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]

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.