A Feminist Supports the Freedom to Polygamous Marriage

Over at Finding My Feminism, Not Guilty wrote in regards to the Canadian poly trial and the community of Bountiful…

As I have stated before, I am wholly supportive of adult women making the decision to enter into a polygamous marriage. I believe that making polygamy illegal is simply the government seeking to make decisions for women that men believe women are incapable of making for themselves. There is a case in the British Columbia courts involving the polygamous communities in Bountiful, BC. The case is challenging Canada's polygamy laws as unconstitutional on the basis that they are a Charter violation of religious freedom. While I personally don't enjoy supporting ridiculous religious beliefs, the reality is that a polygamous relationship affects nobody else and it thus none of our damn business.

Very well said. She goes on to write that she is against teenage women marrying much older men, and gives a suggestion for revisions in the law.

She links to an earlier message she wrote that references “Sister Wives.”

My gut reaction to polygamy is that it is wrong and I am glad it is illegal. I also wish it were enforced more strictly. Unfortunately, I never let myself just go off my gut reaction; I always think more deeply about issues.

That’s a good thing. My gut reaction when seeing open-heart surgery is “gross!” but it doesn’t mean it should be illegal. It saves lives.

My reasons for disagreeing with polygamy include the manifestation of the patriarchy since it is always men with multiple wives and never, as far as I know, women with multiple husbands; oppression of women; and the effect on the children.

That isn’t true, of course. There are polyandrous families. I link to some of them on this very blog.

She mulls over how things are for the children in polygynous familes….

Except when you delve a little deeper, this is no different from children raised by same-sex couples. There is no evidence kids are harmed by having same-sex parents and any harm that does befall them is due to prejudices in society. If this is the same with children of polygamous families, I really don't have a leg to stand on. Unless there is clear evidence that these children are somehow damaged by being children of a polygamous family, I don’t feel comfortable declaring polygamy wrong.

The reason my gut reaction is that polygamy is wrong is because I don’t understand it and to an extent, the idea repulses me. But I don’t get to judge the lifestyle of other people just because I disagree with it; that isn’t my right. I despise people who judge LGBT, so I cannot in good conscience, without evidence of harm, judge polygamous families.

Yay for solidarity.

An Ally For the Freedom to Polygamous Marriage

I’ve been meaning to get around at looking at how TLC’s “Sister Wives” show has been received. I’m not doing that yet. However, the show and the legal fallout did prompt this write-up by Sara on the feminist blog Silence is Betrayal.

While I understand the legal reasons for differentiating between relationships and common law marriages (for example, a common law partner can seek spousal support), I was upset that the investigation could lead to the prosecution of freely consenting adults. All five were over the age of 18 and each consented to enter into this kind of relationship. With so many larger issues affecting society, why should the State care about what happens between consenting adults? By maintaining the ban on polygamous marriage, we are continuing to force these families to be closeted and to leave non-legally married spouses without important rights and protections that come with marriage.

Bring people out of the shadows. This will bring more protection to those who are being abused, and more people will see that most are not being being abused, but having a warm family life.

For the majority of states, a marriage license can be given to any male and female couple over the age of 18.

Almost true, but not quite. Some states prevent first cousins and any relatives closer than that from marrying. Virtually all states prevent all closer relatives from marrying, and most of them even prosecute them for having consensual sex. But I understand the focus of the write-up is on poly.

There have previously been sodomy laws and even adultery laws used to prosecute the behavior of consenting adults, but over time we've matured to see these as personal matters and not matters for the State to intervene on. So why can't we extend that to all sexual minorities?

We can and we should.

Until then, the State should stop playing morality police. Utah and other states should leave alone what consenting adults choose to do and focus their time and money on more important issues. There are an estimated 38,000 fundamentalist Mormon polygynist marriages currently in Utah today, many who are closeted and live in fear of being outed. We don't have to necessarily like these kinds of relationships or choose to enter into one ourselves, but we should let them live freely.

I urge you to read the whole write-up. It displays clarity and intelligence that is so rare in today’s discussion of marriage.

Thank You, Claire Shotwell

Looks like "Sister Wives" has made Claire Shotwell more of an ally. She is an associate editor of the The Cavalier Daily at the University of Virginia.

I have since realized that the Brown family confronts the negative stereotypes and stigmas associated with plural marriages and also present the positive side to a debate that society has long ignored. State governments, in examining the equality and justness of marriage, should not only debate same-sex marriage, but plural marriage as well.

Consanguineous marriage, too. We need full marriage equality.

Of course, the biggest concern to opponents of polygamy is that the such relationships may force underage girls to embark on marriages and sexual relationships with older men. But this happens in monogamous relationships, as well. Additionally, there are age of consent laws to address such issues associated with polygamy: If these young girls are too young to consent, then the government must interfere.

Exactly. Deal with the problem behavior by dealing with the person doing it, rather than denying a freedom to everyone else, too.

It could even be argued that if the state recognized polygamy, such marriages would become more transparent and consequently be more open to the enforcement of consent laws.

That's a good thing to note.

Another reasonable concern with polygamy, many argue, is that it is inherently a patriarchal institution that promotes the subordination of women. As true as this may be, heterosexual marriage is argued by many to be a patriarchal institution, as well.

Right again! Besides, polyandry and group polygamy should be included in the right to polygamy.

She also notes that some women find polygyny to improve their lives.

Furthermore, the government should not be able to legislate who its citizens may love and marry. Just because the majority of America's love is of the heterosexual, monogamous kind does not make this love suitable for all people and lifestyles. As long as all parties are of the age of consent and do, in fact, consent to plural marriage, government should not be able to interfere.

Thank you, thank you Ms. Shotwell.

Sister Wives: What Do You Think?

I may gather some comments from the media on the TLC show "Sister Wives" recapping the first season, but first I wanted yo get YOUR take, whether you watched it or whether you have heard people talking about it. Do you think it is helping people to understand and accept polyamory? Or is it having the opposite effect? Or is it only applying to the public's perception of FLDS-style polygyny?

How About Some Solidarity, Perez Hilton?

Celebrity blogger Perez Hilton apparently has a problem with the Sister Wives of TV fame.

Just when you thought Sister Wives couldn't get any more disturbing, here comes the INCEST!

Star Magazine reports that polygamist and reality show stars, The Brown Family, are more about keeping things within the family than we all thought. In a shocking twist, it was revealed that Kody Brown's second wife, Janelle, was brought in as his wife shortly after she divorced her first husband - Kody's first wife's brother!

So what is the problem with that?

We'll say! This adds a whole new level of gross to the equation! Seriously, this is like incest!

"Gross?" "Disturbing"? What exactly is the problem, here? First of all, there is no consanguineous sex going on in this polygynous marriage. But even if there was, so what? Surely, Perez Hilton is aware that many people consider sex between two or more unrelated men to be gross and disturbing, and yet he apparently endorses that kind of sex and love. How does he feel when people take to the media to call his sexuality disturbing and gross?

Please, Perez Hilton, show some solidarity, and don't bully.

Unjust Antibigamy Law and "Sister Wives"

The TLC show "Sister Wives" continues to make news, in no small part due to a wasteful investigation by law enforcement authorities.

Only two weeks into the network's hit reality series "Sister Wives," the results of a felony bigamy investigation of the show's stars have been presented to the Utah County Attorney, who now must decide whether to file charges against Kody Brown and wives Mari, Janelle, Christine and Robyn.

Why file charges?

Bigamy is a felony in Utah, where the Brown family lives and the show is set, carrying a possible three- to five-year sentence upon conviction.

The law should be changed to that it only applies to nonconsensual bigamy.

To fight back, the Brown family has hired constitutional law scholar Jonathan Turley, a noted critic of anti-polygamy laws. Turley said in an interview Wednesday that he's prepared with a legal defense if charges are filed.

Thank you,  Jonathan Turley, for standing up for the freedom to marry. These laws need to be changed. Until that happens, those persecuted under these unjust laws need to be defended. Nobody should be punished for consensual relationships.

Marsha Marsha Marsha

As you may know, Canada has been considering the poly freedoms. The Toronto Star printed a letter from a Marsha Vandergaast of Newcastle, inspired by recent coverage, including the paper’s coverage of “Sister Wives.”

It is disturbing to see the media's growing acceptance of polygamous marriages.

Polygamous marriages exist. The media has been reflecting that. What is wrong with that?

Although often denied by those within a bigamous marriage, women in these situations are not treated the same as men.

This is a broad brush. There are women who freely choose a polygynous situation.

Our Western culture's emphasis on freedom has made us hesitant to judge any other culture or lifestyle.

Where is the harm is letting people have the freedom to marry?

Yet, by doing so we have allowed groups of people to believe that women are inferior to men.

I support gender equality and marriage equality. They go hand in hand.

It is equally appalling that the police have stated that they avoid prosecuting these types of relationships.

Why should the police get involved when consenting adults choose a life together? We know the letter writer doesn’t want people to have that freedom, but she hasn’t given as a reason why.

Yes, there are dangers out there that may keep police busy, but allowing these lifestyles is teaching our society to accept the subservient role of women.

It seems to me that if you have two or more women and one man, then the women are collectively going to have more power than the man. They may choose not to exercise that power. But I suspect Marsha would still oppose polygamy even if it was two men and two women.

How often do the media show relationships of one woman with three men?

Not often enough. (I think we may have found Marsha's true desire.) But how many of those relationships exist? Marsha may see the women in the news as subservient, but what she sees is a function of cultural elements other than being able to marry more than one person. She has not made a good case for denying this freedom to marry.

Sister Wives and Convicts?

It is disappointing, but not surprising that the Browns, featured in TLC's "Sister Wives," are facing harassment by law enforcement because these consenting adults have dared to consider themselves married. The possible charge is "bigamy," which shouldn't be a crime if everyone is consenting. Laws against consensual bigamy belong in the same dumpster in which we have dumped laws against interracial marriage.

"We looked into it, and we have detectives working on this case now," Lehi police Lt. Darren Paul told Reuters.

Lt. Paul, don't waste taxpayer money to persecute love.

The Brown family released a statement on Tuesday saying they were "disappointed" but were aware of the risks of doing the reality show.

"But for the sake of our family, and most importantly, our kids, we felt it was a risk worth taking," the statement said.

Some people think it is dangerous to show that poly people are just like other people.

Brown is legally married to just one of the women, but counts three others as "sister wives," a term in polygamist sects that refers to a husband's multiple marital partners.

Unless he is legally married to more than one woman, then the unjust laws haven't been broken, right? Well, Utah law says something else, according to this other story.

"If it really goes to a court situation, then our people are going to go right back into isolation," said Anne Wilde, co-founder of Principle Voices, a nonprofit that seeks to educate the public about polygamous families.

That's what the bigots want. They want everyone to stay in the closet.

Although it is rarely prosecuted, bigamy is a third-degree felony in Utah, punishable by a prison term of up to five years. Under the Utah law, a person can be found guilty of bigamy through cohabitation, not just legal marriage contracts.

So exactly how many unmarried poly people have been prosecuted under this law in the last twenty years? Probably none. But call yourself married, and the police will knock on your door. Sad.

"It has been our office's position not to pursue cases of bigamy between consenting adults," the attorney general's spokesman, Scott Troxel, said Tuesday. "We want to use our resources wisely."

That is setting a good example. Police should not waste their time investigating something that Attorney General isn't going to prosecute. Support the freedom to marry!

Sister Wives on TLC

Did you watch it? I haven’t had time yet. If you see it, let me know what you think. The reality show, depicting a polygynous marriage and family, is getting a lot of attention.

Brent Bozell, a media watchdog who is no friend to marriage equality, does not surprise me with his commentary bemoaning that any polygynous family would be allowed to tell their story. If we don’t talk about it, we can pretend that it doesn’t exist, right?

HBO started the normalization of polygamy with its drama "Big Love," but TLC is openly pushing for the walls of judgment to come falling down.

Perhaps they are asking people to take a look and see for themselves, instead of clinging to prejudice? Where is the harm in that?

Its slogan for the show is "Rethink love. Rethink marriage. Rethink family reality."

These families exist. People should rethink things if they've never considered that.

Kody Brown and his wives are in fact "fundamentalist Mormons" who have been political activists to legalize polygamy in Utah.

Good for them.

This isn't the only TLC show to promote the "poly" -- yup, the hip new word -- lifestyle. They also aired a series this summer called "Strange Sex," which also had a plot about "polyamory," which is described as "consensual, responsible non-monogamy."

And that was great of them. He goes off on a tangent, trying to link cheating with poly, before asking…

Where is the market demand for this? What significant segment of the vast American tapestry is being served by this message?

So he would only want people to be allowed to watch programming that presents an idealized, homogenized version of what people think is the majority? Presumably, this would be a show about an unrelated man and a woman who marry as virgins and stay married for the rest of their lives and never fall in love with or have sex with anyone else. Surely, that is a minority of people. But we’ll pretend gay people don’t exist, that poly people don’t exist, that consang people don’t exist, that people don’t have sex outside of marriage, that there’s never any swapping or swinging or cheating or divorce or death and remarriage?

This is Hollywood blazing a trail because it wants to tear down the family, for once and for all.

How is depicting a family tearing down family?

The barrage of libertine entertainment should remind us that it's become countercultural to champion the Judeo-Christian tradition.

I recall much polygyny and consanguineous sex and marriage in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Adam and Eve and their children, the children of Noah, Lot and his daughters, Abraham and his sister/wife, Solomon and his wives, and lots of first cousins. Christian monarchs in the not so distant past had consanguineous marriages.

But let’s get back to the show.

Mary McNamara reviewed it in the Los Angeles Times.

It's the three wives Meri, Janelle and Christine who form the solid center of the family and the show. Pulling teeth and moving armoires, making dinner and picking baby clothes, their bonds appear far stronger and more vital than the casual fondness with which they all treat Kody. All three of the women were raised either in or surrounded by polygamist families (the Browns appear to live, not surprisingly, somewhere in the Salt Lake area) and are tired of hiding or apologizing for a "lifestyle" that allows them more free time and familial support than any non-polygamous marriage.

Janelle and Christine say that it was Meri, Kody's likable, organized and very direct first wife, who drew them to become Browns. Janelle is unapologetically grateful that she can work long hours outside the home, which she enjoys doing, because Christine is happy to take care of the kids. Christine, who's about to give birth to her sixth child, never had any interest at all in being an only wife, or even a second wife. The third wife is emotionally the easiest, she says, adding that during her teen years, "I wanted the sister wives more than the husband."

This is sounding good.

Hank Stuever in the Washinton Post…

For anyone who might be championing polygamist rights (is anyone?), the Browns are a public-relations gift from above.

That’s good to read. Maybe this show will make a difference.

The Browns live in a sprawling ranch-style house designed by a "plig" homebuilder: Each mom has a floor and a kitchen. Dad visits each of the marital beds on a scheduled rotation -- and they've all been together going on 20 years.

Why should they be denied the right to marry? They've lasted longer than so many other marriages.

The Browns know that their definition of marriage is difficult to describe to outsiders; yet the outside world cannot help but be curious.

What is so difficult about explaining something that is found throughout history? I think people easily understand the concept. What they don’t understand is how these people can be happy, because prejudice has been institutionalized and most people are taught to believe that something that isn’t monogamous can’t possibly be happy or practical. Maybe more people will come to support this freedom to marry, maybe even full marriage equality, as a result of seeing how it can really be.