Polygamists seek decriminalization of their lifestyle - KSTU

Members of Utah's polygamous communities want to see their lifestyle decriminalized.

[u235sentinel]

It makes no sense to have polygamy illegal citing that it harms children when there are other things that happen (like divorce, swinging, abuse, forced marriage) and yet non of these things are illegal.

Consenting adults can have relations and not be married without it being illegal. And yet polygamy is illegal?

Other's have cited underage marriage and abuse as reasons for polygamy being illegal. Those issues however have nothing to do with the practice of polygamy itself. The practice itself isn't the problem. It's other things unrelated to the practice which btw are illegal.

One more item. Not to be insensitive but the issues surrounding homosexual marriage show a change in the definition of marriage in America. If we continue down this path then why not also allow polygamy in the definition?

After all, those who are bisexual are discriminated again unless polygamy is legalized.

[Gretchen]

I truly believe that if the US goes down the road of legalizing "plural marriage" (the concept still seems quite a contradiction in terms to me)- that there will follow a host of third world-type problems which will get harder and harder to do anything about. Already the problems associated with polygamy are straining county and state budgets. The religious "convictions" of most of the polygamous "families" we hear about does not take the dangers away from this practice-Actually, religious convictions to do something like polygamy often leads to the most heinous offenses,as many ex-members of these western US groups have attested to many times. So allowing polygamy just because a tiny percentage of Americans has some "religious conviction" to do it should not be the reason to open a huge Pandora's box of problems all across the US for all women.(That is just one thing it would do.)The youngsters born into this are to be pitied, in my opinion. It will never be a "victimless" crime.

[Gretchen]

Time and again I hear people defending polygamy by comparing it in some kind of favorable light to the heart-breaking things going on in the US such as unfaithfulness, divorce, etc. No, actually, the correct thing to realize is that two wrongs never made a right and never will. Legalizing something just because people are getting away with something else somewhere is NOT a reason to practice and/or permit something. Again, it would be an enormous injustice to all American women to legalize polygamy. It would be a huge step backward into third world issues that the US would never recover from. What needs to happen is for all states to raise the age of consent to 18,do whatever it takes to enforce that, and put into place anything that will make continue to recognize monogamous heterosexual marriage as the honorable, bedrock family unit it always was from time immemorial. Those who honor one person above all others and show respect for themselves, our laws, and the family units of all others, is the ideal we should all aim for. It should remain the ideal, and should never be compromised. Moral compromise speeds the demise of nations. Lowering the bar in any situation in life leads inevitably to lower and lower standards.

[u235sentinel]

< No, actually, the correct thing to realize is that two wrongs never made a right and never will. Legalizing something just because people are getting away with something else somewhere is NOT a reason to practice and/or permit something.>

So why do we criminalize it? Is there a justification?

<Again, it would be an enormous injustice to all American women to legalize polygamy. >

I've heard several feminists say otherwise. They've told me it would empower them. How is this otherwise?

<Moral compromise speeds the demise of nations. Lowering the bar in any situation in life leads inevitably to lower and lower standards. >

So who get's the decide what is moral and what isn't?

[Sofa King]

as long as we cut off welfare to them, screw it...marriage as we knew it is already dead.

i just don't want my tax dollars going to support them...as is currently the case.

[u235sentinel]

<as long as we cut off welfare to them, screw it...marriage as we knew it is already dead.

i just don't want my tax dollars going to support them...as is currently the case. >

I agree. If they can't live without dropping into welfare then that should be one of the few restrictions.

Otherwise it doesn't make sense to prohibit it.

[Tomorrow]

Why do some ppl make God so hard?
It is so easy to love God and serve him, why would anyone want to serve Man?
All the rules someone makes up in their mind of what God expects of us is why so many ppl turn their backs on God. They get so confused they just can't sort it all out and understand it.
So just go by the Bible. It plainly tells us what God wants from us. We don't need a Man or Woman to make up rules, when God already did it.
These FLDS make up their own rules, that is the big reason it will never be successful. Serve God only.

[Sofa King]

Tomorrow wrote:

Why do some ppl make God so hard?
It is so easy to love God and serve him, why would anyone want to serve Man?
All the rules someone makes up in their mind of what God expects of us is why so many ppl turn their backs on God. They get so confused they just can't sort it all out and understand it.
So just go by the Bible. It plainly tells us what God wants from us. We don't need a Man or Woman to make up rules, when God already did it.
These FLDS make up their own rules, that is the big reason it will never be successful. Serve God only.

laf - which version of the bible? and are you reading it in the original aramaic or bastardized versions that have been 'translated' over the course of the past 1500+ years. Are you including books from the Gnostics, Coptics, or other gospels that were deemed not worthy for the bible and didn't make the final cut?

No offense, but you need to do a bit of research prior to making a post like the one above. We have NO 'gospel of jesus' and thus, don't really know what he said.

We have 4 gospels that are currently in the Bible that were all written substantially after Christ's death.

The Nicene creed was created by humans.

etc, etc, etc

silly post...at least know what you are talking about before getting onto that horse.

[Tomorrow]

See, there you go making it hard. LOL

[Poligamist]

anyone is interested in overturning the anti-poligamy laws in the common law countries, please contact me: capellia at bigpond dot com

Thank you

[pigo]

Gretchen,
Unfortunately we are already headed down the road to third world status. I don't think that polygamy is at the top of the list right now. Income redistribution, death panels, and apartheid are much more immediate problems.

Many of Dear Leader Obama's statements from the past 7-8 years are surfacing now where he clearly states these things. Openly stating that it will take time. That they can go for "little victories" and push their real agenda once the crack is established.

It's time to hunker down and let the liberal redistribute their own wealth. There won't be any reason for polygamy once they are off the gravy train.

[Tomorrow]

pigo wrote:

Gretchen,
Unfortunately we are already headed down the road to third world status. I don't think that polygamy is at the top of the list right now. Income redistribution, death panels, and apartheid are much more immediate problems.
Many of Dear Leader Obama's statements from the past 7-8 years are surfacing now where he clearly states these things. Openly stating that it will take time. That they can go for "little victories" and push their real agenda once the crack is established.
It's time to hunker down and let the liberal redistribute their own wealth. There won't be any reason for polygamy once they are off the gravy train.

You said it exactly right. I'm so glad someone else in this country knows what's taking place.

[observer]

u235sentinel wrote:

< No, actually, the correct thing to realize is that two wrongs never made a right and never will. Legalizing something just because people are getting away with something else somewhere is NOT a reason to practice and/or permit something.>
So why do we criminalize it? Is there a justification?
<Again, it would be an enormous injustice to all American women to legalize polygamy. >
I've heard several feminists say otherwise. They've told me it would empower them. How is this otherwise?
<Moral compromise speeds the demise of nations. Lowering the bar in any situation in life leads inevitably to lower and lower standards. >
So who get's the decide what is moral and what isn't?

it's otherwise because these women are objects, they are possessions, they are bonafied baby-makers. i think you might want to talk to a real feminist, not a self-proclaimed one from BYU... you will find an entirely different sentiment from women who truly want women to be empowered. "sharing" your husband with a variable amount of other "wives" is in no way empowering to a woman. and if the argument is that the women could live communally and empower each other, that is pure bull s hit. those women have natural feeling of jealousy and mistrust, and those men could (no i am not saying that they do all the time) but they could use that to their advantage. how in the hell does that empower women? i could go on and on... but your logic simply makes no sense.

a feminist would never endorse polygamy as a way to empower women, unless of course, it was the woman who was allowed to have multiple husbands. and even then it would be A HUGE STRETCH.

nice try.

[TedNuggets]

Let me understand this, I can go out and impregnate everyone in South Chicago even though I am married, make 2,000 crack babies and that is cool.

But if I want to have a loving, caring, nurturing and respectful consensual relation ship with just two women, that's bad?

[sean1030]

WHO CARES how many wives these clods want to have? I've never even wanted ONE! If you're dumb enough to want to take on all that headache and responsibility..go for it.

[nina]

u235sentinel wrote:

It makes no sense to have polygamy illegal citing that it harms children when there are other things that happen (like divorce, swinging, abuse, forced marriage) and yet non of these things are illegal....

gay marriage does not substantially change the existing meaning of marriage - two people exclusive of others.

with couples, the contractual and legal aspects are clear on inheritance, power of attorney, division of assets, insurance.

if you have multiple people engaged in marriage, these matters become more complicated.

is one man married to each of 5 women, but the women aren't married to each other?

what if he's in a coma - do they vote majority rule to maintain or discontinue life support?

if he dies - what is the legal relationship of the women, and how to divide his assets between these wives and children?

as long as society allows for 2 people to marry each other, there's enough people to go around

but if you have a small town of 1000 adults and 50 men are married to all the women - what are the other 450 men supposed to do?

you will also see an unwillingness of employers to offer benefits to employees - after all, how do you equitably offer medical/eyecare/dental coverage to employees where most have 1 spouse and 1 to 3 kids against an employee with 27 wives and over 100 kids?

when you are looking at teenaged girls marrying men old enough to be their grandfathers, the whole idea that it's consenting is also very doubtful

[nina]

Tomorrow wrote:

...
So just go by the Bible. It plainly tells us what God wants from us. We don't need a Man or Woman to make up rules, when God already did it....

go by which bible? there's many versions and no bible is internally consistent

there's no evidence for any dieties to exist,

so, be good for it's own sake

[PC Local]

I rarely participate in these blogs because so many individuals rarely do their "homework" or are simply not intelligent enough to objectively view more than one side of an issue. And the above posts prove my point.
What seems to be debated by individuals above are arguments for and against the legalization (or elimination) of the practice of polygamy. However, the establishments of laws and codes in American society are (in accordance with the Constitution) seperate from those of theological entities. Because the status of marriage changes the way that the American governmental system views individuals (taxation mainly) it therefore creates a gray area between church and state.
The Constitution allows us all to pursue our freedoms, contingent on not disrupting someone else's. Here's where the argument gets fuzzy: is my payment of tax dollars into the public trust allowed to be used to fund the benefits of polygamists or homosexuals? This is much more at the core of this argument than any biblical passage, or logical permutation. It is not the practice itself, it is how the practice could/should be integrated into our current system of government.
Lastly, living in Utah, be aware of the seperation of church and state. Unfortunately here we do live in a theocracy, as many of the laws here originated from the practice (not the theology) of organized religion. On that note, understand the difference between practice (the church) and theology (historical documents that aim to lend conviction to their messages). This great nation was founded on the premise to keep them seperate, any step to the contrary is a definite regression. Alas, most have no idea, no cares, and therefore no right to participate in a governmental process that allows their ignorance to influence others.

[OH MY]

nina wrote:

<quoted text>
gay marriage does not substantially change the existing meaning of marriage - two people exclusive of others.
with couples, the contractual and legal aspects are clear on inheritance, power of attorney, division of assets, insurance.
if you have multiple people engaged in marriage, these matters become more complicated.
is one man married to each of 5 women, but the women aren't married to each other?
what if he's in a coma - do they vote majority rule to maintain or discontinue life support?
if he dies - what is the legal relationship of the women, and how to divide his assets between these wives and children?
as long as society allows for 2 people to marry each other, there's enough people to go around
but if you have a small town of 1000 adults and 50 men are married to all the women - what are the other 450 men supposed to do?
you will also see an unwillingness of employers to offer benefits to employees - after all, how do you equitably offer medical/eyecare/dental coverage to employees where most have 1 spouse and 1 to 3 kids against an employee with 27 wives and over 100 kids?
when you are looking at teenaged girls marrying men old enough to be their grandfathers, the whole idea that it's consenting is also very doubtful

Great Post Nina - you hit on the central problems of legalized plural marraige. The issues of family benefits and legal reponsibilities are so huge that I don't see how they could possibly be overcome. I think that most current polygamists engage in massive public assistance fraud in order to finance a lifestyle with one wage earner and a huge number of dependents.
The abuses of the polygamist Tom Green forced the legislature to raise the marraige age in Utah from 14 to 16, due to all the bad press, but this would still not prevent cultists from arranging marraiges of girls to grandpas, which is just not right.
By the way, I find it quite ironic that the Texas FLDS trial is being held in the Tom Green County Courthouse in San Angelo.

[nina]

OH MY wrote:

<quoted text>
... I think that most current polygamists engage in massive public assistance fraud in order to finance a lifestyle with one wage earner and a huge number of dependents....

I read the book Secret Life of Saints - written by a woman who escaped the Bountiful community in BC where the polypeople live.

Yes, all the wives #2 through the last one claim welfare as single mothers.

The 2 leaders in the community then use the young men as barely paid labour force to bid on various contracts - underbidding union and even non-union companies for various contracts - like logging, highway maintenance, etc.

They also get funding to run their school, but do not follow the provincial curriculum.

so, the community people are told the government is evil and yet they steal from it, avoid taxes

the problem is that anytime they want to lay charges, they try ont he polygamy thing and then give up because of the religious right

what they need to so is go in with child labour laws, welfare fraud, tax evasion and every other law available.

after all, Al Capone when to jail for tax evasion, not bootlegging or racketeering or even murder