Polygamy

You may have heard about the TV show about a real polygamist family (Sister Wives). My wife has been watching it and I have caught most of it as a result. It is a very interesting perspective, especially considering that polygamy is still widely practised in other parts of the world, though rather differently.

As a Mormon (mainstream Mormons have not practised polygamy for over 100 years), I have a different take on polygamy than most people and a better understanding of the situation than most people. Many polygamists in Utah and nearby states (who use the early doctrines of the LDS Church as justification) do not practice polygamy as it was taught by Joseph Smith (the founder of the LDS Church). The family on the TV show does practice it as taught by Joseph Smith, for the most part.

This family has come out and admitted to practising polygamy. As mentioned on the show, this is extremely unusual for LDS Fundamentalist polygamists. They have said that their intent is to show that not all polygamists are bad (in the last 10 years there have been numerous cases of polygamist families getting in legal trouble for forcing underage marriages, sexual abuse, and many other horrific crimes). From what I have seen, they have done a decent job of showing this. Actually, most polygamists are not bad; misguided maybe, but not bad. (I served a mission in Utah and heard and saw a lot about polygamists living there.)

This family is now under investigation for polygamy. One of the wives had been fired from her job for practising polygamy (is it any wonder that most polygamist families are secretive about it). They took a huge risk to try to show the world that polygamy is not the evil cult that it was thought to be and now they are suffering for it.

I would like to mention here that I do not condone polygamy. It is against the standards of the LDS Church (of which I am a member) and against the law. This is what I would like to discuss.

This family is being investigated because polygamy is illegal. The original reason it was made illegal is that non-LDS men living in primarily LDS communities often had a very difficult time finding a wife. This was partially because the LDS faith recommends against marrying outside of the faith. It was also partially due to the fact that some LDS men had several wives. These non-LDS men blamed the lack of interested women on polygamy and lobbied for it to be made illegal and were eventually successful. The LDS Church outlawed polygamy when the US government outlawed it. (One of the commandments within the LDS Church is to obey the law of the land. Since this and polygamy were conflicting commandments within the Church, it was decided that the commandment to obey local laws was of higher priority and the practice of polygamist marriages was discontinued.)

Now, it is also illegal in the US (at least, in all states that I am aware of) to have sex with anyone that you are not legally married to. Of course, this law has not been enforced for nearly 100 years. This and the law against polygamy (which prohibits being legally married to more than one person) essentially covered all the bases. If you were legally married to multiple people, you were breaking the law, and if you had multiple wives, but were only legally married to one, you were committing adultery, which was also illegal. Now though, since adultery is no longer considered or prosecuted as a crime (though it is generally still illegal), things work differently.

Polygamy is now often prosecuted even if the participants are not legally married. This is, of course, not how the law against polygamy actually works, but our legal system seems to allow judges to make decisions based on personal beliefs, as opposed to codified law.

This family only has one legal marriage: the first. The other marriages were performed by religious ceremony, but no licenses were obtained or sent in. Technically, there is no law against this, but the marriages are not legally binding or recognized. This does not fall under the legal definition of polygamy (it does fall under the legal definition of adultery, but it would be extremely hypocritical to attempt to prosecute for this).

This situation is barely different from one where a married man has three mistresses. It is also very similar to the situation where a male high school student makes a point out of trying to sleep with as many girls as possible. There is only one major difference. This man takes responsibility. He is not hiding his "mistresses"; his wife is totally aware of them (and in most cases recommended them and in all cases approved them; approval of additional wives by the first wife was a requirement of original LDS polygamy). He takes responsibility for the children that have come from these relationships and makes sure that they are being well cared for. He is providing separate living areas for each woman and her children (something mentioned by Joseph Smith when teaching how polygamy was to be practised). And, last but not least, this guy is being accused of moral and legal transgressions.

If we are going to prosecute polygamy, we should also prosecute anyone who has sex with someone they are not married to. By prosecuting this family, but not the high school student, we are saying that irresponsible sex with multiple partners by people who are not even capable of dealing with the consequences (children) is more morally correct than responsible sex with multiple committed partners by people who are capable and prepared to deal with the consequences. We are also saying that secretly committing adultery is more moral than having an open, committed sexual relationship with someone that has been approved for this by our current spouse or spouses, and who we are willing and able to help support and be responsible for.

This is extreme hypocrisy. Our society condemns the man who openly cares for and supports several women, but considers secret uncommitted flings to be a matter of privacy and personal preference. We stand behind a law that was clearly intended as religious discrimination, but ignore laws that were intended to protect people from breaches of contractual commitments. (Adultery is now only considered in divorce cases where a pre-nuptial agreement covers it, even though adultery is legally a breach of the marriage contract.)

While I do not condone polygamy, I do think that if we are not going to start rigorously enforcing laws against adultery and fornication, we should stop prosecuting polygamy, at least, if there is not more than one legal marriage. Otherwise, we are discriminating against religious beliefs. We do not prosecute Catholics who commit adultery, even though it is against their religion and the law. So, why is it that we prosecute against polygamy when it is not against the religion of the polygamists and is technically the same crime as the Catholic committed if there is not more than one legal marriage? Again, the difference being that the polygamist is doing it responsibly and with the consent of his wife.

Lord Rybec