Recent disclosures from residents of polygamous communities on the Utah-Arizona border are a good corrective for recent weblog articles by Tim ( defending polygamy as an activity that should be protected on libertarian grounds) and by Matt (defending polygamy as an activity that should be allowed on more general grounds). Nothing personal--this question has been a live topic in recent months all over the media, these are just the intereseting arguments I've run across in my little corner of the blogosphere.
After the designated prophet of the polygamist communities disciplined about 20 male followers, one held a news conference to defend his right to remain living in his own home (which technically is owned by the real estate division of the FLDS Church) and remain married to his sole wife. As discussed in a related story, wives of disaffected FLDS members are often 'reassigned' to other, 'worthier' FLDS members. This second article notes: Critics of the polygamist havens predicted the shake-up will prompt a mass exodus of children, mainly girls who fear they will be married or "reassigned" to other families because women and children are considered church property. Additional stories are listed here.
Take the libertarian argument first. Tim opines here that Reynolds was wrongly decided and that it was obviously tailored to uphold a religiously discriminatory law that was passed because people in the east regarded polygamy as morally outrageous. In a different post, he holds that [t]he fact that it is peaceful and consensual and harms no third parties ought certainly to have weighed on the question of whether polygamy really is “subversive of good order,” I would think, but the Court did not think so. But it just won't do to paint polygamy as a harmless, consensual union of three or five or ten adults which should not be regulated or proscribed by an intrustive state. Real-world polygamous societies and communities takes aim at girls well before they reach the age where we generally presume "legal consent" can be granted. The state has both a right and a duty to protect minors whose parents abdicate their duty to act in the best interests of their children. Grooming girls for a life of illegal activity is certainly not in their best interest, whether that illegal activity is prostitution, illegal drug use, or plural marriage. So it's not harmless.
Furthermore, the "permissible because consensual" argument is inapposite to these patriarchal communities that point their daughters toward (illegal) polygamous marriages from birth. Polygamous communities invariably plan and set their sights on teenage and pre-teen girls--the system generates a shortage of marriagable women. If the law won't grant a man charged with statutory rape a consent-in-fact defense, public policy should not recognize the consent-in-fact argument held out by polygamous societies as a justification either. And read this article about teens running away from Hildale and Colorado City--people don't run away from consent, they run away from coercion, so it's debatable whether there's even actual consent in at least some cases. Real-world polygamy, as an institution, looks neither harmless nor consensual. As I see it, you need a different argument. And I didn't even discuss the fact that a community where "women and children are considered church property" appears to be in violation of the 13th Amendment.
More generally, Matt refers to the apparently happy polygamous experience of his great-great-great grandfather, who couldn't have cared less about whether the government condoned his marriage. He was completely satisfied with the religious sealing his marriage received by the priesthood of God. He just wanted the state to leave him alone with his two wives and their children to whom he was faithfully committed. Well, asking the state to leave someone alone who is committing illegal acts is essentially asking the state to condone those acts. So as long as the state retains the power to define and authorize marriage, it can't (or shouldn't) leave men alone with their two wives to live a happy, polygamous life. We're not to the point where the state is obliged to recognize do-it-yourself marriages undertaken in direct violation of applicable law.
Elsewhere, Matt outlines a satirical argument in defense of group and sibling marriage. The post was directed against David Brooks' argument that gay marriage deserves some support if it is likely to channel gays and lesbians into healthy and fulfilling monogamous relationships. It's an odd form of satire--I can't tell whether Matt is arguing in favor of polygamy, against monogamy, or simply against gay marriage. If the thrust of the satire is that monogamy is good but that marriage shouldn't be limited to monogamy, then it's not really an argument against gay monogamous marriage and even comes across as mildly favoring it.
In any case, Matt appears to be speaking directly (rather than in satire mode) when he says there are historical and contemporary examples that convincingly demonstrate that marriage needn't be based on exclusivity to be rewarding. Polygamous, polyandrous and polyamorous relationships aren't monogamous, by definition, but partners can still be perfectly faithful. Faithful to what? To their own definition of marriage or to their own group "relationship," but not to the legal, operative definition of marriage. "Illegal fidelity" doesn't pack much moral punch, I'm afraid. I suppose a hooker and her customer are being perfectly faithful to their short-term relationship if she delivers and he pays, but that fidelity doesn't legitimize prostitution any more than being faithful legitimizes polygamy. Furthermore, journal records suggest many first wives became increasingly unhappy as their Mormon husbands took on additional (younger) wives. So it might have been "perfectly faithful" from the patriarchal man's perspective, but it sure felt like a form of cheating to some of the women, didn't it?
I will post additional links as the Hildale/Colorado City story continues to develop.
12:00:19 AM 
|
