Stepping Up

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

And so it begins:

Kody Brown is a proud polygamist, and a relatively famous one. Now Mr. Brown, his four wives and 16 children and stepchildren are going to court to keep from being punished for it.

The family is the focus of a reality TV show, “Sister Wives,” that first appeared in 2010. Law enforcement officials in the Browns’ home state, Utah, announced soon after the show began that the family was under investigation for violating the state law prohibiting polygamy.

On Wednesday, the Browns are expected to file a lawsuit to challenge the polygamy law.

The lawsuit is not demanding that states recognize polygamous marriage. Instead, the lawsuit builds on a 2003 United States Supreme Court decision, Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down state sodomy laws as unconstitutional intrusions on the “intimate conduct” of consenting adults.

I'm in favor of gay marriage for the same reason I'm in favor of legal polygamy, legalized adult incest, and all the rest - the state really shouldn't be telling anyone else who they can and cannot be in a recognized relationship with, full stop. Unfortunately, I've found that many who agree with gay marriage do not feel the same way about these other types of adult relationships.

Why is it that "equal marriage" only exists for many when it deals with their idea of reality? Should hardcore advocates of gay marriage be lining up behind the Brown family in solidarity and support of their situation? If you believe the US Constitution allows for, if not outright mandates, gay marriage, do you feel the same way here?

Comments

[hikarugenji.livejournal.com]

My feeling on marriage is that the default assumption should be that a marriage is legal, and it should be the government's responsibility to show a compelling interest to prevent it. So for instance, it's not too hard for the government to show a compelling interest to prevent a man from marrying an 8-year old girl.

I know there are people who have claimed that polygamy is harmful to the women involved (and these claims have come from non-fundamentalist Christian sources). But whether you could really show a compelling interest in preventing them I don't know. I've known two people in polygamous relationships and they seemed happy.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Not really. If anything it would produce theological debates for those fanatics that would be supremely embarrassing. If King David, a man after God's own heart had 16 wives why can't people today? God evidently didn't see an issue with it.....

[new-wave-witch.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately, I've found that many who agree with gay marriage do not feel the same way about these other types of adult relationships.

"Many," really? I have to wonder who you're talking to, because I can't recall ever knowing someone who supports same-sex marriage to have an either/or opinion on marriage laws like that.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

I've known gay marriage proponents to think that these types of marriage movements would hurt the gay marriage movement, though. But then they're just placing their own preferences for marriage above those of the polygamists, et al.

[soliloquy76.livejournal.com]

Because those other types of marriage have more of a taboo than gay marriage does. People just don't think about those things unless there's some controversy that forces them to. The reason more and more people are becoming more accepting of gay marriage is because it's been all over the news and they've been forced to talk about it and reevaluate their stance.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Gay marriage corrects a fundamental inequality in civil rights. Polygyny (because you know no Mormon woman will ever request to marry 5 men) is a violation of civil rights. The only means I'd support it is if like the Muslims we approve this only if the man can provide equally for all of his wives in all matters. Particularly in financial, conjugal, and child-support ones. If they can do that and want the fuss, then they can be as much a child of Father Abraham as they want to be. The really hilarious part is that polygamists have a better case for this religiously than anyone else.....

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

It's not just Mormons. I personally know a foursome (two male, two female) that is not religious at all and are all quite happy together. And no, it's not two couples. Why do we care if the man can provide for his wives? If they want to live like that, the state has no right to say otherwise. The only issue is contractual obligations to children in case of dissolution.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

The really interesting bit will be what happens when the Religious Right starts debating about why God rewarded Abraham with 2 wives, Jacob with 4, David with 16, Solomon with 700 but people today have to follow the words of a former sex addict on why sex was evil and icky (not just gay sex, sex period). I really want the Fundies to explain that one. It's high time we had a debate on the Biblical meaning of marriage.....XP

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

I've found that many who agree with gay marriage do not feel the same way about these other types of adult relationships.

Who?

[sealwhiskers.livejournal.com]

I actually am not agreeing with your statement that many in favor of gay marriage are against polygamy. The main group being vehemently against polygamy are the Mormon LDS group themselves. No one will be so bitterly agitating against mormon fundamentalists (polygamy practicing groups are called this in Utah) as members of LDS church.

Personally I don't mind multi-marriage being legal, but make a note that if that should happen it has to go both ways, polyamorous women should have equal rights to have many husbands.

Mormon fundamentalists (as the polygamists are called often) carry with them a multitude of other issues that you aren't addressing in this post, but which affect people's opinion on Mormon polygamy.

1) They select sister wives at very young ages, basically under aged girls, to a high degree. It is also part of the culture.

2) Women, are of course not allowed to marry multiple men, nor are young boys treated in the same way as young girls on the marriage market. (although young boys undergo other challenges)

3) Fathers of children from polygamous relationships have a problematic history of not being able to pay child support and relying on the state to take care of the kids. Utah is full of cases with such "fathers in hiding", as the culture of polygamy is practiced in pretty poor rural places more than anything else.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

I support both, now what?

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Ditto.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

The difference is the miniscule secular support for polygamy as opposed to religious support. If 99% of polygamy is practiced by fundamentalists, then it's a religious institution and violates the separation of church and state.

If there's massive secular support for polygamy, and the things sealwhiskers mentioned are addressed, I don't see why not. I would just be going against history at that point.

I don't really see that happening, though.

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

Um there are more as many if not more secular polyamorists than there are Mormon Fundamentalists in this country.

[raichu100.livejournal.com]

It really isn't too hard to separate different kinds of possible "marriage" and do away with the "slippery slope" argument. The simple standard: is it between consenting adults?

1. Marriage between a man and a woman: already legal.
2. Marriage between two men or two women: obviously should be legal.
3. Marriage binding more than two people: as long as all involved are consenting adults, it shouldn't be anyone else's business. The only major problem I have with it is if marriage is still an institute of the state, doing tax benefits and shit like that might get complicated. (This is one reason I'm in favor of removing marriage from the government. One civil union between any two of the members of the "marriage", and let the rest be done in a private institution.) Also, as was pointed out above practicing polygamists often force underage females into marriages which is simply disgusting and really was the reason I was opposed to any form of polygamy at first.
4. Marriage between an adult human and an animal: The animal cannot legally consent, so it should NOT be legal.
5. Marriage between an adult and a child, or between two children: since they do not fit the legal definition of "adult" and are not psychologically mature, then they should not be allowed to legally marry (or have a civil union, or whatever).
6. Marriage between a person and an inanimate object: it would be a waste of resources to recognize such a union on a legal level; if you want to be "married" to your refrigerator in the private sector knock yourself out but I think it's bloody bizarre.

But yeah, I think many people in favor of gay marriage are also in favor of legal, consensual polygamy. (I'd never do it myself but...) In the case of Kody Brown, though I find his culture to be strange and would never make the choice any of his wives made, they are welcome to make that choice themselves if that's what makes them happy, and for the state to decide for them what kind of living arrangement they're allowed to have is intrusive.

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

I don't think its any of the US Constitutions damn business one way or the other.

But that is just me.

What about State Constitution

[russj.livejournal.com]

The Utah state constitution specifically prohibits polygamy.

I just wish they would stop dragging these social issues into the political sphere.

[mijan.livejournal.com]

I support marriage arrangements between any combination of legally consenting adults. Force, coercion, mental incapacity, and other restrictions would apply (same as in any marriage).

While I disagree on a personal level with the religious belief that a man should have multiple wives (but not the opposite), I will not deny someone the right to have that marital arrangement *IF* all parties involved actually WANT it. If it's what makes them all happy, then I fully support their right to form that family unit, and to have the legal backing to protect that family.

I have friends who are polyamorous (different from polygamy in that it's not a patriarchal arrangement). I've know triads and quads who have been together for YEARS. Decades in one case. All in the relationship are consenting and happy. Why should they not be able to protect their families?

Seriously, the "one man, one woman" arrangement is NOT a universal standard for marriage in all cultures. Not even close. It might be the most common in this day and age and society, but it's not the only arrangement that's been the standard for all societies.

So, to reiterate, I believe that marriage arrangements should be open to all combinations of consenting, mentally competent, human adults.

I would actually want to strike down the laws that allow those under the age of 18 to legally wed if it were up to me. They can't even legally vote, smoke, or get their own credit card, for cripe's sake. So, no "kids" in marriages. And the argument about "marrying" your dog, cat, blow-up doll, or any other such nonsense is a complete red herring, as none of those things can sign a legal contract, much less legally consent to anything.

For those who wish to argue "but how many people can go on your health insurance policy?" stuff... I personally believe we should have universal health care, end of story. But in our current system, because health care is private, I would have no problem with each person being able to designate more than one other adult on a policy. I mean, they've still got to pay the premiums, right? And isn't it a GOOD thing to have more people insured, rather than uninsured? Or hell, insurance isn't marriage - maybe the law could allow you to designate one (and only one) adult of your choice, plus your offspring.

Anyway, that's enough rambling. Those are my opinions.

[devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com]

Since even the Bible doesn't say anything about the structure of marriage, I certainly don't have any objections.

[rick-day.livejournal.com]

I support the position of the plaintiff. Government has no business in how people should go about their lives, when no one is harmed in the process.

[reflaxion.livejournal.com]

I'm cool with consenting polygamy, but the tax implications would be a nightmare.

[skull-bearer.livejournal.com]

I'm fine for anything as long as its consenting and adult, but I'm curious, what do you think of consenting adult incest?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Same way. Ain't my business.

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

I am not particularly for or against it. The fall of single race marriage laws over 40 years ago did not immediately lead to same sex marriage because law is usually read narrowly --each group has to make its own case, and I have not heard the case so far. The same thing happened in education, by the way -- Brown vs. Board did not lead immediately to full inclusion of students with disabilities -- that was argued in a different set of cases.

I am not opposed, per se, but I think polygamists will need to make some different arguments than same sex marriage advocates did. Assumptions about power of attorney and inheritence are generally fixed on a two person relationship -- in polygamy, that's made more complicated, so there will be some need to work that out in the civil institution that is acceptable and equitable. I'm sure it can be done, but I've never given it particular thought nor have I heard the arguments if they have, in fact, been made beyond "you did it for gays, now do it for us." That's not how gay rights advocates made the case for same sex marriage -- multiple partner marriage advocates have their own arguments to make.

[auntiesiannan.livejournal.com]

I have no problem with polygamy as long as it includes polyandrous marriages as well.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

It does by definition; the opposite of polyandry is polygyny.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

Question I heard today....If Utah doesn't recognize polygamist marriage, then the guy isn't legally married, therefore cannot be prosecuted for having multiple wives.

The example was Hugh Hefner living with 7 women at one time (altho I think he's down to 3, I mean the guy is over 80).

[prog-expat.livejournal.com]

Utah's definition of bigamy (http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE76/htm/76_07_010100.htm) is worded in such a way that it includes polygamy:

A person is guilty of bigamy when, knowing he has a husband or wife or knowing the other person has a husband or wife, the person purports to marry another person or cohabits with another person.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

That's actually a problem with religion. I've seen plenty of polygamous relationships (none of them religious) and they haven't had a hint of oppression about them.

[prog-expat.livejournal.com]

Trying again, hopefully without butchering the tag this time...

As skull_bearer put it, I'm fine for anything as long as its consenting and adult.

I'm more vocal about same-sex marriage than polygamy because it can be implemented today. The relevant laws are all written with the assumption of two adults, which is why those opposed have had to push through special laws defining/limiting the gender combination. Same-sex marriage is a drop-in upgrade, whereas polygamy requires a lot of work to revise the legal code to account for more than one spouse.

Although there's probably some observational bias given how taboo incest is (adult, consenting notwithstanding), it does seem like it's nowhere near as prevalent, so it can sit on the back burner. Yeah, it's a shitty numbers game, but there's a lot of work to be done to change societal perceptions before it would be practical to try and change the legal code in that regard. Hell, that tide just barely seems to be turning in regards to same-sex marriage.

[prog-expat.livejournal.com]

Oh, and as far as the suit in the OP: I'm ecstatic that somebody is finally making an effort to get this decriminalized. That is something that can be done right now.

[not-hothead-yet.livejournal.com]

every single liberal friend I have, and a few non-liberal friends, is perfectly accepting of polygamy. Legalizing it would be fine for all of them. Most of my married friends are in fact in various forms of polyamory and it works fine for them.

The only issue i have is that child support and inheritance and succession laws would need to be altered to adequately address the possibilities.

What no one has mentioned is that the "ideal" of solo-partner unions has to do with ensuring adequate supply of females for all males, rather than heightened competition. Our birthrate ratio tends to be 50/50 thus if one man is allowed to "hoard" the women, then other males will go without. Monogamy evolved to force men to cooperate more and additionally recognize paternity more readily.

Both forms of polygamy mean that males will be more likely to compete for females either on a nuclear family level or on a society-wide level. Polygyny means many men will "lose out" on being paired, Polyandry means men will have their genetic chance of reproduction diluted and risk supporting a cuckoo's egg. Monogamy makes sense for men. Polygamy makes sense for women, regardless of which version they practice.

Me personally, I would love to join a line marriage. Too bad its illegal. As it is, I'll stick with monogamy.

[harry-beast.livejournal.com]

The calculations of win/lose for men and women seem to assume that everyone will get married and stay married. In a society where many opt to remain single, to get in and out of marriage, or to engage in adulterous liaisons, the math doesn't quite work out so cleanly.
The reality is that men will always be forced to compete for women, many will lose out on being paired or having children, and a significant number will be stuck supporting other men's children. It's already the reality. Polygamy would perhaps formalize or legitimize this process.
Monogamy has advantages for women as well, for example, it forces a man to dedicate his income and property to a single woman and her offspring, rather than diluting it with many wives.

[dreadfulpenny81.livejournal.com]

The ironic thing is that TMZ conducted a reader poll and the same number of people who supported passage of gay marriage laws were AGAINST passage of polygamy laws. Fascinating!

[frodomyhero.livejournal.com]

But it's ok for the government to arrest you when you grow a pot plant in your own garden. Yeah, now that's not government intrusion is it?

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

really? What if said pot plant is wild?