writing group and meandering thoughts.

[kippurbird]

So, the guy who wrote that horribly cliche piece of drivel turned out to be rather nice about it (and kinda hot >.> ) and wasn't at all like Miss Formulaic. He seemed to be very interested in our comments and didn't mind that I was horribly brutal. He asked questions about how to make it better and was generally everything a reviewer could want in a person. I look forward to his next installment with high hopes.

Now, on a completely random matter as I wait for the paint to dry on my birthday present for my brother (we exchange presents on our birthdays, don't ask, we just do). I think Polygamy should be made legal.

Why? You may ask. My response: Why not? How is it wrong to be married to more than one person. Where does it say that it's a morally wrong thing to do? If all parties that are involved are consenting adults, they why shouldn't they get married in any which way they please? No one is getting hurt by such a marriage. It's just a different way of doing so. In fact I think the fact that it is illegal is unconstitutional according to the Constitution of the United States. It does, after all, state that we are allowed religious freedom and there are religions that allow for polygamy. So, theoretically those who practice those religions should be allowed to practice that practice. >.> Also, there is the separation of church and state. This I think is important, because in the Protestant tradition (On which this country was founded in )polygamy is a Bad Thing (I don't know why as I'm not a Protestant nor a Christian) and so they have imposed their religious ideal upon the rest of the country. If the US wanted to fully espouse that they are a land of true religious freedom and that there is a true separation between church and state then polygamy should be legalized.

After all beyond religion there isn't a good reason not to. I have yet to hear an argument as to why we shouldn't allow it. It just isn't allowed.

Perhaps I should start a petition to get it on a ballot or something. =D

Comments

[emily-goddess.livejournal.com]

I completely agree with you about legalizing polygamy, under one condition: all parties involved have to be married to each other. This prevents one person from collecting a harem against the wishes of hir other spouse(s) (you'd think respect would stop them, but look at the way the Mormons or certain Muslim royals do it). It's not perfect, but then, neither are people.

I must disagree on the First Amendment thing, though. In Lemon v. Kurtzman,the Supreme Court ruled that states and the Fed could regulate certain religious practices for one of three reasons (the so-called "Lemon test"), one of which is if there is a "compelling state interest" in doing so. For example, certain religious groups use various drugs in their ceremonies (Rastafari, the Native American Church, etc.), but the Court found that the state's interest in drug control was greater than te interests of Free Exercise in those cases (see Smith v. Oregon). Of course,one wonders how it would go if it were a majority religious group being impeded by a "compelling state interest," but that's another question. Anyway, as long as states can claim they have an interest in regulating marriage as they do, Free Exercise will have to play second fiddle. [/Con Law geek]

I fully support ballot initiatives (I will sign a petition to get anything on the ballot, even if I don't agree with it, because the voters have a right to decide), but given that the gay marriage bans have been winning all over the country - and given that even Utah, where many legislators and voters are Mormon, hasn't been able to legalize polygamy - I wouldn't get my hopes up.

[emily-goddess.livejournal.com]

Oh! Also (and keep in mind that I'm saying this because it's precedent, not because I agree with the reasoning), one could point out that no one is prevented from being a Mormon or a Muslim by not being allowed to have more than one wife. Those religions allow polygamy, but they don't require it, so the argument goes (and SCOTUS has accepted it before) that their Free Exercise isn't really being inhibited.

[christinaathena.livejournal.com]

Those religions allow polygamy, but they don't require it Depends on which sect you're talking about. There are certain Mormon fundamentalist sects that do, in fact, consider plural marriage to be an important religious practice, necessary for the highest form of salvation.

[gjohnsonkoehn.livejournal.com]

Does the law prohibit multiple religious marriages, or just multiple legally recognised marriages?

[karma-kalisutah.livejournal.com]

I THINK it's the latter. I certainly HOPE it is. The former really WOULD be a violation of the First Amendment.

[christinaathena.livejournal.com]

Depends on where you are. In Utah, it's (technically) illegal for more than two adults to live in a marriage-style relationship. Though the state government hasn't enforced it since the 50's (due to very negative press surrounding the last time they attempted to enforce it - video footage of children being forcibly removed from their parents has a tendency to alienate the public), they technically have the legal right to arrest consenting adults involved in polygamy, and putting their children into state custody, even if there's only one legal marriage.

[gjohnsonkoehn.livejournal.com]

Well, I could see that one taking a bit of a 1st Amendment beating; it's one thing for the state to refuse to legally sanction multiple-partner marriages, but it's an entirely separate matter to tell consenting how they can set up their private living arrangements.

[emily-goddess.livejournal.com]

AFAIK, only the latter. In out society, we tend to do the religious ceremony and the legal business at the same time, and often forget that they're two separate events. So you could have multiple spouses "under the eyes of God" (assuming your religion allows it), even if the state only recognizes one.

[kd7sov]

no one is prevented from being a Mormon or a Muslim by not being allowed to have more than one wife. Those religions allow polygamy, but they don't require it

This is not actually correct, at least as far as Mormonism goes. (I freely confess to knowing next to nothing about Islam as far as such things go.) In much of the nineteenth century polygamy was permitted and, yes, encouraged, but before Utah became a state (in 1896) the church reversed its decision. This is the point at which many of the smaller groups previously mentioned broke away.

[emily-goddess.livejournal.com]

Again, it's a question of legal precedent (and massive ignorance). I remember learning about a case where a certain Native American tribe had a certain sacred mountain that had been bought and was going to be blasted apart. The tribe petitioned SCOTUS to stop the demolition on 1st amendment grounds, but the Court (in its ineffable wisdom) ruled that the tribe could still practice its religion, even its sacred ceremonies, without the mountain. And this was fairly recently - Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the majority opinion on the case. I can't imagine polygamy faring much better, not today anyway.

Still, thank you for correcting me. I admit my knowledge on the LDS Church is woefully limited.

[dryaunda.livejournal.com]

Of course,one wonders how it would go if it were a majority religious group being impeded by a "compelling state interest," but that's another question.

There should compelling state interests against Intelligent Design, from left- and right-wing perspectives. Supreme Court's doin' nutin' though, curious that.

[emily-goddess.livejournal.com]

I'm not inclined to jump on the "Nefarious Right-Wing Conspiracy" bandwagon just yet. Since SCOTUS can only hear cases that are sent to them (and then only if the cases are important enough to be among the 80 or so that the Court hears annually), it's possible - likely, in fact - that they haven't even had any ID challenges yet. If it turns out they're getting such challenges and rejecting them without good reason, then I'll get suspicious.

[(Anonymous)]

Sorry, my first comment to you ended up sounding snarkier than I'd intended. I think there is a Nefarious Right Wing Conspiracy, but I'm in denial about the courts being part of it *clings to last delusions of hope for America*

[emily-goddess.livejournal.com]

Erm, that was me. I fail at commenting today.

[dryaunda.livejournal.com]

Don't worry, you didn't seem snarky to me, I guess because you don't have a sanctimonious tone to your writing in general. Trust me, some people write more nastily than others.

[karma-kalisutah.livejournal.com]

I completely agree with you about legalizing polygamy, under one condition: all parties involved have to be married to each other. This prevents one person from collecting a harem against the wishes of hir other spouse(s) (you'd think respect would stop them, but look at the way the Mormons or certain Muslim royals do it). It's not perfect, but then, neither are people.

Word. SO much word. That's what I was thinking, too.

I fully support ballot initiatives (I will sign a petition to get anything on the ballot, even if I don't agree with it, because the voters have a right to decide), but given that the gay marriage bans have been winning all over the country - and given that even Utah, where many legislators and voters are Mormon, hasn't been able to legalize polygamy - I wouldn't get my hopes up.

Another good point. Also, if you make it a Serious Issue at this point in history, chances are all sorts of state constitutions and possibly the federal constitution will start adding amendments banning it. Then, if its time ever DOES come, it will be that much more difficult to legalize.

[christinaathena.livejournal.com]

I don't think it's DESPITE them being Mormon, but rather BECAUSE they're Mormon. The strongest anti-polygamy sentiments I've heard have been from Mormons. It's a part of their past they'd rather forget, and so they tend to react even more harshly towards it than people with no connection.