I really did write a LONG reply to your closed society piece. Sorry, it got lost in the mail.Here's a question for you.
If Mexican illegal immigrants should be deported or jailed (because their entry was illegal), why shouldn't polygamists be jailed for bigamy? Do you think the crime should be changed back to a misdemeanor and 6 months, or should that law be repealed altogether?
The Answer:
I hope you will send me another copy of your thoughts on my Society closes a closed society piece. I'll look for it.
Thank you for the great questions! I will address them in order. . .Why shouldn't polygamists be jailed for bigamy?
I want to turn the question around and invite you to consider - why should polygamist be jailed for bigamy?Some would say, "it just ain't legal". . . As Thoreau put it in Civil Disobedience "Law never made man a whit more just." Frankly, anti-bigamy laws are unjust and America has had its history of unjust laws that were rightly defied by her citizens in an effort to pull society's collective head out. Where would we be if Susan B. Anthony had not endured fines and imprisonment by casting her illegal ballots. And what if Rosa Parks had obeyed the law and moved to the back of the bus? As Charles Louis de Secondat rightly stated, ""government should be set up so that no man need be afraid of another" The just laws of a just government should protect the rights of the individual against abuses by the government, the majority, and other individual who would criminally infringe on them. Laws based on the bigoted and ethnocentric view of the majority, established to deny the individual right to family, conscience and freedom of religion are the epitome of unjust regulation.
The US Declaration of Independence restates the truth that "all men are created equal" before the law. Laws should be about punishing crimes, not minority groups with practices different from the majority. What is applied to the polygamist goose should be applied to the monogamist gander. Words cannot express the rank hypocrisy of ribald politicians and legislators who formulate and pass laws, prosecute citizens, seize assets, and break up families to pander to the prejudices of their majority constituents.
Through the process of judicial precedence and based on the legal concepts of penumbras and emanations, the US judicial system established the right of privacy. (Griswold v. Connecticut, Eisenstadt v. Baird, and Lawrence v. Texas) The outcome of these judicial cases held that adults are entitled to participate in private, consensual sexual conduct. State and Federal laws that regulate intimacy touch "upon the most private human conduct, sexual behavior, and in the most private of places, the home," and attempted to "control a personal relationship that . . . is within the liberty of persons to choose without being punished." By contemporary US legal standards anti-polygamy/anti-bigamy laws, former and current, are illegitimate and arrant. Polygamy is no more a crime than any other alternative lifestyle engaged in by consenting adults. Polygamy is not inherently a crime.
But others would argue, "polygamy is abuse! What about protecting individuals from the criminal acts of other individuals? Especially children and those who are unable to protect themselves!" Polygamy is NOT abuse no matter how often politicians and pundits repeat this mantra. Abuse is abuse and heinous whether it is perpetrated by polygamists or monogamists.
Some might argue that abuse is more frequent and systemic among polygamists than monogamists. Again, this is a baseless assumption founded in bias and prejudice with no evidence to support the claim. Certainly their are polygamist cults which engage in a variety of systemic abuses. But there are plenty of monogamist cults which engage in the same abuses. Destructive cults are destructive cults; abuse is abuse; and whether you are a Warren Jeffs or a Jim Jones, the systemic abuses indicative of destructive cults are equally vile and should be suppressed by civilized society with similar fervor. What is more, the majority humanity's civilizations (historically & currently) accept and/or engage in polygamist marriage systems. To say that they all are or were abusive is a supreme example of Western, puritanical ethnocentric arrogance.
In summary, polygamists shouldn't be jailed for bigamy because it is:
- Unjust
- Illegal
- Hypocritical
- Bigoted
And it is just plain wrong.
Now for your second question: Do you think the crime should be changed back to a misdemeanor and 6 months, or should that law be repealed altogether?
Of the the two, I would choose the second - the law should be repealed along with any other laws that target a minority group, religion, or lifestyle. However, it would be more feasible and reasonable to accept decriminalization.
Having said this, let me reiterate that I believe anyone who engages in child abuse, statutory rape, forced marriages, underage marriages, and any other criminal behavior should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, the law that applies to everyone. Let's prosecute the real crimes, protect the innocent and end the politicized posturing of the self-righteous.
I hope my answer has provoked some thinking, some agreement, some disagreement. . . I look forward to more great questions.
9 comments:
Humm... I tought it was well put. The same sex marrage issue came to mind.... I thought well, if you allow poligamy would it allow for same sex marrage? I answered my own question though. Same sex relationships are not criminalized, Just not sanctioned. So it's apples and orranges. As it stands the prosicution of poligamists is on abuse laws etc. because if they did so it on the relationship itself it would be like sueing gays for their relationship.
If people were asked: If I gave a child to a poligamist family or a gay couple family which would tend to do more dammage? I really wonder how they would answer.
That would be a window into the deepest bigotries and prejudices of a soul.
I agree with what you said about polygamy as a crime--though I would like to hear more about what the difference between consensual and abuse type are. Not many people understand that there is a non-abuse type polygamy.
However--I think you missed a major point: Polygamists go to jail because what they do is illegal. Immigrants get deported because what they do is illegal.
You seem to think that polygamist laws are unjust, and therefore people shouldn't be punished for ignoring them. The same thing could be said for immigrants--unless you have a persuasive argument showing that what they are doing is "bad" and not just repression of a group of people who want the same opportunity as others.
And I'd avoid the whole "many of them are criminals" argument--because many polygamists are abusers, and you already shot that argument down (quite well, I might add).
As a rule, people live plural marriage because they are commanded of God to do so. God's law overrules man's laws any day. Just ask Daniel (of the lions' den), Esther the queen, etc. And when choosing to live God's law, knowing it breaks man's laws, polygamists are prepared to be punished for it. Of course, we hope to avoid it, but we know it is a possible consequence of our actions.
There are lots of people in modern times who break man's laws in order to obey God, not just polygamists. There are people who smuggle Bibles and other scriptures to Christians, Jews and Muslims who live in nations where it is illegal to possess such books. There are people who sneak into those countries to baptize, administer the Sacrament, etc. Most Americans admire those people who risk imprisonment and even execution by doing those things which they are commanded by God to do. Why not admire polygamists?
Yes, it is illegal to live plural marriage--and it should not be because it is part of our religion--but we have to do it, anyway.
Zidara
I personally wish the government would leave polygamists alone as long as they are not breaking any other laws or producing welfare families. But I’m not very convinced by your arguments and think you could to do better.
The problem with Thoreau and civil disobedience is that laws are not a smorgasbord that citizens can pick and choose to obey or disobey at a whim. Thoreau is basically anarchist at heart. When passed by a majority of legislative representatives, signed by the executive, and upheld as constitutional by the judicial branch our laws carry the fullest authority any republic can bestow. Moreover, the majority of Americans disapprove of polygamy, and approve of anti-bigamy laws. It is hard to figure out how a law could be any more legal than that. So I’m definitely unconvinced by the “illegal” part of your position.
If it were me, I’d be singing the unconstitutional song. The case is pretty clear that the Supreme Court has tended to ignore the constitution in many of their decisions. And the plural marriage decision was about as blatant as it ever gets. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” says our Constitution. But the anti-bigamy Supreme Court decision literally said you can believe anything you want, so long as you don’t “practice” it. “Practice” and “exercise” are the same. So the Supreme Court saying you cannot practice/exercise your religion is clearly a bad decision and anti-bigamy laws are unconstitutional no matter what the Supreme Court says.
Your “just law” position is more convincing but has weaknesses.
Your just law definition allows any criminal to claim the government jailing him is an example of failure to protect his rights from government abuse. So it would appear the “criminal” polygamist could claim the same. Taken to the extreme that definition would suit the anarchist just fine, and end up perverting justice into injustice.
Also, your just law position does not address the idea that anti-bigamy laws protect individual women from abuse from individual men. Whether you like it or not most Americans believe a man taking a second wife is in-and-of-itself inherently abusive of the first wife’s rights and privileges. So most Americans believe anti-bigamy laws are just (even by your definition).
Your “just law” position could be even stronger if you would explain how to protect the rights of plural wives from being trampled by the husband. I think an appeal to freedom and letting consenting adults make their own decisions might help. And I suspect a monogamous husband is in a better position (and more likely) to abuse his wife’s rights than a polygamous husband would be—but it may be hard to make that idea convincing. Point out that historically, women in early Utah had and exercised more rights than most women outside Utah.
I don’t like your hypocritical and bigoted (or ethnocentric) arguments at all. It may be fun to brand government officers as hypocritical but it is lame. And implying a whole nation is bigoted is whiney victimhood.
So I figure you win about ½ out of your four bullet positions. Drop the last two. Pound the unconstitutional, and bolster the “just law” position by showing how women’s rights can be systematically protected from abuse by the husband, and actually strengthened under polygamy.
And for fun, in your just law position how do you protect the husband’s rights from being abused by the wives in polygamy? Inquiring minds want to know.
Now for the children and “just laws.” Is polygamy abusive of the right of a child to be raised by a Mommy and a Daddy? In polygamy are children raised by a Mommy and ½ a Daddy, or 1/3 of a Daddy? Maybe. On the other hand, those same children are probably raised by 2 or 3 Mommies to make up for the partial Daddy. Does a monogamous family of a dozen children abuse or neglect the children more than a single child home? Does the 12th child of a family only get 1/12th of a Daddy (or Mommy)—no, love doesn’t work like arithmetic! In my brother’s large monogamous family I think the hordes of brothers and sisters created a rich and nurturing environment. A similar potential seems to be likely in large polygamous families. In any monogamist or polygamist family where you can find Christ-like love, and freedom coupled with individual responsibility, I believe you will also find growth and God dwell there too.
Papacito
Wow. Thats a can of worms! Good luck with that lover. If you need anything I'd be happy to help.
Re: Popicito
The trouble with trying to legalize polygamy by the Constitution's right to religion and religious exercise is that there were once people who threw babies on flaming hot idols. Where exactly are you going to draw that line for religious freedom?
hot dang that is an awesome blog and I whole heartedly agree with you.
Article 1 of the Bill of Rights states that congress shall make No law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free EXERCISE thereof.
The passing of the Edmunds Tucker act was directed toward polygamists and their religion. It was okay and even looked on with pride when a man had mistresses but if he were to cohabitate and care for another woman and their children it was a felony.
This Article in the Bill of Rights was to protect people so they were able to EXERCISE their religion.
I know I'm coming to this discussion kinda late, but I'm curious to know if your position for legalize bigamy means you also be willing to accept the other side of the coin: One woman married to several men. While it is far less common, I can't see any reason why it wouldn't fall under the same reasoning as your 'One man, many wives' stance. Inquiring minds want to know. :D
Post a Comment