A Supporter of Limited Polygyny

This writer appears to equate polygamy with polygyny.

Feminists stand strongly against it, supported by issues on gender equality, human rights and many more.

Some feminists support the freedom to polygamous marriage. Polygamy is more than patriarchal polygyny. There’s also group marriage (including same-sex) and polyandry. Furthermore, it is entirely possible for strong women to choose to share a husband, and thus choose polygyny. Some feminists rightly see denial of this freedom to marry as restricting a woman’s right to choose her marriage partners.

My concern is over the fact that in Islam a man can have more than one wife (sister wives) up to four wives on condition that he can treat his wives wisely.

Why is this concerning?

If God permits conditionally (in Islam), why do humans (just small creatures of God) try to stand against polygamy?

There are many Muslims in the world, but the majority of people in the world are not Muslims. Legally, full marriage equality should allow any adult their right to marry any consenting adult(s) they choose. Regardless of religion. Some people oppose adding any new freedom to marry into law because they want to control the lives of others. There are also some people who would support increasing the freedom to marry but would oppose full marriage equality; they have a lack of solidarity. For example, there are Muslims who would want the law to allow a man to have four wives, but would oppose allowing a man to have more than four, or oppose letting a man marry another man. With full marriage equality, a Muslim man (or any man) could marry four consenting women, but his neighbor would have also have the freedon to marry two men.

Bountiful Youth Provided Good Education

Contrary to antiequality-based attacks on Bountiful that are getting much press due to the Canadian poly trial, it turns out the education is good there.

But the bigots can’t handle the truth, so they attack the report.

The NDP were quick to seize on the Bountiful result to argue that the ratings, which have long been controversial, are not useful.

``Bountiful Elementary (Secondary) School sharing the top spot in this year's report - a finding that is at odds with information that has recently been provided in the (Supreme Court) - illustrates the problems with the methodology the Institute uses, and with the overall report,'' said a statement from NDP leadership candidate Adrian Dix.

Not true…

Peter Cowley of the Fraser Institute said the report's rankings are based only on the results of children taking the tests.

``This is a reasonable test of the curriculum expectations that the ministry set for these three subject areas in these two grades. You get the measure and let the chips fall where they may,'' said Cowley.

Cowley said Bountiful's position at the elementary grade was based on its academic performance, and not on its popularity.

This was also covered here.

Freedom to Marry Regardless of Religion

Andrea Johnson cautiously supports the polygamous freedom to marry.

A court in Canada is set to make a decision on whether to declare the laws against polygamy unconstitutional in that country. I think it might be a good idea here too, though it would probably be a tax code and legal nightmare.

It doesn’t have to be.

She then goes into Carolyn Jessop’s book and recent news about some FLDS communities.

Despite her own negative experiences, she favors decriminalizing polygamy because she thinks it will offer women in these situations more legal protection and perhaps prevent some of the all-too-common abuses, such as underage marriages. I think she has a good point there.

So do I.

She then mentions Muslim polygyny, and how homes are broken up when not all of the wives and children are allowed to immigrate with the husband.

I'm not sure how practical it would be to legalize polygamy, but I think an argument could be made that refusal to recognize it or prosecuting people for practicing it is a violation of freedom of religion.

It’s also a violation of the freedom of association and equal treatment. People can want a polygamous marriage without a religious basis, and they should be allowed that. It doesn’t matter if they are basing it on a religion, or what religion, or not. It doesn’t matter if they are the same race or not, the same generation or not, if they are closely related or not, if they are the same gender or not, or there are two, three, four, or more of them. Let them have the freedom to marry. Let’s have full marriage equality.

Elmwood commented…

I have done a little reading about Polygamy and one question I have is how could one man with 20 wives and over 110 children support them?

There’s nothing stopping any man from impregnating 20 consenting women right now. There are many men who have impregnated four or more women in a short time span. We pay some of these men large sums to play in professional sports, for example, but even if a man is unable to pay all of his child support, he is not prevented from impregnating more women. Most people know a woman who has children by three or more men. With marriage equality, at least we’d have more children will be growing with married parents.

If We Could Talk to the Animals

Jenny Block, who has written about open marriage, wrote that there are some interesting comparisons between humans and other animals when it comes to sexuality. How often have we heard that some relationship isn’t “natural?”

As she says, “Just because animals do certain things doesn’t prove that we necessarily do them too.” But sometimes humans can be compared to other animals, and the comparisons have weight. We might be able to get some good ideas from them.

She points out that animals flirt, they masturbate, they watch other animals express their sexuality, even through video.

They exhibit habits other than monogamy. They are polygamous and polygynous. And they are social monogamists as well as serial monogamists, even swans. Bonobos, for example, have multiple sexual partners at any given time in their life. And some species even engage in group sex. When red-sided garter snakes mate, the female is made the center of what is called a mating ball, where 100 males all attempt to mate with the female at the same time.

People exhibit habits other than monogamy. Although not always socially accepted, people partner in a variety of ways. Many of those ways have proved to be perfectly healthy.

Also,

They are homosexual as well as heterosexual. Marine birds, mammals, monkeys, great apes, dolphins, penguins, cattle, bonobos and rams are just a few of the many animal species in which scientists have observed homosexual behavior.

Humans are homosexual as well as heterosexual, obviously. And each is perfectly normal and absolutely biological. Once again, the only issue in human society is our lack of acceptance of both orientations.

She goes on to note that some animals have sex for pleasure, some will seek out additional sex partners if the current one is not interested in another session at that time, some over-indulge, and there are female initiators. And I’ll add that anyone who has had closely related hamsters can verify that some animals engage in consanguineous sex.

Consenting adults should have their rights to any of these things, without the law interfering.

Columnist Still Clings to Bigotry

Mindelle Jacobs at the Edmonton Sun looks at a polyamorous “V.”

Marilyn, a stay-at-home mother and polygamist has a dilemma. Who to sleep with on Valentine’s Day? Her husband or her boyfriend?

If she was in a triangle that engaged in threesomes instead of a V, the question wouldn’t be there.

Marilyn e-mailed me after reading a recent column I wrote in which I criticized a law professor for urging that polygamy be decriminalized.

Good for her.

“As a mother and wife, I firmly believe in the protection of women and children,” she wrote. “As an individual who identifies as polyamorous … and is involved in a consensual relationship with not only my spouse but also with another man, I strongly disagree with (the ban on polygamy).”

Thank you.

She wondered if I’d like to chat. Well, sure. After all, you don’t (knowingly) meet polygamists every day.

Don’t be so sure. Poly people are your neighbors, your coworkers, and people you pass by every day.

She compares her awakening polyamorous sensibility to someone realizing he or she is gay. “It was a very interesting process coming out to myself,” she says. “I realized something very deep about myself — that this kind of relationship makes sense to me. This is who I am.”

She should have that freedom.

All in their mid-40s, they’d be unremarkable in a crowd. No Playboy Mansion looks. Just middle-aged people with a bizarre lifestyle.

Love is not bizarre. It is strange that some people will call this relationship bizarre, but they wouldn't say the same thing if this woman was cheating on her husband, having a secret affair.

Inexplicably, Jacobs wraps up the column this way…

Sorry, Marilyn. While I can’t imagine the police busting up your polygamous party, I don’t want Canada to be a beacon for the cause. Overall, polygamy causes immense harm to women. Why encourage it?

No proof is given, because there isn’t any that will back up such prejudice. What harm is Marilyn suffering? Why deny freedom and equality to consenting adults?

Barbara Anne Smith is confused as shown in this comment…

IMO Marilyn is lucky, but it isn't a true polygamous relationship. If it was, she may be the main wife, but she would also have several sister wives and be at the beck and call of her so-called husband.

Polygamy is any marriage with more than two spouses. Smith is thinking of a certain form of polygyny, which is a subset of polygamy. If Marilyn considers both men her husbands, then she is in a polyandrous form of polygamy. Either way, it is a polyamorous relationship.

Pretending at Monogamy

Blogger hambydammit says, "So We Aren’t Monogamous… What Are We?"

From the archaeological, anthropological, sociological, biological, and anatomical records, we get a clear picture of what humans do. They have sex with multiple partners.

Most do, yes.

But this observation doesn’t help us very much in our day to day life. Particularly in America, we don’t have much choice but to toe the party line and at least pretend towards some form of monogamy, even if it’s serial.

We're working to change that.

The blogger poses some questions, including...

If we are designed to bond long-term with one partner (or perhaps two), why does our biology most closely resemble bonobos, who do not bond this way?

If we are designed for sexual exclusivity, why are human vaginas designed specifically for intense sperm competition? (Sperm competition happens when sperm from multiple males is in the vagina at the same time.)

Why do so many existing hunter-gatherer societies practice multi-male/multi-female mating?

Prompting this...

Clearly, our social insistence on strict monogamy is largely attributable to the imposition of modern monotheism on the Western world, and as I’ve detailed in THIS ARTICLE, the motivations were hardly altruistic.

Whatever the source of the demand for monogamy, there's no need to require people to be monogamous, including in marriage law. Let people decide for themselves.

The blog entry goes on to discuss "primitive cultures," sperm competition, and accumulation, among other things before wrapping up that entry...

In any case, even if we decide that monogamy is still our goal, it’s helpful to understand that we are not especially built for it, and it’s as much about ownership as anything else. Knowing that non-ownership is an option is liberating in and of itself, and perhaps it will open new doors for people who feel like they just “aren’t ready for commitment” at this time. Maybe it could even help redefine what it means to have a “friend with benefits.”

There are, of course, many forms of nonmonogamy that involve commitment.

The next entry is "If We’re Not Monogamous, then Why Are We Monogamous?"

To begin with, let me offer a caveat. Whatever else we might be, we humans are very flexible in our mating. Even today, we see everything from communal mate swapping to highly stratified polygamy to near monogamy. And if there is still a question of whether we are most naturally drawn to monogamous long term pair bonds or not, it’s clear that we are capable of long term monogamy. But it is a very difficult strategy to follow, and seems counter-intuitive on several levels.

It sure does.

This entry goes on to talk reproduction, "bastards," and sperm competition (again).

Finally, there's the third entry that asks, "Can Non-Monogamy Work Today?"

The blogger notes that in reality, we already practice nonmonogamy.

Like it or not, strict exclusive monogamy exists primarily in the wishes and hopes of the highly religious and doggedly old-fashioned. (Not that it was any different in the real good old days…) We practice a coy game of
wink-wink-nudge-nudge when it comes to exclusivity. Estimates range as high as
40% for extra-pair coupling in some populations. In other words, we say we’re
going to be exclusive, and then we practice non-monogamy on the sly.

Furthermore, a large percentage of young people are part of the “hookup culture,” in which some sort of sexual contact is a precursor to a possible relationship. They have friends with benefits, booty-call buddies, pretend boyfriends/girlfriends, and at least a dozen other kinds of short-to-medium term non-committed partnerships. It’s not uncommon for a young person to have uncommitted sexual contact with a half-dozen or more partners before finding someone to commit to exclusively. At nearly all ages, we practice serial monogamy. A significant percentage of young people have relationships that last less than one year. Most retirement age people have had at least two marriages,
and several mid-to-long term relationships in between.

Add to this the growing number of committed couples who are participating in
occasional consentual non-monogamy, such as sex clubs, threesomes, sharing
prostitutes in Vegas, making out with the best friend, etc, and we realize that
we are already non-monogamous. We just make a big show of telling everybody we
aren’t.

That sounds awfully familiar.

The blogger looks at various reasons people profess or pretend to try to be monogamous, then concludes...

We have to admit that each aspect of a relationship is possible without sexual exclusivity. Granted, there are potential pitfalls and problems with each category, but that’s not news. There are problems with all of them in exclusive relationships, too.

There is much more to each of the three entries, and they are worth a read.

A Mormon Ally

Julia, a Mormon, gives a “testimony” that includes...

I believe that polygyny, polyandry, and gay/lesbian marriages should be legal. I don't believe it is the government should tell me who to love.

Thank you, Julia. There are probably many more members of your church who believe the same thing, but just haven’t spoken up in public about it. The silence has meant people assume they support Prop H8.

About her choice of schools…

This choice kills me when I hear people use the word gay as a synonym for stupid.

Words do matter. There are stupid gays, but there are brilliant gays, too. Gays are people. “Gay” shouldn’t be used for “stupid,” or as an insult. People are slurred simply because of who they love. That’s wrong and everyone needs to reject that hateful attitude. Thanks, Julia.

Raybeard Expresses Solidarity

With the freedom to same-sex marriage becoming more established around the world, Raybeard expresses solidarity for poly and consanguineous marriages, since he recognizes the rights of consenting adults.

If two or more adult women wish to marry one man, or two or more men wish to marry one woman, or two or more men wish to marry each other, or several women equally wish to marry - why on earth not?

Good question. He looked at one of the common excuses to deny this freedom to marry.

Some would doubtlessly argue that such marriages would constitute a 'legal minefield'. That may or may not be so, but it's hardly a reason for criminalising them. Since when did legal expediency determine one's emotions? If several adults of sound mind wish to enter such a relationship I think it's arrogant for anyone else to tell them that they mustn't.

The “legal minefield’ argument doesn’t hold up. Simply require that, along with the marriage license, a pre-nuptial agreement be filed. It could be a simple form attached to the marriage license that simply has all spouses indicating their agreement that the marriage will be “all-with-all” community property style, or it can get more customized from their to establish dyadic networks with specific designations as to who will get what should the marriage end. With dyaditic network, “next of kin” is obvious. It could be indicated for each spouse with the “all-with-all” version.

We have copy machines that make it really easy to duplicate legal documents to accommodate additional spouses.

When it comes to consanguineous love and sex, he notes the often-cited inbreeding issue, which has been overblown.

But if the m/f couple of brother/sister, father/daughter, mother/son, really do not wish to have a child, then there are all the options open to them as there is to any other couple not wishing to reproduce. As for relationships between closely related adult males or closely related adult females, I see no counter-arguments at all. Not a single one! Furthermore, in any such adult relationships, I do not see why they should be barred from marrying, should they wish.

As I and others have noted, most of the sex that goes on does not result of a birth, but even so, we do not deny people their reproductive rights based on an increase in the possibilities of birth defects or some other genetic problem.

It's a shame that words like 'incest' and 'adultery' can carry such a baggage of disapproval and prejudice, accrued over centuries of (religious) intolerance and bigotry, which are plainly unfair in contemporary enlightened times. Indeed, in both cases, it could be that acts within those particular definitions may be more honest and loving than any act within a legally recognised marriage to which either or both parties may belong. If only they could be called by different names.

I prefer referring to consensual incest as “consanguineous sex” because of the baggage. We need to make a clear distinction between abuse/assault of minors by adults and loving or playful consensual sex between adults. I also think the term “adultery” shouldn’t apply to sex with someone else while legally married to another, as long as the legal spouse has agreed to this. Going against existing vows is “cheating,” and that’s the term I prefer.

Thanks to Raybeard for his solidarity!

Blog Update

I have made some changes. I have modified the text to the right under "About This Blog" as well as the "About This Blog" page.

This was mostly to reflect my support for people to not only be able to choose "all-with-all" marriages of three or more spouses (compatible with community property law), but also having the alternative option of "dyadic networks" marriages instead of "all-with-all." Having either option allows the greatest freedom to marry. The important thing is requiring the consent of all spouses.

I also added a disclaimer at the bottom of the template.

Polygamy More Ethical?

Don Lee makes a case that "Polygamy is more Ethical than Monogamy.”

He explains that professing monogamy isn’t always matched with actual monogamy.

In Western culture this is generally referred to as either "family friend" or "serial monogamy", neither of which are true monogamy. While being legally married, approximately 80% of all couples experience a sexual contact outside of marriage, and this remains the 2nd largest cause of classic divorce.

It may be cited as a cause in a certain number of divorces, but in a good chunk of those cases, it is not the cause. It may be a symptom. Yes, there are some divorces in which cheating (a physical, emotional, or financial relationship with someone in violation of the agreement with the spouse) is the cause, but I think it is clear to less biased observers that the cheating is a symptom of the real problem leading to the divorce.

The largest cause of divorce is loss of income, itself a revealing indicator of what Western Marriage is really all about.

Moral monogamy is "marriage until death" in most cultures. Legal monogamy is having only one legitimate spouse. These are in no way similar concepts, and in practice are quite diverse. Legally, you can be "monogamous" about nine or ten times, and some people have been married more than a dozen times.

In general (prostitution and consanguineous sex being generally illegal, and thus excluded) a married person having sex with someone other than his or her spouse is not criminalized in the US, though in a few states it can be subject to a lawsuit in civil court.

My point is not just that "serial monogamy" isn't really monogamy, and it isn't, but that many completely happy 30+ year marriages indulge in "private activities" which involve other people. Apart from the roughly 90 million Americans [almost one in three] who are members of sexually-themed clubs, or swingers, there is the harsh reality of cheating. 8.5 in 10 marriages experience infidelity according to most studies. The number ranges from 6 to 9 in 10 depending no the focal group, however the larger the group - the higher the ratio trends! Meaning, the likelihood that more people "cheat" is found to be more significant when studying larger groups.

As I have said before, actual monogamy is a minority behavior.

The chances of a successful marriage are less than 30% by most calculations, and those are odds I would not play even in Vegas.

This is where I think the writer gets it wrong, depending on how one defines “successful.” I suppose it is possible to say that if you exclude all marriages that end in divorce, separation, estrangement, or otherwise experience significant trouble, no matter how long they lasted or what was accomplished during the marriage, you could arrive at this figure. Mostly, though, when emotionally healthy and mature people marry with no prior marriages or other significant baggage (prior children, large debts, serious criminal record, Anita Bryant record collection), the odds of it lasting until death are high. But you do have these people, especially a lot of these types who tend to be against marriage equality, who marry and divorce three or four times, skewing the odds.

Marriage can help. Marriage can enhance a relationship. Many people who have experienced cohabitation without marriage and then with marriage report a difference. Full marriage equality will bring that to others, too, thus improving life for LGBT people and their family members, poly people, etc.

The essay goes on to talk about how being intolerant leads to divorce, and makes a case that men are generally on the short ends of the stick with current marriage laws in the West.

Essentially, we have a primitive legal structure based on outdated morality, which continues to exact life-destroying punishments upon those who have harmed nobody.

Boy, is that ever true!

He goes on to make a case that current laws and programs encourage women to raise children outside of legal marriages.

Now we get to the good part…

Ethically, poly marriages are far more stable, rarely dissolve, and provide enormously well for the children. Allowing people to license a group marriage would ensure long term stability, and make divorce very unlikely to cause emotional harm to the children even when it does occur.

The law should not be enjoined to prevent any class of person from getting married, such as gay people, or mixed race, or people from other nations.

If people want to get married, we should get out of their way and let them.

He writes a bit about the difficulties faced by same-sex couples, before returning to the poly topic.

Yet, there is no news flash about a poly family member killing her kids because she was depressed. The chances that any person in a poly marriage would be so isolated that they could develop a problem that dangerous, and that severe, are remote to the point of ridiculousness. In a poly marriage you're never alone, suffering apart from your mate, or without some conversation. Poly structures actually require communication as a part of existence.

You can't be poly without communicating. It does not work.

Therefore, Polygamous marriages are by definition far more stable and successful than monogamous marriages, because polygamy can't even be started without extensive communication, deal brokering, and long negotiations.

He knows what he’s talking about first hand…

I grew up on a farm with a family that practiced legal polygamy, and I was never abused until my mother pulled away from the family and converted to Christianity. Her abuse put me into a foster home, which cost me my birth family, and also all contact with the rest of that family. I never knew them again. I did not rediscover my roots until I was in the military and dated a young Jewish woman. There, again, I saw the warmth, unconditional love, and large prosperous families that I'd remembered.

This is probably one of the worst kept secrets about Western Judaism, and one that many would probably like me to shut the heck up about, but it's truth. Ethically, there's not only nothing wrong with it, Polygamy is in reality a multitude of times more healthy and successful than Monogamy. Despite being demonized in Christian media, persecuted by law thanks to other religions, and widely derided as abusive for more than fifty years, Polygamy continues unabated, safely, without harm to anyone.

After explaining that polygamy isn’t inherently harmful to women, he goes on to get more broadly philosophical.

With as much as I quoted, there’s a lot I didn’t. Go read the whole thing.

If it could be conclusively proven that polygamy was generally better than monogamy, I still wouldn’t discourage monogamy. That’s because I believe in full marriage equality, in which people make their own choices about their marriage, or whether or not they will marry at all, or whether they will stay married. It is too bad more people who tout monogamy can’t extend that kind of respect to poly people.

Polygyny in Kenya

Here’s an article on “Happy Co-wives” from Kenya.

The practice of polygamy is today recognised under customary law. Lawyer Julius Ondika says the new Constitution allows for registration of polygamous marriages, but the man has to first seek the consent of the first wife before entering into the second marriage.

Full marriage equality is only possible if consent is a requirement. This is not about cheating or having a mistress, or duping an existing spouse.

Bramham Continues Rants Against Freedom to Marr

Daphne Bramham attacks “polygamy,” but it is clear her real problem is with the decisions of the leaders in Bountiful, and those who follow those decisions.

She cites testimony from women in polygynous marriages who say that at times, it is difficult. I know many, many people still in monogamous marriages who say that their marriages are difficult and that it takes a lot of work. And then you can talk to the ones who are divorced.

Those consequences, laid out in the hearing's early days by an economist, an ethnographer and a legal and religious scholar who studies marriage, include early sexualization of girls, downward pressure on the marriage age of girls, poverty, and low educational attainment for both girls and boys.

Early sexualization of girls is happening in the larger culture. Just turn on your television or radio. Visit schools. The difference in places like Bountiful is that rather than having casual sex, they are getting married to someone who is socially obligated to them.

Under cross-examination, a 24-year-old said it was God's will that her 15-year-old sister-wife married a pillar of the Bountiful community more than twice her age.

Enforce age of consent laws. Mandate school attendance, if you’re so worried about “low educational attainment.” But criminalizing consensual marriages contributes to abuse and poverty. The problem these people have is with a couple of leaders in a community. This should not deny consenting adults this freedom to marry.

Calling It Bizarre Doesn't Make it So

Here’s another bigoted rant prompted by the Canadian poly trial.

Try to wrap your brain around the bizarre notion that a smart, female law professor, with all the societal privileges such a position offers, believes polygamy should be decriminalized.

It isn’t bizarre for anyone to believe in having more freedom to marry.

Carissima Mathen, of the University of New Brunswick, used to work for the Women’s Legal and Education Action Fund (LEAF).

The group promotes women’s equality and has pressed for things like universal day care, equal pay for work of equal value and the eradication of discrimination against aboriginal women.

So it’s strange that a lawyer who once worked for LEAF seems to think polygamy isn’t a big deal.

Again, why is it strange?

Instead of worrying about plural marriages, the authorities should concentrate on specific harms and use other Criminal Code laws, such as those prohibiting exploitation and forced marriage, to nail the perps, she explained.

Yes.

The law only requires proof of someone having a conjugal relationship with more than one person at the same time.

“At some point, we need to be comfortable with the idea that people will make choices that we disagree with. They’ll make choices that, to us, seem … not in their best interests,” Mathen said.

Full marriage equality is a matter of liberty and fairness.

The writer attacks the religions of others…

The trouble with that is only men (and the older ones, at that) have autonomy in polygamous communities, particularly the twisted breakaway Mormon commune in Bountiful, B.C. and the like-minded areas in the U.S. run by polygamist crackpots.

That’s not very nice.

Credible experts warn repeatedly that polygamy is harmful to women and children.

How, exactly?

Do we want to be the first western country to OK polygamy?

Canadians should be proud to further increase the freedom to marry. Future generations are going to look back, ashamed that there were these bans on marriage.

A Bigot Speaks Against the Freedom to Marry

Rosie DiManno draws from the Canadian poly trial to make it clear that she doesn't want adults to have the freedom to marry and she doesn't think much of the FLDS religion, either. She also takes swipes at the polyamorous in general and  Muslims. I only quote some of the hate below.

Teenage girls transported over the border for the purpose of sex and breeding: That’s human trafficking.

Underage girls, below the age of consent, conscripted into conjugal relationships: That’s sexual assault.

Lifelong marriage is a little different than human trafficking for prostitution, wouldn't you say?

Adolescent boys driven from their homes by men middle-aged and older — fathers, church and community leaders — as perceived rivals in the competition for nubile mates: That’s societal engineering and a different kind of abuse.

I know of adolescent boys who have been "driven" from home because they wanted personal freedom, rather than familial or peer pressure to adhere to certain rules and expectations. In monogamous homes. Or because their "monogamous" parents divorced each other and married new spouses.

Sec. 293 of the Criminal Code is as clear as arch legalese will allow, forbidding conjugal union with more than one partner at the same time, “whether or not it is by law recognized as a binding form of marriage."

That law should be overturned in the interest of marriage equality.

But polygamous marriage within the rubric of religion — the coercion and sexual exploitation of girls, whether agreeable to those females or nor, and the trafficking required to sustain a polygamous community — is rightly a crime.

Prosecute child abuse. Don't prosecute people for consenting to marriage.

The law doesn’t force monogamy on married people. And the law does not render illegal the cohabitation of however many people choose to live as a family nor dictate their sleeping arrangements.

It can also be said that ten years ago, the law didn't force heterosexuality on anyone, but same-sex marriage was banned. It is time to increase the freedom to marry again and move towards full marriage equality.

Whether brainwashed or culturally kneaded to it, the obedient daughters of one daddy and multiple moms, their embracing of polygamy can’t possibly be used to justify a legal accommodation for plural marriages.

No, I guess nothing can match her bigotry, right?

This isn’t just about the individuals directly involved. It’s about all of us because we, too, have an ethical stake in acceptance or rejection of polygamy.

That's what the bigots said about interracial marriage and same-sex marriage, too.

The FLDS is not a benign religious sect, like the gentle Amish.

She makes it clear throughout this essay that she dislikes the FLDS and considers the religion invalid, as though they shouldn't even have the freedom of religion. I'm not FLDS or any kind of "LDS," but I respect the freedom of religion, and I stand for the rights of all adults to love, sex, and marriage. Prosecute domestic violence, kidnapping, rape, and molestation, but do not deny marriage equality.

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.

From the Source

Polygamy in the Desert is a blog from “a polygamous Muslim family who tries to live by Qur'an and Sunnah. This blog tells about our family but also gives the readers an insight into Saudi culture and lifestyle.”

Another Witness Defends Polygyny

This newspaper columnist seems skeptical of Canadian poly trial testimony from a wife living in Bountiful.

How benign, how egalitarian, the polygamous wife from Bountiful makes it all sound.

A place where the wishes of girls and women are respected, their input on desired husbands and time of marriage considered, their views on religious dogma weighed and obedience not strictly required.

To hear “Witness 2’’ tell it, there’s no coercion, no banishment of maturing boys by elder males covetous of nubile females, and only discretionary tithing — a word she refused to accept — such that the community can pay legal bills for associated members who’ve been charged, even convicted, of sexual assault against minors in the United States.

Maybe she’s telling the truth? How exactly would DiManno know differently?

She is in her mid-40s, shares a husband with a “sister-wife” — her biological sister is married to the same man and, as first in on the nuptials, technically his only “legal’’ spouse — and together they mother their combined 19 children. Nine of them were borne by Witness 2 and are aged 7 to 26.

Why is it that anti-equality commentators also seem to be against having more than two children? Which came first, their misanthropic fixation or their fixation on the marriages of other people?

By her own description, Witness 2 is not a typical Bountiful plural wife. She has some post-secondary education, occasionally left her babies in the care of her sister-wife to attend classes outside the secretive community, and has for many years been working as a midwife.

Wait, you mean they aren’t kept chained to beds or stoves?

“My children feel like if they say the wrong thing to a dentist or doctor, their father could go to jail,’’ she states in her affidavit.

It is sad that children can’t speak of their parents’ marriages without fear of police action in response.

Institute full marriage equality. If you see child abuse or domestic violence, prosecute that. Don’t procesute consenting spouses for marrying each other.

An Advantage of the Polygamous Over Monogamous

From a study that appears in the journal BMC Evolutionary Biology, we find out some interesting news out of the Centre for Evolutionary Biology, University of Western Australia.

The team discovered that sperm from polygamous mice are better competitors in the race for fertilisation.

As always, this may or may not be applicable to human beings.

Dr Renee Firman and her team attempted to show that sperm from rival males compete to fertilise females and that, over several generations, polygamy can select for mice who produce more sperm, with stronger motility, than monogamous males.

The study found that while 53 per cent of the litters had mixed paternity, 33 per cent of litters were fathered by the polygamous males compared to 14 per cent by monogamous males.

And whether they were mated first or second, polygamous males retained this advantage, showing that the increased fitness applies to both offensive and defensive competition.

Depending on the causation, if someone wants children they may be better off practicing polygamy, and someone who doesn’t want children may find an advantage in monogamy instead of polygamy. Or maybe the more fertile are more likely to practice polygamy? As a reminder, I am not against monogamy. I am a firm believer that each person should be free to pursue celibacy, monogamy, polyamory, or polygamy (in whatever form).

A Confused Opponent of Equality

Beverly Nye Stratford embarrassed herself with this anti-equality letter to a newspaper.

Polygamy hurts men.

Why don't we let people decide for themselves how their marriages will be?

If three men out of 10 take three wives each, that leaves one woman for the seven other men.

There are billions of people in the world, though. The three men aren't "taking" those wives by force. Those women choose to marry those men. Shouldn't they have that choice?

Keep in mind too that in most polygamous countries, like the Muslim ones, all sex outside of marriage is illegal with penalties up to death itself, so it is unlikely the last woman would dare to service the other seven men even if she wanted to.

This a red herring in places like Canada and the United States. All adults should have the right to love, sex, and marriage. That some freedoms are restricted in one place does not mean we should restrict other freedoms here.

The only way to make it fair for a man to have more than one legal wife at a time is for the wife, or wives, to be legally able to have an equal number of husbands.

They should have that freedom.

For example, a man takes a second wife. This new wife is now eligible to take another husband, as is the original wife as well.

Everyone should have the right to marry the person or person(s) they want to marry. The letter writer really should be writing to support full marriage equality. Seems to me her beef is with "polygyny-only."

Another Witness For the Freedom to Marry

Mary Batchelor, a Utah woman, wants to have the freedom to marry, and has testified in the Canadian poly trial.

A Utah woman who describes herself as a former polygamist says she would be happy to enter into another plural marriage if the opportunity arose.

She should not be denied by laws imposed by people who don't even know her.

She told B.C. Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert Bauman that she had some "very good times, some very positive times" during the polygamous marriage.

Some women enjoy polygyny.

She also had some "very challenging times" when the first wife had an affair and left, she said.

"It was especially hard when the marriage broke down and there was a loss of trust," she testified.

The first wife, Victoria Prunty, became a third wife in another polygamous marriage before becoming a spokeswoman for a group called Tapestry Against Polygamy, which opposes plural marriage, the court heard.

It's convenient that Prunty wants to keep this freedom to marry illegal, while she had the freedom to cheat.

Despite the divorce of the first wife, Bauman said she hopes to re-marry into a polygamous relationship.

"I do hope to be able to live in a plural marriage again. It would be wonderful if I could do it without a law against it. When that plural marriage ended, it broke my heart."

She should have that freedom to marry. We need full marriage equality.