Wow did I get a great response from my Alas! A question. . . post. I am thrilled at the dialogue and comments that were submitted. There was also a great variety of perspectives. So thank you to everyone who contributed!Some of the comments brought out questions or comments that I would like to respond to.
Ki said, "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."Essentially the distinctions are the same as in monogamous relationships. As long as the participating individuals who enter into polygamous relationships are legally adults (18+); are doing so by there own free will and choice; strive to raise any children which come into that relationship as happy and healthy members of society; and do not abuse the welfare system; I classify this as an acceptable, consensual relationship. Conversely, any polygamous arrangement which involves underage children (17 or less, and don't send me your bogus arguments...if monogamists can wait till 18 -- SO CAN YOU!); any forced marriage; children that are raised in neglect and/or duress; and misuse the welfare system; I classify this as an abusive system.
I had a couple of comments advising the use of the constitutional argument. I whole heartedly agree with the constitutional argument and it is a strong argument. However it takes a an amendment to change the Constitution. That is why I chose the privacy argument, there is already a judicial precedence and decriminalization is a ready and relatively painless solution.
There were some comments to the affect that citizens don't get to pick and choose which laws they follow, illegal is illegal, and how the "just law" argument can be used to pervert justice. I understand all these points and believe it or not, I agree with them. Rather than create a 10 page blog outlining the distinctions between my argument and the the points made, I would like to recommend a book: The Roots of American Order by Russell Kirk.One of my commenters strongly stated, "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."
Hmmm. . . how do I address this one. . . Well, to start out - I'm sorry you don't like my hypocritical, bigoted, and ethnocentric arguments. You don't tell me why. . . I suspect you don't like the big ugly words. Let me assure you I did not throw them around lightly nor did I use them inaccurately. Let me ask you, why don't you like those arguments? Is it the arguments you vehemently dislike, or the labels? Why don't you like those labels? More importantly is there some truth to my use of these descriptions?
I don't have a problem if others disagree with polygamy. I respect if others believe the practice is immoral, against their religious tenants or traditions. I would hope their objections are thought out and reasonable instead of reactionary. None the less, it is something else entirely to jail pluralists for the practice. Especially if the impulse to incarcerate is born of prejudice and cultural bias.
Now to address the "It may be fun to brand government officers as hypocritical but it is lame." This is ironic because I felt I exercised a great deal of restraint when it came to this issue. What is more, I was particular to indite only those politicians, justices, and legislators "who formulate and pass laws, prosecute citizens, seize assets, and break up families to pander to the prejudices of their majority constituents." Let me assure anyone who agrees with this comment, I don't flippantly view my pointed remark as "fun", and my criticism is certainly not lame. What is lame is to have a judge, on the flimsy evidence of a phone call (later proved to be entirely false), order a combined law enforcement force to roll into a town in tanks, with riot gear, and automatic weapons and seize all the women and children.
I wonder what these girls will think when Officer Friendly comes to school and passes out plastic badges and coloring books?
Is it lame to criticize the unjust exercise of power by those in authority?
As a hypothetical situation, how many would think I was having fun and being lame if I criticize officials who rolled into the Village in Manhattan with tanks, riot gear, and automatic weapons then placed under custody all the children of homosexuals and their biological parents, while arresting a few of the life partners? I wonder, would the same judge and executive officials do the same to a gay community-- because of a phone call?! Why should I refrain from branding as hypocrite a legislator to craft bills that specifically targeting the minority alternative lifestyle of polygamy but wouldn't dare do the same to other minority alternative lifestyles that are more generally accepted and empathized with by the public? Where are the task forces established by state attorney generals, governors, and funded by the state legislatures to stigmatize other entire minority groups and specifically target and prosecute them?
At no time did I imply that the entire nation was bigoted. I invite you to carefully read my post again. I did emphatically state it is bigotry to jail polygamists for bigamy.
To close on an up note, I am grateful for all the comments and viewpoints (even if they stir me up). It is good for me to find out what they are and learn from them. I hope some of my responses stir your feelings and cause you to think deeply about some fundamental (no pun intended) and complex issues. As good ol' Socrates put it, "The unexamined life is not worth living."
Thank you and keep the comments coming!
Pookah after surgery
Pookah's first cast
Pookah on the move
Pookah in the second cast
Pookah out of her cast on July 8, 2008
