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

[SeattleUte]

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.

At most you'd get a local law authorizing it in a libertine place like San Francisco, but I doubt it. You will never see the Supreme Court find a Constitutional right to marry plurally based on "to each his own." The best chance is the freedome of religion clause, and I bet that would fail like smoking pot as a sacrament did.

Most people in civilizaton really do think polygamy is evil and have for thousands of years.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

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.

Was there a lot of political support for Kelo vs. New London? Here's a case that had a majority opinion which the Scalia wing of the court harshly dissented against and was then later cited by Howard Dean as indicative of the kind of decisions coming out of the GOP-dominated Court.

The Supreme Court in the 1930s fought the popular FDR on numerous New Deal laws and programs to the point that FDR threatened to pack the Court. What portion of the populace supported abortion rights in 1973?

Although I strongly agree that the morality behind polygamy is lacking (I absolutely detest polygamy, I would almost assuredly become inactive if the Church started performing plural marriages again), I don't think that would stand in the way of the SC legalizing the practice if and when it legalizes gay marriage. It's logically inconsistent to say two adults have the fundamental right to marry each other and then say one adult doesn't have the fundamental right to marry multiple adults or multiple adults don't have the fundamental right to marry each other.

[SeattleUte]

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

They may not have had laws addressing it. The fact is that since the Saxons and Franks stopped practicing it it was completely absent from the West (I won't even say Western Civilization) until JS introduced it. Augustine had to deal with it as a real issue because of the tribes that were being converted in his time. He has some writings that deal with plural marriage thoughtfully and with sensitivity, even considering the practice engaged in by OT ISraelites. He decided it was barbaric and needed to be phased out.

[Mormon Red Death]

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

Granted I'm not a lawyer but it seems like the polygamist could make a decent argument.

[RobinFinderson]

Traditional polygamy, as practiced by the FLDS, might be morally repugnant, but Free Love continues to have its supporters.

[Mormon Red Death]

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?

Honest question... Is marrying a fundamental right under the constitution?

[Donuthole]

i'd like to thank this thread for providing me with a new avatar.

[SeattleUte]

Traditional polygamy, as practiced by the FLDS, might be morally repugnant, but Free Love continues to have its supporters.

Now that is something that the Constitution does protect, you anachronistic hippie.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

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.

Heterosexuals who want to marry plurally are not a suspect classification nor will they ever be a suspect classficiation. Homosexuals aren't a suspect classification either and I don't think the SC will ever give them that status. But that only matters to equal protection clause jurisprudence. The reason why the SC will likely never turn gays into a suspect class is because it will force the Court to then look at each law that arguably touches on this issue. Rather than do that, the Court will do what it usually does, go for the more narrow basis to achieve the desired result. Recognizing a fundamental right is significantly more narrow. Lawrence v. Texas was decided on the basis of substantive due process and not equal protection.

It's difficult to see how the Framers had ANY of this fundamental rights jargon in mind when the drafted the constitution.

[SeattleUte]

Honest question... Is marrying a fundamental right under the constitution?

Yes, but it can be regulated. For example, there are laws forbidding you marrying your sister.

[Sleeping in EQ]

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:


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:

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

I think the Church's best approach would be through Jacob 2 that teaches that polygamy isn't the usual practice.

Nevertheless, don't kid yourself. There will be chaos in the Church if polygamy is legalized in the U.S. and the usual mix of platitudes, half-truths, ommissions, and plausible denials won't work on this issue. The sociologist in me sees too much repression and self-hate bubbling up for people to just accept the usual obfuscation. You could easily see more, and more significant breakaway sects, and you might even see a full blown schism. No, it would be better for the Church to own its history, and thereby manage things with a greater degree of control.

[beelzebabette]

i'd like to thank this thread for providing me with a new avatar.

Wth is that?

[UtahDan]

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.

I think you are missing the forest for the trees SU. Whether you can articulate a legal basis for it is beside the point just as it is beside the point in the gay marriage debate. In a republic if enough people want it, they are going to have it. The justifications will follow.

I'm not saying that there is a groundswell for the legalization of polygamy, far from it. But your little ones and mine are going to grow up in a world where there are traditional families, single parent families, non-traditional families including gay partners, single parent families of divorced or separated partners, etc. They will grow up in a much more tolerant world that we did (you are older than I of course) logically it will not occur to them why a combination of consenting adults of most any form or number is wrong.

It isn't going to be a question of huge popular support, but rather at some point some polygamists will very vocally come forward and say "why not us too?" When no one can adequately answer why not, people will see it as only just to give them what they want. This won't happen in the courts, it will happen in the state houses. I'm not saying this is around the next bend, but the culture is going to change (already is changing). It may even be Muslims rather than Mormon fundamentalists that lead the charge.

You are right that the whole idea of suspect class doesn't quite fit for polygamists, but again, this won't be a legal question. This could be 20 years away but I believe it is coming. By then no one will really be able to articulate the harm. Maybe there isn't any (unless you are talking child brides of course).

[Donuthole]

Wth is that?

Love outside the box (No double entendre intended, i'm sure).

[beefytee]

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

What does that have to do with anything? Of course getting married is a choice no matter who is getting married (except for some young polygamist girls).

Polygamist males could argue that attraction to more than 1 female isn't a choice either.

In fact on a superficial level they would have an argument using evolution where males are driven to have more partners and females are driven to the security of just one.