[BRIEF NOTE] The Problem with Polygamy
Oct. 8th, 2005 11:11 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rfmcdonaldYesterday's post in which I referred to E.J. Graff's separation of the rationale for same-sex marriage from that for traditional polygamy prompted an insightful comment from ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
mollpeartree.
The most famous polygamous community in Canada is the Mormon settlement of Bountiful in British Columbia, where polygamy is linked to fairly systematic human rights abuses against young members of the community, not only women but many young men as well.
The list on conditions and restrictions set by these polygamist Mormons upon their unfortunate female children are fairly stringent.
What does this mean? It means that the problem isn't with polygamy per se, but rather with the abundant human-rights abuses which are associated with this particular form of polygamy. The young women who are married off aren't given the choice of refusing their older partners, or indeed any choice at all thanks to their subculture's cunning isolation of female children from anything that could make them autonomous individuals with the power to refuse coercive relationships. Polygamy has been banned in France for this very reason: It's associated with a profoundly misogynistic perspective on the role of women in society, and requires the expulsion of a large number of young men from the ranks of the community in the bargain.countess_sophia's suggestion that states should follow the French model in solemnizing marriages, requiring registration by the state, makes a lot of sense in this context. As I've said, a worryingly large and vocal chunk of American Christianity seems to define freedom of religion not as "the right of individuals to their own beliefs" but rather "the right of individuals to terrorize others." Alas, American Christianity's only following established precedents of behaviour by religions, with their arguably innate totalitarian impulse.
What does this imply for polygamy? As I said in the original posting, Graff distinguishes between traditional forms of marriage (including polygamy) where women are assumed to be subordinate actors, and modern forms of marriage where individuals have equal roles and expectations regardless of sex. Traditional polygamy, as the case of Bountiful demonstrates, requires the sustained indoctrination of children in a closed culture from birth, something that fits the definition of child abuse rather closely. This is why we have social services, after all. Is it possible that consenting adults might want to establish a polygamous relationship of equals, not only with a husband and multiple wives but (say) a wife and multiple husbands, or multiple husbands or multiple wives? Certainly. Does Graff's definition exclude these relationships from state re3cognition? No. Can I think, off-hand, of a reason to deny them recognition? No.
mollpeartree.My working theory is that it matters a great deal how you legalize gay marriage. If you articulate it as a right, which is what would have to happen if gay marriage were to be legitimated by courts striking down statutes forbidding it (at least in the U.S.), then it becomes very difficult to articulate exactly why poly relationships cannot be legitimized as well. If you can find even a small number of people who manage to fulfill whatever abstract conditions a given court comes up with to define what an articulated right (in this case marriage) is and means, from within a poly relationship--and I imagine you could--then I think prohibition would become quite difficult (again within the U.S. legal system, I have no idea how such things work in Canada). And once any sort of poly relationship is legitimated, then very likely they all will be, including the really bad ones.
The most famous polygamous community in Canada is the Mormon settlement of Bountiful in British Columbia, where polygamy is linked to fairly systematic human rights abuses against young members of the community, not only women but many young men as well.
Benjamin Bistline spent part of his childhood among polygynists in the main FLDS group in what is now called Colorado City, AZ. He has written a book about his experiences. 8 He has observed that in order to maintain a culture in which most men have many wives, it is necessary to persuade most male youths to leave the community at a relatively young age. Teenaged women with restricted education are then matched up with older men, preferably before they develop an interest in boys their own age. After an unregistered marriage, the new wives financially support the family by applying for welfare as single mothers.
The list on conditions and restrictions set by these polygamist Mormons upon their unfortunate female children are fairly stringent.
- Men must have at least three wives and as many children as possible in order to enter the highest level of heaven, and to have the opportunity to evolve into a God.
- A woman's role is to serve a man and be submissive to his needs.
- Women who disobey men will have their souls burn in Hell for eternity.
- Children are usually required to leave school at the age of 13 or 14.
- Their marriage ceremony consists of the woman placing her hand in the man's hand in what is called "the patriarchal grip."
- A man is not permitted to have sexual intercourse with one of his wives if she is pregnant.
- "If...an older man seduces a 13-year old girl....in his own mind he doesn't commit sexual abuse.....he views himself as married." (Comment by Ron Barton, special investigator of "closed societies," at the Utah State Attorney's Office)
- Because all the plural marriages, except perhaps for the first one, are celestial, and not legal unions, FLDS men are not polygamists; they are only adulterers in the eyes of the state. Adultery is not a criminal act. (Comment by former Bishop Winston Blackmore of Bountiful)
What does this mean? It means that the problem isn't with polygamy per se, but rather with the abundant human-rights abuses which are associated with this particular form of polygamy. The young women who are married off aren't given the choice of refusing their older partners, or indeed any choice at all thanks to their subculture's cunning isolation of female children from anything that could make them autonomous individuals with the power to refuse coercive relationships. Polygamy has been banned in France for this very reason: It's associated with a profoundly misogynistic perspective on the role of women in society, and requires the expulsion of a large number of young men from the ranks of the community in the bargain.
countess_sophia's suggestion that states should follow the French model in solemnizing marriages, requiring registration by the state, makes a lot of sense in this context. As I've said, a worryingly large and vocal chunk of American Christianity seems to define freedom of religion not as "the right of individuals to their own beliefs" but rather "the right of individuals to terrorize others." Alas, American Christianity's only following established precedents of behaviour by religions, with their arguably innate totalitarian impulse.What does this imply for polygamy? As I said in the original posting, Graff distinguishes between traditional forms of marriage (including polygamy) where women are assumed to be subordinate actors, and modern forms of marriage where individuals have equal roles and expectations regardless of sex. Traditional polygamy, as the case of Bountiful demonstrates, requires the sustained indoctrination of children in a closed culture from birth, something that fits the definition of child abuse rather closely. This is why we have social services, after all. Is it possible that consenting adults might want to establish a polygamous relationship of equals, not only with a husband and multiple wives but (say) a wife and multiple husbands, or multiple husbands or multiple wives? Certainly. Does Graff's definition exclude these relationships from state re3cognition? No. Can I think, off-hand, of a reason to deny them recognition? No.
