• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Why is polygamy illegal?

Scarecrow

Scarecrow

Member
Undoubtedly this topic has been covered in numerous ways in and under other topics, but I am curious how those who demand monogamy might defend their opinion in court today. I have been reading some of the arguments presented in the Canadian courts, but they don't seem very convincing and seem to be more of the contrived variety. More and more I see the attitude of "it isn't for me, but if someone else wants to, why not?" The arguments used in the mid 1800s went something like this:

"The difference between a polygamist and the follower of an "alternative lifestyle" is often religion. In addition to protecting privacy, the Constitution is supposed to protect the free exercise of religion unless the religious practice injures a third party or causes some public danger.

However, in its 1878 opinion in Reynolds vs. United States, the court refused to recognize polygamy as a legitimate religious practice, dismissing it in racist and anti-Mormon terms as "almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and African people." In later decisions, the court declared polygamy to be "a blot on our civilization" and compared it to human sacrifice and "a return to barbarism." Most tellingly, the court found that the practice is "contrary to the spirit of Christianity and of the civilization which Christianity has produced in the Western World."

Contrary to the court's statements, the practice of polygamy is actually one of the common threads between Christians, Jews and Muslims."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/co ... rley_x.htm

Would any of these arguments be considered legitimate today? If not, are there any legitimate arguments?

What evidence is there that living a polygamous lifestyle is detrimental to those involved? If there is any such evidence can it be attributed to all polygamous marriages?
 
Fascinating article. I am a little confused about his protestation that he detests polygamy. I understand that we all have an opinion but since he doesn't back that up with any reasons for his opinion I have to guess that his "hatred" is either convenient to ward off those who would accuse him of being pro-poly or based on some assumption (and not fact). It would be interesting to get his personal opinion with supporting reasons. Most hate I have experienced is rooted in fear.

SweetLissa
 
Scarecrow,

The largest reason it seems that the opposing legal side has used has been teleological or consequentialist arguments.

In many places throughout the land there has been a long standing recognized practice of the legitimate examining what is legally called secondary effects. These are often used for strip clubs and adult entertainment places of business. The argument is thus:

If practice "abc" is allowed what effects most always secondarily follow. If after study they find that certain other crimes follow because of the presence of "abc" they will either rule against "abc" or place limitations and regulations on "abc."

For example, though adult entertainment is protected under the first amendment it has been regulated by making dancers remain at least 3 feet away from the patrons, and it has also commonly been ruled that these clubs cannot operate but between certain hours of the day. Other types of regulations exist.

Almost invariably the opponents use these secondary legal issues to limit or prohibit polygyny (or even polygamy). What secondary effects have they often noted? I have often said and taught it is the polygyny people who are their own worst enemy sometimes. By their own immaturity they have at times undone their own integrity in the eye of the law and those making laws. The Mormons and Muslims and others, including those who claim the name of Christ, have been so immature and pagan in their practice and application of this lifestyle it has led legal opponents to see and recognize the secondary effects that almost always show up. Effects like:
-child brides/underage unions
-women who are physically abused
-women who are made to stay at home with little to no education

Those and other effects become what they legally call secondary effects and thus if "abc", in this case a plural union, causes those effects they then resort to legal tactics to oppose whatever it is that they see as a cause to those effects. This is also done to stores that sell liquor and wine and bars.

In some instances I can even see why they outside community think the way they do. I have met some stupid, uneducated, and ignorant people in this movement, and when I mean stupid I mean capital "S" stupid! We've seen and dealt with some here, like men who cannot control themselves and they rush on a single woman like vultures! I can imagine what those same morons would be like in a community where young ladies in their teens where walking around single (like on Mormon communities). If here online they jump on single ladies with dreams and visions and hellacious garbage of such where supposedly God is directly telling them who was supposed to join their family, sometimes even in just a week or less of time of talking online, I can only imagine that type of stupid, uneducated, ignorance being just as strong if not stronger in actual communities where masses live near one another.

That type of insanity and severe emotional and mental immaturity irritates me and certainly those who already have a bias against polygyny to begin with.

That is why I am so adamant that a new set of believers, Evangelical or gospel centered and gospel driven believers must pave the way for this truth. When the community sees men and women more concerned about the gospel than about sexual drive they see in that the Spirit of Christ. If the legal sphere saw educated men and women, intelligent men and women, who were also mature enough to allow young men and woman to mature to adulthood where they were able to choose (even with guidance but not through a lording it over type of control) their mates according to established biblical norms that type of presence would and could alter longstanding traditions where people have perceived the polygyny people are simply sexual predators.
 
Why is polygamy illegal?
Click to expand...

There is really a very simple answer to the question, and it will not only put all of the other so-called "legal" issues in perspective, but provide insight into what is happening NOW in the news, and what to expect in the future.


Q: Why is polygamy illegal?

A: Because the Adversary (HaSatan, Lucifer, the 'prince of this world') HATES the Word of YHVH!


He comes to deceive, to destroy, to call evil "good", and good "evil". It is all about rebellion to Him, and to His Word.

One of the best places to start is with His plan for marriage, because it is a picture of His house!

But the adversary has never stopped there, of course. The pagan "traditions of man" replace the "commandments of God". Even a cursory look around today will show just how deeply and insidiously that process has been ingrained...and where it is so clearly headed.
 
I agree that plural being illegal is a natural fit for a sinful society. Limiting plural sex to a Godly application goes against the grain of modern religion which has prostituted the righteousness of the home to acquire fake moral standards. Money/power seeking religious/moralists trade the home to the legalistic, loading burdens upon men rather than freedoms. If a tax on a perceived lack of morals could be levied, I am sure that Christians would be paying out the ear just to breath in their own home.
 
Like so many times....people are afraid of what they don't understand or don't 'beleive in'. They've been told since childhood that this is right and that is wrong and they never branch out to find out why and make a decision based on facts they've found themselves.
This goes against the very freedoms our country was built on and our God encourages.
 
I agree with everything in the comments so far. It seems the defense of the monogamy claim is:

"The largest reason it seems that the opposing legal side has used has been teleological or consequentialist arguments."

If they wanted to equally apply this type of argument then unquestionably tobacco and alcohol should also be illegal. Tobacco has no positive affects on the human body, and the misuse of alcohol causes numerous problems. Yet some like to enjoy an occasional cigar, and a drink or two with friends. There are also many that are successfully and happily practicing polygamy. I would think that if this is their case then pointing out that their principle is not equally applied would be one aspect of an effective argument. Outlawing alcohol did not cure the problems associated with it, it only caused it go underground and made numerous bootleggers wealthy. If this is the best they can come up with any attorney worth his salt should be able to shred that argument in the courts today.

I also see most of the arguments against polygamy coming from the modern Christian and Catholic organizations. With this in mind, they are more than welcome to follow whatever doctrine they feel is correct, but they do not have the right to use the legal system to impose their doctrine upon others.

1 Corinthians 5:12-13 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. "Purge the evil person from among you."

We are not a part of the Catholic church, and for those of Protestant origin - if they feel we are teaching a false thing then they should ask us to repent or leave their congregation. Thus the need for a church that recognizes these truths that we discuss here at this forum.

I remember reading that a judge in Canada recently let a woman testify as an expert, because she was the closest thing to one they could find. She had observed the FLDS and others in Canada and reported that the only real problem was that they had to isolate themselves, and that if it was not illegal these people would be able to live openly and most of the abuses currently associated with polygamy would be considerably reduced. I think that the statistics of plural marriage will actually be better than those of monogamous marriages within a generation of it being decriminalized.
 
Scarecrow said:
I remember reading that a judge in Canada recently let a woman testify as an expert, because she was the closest thing to one they could find. She had observed the FLDS and others in Canada and reported that the only real problem was that they had to isolate themselves, and that if it was not illegal these people would be able to live openly and most of the abuses currently associated with polygamy would be considerably reduced. I think that the statistics of plural marriage will actually be better than those of monogamous marriages within a generation of it being decriminalized.
Click to expand...

Agreed Scarecrow. It's all another case of trying to legislate morality and history has proven time and again that it never works. God gave man the gift of free will and sometimes, regretfully, he choses wrong, but thats part of the very fabric of freedom. A good man just learns from those decisions and moves on.
 
KevinV said:
Scarecrow said:
I remember reading that a judge in Canada recently let a woman testify as an expert, because she was the closest thing to one they could find. She had observed the FLDS and others in Canada and reported that the only real problem was that they had to isolate themselves, and that if it was not illegal these people would be able to live openly and most of the abuses currently associated with polygamy would be considerably reduced. I think that the statistics of plural marriage will actually be better than those of monogamous marriages within a generation of it being decriminalized.
Click to expand...

Agreed Scarecrow. It's all another case of trying to legislate morality and history has proven time and again that it never works. God gave man the gift of free will and sometimes, regretfully, he choses wrong, but thats part of the very fabric of freedom. A good man just learns from those decisions and moves on.
Click to expand...


AMEN GENTLEMEN!!
 
BTW, the author of the article is the same attorney defending the TLC show Sister Wives family.
 
Have the TLC show Sister Wives family or any of its members been charged with anything yet? If not, he is not defending them but is likely advising them.
 
I didn't want anyone to assume they had been charged with anything. He is advising them to help them avoid an expensive legal battle. I am sure he has also been in contact with the authorities in Utah and explained to them what a fight they will have on their hands. I think Utah will sit back and watch things unfold in Texas and then change their laws once polygamy is decriminalized. Texas will find Warren Jeffs guilty (which he is) and Wendell Nielsen not guilty (although it may have to get to a Federal judge before it is deemed unconstitutional and he is found not guilty).

I don't think Kody and family will be charged either, which will make a good case for overturning the bigamy and anti-polygamy laws. Those who defend these laws assume that anyone that participates in polygamy will have all the negative characteristics they associate with polygamy. The fact that we have laws against underage marriage, abuse, and anything else they care to throw at us makes these unenforced laws unnecessary. I think the time is very near that polygamy will be decriminalized.
 
Scarecrow said:
I think the time is very near that polygamy will be decriminalized.
Click to expand...

I agree with your analysis.

Did anyone imagine such a statement being posted to this forum? Is this evidence that God is moving?
 
I believe that God is moving among His people. What bothers me is all the people that are unaware of it or in denial of it - makes me wonder if they are saved.
 
Well it seems that the Canadian courts are not on our side of the debate...interesting that rather than considering the practice they considered primarily an organization that abuses the practice. The comments left by people were mostly in favor of legalizing, or at lease decriminalizing polygamy.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45421934/ns ... -americas/
 
Thanks for posting, Scarecrow.

The interesting thing is that some of the main points (child and women abuse) in the ruling against polygamy were not even points that applies to the polyamorist crowd. So now in Canada, ALL multiple partner relationships have to suffer for a community of about 1,000 members (the FLDS sect in Bountiful, BC)? Maybe we can find 1,000 cases of abuse in monogamy and say that's a fair representation of monogamy or just make the argument that the good deserve to be punished with the bad. If this isn't biased and unreasonable thinking, which seems to be along the lines of those Supreme Court judges in British Columbia, then I don't know what to call it. You would think that they would've at least given an exception to those multi-parter relationships that aren't practiced in religious and exclusive communities but for now I guess not.

-----

Here's some quotes from an article in The Canadian Press.

Canada's ban on polygamy unfairly criminalizes healthy relationships involving multiple spouses, a lawyer representing the Canadian Polyamory Advocacy Association told a special hearing in B.C. Supreme Court on Wednesday.
...

But the group's lawyer, John Ince, said the shocking stories that have emerged from Bountiful don't reflect the lives of hundreds of polyamorists across Canada, who say their relationships are secular, egalitarian and are part of mainstream society.

He said that's why the provincial and federal governments have largely ignored polyamory in the complex discussion of polygamy, and have offered no evidence that polyamory causes anyone harm.

Lawyers for the provincial and federal governments have offered contradictory opinions on whether multi-partner relationships outside of a religious context would be illegal under the law.
Click to expand...

There's more than what I quoted of course but here's the full article below..

Source: Article from the Canadian Press
 
Scarecrow said:
Well it seems that the Canadian courts are not on our side of the debate...interesting that rather than considering the practice they considered primarily an organization that abuses the practice. The comments left by people were mostly in favor of legalizing, or at lease decriminalizing polygamy.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45421934/ns ... -americas/
Click to expand...

Here's Jonathan Turley's (an attorney and legal scholar who's also representing the family on Sister Wives show) reaction to the polygamy case in Canada:
http://jonathanturley.org/2011/11/24/ca ... more-41936

Here's the 357 page decision by the Judges in the Canadian polygamy case. It's posted by Jonathan Turley:
http://jonathanturley.files.wordpress.c ... cision.pdf
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top