Marriage, Polygamy and Gays

One of the religious right's standard sputterings is that legalizing same-sex marriage will open the door to legalizing polygamy. Many of us have dismissed these sputterings as just another bogeyman that the right is conjuring up...one that will make voters afraid of gay people. After all, it usually comes in the same breath with a threat that same-sex marriage will lead to people wanting to marry their pets... a ridiculous idea that shows how paranoid the religious right is, and how willing they are to grasp at straws to make a point. After all, marriage requires consent, and pets can't consent.

But polygamy is a different matter. And it is one of the major battlefields in the marriage war.

Many "traditional" religionists don't want us to have marriage, of course, and they will fight us to the death on this point, even if we agree to call it "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships." But they're also using the noisy public debate about "gay marriage" as a diversion, to keep the public away from a serious debate about the pros and cons of polygamy. So far, their tactic has met with mixed success, because some polygamists are actually making a little headway in their drive for recognition.

Twelve years ago, Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act. DOMA defined marriage as the "legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife. Note the operative word "one." This language was established nearly a century and a half ago, in the 1868 federal legislation outlawing polygamy, that targeted the Mormons. Today, throughout the states, anti-gay-marriage legislation -- including Prop 8 -- often opts for a different wording, namely "a man and a woman," which would seem to skirt the polygamy issue.

But there's no doubt that the Alliance for Marriage Foundation, which was the main lobbyist/instigator for DOMA legislation, had a double purpose. They were determined to slam the door on both gays and polygamists at the federal level. Congress and President Clinton evidently went along with the AMF's supporters -- which were conservative Christians, Jews and Black Muslims who note with alarm that an growing percentage of the U.S. population are demanding legalization of polygamy. The grounds for this demand: religious freedom.

The fact is, not one but three different factions want to get polygamy legalized. Each is basing its claim to religious freedom on its sacred book.

The Mormon Polygamists

Naturally the first to come to mind is the Mormon Church. Polygamy, or "plural marriage" as they call it, was one of the practices of ancient Hebrew patriarchs that Mormons sought to restore at their founding in 1830, as per their Book of Mormon. In 1890, after occupation of Utah by federal troops, lots of coercion, unfriendly legislation by Congress and rejection by the U.S. Supreme Court, the LDS Church agreed to give up polygamy.

But today there are still an estimated 100,000 Mormons who are said to practice polygamy underground. Some are creepy rogues like Warren Jeffs and his splinter group, who were prosecuted for their crimes against minor children. But the majority of closet polygamists are portrayed by supporters as dignified community figures who view the practice as legitimate when practiced by consenting adults.

Why should anybody tremble at Mormon leverage on this issue today? Because, in the last century, the LSD Church has moved from marginal to massive in its social and economic influence. It can now swing the vote in several Western states, not just Utah, but California, Nevada, Arizona and Wyoming. We already saw how they swung California with Prop 8. Plus the LSD church can now field politicians who are viewed as serious candidates for President, like Mitt Romney.

Does the Mormon leadership ever plan to formally reintroduce the polygamy issue? They insist not. But in recent years, a rash of individual Mormon polygamists have gone to court hoping that their cases would make it on a freedom-of-religion basis. So far, they've been slapped down. In 2006, Utah's Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the state's bigamy statute, and the U.S. Supreme Court agreed. Still, with the right case, and enough money, and a changing political climate, individual Mormons in favor of polygamy might get what they want. That scares the bejeezus out of the DOMA crowd.

The Bible-Based Christian Polygamists

Less known to most Americans is the growing movement of Christian polygamists. Somewhat like the Mormons, they base their marriage dogma on the early Hebrew patriarchs like Abraham who were said to be polygamists. Their sacred book is the Bible's Old Testament. But they resent being compared to the Mormons. Many don't even consider the Mormons to be "Christian" because their canon of belief differs from the Mormons' on some points. They fall over themselves to point out that they are not child molesters like Warren Jeffs.

The Christian polygamists take a different tack on trying to change U.S. law. They insist that the federal law outlawing polygamy is unconstitutional, that it violates separation of church and state. They demand that government stop trying to "protect marriage" with its laws. Instead, they say, government should get out of the business of regulating marriage altogether, and leave this "sacred" institution to the churches. In advocating this, the Christian polygamists are bucking several centuries of Western history and precedent. In most Western countries, religion deliberately turned marriage over to civil government precisely because some churches had issues with other churches about efforts to control access to marriage.

But Christian polygamist leader Henkel fulminates against "the false god of big socialist government" and its policy "to define, license, and control God's doctrine of marriage."

Legislative efforts along this line have already been tried. In Maine in 2007, a state legislative committee quickly killed a proposed bill, L.D. 779, which sought to remove clergy from certifying marriage licenses. Christian conservatives, even the pro-polygamist variety, have convinced themselves that "all churches will be compelled to perform same-sex marriages if we LGBT people get the legalization we want."

The Muslim Polygamists

The third threat that the DOMA crowd see coming is from traditionalists in the U.S.'s growing Muslim population. Since 1900, the U.S.'s Islamic community has been quietly growing; but in recent decades, however, that growth has exploded with an inflow of immigrants and refugees, many of them from fundamentalist Islamic countries where plural marriage is legal. While liberal and even moderate Muslim-Americans have largely abandoned the practice of polygamy, traditionalists still insist on it. Their sacred book, the Koran, authorizes Muslim men to have up to four wives, provided they can care for them adequately.

U.S. census authorities don't keep stats on religion, so they don't know how big the Muslim population actually is. Recent conservative estimates put it at nearly 3 million, while liberal estimates push it as high as 7-8 million. Even a middling 5-6 million would make Muslims a sizable voting bloc. Muslim immigrants or refugees who arrive here with more than one wife, though legal in their country of origin, are required to pick one wife as the legal spouse under U.S. law and jettison the rest. However, according to a recent NPR story, there are an estimated 100,000 U.S. Muslims, perhaps more, who are practicing closet polygamy.

With plural marriage so thoroughly outlawed in the U.S., one would think that the DOMA faction wouldn't lie awake at night worrying about Islamic polygamy. But evidently they do...and here's why. Immigrant traditionalists who want the same kind of life here that they lived in their countries of origin have discovered a back door into our legal system. Through it, they're quietly linking their Islamic law system, sharia, with our practice of civil arbitration.

Under conservative Islam, sharia is "state religion" -- government by clerics (called imams), rather than government by elected officials. In countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia that have a sharia government, all decision-making involving law -- legislation, courts, education, family issues, even finance -- is based on Koranic teachings. With the growth of large conservative immigrant Muslim populations in Western countries, the issue of how these immigrants can continue practicing their sharia-based religion freely within non-Muslim law systems, has become a very hot one. From the traditionalist Muslim standpoint, religious freedom in the U.S. should include the right to plural marriage.

Right now, sharia is actually stealthing its way into the U.S. Sharia courts are operating in Texas, of all places, under the aegis of a Second Court of Appeals decision that sharia judgments rendered by U.S. imams are enforceable by government.

The new Texas process now makes it possible for civil and family-law cases involving traditionalist Muslims and their beliefs to be handled in faith-based arbitration. Here, issues like dowries, divorce and child custody can be shunted from regular court to Texas Islamic Court, on request of the parties involved. There the cases would be handled in a manner that Islamic sensibilities would find friendly. Sharia law is also reportedly being used in Minnesota and New Jersey. In California, where the biggest U.S. population can be found, attempts are being made to launch sharia courts as well. All these developments are being fiercely opposed by human-rights and Muslim women's organizations.

And the constitutionality of U.S. sharia courts may well be challenged in higher courts, or their existence ended by oppositional legislation.

Meanwhile, how might this U.S. sharia movement open the door to polygamy? It might create a body of decisions that allows the practice to become gradually legalized nationally through establishing precedent. Under U.S. law, arbitration decisions carry a great deal of force.

Meanwhile, those who fear that legalization of same-sex marriage and polygamy are linked can also point to what's happening in Canada. Sharia courts have already come and gone in Canada, having been outlawed in 2006. Yet in the liberal-minded province of Ontario, which legalized same-sex marriage several years ago, there is now some legal slack for Muslim polygamists who enter the country and can show that they were legally married to more than one wife in their country of origin. Reportedly Muslim men are receiving welfare and social benefits for each of their partners, both from Ontario Province and the city of Toronto.

Two Final Points

In Texas, a state DOMA and constitutional amendment uses the anti-polygamy language to define marriage as a "union of one man and one woman." Yet the Texas legal system apparently has no problem doing a 180-degree flip-flop in order to accommodate marriage practices that might touch on closet polygamy of traditionalist Muslims. Surely this is a horrible contradiction that LGBT lawyers and activists, and their non-gay supporters, should point out.

In the meantime, some Mormon, Christian and Muslim advocates of plural marriage are themselves opposed to same-sex marriage, and accuse us gays of trying to "redefine" marriage. Yet they're trying hard to redefine marriage themselves. It's the biggest "go figure" we've faced.

Comments

[carsntrucks]

Wait a minute. This argument is built on a false premise.

The "religious rights" argument isn't that one will lead to the other, though some probably believe similar tactics could be employed to get polygamy legalized through judicial fiat. It's not like people can guarantee them that that wont happen, but that's not the point.

THEIR argument is that if you're going to justify same-sex marriage on the notion that marriage is a basic civil right (based on a line in a Supreme Court referring to racial bias used to deny interracial marriage) and claim that the "man/woman" stipulation is primarily, if not singularly, offensive and discriminatory to gays and lesbians and claim doing away with that stipulation would be an exercise in equality and tolerance, it stands to reason that polygamous individuals could make that exact same argument if they decided to become politically active.

They're saying that "traditional marriage" is restrictive to more than same-sex couples, and that deeming the man/woman stipulation as being something that's punitive and relativistic would give those who would consider other unions marriage ammunition the same way many use Loving v. Virginia as ammunition to justify gay marriage.

[SteveDenver]

Why does religion always favor one husband with a dozen wives? Let's get liberated! Women should have a dozen husbands so the trash gets taken out, she gets taken out, all the chores are done, and orgasm is never again a problem. Why not throw in a couple of gay husbands, too.

[NoOneSpecial]

There is also the question in legalized polygamy at where you draw the line. Unlike legalizing same-sex marriage where there are only two sexes there would only be three total combinations of marriage-minded couples, polygamy as a practice doesn't inherently set any limits.

So where is the legal line in the sand? One person married to a maximum of 5 people who have no legal relationship to each other? Reciprocal marriage contracts where 10 people are all jointly married to each other? If you start thinking about it, it's absolutely mind-boggling what this would do to our current legal system in terms of family law, custodial rights, health care decision-making, estate law, and the list goes on.

Which all begs the question. If the government would have to impose SOME limit on the number of spouses to enable the law and courts to function in a sane and predicable manner, then WHY is the limit of two people not acceptable?

[Patricia Nell Warren - Huffpost Blogger]

Re your last paragraph: People who oppose same-sex marriage keep asking this question as part of their effort to create the boogeyman effect. But you're not well-informed on what we're asking for. Gay people are not asking for polymarriage. We are asking for two women or two men to be able to get a marriage license and marry each other legally.

[NoOneSpecial]

I'm gay. I know what gay people are asking for in marriage. I was responding to your contention that polygamy is one of the "major battlefields" in the marriage war. I disagree.

With regards to your comment on my last paragraph. Yes, it's true people who are against gay marriage ask a similar question to raise a boogeyman effect. But we already have the answer to that question.

Through the result of years of effort on behalf of the women's rights movement, marriage has been successfully turned into a relationship of legal co-partners. Aside from the entry requirements (opposite sex only in most places), once you're in the door it's essentially a gender-blind construct from the legal perspective. Any remaining gender biases tend to be cultural in nature (like mothers usually getting custody of the kids). That's why SS marriage works. And why the boogeyman is a just a boogeyman. For proof, look no further than the states and countries that have already legalized SSM.

Legalized polygamy, on the other hand, hasn't answered those questions because they can't point to an example like opposite-sex marriage and say, "it's really no different because men and women are treated as equals." Polygamy IS different because there is no analogous legal relationship similar enough to marriage to compare it to. And its open-ended nature leaves the possibility that the rules change with every partner added.

[NoOneSpecial]

Polygamists are not going to gain the right to multiple spouses based on denial of civil rights via denial of religious freedom.

If that argument had any legal traction, gays could have long ago pushed for same-sex marriage via churches that wed same-sex couples. I'm thinking MCC here, specifically.

This country is replete with examples of religious groups that tried to claim denial of religious freedom only to have the courts say "uh, no." Just because your religion approves something isn't an automatic gateway to circumventing existing law.

That being said, it would be even tougher for polygamists to convince the courts that they are truly being deprived of some marital liberty that is critical to their rights as a citizen. After all, they CAN and DO get married to a single spouse under current law -- just like everyone else. And not to confuse that point with gays and lesbians who technically also have the right to marry someone of the opposite gender, the act of doing so isn't a hollow legal charade that ignores their core identity and denies the reasons why people choose to marry in the first place. Polygamists are -- if not by definition, then certainly by practice -- heterosexual. And they have NO problem with taking advantage of existing marriage law even if other spouses aren't recognized. Gays and lesbians get NOTHING except the aforementioned charade if they are left with marriage law as it currently stands.

(con't)

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

Patricia -

Interesting article. I wrote about this last year, when Romney emerged as a candidate.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/gay-marriage-and-polygamy_b_49928.html

My perspective was a bit different, though, and started by asking the questions:

Do you support the concept of gay marriage?

Do you support the concept of polygamy? If so, why? If not, why not?

Everyone needs to answer those questions to their own satisfaction, but I still think they're important questions, no matter what your answers are. It's a shame the comments seem to have disappeared from HuffPost, because I got many varied answers, including some from polygamist rights folks.

-CW

[Johnathan Wilber - Huffpost Blogger]

Both your blogs are extremely well written and thought provoking. Thanks.

[PATina]

Let's just allow whomever to marry whomever and however many they want... then no one's civil liberties, rights are being infringed.

[baseballmom]

Could someone please explain something to me? I assume that Mormon demographics are much the same as for the rest of us - i.e. approximately 50% of babies are boys and 50% are girls. If some of the men can have multiple wives, then what are the other men supposed to do? I'd be pretty cheesed off if I couldn't have a wife because some other guy had a dozen or so.

How is this supposed to work?

[bronceye]

You referred to the mormon church as LSD when they are actually LDS. I learned as a student at Utah State in the 60's, the difference between LSD and LDS is that you take one with a grain of sugar and the other with a grain of salt.

[TheFriendlyAtheist]

What those who want to have plural marriage legalized don't seem to understand is that in the U.S. women have equal rights with men. If a man can have more than one wife then each of his wives can have more than one husband. Of course if both the man and the woman can have more than one spouse then the family unit is destroyed because the theoretical extent of the family becomes infinite.

[gaydm]

Exactly, what is to prevent me from marrying 3 men and a maid.

[splinky]

So what if women can also have multiple spouses (since in at least one result of the reasoning in this article people can have spouses of either sex)? This would not destroy anything--don't forget: the difference between theory and practice is that in theory, there is no difference.

When I was single and willing to date more than one person (each of whom would also have been similarly non-exclusive), somehow I never ended up with these infinite possibilities. Wish I had known that I was theoretically able to date everyone all at once...the people in the relationships would make that impossible, and anyway, all you have to do is make the plural marriage a closed system: if A is married to B, and then marries C, C and B would then also be married in some sense, and B could not go out and marry D, unless all the others enter into the same agreement. Legally messy, but if we had universal health care (and therefore individual access to insurance), no one would be hurt, even financially (saving the raising of children issue for another thread).

[TheFriendlyAtheist]

Sorry splinky but your reply makes no sense, and your dating theory proves my point. It you date lady A, B, and C, then each one of those gals can date as many men as they want and you of course can still date lady D, E, F. or as many as you want which leads to the conclusion that you, and your girlfriends can date, in theory, as many people as are on the face of the planet.
Even if you limit the number of spouses each person can have to two you would have the same results. Man A could marry woman a and b, both of them could then marry man b or c, and man b and c could then also marry woman c and d and on and on.

[oafishcad]

God forbid people think of everyone as a member of their extended family.

[smed]

Anytime one talks about Polygamy and Mormons, it is difficult to select the right language. As a Mormon myself, I sometimes struggle with it. As you know, Mormons (of which there are more than 12 million) do not practice polygamy. As another reader mentioned - anyone who does so is formally excommunicated from the church. That means they are no longer listed as members of the church.

That being said, the way you make your case on the "Mormon Polygamists" uses a lot of language that is misleading and serves to promote stereotypes and misinformation. I realize that this is probably not your intent, however, it is misleading in the same way that people attempt to make insinuations that all Muslims are terrorists.

Instead of your header "The Mormon Polygamists", you might consider something like "Splinter Group Mormons" or "Small Groups of Radical Mormons" or similar. Neither of these is perfect because of course, technically, these folks are not Mormons, but because they are break offs of the mainstream, they will probably always be referred to as Mormons in some way by the general public. But, we need to be careful about lumping these break off groups in with the main body of the church.

As was illustrated by the Warren Jeffs case, they typically live in remote compounds or very small remote towns and try to stay clear of mainstream society. I'm not sure about this, but I wouldn't be surprised if most of them did not even vote.

[colleen2]

"Neither of these is perfect because of course, technically, these folks are not Mormons"

They are self described fundamentalist Mormons and their 'lifestyle' is tolerated and tacitly encouraged in Utah.

[smed]

True Colleen, "they are 'self described' fundamentalist Mormons" -

- but just because Vanilla Ice had a few hits doesn't mean he's a "rapper". :)

The lifestyle is "tolerated" as you said.... probably because for the most part they keep to themselves and live in very small towns or compounds off the beaten path --- has anyone ever heard of Colorado City, AZ, or Hilldale, UT before Warren Jeffs? They do not try to influence others outside of their circle - they just try to keep that circle closed very tightly.

The idea that the polygamist lifestyle is "tacitly encouraged" is laughable. Please tell us your source.

[gaydm]

Problem 2, In Florida and several other states that have similar marriage amendments, but in particular Florida's amendment 2, Marriage is now ILLEGAL except for the LEGAL marriage of ONLY one man and one woman, for a grand total of ONE marriage.

Read the amendment.

"inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized."

Inasmuch as MARRIAGE is the union of ONLY ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN. hmmm that to me totals ONE marriage only. But before you think it's just a mistake read further. NO OTHER LEGAL UNION THAT IS TREATED AS MARRIAGE. Bye, Bye marriages in Florida. Hurry up and pick which one you will authorize.

[gaydm]

First problem, nowhere in a civil marriage contract is it required, demanded, mandated or ordered to pro-create.

It is not.

Nowhere in that same civil marriage contract does it demand, require, order, or mandate that children be conceived or brought in on the contract. You may marry whether you have children or not. That marriage contract is NOT a license to have sex. It is a civil contract for 2 people, not two and a half a dog 3 cars and a boat. 2 people only. They must be adults, freely consent to one another, and in some states they may be cousins.

So if sexual activity is not REQUIRED to fulfill the contract, then why is my right to enter into a government contract being denied me based on gender?

[Patricia Nell Warren - Huffpost Blogger]

I agree with you 110 percent.

[carsntrucks]

Of course not, but when discussing what interests the state has in giving benefits to married couples and not to same-sex couples, that would be one of them. Of course not all straight couples procreate, but it's also true that NO same-sex couple procreates.

It's easy to dismiss a premise when you don't adhere to it, but people allude to other components of marriage (companionship, love, monogamy, attraction, the desire to marry the person you want), but when someone mentions the fecundity of one union and the lack of it in another, oh, all of a sudden that should be off the table.

[SamIam07]

Mormons in general do not want polygamy legalized. That would give them no excuse for not practicing it, and the great majority of members would rather not see that in their lifetime. They'd prefer just to leave it as a vague possibility for the afterlife. Legalizing polygamy could be a huge shake-up (shake-out?) for the church.

Mormon fundamentalists (polygamist splinter groups) are another matter.

[Pegasys9]

There are several claims the author makes that are untrue when it comes to Mormons. She states that Mormons sought to restore plural marriage at their founding in 1830. This is untrue. This wasn't revealed for several years, and it wasn't in the Book of Mormon.
She states there are 100,000 Mormons who practice polygamy underground. Again, lie. Anyone in the Mormon faith who practices polygamy is excommunicated. It's not practiced in our church underground, and I'll tell you why I'm sure. To be valid in our church, plural marriage would have to be conducted in the temple. Aint no way, someone wouldn't notice one man and more than one wife and not be called on it (and most likely be referred to their bishop). As I said earlier, those who do it and call themselves Mormons ARE NOT PART OF OUR CHURCH.
I personally resent the idea that Mormons are to be feared because now we might have political clout. Gee, for people with such political muscle, we sure have been beaten up lately, both individually (Scott Eckert and Richard Raddon ring any bells) and collectively (Temple protests). I don't see the church flexing any muscle there. In fact, the church has long avoided political issues (and this one, only because we were invited). To fear the church might get involved in legislation involving polygamy (an issue members don't want to return to) is simply fearmongering. Mormons like marriage just the way it is, thank you

[Patricia Nell Warren - Huffpost Blogger]

Re Book of Mormon -- I am aware that polygamy itself came later, but the Book of Mormon did launch the whole general focus on restoring patriarchal traditions -- out of which came the decision to restore plural marriage.

[Pegasys9]

Here's a FACT that this house of cards article has wrong. Mormon's are NOT practicing polygamy. If a Mormon is found to be practicing polygamy, they are excommunicated. Period. There are small off shoots of the church that do practice polygamy, but they are NOT members of our church.
Further, church history is big in the faith and there are scathing reports of how hard Polygamy was to live. Contrary to the above article, MORMONS DON"T WANT POLYGAMY TO RETURN. I've been in the church over 45 years and I've NEVER talked to or even heard of anyone wanting to return to it.
The author believes that Mormons want a return to polygamy....they are dead wrong.
I believe this is just another sly attempt to denigrate Mormons and separate them from other faiths to forestall them from working together against same sex marriage.

[Patricia Nell Warren - Huffpost Blogger]

Please read my post carefully. I didn't say that the Mormon Church practices polygamy. Nor did I say that the Mormon Church wants to return to polygamy. In fact, the link I gave was to a book discussing the church's reasons for not returning. I only mentioned individuals who do want to practice plural marriage.

[colleen2]

Mormon's are NOT practicing polygamy.

No, what Mormons are doing is tolerating and enabling polygamist communities to the point where the Utah state legislature has had known polygamist patriarchs serving in it's legislature and there are polygamous communities metastasizing all over the state.
What Mormons do is pretend that welfare fraud, child abuse and neglect, statutory rape, forced 'marriage' and women living like chattel aren't crimes and that raising children in this environment is healthy.