marriage. Finally, I don’t support polygamous marriages because I personally believe marriage should be the legal and spiritual union of two people to the exclusion of all others.
However, unlike “marriages” between adults and children, or adults and animals, I think it’s fine for a bunch of adults to live together as friends, lovers, however they want to define themselves, even call themselves “married” if they like, as long as they are all consenting adults.
on a silly note however, http://www.marryyourpet.com/
Well, it does seem like the trib is a tad schizo on this issue, as they have at least two articles in the mix which highlight some of the more negative issues surrounding polygamy–particularly the plight of the young boys who are kicked out their religious communities because they are a competition for a resource (women).
I’ve long had an interest in this topic–it really pisses me off to know that the situations in Southern Utah are often comparable to the Taliban, and that the powers-that-be in Utah are doing sweet-fuck-all about it. I grew up thinking that the polygs were totally harmless and nice, just misguided and rather gentle–no clue that the girls are often forced to marry against their will, beaten if they disagree, raped in the marriage bed, and subjected to years of abuse.
Here’s some links highlighted at Teresa Nielsen Hayden’s site–you might find it interesting:
http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/004560.html#004560
I’ll bet they ran that article because that week, 20/20 (or Dateline, or 60 Minutes, I don’t remember) did a piece on Colorado City and a woman, Flora Jessop, who left there 20 years or so ago and now sneaks back under the cover of night to help rescue 14 year old girls who don’t want to marry their fathers.
One of the things I found most appalling was the “bleeding the beast” thing.
From ABCNEWS.com: ” Ironically, the American taxpayer pays for much of this lifestyle. Recent records show in one year residents here collected more than $8-million from social services ó including food stamps, welfare, health care ó but the entire town paid less than $100,000 in income taxes.
“They are told to go on welfare,” Jessop said. “It’s called, “bleeding the beast.” They find it amusing that Satan is supporting God’s work.”
I think I’m related to Ms. Jessop.
Apparently, on the side that may be related, one of my forebears spent time in prison, due to polygamy charges.
The sexual, lechesque side of this issue is revolting.
“Bleeding of the beast” is talked about in Krakauers’ book.