What does the church do if and when polygamy is legalized?

[Color Me Badd Fan]

I imagine there has been extensive discussion about this, perhaps someone can direct me to that thread.

With that being said, I don't see much of an obstacle in the way of legalizing polygamy if gay marriage is ever legalized. And I think it's only a matter of time until that happens.

The manifesto specifically says that polygamy is abolished on the grounds that it violates the law of the land. Rather than doctrinally repudiating the practice, I read that upholding the law of the land is a higher priority than polygamy.

So, what happens when it's not the law of the land anymore? This is a pandora's box for the Church, because the Church is left in the position of either sanctioning new plural marriages and upholding the doctrine that is discussed throughout the D&C and has never ben repudiated, or new revelation will have to come out prohibiting plural marriage.

The latter IMO is even more troublesome than the overturning of the priesthood ban. An abundance of scripture in the D&C establishes that polygamy goes beyond what the black priesthood ban was- it's clearly a doctrine and established practice of the church but for the laws of the land. If you repudiate polygamy, then you repudiate a fairly significant teaching and practice espoused by Joseph Smith.

The reality is that the church will never again sanction plural marriage (at least I hope not) and the legalization of the practice will have no effect on the church's practice- even though the strict doctrine will direct otherwise.

[SeattleUte]

I imagine there has been extensive discussion about this, perhaps someone can direct me to that thread.

With that being said, I don't see much of an obstacle in the way of legalizing polygamy if gay marriage is ever legalized. And I think it's only a matter of time until that happens.

The manifesto specifically says that polygamy is abolished on the grounds that it violates the law of the land. Rather than doctrinally repudiating the practice, I read that upholding the law of the land is a higher priority than polygamy.

So, what happens when it's not the law of the land anymore? This is a pandora's box for the Church, because the Church is left in the position of either sanctioning new plural marriages and upholding the doctrine that is discussed throughout the D&C and has never ben repudiated, or new revelation will have to come out prohibiting plural marriage.

The latter IMO is even more troublesome than the overturning of the priesthood ban. An abundance of scripture in the D&C establishes that polygamy goes beyond what the black priesthood ban was- it's clearly a doctrine and established practice of the church but for the laws of the land. If you repudiate polygamy, then you repudiate a fairly significant teaching and practice espoused by Joseph Smith.

The reality is that the church will never again sanction plural marriage (at least I hope not) and the legalization of the practice will have no effect on the church's practice- even though the strict doctrine will direct otherwise.

I think your premise is faulty. I don't know why gay marriage and polygamy are analogous, unless being gay is a choice.

[happyone]

The reality is that the church will never again sanction plural marriage (at least I hope not) and the legalization of the practice will have no effect on the church's practice- even though the strict doctrine will direct otherwise.

I think this is probably a fair summation of the probable outcome.

[Mormon Red Death]

I imagine there has been extensive discussion about this, perhaps someone can direct me to that thread.

With that being said, I don't see much of an obstacle in the way of legalizing polygamy if gay marriage is ever legalized. And I think it's only a matter of time until that happens.

The manifesto specifically says that polygamy is abolished on the grounds that it violates the law of the land. Rather than doctrinally repudiating the practice, I read that upholding the law of the land is a higher priority than polygamy.

So, what happens when it's not the law of the land anymore? This is a pandora's box for the Church, because the Church is left in the position of either sanctioning new plural marriages and upholding the doctrine that is discussed throughout the D&C and has never ben repudiated, or new revelation will have to come out prohibiting plural marriage.

The latter IMO is even more troublesome than the overturning of the priesthood ban. An abundance of scripture in the D&C establishes that polygamy goes beyond what the black priesthood ban was- it's clearly a doctrine and established practice of the church but for the laws of the land. If you repudiate polygamy, then you repudiate a fairly significant teaching and practice espoused by Joseph Smith.

The reality is that the church will never again sanction plural marriage (at least I hope not) and the legalization of the practice will have no effect on the church's practice- even though the strict doctrine will direct otherwise.

Maybe its the elephant in the room as a major factor on why the church is so against gay marriage.

[Mormon Red Death]

I think your premise is faulty. I don't know why gay marriage and polygamy are analogous, unless being gay is a choice.

I think what he is saying is that If two men can marry why can't a man (or female) marry more than one person?

[Sleeping in EQ]

Maybe its the elephant in the room as a major factor on why the church is so against gay marriage.

I think it's a factor. Legalized polygamy could throw the Church into chaos, even if the Church doesn't authorize it.

My instinct is that polygamy will eventually be legalized in the U.S.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

I think your premise is faulty. I don't know why gay marriage and polygamy are analogous, unless being gay is a choice.

I didn't say they're the same thing, but the basis for overtturning gay marriage bans under the constitution would likely apply to bans on polygamy. The far more likely avenue that will lead to overtturning the ban is through the due process clause and recognizing some kind of fundamental right. I have a hard time seeing how the court could recognize some kind of fundamental right for two people of the same sex marrying each other and not recognize a fundamental right for a man to marry multiple women or vice versa.

If you're looking at it from an equal protection standpoint, then yes overtturning gay marriage bans wouldn't necessarily lead to legalization of polygamy. But I really doubt the court would choose to turn gays into a suspect class and open up a litany of issues that it doesn't want to hear. Recognizing a fundamental right would be considerably more narrow. This is why advocates for gay marriage have placed more emphasis on the due process clause and fundamental rights.

[SeattleUte]

I think what he is saying is that If two men can marry why can't a man (or female) marry more than one person?

Does polygamy havea a constituency and (burgeoning) democratic support like gay marriage? Who are polygamy's advocates and constituents in America? Are they numerious? Do they have clout? Do you really expect any Supreme Court to find a fundamental right in the Constitution to plurally marry?

As many here have noted, all laws involve an underlying value judgment, a statement of morality. The American people seem to know that polygamy is morally repugnant, that it really is a relic of barbarism (one of Christianity's contributions was doing away with it among less developed "barbarian" or tribal cultures), and the practice has never flourished but as an instrument of oppressing women.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Maybe its the elephant in the room as a major factor on why the church is so against gay marriage.

That's the same thing my wife said. However, I don't the church really worries about it much because they can simply say the church doesn't sanction plural marriage right now and leave it at that. The church has gotten away with "we just don't know why" as to why the priesthood ban ever occurred and an overwhelming portion of the membership just accepts that at face value.

[beelzebabette]

I think this is probably a fair summation of the probable outcome.

Agreed. Since the whole topic is pure conjecture, anyway, here's how I'd guess the response to polygamy being legalized in the United States.

Letter in Sacrament followed by press release reiterating OD1:

We are not teaching polygamy or plural marriage, nor permitting any person to enter into its practice...

There is nothing in my teachings to the Church or in those of my associates, during the time specified, which can be reasonably construed to inculcate or encourage polygamy; and when any Elder of the Church has used language which appeared to convey any such teaching, he has been promptly reproved

Also, lots of feel-good stuff about focusing on loving the spouse you're currently spending mortality with.

I know the following paragraph from the Declaration was in there, but it was after the statement about not teaching polygamy or permitting its practice:

Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise.

Practically, a world-wide religion can't react only to a change in US law to allow polygamy.

[scottie]

Was polygamy legal in any of the States (would that have been Illinois and Missouri?) that JS practiced it in?

[Mormon Red Death]

Does polygamy havea a constituency and (burgeoning) democratic support like gay marriage? Who are polygamy's advocates and constituents in America? Are they numerious? Do they have clout? Do you really expect any Supreme Court to find a fundamental right in the Constitution to plurally marry?

As many here have noted, all laws involve an underlying value judgment, a statement of morality. The American people seem to know that polygamy is morally repugnant, that it really is a relic of barbarism (one of Christianity's contributions was doing away with it among less developed "barbarian" or tribal cultures), and the practice has never flourished but as an instrument of oppressing women.

My thought is that people think polygamy with underage brides is morally repugnant. I bet a guy marrying 3 women who are all over 18 gets a "to each his own" sentiment.

[Mormon Red Death]

Do you really expect any Supreme Court to find a fundamental right in the Constitution to plurally marry?

yes

[SeattleUte]

I didn't say they're the same thing, but the basis for overtturning gay marriage bans under the constitution would likely apply to bans on polygamy.

Why do you say this? Why are heterosexuals who want to marry plurally in a suspect classification? Is marrying plurally a fundamental right under the Constitution? Who could possibly argue that the framers had that in mind?

Gay marriage seems to be making impressive inroads through the democratic process. I really kind of doubt the federal Supreme Court is going to overturn a gay marriage ban. But if a court were to overturn a gay marriage ban it would likely be on the basis that gays are a suspect classification or that laws that discriminate against them are subject to a test somewhat more stringent than a rational basis test. In other words, gay marriage may not be a fundamental right, but discrimination against gays violates the Equal Protection and/or Due Process Clause. The primary factor that determines this is immutability of the condition that leads to the classification.

[SeattleUte]

yes

Okay, I disagree with you, and I think any reputable legal scholar would.